Butane lighters banned from airliners <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I don't know what to say.

Why don't they just ban passengers from airliners and be done with it?

IMHO it makes sense to me. From an emergency preparedness point of view it's sad <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> But the banning of carrying a folding knife on board made us poor men already.

What does? Banning lighters, or banning passengers? <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

None of these "security" measures do anything to improve security, and they're not being dreamed up by people with formal training in Threat-Risk Assessments. This latest initiative is the brainchild of two elected representatives, who - in all probability - never bothered to actually get an expert opinion before they charged out to save the world.

Does this fall under the heading of "unintentional irony"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is probably not the biggest thing in the world," Dorgan said. "But it's one of those areas where a big government agency couldn't develop a little bit of common sense about something so obvious."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

He's right, of course. But it's not the same government agency he's thinking of...

I think we all forgot about the moron who couldn't get his shoes lit <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

I have enough trouble flying. I think everyone should be strip searched personally. We got some short memories. While it may be no safer who knows for sure every little bit helps.

Don't like it take a bus simple.

Flip

Without wishing to argue against you, but even before 9/11 butane lighters were frowned upon on aircraft, presumably as the pressure changes could affect them.
I last flew in 2000, and I remember then being asked if I had lighters on me.
All said and done, the stupidity/niavity of the authorities in thier rulings since 9/11 is not in doubt, which I think was your point. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

If passengers were banned from airliners, then perhaps we'd go back to the steam locomotive and enjoy a slower paced lifestyle, rather than racing around like idiots. I for one am all for it. The concept of travel with dignity and comfort seems out of step today.

BEGIN RANT. I know I'm a throwback, but I'd much rather take a luxurious ride on a train than be patted down as though I were a suspect (they don't even do that at our very scrupulous local courthouse), strapped into a large aluminum sardine can, and tossed into the air willynilly. END RANT.

Everyone in my family disagrees with me. No one likes the journey itself. They all want to arrive yesterday.

-- Craig

[quote]I think everyone should be strip searched personally. We got some short memories. While it may be no safer who knows for sure every little bit helps.[quote]
Oh, please. You know why 9/11 happened? Not because they had box cutters. It was because we've all
been conditioned to not fight back. Give the bad guys what they want and hope they don't hurt us.
Unless, of course, the bad guys have no intention of living through the hijacking. Woops. Our "experts"
didn't mention that.

And the strip search? Go ahead. Doesn't make us even a little safer. Passengers aren't the only
weak part of the commercial aviation system. Next time you're on a plane, look out the window at
all the baggage handlers, food service, fuel and general ramp rats running around. Ask yourself if they
were strip searched, or even subject to the same screening you just went through.

The TSA stuff is simple theater, designed to placate the unthinking masses. Pure and simple.

It doesn't surprise me in the least. After all, in this article the Associated Press calls butane lighters "incendiary devices".

More ignorance driven by fear.

Vince

Its amussing really. I would guess they are trying to clamp down on the potential for "MacGyvered" weapons on the plane. There are tons of potential ways people can engineer make shift weapons using stuff they can carry onto the plane and the authorities are clamping down on it. Chances are some politician saw the old "deoderant can and lighter flamethrower" idea somewhere and figured he couldn't ban deoderant and went with lighters instead.

You can see their perspective however, smoking doesn't occur on flights, so realistically its going to be a very small inconveniance to most people, and if it saves even one life it will be justified.

It really wouldn't surprise me if in the next 20 years carry on baggage was completely removed from airplanes and you'll just be allowed your wallet and papers with you.

... and maybe some clothing ??? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

(I would like to keep my socks, as I can easily get cold feet ...)

what's to prevent the same screening mesures to be applied to train passengers ?

There are already some "precaution" mesures concerning luggage, in french trains.

Of all the things they have banned on planes, this makes the most sense. In terms of simplicty, a lighter and a can of hairspray has a whole lot of power to do damage. Now, of course, if you light off a can of hairspray, you're going to have a cabin full of noxious smoke - and the cabin doors are locked, so you're not going anywhere.

However, imagine if the goal was not to do anything more than set the interior of the plan on fire and kill via smoke inhalation. That's not an unrealistic scenario and would be a kind of terror attack that fits the MO of Islamist nutcases.

If your flying distance is under about 2 hours. Then you add in the 2 hours preflight wait and search plus normal flight delays. Travel by train, bus or car will probably get you there quicker anyway.

Lighters are one of the few things it actually makes sense to restrict on planes, since they can be used to make flamethrowers (with any aerosol can) or to light fuses on explosive devices.

Now, if in exchange for banning lighters they ended their eternal fascination with small, pointy things (and I consider "small pointy things" to be anything smaller than a machete), I'd be okay with it. Not perfect but it would be a step forward from the paranoia that currently drives Fatherland Security.

People.. people.. people. You just don't understand. Truly, our government knows what's best for us. I'm confident that there is a Stupidity Paradigm intentionally built into the TSA plan (they couldn't have accidentally achieved this): "make erratic, silly, unpredictable, and inconsistent decisions in order to keep the bad guys guessing."

But in case my faith and trust is misplaced... How about some simple suggestions which you think actually MAY improve security?

We don't NEED to improve security. The only thing we need to improve security was the knowledge that this was possible. This happened by the 4th plane, which didn't get to it's intended target because the passengers knew what they were up to, and didn't let it happen.

Everything else is merely an appearance of security. It has to be as visible and intrusive as possible to placate the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER..

>>>>Lighters are one of the few things it actually makes sense to restrict on planes, since they can be used to make flamethrowers (with any aerosol can) or to light fuses on explosive devices<<<<

And you can't do that with matches? It's nothing more than paranoia. In order to eliminate any possibility of an improvised weapon of any sort people would have to travel naked while sitting unsecured to the deck of a cargo plane, and even you don't know that the guy next to you hasn't infected himself with some highly virile biological agent. The deadliness of any object around you is limited only by the imagination.

My $0.02

Ed

I'd use the same system the Israelis do. No one seems to bother El Al.

As an Israeli once said, and I paraphrase, "You Americans have it all wrong. You look for weapons. We look for terrorists."

I'd have the Israelis teach us how to do it, or have them do it for us.

The TSA's deepening sense of paranoia doesn't seem to make sense. Unless they know something we don't.

I'll just have to walk to Europe, then. They'd have a tough time justifying that, given the rate checked luggage is lost. My brother in law flew to China on business this summer. His luggage was lost. He went to all his important meetings in his travel outfit -- shorts and a T-shirt. He was not a happy camper.

Checked luggage does seem to get lost at a highly alarming rate, and I too hate having to put stuff in the hold (and when I do its always bare essentials still with me). But it still wouldn't surprise me if they stop alowing you to carry luggage on with you, its the next logical step with what they are doing.

I agree with your line of thought, but disagree with the word "logical." Logic has little to do with this. It is more like paranoia.

It might not be logical to us but the logic still remainsfrom there point of view as its the path their actions and decisions lead them all. If anyones watched Yes Prime Minister it contained a clasic example of how the same person can make two entirely logical, yet at the same time completely opposed answers to the same question. In this case the issue of National service and if someone on the street would answer yes or no to being in favour of it:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Logic is subjective. We might disagree with it, but the people making the decsions don't chose (generally) to do things because they are illogical, they chose to do what is logical given the path they have already taken...

But that would have the effect of doing it in the three ways that are anathema to most government agencies. Cheaper, more effective, and less intrusive.

Is it paranoia?

Sure as hell is thanks, for good reason or did we forget already the results.

The El Al idea is the best so far.
National ID cards and retina scans and background checks for all passengers is a start. The see through x-ray the brits are testing is the next step as well. At least A..holes without clearance may stick out a bit more.

The end of deregulation will put an end to profit driven airlines and airports cutting corners, hell they can't run profitable airlines anyway.

Nobody screws with El AL because:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/15/60II/main324476.shtml

The same needs to happen in north america or else 911 will happen again.

As for all of the paranoid anti gvnmt nuts out there. You live the way you do because of the gvnmt, they are far from perfect but you could live in Somalia so it ain't that bad is it. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Flip

I had to laugh, on my flight yesterday, my seatmate pulls out her knitting and says to me "Isn't it funny, I'm allowed to have these big old knitting needles and they ban those tiny nail clippers."

Looking at those needles, I had to agree.

Very intersting article and it proves beyond doubt that they certainly have the tightest security in the world. The situation in the USA however is quite probably that a grerat many people would rather risk another attack than give up that much freedom. We value our individual freedoms quite a bit and many people feel that to give them up to that extent may be worse than death itself. In otherwords, we'd rather just play the odds and take our chances rather than enter a police state as is the case in Isreal. Please note before you attempt to flame me that I do not necessarily agree with this philosophy. I'm not quite sure how I feel to tell you the truth. Im simply stating that by living in this county I know that many people do in fact feel ths way.

The "see through x-ray" thing as you call it (its actually a passive millimetre wave camera produced by Qinetiq) is very cool and you can expect to see that appearing in airports everywhere reasonably soon (unless lots of people complain about the fact that they get to be seen naked by the opperators). In a few years a similar technology to this, but using THz frequencies should hopefully be produced which will enable them to run a kind of chemical analysis scan of a person through their clothing, totally non evasively to detect the prescence of any contraband molecules such as illegal drugs and / or explosives. Works by the nature of molecules rotational and vibrational bonds being in the THz range. Of course they have to first build quantum cascade laser capable of operating at a decent power output in that frequency range, but that should be only a couple of years away, and there are a few other potential hurdles to avoid (such as the THz wavelengths being very close to the seperation of most fabrics producing annoying defraction effects). When thats working (assuming its not canceled due to potential health reasons) its really going to be an exponential leap forward in detecting ANY kind of contraband going onto an aircraft.

According to NHTSA, there were 42,643 fatalties on US roads in 2003. Boeing says a 767 (one of the planes
used in the WTC attack) seats anywhere from 245 to 375. Let's assume the 2-class configuration, for right at 300 people.

42,643 / 300 = 142.14, That's right... almost three Boeing 767s would have to crash each week
for a year to equal the number of traffic fatalities that occur every year in this country.
Apparently, a great many people are willing to trade safety for freedom. And the cost is far higher
than our losses due to terrorism have been, or likely ever will be.

Just a little over 17000 of those fatalities were alchohol related. In terms of pure numbers, we'd save
more lives every year by throwing some money at the whole "don't drink and drive" thing, callling
off the war and ignoring the so called "terrorists".

Terrorism is all about perception, not actual damage. If they had the resources to wage a conventional
war, they would. Anything short of that isn't a threat, it's an irritation.

Reenforce the cockpit doors, remove the security checkpoints and guards and give us back our
freedom. I'll take my chances. They look pretty good, actually.

I'm just getting caught up after a few days away from the forum, so didn't answer the request for ideas to make things better, no sense in repeating what somebody has already said better, but here goes;
Let me start with a little story I overheard the other day...
A Native American, a fundamentalist Moslem, and a Texas cattle hand were in an airport lounge waiting for a flight, and struck up a conversation. After some small-talk, the Native American said "Once, my people were many, now we are few." to which the Moslem said "My people were few, but now, we are becoming many and powerful." to which the Texan said "That's cause we aint played cowboys and ragheads yet."
No offense is meant with this little slice of conversation, but it helps prove my next statement:
Don't tighten security, loosen it up a bit. Allow any native born citizen without a felony conviction to carry any declared weapon they may choose, and let the terrorists feel free to come to America to meet Alah in style. And while we're at it, this might not be a bad way to bring good manners back to everyday life as well... after a few months of culling the herd, this wouldn't be a bad place to live again.

Troy

You could probably do a search and find some good suggestions - I know I've posted these before, but, like Gandalf, I never mind explaining my brilliance more than once <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

- Instead of relying on a single, easily breached perimeter, implement defense in depth. Put multiple obstacles in a hijacker's path, not just one. Our ancestors knew how to do this 1000 years ago; why the TSA can't figure it out is beyond me.

- Put First-class passengers at the back of the plane instead of the front. If I walk up to the ticket counter and say "I want a seat as close as possible to the flight crew cabin, and money is no object" they'll call for security. If I say "I want a seat in first class" I'm saying essentially the same thing, but the response will be "Yes, sir."

- Train all the flight attendants in hand-to-hand combat. (Air Canada has supposedly done so; maybe other airlines have as well.) Most El Al flight attendants are ex-military with h2h combat training.

- Arm the flight attendants with non-lethal (excuse me, "less lethal") tasers. Modify the tasers so they can't be fired if they're disconnected from the owner's belt, so terrorists can't steal them and use them (if you're really all that concerned about a terrorist trying to hijack a plane with a single-shot, non-lethal weapon that's already been fired, that is <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

- Arm the pilots. (El Al refuses to comment on whether they do this, for security reasons.) Give the captain a sealed package containing an unloaded pistol and the first officer a sealed package containing the ammunition clip. If the seal is broken on either package at the end of the flight, the flight crew member responsible for it has to make a full report explaining how it happened.

- Have the pilots lock themselves inside the cabin before the start of every flight and don't allow them to unlock the cabin until the aircraft is at the gate and the passengers have disembarked. (Again, El Al does this.)

- Train the pilots in "anti-terrorist aerobatics". It's pretty hard to hijack a plane, or even maintain your dignity, when you're bouncing off the ceiling like Wile E. Coyote. (El Al claims they don't train their pilots in this manner. Yeah right! Tell that to Leila Khaled, who had this happen to her when she tried to hijack an El Al flight in September 1970.)

- Pass legislation to protect airlines and flight/cabin crew from lawsuits from passengers who didn't have their seat belts fastened when the pilot starts banging the hijackers against the ceiling, or depressurising the aircraft.

Not one of these measures would inconvenience the flying public one iota, unless they were confronted with an actual hijacking situation. (In which case, presumably, they wouldn't mind.)

If I were a terrorist (and, for the record, I'm not) my next target would be the line-up in front of the security checkpoint.

I mean, where else can a suicide bomber unobtrusively walk into the middle of a crowd of several hundred people carrying (or rather, dragging) two 100-pound bombs?

The problem is, the TSA never bothered to do a proper Threat-Risk Assessment; so they really have no clear idea what they're trying to protect us from. Is it to prevent terrorists from using airliners as weapons of mass destruction? Most of the security measures implemented since 9/11 have nothing to do with preventing such a recurrence. Is it to prevent terrorists from killing people aboard airliners? Why? Why is it worse to be killed by a terrorist on board an airliner than in the parking lot of a Michaels Craft store in Virginia - or standing in line at an airport security check point?

There have been no attacks--or at least any serious attempts at an attack--since Richard Reid. That was back in December of 2001. Personally I think that is because the FBI has been doing an exceptional job of infiltrating and then destroying the terrorist cells. It seems improbable that the terrorists have given up, so I guess the Patriot Act is working.

Banning knives has done absolutely nothing to enhance security. Banning butane lighters will do the same.

Pure political window dressing.

Regards, Vince

[Why? Why is it worse to be killed by a terrorist on board an airliner than in the parking lot of a Michaels Craft store in Virginia - or standing in line at an airport security check point? ]

Death is death, but it's next to impossible to crash a Michaels Craft Store into another large building <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

From what I can tell the entire effort is aimed at preventing people from entering the plane with box cutters, thus forcing them to break the glass on their laptop to instantly construct a far superior weapon. Since 9/11 if a passenger gets drunk and a little out of control he is attacked and restrained by other passengers without much hesitation. IMO the TSA could hand out tiny sharp objects to everyone as they get on the plane and there will still never be another such method successfully used to highjack a plane.

You appear to have missed my point. You cannot use a hockey stick, a baseball bat, or a Bic lighter to commandeer an airliner. Therefore, these so-called security measures are not of any use to prevent anyone from hijacking an airliner. Therefore, they were either implemented without anyone having a clear understanding of what they were supposed to do, or the TSA has bought into the notion that it is somehow worse to kill someone on board an airliner than it is to kill the same person in the terminal building, the parking lot, or a shopping mall in Boise, Idaho.