Oh yay! Tighter airport security

[____]

Dark, it's quicker and simpler to stack on more random security measures than to refine the ones currently present. Nobody would be able to do that this soon after the incident, so they chose option #1. Still, I agree with you on that. We should try finding quicker and more efficient methods of hazardous material detection than what we have now. The quicker and less invasive it is (from the passenger's perspective), the happier they'll be. The more thorough and detailed it is, the safer everyone will be. Whose to say we have to sacrifice one for the other? It's just a matter of ingenuity and resources. I think that the civilized world can come up with something if they work at it.

 

Yes it would take time. However if they want to do it correctly... add the extra security while they're reviewing how the breach occurred. When they have determined the contributing factors and taken steps to rectify them so the chance of it being repeated is reduced.. remove the band-aid security. There's only so much you can do in terms of safely before it becomes cost prohibitive and a major disruption to the workability of the airport facilities.

 

They just can't keep slapping band-aid solutions whenever something happens. There's a problem with their current setup.. and having more dogs, scanners, or guards isn't going to fix it if the problem is with say.. blacklisted persons still able to purchase tickets and board a plane. I mean, I could understand their desire to up the security presence.. but if it's applied to the wrong area it's money going down the drain. The extra recourses need to be allocated in the regions of any breech, otherwise the holes remain open for attempt #x at a later date.

 

Decisions by airports to just up security without thinking about where it needs to be applied just makes me facepalm whenever I read about it.

[jemathonical]

At any rate though this "Would you rather be dead" argument needs to stop. Stop pretending like these extra changes are actually going to save your life, ok?

 

So what is the point of the changes then? If it makes it harder for the terrorists to blow up a plane, then that's saving lives.

[Lionheart_0]

It's gonna get to the point where you are strapped into your seat, and you must be patted down and cavity searched every time you have to go to the washroom.

[i_love_burritos]

Why don't they use the skin-deep X-Ray scanners anymore?

 

What like the total body imaging ones ?

 

LAX used them last time I was there, 8 months ago.They are a relatively new addition though, only came about within the last year or so. Then there was that whole privacy debate etcetera.

[michel555555]

At any rate though this "Would you rather be dead" argument needs to stop. Stop pretending like these extra changes are actually going to save your life, ok?

 

So what is the point of the changes then? If it makes it harder for the terrorists to blow up a plane, then that's saving lives.

 

if someone wants to cause damage or take lives theres alot of easier ways then taking over or destroying a plane. for instance a small group of terrorists armed with automatic weapons boarding a pleasure cruise or ferry could cause alot of death but not have the threat of being shot out of the air by the us army.

 

If someone really wants to cause harm they will. i know of one way that will stop terrorist from attacking other countries.

 

Stop messing around with other peoples countries.

[Riku3220]

At any rate though this "Would you rather be dead" argument needs to stop. Stop pretending like these extra changes are actually going to save your life, ok?

 

So what is the point of the changes then? If it makes it harder for the terrorists to blow up a plane, then that's saving lives.

Making everyone sit in their seats with nothing out for the last hour isn't going to stop anyone from blowing up the plane. What's the stewardess going to do to a suicide bomber when he decides to get up? Scold him?

[Lenin64]

This is why i refuse to travel to the united states until someone who is actually sane starts running security.

This is why you should ride on boats. Safer, more reasonable, and you get to act like a pirate! Arrr...

And you might even get to see whales!

 

I'm going to make a metaphor here that I think will reach the majority of TIF; airport security is like a tower defense game. In most cases, it's better and more efficient to have less towers with better upgrades than tons and tons of towers without any improvements to them. Likewise, if you have truly thorough initial searches and some actually decent practices (such as checking to make sure everybody actually has a passport), you don't need the ridiculousness of having everybody seated for the last hour. I mean, come on, anybody who's going to blow up a plane isn't likely to follow the "no standing up" rules anyhow. And he may not even need to stand, so there's really no point to that.

[warri0r45]

 

Fine, more cheeseburger for me. Honestly, why is this such a terrible thing?

 

Because it's just unnecessary and makes flying that much more annoying. I know that a lot of guys on TIF would bend over backwards for that feeling that they are "protected" but come on, there is a limit you know.

 

Would you rather be dead, or slightly annoyed? Sue it's annoying, and eventually there will probably be a more efficient alternative, but until then this is nothing more than an inconvenience.

 

These extra measures aren't going to safe my life. It's statistically improbable that they will.

 

Really nothing is more annoying then thinking that anything in the name of security is fine. Yes, we do need security in the Airports. Yes, it would be good after this incident to have airports review their security standards and try and improve. However it is not ok to add on more rules that are going to do nothing in the way of stopping the real criminals.The one hour limit rule, for example. Sure this will stop an average joe from listening to his iPod or playing his DS but is someone who has somehow managed to sneak a bomb onto an airplane really going to listen to it? This rule means nothing because if someone is going to take out a dangerous device they are going to do it despite the rules.

 

 

Extra patting down just simply isn't necessary either. You already take off your shoes, everything out of your pockets and step through a metal detector (and some airports will now have you go through an x-ray type of machine now). There really isn't any reason for anything beyond these measures.

 

At any rate though this "Would you rather be dead" argument needs to stop. Stop pretending like these extra changes are actually going to save your life, ok?

 

You get my vote for post of the thread.

 

Really guys, it's not quite as black and white as "enact these measures or people will die"... as Nadril argued, they're not going to be that effective and there are better alternatives. I'm 100% for airport security, but there is a smart way to do it and a dumb way to do it.

[ember3579]

Dark, it's quicker and simpler to stack on more random security measures than to refine the ones currently present. Nobody would be able to do that this soon after the incident, so they chose option #1. Still, I agree with you on that. We should try finding quicker and more efficient methods of hazardous material detection than what we have now. The quicker and less invasive it is (from the passenger's perspective), the happier they'll be. The more thorough and detailed it is, the safer everyone will be. Whose to say we have to sacrifice one for the other? It's just a matter of ingenuity and resources. I think that the civilized world can come up with something if they work at it.

 

Yes it would take time. However if they want to do it correctly... add the extra security while they're reviewing how the breach occurred. When they have determined the contributing factors and taken steps to rectify them so the chance of it being repeated is reduced.. remove the band-aid security. There's only so much you can do in terms of safely before it becomes cost prohibitive and a major disruption to the workability of the airport facilities.

 

They just can't keep slapping band-aid solutions whenever something happens. There's a problem with their current setup.. and having more dogs, scanners, or guards isn't going to fix it if the problem is with say.. blacklisted persons still able to purchase tickets and board a plane. I mean, I could understand their desire to up the security presence.. but if it's applied to the wrong area it's money going down the drain. The extra recourses need to be allocated in the regions of any breech, otherwise the holes remain open for attempt #x at a later date.

 

Decisions by airports to just up security without thinking about where it needs to be applied just makes me facepalm whenever I read about it.

 

 

That, almost word for word, is exactly what I'm thinking. We need people who can actually think in more than cookie-cutter response in charge of security. Sadly, this takes time and money, and we haven't exactly got the best tools to train that yet. Still, it NEEDS to be done, and hopefully it will be before the next 9/11 slips through the cracks in the wall.

[Ouchy]

Apparently they turned off In-Flight entertainment on one flight because it had a map. Seriously? WTF?! That's over pedantic. I won't be flying to America any time soon now with all this, bull [cabbage].

[Wizz]

Reminds me of this

[dsavi]

^ Yeah I thought of that too when I saw this.

 

This is ridiculous. I'm all for security and everything but sooner or later "security" will be a violation of our freedoms at this rate.

 

Rick's post also gets my vote.

[Kaphias]

Answering to a few things on this page:

 

The man was on the security watch list, but not on the no-fly list. The fact that he was on the watch list should of put him through secondary screening, but it seems that didn't occur... at either airport (Nigeria or Amsterdam).

 

 

The only case where I can see the "no getting out of your seat for the last hour of the flight" rule working is:

-When the bomber has orders to blow up over American soil

-When the flight goes to a costal city (not flying over soil anytime before the last hour)

-When the bomber needs a water source/trip to the bathroom to explode the bomb.*

 

*Note that still doesn't make much sense, the person could simply fill a bottle of water earlier and then mix later.

 

 

One other thing: Mile for mile, flying is the safest way to fly.

 

Something else: From what I've read, the bomb in case case did not have enough power to actually blow apart the plane, but it would be enough to blast a hole in the side, therefore causing an explosive decompression, possibly ripping some people out of the plane or making the aircraft very hard to control. But it's not likely that the whole plane would of been blown apart.

[Barihawk]

The problem is not how much money we throw at our own airports, it's the security at the foreign airports that is the problem in this situation. They can't afford full size x-ray machines in Uganda, and Holland might not have the same standards of security as an American airport.

 

It really was a case of the security guys dropping the ball, but this is about all that can be done until something better is figured out.

[warren211]

Evidently they need to review their current procedures rather than slap on extra [cabbage] and leave the current problems laying around for the next guy to slip through.

 

What could they have done other than tightening security? They allow certain quantities of liquids, this guy manages to abuse that privelige to cause a fiery reaction. They perform "random" security checks (aka confronting every middle eastern man travelling alone or in a group of men, already resulting in a 1.5 million dollar lawsuit from a group of men wrongfully accused of terrorism and refused admittance from their flight). All they can do is tighten up security. As for the issue where the U.S Embassy ignored the father of the man in Nigeria, yea that's something we can improve on but that's hardly the fault of the airlines. They need to protect their business and reputation. If that means sacrificing comfort in return for saving lives, it's a choice they need to make for the safety of their passengers and their business.

[dsavi]

The problem is not how much money we throw at our own airports, it's the security at the foreign airports that is the problem in this situation. They can't afford full size x-ray machines in Uganda, and Holland might not have the same standards of security as an American airport.

I know you're using Holland to make a point and mean that not all airports have the same security standards as in America, but I must note that I have found Amsterdam Schiphol to have the highest security of any airport I've been to. (Except maybe for London Heathrow in 2002, when pairs of security guards walked around with guns across their back, if I had to guess what they were I would say M16s but I don't know anything about guns. Then there was someone that patted down people on the airbridge.) I mean, we went through security twice even after going through security at the airport before, then we couldn't exit the lounge connected to the airbridge. Then everyone that was going on the plane was interviewed.

[Howlin0001]

I'm glad. I don't want to die, and anything to make it less likely for my airplane to get blown up by an extremist whack job is fine by me.

Even cavity searches?

Well wouldn't you have to give them a good reason to get a cavity search?

`

[fakeitormakeit2]

Airport security is [developmentally delayed]ed. Tighter security is excessive and it just makes terrorists think of different means to get their products under the radar, so to speak. By making security tighter it uses more funds, wastes more time, makes those wanting to conduct terrorist acts act more cunningly and its just a pain.

 

Airport security is also pretty racist. I am middle eastern Christian and I am part of a sect that prays in Aramaic, which looks kind of similar to Arabic. They searched my bag and found my prayers and then I got taken aside and had my stuff more thoroughly searched -.-... By doing actions such as that, it not only loses business but it creates more resentment against the United States.

[Kaphias]

The problem is not how much money we throw at our own airports, it's the security at the foreign airports that is the problem in this situation. They can't afford full size x-ray machines in Uganda, and Holland might not have the same standards of security as an American airport.

I know you're using Holland to make a point and mean that not all airports have the same security standards as in America, but I must note that I have found Amsterdam Schiphol to have the highest security of any airport I've been to.

I've never been through Schiphol myself, but from what I've heard, it has very good security, as dsavi said.

 

Just in the news: The extra travel restrictions (last hour of flight, blankets, etc.) have just been removed.

[warri0r45]

Airport security is also pretty racist. I am middle eastern Christian and I am part of a sect that prays in Aramaic, which looks kind of similar to Arabic. They searched my bag and found my prayers and then I got taken aside and had my stuff more thoroughly searched -.-... By doing actions such as that, it not only loses business but it creates more resentment against the United States.

 

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Either you're unlucky enough to be searched (if they do random searches) or you're part of a racial profile that the airport security follows. Even in the second case, it doesn't necessarily mean they're picking on you because they think you're inferior - they just think you're statistically more likely to be a terrorist. It's unfortunate it has to be this way, but they're not exactly picking on you for no reason.

[fakeitormakeit2]

To target a specific race due to the conception of "high chance of terrorism" is in itself racism. It's like saying because the majority of Fascists were European that you must assume all old European people are Fascists.

[Giordano]

Which can happen by a non-terrorist drunk driver too. We should not allow cars anymore.

[Giordano]

No, we should crack down and make tighter regulations regarding drunk driving. That's what we're doing with airports.

That's the thing. How? Are the cops going to follow us every time we drink alcohol? It's simply not possible for them to know when and where we do anything.

[1230abcz]

The 1 hour thing is a good idea, but the bathroom regulations could turn out to be a problem... Last thing I want is an old man next to me to die from a ruptured bladder/extreme loss of bowel control. The extra patting down and thorough checking is temporary. Leave it to humans to not give a damn after about 2 weeks of a semi-catastrophic event <-- Note, I'm human.

[RSBDavid]

Instead of putting money into American airport security, maybe they should invest into other nation's airport security.