http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10258342/

A logical move, in my opinion, but I'll believe it when it happens.

-- Craig

This kind of idiocy just cracks me up ('cause crying at my age is rather embarrassing):

Charles Slepian, an aviation security consultant based in New York, said the TSA's proposed changes fail to take into account the safety of passengers and cabin crew. "Whenever you are serving alcohol, you have a double duty to those who are present to protect them from someone who goes off the deep end," Slepian said. "If we allow people to carry things that are really deadly weapons on board airplanes, we're inviting trouble."

So don't serve alcohol. Yes, people can drink before they get on a plane, but the airline can also prevent intoxicated people from boarding. Isn't it interesting how the root cause of the problem is completely overlooked?

And the aisles "running with blood" bit.. that's just sad. Flight attendants flew in cabins full of sharp objects before 9/11 with no problem. Why now is it such a big deal?

We're up to our eyeballs in idiocy, apparently.

And airplane aisles will soon be awash in blood, if the pundits are to be believed. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

-- Craig

I find it really amusing whenever "experts" make statments about things they have never experienced or will never be subject to experience... Lately I've been seeing a shift from national security to personal security. Nation is sick and tired that 4 year war on terrorsim is going nowhere. People also forget since time heals wounds. Osama is still free and Iraq is not going the way it was planned. People don't want their freedoms restricted in the name of a greater good anymore but freedom restrictions in the name of personal protection sounds great. But I'm asking: personal protection from what? Terrorist don't act out under infulence of alcohol and I don't think that hostile takeover with boxcutters is going to succeed anymore. Next events will involve sabotage, real weapons, bombs and rockets. Also a sudden outbreak of violence secondary to intox can be controlled by few handy gentelmen on board.

Anything in right hands can become a weapon. Stupid oxygen tank (2 on board) can become a projectile that goes thru 2 feet of concrete. Broken bottles, piece of plastic or even folded newspaper can be used as a weapon. Is my zippo, nail clipper, scissors or SAK more dangerous than imporvised weapons? Hell no.

I work as a paramedic at JFK here in NYC. I hate the TSA rules. I think they are more for show than doing acctual good. Now I have no problem with making adjustments for something that works. But I also have no tolerance for stupidity. And TSA is just plainly retarded.

Agreed.

http://tinyurl.com/d6skz

They have still killed the SAK. I quote:



That disqualifies the SAK, I should think.

-- Craig

My memory can be faulty at times, so please correct me if you like. But.... weren't the weapons (such as they were) on the 9/11 flights used to subdue/control the CREW?

If the crew is not within reach, a terrorist in a sealed container (the plane) is just going to go whacko and start cutting people? Some people seem to think terrorists just want to kill. Well, they do, but they usually have a purpose in mind, it's not just random.

Also, since 9/11, I doubt that an entire planeload of people will now just sit there and wait for the "hijacking" to end. Sure, some will just sit and cry, scream and wring their hands, but SOME will now fight back, and they know they will be backed by the airline, if not a jury.

I'm reasonably certain that TSA has the same idiot people at the scanners that they had pre-9/11, but they've just been (maybe) given a tiny bit of training and a free hand to be even more stupid and obnoxious than they were before. They are poorly paid people who probably don't have much power in their lives otherwise, so they take advantage of the power that the TSA has given them.

One trained dog's nose can find explosives wrapped in plastic, boxes, luggage and most other containers (even within multiple containers), but it's taken the TSA morons FOUR YEARS to figure this out?

However, I do wonder about the purpose of icepicks and throwing stars...

Sue

Quoted from CNN:
The change in rules, expected to go into effect December 20, will allow for some scissors less than 4 inches long and some tools less than 7 inches long.

This says they will be ALLOWED, not DISALLOWED

A former coworker of mine, a known pro-gun control advocate, did mention after September 11th, that if someone had a gun on any of those planes, it probably would not have made it into the building. Speculation as only Flight 93 apparently had any real clue what was going on.

The government is only suppose to protect me from what I cannot handle myself:
1) Explosives aboard aircraft
2) Mentally messed up pilots
3) Aircraft maintenance and design problems

Everything else in the cabin is pretty much up to me.

Oops. My apologies. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> I was reading too quickly. I stand happily corrected. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

-- Craig

You probably were just used to government double-speak and got confused. No worries. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm glad to see they're take the more logical approach.

Snopes: Pilot's pre-flight speach during first flight on 9/15/2001

Quote:
"Once those doors close, we only have each other. The security has taken care of a threat like guns with all of the increased scanning, etc. Then we have the supposed bomb. If you have a bomb, there is no need to tell me about it, or anyone else on this plane; you are already in control. So, for this flight, there are no bombs that exist on this plane."

I have to wonder which custom knifemaker is sketching a pair of rapidly disjoined scissors with some manner of thumb loop for use as a push dagger. This is a arms race in reverse to see how stupid and ironically clever we can all become abusing each other.

Main factor in the 9/11 successful action of terrorists was that people on board of the planes (except PA flight) let themselves to be slaughtered. They assuemed that planes will land somewhere with terrorist making demands. Now nobody will assume that. People will stand up.

Agreed. Pre 9/11, airlines taught (and for the most part still do) flight crews to comply with the highjackers so that the "authorities" can deal with them once they're on the ground. Although the FBI had informed the airlines in the 1990's that terrorists might try to highjack a plane and use it in a kamikazi attack, the airlines didn't change their training or even let the crews in on this tidbit.

Not Flying Commercial,

Jim

I think it was a rather poorly written (or poorly edited) article. Those two quotes from Slepian and Caldwell were pretty over the top, but I think it would have helped to know the context of those single sentences the reporter quoted. I've read some of Slepian's stuff on his Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center (FRAC) website and he seems a level headed security professional. Caldwell...well, she has a constituency to represent, but the "blood in the aisles" quote was pretty wild. Again, I'd like to know in what context were these people making these statements?

Actually, two points that both these people have raised in the past are certainly valid. Slepian long warned about the vulnerability of airplanes through the "ramp" side of the airport. I see airport ground staff go through security every once in a while, but do ALL of them go through security currently? I hope so, but I doubt it. Maybe I only see them go through security when they get lunch at McDonald's in the passenger terminal?

A point that Caldwell brought up in the past was the danger of commercial cargo. Billions of pounds of commerical cargo are loaded alongside passenger luggage with no screening at all. That was a couple years ago when she said it, but don't know if that situation has changed any at all.

But still, statistically, air travel is still the safest way to go. Can't say the same for my checked luggage, but that's another day's discussion. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think the whole bloody thing is just a big illusion.

I flew back to work monday with a Cold Steel SRK, three lighters (two were Zippos, one was a refillable butane), a large metal cased flashlight, and three ziplocs full of various unlabeled over the counter pills in them in a unlocked checked bag. When I got to my destination, I found the usual TSA note in the bag, and all my stuff was still there.

But my real point is that everyone in the security chain is human and capable of being compromised. It happens all the time elsewhere, why would we think it is any different with the airlines. People can be bought, extorted, blackmailed, and threatened into doing things they are not supposed to do.

Those TSA agents at the airport back home live in my community. I can find them anytime I want to. I can isolate them from whatever form of protection they think they have, and I can apply all sorts of dastardly tricks until I find their weakness and then they will do whatever I want them to (not that I ever would, I am just proving a point here folks).

Once you understand that the illusion has nothing to do with controlling criminals, you will be able to see what the true purpose of instigating these programs really is. Folks, that ain't paranoia, that is the cold hard reality of it. It's the same face I saw from the terrorist ops in Baghdad.

"I doubt that an entire planeload of people will now just sit there and wait for the "hijacking" to end. Sure, some will just sit and cry, scream and wring their hands, but SOME will now fight back"

Susan, I wish I shared your belief. I'm currently treating an airline employee who was assaulted in the air by a passenger and NO ONE intervened. Not during, not after..

I think "stupid and ironically clever" perfectly describes us abusing ourselves.

-- Craig

Naro,

funny thing you mentioned it. Good portion of my calls in the airport comes from the hurt crew on the in bound flights. Why? They are considered "enemies". After all the frustration and anxiety connected with flights (TSA, check points, anxiety and stupid rules) some will have a short fuse and take it out on them. Now this is not a terrorist attack. This is a "domestic violence dispute". Bystanders think: "why should I be pulled into this?" This is typical street bs. Just like many will not stand up to a guy beating up someone on the subway. After all everyone heard the story about someone trying to help just to be cought up in the law suit and all the legal junk. Also guy who is doing the wrong doing is kind of doing it for all of us. Out of the sudden my frustration with flights get released as well. Think of it as reverse heroism. We are all supressed and than somebody makes the stand. I know it is wrong but it's the same feeling. I saw a guy beating up a parking ticket lady while driving to the hospital. Nobody was helping. Now personally I felt good which is a bad feeling since somebody was getting hurt but a day before I got a $120 parking ticket. Would I have stop if not going to the call? Probably but my level of sympathy would be very low.

Now imagine the same situation but this time the gentelman is fitting terrorist profile and arguments get heated and there is a potential threat to me (an innocent bystander). Than I surely will do something about it.

Now in your case... Where was the air marshal? Where were fellow employees? Personally I met few flight attendants that deserved a beating.

Well after 9/11 BrigadeQuartermaster sold a replica of OSS plastic made lapel knives that as advertised could pass thru metal detectors. They also had a disclaimer that read: "do not even think about bringing this item on board of the planes". What the hell are they thinking? Isn't it like giving a weapons and ideas away? This really suprised me because they always fly high the American flag and claim patriotism and devotion. Well maybe for the sake and safety of others this should have been taken of the shelfs. I found it really clever to have a memorial to 9/11 on one page and plastic knife that is more dangerous than any box cutter on the other. WHy don't they also list plans on how to build a gun out of synthetic materials or how to smuggle a bomb into different places... of course with proper disclaimer.

I figure giving every passenger a single shot pistol at the beginning of the flight would end anymore 9/11 style attacks.

Headlines:

"Man at the window with weak bladder was shot on the inbound flight from London by passanger with aisle seat"

Better exists than those, and I would be a little suprised if they weren't California complient, with a bit of metal in them, even though BQ has them as a no-Cali item.

And I've looked at all of those in the current catalog. Other than two items in there, I won't say which, they are no more dangerous than a plastic butterknife of a pencil, IMO. They are letter openers, I can make just as good a shiv with a CD. A pair of non-blunt scissors would be better.

*shrugs*

Because weapons on planes aren't (and weren't) the problem. The years of conditioning, by our own experts, to always do exactly what the Bad Guy says was the problem.

I think it's patriotic that they provide a means for an individual to defend themselves in a society gone temporarily insane.

"... they are no more dangerous than a plastic butterknife ... They are letter openers"

Plastic letter openers are lethal weapons and have been used as such numerous times. They may not slice salami, but they are excellent for stabbing. A friend of mine used to work for the LAPD, and a perpetrator who stabbed someone with a letter opener said "it went in like a hot knife into butter".

MANY things are more dangerous than they may first appear, and have been used by the knowledgable or the desperate: hatpins, frozen rabbits or cats, ice, plastic bags, belts and shoelaces among them.

Anyone who thinks that removing all dangerous weapons will prevent a crime from happening is deluding themselves.

Sue

I know, and I can use a ball point pen just as effectively.

I'm not dismissing it utterly, but I'm saying that you can already carry just as good on a plane even under the restrictions.

QUOTE: "MANY things are more dangerous than they may first appear, and have been used by the knowledgable or the desperate:?. frozen rabbits??? "

The whole airline security illusion can be discouraging at first. However, I am not afraid, possessing a 10th degree black belt in Fro-Rabb-Do!!! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

TR

Great idea. There would have to be a way to keep up with these people. I proposed the BLEACH (Basic Law Enforcement Airline Carried Handgun), and the US ACTIVATED (United States of America Certified Trusted Individual Verification and Tracking Every Detail). US ACTIVATED will roll up the TSA SECURE FLIGHT with DOD background checks for 1 stop "trusting" certification. Law Enforcement officers can be US ACTIVATED BLEACH. The program as a whole would be called AIR HAWK (Airline Handgun Ammunition Weapons and Knives). AIR HAWKs will work in conjunction with AIR EAGLEs (Airline Effective Airborne Government Law Enforcment) (formerly AIR MARSHALS) to hunt RODINTS (Rouge Organizations and Derranged Individuals Terrorizing Society).

Looks like the issue is already starting to become politicized: Link.

“Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said Thursday they intend to introduce a bill called the "Leave All Blades Behind Act" to preserve the current prohibition on sharp scissors, tools and knives in airliner cabins.
"On Sept. 11, we witnessed the devastation and death that can be perpetrated onboard a plane with commonly-used items like boxcutters, and TSA wisely took action to ban such sharp objects. Now is not the time to overturn this ban, since we know that Al Qaeda continues to put passenger plans near the top of its terrorist target list," Markey said. "The Bush administration proposal is just asking the next Mohamed Atta to move from box cutters to scissors as the weapon that's used in the passenger cabin of planes."

Now that's catchy: the Leave All Blades Behind Act. Makes me feel all warm and squishy just thinking about it.

Vince

All "everyone's armed, so everyone's safe" scenarios assume more (usually a lot more) good guys than bad guys on a particular flight. This could easily not be the case.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration's official press release can be read here

Those nylon lapel daggers look mighty cool, though.

Well, our politicians have to do something to justify their inflated salaries and to further their oily careers.

“they intend to introduce a bill called the "Leave All Blades Behind Act" to preserve the current prohibition on sharp scissors, tools and knives in airliner”

I knew it was too good to be true. I have felt positively naked flying without my leatherman and AL Mar Ultralight. My poor PSK gets gutted for flights.

I was fully planning on buying a high-grade set of 4” round tip scissors (with SV30 blades and cool mil-spec hard anodized handles) and a 7” long survival screwdriver (with precision tip and carbon fiber grip). I don’t need either while flying, but I’ve got to put some kind of cool tool in my empty pockets while flying.

Till they sort this out I’ll go back to carrying a half-dozen flashlights on airline flights.

TSA (Terminally Screwed-up Agency)

TR

I guess someday I may get caught absent mindedly packing my obsidian and jawbone skinner aboard, someday...

Do you think they would recognize a fireboard and spindle if they saw one?

Sue

"frozen rabbits or cats"
Please, I beg of you to elaborate!

Likely not, but that won't stop them from hassling you about it.

If it looks suspicious, they will be inclined to prevent you from boarding with it, whether they know what it is or not.

I wonder what they think of a 6" long mirror with a plastic handle, that with one brief exertion becomes a glass dagger?

I'd laugh, only I still have to fly home and back for Christmas.

"Now imagine the same situation but this time the gentelman is fitting terrorist profile and arguments get heated and there is a potential threat to me (an innocent bystander). Than I surely will do something about it."

Why would it make a difference if he fits a 'terrorist profile', aka looks middle eastern or muslim? An actual terrorist would never be stupid enough to draw attention to themselves by harassing a flight attendant.

In any case, if someone is abusing a flight attendant or anyone else, I think we have an obligation to intervene.

Matt, for confidentiality reasons I can't go into too many details, but the other employees were either secured in the cockpit or too frightened to help. My patient didn't "deserve a beating".. it came out of nowhere. I agree with your thoughts that flight crews often get the anger built up from other events (TSA, ticket counter, etc.). But.. the outcome remained the same: no one helped.. no one spoke up.. no one stood up..

As for you getting involved in the terrorist scenario in which you might be at risk. I don't doubt you. You make your living getting involved. Sadly, too many people find a way to vanish just when they need to be counted on. I remain pessimistic that anyone would actually stand up, even with 9/11 in their mind. Perhaps Forum members would.. but I have less and less faith in the public.

It seems to me that in almost every story I read these days about a drunk, unruly passenger it is being mentioned that they were restrained by crew and passengers. The shoe bomber was certainly restrained by passengers, including a 6'8" college basketball player. Maybe we should let anybody over 6'3" fly for free. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince

Or maybe we should take the booze off the birds. At least the bottles are too little be useful in a fight.