FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   Camera case not allowed through security (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/432648-camera-case-not-allowed-through-security.html)

H2O_Goalie May 14, 2005 5:46 pm


Originally Posted by Wally Bird
The majority in this forum are critical of current security, but I think it's important to keep our facts straight. Otherwise we're no better than the media and the sheep in perpetuatuing myths and (d/)misinformation.

On the morning of 9/11, knives with a blade length 4 inches or less were not prohibited, in fact they were explicitly allowed. (9/11 report - section 3.3)

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

My point (and the reason I'm referencing 9/11 and past policy) is that air security is still arbitrary. OK...before 9/11, knives with a blade less than 4" were "not prohibited", including boxcutters. Was that intelligent, did it make any sense? No. Today...no lighters allowed, but 4 packs of matches are OK. Is that intelligent, does it make any sense?

Again, I point out the pre-9/11 issues only to highlight that the same kind of dumbass mistakes/policies are being perpetuated. Not to harp on things that happened years ago (which clearly we can't do anything about)...but to point out that the same mistakes are still being made today.

The failures of the past are being repeated.

Superguy May 14, 2005 8:44 pm


Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
I have to be honest, I did not coin this term. FWAAA should receive the credit for this perfectly descriptive term. This link http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ghlight=kabuki
should connect to the thread, regarding a terminal dump at PDX, in which FWAAA introduced the term in November 2004. If we could popularize this phrase, so that the media picks up on the concept, we would have performed a great service for our country, from the perspectives of fiscal sanity, actual security, and most importantly our freedoms to travel and be secure in our persons against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment).

Thanks. That was before I came here, so your use of it was the first time I saw that.

Isn't calling it Kabuki security offensive to the Kabuki actors? Surely they could do a better job ... ;)

FWAAA May 14, 2005 9:04 pm


Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
I have to be honest, I did not coin this term. FWAAA should receive the credit for this perfectly descriptive term. This link http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ghlight=kabuki
should connect to the thread, regarding a terminal dump at PDX, in which FWAAA introduced the term in November 2004. If we could popularize this phrase, so that the media picks up on the concept, we would have performed a great service for our country, from the perspectives of fiscal sanity, actual security, and most importantly our freedoms to travel and be secure in our persons against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment).


Thanks, but all the credit goes to Ann Coulter, who described airport "security" as Kabuki Theater shortly after September 11, 2001. I may have omitted any credit to her because of her toxic reputation (many OMNILand posters really, really hate her). :)

Here's her September 13, 2001, column in which she blames the Kabuki theater-style airport security for distracting us from the real threats that day:

http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml

PatrickHenry1775 May 14, 2005 10:01 pm

FWAAA,

Very gracious to give credit where credit was due. Way to introduce such a concise description of American "screening" to FlyerTalk. Finally, thank you for including the link to Ann Coulter's column. The fuel air bombs should have been raining down on Riyadh, Islamabad, Karachi, Damascus, Yemen, Cairo, and Baghdad for years now. Either that, or squads of CIA operatives to take out the "clerics" preaching hatred of the U.S. under the guise of Islam. Finally, it aggravates the hell out of me when a photographer is able to snap footage of crowd of "insurgents" with weapons in plain view. If a photographer can spot such demonstrations, why can't a Predator with a Hellfire missile, or even better an F-15 Strike Eagle with some cluster bombs. We should employ such measures if only as revenge for the hassles such as TSA not allowing a camera case on an airliner because it superficially resembles a lighter.

eyecue May 14, 2005 11:25 pm

wow
 
Simply amazing! Talk about a departure from the norm.

essxjay May 15, 2005 12:34 am


Originally Posted by AArlington
The better option -- put it in your bag and say nothing.

Only problem is that that's *not* an option for those of us FFers who emphatically refuse to check anything b/c of the very problem of bag searches in absentia. :(

sbrower May 15, 2005 1:52 am

Pointy Objects Are Irrelevant
 
I wish to correct some of the prior posts, which imply that we have corrected a problem which existed on 9/11 by prohibiting additional pointy objects (i.e. - that there is any benefit to the additional passenger screening since 9/11 or a change in the rules). In fact, it is a change in attitudes of flight crews, possibly combined with improved security of the cockpit area, including the increased usage of FAMs (who are intentionally visible to an observant passenger) which is more significant. Deleting metal cutlery is not the issue.

In that regard, please see page 85 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"The final layer, security on board commercial aircraft, was not designed to counter suicide hijackings. The FAA-approved "Common Strategy" had been elaborated over decades of experience with scores of hijackings, beginning in the 1960s. It taught flight crews that the best way to deal with hijackers was to accommodate their demands, get the plane to land safely, and then let law enforcement or the military handle the situation. According to the FAA, the record had shown that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it was to end peacefully. The strategy operated on the fundamental assumption that hijackers issued negotiable demands (most often for asylum or the release of prisoners) and that, as one FAA official put it, "suicide wasn't in the game plan" of hijackers. FAA training materials provided no guidance for flight crews should violence occur.

This prevailing Common Strategy of cooperation and nonconfrontation meant that even a hardened cockpit door would have made little difference in a hijacking. As the chairman of the Security Committee of the Air Line Pilots Association observed when proposals were made in early 2001 to install reinforced cockpit doors in commercial aircraft, "Even if you make a vault out of the door, if they have a noose around my flight attendants neck, I'm going to open the door." . . .

AArlington May 15, 2005 5:14 am


Originally Posted by essxjay
Only problem is that that's *not* an option for those of us FFers who emphatically refuse to check anything b/c of the very problem of bag searches in absentia. :(

Carry on bag. I don't check anything either.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:59 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.