Better Safe Than Sorry Airport Security

Well, at least one reason for the change in security is due to this: TSA Failure Rate

The problem seems to be a very low rate of detection of contraband material. Homeland Security routinely tests TSA screeners around the country to determine the effectiveness of the system. These reports are kept classified and apparently for good reason. Leaks reveal that most contraband goes undetected.

Here is a list of some failures:

2007 Audit in LA simulated bomb components slipped through 50 out 70 times.

Chicago's O'Hare airport 45 out of 75 times.

Liquid Bomb Tests undetected 19 out of 19 times.

2006 Incendiary devices and bomb detonators got through 21 out of 21 times.

2006 Audit at Newark failed to detect bombs 20 out of 22 times.

These are some of the bad examples and these are only what was leaked out. We are not privy to everything, good or bad.

Nevertheless, when these reports reached a boiling point the administration decided to take things seriously and added the infamous pat-downs and scanners we have today.

Security is a big problem. 1.5 million travelers fly every day and screening every one of them is problematic. TSA agents get bored, burned out, are understaffed, underpaid, undertrained, and poop happens when you stir it all together.

There just isn't a good solution to the problem and the administration is worried about two things:

1. Keeping their reputation clean. Another attack would kill them in the next election. Heads would roll.

2. Keeping Americans safe. Nobody wants another tragedy.

Sometimes it is not clear which one has priority.

I don't know how to make the system better and brighter minds have been working on the problem for a long time. Here was a short-list of suggestions I posted awhile back.

1. Improve the performance of the No-Fly and TSA Watch Lists. Both systems suffer from extreme disconnect and a lack of prompt updates. The system also suffers from the lack of dynamic control needed to clear out individuals that are clearly not threats to the public. This lack of ability to clear names that are not threats bogs down the system and makes the watch lists less potent as a weapon to stop potential threats. More effort needs to be applied to make the lists a viable conduit to provide timely and accurate intel to the airlines and the screening agencies. Expanding the type of data and the number of attributes would also help prevent false positives.

2. The source for the intel that drives the watch and no-fly lists needs improvement. Many times we have seen that data that could have been essential in stopping a threat has been lost or simply ignored. In such cases acting on that data is of relatively low cost. For instance, placing a suspect on a watch list based on intel gathered by CIA, NSA, or other intelligence agencies has a relatively low fallout and cost. A better pipeline for that data would be a huge help as would greater agency-to-agency communication, which is still inadequate.

3. It has been stated that other nations have had good success with other methods of screening. El Air has demonstrated a remarkable record in passenger safety. The questions are, what are other nations doing, what are the nature of their threats, what are the costs, and how effective has the process been? Lastly, how invasive have those measures been to the public?

4. Continue to increase the amount and rate of interdiction of terrorist training centers and the funding that drives them. Tightening the screws on the terrorist factories has proven to be a very effective mechanism to stem the tide of EID attacks. As I pointed out, not only does it require an advanced level of training to make effective IEDs, but you also need individuals that have no past records that would raise a red flag when they enter a foreign countries. This requires individuals that are reasonably well educated, familiar with the culture of the target country so that they can blend in, and dedicated to a cause. The training is expensive and few recruits make the grade. Most get basic firearm training and some hand-to-hand combat training. Of those recruits only a handful qualify for additional advanced training. Since the numbers of advanced trained men are low, these members are a valuable asset and not one that you would simply throw away in a simple suicide attack.

There is simply no magic wand for the security problem. It's an impossible job to get 100% right and even impossible to get 50% right at times. Other nations have been living with these dangers for generations. It has only begun to reach our doors in the last decade. To some degree we will just have to learn how to accept what others live with day in and day out.

2007 Audit in LA simulated bomb components slipped through 50 out 70 times.

As I recall from when that information was first released the stuff that was not detected was all designed to be easily detectable by existing security measures. For example auditors placed a block of cheese with a wire in it into a carry-on bag. The cheese and wire showed up plainly on the Xray, but were simply not noted by the human operator.

So now we have an operator who is looking at detailed renderings of women's breasts (among other things) in every other picture that is supposed to stay focused enough to notice a block of cheese stuffed tightly into my underwear?

Personally, it is my opinion that the reason these things have been adopted is because the company that designed them paid a lobbyist to sell them to airports whether they are needed or not.

We have humans charged with detecting scenarios or items machines are fully capable of. this system is too riddled with ineptness to salvage. Let's hire those whom understand this business.

Hmm, this seems to imply negligence on the part of TSA screener, maybe prosecution for dereliction at a minimum, at most corruption (since they like to claim to be law enforcement, prosecute them just like you would a derelict or corrupt police officer). I am sure that a few high profile TSA prosecutions for such would improve performance. If i was derelict at my job and a building fell down I would go to prison, a TSA officer earn more than a professional engineer who is a designer (not a marketer obviously). Someone gets on a Plane with contrband, identify the TSA officer and send him to prison. the guys who worked next to him would probably quit or do a better job in the future, if they thought there were any consequences directly to them for their inactions.

GA for these sentences, they say it all:

"Bu*****t. Most passengers by now are aware that the airport security systems are bogus. They tolerate them because they don't have any reasonable options."

Ditto! The biggest problem with govt programs and agencies are govt!

Most U.S. airline passengers wouldn't know tyranny if it grabbed them by their junk.

It is not security for all the reasons aforementioned, it is security theater.

The results of a pat-down (or feel-up) search might vary most with the pulchritude of the searcher. (Would that be a , a , a , or what?)

Full-body scans do not provide security, but they do provide humiliation and x-ray exposure. And anybody who has the temerity to object to them is also subjected to threats and intimidation. All this, amusingly enough, in the name of fighting terrorism. It is in fact a victory for the terrorists.

This seems like it's becoming a weekly topic - like in the hope if it's asked enough you will get a different set of answers?

I don't travel so I really don't have any idea what goes on at the airports in the US or abroad.

But European countries have been dealing with the terrorist threat for much longer than we have. What methods do they use over there?

Are they any more effective than what we use in the US? They don't seem to have people hijacking airlines in Europe as much as they used to in the 70's & 80's. So they must be doing something right.

Are there security personnel more, alert better trained, better paid?

Hi another Guest,

First, all around the world all destination to United States must follow the same control system as in the US.

I approve that combination of machines, human actions, psychology, and other systems are efficient to a certain limit. It can be established what's the % failure in each category and act on them to improve them to close to perfect.

For example, Motorola fails 4 on one billion products by "six sigma" quality control system. What's the number of passangers in a year per airports? If they use the "six sigma" system, what will be the result? How many passangers we get in one single airport? A few millions? The failure rate with "six sigma" fall to "ZERO", isn't it?

I am really surprised to hear that in Houston, one man told that he carries through the control into the airplane a fully loaded revolver in his package. It's a real problem and never should happened in the States.

You mention that: "The countries that are serious about security do it in a fundamentally different way." I understand that Americans are not serious about it or they don't want to try another methods than told by some "no statisticians". This is a big problem as in many other areas of life, business, and relationships.

Best wishes for the upcoming Holidays, Gil.

Gil,

Your point was a bit unclear, but I think you are saying we should use six sigma controls to improve security. I both agree and disagree.

Six sigma or related statistical measures are great if you have a model of reliability. I have done some work on this in the past, and believe me it is not intuitive. For example, in the manufacturing environment, what constitutes scrap? Now, what is scrap in the IT environment? See the problem? In addition, Six Sigma is counter productive in an environment like the TSA where failure rate is near 100%. Quite simply, nothing you say in your report is going to be happy, and people will crap on YOU for saying it. This is not theoretical, trust me.

Having said that, if the TSA were headed by competant managers rather than political cronies, six sigma-type methods could be used to identify problem areas and improve them. But that would reduce the need for massive departmental budgets....

The failure rate is so abysmal that Six-Sigma tools are worthless.

Look up the many articles on how the TSA has less than a 50% success rate at detecting test bomb materials and other contraband purposely brought in to test screeners.

As a Six-Sigma certified engineer I would not even bother with any statistical analysis of any system that had a failure rate worse than 50%. It's a worthless endeavor. The problems are so obvious what good does a microscope do?

Wouldn't the fact that he was a saudi arabian be irrelevent and comprise racial profiling? What if he was columbian, or french. Didn't some english/swedish national just blow himself up for allah in sweden? More terrorist acts in the US are committed by caucasian men than any other group, unless you extend terrorism to criminal organizations such as the mexican or african american gangs. So if TSA is looking for the most likely terorist, shouldn't they really be looking at a middle aged white man espoucing stuff about liberties being violated and our personal freedoms. Afterall wouldn't he be more likely to load a truck up with fertilizer and deisel from the compound and drive to a IRS building or something. Also, don't they plant bombs on children in palestine and in the past in vietnam. In addition, I am not so concerned about who is going outbound to israel, that is their problem to deal with not the US, I am more concerned about who is coming in on those flights from Israel or Egypt (or well even Sweden, Holland or England if you really think about it).

You say most terror attacks are committed by caucasian men. Please provide sources, because I believe your stats are wrong. Many stats are "massaged" by media outlets with an ideological axe to grind.

Frankly, the lone gunmen types are not generally terrorists. They are disturbed and/or evil, but they are not using terror to support a political or social agenda.

I agree that racial profiling by itself is not useful, but I also detect (maybe my imagination) a streak of political correctness in your post. Racial profiling is a small component of profiling individuals to detect crimes. I have even read that the simple question "Are you a terrorist?" is extremely effective in smoking out bad guys.

And let's not get started on the French!!!

Actually it was that most terrorist attacks in the US are committed by caucasian men. Not most terrorist attacks. A lone bomber like the guy in sweden the other day was still a terrorist. If they have a political position and are using fear to receive public attention for their political position, they would be terrorist. Before 9-11 the biggest terrorist event in the US was in Oklahoma by 2 white men mad about the US. One of the biggest terrorist incidents in US was in a pretext to the Civil War at Harpers Ferry, another group of white men. And lets not forget PETA, that guy in the cabin with his mail bombs, or those guys driving spikes into trees that pose a seriously high risk to harvesters. The last guy I saw arrested for a terrorist plot was a red-haired caucasian guy who converted to islam in Prison. I think if you look at Palestine you realize theat most terrorists are lone gunmen local to the environment with an axe to grind against the government who may have received some covert directions (sometimes very obscure) about how to proceed or just thought they had some support of an organization. I wonder what David Koresh had in mind with all those weapons, obviously his cult was scaring the local neighbors and preparing to kill someone. Oh then there are those crazy rajneeshees who were poisoning with salmonella people en masse through restaurants in Oregon to manipulate voting outcomes, of course some of those were caucasian women and a oriental women as well as men.

The "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act" was an amendment that languished for many years "untouched", till in the "Terrorist panic" days of the early years of this 21st millennia in the USA.....that gives it little credence.

See here for details:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_True_Patriot_Act

Ben Franklin died in 1790, what would the great man have known about air travel and terrorists of the order we have today?......NOTHING!! Nor modern technolog, plastic guns and explosives......a bomb in his time was huge and difficult to conceal.....

Bringing such "stock" phrases out today does next NOTHING to help the USA (or any other country!) in the 21st Century.......

In my personal opinion, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the problems of terrorist warfare as fought today.....or better said, people still rely on the thoughts of great men over 200 years dead!!!

With maths, physics and other such subjects we can do that, but not with war or terrorism.

I would expect a politician to lay great weight in such quotes, not normally intelligent people!!

To fight any modern war needs modern weapons, tactics and thinking....only being one or more steps ahead will we keep this problem to a minimum, notice I did not say "fix"!!

Many people are scheduled to die from terrorists in the future, we need to be very, very alert to keep this to a minimum.....I try not to be one of the ones killed or maimed by not flying as much, this helps of course but is not a panacea either....

Wouldn't it be great to have two seperate flights everywhere, one for people who want maximum security and one for those who DON'T want security, I wonder which one would MOST LIKELY get blown up first????

Which one would we all(?) choose?

However, even prior to Ben Franklin you could kill 10,000s of people in with extreme brutality having only a few 100 militia, and cause a huge amount more fear amongst people than you see currently. One man could terrorize the entire City of London and much of England by killing a few prostitutes with extreme brutality. Large amassed groups of people in closer proximity tend to feel safer. Most people before 9/11 could not imagine someone could capture and control a airliner with a few knives, people just assume that with that many people on board the large grouping of people would fight back (guns on the other hand). In Ben Franklin's day he probably had a much better understanding of terror than most modern 1st world citizen. In his day you look funny at the wrong guy, noble, priest, noblewoman, etc. and you could be torn apart by horses, burned alive, and/or cut open while alive, legally. Terror as a means to controlling people was a standard practice in his time. And you didn't need a bomb to cause extreme terror and cause fear amongst the masses. Just the threat of being accused of being associated with the wrong nobility for a period in France cause mass Terror.

Actually a bomb today causes less terror than a smart serial killer with a hunting knife, people stealing body part from the living, or cannabalism. Terrorist are a distant amorphous threat even now, but serial killers, rapists and such those happen in every neighborhood quite frequently.

Technologies advance they always have, the threat become more common and we we grow accustomed to them and complacent.

ga, but the intelligent wa is called profiling

Well put my fellow Scotch Drinker......

Anyone who has travelled to the USA via any of the English airports or Frankfurt in Germany for example, knows what REAL and effective security is!!!! Which is why the bombs now get put on aircraft in the middle east !!

The OP does not appear to have travelled to the USA FROM Europe, or he would not have posted in the way he did.......again a US citizen that believes the US ALWAYS does it better, sorry WRONG!!! Try SELDOM!

I feel, as apparently you do too, that the Europeans have been at this longer than the USA and have a few good tricks up their sleeves.....

The US is general, up till relatively recently, more interested in catching "illegals" at the border than catching terrorists.....and then sometimes giving the terrorists flight training before sending them on their way.......How embarrassing!!!

So, share with us--how do they do it in England and Germany?

May I suggest that you test it first hand.....it may surprise you (assuming you have not actually done it already...!)

I am sure that there are enough international travellers already here on CR4......they could also chime in please....

I have flown both ways over the Atlantic many times over the last 35 years or so, sometimes 4 times in a year.....I have seen the changes as they built up before and after 9/11....9/11 was just the "Wakeup" for the USA......when everyone else was already awake......

The UK has had problems with IRA terrorists for many, many years, that apart from a strong Irish accent, look just like anyone else.....

They managed to bomb London well before any Jihad started there.......

I had a friend many years ago that was a "watcher" at the "Sidney Street Siege" of 1911. There is a good link here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Street_Siege

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_Outrage

I am sure that this was not the first either!! By the way, read "Terrorist" for "politically-motivated gang of burglars".......

Oh terrorist in the US aren't that unusual either, we had irish immigrants under the direction of local political interests utilizing them to terrorize and control local residence, voting, etc. in the Eastern cities back into the 1830s (something similar in SF in the 1850s, though not specifically irish). There were groups in the 1960's and 1970s blowing up public facilities and killing people that were politically motivated and making a statement agaisnt the War in Vietnam or a statement for/against equal rights. The KKK has been around since right after the Civil War, and they used terror to make political statements, manipulate politics or for political gains. The difference is that these most recent occurrences are not americans, they look and behave much differently, and their basis is tethered to a religion more than a politically basis (even though it is still more of an underlying poltical issue, and the irish in the 1800s did suffer typically more of an underlying a religious bias).There was a time in NYC (or even new mexico) when any irishman could be the enemy. Matter of fact the US army had to eventually put down an attemopt by the irish to invade and take over Canada. Over time even the irish extremist came to be more americanized an less irish to the point where they no longer could behave in quite that same manner for those same motivators and beliefs. Many zionists in the early 1900s were similar, and actually the first practitioners of terrorism in the middle east was coined for jewish attacks on the british.

Under our currently more politically correct baby boomer generation, which has been trying for year to recreate society to have the superficial appearance of not only being blind to race, ethnicity and sex but actually creating statistical equality through biasing thing to favor those who suffered perceive oppressions because they may be statistically underperforming, they have no concept or experience with foreign aggression in terms like these (they grew up only knowing the Russians as the enemy). The utopian idea is that if you favor the underperforming to offset any lacks there will be peace, but in turn, it just means the next underperforming group also wants favoritisms to allow them to progress more easily, and then the next and so forth. At some point if the favoritism is not sufficient and they lack the perceived control to make them feel their worth has been offset enough to bring them back in line with their performance, they get violent. Give $100 M to Israel, then you must give an amount to Egypt close to what Egypt their own perceived worth in relation what they to percieve you gave to Israel, else they feel unfairly oppressed and threatened in their position. Same with underperforming individuals. We keep giving everyone fish, and they expect more, worse yet now their neighbors are jealous and expect they should also be given fish, rather than us expecting any of them to actually go out fishing themselves.

You missed out China

you wrote: "May I suggest that you test it first hand.....it may surprise you (assuming you have not actually done it already...!)"

The last time I traveled overseas was probably 20 years ago. Frankfurt was a treat with their machine gun carrying guards. At some airports, we had to stand outside the plane and pick out our luggage--only the luggage that someone who was going to board the plane was willing to claim ownership for was loaded.

Aside from the typical passport control / inspection for international flights, I can't recall anything else. (Austria, France, and England always seemed less scary than Frankfurt--I recall very little (obvious) security at those airports. Well, Austria, being near the Iron Curtain (was it still called that), had guards that looked more grim ;-)

Bahrain in the 80's was 'interesting'. When you de-planed for refueling, you got lined up facing ~ 100 machine pistol toting grim faced troops and just got to stand there for however long it took for each person and their carry-on to be inspected and linked to their baggage. Somewhat like a firing squad just waiting to happen.

Here's another idea. Instead of squeezing eveybody's junk, I propose a simple two step solution.

1) Screen passengers for possible terrorism, rage, and stupidity.

2) Issue 9mm guns to every person who shows they have been trained to use one.

If everybody on the plane has a gun, who's going to try anything? What does the shooting at the school board meeting look like if everybody there had a gun?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQjQOlJvMzE

Being armed in a meeting to prevent a crime is one thing. Being armed in a pressurized cabin is akin to being a smoker next to a hydrogen refueling of the Shuttle.

One puncture from a stray bullet and the plane's interior could literally explode from the decompression.

Maybe you were being sarcastic, but being trained with a 9mm and also competing in defensive pistol matches I can tell you that very few people have the skill to use a weapon even partially successfully under extreme stress. Life is not Hollywood (although you can't explain that to most actors and producers).

Yes, partially sarcastic. Being a smart azz sucks over the internet.

They are actually quite tough - "exploding from decompression" is a bit magic Hollywood bullet.

Some still fly minus a cargo door and quite a few square meters of cabin floor and formally attached fuselage.

You have been watching too many James Bond films and believing what you see.....

Also, there are special lower power pistol loads that the sky marshalls are (supposed) to use.....its all short distances!!!!! a few bullet holes will not harm a good modern aircraft, and even losing a window can still be handled......watch the Mythbusters, they have tested this out for you already.....(so have the aircraft companies!!).

Her is a YouTube of them trying to cause and explosive decompression, even shooting bullets through windows did not work:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA

The worst situation would be on some modern "fly by wire" Boeing's getting a bullet in a sensitive spot.....

Airbus with the 380 has recently (sadly) proved that they can still fly and land with one engine completely exploded, two engines degraded, losing fuel and hydraulic fluid in large amounts, landing system missing most of the messages to say whether the wheels were down or not.

The single greatest problem was that the one good engine they had would not shut down after landing, which prompted the fire department not to go near the aircraft for some minutes, this also held the captain back from letting the passengers off due to a running engine and pools of fuel and hydraulic fluid...........they eventually had to spray it with fire extinguisher fluid 5 hours later to get it to finally stop!!!!!

Boeing has yet to be proved in such a way, but according to one of the 3 flight captains on board at the time who had spent most of his career in Boeings - NO CHANCE whatsoever!!!!

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating!" (old saying!!!!)

YOU ARE SO WRONG! You've NEVER fired a handgun on a plane, because, you moron, if you HAD, you'd KNOW one (--or even dozens) of rounds would do NOTHING! You've probably NEVER FIRED a Handgun, at all! Generally, pressurized systems will increase-pressure if there are leaks. Of COURSE, if a handgun DID discharge, the pilot should immediately descend, but I GUARANTEE YOU, NO CABIN would explode! YOU, need to "GET educated!", beyond reading Globalist-tracts that are heavy-on-the-crap!

Second post and you descend to an insulting lunatic. Cut the insults and debate the issues straight up.

You are right. I never fired a round in a pressurized cabin and you probably have not done so either.

1. It is possible for a bullet to strike the aircraft wall and simply leave a hole. You are right that the cabin will not explosively decompress, probably. However, it is possible to hit a critical structural area that may compound the problem and cause a cascading failure of the aircraft skin or strike a critical cable, etc..

The latter is not likely but since the failure mode could be catastrophic, it not a risk that should be taken lightly. Please reread my post. The operative word I used was "could".

2. If the bullet strikes a window the result would likely be an explosive decompression. The window would likely crack and shatter. That does not mean that the plane explodes. What it means is the aircraft would rapidly and violently decompresses. Loose objects in the cabin, which could include children or people, could turn into missiles as they are ejected through the window. This is a very hazardous condition and debris could also be ingested into an engine if conditions are right.

3. It actually sounds like you have not fired a handgun or if you have, you have had no training that has stuck with you. First, know your target. Second know what is behind your target. On a crowded aircraft the potential for collateral damage is extreme.

I would also bet that you never fired a weapon under stress. Under stress your ability to fire accurately goes to almost zero for those that do not regularly train with a weapon. Even those who have had training have been documented to make serious mistakes. I know this because I regularly do train with a weapon and I also compete IDPA.

Few people grasp the hardship of self defense with a firearm. You are only kidding yourself if you think you can act like they do on the movies. Going to the range and plugging holes in static paper behind a table is not training. Almost anyone can get good groups like that, but place someone in a hostile combat situation and most people would have brain lock.

For that reason I do not recommend the uninitiated to simply buy and carry a gun. It may be their right, but with that right comes responsibility. I tend to discourage people from buying and carrying weapons on a whim. If they are serious I strongly urge as much training as they can stand. You can never train enough.

Here is an excellent video that proves the point.

As far as what you need to get - you need to get educated on etiquette. Insults are not an acceptable way to argue points. Please keep it civil and your emotions in check. State your claim, back it up, and provide links and citations if you can.

Other than that... Welcome to CR4!

Dear "Guru"(--of what?): An insult coming from you is NO problem. I'm a MAN and I can take it. You seemed to take an "anti-gun" extreme-stance,--ostensibly wrapped around "reason", so my "lunacy" is questionable coming from YOUR admitted in-expertise. I HAVE a fired a round inside a mil-spec cabin, --it was, of course, an "accident". I squeezed the trigger, and missed my target, as we hit an "air-pocket". The gentleman I was aiming-at, --having gone "psycho", was subdued by other means, thank God. I didn't worry a bit about hiting a window, as in passenger planes, people COULD be pulled-out by sudden decompression of a window, but if the target is threatening his life and the lives of others, you frankly don't have TIME to ANALIZE what MIGHT... lay behind the perp. The Yellowstone MIGHT erupt into the "Cauldera of the millenium", or one MIGHT... be hit by a meteor someday, or many "mights" MIGHT...(COULD) occur, but we don't stop sensibly carrying and using handguns, although usually, simply the presence of one is enough to discourage all but the most deranged of Islamic terrorists, which is WHY we should use the Israeli practice of PROFILING, regardless of "hurting CAIR's 'feelings'"...or the Islamic (Fascist) Brotherhood, and having a reprise of 9/11. Air Marshals carry handguns, and it is usually NOT that hard to hit the target. Perhaps I did "choke" and in retrospect, I'm glad I did, although I wanted first to STOP the perp, and worried not a whit about whether or not I MIGHT hurt him. Training IS important. All children should train with pellet-guns on village-replica ranges,--all women who wish to, should be able to concealed carry. Rapes would be in the hundreds instead of the hundreds of thousands, and guys'd wear hats to be able to doff them. Other than your knee-jerk "fear" of weapons(imo) on planes, you MIGHT be a GREAT guy,--WONDERFUL father, but if I were armed and you were psychotic and threatening those around you, you'd be DEAD and I'd perhaps, some day, be very sorry.

Guru is a label assigned to anyone that has simply posted enough. It's not self assigned as you implied.

Your assessment of my stance on anything is incorrect. The reason that is so is because you are running off half-cocked (if I may use a pun) before analyzing what I have written. Even then, it is wiser to simply ask for clarity before diving in uninformed, which is exactly what you have done.

The lunacy I wrote of is the manner by which you stormed in and began attacking ad hominem. Again, if you have an argument or counter point - fine. I love good arguments. Bring it on, but leave the insults at home. Also, you should THINK before jumping when it comes to writing. Unlike tactical combat, you are encouraged to use your brain and it is perfectly acceptable to pause before writing the next sentence.

Rolling back the clock, reread the series of posts and you might see why I stated what I stated. The original post that started all of this stated that everyone who was legally allowed to have a weapon should be allowed to have one on a plane.

Frankly, that is ridiculous for the reasons I stated earlier. Few people have the training and simply firing a gun does not count as training. To the general audience that my reply was intended, it is wiser to dampen things down a little rather than simply go gun ho with such an idea.

I have no problems with trained individuals carrying weapons. However, I am sure we have both seen our share of idiots on the range.

As far as the rest of your diatribe about profiling and who is psychotic, you are just getting off track and I won't even care to respond that.

Its true that amateurs using a pistol rarely achieve anything like actually hitting anything smaller than a meter wide, meter tall target, when only 2 or 3 meters away......To get pistol accuracy needs a lot of training and a natural talent, that the training has built up on.....some never achieve it.....

But where you are really wrong is with regard to explosive decompressions, they happen so rarely, even firing bullets through aircraft windows and walls has never caused one as far as I am aware.

I posted a link here somewhere for a MythBusters attemp to cause one, they failed, it is still a myth!! But busted!!

The only one I know of was the 737 on its way to Hawaii I believe, that lost the whole top of the cabin and one of the crew......that was a structeral failure, not a bullet.

Here is the video:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Byt8NAgydo

Here is the other video I already posted from the MythBusters trying to achieve the same thing:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA

Great video.

It looks like they only did one shot, dead center, on the window. I did not see if they did that a number of times to see if that was typical. Nor did they do a test with the bullet striking the plexiglas at an oblique angle.

Blowing the whole window out did result in a violent decompression, which can be a serious problem. Clearly a larger problem then a simple errant bullet striking no one.

I guess the term "explosive decompression" is throwing people off. People tend to think of a explosion like a bomb. It isn't the same. It is a sudden decompression and loose objects in the plane become missiles and there is a potential for worse things to happen. It does not mean the plane pops like a balloon.

The point I am having a hard time making or people are having a hard time accepting is that an aircraft in flight can not accept risks that are normally taken on the ground.

The reason is that the effect of a mishap has a much higher capacity of being catastrophic. For instance, we routinely take risks driving that a pilot would never consider. We don't think much about a small fender bender or skidding off the road, but even a light contact between two aircraft will almost assure someone will go home in a body bag. Even bumping a plane on the ground will cancel the flight. Do that backing your car out of the garage it may make your mood bad, but you don't scrub your trip.

The tolerance for mishaps is much smaller on a plane.

The good part is that airplanes are (except Russian ones...) generally very strongly and lightly built. Comparing them to cars is not really a good idea.......

As you stated, "fender benders" on planes are likely to need body bags......but may only influence your mood negatively in a car......well put.

Comparison just does not work in these cases.

Aircraft are built to withstand quite high pressures inside when flying at their operating height and (I believe) an air pressure of only 5,000 feet inside (or thereabouts!)....

Cars are not!!

There are many more comparisons between the two that will not stand inspection!!!

Missed the point. The tolerance for faults on aircraft is orders of magnitude less than for other forms of travel. The reason is the price of something going wrong with aircraft is much higher than an equivalent failure in a car, bus, or whatever.

The problem is even worse for spacecraft. Attention to detail is orders of magnitude higher than commercial vehicles because the price of failure is so much higher.

How often do you have your car tested for body fatigue fractures?

This applies to all safety critical systems. Fault tolerance is not the same for a heart-lung machine as it is for a tattoo machine.

I think that I made my point well, comparing cars and planes is completely pointless......

You appear to have missunderstood my post completely.......

Sorry. Not the first time. ;-)

...and probably not the last time either.

Its great consolation/relief for me that the rest of CR4 seem to understand better!!!

Ouch. Applying Bandaid now.

"Blowing the whole window out did result in a violent decompression"

Explosives tend to do that.

"It is a sudden decompression and loose objects in the plane become missiles"

This is worth a look at a physics thing rather than a Hollywood SPFX

The pressure differential is around 5000ft internal (12.23 psi) and say 35,000ft (3.47 psi) external.

It's a fraction of an atmosphere difference 8.76 psi.

So what would be the velocity through say a 1 ft sq orifice?

Local to the orifice, given a huge vessel volume, it may be high enough to transport objects directly in the flow path - but what of velocity gradient say 6 feet from the orifice?

Are you going to get the ~120 mph necessary to 'fly the hostess' in the isle out the window?

Bear in mind most of this "dramatisation" grew out of "non-pressurized" aircraft makers trying to keep the foreign competition out of the market. Like Edison and AC.

The far bigger issue is getting below 10,000 feet before the supplementary O₂ runs out. And also like the movies and 'reconstructions' - no hysterical crash dive or fighting shaking controls is required.

(and let's not have any caps lock twerps band-waggoning on this post like my other one)

8.76 psi. Wouldn't this be just the stagnation pressure. Wouldn't we also need to consider the pressure transient waves and potentially the dynamic pressure.

Yep, and there are temperature things as well, and a possible plus or minus depending where said hole is in terms of fuselage air flow.

I was just going for "broad brush" on "scale of effect", not so much the decimal points.

In the volume of an aircraft, the tiny amount of extra pressure from explosion of a cartridge will be well within the allowances of the fuselage.

I would guess here, but I would imagine that the normal operating pressure difference for an aircraft fuselage to be less than half of the test pressure.......

Were you ever in an aircraft in strong turbulence? I have been many times. Even seen people injured in such turbulence! Two broken arms and one broken thigh bone plus many bruises.....

When turbulence gets to the point where the flight crew are belted in, they are serving no food or drink and the passengers are starting to shriek in panic!! Then airframe is being REALLY stressed out, BUT, there is still no problem for the airframe......I have never been in turbulence that damaged an aircraft....

I have even been on a couple of flights where the aircraft was struck repeatedly with lightning, to absolutely no effect whatsoever!!!

Its amazing just how much modern aircraft can take.......far more than the average human can inside it.....

What you wrote here:-

"Blowing the whole window out did result in a violent decompression"

Explosives tend to do that.

Was true....

But we were discussing the effects of bullets......not explosives....!!

AH raised the Mythbunglers attempts - which - when all bullets failed to produce more than a leak - they put something like 4 turns of det-chord around the window and managed to blow it out.

If I remember correctly they succeeded in decapitating the passenger who then proceed to block the hole.

So rather than chastising me, how about factoring in what I was responding to?

Hello 34point5,

Even talking about explosive decompression, it can be survivable as per incidence from the past have shown. As long as flight components are not compromised as well as air stream characteristics for lift.

This type of decompression that can be recorded was mainly due to structure failures, but as you can See they are very major at 24,000 feet.

Such as Aloha Airlines Flight 243

The only death was a flight attendant that was not buckled in.

You have to admit. Boeing does build a very strong plane, The problem isn't terror, its maintenance.

Um - just went back and checked - No - my post 23 is still there.

sorry,,,,,,,,ah,,,,well atleast I referenced.

No worries - it's actually other people enmasse not reading or miss identifying my posts, or who started what, on several threads, that's getting on my goat.

And true you referenced another one that reinforces the point.

But at the time I thought referencing United Airlines Flight 811 would just take the thread further off topic than it already was.

Then we'd just blabber on about design failures in brands

But actually it might have been more fun - in hindsight

I am still missing the point you are trying to make.....

What has 4 turns of det-cord to do with a bullet?????

Explosive decompression has never been validated with shooting a gun on an airplane up to now at least......except in some 007 films and the like......

Explosives are simply a "better" way to produce the effects needed......probably the only way!!

Well, would you say that the conclusion is that aircraft are impervious to small arms fire, then?

Do you actually mean impervious or just structurally stout enough to resist a critical failure? I suspect some large caliber bulletsfire from the inside can penetrate a planes skin.

I am just trying to nail down what all this banter means.

We have drilled down the rabbit hole of decompression ad nausium, but no one has addressed the original claim of arming all the passengers with handguns to avert terror in the skies as suggested in post # 13 (the original source of this thread).

So, I propose to ask questions, one by one, to see what the answer is to post # 13.

Personally, I feel that aircraft are not impervious to small arms fire, but that depends on what you consider an acceptable risk is. You can also factor in the passengers, too. Fire off 10 rounds in totally random directions on a plane loaded with passengers. Would you want to be on that plane? Would you be okay with your daughter being on the plane? Forget about the plane. Let's just talk about people.

10 rounds, 250 passengers. Odds are with 10 rounds randomly shot in the plane, maybe one passenger would be hit.

That gives the odds of being hit 1/4%. The odds of that shot being fatal are probably 10% or less, so now we are at 0.025% chance of a fatality.

Still, I bet few people would want to be on that plane when that happens.

My point in this is that while the odds are low of an incident on any given plane, we still move 1,500,000 passengers around in the air in the US each year. Last year we had exactly 0.0000% terror incidents in the US skies on commercial aircraft without passengers carrying firearms at their side.

Let's say 50% of all passengers qualify for #13's proposed program. That is 750,000 passengers with loaded and cocked firearms. Would it seem reasonable to you that the incident rate for an accidental discharge would also be 0.0000%?

To put this in better perspective, in the last three years in the U.K., there have been 110 accidental discharges by the police. These are the people that train, train, train with firearms to prevent that.

Not to start another whole senseless discourse, but the likely direction for accidental discharges tends to be down, into the floor where the critical components for an aircraft run, but that's another discussion...

The question boils down to, which is more dangerous - 750,000 armed civilians or the terrorists themselves, which have had essentially zero luck in the last 9 years (note, I am discounting the few failed attempts)? Bear in mind that our TSA screening procedures have been documented to be pretty useless when randomly tested by Homeland Security.

The US Marshals and other government agencies seem to feel that interdiction before people board a plane is a better plan, but what would they know?

Given the current incident rate to date and the documented ineffectiveness of the screening process, I wonder if we should be reassessing the real risks first, then determining best strategies. However, that would be too much like an engineer rather than a politician.

Why would you want to focus on post #13?

Was it not clear that the premise contradicted itself?

I.e. They failed to screen for "stupidity" and whatever was suggested.

Other "trained and armed" people were there but failed to prevent shooting.

So what you have really have to ask about that shooting is; how big an idiot do you have to be to tell a distraught suicidal armed person "this is not working out".

You wrote, "Why would you want to focus on post #13?"

Only because it is the root of this whole sub-thread on this topic.

Here is the bulk of post #13:

Here's another idea. Instead of squeezing eveybody's junk, I propose a simple two step solution.

1) Screen passengers for possible terrorism, rage, and stupidity.

2) Issue 9mm guns to every person who shows they have been trained to use one.

If everybody on the plane has a gun, who's going to try anything?

Explain how you feel that steps one and steps two are contradictory?

For the sake of argument I am assuming that step one's intent is to deny anyone that fails that test access to board the plane.

"For the sake of argument"; what was unclear about the "premise contradicted itself"?

"Explain how you feel that steps one and steps two are contradictory?"

The only people allowed on the plane are those trained in the use of firearms?

Oh yeah - 300 blokes and a hand full of women all thinking they're King Air Marshal.

That'll work

Don't you recognize "Volvo Day"

I absolutely agree the logic is flawed (on many tiers). That was my point all along.

However, it is not contradictory, at least as far as I can see. That is, points 1 and 2 do not contradict each other, nor are there contradictions with each point. The logic is just flawed.

For example, the premiss of "If everybody on the plane has a gun, who's going to try anything?" is flawed because all of the attacks on aircraft are suicidal, therefore, the threat of death is not a deterrent, it is the threat of mission failure that has the best odds of defeating an attack.

Well not all attacks are suicidal, some just want to be flown to Cuba or Libya.

I think you just buy a ticket now.

I see a plus point for the terrorists here, "as gun trained people", they do not need to carry a gun onboard (or a packing knife either!), they will get issued with one while going onbooard!!! WOW!!!

You are going "Digital" and can seemingly only switch between the sublime and the ridiculous.....sorry to have to say that......you must remind yourself that there are fine degrees of difference, a whole lot finer than you speculate about.....these things are not simply "Black or White"....

Many of the bomber crews, hit by AA or attacked by enemy aircraft managed to limp back home "on a wing and a prayer"......and they did not have the sophisticated backup systems available today......

But I will state that to the best of my personal knowledge and limited experience, a modern aircraft like the A380 would be MOST unlikely to be brought down by a single bullet.

Probably not even by 20 or son bullets.......but that is pure supposition on my part.

Maybe if all 20 were concentrated on several important electronic areas, it might bring the big bird down, but I really don't know either way for certain....or where they (the areas of danger) are.....

The A380 Captain's interview (see an earlier post here from me with a link to the conversation) needs to be read carefully and then I would expect you to understand where I am coming from......it's really interesting reading by the way, not a waste of time.....it really brought me up short with its discussion of what REALLY happened......much respect for EACH of the 3 Captains on board at the time!!!

Happy New Year as well......

Happy New Year, Andy!

Have you read post #79?

That better describes where I am trying to go with my question.

You are right that there are shades of gray, but post 79 would help explain my position.

I reread 79, but I'm not sure what part has not been covered.

Can you 'bullet head' what you feel is still in abeyance?

I like that "Digital". But AH has always been so - and it one of his endearing qualities IMHO

(I'm pleased you like my thread)

I think I agree 100%,--the only decompressions I've seen are in the movies. Don't you agree that an "agenda" that is "anti-gun", exists in some of these posts? Someone said arm everybody, and in the un-likely prospect that ALL fired, until their clips were empty, I'll bet a Dreamliner would only be "wounded", and could land safely, without a crash, due to the back-up systems on those planes. Sorry if I'm maintaining "a myth (decompress--crash) that needs to die",--that was not my intent. A covert-leftist/Globalist will also stoop to the Ad hominem-attack, WHILE accusing someone ELSE of the same. I'm guilty of an occasional Ad hominem..."--Trust, but Verify"...Ronald Reagan

You wrote, "I'm guilty of an occasional Ad hominem..."

Well, only three out of the four posts you have written on CR4. ;-)

So, let's get this straight. Firing a weapon on board a plane probably will not take down the plane. I will buy into that. There are better places to discharge a weapon.

Arming everyone on board with a handgun - I don't think that would be the best decision someone could make to have 200 to 300 armed citizens, most with no or little firearm training. However, if you think that is the solution to the problem, have at it. Take that one to the head of the TSA and let me know how you make out.

Post Script: I never intended to insult you, I only pointed out your actions and how they came across. I meant nothing personal only asked you to consider toning it down. I don't know you personally and you surely don't don't know me, but you think you do.

yeah, because we have never heard of an ex soldier deciding to shoot at people one day. Being qualified to shoot a pistol doesn't mean you should give that person a pistol. Now if you gave them a FBI entrance psych exam maybe, but then again nearly every police officer, sheriffs officer, prison guard, etc. would fail.

By the way, about how many body-scans, etc., are being conducted along the Arizona border with Mexico? ...

Actually most terrorist, much like soviet spies before them would arrive from England or such through Canada, too much security along the mexican border and they can not afford to take that risk. So maybe your question should be directed at the US/Canadian border if it is really a question about terrorism. Of course, now they can just become citizen of England and fly directly into the US. Now if it is a question about immigrant workers coming to cook your hamburgers at McDonalds (or even the less likely smuggler bringing you your marijuana), well then you might focus on the mexican border.

Good point about the risk of getting detected being too high along the border. Only about 15 million people have been able to cross it so far. ;-)

Yeah but many more try constantly and get caught. The odds of getting caught crossing the US-Mexican border covertly are orders of magnitude higher then the US-Canadian border, no one ever get caught sneaking into the US from Canada, well at least until they have been in the US for a few decades as sleeper Russian spies, and only then if they are extremely bad Russian spies. I am not even sure if INS patrols the Canadian Border, and Canada is always more willing to allow immigration of foreign nationals from south Asia and the middle east. Mexico shoots immigrant for just trying to cross just from Guatemala (not even getting into the police and drug cartels you would have to bribe and hope they don't kill you anyways to move through Mexico, which isn't an issue in Canada).

Of course this all assumes that should they get picked up in the numerous INS patrols, that the INS would recognize there was a problem other than just standard migrant worker crossings (for which they send them back to try again). Obviously if they are given enough attempts, eventually they will get through.

But on the bright side - you end up with the most determined and prepared to work at something until they succeed - like escapees from East Germany, or North Korea.

Or is that preparedness to work the actual problem here?

Who is blaming another country for the long history of the US government to secure the US-Canadian border? I didn't actually imply that Canada should secure their own border. Are you implying that the Us should not secure the canadian border any better than it does the mexican border, especially considering how we have a much better and useful relationship with mexico than canada (mexicans do all our cheap labor and don't strike for better benefits than americans have, and still put up with being constantly degraded). Besides, if Russians could do it for 50 years, why couldn't everyone else. If they had been mexican, you can believe there would have been a substantial background check before teaching them to fly, at least a financial background check (unless they found the right training school which was in the practice of dealing with drug smugglers and the right south american contacts, I guess florida is the right place to look for that).

OK this topic is getting old. Hasen't everyone had their kick at the can yet? From the "don't fly if you don't like it" to the "government can't see my junk" crowds nothing very constructive is being said in these almost daily threads.

One thought occured to me though. Was CR4 up and running the days and weeks immediately after 9/11? I would love to see what the tone of the conversations were at that time.

umm, the problem with security clearance is that most anyone can get it. A 20 yr old life guard who works on a base with a test range would have security clearance.

Sure, and while we are at it why don't we just put up the photos of the body scans. Doesn't anybody remember anything about our right to privacy? Hello, 4th amendment please. Bueller? Bueller?

Why stop there why not cavity searches for all as well or is that where the line gets drawn? Not there then let's show those on TV screens around the terminal as well. I think you get my point. Where does it end?

of course the airport is government property and not private, so does the 4th amendment apply to persons entering government buildings (or even private buildings if it wasn't the government doing the searches)? What if we were discussing private citizens entering a building where we refine or handle plutonium or a military facility? Consider the 4th amendment isn't just there to protect the inane, so if protections can be applied in one government owned facility then they could be applied anywhere. What alternative are available if the 4th amendment protects all citizens entering any government building, would you just have to stop them from entering the building?

The 4th amendment makes for use of reasonable searches. Not taking porno pictures and then saving them. Oops that was found out so they supposedly took away that feature.

I've never been to a plutonium refinery so I can't say for certain but I doubt they are strip searching everyone coming and going. They have what is known as security passes.

Don't take my word for it. Here are two Appeals Courts who have ruled on similar cases.

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search." - Law professor Jeffrey Rosen

And as stated earlier -

Post #10

"The most telling statement was by the head of the TSA who got on TV and said he knows the scans and pat downs are violations of the 4th amendment, but its the price we pay for safety."

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

I wonder if the TSA agents have to go through the same search everyday? I mean who's to say they aren't going to be a terrorist if we are going to take it that far. What about the person who searches them maybe they are so they will have to strip. and so on and so on. We have to use some common sense here.

What is the basis then for police or other law enforcement to perform the same pat down, when they do not have any evidence to support that action? If that is defined by the appeals courts as unreasonable search unless supported by current technologies. Especially in light that you have no legal alternatives when searched by the police except to comply. Now if the TSA allowed people the alternative of not being searched by allowing them the to just exit instead, it might be different. The real violation of the 4th amendment is that you are committing a crime by refusing the search. Otherwise, they could always just refuse service (right of entry) to those who refuse to be searched, but when that refusal to be searched can be taken in and of itself as a criminal action then it violates definitely the 4th amendment, as the head of TSA stated. Secuired facilities can search anyone at anytime as part of their right or entry.

Point 1: TSA has never stopped a terrorist from boarding a plane.

Point 2: The X-ray back-scatter scanners represent a NRC and OSHA violation. These scanners use low energy X-rays (ionizing radiation) to perform the scan. While the advertised dose is 0.02 microSieverts, the actual dose is effectively much higher due to near total absorption. The radiation present is not being monitored for either the passengers or the TSA agents.

Point 3: Terrahertz scanners appear to present a direct hazard for unzipping DNA, from some recent publications. Thus, there is a poorly defined hazard in this case as well.

Point 4: The "aggressive pat-downs" represent sexual assault, so we are waiting for a TSA agent to be taken out by somebody who is trained not to tolerate such treatment.

Point 5: The only effective, demonstrated counters for terrorists are alert passengers on the aircraft who take action.

Suggestions: Profile passengers as the Israelis do, and explicitly empower passengers to act for the safety of the other passengers and the aircraft. Eliminate the present procedures as violations to our Constitution.

Security at any price is not security.

Profiling passenger could present a violation of our constitutional rights, that is obviously supported by supreme court decisions, since the most likely candidates would be of middle eastern or south asian decent or appearance. Plus terrorists are not the only thing they are looking for TSA must address of all legal violations. Smuggling is a threat also, particularly of drugs.

It really isn't a violation of your constitutional rights as long as you have the option of not partaking. This opportunity can be provided simply by allowing passenger who do not want to be scanned to step out of line, receive their reimbursement for ticket fees back, and leave the terminal. You do not have a right to fly on a airplane, and have other options for travel to any destination that you could fly to. It is only a convenience. this is important, as it is the basis for all traffic enforcement in every State, that driving is a priviledge for your convenience, and flying is even more so.

Maybe not, but a stray bullet could puncture or sever a hydraulic line to a critical control surface.

You will find that all important controls are at least doubled up on a good modern aircraft. Some are tripled I am informed......but don`t please ask me which!!!

Which was the reason I posted the link (much earlier in this blog) about that A380 Airbus where an engine fairly recently exploded under full power, in flight, degrading two more engines as well as "spattering the fuselage with schrapnel.....the fourth engine worked fine in flight, but even that engine had to be "put out" on the ground (5 hours after landing) as the controls to it to allow it to be shutdown in a normal manner were also damaged.......the fire department "finally "Quenched" it with a firefighting fluid.....!!!

They were losing large amounts of fuel and hydraulic fluid, but still managed to land without further incident......(It could have ended like the Air France Concorde....) after flying around for two hours to check the aircraft out and burn off fuel. The fuel dump valves did not operate anymore if I remember correctly......they had to land still overweight.....

This shows you exactly how a "good" modern aircraft is designed and built for almost any eventuality......

The interview with the senior onboard Captain (the link that I previously posted at some point) makes classic reading material.

In his own opinion, a Boeing would not have fared as well under the same conditions of damage......and he was an ex Boeing Captain for many, many years before transferring to and training on an Airbus was even started.......

Maybe even modern Boeing's have a similar capacity to take major damage like this and still fly, I am not in a position to say either way.....but a senior Captain, when he says such things, ought to be heard very, very carefully....

Fly Airbus whenever you can!!! You heard it first here......

Perhaps you can tell the Air Marshals that they no longer have to comply with the order to not discharge a round into the aircraft floor because there is no way to cripple the aircraft. ;-)

Year to date statistics on Airport screening from the Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Plots Discovered 0 Transvestites 133 Hernia's 1,485 Hemorrhoid Cases 3,172 Enlarged Prostates 8,249 Breast Implants 59,350 Natural Blonds 3

Fancy that, an even number of single mastectomies.