Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
This woman was flying down to Tanzania and had woodworking gear in her hand luggage. She didn't know there were knives there since she hadn't packed the toolbox herself.
She said security staff were not even looking at the screen. They were busy talking to each other. As most who fly know, the "talking instead of working" thing is pretty common.
Also, in the UK for example, someone would probably have asked her if she had packed the bag herself.
OOPS!
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12328 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
One of the reasons why we must improve technology to deal with the shortcomings, limits and faults of humans in airline security. Distractions are very common among security agents at airports, and can allow far too much potentially hazardous materials to get through.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
When will people learn that the way to deal with the problem is not by not letting hazardous materials through but by not letting hazardous people through.
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 3): When will people learn that the way to deal with the problem is not by not letting hazardous materials through but by not letting hazardous people through.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 5): I'm not yelling that security checks should be abolished, but what we have now is nothing short of a farce.
Indeed. With the notable exception of places like Israel.
As you noted above, knives and other weapons are not inherently dangerous. The people wielding them are. Security should look at items, but more importantly security should also talk to people and question them. Even 30-60 seconds of conversation with a person can reveal volumes to a trained observer.
But careful now, that might entail profiling. And that would be bad. Because it might actually make security better.
And let's not even talk about better item detection systems available today. Those are also bad. Because they might actually make security better.
But by all means let's continue to restrict the harmless items that honest, law-abiding travelers want to carry on board. Lest they pelt the armored cockpit door with their half liter bottle of Evian and it startles the pilots.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
I'm especially amused that crew has to endure the same checks as passengers. I mean come on, they'll be sitting at an aircraft's controls anyway, so what difference are they making ....
However, I'm less amused that some airports confiscate pilots' flashlights (bigass Maglites) which they might need for the ramp check ....
Another funny thing I saw was two border patrol officers being strip-searched in Germany. They had to take off the shoes (for whatever reason), yet were allowed to proceed with their SMGs.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 8): Quoting Starlionblue (Thread starter):
she hadn't packed the toolbox herself.
So she also lied when she checked in and they ask "did you pack everything yourself."
I seriously doubt it. Probably she was never asked the question. Say she used a kiosk. Most of the check-in kiosks I have seen do not display the question and the luggage drop counter staff may not have asked, or may only have asked for checked luggage.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2143 times:
Why don't the monitors beep?
I mean, there should be shape recognition software attached to the scanner, and when something doesn't look right, it beeps.
If the security people talk through the beeping, that's another story, but each "alert" region in the display should be cleared by the operator, via a touchscreen. One reason the screeners get to talking is their job isn't interactive enough. The ones who stand by the people screener with a wand never seem to ignore the beeps, as they always have something active to do.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2066 times:
The principal objective of all the post 9/11 security measures at airports are all designed to avert another use of airplanes as guided missiles. I submit that that is no longer viable. 9/11 only happened, because EVERY American (and most of the world's) airline crew was trained to cooperate with highjackers, let them into the cockpit, not to confront them. Even by the 4th plane hijacked on 9/11 that policy was changed by the passanger themselves and they took down flight 93.
From 9/12 on, it is no longer possible for a highjacking group to take control of an American plane. Even if they have guns, let alone knifes. People will simply go down fighting. To say nothing of the growing number of armed pilots in the cockpit. BTW, they are about to make it much easier for pilots to be armed - you can expect a 10-20 fold increase in the number of armed pilots in the US very soon.
The other objective was to prevent bombing and destruction of an airliner or airport as a high-valued terror target. The solution for that is simple - people screating and physical goods screaning.
I travel all over the world, and the ONLY effective people screening I have seen is in Israel. It takes a few minutes of questioning to clear security, but I don't mind it one bit, for the simple reason that I KNOW it is actually effective and does some good. El Al security on flights from US to Israel is almost as good, but not quite. Implement a good software profiling system and an Israeli like questioning system first.
As for physical security, it is ONLY effective if people and bags go through at least 2 separate screenings. Yes two. If people are distracted on the first, you have a chance to catch it on the second. And please stop the sharade of hand search of luggage. Everytime I've seen one, people barelly look and are almost afraid to touch people's stuff. It is a waste of time. Either do it thoroughly or not at all.
Third, in order to do a good job of search/screening, you need to reduce the number of people your search/screen. Need to exempt flight deck crew. Need to exempt LEAs and frequent flyers that submit to background checks on the same order as flight crews and air marshals.
And stand tall to those that will wine that the new system discriminates.
It has to. Security is by definition a discriminatory discipline. You have to focus maximum attention on a tiny fraction of the public. Not a tiny bit of resource on every one.
I mean, there should be shape recognition software attached to the scanner, and when something doesn't look right, it beeps.
Agree. But that would require someone to think...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): If the security people talk through the beeping, that's another story, but each "alert" region in the display should be cleared by the operator, via a touchscreen. One reason the screeners get to talking is their job isn't interactive enough. The ones who stand by the people screener with a wand never seem to ignore the beeps, as they always have something active to do.
Agree completely here too. We well trained people, we need to implement a screening structure that encourages proactivity, and we need to pay the screeners competitively.
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 11): I travel all over the world, and the ONLY effective people screening I have seen is in Israel. It takes a few minutes of questioning to clear security, but I don't mind it one bit, for the simple reason that I KNOW it is actually effective and does some good. El Al security on flights from US to Israel is almost as good, but not quite. Implement a good software profiling system and an Israeli like questioning system first.
As for physical security, it is ONLY effective if people and bags go through at least 2 separate screenings. Yes two. If people are distracted on the first, you have a chance to catch it on the second. And please stop the sharade of hand search of luggage. Everytime I've seen one, people barelly look and are almost afraid to touch people's stuff. It is a waste of time. Either do it thoroughly or not at all.
Third, in order to do a good job of search/screening, you need to reduce the number of people your search/screen. Need to exempt flight deck crew. Need to exempt LEAs and frequent flyers that submit to background checks on the same order as flight crews and air marshals.
And stand tall to those that will wine that the new system discriminates.
It has to. Security is by definition a discriminatory discipline. You have to focus maximum attention on a tiny fraction of the public. Not a tiny bit of resource on every one.
I agree completely on all points. Unfortunately current security measures, in the US especially, are designed to make politicians feel as if they've done something.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12328 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
