|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > March 2002 > Airline security
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Webmaster 2001-09-14, 7:51 am |
| If you were in charge of Airline security, what changes would you make to make the airlines 100% safe from attacks?
I am sure some of you have been thinking about it and have some ideas. | |
| exar07 2001-09-14, 7:57 am |
| 1. NO more carry ons! Only diapers and Baby needs!
NO MORE laptops, radios, NOTHING!!!!
2. Cockpits are locked down tight! | |
| ace123 2001-09-14, 8:13 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by exar07
1. NO more carry ons! Only diapers and Baby needs!
NO MORE laptops, radios, NOTHING!!!!
2. Cockpits are locked down tight!
I hate to say it but I agree  . It's a shame that it may come to that | |
| Webmaster 2001-09-14, 8:32 am |
| This is what bothers me: In New York's taxi cab a bullet-proof glass separates the driver from the passengers and passenger cannot gain access to driver's seat during the ride. Yet, on the airplane the pilot comes out to the passanger's area during the flight and it is possible to gain access to the cocpit.
I think the cocpit should be sealed diring the flight, separate bathroom, kitchen and rest area provided in the cocpit but there should be absolutely no way for a pilot to open the cocpit door during the flight no matter what happens. | |
|
|
| Bobby Digital 2001-09-14, 8:44 am |
| I strongly agree with you Webmaster. The cockpit area should be separate and sealed from the rest of the plane. Plus, make sure that it is bulletproof and not that fiber-glass crap that they use now. The door can only be opened from the inside by a pilot. Flight attendants would not even have access.
I also hate to say it, but there needs to be an armed US Marshal or airline security on-board like in the 70s and 80s. "Passenger 57".
Deepest thoughts and sympathy to all
BD | |
| Webmaster 2001-09-14, 8:54 am |
| My idea is that the once the door is sealed, it cannot be opened even by the pilot from the inside. Otherwise the pilot can be forced to open it by threatening to execute hostages. When terrorists know that the door is sealed and cannot be opened even by the pilot, then they will not even try to blackmail pilots into opening it. Another idea would be to have separate doors on the outside of the airplane to enter the cocpit and there would be NO doors between cocpit and passanger area on the inside. | |
| ccieToBe 2001-09-14, 8:55 am |
| I like Webmaster's idea. Also require the pilot and co-pilot to carry concealed guns and increase the number of air marshals. | |
| Gundyman 2001-09-14, 9:05 am |
| I agree.
No carry on,
Bullet and C4 Proof Door,
Port Authority need to re-organized their security issue.
US custom need to do a better screening..
many issues, need to improve.
I think the airport security is very loose.. | |
| Webmaster 2001-09-14, 9:10 am |
| Air marshalls should fly just like they used to.
Radom strip search of passengers should be allowed on all flights. It is allowed when you entering the country, so it should not be a problem to allow it on domestic flights.
If the cocpit is sealed then pilots don't need guns. | |
| Drummer 2001-09-14, 10:24 am |
| You may scoff, but India has the tightest security I've seen since the hijacking there last year.
First, before you check in you have your checked luggage x-rayed. This is before you even walk up to the counter mind you. Then you sit in a waiting area but still not your gate. Then you go through screening which involves metal detectors and a pat down search. During that time they also open up your carry ons and check out everything. I had my Dad's camera with me on one leg and I had to take a picture of the guy before he'd believe it was an actual camera. Then you wait in the area near your gate. During this time you have to go outside and identify your bags. You literally have to go out, point out your bags and say, "Yep, that's mine." If you don't, they won't put it/them on the plane. Just when you think you've been poked and prodded enough, they do one more frisk as you are walking to the plane for good measure. Keep in mind that you've just been in a holding area since the last patdown but they don't care.
Basically they do everything short of an anal probe but they might be thinking of that now given these latest hijackings. | |
| Joe Blacke 2001-09-14, 12:42 pm |
| hmmmmmmmmmm.
I don't agree with sealing the pilots/crew in their own compartment.
Firstly. What happens if the plane skids off the runway and into the river/ocean/lake? It would make it harder for the pilots/crew to exit.
Secondly, just because the cockpit is inacessible doesn't mean that a terrorist can't controll the plane. If you are a pilot, and hostages are being killed right and left, would you ALWAYS refuse to do what the hijackers want? Always? I don't think so. If a hijacker wants the plane to divert, he only needs to kill enough people before the crew will eventually comply. Human beings are not evil by nature, and it is simply too much to bear on the human psyche.
The problem with this thesis is that there is no way to make the planes 100% secure. It simply can't happen. We can tighten security, impose flight restrictions, screen passengers/employees, but we cannot close every loophole. I, personally, have been able to defeat airport security without any problem. That was part of my job. Just yesterday, 3 airline pilots carried knives, and corkscrews past security checkpoints. YESTERDAY. Even after this tragic incident, and the increase in security. They did it to prove a point.
We can work on developing better intellegence techniques, place the proper people at the security checkpoints, train flight crews/employees, strip search passengers (you can guarentee that will NEVER last), and do a host of other things, but it won't make eliminate the problem entirely.
There will always be a risk when you fly. Heck there is a risk when you drive, that you might be carjacked. You have to weigh and balance the pro's and con's. If you don't want to be hijacked, then don't fly.
I look at things from a different point of view. Probably because of my past training and experience. However, I know that deep down I could never allow myself to become victimized. I very well may die trying, but I will fight god damnit. Nobody will controll my fate but me. If you try to take over a plane, bus, car, or train that I'm on, I will take you apart. In my eyes, you have just given up your right to exist. I will not fail, it is not in my nature. I have no problem being as brutal, gruesome, or simply barberic as necessary to win. Make no mistake, I will win at all costs. Even my own life.
Now let me ask you this: do you think that a group of terrorists would try to take over a plane if they knew that there were 5, 10, 20 or an entire planeload of people that would fight them without hesitation and without concern for their own wellbeing? | |
| dmaftei 2001-09-14, 12:55 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blacke
Secondly, just because the cockpit is inacessible doesn't mean that a terrorist can't controll the plane. If you are a pilot, and hostages are being killed right and left, would you ALWAYS refuse to do what the hijackers want? Always? I don't think so. If a hijacker wants the plane to divert, he only needs to kill enough people before the crew will eventually comply. Human beings are not evil by nature, and it is simply too much to bear on the human psyche.
You would probably do MOST of what the hijackers want, like flying to Aruba, or landing on Lake Michigan, but you would NOT crash the plane into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Forbiding ALL access to the cockpit -- even if that means sealing the cockpit -- is a good idea. | |
| Bobby Digital 2001-09-14, 5:21 pm |
| A good friend of mine is a commercial pilot and he says that they are trained (or supposed to be) not to surrender a plane no matter what. They will fly where ever the hijackers want to go for the sake of the passengers, but not give up the plane. Why? Because of what happen Tuesday. That's why they believe that the pilots were already dead when the terrorists gained control.
As far as the gun thing goes, I am sorta against it because between a surprised pilot and/or flight attendant, using a gun against a hijacker without hitting an innocent passenger would be a tasks for some. Remember, hijackers or terrorists don't care who they shoot. A taser or stun gun would be a better option if a armed marshall is not onboard.
As far a stricter guidelines at the airport, I am all for it 101%. I value life over inconvenience anytime. It is just going to take time for Americans to adjust.
BD | |
| FreddyFlyer 2001-09-14, 5:58 pm |
| Maybe some of our Israeli friends can contribute here. El Al is one of the most secure airlines. However, the customer pays for that security. You have to show up hours before and are put through many security screens.
I have traveled internationally and our system is a wimp compare to other countries. You don't show up in the last 20 minutes and expect to get on board. | |
| Gundyman 2001-09-14, 9:01 pm |
| A Captain on a airplane just like Captain on the ship. No matter what, they will never give up their duty. No the ship go down, (S)he will be the last one to get out or go down with it...
SOP and guidelines need to follow..
The cockpit door need to re-design and build it much stronger. Even the terrorist is killing everyone in the plane. If you are the pilot and them can't get to you. As long as you land that plane. They only kill the people in the plane. No the everybody around the plan. ... | |
| 2beCCIE 2001-09-18, 7:35 am |
| Here's why they should quit whining. They will get no sympathy from most people:
1. Hiring lowest bid security personnel that can't get jobs at McDonalds
2. Price gouging during peak travel seasons
3. Crappy service
4. Lost luggage
NO security aboard aircraft including:
1. no panic buttons from passenger cabin
2. no viable weapons for crew
3. crappy hostage-related training for pilots and crew
4. no close circuit cameras allowing pilots to view passenger cabin
5. Much heavier doors
6. Alcohol consumption by morons
All these suggestions have been recommended by a number of FAA and private sector experts and the airlines have ignored.
Hat's off to the FAA for allowing the crappy security and violations to continue at all major US airports. What good is fining Logan International 4.7 gazillion dollars if they STILL SUCK. What a joke!!
My recommendations overall
1. Air marshalls
2. Guns in the cockpit
3. Stun guns a plenty by flight attendents and a willingness to use them
4. Hang the FAA director for being a disgrace
5. Fire the CIA director
In closing
Several terrorist issues have gone unanswered by Clinton.
World trade number one
U.S. embasies
USS Cole
UN weapons inspectors in Iraq fiasco
HE is the reason we are now in this mess
Do you honestly think Reagan or Bush I would have tolerated that crap. Terrorists would have been roasted. In those days The US was a force to be reconed with. But in the era of touchy feely and individual rights regardless to the damage to the collective group and understanding how people feel the most important thing and last but not least Monica, the US is a joke in the international community.
We should take this time to remind the world that the US does indeed STILL KICK BUTT!!!!
Just my opinion for what it is worth!! | |
|
| The airport security do pay very little, my friend is working on JFK.
We all know how local govn't work. If thing don't happen, they don't care and do anything. Now it time to push the safety issue. | |
| Drummer 2001-09-18, 11:41 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by 2beCCIE
In closing
Several terrorist issues have gone unanswered by Clinton.
World trade number one
U.S. embasies
USS Cole
UN weapons inspectors in Iraq fiasco
HE is the reason we are now in this mess
I hate how everything on every message board has to turn into a Clinton bashing session.
Didn't we catch at least some of those guys responsible for the first WTC bombing and prosecute them? I wouldn't call that leaving it unanswered.
We launched several cruise missiles at Bin Laden's supposed headquarters after the embassies and blew up whatever tents they had I guess. Bad aim? Perhaps, but not leaving it "unanswered".
The Cole was wrong to be in Yemen anyway. That was a Navy screwup, IMO. I'll admit I can't think of a response to that one.
We forced the issue with the UN inspectors and they finally let the inspectors investigate. Again, how is that leaving it unanswered?
quote:
Do you honestly think Reagan or Bush I would have tolerated that crap. Terrorists would have been roasted.
What did Reagan do? He launched a bunch of cruise missiles at Khadafi. Clinton did about the same. Sounds like the military under Reagan just had better aim.
I agree with you on the failures of the FAA though. | |
| dward 2002-03-18, 10:35 am |
| I agree with FreddyFlyer in that our security system is nothing compared to what you find at international cities.
I just got out of the airline industry after over 24 years, and I could tell you some things about airline/airport security.....
Yes, the whole system needs revamped from the ground up, but I think the airlines have a major role in this, and it's not going to change until the financial bleeding stops in the airline industry. | |
| wbafrank 2002-03-18, 11:18 am |
| Just one point:
The main reason things like this happen is that a lot of people always think "it'll never happen to me/here." With this attitude this is always a recipe for disaster!! | |
| The VMS Kid 2002-03-18, 11:54 am |
| True enough, but it is kind of hard to "always be on your guard" as it were. | |
| Psydefx 2002-03-18, 4:51 pm |
| All should be left as it was. The more changes we make, the more the terrorists win. There are no guarantees in life, only the opportunity to live and act/react.
The truth of the matter is that we have too much "security". I say that because it is not managed, and it is bottom of the barrel. The other, and possible more prudent reason is that it's in the wrong place. Security is needed on the plane, not in the airports.
The bottom line is that we don't need any more security because now we know that the rules have changed. There won't be any people expecting to be held for ransom if they are taken hostage on a plane, and the bottom line is that if there are 50 people, it's damned likely that 1 or 2 or more will be like a cornered cat and scratch like hell not to be a part of a bigger catastrophe. I sincerely wish people would apply common sense instead of emotional and politically correct opinion to their habits... act instead of react so it looks good.
Cheers! | |
| wbafrank 2002-03-18, 4:59 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Psydefx
Security is needed on the plane, not in the airports.
Does this mean you would let armed terrorists get on the plane and deal with the situation in the air - I'm sorry but what planet are you on!! | |
| Psydefx 2002-03-18, 5:14 pm |
| The threat on the ground was taken care of by the measures that were in place before 911. The "weapon" that was used was a box cutter. If that's what you mean, then yes, because it's a little rediculous to take away toe nail clippers. If you're talking about an M-10 or an Uzi, no, I don't believe that those should be allowed on the plane, but they weren't used in the incident, so please forgive me if I think that cavity searches are a bit extreme.
1. The x-ray machines will stop or deter most incidents that involve weapons of mass destruction.
2. The security that is and was in place is questionable because no one wants to pay for it.
3. Better to pay for quality in two places than crap all over the place.
Sorry if I come from a different planet. I am not under the illusion that everyone should agree with me, but let's take things in context and discuss reasonably... I didn't say that I thought anyone should be able to board a plane with a gun (implied). | |
| wbafrank 2002-03-18, 6:02 pm |
|  Maybe I did jump the "gun" a bit on this one.
Security should start as soon as a passenger walks through the terminal doors:
1. Bags searched (X-Ray/hand search) prohibited items retrieved then book in.
2. Once booked in passengers have passport checks body search (metal detector/frisk).
Passengers then moved into a departure lounge - no wandering round the airport.
3. Get on the plane and take off and arrive safely.
If you cut out the source at ground level, which maybe inconvenient to some people, then people will not be worried about things like this.
Someone mentioned that India had strict codes of practice, so if a Country (which is classed a third world Country) can do it with the small financial resources they have I am sure a Country like America would find this a drop in the ocean to implement. | |
| Psydefx 2002-03-18, 6:13 pm |
| People's time doesn't cost as much in India, and people don't have as many rights in India.
Plane travel is used by most as an expedient way to transact business. It takes me approx 10.5 hours to drive to Atlanta. If the security at the airports take me an extra 2.5 hours, and I have two stopovers on my way to Atlanta, there's very little difference, and a one day turn around is no longer feasible or cost effective. I will likely travel less by plane if I am wasting time in lines.
Most of the people in favor of the new security are people who do not travel often. It is born of ignorance. EVERY PERSON THAT I KNOW THAT TRAVELS AN AVERAGE OF ONCE A WEEK OR MORE DISAGREES WITH THE NEW SECURITY MEASURES. This is because they see what the people are doing while they are "checking your bags", usually gabbing, and to boot, the airlines have people untrained in security doing the job.
It is also because they know that if they happen to be on a flight that something happens, they have already decided what their reaction will be. | |
| wbafrank 2002-03-18, 6:25 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Psydefx
This is because they see what the people are doing while they are "checking your bags", usually gabbing, and to boot, the airlines have people untrained in security doing the job.
As I said, start at ground level - train these people properly (including pay), the better the training the better the individual will be at his/her job. | |
| Psydefx 2002-03-18, 6:32 pm |
| Who will pay for it, higher taxes or higher airfares?
Bottom line, either everyone pays, or people who use the service the most will pay, and it's more likely the latter. Besides which, they'll never make it a rule to be a certified police officer in order to stand at one of those stations, and that's what it should take. Anything shy and you'll have 50% gung ho, and 50% well, lets say not as gung ho. | |
| wbafrank 2002-03-18, 6:45 pm |
| If it saves peoples lives at the end of the day cost should not be an issue. You either pay for it and things change for the better or you leave it as it is and hope it does not happen again. At the end of the day if people don't think that the service they are getting is safe no one will use this mode of transport. This in turn will be more job losses, and more people on welfare (I think that's what you call it) and who pays for this - correct me if I am wrong but the taxpayer? If this is so, wouldn't it be better spent on training? At least you would know it was being spent on something worthwhile. | |
| Psydefx 2002-03-18, 6:52 pm |
| I think on this point I'll agree to disagree. I see you have some very good ideas, and I respect that. I see more money going out the window, more taxes being wasted, and where will it end up? Along with a lot of other good intentions, in an administrators pocket without results (except for wasting the people who produce money's time). It's a long conversation, but the bottom line is that Stalin's rule and following took 70 years to overthrow, but those who rule by fear will always be overthrown, and overthrown it was. | |
| Johnny5Alive 2002-03-19, 6:59 am |
| on X-Rays and personal searches for sure. No access between cockpit/cabin, but as for carry-on...hmmm, have any of you taken a flight from New Zealand to Helsinki?? 28hours flying time not including refuel stops. It would drive me insane not to have my own entertainment. Security need to include having these items aboard but better checks on the equipment itself. | |
| bearing 2002-03-19, 10:43 am |
| The Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were meant to show the U.S. that it was not indestructable, the most 'explosive' way to do this was to hit high profile buildings with maximum damage. The weapons used i.e. aircraft, served their purpose that time, they may or may not be used again, the main thing to remember is that it is not worth worrying about.
There have been thousands of flights started and completed since that terrible day, I have been on some of them, and to be honest, the chance that the plane may be hijacked and crashed into a building was the last thing on my mind, the plane crashing due to mechanical faults would concern me more(not that it does).
Getting on with our lives as though nothing has happened is a great way of showing those responsible that we are stronger than they. |
|
|
|
|