Bagheera;
I've been saying that for years. The problem with airport security (and Doug has an excellent article on this website somewhere) is that the people responsible for it don't understand security and how it works.
Look at any mediaeval castle (since you're in Holland, you won't likely have far to travel <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) and ask yourself, if I wanted to capture that castle, what would I have to do? Then you'll start to understand the concept of "defense in depth".
Take Edinburgh Castle, for just one example. It's built at the top of a "crag and tail" formation; the castle is surrounded on three sides by steep, rocky cliffs. On the fourth side is the parade square. Why is it the parade square? Because they kept it clear of obstructions for as far as an archer could shoot.
Fine, so you manage to cross several hundred feet of open ground under withering fire from the castle archers; now what? You get to cross the moat, with the defenders dropping big rocks and boiling oil on you. You manage to get across the moat; now you either have to scale a 30 foot high vertical stone wall (as people are still pouring boiling oil and dropping jagged limestone boulders on your head) or punch your way through an 18-inch thick oak door.
Okay, you've done that; what's next? They have ANOTHER FREAKING CASTLE inside that one. And the door's on the other side, which means you got to fight your way all the way around the outside of the inner sanctum just to get to the next door you need to break through. Get the point?
The point is, our ancestors understood this concept in the 11th century, 1000 years ago. Now look at the defenses at your typical North American airport.
Hmm - you've got a couple of bored, underpaid security guards with X-ray machines and metal detectors. That's it; there's no "defense in depth"; once you smuggle a weapon past the metal detectors (or, even better, buy it in the duty-free shop once you get inside) there's nothing (officially) stopping you. (Unofficially, there's a couple of hundred potential Todd Beamers who would just as soon go down fighting as meekly give you control of the airliner. Plus, you can bet your bottom dollar that the pilot, in extremis, will "encounter" the worst turbulence you ever experienced as soon as you start trying to bust through into the cockpit <img src="images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> just as Captain Uri Bar-Lev did in September 1970 - 31 years before 9/11!
(Two weeks after 9/11, Robert Pollock, an editor with the Wall Street Journal, interviewed Captain Bar-Lev. The article concludes with the following paragraph:
-------------------
But Capt. Bar-Lev says crews throughout the rest of the world still have to worry about prosecution and lawsuits because of actions they might take to resist hijackers. The laws and treaties governing civil aviation in most countries give pilots a vague responsibility for the "welfare" of their passengers--an obligation the recent hijackers apparently took advantage of to lure pilots from their cockpits by attacking stewardesses. Since Sept. 11, the U.S. government has taken important steps, such as placing more armed marshals on flights and increasing check-in security. But a vital last line of defense is to change the law to make resisting hijackings the top priority for airline crews. "If American aviation wants to fight terror," says Capt. Bar-Lev, "first it has to be built into the crew and they need legal tools to be able to fight. It's not enough to hire extra personnel and train them to look at people."
------------------------
(okay, rant mode off <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )
Previous Topic
Index
