Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Body Scan Only Way To Stop Suicide Bomber  
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 3525 times:

If it only takes 100-200 grams of explosives to bring down an airline then no search or even pat down is going to prevent a sucide bomber boarding a plane! Since the most recent suicide bomber put the explosives in his crotch a pat down search cannot really take place there! Passengers would object. Only the body scan can detect explosives hidden in such sensitive areas.

I think the US should insist that all flights coming to the US must have an appropriate body scan secuirty. If anyone object to a body scan then they must agree to a strip search and the must early for this or they miss the plane!

if I am going to the US I am only going via Amsterdam as they have going to have body screen for al passengers within 3 weeks according to news.

I am astonished that there has not been far more attemted suicide bombings of US bound aircraft given that it is so easy to bring explosive aboard an aircraft.

As I said before 100% search of all people under 35 not travelling with any family members (brothers excluded) and random searches of other passengers categories should be a minimum requirement of all passengers boarding a US bound jet.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 3499 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
his crotch a pat down search cannot really take place there!

Wrong, at AMS, everybody will get a full search, INCLUDING crotch untill the body scans are in place. It was just in the news! Now this can get very interesting the coming 3 weeks...

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Only the body scan can detect explosives hidden in such sensitive areas.

Apparantly, Al-Qaida already has possession of the body scan technology and working on was around it (if not already found). Don't know how credible this is though...



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineLegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 3499 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As I said before 100% search of all people under 35 not travelling with any family members (brothers excluded) and random searches of other passengers categories should be a minimum requirement of all passengers boarding a US bound jet.

The ACLU would have a field day with those rules in the US. That is the problem in this country to much political correctness. I would not mind a full body scan on everyone at all US airports as well. Screw spending all that money on health care in this country it would be better spent securing our borders and our aviation industry as well.

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4808 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 3489 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Dutch Minister of the Interior, or Home Secretary (Guusje ter Horst) has said on a press conference today that the "body scan" will be mandatory for every flight going to the US from AMS. The devices were already there, but due to privacy regulations it was not allowed to scan all passengers with them. Up to now the body scan was on a voluntary basis only.

It is very, very sad, but these terrorist organizations will force the use of these body scans world wide. Just because on every 100 million passengers or so there might be a lunatic with crazy religious ideas. But that seems to be the only way we can protect ourselves from such cowards who fight under a veil of secrecy instead of in the open.  Sad

The whole story (sorry, in Dutch only): http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2153165/wereld-ramp-ontsnapt.html


User currently offlineDAL763ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 3465 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
if I am going to the US I am only going via Amsterdam as they have going to have body screen for al passengers within 3 weeks according to news.

Oh come on! You don't believe that, do you? Millions of pax fly from airports worldwide to the US and how many get killed by terrorists? None. Be serious and don't trust all that's being said by the media.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As I said before 100% search of all people under 35 not travelling with any family members (brothers excluded) and random searches of other passengers categories should be a minimum requirement of all passengers boarding a US bound jet.

Why only under 35? Can a guy over 40 not blow up a plane? I'd say everyone except children (less than 10) should be checked...



Where aviation is not the side show, it's the main show!!!
User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3451 times:

I think the terrorists are winning.

Slowly but surely our civil liberties are being taken away. What's the true payoff of events like these to a terrorist? The few hundred people they hope to kill, or the massive lockdown and knee-jerk reactions that cost millions and millions of dollars, cause millions of people every year much hinderance and hassle, cause an irrational fear of flying for some, cause a backlash in the stock-market and the economy, and so on...just for the sake of trying to prevent a plan that's already been tried.

I think maybe if we stopped giving events like these such extensive media coverage, and if we stopped going into total paranoia-mode when stuff like this happened, maybe just trying to ignore the problem for once who send these guys a more powerful message that we stand by our freedoms, and no matter how hard you try to take them away from us, we will always stand by and stand free.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither."

These guys want attention. And we're giving it to them. These guys want us to tighten up. And we're following their plan. These guys want to slowly take away our freedoms. And we're doing just that. Sure, this move by itself isn't hardly anything, but think of where we are compared to pre-9/11.

And for what? A safer mode of transportation? Tough. Aviation is already by far the safest form of transportation. By trying to make it just a little bit more safe, we're tearing up everything this country stood for.


User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3401 times:



Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
I think the terrorists are winning.

My thoughts exactly. I couldn't have said it better.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3373 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
If it only takes 100-200 grams of explosives to bring down an airline then no search or even pat down is going to prevent a sucide bomber boarding a plane!

I'm not convinced the risk from small amounts of explosives (amounts you can pack on your body without detection) is as large as it's being played up to be. It would almost certainly be fatal for the bomber and those seated immediately near him, but I don't see how it would bring down the airplane. The risk seems to be a hole in the fuselage and a decompression, which is a problem thoroughly covered by current aircraft design (although it's predicated on fatigue, not bombing, the effect is similar).

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Only the body scan can detect explosives hidden in such sensitive areas.

Body scan's don't see inside, do they? That seems the next obvious step.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
I am astonished that there has not been far more attemted suicide bombings of US bound aircraft given that it is so easy to bring explosive aboard an aircraft.

So easy? In order to pull it off you have to:
1) Not have attracted enough attention to get on the no-fly list (that's going to be far more difficult now)
2) Get through security (not just the screening, but the sniffer machines & dogs, the behavioural profiles, the air marshals, and the name-list prescreen)
3) Actually detonate the device.

So far, nobody has successfully pulled off 1, 2, and 3 in years. I think it's a lot harder than you think, which is why we haven't seen very many instances actually get to the airplane.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As I said before 100% search of all people under 35 not travelling with any family members (brothers excluded) and random searches of other passengers categories should be a minimum requirement of all passengers boarding a US bound jet.

One of the "liquid bomber" teams was a husband & wife with a baby. The terrorists aren't that stupid; screening must be random or the terrorists will just recruit a bomber who doesn't fit the screening profile.

Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 2):
The ACLU would have a field day with those rules in the US. That is the problem in this country to much political correctness.

It's not a PC thing, it's a constitutional thing. Subjecting you to unique treatment just because you're young and solo is pretty much the definition of unreasonable search and seizure, which is specifically prohibited by the US constitution. Applying profiling in this case is an perfect example of what's sometimes called a "round trip falacy"...although almost all terrorists are single males, virtually all single males (99.99+%) are not terrorists, therefore the profiling is very likely to be ineffective.

Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
I think the terrorists are winning.

Slowly but surely our civil liberties are being taken away.

Exactly. The horrible irony is that it's *us* that are taking away our own civil liberties, not the terrorists. We're not willing to fight for our way of life.

Tom.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2820 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3357 times:



Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
I think the terrorists are winning.

I agree. And it seems we've walked into a Stalinist convention what with several posters selling the virtues of effectively strip searching every passenger.

One side we have terrorists failing to take passengers' human lives. On the other side, we have the authorities succeeding in taking passenger's' human rights.


User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3328 times:

Yep, the Netherlands is using full-body scanners for all incoming flights to the US now.

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/...-full-body-scanners-for-US-flights

"New software, however, eliminates that problem (the privacy issue) by projecting a stylized image onto a computer screen, highlighting the area of the body where objects are concealed in pockets or under the clothing and alerting security guards.

At least two scanners have been experimentally using that software since late November and the Dutch said those will be put into use immediately. All other scanners will be upgraded within three weeks so they can be used on flights to the United States."



Great news if you ask me.

[Edited 2009-12-30 09:58:23]


"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3294 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As I said before 100% search of all people under 35 not travelling with any family members (brothers excluded) and random searches of other passengers categories should be a minimum requirement of all passengers boarding a US bound jet.

And as I asked you before, can you please explain the logic/sense of you're very limited parameters? I find it quite amusing (and very hypocritial) that you want mandatory full searches for everyone who just happen to be below your age group. Could you perhaps explain that?

Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 2):
Screw spending all that money on health care in this country it would be better spent securing our borders and our aviation industry as well.

Explain to me the relationship between expenditure on healthcare and airline security, because I'm afraid you've lost me on that. You're telling me that as long as your aviation industry is safe you're not prepared to deal with the tens of millions who are ill and/or dying? Yes, a very educated and open-viewed mindset that is!! I bet you're one with private healthcare though, as obviously you wouldn't want yourself affected

Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
I think the terrorists are winning.

Yes, there are winning.......simply because it is impossible to defeat them without understanding and rectifying the root cause. That is what must be tackled and terrorism cannot be ultimately defeated militarily. Granted, this will take a very radical rethink within your country especially but, until that occurs, you can only react and the decisions are effectively taken by any terrorist group.

Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
These guys want attention. And we're giving it to them.

With all due respect, you'd better give it to them.......ignore such adversaries at your peril unless you want to deal with very many fatalities.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
I'm not convinced the risk from small amounts of explosives (amounts you can pack on your body without detection) is as large as it's being played up to be. It would almost certainly be fatal for the bomber and those seated immediately near him, but I don't see how it would bring down the airplane. The risk seems to be a hole in the fuselage and a decompression, which is a problem thoroughly

 checkmark  well said Tom, and I would agree entirely.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3280 times:

We need to totally rethink airline security.

As it has been since 9/11, we are always one step behind the terrorists. They break into the cockpit, we secure cockpit doors. They smuggle a shoe bomb on the plane, we now make people take off their shoes. They tried to use liquid/gel explosives, now you can't take liquids and gels on the plane.

Why don't we use the bomb-residue detectors more often? The ones that blow the puffs of air? I've had to go through those at DCA before during heightened security times.

I'd voluntarily go through that, or through a body every time I fly. Instead of an asinine procedure where you take off your shoes, toss your liquids, and basically unpack the contents of your luggage, just body scan everyone. It's safer and it saves time.

If you do it to everyone indiscriminately then it's not profiling.

It would speed up the security process and make flying more secure.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17672 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3281 times:



Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither."

That sounds real nice, but every day, pretty much everything you do is restricted for your benefit. You don't have the liberty of driving the wrong way on the freeway, for everyone's security, you don't have the liberty to beat up people on teh street, etc...



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3246 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
I think the terrorists are winning.

Slowly but surely our civil liberties are being taken away.

Exactly. The horrible irony is that it's *us* that are taking away our own civil liberties, not the terrorists. We're not willing to fight for our way of life.

Since when is flying on an airplane a civil liberty. It's a travel choice and nothing else. If you don't like the restrctions of air travel then you are free to use another mode of transportation. People know when they purchase an airline ticket that they will not be allowed to smoke on board,is this also a loss of civil liberty? No, it's just a travel restriction. If you don't like the rules of the road, then find a new road.


User currently offlineNyc2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3170 times:

If these explosives are easily dectable by the puffer machines and the explosive swab machines, why are we not using them for all passengers?


Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offlineNws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 902 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 3162 times:



Quoting Nyc2theworld (Reply 14):
If these explosives are easily dectable by the puffer machines and the explosive swab machines, why are we not using them for all passengers?

I thought TSA discontinued use of all the puffer machines because they were always having maintenance issues and the costs kept rising.


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1969 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3128 times:



Quoting Airport (Reply 5):
I think the terrorists are winning.

Absolutely. The issue though is that most people don't know who the real terrorists are.


User currently offlineAirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

That's again a little slice of freedom sacrified for the pure illusion of safety...

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

I really don't mind the full body scanners. I'd like to see them in greater use around the world. Metal detectors aren't enough unfortunately anymore these days as terrorists have improvised themselves around the use of metal objects.


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2136 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

Some of these replies are perplexing at best. I take it every one of you people who are hell bent on these machines know the limitations? Remember that they don't detect items in body cavities and under skin rolls. So, a fat person can conceal stuff under their skin rolls, just like anyone can stuck stuff in their mouth...or elsewhere.

Going thru the machines, you can't have anything on. Belt, wallet etc. That, along with being physically separated from my carry ons (computer, work stuff) while in the machine make me uncomfortable. I'd much prefer to have the TSA screener out in the open and not in some remote location where it's theoretically possible for them to save images. One other thing, you still have to remove your shoes when going thru the WBI.

Quoting Cba (Reply 11):
Why don't we use the bomb-residue detectors more often? The ones that blow the puffs of air? I've had to go through those at DCA before during heightened security times.

Puffers were/are being discontinued because they were giving too many false positives and breaking down. There was one in LAX that was almost always broken. I never saw it running.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As I said before 100% search of all people under 35 not travelling with any family members (brothers excluded) and random searches of other passengers categories should be a minimum requirement of all passengers boarding a US bound jet.

Why don't we search people like yourself who "like ballet?"


User currently offlineEI787 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1513 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Please continue the discussion here:

Increased Airport / Airline Restrictions (by Elite Dec 27 2009 in Civil Aviation)


Any additional posts that are made to this thread after this post will be removed for housekeeping purposes, as this may happen due to a short system lag.


User currently offlineSteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1689 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2948 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Exactly. The horrible irony is that it's *us* that are taking away our own civil liberties, not the terrorists. We're not willing to fight for our way of life.

::sarcasm on:: Yeah, but won't the terrorists be embarrassed when they show up to take our freedom and find we don't have any left to take! ::sarcasm off::

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
That sounds real nice, but every day, pretty much everything you do is restricted for your benefit. You don't have the liberty of driving the wrong way on the freeway, for everyone's security, you don't have the liberty to beat up people on teh street, etc...

This is true, but the two scenarios aren't exactly comparable. Things have definitely changed over time, though. As a society, which our government functioned to serve, we determined that the freedom to drive however we wanted was immaterial in comparison to the increase in safety. Today, it seems that the government makes the decision for us and seems to have the cost/benefit ratio figured out when it comes to air travel for the general public.

It's funny when you consider that we do relatively little to address the tens of thousands of annual highways deaths when compared to the restrictive measures we take in an attempt to bring annual civil aviation deaths down from a handful to zero.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly? posted Sat Jul 19 2003 04:48:34 by WesternDC1010
Rumors:EY To Make A Stop @ CDG On The Way To USA posted Sat Jan 12 2008 04:25:45 by Dennys
Facts Only, Speculation Needs To Stop posted Wed Sep 12 2001 01:12:58 by Scannerson
Ryanair To Stop Domestic Flights In Italy posted Wed Dec 23 2009 19:33:49 by Janmnastami
Is CO The Only Carrier To Operate CTO's In The USA posted Wed Dec 23 2009 08:37:44 by BACCALA
Asiana To Stop Full Freighters To AMS? posted Tue Oct 27 2009 03:58:23 by Schreiner
CNN's Way To Avoid The Airlines Newest Gotcha! posted Tue Sep 22 2009 18:58:43 by Sancho99504
KLM's 3rd 77W On Its Way To Eham posted Thu May 28 2009 13:17:09 by 747ata32
An Arguable Way To Test Your Flight Skills (Video) posted Tue Apr 14 2009 11:31:35 by NNomad
Easy Way To Qualify To Preboard On WN posted Mon Apr 13 2009 07:28:10 by PROSA