Airline Security ?
07 February 2011, 10:21 PM
#1
Airline Security ?
Just a hypothetical question having watched "Air Crash Confidential" about terrorism since jet travel really started, imagine if all the airports, airlines and passengers said sod the security, lets take our chances and just go back to how it was in the sixties, what do you think would happen ?
Ok, it is a stupid question but I reckon that there would be a plane a day crashing somewhere worldwide, would the suicide bombers ever tire of it, would they run out of volunteers, would it cease to make a point any more ?
Also, seeing this documentary made me realise it hasnt been exclusively Islamic terrorists, the Sikhs had a turn in 1985 !
Ok, it is a stupid question but I reckon that there would be a plane a day crashing somewhere worldwide, would the suicide bombers ever tire of it, would they run out of volunteers, would it cease to make a point any more ?
Also, seeing this documentary made me realise it hasnt been exclusively Islamic terrorists, the Sikhs had a turn in 1985 !
07 February 2011, 10:49 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by AsifScoob; 07 February 2011 at 11:04 PM.
Trending Topics
10 February 2011, 11:44 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to differentiate between security theatre (which is what the TSA in America practice) or real security which is where counter-intelligence comes in.
If you want to spend way too much time reading up about this I recommend reading Bruce Schneier's blog http://www.schneier.com/ but it will give you a much greater understanding of what security works and what is really just for show (full body PETN scanners and taking your bloody shoes off are firmly in this category)
Terrorism IS winning at the moment - a FAILED attempt (shoe bomber) gets people hugely inconvenienced and another FAILED attempt humiliates people (underwear bomber) - so these failures and supposed threat causes millions to be spent on show, huge delays for passengers and no extra security to show for it
If you want to spend way too much time reading up about this I recommend reading Bruce Schneier's blog http://www.schneier.com/ but it will give you a much greater understanding of what security works and what is really just for show (full body PETN scanners and taking your bloody shoes off are firmly in this category)
Terrorism IS winning at the moment - a FAILED attempt (shoe bomber) gets people hugely inconvenienced and another FAILED attempt humiliates people (underwear bomber) - so these failures and supposed threat causes millions to be spent on show, huge delays for passengers and no extra security to show for it
10 February 2011, 12:37 PM
#10
I dont think it is just for show the scanners and takign your shoes off as devices have been secreted around peoples bodies, luckily, recently they have failed to go off properly, I cant imagine that all that investement and resource is really just to make a point, reassure passengers and put would be bombers off ?
J4ckos mate and I were discussing this whilst walking the dogs near the airport, I wondered why the terrorists were fixated on getting on a plane and didnt just use other methods that did not involve being on board, not that I want to suggest anything but my thinking was that in war scenarios planes come down but not because of someones shoes or underpants in seat 16B, kind of makes me squirm a bit to think like that and worried that they will think of these potential avenues.
J4ckos mate and I were discussing this whilst walking the dogs near the airport, I wondered why the terrorists were fixated on getting on a plane and didnt just use other methods that did not involve being on board, not that I want to suggest anything but my thinking was that in war scenarios planes come down but not because of someones shoes or underpants in seat 16B, kind of makes me squirm a bit to think like that and worried that they will think of these potential avenues.
10 February 2011, 01:29 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gets my goat.
You have a bottle of water in your bag that you forgot about (have done this many times). It is confiscated at the scanners on the grounds that it could be an explosive. Do they cart it off in some sophisticated containment device for destruction elsewhere? No, they pop it in the bin under the counter 
And turning your mobile phone off for the duration of the flight. I only remember when it is buried in my jacket in the overhead locker as we taxi out. If that was really dangerous it would be simple for a terrorist to operate a phone on a flight.
And turning your mobile phone off for the duration of the flight. I only remember when it is buried in my jacket in the overhead locker as we taxi out. If that was really dangerous it would be simple for a terrorist to operate a phone on a flight.
Last edited by speedking; 10 February 2011 at 01:31 PM.
10 February 2011, 02:20 PM
#12
I was thinking more in terms of someone takign shots with a powerful rifle at a plane or worse some kind of shoulder mounted rocket thing, ok, not that easy to come by (thankfully) but probably not impossible.
10 February 2011, 02:52 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to differentiate between security theatre (which is what the TSA in America practice) or real security which is where counter-intelligence comes in.
If you want to spend way too much time reading up about this I recommend reading Bruce Schneier's blog http://www.schneier.com/ but it will give you a much greater understanding of what security works and what is really just for show (full body PETN scanners and taking your bloody shoes off are firmly in this category)
Terrorism IS winning at the moment - a FAILED attempt (shoe bomber) gets people hugely inconvenienced and another FAILED attempt humiliates people (underwear bomber) - so these failures and supposed threat causes millions to be spent on show, huge delays for passengers and no extra security to show for it
If you want to spend way too much time reading up about this I recommend reading Bruce Schneier's blog http://www.schneier.com/ but it will give you a much greater understanding of what security works and what is really just for show (full body PETN scanners and taking your bloody shoes off are firmly in this category)
Terrorism IS winning at the moment - a FAILED attempt (shoe bomber) gets people hugely inconvenienced and another FAILED attempt humiliates people (underwear bomber) - so these failures and supposed threat causes millions to be spent on show, huge delays for passengers and no extra security to show for it
I agree with this. As I fly quite a bit, I see numerous ways that security is insufficient.
Why all this nonsense about nail clippers and such like being forbidden? How stupid is that? I have had toiletries, water bottles, nail scissors, alcohol, ridiculous things, confiscated from me.
But I have been on flights where not even my passport was checked, not once, before I got on the plane!
If I was going to hijack a plane and kill myself, I would just buy a business class ticket. A) Go out in style, B) All the weapons I would need would come supplied, as they simply hand out knives and forks to people!
How stupid is THAT!?
Asif
10 February 2011, 03:04 PM
#15
Pontificating
Did any of those organisations ever take down a plane ?? I cant recall it, I cant even recall an attempt? could be wrong though.
They usually went for car bombs and for the majority of their attacks had specific targets such as politicians, judges and service personnel and occasionally the general public.
They usually went for car bombs and for the majority of their attacks had specific targets such as politicians, judges and service personnel and occasionally the general public.
10 February 2011, 03:13 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did any of those organisations ever take down a plane ?? I cant recall it, I cant even recall an attempt? could be wrong though.
They usually went for car bombs and for the majority of their attacks had specific targets such as politicians, judges and service personnel and occasionally the general public.
They usually went for car bombs and for the majority of their attacks had specific targets such as politicians, judges and service personnel and occasionally the general public.
10 February 2011, 04:36 PM
#17
Pontificating
Try reading the thread title and few of the initial posts and even my post then you wont waste my time or yours with your pointless post
The thread is about Airline security
Originally Posted by J4CKO
Also, seeing this documentary made me realise it hasnt been exclusively Islamic terrorists, the Sikhs had a turn in 1985 !
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
and the Irish, Germans and Spanish have all had a go
To which I answered, of course it doesn't make it right
I'm shocked you didn't pick up on the fact it's ETA and not ETTA, you're slacking, here have your eyes back
10 February 2011, 04:41 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try staying on topoc and then you won't be wasting my time or yours
10 February 2011, 04:52 PM
#19
Did any of those organisations ever take down a plane ?? I cant recall it, I cant even recall an attempt? could be wrong though.
They usually went for car bombs and for the majority of their attacks had specific targets such as politicians, judges and service personnel and occasionally the general public.
They usually went for car bombs and for the majority of their attacks had specific targets such as politicians, judges and service personnel and occasionally the general public.
I know I spelt it wrong, I was in double letter mode after typing "Baader"
10 February 2011, 05:25 PM
#20
Pontificating
Hardly a lecture f1 just stated their preferences when killing people as hodgy seemed to think they had strayed into aviation.
How's the anger management going
10 February 2011, 08:23 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A chap I know of works for a company that repairs some ground equipment. He rolls up to the gates in a LWB, hi-top van rammed full of boxes, tools and equipment, the guard takes a 3 second glance in the back and he is through. Meanwhile, I am inside queuing up to have my shoes x-rayed. Slightly mixed priorities, I would say
The mobile phone thing annoys me somewhat. If they were actually dangerous, you would not be allowed them in the cabin. However, that would require them being checked into the hold and some way of carrying those belonging to people with no hold baggage. This means investing money, so doesnt get done.
The mobile phone thing annoys me somewhat. If they were actually dangerous, you would not be allowed them in the cabin. However, that would require them being checked into the hold and some way of carrying those belonging to people with no hold baggage. This means investing money, so doesnt get done.
10 February 2011, 08:25 PM
#24
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ He's already got security clearance though ie police checks etc have happened. You haven't 
TX.
PS
In response to the OP, it's gone too far IMHO & should be slackened off ... certainly not made more onerous
planes hardly ever crash & the ones that do are rarely down to bombs - rare events & should be treated as such.
TX.
PS
In response to the OP, it's gone too far IMHO & should be slackened off ... certainly not made more onerous
planes hardly ever crash & the ones that do are rarely down to bombs - rare events & should be treated as such.
Last edited by Terminator X; 10 February 2011 at 08:27 PM.
10 February 2011, 08:27 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but if I were a bearded suicide bomber, I would kidnap his pet hamster and tell him I would rape it to death unless he smuggled in a box of grenades for me.
10 February 2011, 09:46 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
the best way to avoid being blown up on an airplane is to smuggle your own bomb on board -- the chances of two bombs on board the airplane is as close to statistical zero as is possible
get the math working for you
get the math working for you
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 10 February 2011 at 09:50 PM.
10 February 2011, 11:15 PM
#27
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm
"Aviation accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would statistically be over 21,000 years before he or she would be killed."
TX.
"Aviation accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would statistically be over 21,000 years before he or she would be killed."
TX.
10 February 2011, 11:22 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm
"Aviation accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would statistically be over 21,000 years before he or she would be killed."
TX.
"Aviation accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would statistically be over 21,000 years before he or she would be killed."
TX.
11 February 2011, 10:04 AM
#30
With the deployment of the lastest in liquid scanning technology, the restrictions on liquids are supposed to be getting relaxed slightly from April, and phased out altogether by 2013.
http://www.airport-technology.com/fe...feature106879/
I think they're going about it wrongly. They shouldn't be trying to identify all liquids pastes gels, etc. in their scanning algorithms. They should only need to screen for all known explosive compounds and oxidisers.
http://www.airport-technology.com/fe...feature106879/
I think they're going about it wrongly. They shouldn't be trying to identify all liquids pastes gels, etc. in their scanning algorithms. They should only need to screen for all known explosive compounds and oxidisers.