GoBears

Five years after 9/11, I have a thought.

Why not END comprehensive passenger screening? Get rid of the TSA passenger scanners and allow people to walk directly to the gate. Stop worrying about box-cutters, nail clippers, and bottles of liquid. Go back to the old days and allow people to get on the plane with their carry-on uninspected.

Today, all airlines have very secure doors to the flight deck. It is now virtually impossible to high-jack an airplane. Suppose, for the sake of argument, a terrorist boarded a flight with an assault rifle. So what? What can he do that he couldn't do somewhere on the ground? He could shoot a PX or a FA, but that is murder, and not an act of terror, and he could do this anywhere. I suppose he could shoot out a window and cause a loss of pressure, but the flight crew would simply bring down the plane at the nearest airport and again you have a crime and not an act of terror.

There is still a danger with explosives, but I believe that random or less comprehensive screening could prevent explosives in carry-ons. And I believe that checked baggage should still be screened carefully.

Think of it this way. All our elaborate airport security can never prevent terrorism. A terrorist could still bomb a bus or drive a gasoline tanker into a school. A terrorist could still fly a private jet to an unguarded landing field, fill it full of explosives or fuel, and fly it into a building. A terrorist could still carry a "dirty bomb" to the center of a city in a briefcase. But elaborate airport security can and does take away our freedom to travel. Fear can take away a lot more, and this in itself creates terror for the terrorist..

Someone once said that living in fear isn't worth living. The 9/11 terrorists have managed to create an atmosphere of fear that has almost crippled our transportation system. Standing up and saying "We are not afraid" means taking the same sort of "risks" that we took for decades before 9/11. Using common sense, visually scanning for suspicious PX, posting explosive-sniffing dogs in terminals, random scanning of carry-ons, Air Marshalls on every flight, and other steps could make travel safe and a lot more pleasant for all of us and would still prevent high-jackings and airplane bombing from ever happening again.

Let's take back our skies!

drat19

I'm sure you may get some "What are you, kidding?" or worse, responses to your post, but I'm willing to give you some benefit of the doubt because I think you DO make some valid points regarding "what is terrorism" and the farce that is the TSA/screening process we currently have in place. Thus, while I think your proposal is certainly not practically feasible by any stretch of the imagination, there is still some merit in the discussion of a "complete overhaul" of the process.

I have responses to 2 of the points you made in your post:

(1) On the one hand you advocated a complete end to comprehensive passenger screening, but then elsewhere you advocated "random or less comprehensive screening" regarding detection of carry-on explosives. Well, which is it?

(2) An overall comment: Your proposal might have have more merit if we were dealing with an enemy that cared about dying. However, it's become clear that at least some of the "current" crop of terrorists believes that there will be glory in the eyes of their God if they die for their cause, and taking out as many innocent "infidels" in the process will only increase that glory. Furthermore, the "shock and awe" of taking out an commercial airliner, and/or using said airliner to take out another structure/landmark, is certainly more visible (and thus more "glorious") than doing so via land to a school etc. So, there's a fundamental "mindset" (for lack of a better word) against which the system has to protect.

TierFlyer

As long as I can carry my Kimber....

secretbunnyboy

a) Terrorism is about creating terror (fear) in the populace. Shooting people on planes (even without plane destruction) would certainly lead to fear!

b) I feel more at risk from armed air-raging passengers than terrorism.
I don't agree!

TierFlyer

Well, good thought, there are certainly some grumpy people here at FlyerTalk (:-).

JS

I would feel safer on a plane with my gun. That way I can shoot back.

OutOfOffice

The argument for zero passenger screening has been made before and while I respect some of the arguments, I don't agree. I am 100% for rolling back screening levels to pre 2001, coupled with efficient screening for explosives if possible. In other words, make the process as quick as possible while instilling some form of reasurrance to the general public.

Also, we would be much better served if our leaders focused on preparing the public for the inevitability of a terrorist attack as well as helping the public learn to accept that life must move on rather than our current governance by fear.

sobore

^ Drop the screening. Arm the PAX!

alex0683de

While I agree that it would be a good idea to roll back the screening of passengers to what it was pre-2001 and finally accept the fact that there are some unmitigatable residual risks in life, I disagree with your call for no screening whatsoever. The part of your post that I've bolded is what I'll be using to tell you why.

When an aircraft is at cruising altitude, there is a large differential between the pressure inside the aircraft and the pressure in the air outside the aircraft. If you punch a hole in the aircraft hull, the air inside the aircraft will try to escape through that hole to the area of lower pressure outside the aircraft. In doing so, it will put great stresses on the material of the aircraft, which can (and most likely will) lead to a widening of the hole in the fuselage and even faster decompression of the aircraft. This can mean all sorts of problems for the plane and for the passengers.

An assault rifle packs enough punch to put a hole in an aircraft hull, especially if it's aimed at the windows. That's why I don't want anyone to be able to carry one onto a flight! @:-)

secretbunnyboy

But I would feel much less safe sitting next to you!

Is this a paradox?

etch5895

The wild west on board an airplane.

I don't want people who have questionable training / ethics carrying weapons on board an aircraft. Most of all, discharging firearms inside an airplane is inherently dangerous. As several posters have pointed out, the explosive decompression of the cabin could bring down the plane.

JS

I was sort of joking about allowing guns. I say go back to the pre-2001 security screening. It worked very well against gun-based hijackings. The problem is trying to stop anything-based hijackings and fictional elaborate bombings.

If the screeners spend 100% of their time looking for guns and bombs on the X-ray machine rather than 20% of their time looking for guns and bombs and the other 80% looking for lighters, knives, shampoo, water, and nervous passengers, I daresay we would be safer, not to mention more free and happy.

FWAAA

Of all the legitimate reasons to oppose guns on airplanes, this one doesn't pass the test. If bullet holes were a real risk to cause an Airport-style explosive decompression, then thousands of people would not be authorized to carry handguns on airplanes.

The likely result of a bullet hole? The outflow valve would close slightly to compensate.

sdsearch

You sure are being silly!

You stipulate an assualt rifle, and yet you propose that the terrorist would stop after shooting just one person? They don't need an assualt rifle if that's all they're going to do!!! So let's look at what an assualt rifle could really do:

First of all, the cockpit door has been reinforced to prevent entry. Not to prevent someone with an assualt rifle and "unlimited" "cop-killer bullets" from shoting through there enough to kill the entire cockpit crew, in which case after depressurization (which probably has already occurred as a side-effect of the above) there is no flight crew to bring the plane down!

Second, what's to stop them from shooting at the engines and (if they know where they are) the fuel lines, in efforts to start an explosiion?

Now, it might be hard to use these techniques to hit a particular building on the ground, but it wouldn't even be hard to use these techniques when over a populated area (if you chose a flight which has to do a depart or approach over a major metro area).

And since there were no screening (in your scenario), there's nothing (except airline schedule unpredictabliity! ) to stop a "syncrhonized" set of attacks on different cities by airplanes dropping out of the sky this way. (Whatever "no screening" would allow on one flight, it would allow on all of them, and what's to stop a group of people doing whatever they're going to do on multiple flights at the same time? If they all do it within a short time of each other on multiple flights, is it still "just a bunch of crimes and not terrorism"?)

etch5895

Those thousands of people you are referring to have in theory received specialized training, background checks and a few other safeguards prior to bringing their handguns on board. They are also (in theory) sober, healthy and sane. I'd also be worried about bullet holes in fellow passengers.

I'm not a ballistics expert, and I guess it would depend on the type of round fired, but I still think that a round striking the fuselage is going to do some damage, be it a hole, structural damage, or whatnot. What if it hit one of the weaker points, such as the doors or overwing exits?

Also, the ensuing panic on board the flight when all of a sudden, lots of passengers are terrified by gunfire inside a small metal tube, who cannot really get away from it. I would almost bet someone would die from a heart attack from the shock alone. And the flight attendants would lose control of the passengers.