First of all, I wish to apologise for using the term "rent-a-cop" to describe civilian security guards. They're mostly just ordinary working stiffs who are honestly trying to do a decent job; it's not their fault that the training or instructions they've received are - at least IMO - a pointless waste of time. It should be noted that at least 6 of these "rent-a-cops" lost their lives on September 11 at the WTC. (I don't know if they were heroes or just victims; maybe they died helping to evacuate the tenants, and maybe they were just trapped on the 90th floor and were trying to get the hell out like everyone else. Whatever, they deserve our respect.

Mike posted in thread "Altoids Tin":

>>The only reason we are calling [Richard Reid] pathetic is that he couldn't get the bomb wick to light. If the bomb was designed better he would have succeeded.
>>The pasenger and crew subdued him after minutes of him trying to light the bomb. It was nothing the passengers and
crew did that saved the plane but rather faulty bomb design.

Interesting point, but irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, if anything, it proves my point. The airport security that was busy confiscating sharp objects didn't stop Reid from bringing a bomb aboard the plane.

What are we discussing? Whether or not confiscating Grandma's knitting needles or Junior's baseball bat is a reasonable response to what happened on Sept 11. Well, has it worked? Has it done anything, in fact, other than inconvenience tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens and cost the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity? I doubt it.

Maybe the flight attendants and passengers did sit around for several minutes watching this nimrod try to set fire to his shoes. If it happened on an El Al flight, I doubt the flight attendants would have stood around watching him; that's why I say the proper solution is to give the flight and cabin crew proper training (not to mention non-lethal weapons, which can be used to subdue a terrorist, but can't be used to take over the airplane), not to inconvenience the passengers with 2-hour line-ups and mickey mouse "security".

The point is, as soon as the passengers realised Reid was up to something terrorist-y in nature, they responded. They may not have reacted immediately, but they did react. If, instead of hiring additional security guards to confiscate Grandma's knitting needles, the authorities had done a proper threat-risk assessment, they might have decided that training the flight attendants was a far more effective solution.

If terrorists want to kill people, then they'll kill people - even Israel can't prevent that. But ultimately, going round killing a bunch of civilians at random serves no military purpose. Bashing the passenger in seat 17C over the head with a baseball bat is no different from shooting some guy who's mowing his lawn in suburbia. Any security professional knows that there's no such thing as 100% secure - you can only take reasonable precautions.

What constitutes "reasonable"? My personal rule of thumb in a case like this is: when your "security" measures start killing more people than they save, you've gone overboard.

Has this already happened? I personally believe it has. Consider the case where I have to travel to a town 300 miles away for a 1-day business meeting - not entirely unlikely.

Pre-9/11 my choices were these:

1. I can drive to the airport, hop a plane for a 50-minute flight, maybe even get a free meal or a cup of coffee, get a taxi to my hotel and maybe even catch NYPD Blue before I turn in; or

2. I can leave right after work, drive for 5 hours, maybe stop 2 or 3 times for coffee so I don't fall asleep at the wheel, get to my hotel around midnight, get 6 hours of sleep (or less), check out of the hotel and make my meeting the next morning, then drive another 5 hours to get back home.

Post 9/11, my choices are:

1. I can take a taxi to the airport, stand in line at security for 2 hours, get on the plane, get off the plane, wait 45 minutes for my baggage to be unloaded, find a taxi, get to the hotel and collapse on the bed, looking forward to doing it all again on the return trip tomorrow; or

2. See above.

Now suddenly option # 2 starts to look a lot more attractive. Yet it's still just as dangerous, and you're still just as likely to doze off and wake up on a white fluffy cloud.

aardwolfe,

So your idea is to do away with pre board security because your too impatient to wait longer for better screening?

You want 9 Suzy Q flight attendants to be packing a can of mace to repel 9 armed highjackers? Hmmmm..

Lets be serious for a minute. Better screening before getting on a plane is a start to better on board security.

You keep praising El AL. Well I will tell you something. One U.S. based airline flies more flights in 1 day that El Al flys in a month. Its much easier to sort your security out with screw all flights to deal with. Further to that the passengers boarding El Al are harrased by security before they get on like nothing you have ever seen. They must show up for a flight 4 hrs before, they are routinely harrased by the secret police. Their backgrounds are probed like a FBI security check. Their baggage is often ripped apart 2-3 times at different spot checks and bomb x-ray sniffed. Their pictures are put through interpol as they walk into the airport terminal and this is all before they even check their bags in. Strip searches are common at the x-ray machines. Etc..Etc..Etc..

And you are complaining about a 40 min delay at the x-ray machine. LMAO

I think you have been driving the Deerfoot trail too much bud, its making you irrational.
Nobody is making you take a plane to get to your destination.
Flying is not a god given right or part of any constitution.

I think you should start driving more.

Aviation security has a long way to go. The system is full of security holes. There are so many ways to bring down a plane (even today) the public isn't even aware of, its scary.

After every passenger is checked and there are no knives, guns or knitting needles on a plane and 10 armed secret service agents on board Delta airlines employee #xxxxx named Mohammad whos 3rd cousin is a Bin Laden follower pays him to put this small package in the cargo hold no questions asked.

No, employees are not checked!!!! STILL

You pays your money you takes your chances.

After all of that, you are still a million times more likely to be killed in your car on the way to your flight.

Mike

Mike;

I don't mind having a rational discussion about this, with you or anyone else. But I'd prefer you keep to a rational discussion and refrain from putting words in my mouth, arguing from emotion, or using other cheap tricks.

>>So your idea is to do away with pre board security because your too impatient to wait longer for better screening?

I didn't say that. I said the pre-board security is checking for the wrong things, because no-one in authority has done a proper TRA (threat-risk assessment) to determine what's dangerous and what's not.

>>You want 9 Suzy Q flight attendants to be packing a can of mace to repel 9 armed highjackers? Hmmmm..

Why not? Although I wouldn't recommend Mace or pepper spray in an enclosed space - I'd expect an electrical stun gun or Tazer device, backed up with recurrent H2H combat training.

>>Lets be serious for a minute.

You're implying I'm not serious. What gave you that impression?

>>Better screening before getting on a plane is a start to better on board security.

But we don't have "better screening" - we have overzealous, misplaced screening.

>>You keep praising El AL. Well I will tell you something. One U.S. based airline flies more flights in 1 day that El Al flys in a month.

What's your point? I don't see how this invalidates my argument. In fact, I don't see what it has to with the argument at all.

>>Its much easier to sort your security out with screw all flights to deal with.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. The larger the airline, the more important that security must be based on the individual aircraft. Proper training of flight attendants and pilots in resisting hijackers is something that could - and should - be built into the airlines normal training program. All pilots and flight attendants have to do regular training in emergency procedures - throwing in some training in anti-hijacking aerobatics and methods would slide right into the existing program.

>>Further to that the passengers boarding El Al are harrased by security before they get on like nothing you have ever seen. They must show up for a flight 4 hrs before, they are routinely harrased by the secret police. Their backgrounds are probed like a FBI security check. Their baggage is often ripped apart 2-3 times at different spot checks and bomb x-ray sniffed. Their pictures are put through interpol as they walk into the airport terminal and this is all before they even check their bags in. Strip searches are common at the x-ray machines. Etc..Etc..Etc..

Okay, I'll grant you that not all security at El Al is unobtrusive - they're living in a war zone, and if you fly into a war zone, then you put up with the inconvenience. I'm simply pointing out that the most effective aspects of their security are so unobtrusive that most people wouldn't even notice them.

>>And you are complaining about a 40 min delay at the x-ray machine. LMAO

No, I'm complaining about stupid and unnecessary delays of up to 2 hours, and having to do ridiculous things like putting 50 feet of rope in my checked baggage because "security" has been told it could be a weapon, or having to wait for my checked baggage at the destination end simply because I want to take a SAK or a sewing kit.

>>I think you have been driving the Deerfoot trail too much bud, its making you irrational.

I think this is a personal insult that doesn't belong in a rational argument.

>>Nobody is making you take a plane to get to your destination.

Actually, they are - unless you can think of another way to get to Europe on a business trip.

>>Flying is not a god given right or part of any constitution.

Flying is a necessity in today's world. It's not a luxury or an option.

>>I think you should start driving more.

I don't. That's precisely the point I'm trying to make.

>>Aviation security has a long way to go. The system is full of security holes. There are so many ways to bring down a plane (even today) the public isn't even aware of, its scary.

Yes, because the so-called experts in charge have never done a proper TRA and have, instead, implemented knee-jerk, post hoc pseudo-security that doesn't work.

>>After every passenger is checked and there are no knives, guns or knitting needles on a plane and 10 armed secret service agents on board Delta airlines employee #xxxxx named Mohammad whos 3rd cousin is a Bin Laden follower pays him to put this small package in the cargo hold no questions asked.

Yes, because the so-called experts in charge have never done a proper TRA.

>>No, employees are not checked!!!! STILL

Yes, because the so-called experts in charge have never done a proper TRA.

>>You pays your money you takes your chances.

>>After all of that, you are still a million times more likely to be killed in your car on the way to your flight.

That's what I said - in the long run, more people are going to die from the phoney security measures we've implemented than were killed in the September 11 attacks.

No quoting just reply's. Read previous post.


I am not putting words in your mouth.

Explain how a luggage check is somehow different for a knife vs knitting needles and how looking for one vs the other is faster? You either search a bag or you don't.

Grace us with your expert threat assesment.

My point is El Al can accomplish such security because if its small size. You can't even wait a few extra minutes for security let alone pay tripple the airfare for domestic carrier El AL type security levels and even longer wait times when its established. People crack me up, they want it all now are willing to cry foul for it but don't want to pay for it or be inconvenienced by it.

Why not 9 120 lb women trained in hand to hand combat and being the first line of defense for onboard terrorists? That doesn't even dignify an answer, your just being silly now.

Your less than thought out rational is why I question your seriousness.

Again grace us with your genius insight into the detailed process of what aiport screeners should be doing.

You praise El Al for their high level and more invasive security and then complain about present wait times with our security system, a pure contradiction.

Have flight crews become close quarter battle experts and foil hijackings with acrobatic flying. Whats in the water in Calgary? Tell us how you plan on turning a 50 yr old flight attendant into a close quarter battle expert with a stun gun and be so effective the navy seals maybe out of a job.

El Al's security policy is the same for return flights that aren't boarding in a battle zone. You say security is a joke but you're not willing to put up with any inconvenience yourself.
If you want El AL level of security I suggest you book a boat to Europe it will be a much longer wait than present.

You don't like needless delay's. Who puts 50ft of rope in a check on bag and for what purpose? Why is it needless these security checks? The thousands of people dead on 911 whould have loved a 2 hr security delay, they may still be breathing because of it.

One of the most effective aspects of security IS the obtrusive in your face protocols. It provides a visual deterrant at least. It keeps you from putting 50ft of rope in your carry on bag.

Calling you irrational for making the Deerfoot commute is a light joke. I lived in Calgary and it does make one irrational.
"If" I called you a blundering idiot spewing nonsense (which I am not), that is a personal insult, there is a difference.

Flying is a NOT a necessity in today's world. It IS a luxury for most and it IS an option. Take your car, get a train, ride a boat, teleconference or get a job that doesn't require air travel. People afraid to fly deal with this reality every day.

Yes, aviation security does have a ways to go, but people like you who want safe air travel but are unwilling to sacrifice some convenience for it upset its development.

AH, we agree on something. Security is still a joke.
It is starting to improve. One fact remains. You cannot have true security without huge passenger inconvenience and all the associated increased costs that goes with it. We all pay for it in the end one way or another.

In short you can't have it both ways.

And yes it pisses me off I can't take my SAK on board too. But I deal with it.

End of rant.

Mike