alanR

Sounds a good idea - no real plans for doing anything nasty but just get people running around like headless chickens. Get your enemy to do the hard work for you

Superguy

And as my physics professor always said to ask: how much? And what kind?

Where is the susceptibility threshhold? At what frequency?

Apparently, the risk is pretty small or airlines would have banned electronics a long time ago.

Just flat out say it: you don't like electronics on planes and think people shouldn't have them. You already said it in another thread and that's what you're getting at.

Planes are subjected to radiation from around the spectrum all the time. Even people are huge light bulbs when you think of it. Put a couple hundred people on a plane and you have a couple hundred thousand watts of radiation blaring thru the cabin. Planes get hit by all kind of transmitters even near the ground (BWI has cell antennas on the water towers half a mile out from the field).

All this radiation and yet planes don't fall out of the sky. Hmmm.

I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

CessnaJock

At the risk of repeating myself: the only reason I mention the terrorist technique of 9/11 was to demonstrate (for the benefit of those who think our enemy is stupid) that they're smart enough to do what they did with primitive equipment.

"Boarding procedures...haven't changed?" I don't know what you mean by that, but it can't possibly mean that you think the 19 could have boarded a flight under today's TSA inspection.

I don't see how banning RF radiators from flights is to "throw money away."

law dawg

It's hard to argue with a man with your sig line (Go Sox!), but I must:

Look at the 93 bombing of the WTC, from a piece done by Stratfor:

There were almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out, made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and closed the investigation. When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992, authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six months in jail for committing passport fraud -- a mere slap on the wrist -- and was then to be deported. Had they taken the time to carefully review the materials in Ajaj's briefcase, they would have found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj's involvement was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.

Some pretty dumb moves made, but they still blew one hell of a hole in the WTC, didn't they?

I wouldn't ignore the threat that "stupid" or "crazy" people can pose. Ronald Reagan, were he alive, would likely agree with me.

CessnaJock

Yeah - except they can't be disabled by malicious PEDs.

Okay, now wait a minute. Don't forget these guys are persistent. They tried a truck bomb on the WTC in 1993 and it didn't work. Did they give up?

We know for certain that they would like to bring down a dozen U.S. flag airliners. Have they given up because the Manila plot was busted?

Superguy

It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the gov't policies were. Anyone who watched the news saw that it was policy to meet hijackers' demands to get the plane on the ground and negotiate. They took advantage of that.

You brought up boarding procedures. You tell me what you mean then.

I think they still could, and TSA would allow it to happen. There's nothing that TSA's procedures that would have prevented those folks from getting on a plane.

All had valid ID and boarding tickets. They probably would have taken their shoes off and put their liquids in a baggie.

The true message you're trying to pontificate.

I don't see why you think it's such a benefit. Ban that stuff from planes, TSA will have to screen for it. They already can't do a good job as it is with everything they have to look for. Airlines will have to have contigency plans and maybe additional shielding for those "rogue" devices. FA's can't be in the cabin all the time constantly searching for devices. Would they have to install RF detectors? That all costs money.

It would also cost a lot of money in lost revenue when air travel comes to the point where it's practically unusable for business travel. Leisure travelers won't sit there with nothing to do either. Look back to when BAA banned everything from going on flights after the liquid ban and see how much of a reaction that got. Had they made that permanent and the UK would have been facing deep economic trouble with no one wanting to come to do business with them or visit the country.

If you want to destroy an industry that's already hurting, you would push it over the edge with your ban.

What it comes down to is risk vs. rewards. Apparently the risk is sufficiently small not to throw resources at it and the risk of losing revenue too great from such a ban.

Take a look at the adequate protection principle in risk management. You'll learn a lot from it.

Superguy

And don't forget that terrorists don't have the monopoly on stupid or crazy. You can find the same types of people working for our gov't.

CessnaJock

Here, I'll say it flat out: I like electronics on planes, and I think they should be monitored and controlled much more closely than they are now. I carry a computer, a GPRS/GSM phone, and a GPS when I fly.

But the topic of this thread is: are we safe from deliberate EMI threats on board airplanes?

tev9999

[QUOTE=CessnaJock;8588213]

"Boarding procedures...haven't changed?" I don't know what you mean by that, but it can't possibly mean that you think the 19 could have boarded a flight under today's TSA inspection.

QUOTE]

The only thing different today is that knives/blades are not allowed. With the TSA's stellar detection rate of 20% or less, it would not take much to get one on. Or just make a blade out of something non-metallic, such as ceramic, and put it in your pocket. The 9-11 hijackers succeeded because of psychology, not technology or weapons. Here is my take on the history of hijackings.

Hijack plane, crew cooperates, fly to Cuba, land safely, release passengers.
Hijack plane, crew cooperates, fly to somewhere, land savely, release passengers.
(repeat many times - conditioning)
Hijack three planes, fly two into WTC and one into Pentagon
Hijack fourth plane, try to fly plane into ???, passengers find out about WTC and pentagon, stop plot, but crash plane.
Get drunk on plane, try to gain entry to secured cockpit, passengers beat the crap out of you, land safely, go to jail.

Superguy

The threat still exists and is as likely as your scenario. Why does yours take precedence?

I'm not saying that they should be ignored. I'm saying that we need to approach this with thought and wisdom rather than knee jerk reactions, xenophobia, CYA attitudes and stupidity like we have been.

The MNL plot wasn't a US flag carrier.

And do you think that planes are the only target? Hit a few malls around the country in suburban American and watch real chaos ensue.

Aviation is NOT the only target, nor are US carriers the only target.

JakiChan

If RF truly is a risk then perhaps we should investigate shielding the electronics more than they are now.

Also - ground based RF projectors could easily cause problems and would be easier to use than smuggling things on the planes. After all - a plane is most vulnerable when it's closest to the ground.

tev9999

You can never be 100% safe from anything. Is there a risk that EMI could take down a plane? Possibly. There is also a risk from unscreened cargo, terrorists with plastic explosive shoved up their a$$, overseas maintenance contractors, bird strikes, satellites falling from orbit, suicidal pilots, metal fatigue, sunspot activity, windshear, lightning, .........

If I'm going to worry about anything on a trip, it will be my drive two/from the airport which has a much greater chance of killing me than any terrorist - pre or post 9/11.

CessnaJock

You mean their box-cutters would have passed manual, magnetometer, and x-ray screening? I never realized that.

I can buy a WiFi sniffer for ten bucks. How much do you think it would cost to equip each airplane with a dozen wearable broadband alarms for the crew's use?

What ban?

"Adequate protection" has a numerator and a denominator. When the safety of many hundreds of people is involved, a certain magnitude of outlay is justifiable.

law dawg

Absolutely.......







...hey, was that a jab?

law dawg

I'm pretty worried about schools, myself.