patrick.net

Strategist says

The fact that we have had no serious attempts to highjack planes post 911 indicates we are doing something right.

Not at all true. Well, at least you didn't mention Benghazi. I suppose we should be grateful for that.

The only reason that 911 happened was that the cockpit door was unlocked and the pilots and passengers were required to cooperate with the hijackers. Since 911, airlines have taken the common sense step of locking the cockpit, something that should be done even if terrorism didn't exist. A drunk person in first class could endanger the plane when he thinks he can fly it better than the pilot.

Also, no pilot and no passengers are going to cooperate with hijackers since 911. I guarantee you that there were dozens of able-bodied men on each of the 911 flights that didn't fight back (except in the PA case, and that was after the opportunity passed) because each of them was thinking "I could easy take out these smucks but I'll be sent to prison for 20 years if I try". That's not going to happen again because no jury in this country will ever convict a person for fighting plane hijackers since 911.

Strategist says

If I was to choose which planes by children will board, it will still be the plane with the ultra security.

Correction: If I was to choose which planes by children will board, it will still be the plane with the ultra security theater.

Your children will be less safe, probably sexually molested, exposed to cancer-causing radiation, and blown up to bits while waiting in the security line.

You really should read my replies fully before responding to them.

curious2 says

In Israel, where security has been a way of life for decades, you can't get near an airport without being interviewed. They have roadblocks.

The interviews will decrease terrorist attacks -- we can assume the Israelis do them right -- however, there will be a lot of false positives. Essentially, travel becomes a privilege.

The roadblocks will limit damage. Instead of blowing up the bomb in the airport, the terrorist will have to blow up the bomb at the roadblock, killing himself and perhaps one or two guards, maybe one or two other people. It's definitely better than a security line which endangers hundreds of people. However, there's no way this will happen in the U.S. because such roadblocks would be expensive and would greatly discourage air travel, and the airlines, which are big lobbyists, won't stand for it.

The real solution is to retire commercial air travel, at least domestic air travel for now. Privately owned maglifts can get you from place A to B cheaper and more conveniently than commercial air travel. And if we're willing to fork the expense of having super-fast, vacuum lanes, maglifts at ground level can travel faster than airplanes, even supersonic speeds, while using little energy. (Transcontinental maglift lanes are possible, but will require greatly more infrastructure development.)

If a terrorist blows up a maglift vehicle he's occupying, he only takes out himself and his passengers, no one else. At best, he delays other travelers.

Of course, privately owned maglifts will never become a reality in this country because of the evil auto and aviation industries and their lobbyists.

I just drive anyplace I want to go to. I really don't want to leave the Northeast anyway, so it's no big deal to me to just catch a bus or drive to anywhere else around here anyway. That and there is still tons of stuff to do around here that I haven't done, and I am not sure if I can actually see everything in my area anytime soon or ever.

SoftShell says

Require airlines to offer both "TSA checked" and "No security check" flights in equal amounts.

Actually, the choice will be the "rape your daughter" line and the "real security" line. In the real security line, you go through metal detector and a explosive detector, perhaps using bees.

http://www.-1GadTfGFvU

OK, maybe not bees. Some people are allergic to them. But there are electronic detectors that work on smell. The technology isn't great right now, but it is the nature of technology to become more reliable and cheaper if people invest in it. Ultimately, such detectors are the only reliable way to find explosives. Patdowns and rape-scanners simply don't work.

The Transportation Security Administration’s full-body scanners failed to detect a number of potential weapons, including knives, guns and explosives, according to a study released this week.

The controversial scanners, which captured explicit images of passenger’s bodies, provided “weak protection against adaptive adversaries,” researchers from the University of California, San Diego; the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins University concluded.

“It is possible to conceal knives, guns, and explosives from detection by exploiting properties of the device’s backscatter X-ray technology,” the authors of the study wrote.

Hell, it would be trivial to modify a laptop with a plastic explosive and it would go through airport security, no problem. The TSA agents are idiots, power-hungry idiots, but idiots nonetheless.

Oh, and on my commercial flight, there is no air mail, so my family will be safe while yours is blown up by an mail bomb. So much for security theater.

Strategist says

He will choose Dan's flight. Say goodbye to Dan everyone.

By the way, on my flight, we have the best anti-terrorist security system. On each flight, there is a copy of the Quran and a piece of the Black Stone of Mecca, two things that the terrorists won't risk blowing up for fear of offending their gods. The planes are also painted with "Allah is great" in Arabic. I'm safe. You're not.

The whole liquids thing is pure bullshit. It revolves around the highly unlikely scenario where somebody, and the flight would have to be at least 12 hours long non-stop, that somebody would occupy a restroom for the entire flight and try to grow explosive crystals. He would need tons of ice to produce his explosive crystals, and maybe end up with enough to break one of the windows.

Somebody is going to take bucket of ice after bucket of ice into a bathroom the entire flight and not raise suspicions?

thunderlips11 says

The whole liquids thing...revolves around the highly unlikely scenario where somebody, and the flight would have to be at least 12 hours long non-stop, that somebody would occupy a restroom for the entire flight and try to grow explosive crystals. He would need tons of ice to produce his explosive crystals, and maybe end up with enough to break one of the windows.

Do you have a source for that? I read that there will be new contracts to purchase and operate new equipment to detect liquid explosives. Also as Dan's link noted, security auditors have got through with what they call liquid explosives. I imagine that anything flammable could probably start at least a smoke condition, e.g. using lighter fluid to accelerate burning the carpet or the trash bin, and that would require the plane to land. (OTOH, it seems even using a Knee Defender can require the plane to land.)

Dan8267 says

The real solution is to retire commercial air travel, at least domestic air travel for now. Privately owned maglifts can get you from place A to B cheaper and more conveniently than commercial air travel.

I like the Hyperloop idea, but nothing has yet been proven to substitute for air travel. Even if evacuated tube technology works, it would take years to set up each link between cities, and a tube might be as vulnerable as a plane - more so in the sense that damaging a tube would make the whole line unusable and might cause a pileup, like shutting down an entire flight lane for possibly months. Air travel works pretty well, although I've been avoiding it due to the security theater and the nuisance fees and the airline consolidation resulting in all sorts of unpleasantness. Ironically, the best time to fly was 2002-2005, when everyone else was afraid to fly: plenty of seats, low fares, crew happy that somebody found the courage to join them on the plane.