Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is It Possible To Provide 100% Security?  
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

Even with all of the security upgrades in the last 9 yrs. since 9/11, is it possible to make it absolutely impossible to get any kind of weapon past checkpoints? It seems like terrorists keep getting smarter and figuring out ways to get around security guidelines, so will security ever be absolute?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 4011 times:

Yes, it certainly can be....but only if you are prepared to be proactive toward it, and not merely reactive as the US government is prone to do with 'feel good' measures. And, before anyone flames me, I stated US government only because the member asking the question is from the United States and thus I answered it as I see it as relevant to him.

User currently offlinem11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

No, it will never be absolute. Some people like to make the argument, "If its going to happen its going to happen." I totally disagree with that statement and that's just like saying we're giving up and are going to let the terrorists win. We can be very close to 100% safe however we can never be absolute safe.

In my personal armchair opinion I think we have been using the wrong methods to try and improve security. All I'm going to say about the FAM service is its a waste in my opinion. If you would like to know what I think about it there is a 100+ thread on this forum about it.   Since 9/11, the TSA has been to focused on finding "pointy objects" and tubes of toothpaste. What they need to be focusing on is looking for characteristics of a suspicious passenger and no I'm not talking about profiling Arabs as terrorists. A terrorist can be black, white, female, male, etc. Identifying guns and knifes is something the TSA should have no problem with but unfortunately they're still missing plenty of weapons.

Another important factor in being safe is being vigilant as a passenger. If you see something suspicious say something. If your at your gate and there is a passenger that's acting suspicious tell a TSA agent or an airport Police Officer. If you're on board an aircraft and someone is acting suspicious tell the F/A. There were plenty of people on 9/11 who were concerned with how the 9/11 hijackers were acting. People were also concerned with the way the shoe bomber and the NW253 attacker were acting before boarding. If you see something say something! There are laws in place that protect passengers who report suspicious activity.

Technology can never replace humans. When people are nervous they become irritable, start shaking, rub their face, and start sweating. The TSA is also to focused on what the terrorists were doing "last week" instead of predicting ways to thwart future attacks. Its highly unlikely that a terrorist is going to attempt to hijack a plane again like they did on 9/11. Passengers and crew members are not going to let that happen. They know their lives are in danger and they're going to fight back.

Another aspect of aviation security is identifying threats before the airport. This means that US intelligence needs to be proactive in finding and exposing potential terror plots.



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineavt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
Yes, it certainly can be....but

No, it can't be done. 100% is not possible, but you could get closer than we are today. Drug smuggling is common in commercial aviaton. If people can get drugs on board, why not weapons?


User currently offlineMtnWest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

I would assume the same way it would be to guarantee 100% of flights making iot to its destination.
Like they say, only abstinance is 100% effective.  



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineMacsog6 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 5):
Like they say, only abstinance is 100% effective.

And that is seldom 100% effective.   



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3925 times:

The only way to guarantee security 100% is to not allow any planes to take off ..... ever. Closing down commercial aviation would prevent hijackings, suicidal maniacs, 9-11 types, etc.

Being a member at A.net, I doubt this is what you want.

Better to just relax and enjoy your flight, while you still can. Also it may help to not watch too much network and cable news, as they all tend to inflate the actual threat for the shock value/viewership numbers.


User currently offlineLONGisland89 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

Of course..........everyone must fly NAKED!

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
is it possible to make it absolutely impossible to get any kind of weapon past checkpoints?

No. The lack of acknowledgement of this fact is behind much of lunacy in aviation security since 9/11.

Quoting LONGisland89 (Reply 7):
Of course..........everyone must fly NAKED!

Won't work...if a drug mule can swallow kilo of heroin, he can swallow a kilo of C4.

Tom.


User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 6):
The only way to guarantee security 100% is to not allow any planes to take off ..... ever. Closing down commercial aviation would prevent hijackings, suicidal maniacs, 9-11 types, etc.

Big fat BS!! If no aviation, then they use other means, trains, ships, cars, etc. Don't underestimate their creativity!


User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
Even with all of the security upgrades in the last 9 yrs. since 9/11, is it possible to make it absolutely impossible to get any kind of weapon past checkpoints? It seems like terrorists keep getting smarter and figuring out ways to get around security guidelines, so will security ever be absolute?

Sorry c5load, I did not mean to be rude, but if someone is seriously considering 100% security that person is delusional.
Do you think your life is ever 100% secure?!?


User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 10):
Do you think your life is ever 100% secure?!?

No offense taken at all, and no I know my life is never 100% secure. But obviously the TSA and other security organizations want to try for 100%.



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6544 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
Quoting LONGisland89 (Reply 7):
Of course..........everyone must fly NAKED!

Won't work...if a drug mule can swallow kilo of heroin, he can swallow a kilo of C4.

Then fly naked, and check in 72 hours before departure, and have a TSA agent monitoring every bathroom visit during those 72 hours.

Rediculous, of course. On the other hand, with the new scanners and the often horribly long queues with have come a pretty long way along that path.  



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineavt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

You are all forgetting all the people that have access to the aircraft as part of their jobs.

User currently offlineCOA735 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting avt007 (Reply 13):
You are all forgetting all the people that have access to the aircraft as part of their jobs.

Yup, there was a movie back in the day with Chuck Norris that showed a ground crew member working for the terrorist planting guns on the plane. Delta Force I think.


User currently offlinespudsmac From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

You are asking if it's possible to keep something from happened every single time for thousands and millions of times. There are very few odds that are truly 100% (never ever going to happen) in this world.

Giving you the benefit of a doubt though, the odds are good enough that it's extremely close to 100% (probably around 99.999%, but not actually 100) , but it will never actually be 100%.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 9):
Big fat BS!!

I wasn't meaning to say a complete airline shut down would stop terrorism entirely, just that which is performed using airliners as weapons. It was just another way of saying 100% aircraft security is impossible, and the tireless march to achieve it is wasteful and carcinogenic to our founding documents and inalienable rights. The entire industry from top to bottom has been dealt a severe blow not because of 9-11, or terrorism, but because of widespread FEAR.

A topic like this is yet another manifestation of this toxic fear.


User currently offlineNWADC10LUVER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Yes you can. Till the X-mas attempt of NW253 I would say look at AMS as the model but that security crew working that flight did not do their job period. Every time I go through AMS my flights to the USA always get a full body pat down with that they would have caught that idiot. That crew did not do their job. AMS has the checkpoints at each gate with at least four doors before you can even touch the aircraft. The security personnel there have full arrest powers and pack heat. It has been AMS that has caught many many mistakes by our own TSA screening people. I feel safer at AMS that at any airport in the USA that is for sure FRA is a close second.

User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

Quoting avt007 (Reply 3):
No, it can't be done.

As a definitive answer, yes it certainly can be done......but what will be needed to provide it is another matter entirely, and which is a different question with a different set of parameters altogether

Quoting avt007 (Reply 3):
If people can get drugs on board, why not weapons?

Because you're talking about two completely different things.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 16):
It was just another way of saying 100% aircraft security is impossible, and the tireless march to achieve it is wasteful and carcinogenic to our founding documents and inalienable rights.

Tell me why it is impossible? However, the second part of your comment is exactly what I was pointing to in my comment above.....what are you prepared to 'sacrifice', if anything at all, to achieve it remembering that those 'inalienable rights' you speak of can be changed by the process of constitutional amendment?


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
...absolutely impossible to get any kind of weapon past checkpoints?

No. You can make it extremely hard to bring traditional hand weapons on board, at a high cost (either in passenger delay, or in checkpoint manning. Basically you would have to eliminate review fatigue, good luck.) But I can't think of any reasonable way to detect a surgically implanted device if it's distributed throughout the body.

Besides, you really need to step back and ask what the goal is. Are you trying to keep weapons off planes? or are you trying to keep planes from being brought down? Isn't the real goal to keep people from being killed?

In which case, one has to ask why all the focus on planes. It's wildly stupid and illogical to spend billions keeping airplanes safe, while doing nothing at all to prevent bloodshed in other venues. Such as airports, for instance.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinejhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6206 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
Even with all of the security upgrades in the last 9 yrs. since 9/11, is it possible to make it absolutely impossible to get any kind of weapon past checkpoints? It seems like terrorists keep getting smarter and figuring out ways to get around security guidelines, so will security ever be absolute?

I think you know the answer to that question.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineFlyIGuy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 1):
Yes, it certainly can be
Quoting avt007 (Reply 3):
No, it can't be done. 100% is not possible, but you could get closer than we are today. Drug smuggling is common in commercial aviaton. If people can get drugs on board, why not weapons?
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 6):
The only way to guarantee security 100% is to not allow any planes to take off ..... ever. Closing down commercial aviation would prevent hijackings, suicidal maniacs, 9-11 types, etc.

The answer to the questions are both yes and no...If your a US airline then I would say NO, But If you were fying on ELAL airlines then I would say YES...If the USA would follow the same protocols as the Isreal with ELAL then I would say we could get 100% security. But that will never happen because we, the USA are so prone to protecting civil rights that security will still and always be a problem.

Just my 0.02

[Edited 2010-03-02 11:34:49]


The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
User currently offlineborism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Bruce Schneier, a world-renowned computer security expert and cryptographer has written extensively on airline security, has coined the term "security theater" to apply to TSA and is generally of opinion that terrorists have already won by circumventing our normal way of life by making (most of) us paranoid as we are.

He's also of opinion that the only two security measures introduced since 9/11 that work are cockpit reinforced doors and passengers' own vigilance (as demonstrated by Jasper Schuringa on NW253).

Here's a quote from him:

Quote:
Hardening cockpit doors has the highest risk reduction (16.67%) at lowest additional cost of $40 million. On the other hand, the Federal Air Marshal Service costs $900 million pa but reduces risk by only 1.67%. The Federal Air Marshal Service may be more cost-effective if it is able to show extra benefit over the cheaper measure of hardening cockpit doors. However, the Federal Air Marshal Service seems to have significantly less benefit which means that hardening cockpit doors is the more cost-effective measure.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/costbenefit_ana.html

100% security is never achievable, even if we ground all planes forever right now. Planes don't kill people, people kill people!

More people die every year in airplane accidents than due to airplane terror acts anywhere in the world, and yet air travel is still the safest one. Think about it.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Quoting FlyIGuy (Reply 21):
The answer to the questions are both yes and no...If your a US airline then I would say NO, But If you were fying on ELAL airlines then I would say YES...If the USA would follow the same protocols as the Isreal with ELAL then I would say we could get 100% security. But that will never happen because we, the USA are so prone to protecting civil rights that security will still and always be a problem.

   cheers for that FlylGuy, and my point exactly. However, if you note, it's the same old story on the thread of people going off on tangents without actually stating why they allege it is not possible.

Quoting borism (Reply 22):
100% security is never achievable, even if we ground all planes forever right now.

Well, that's definitely a contradiction, lol!!! If all planes were grounded forever then there would be no need for airport security.....and the end result is 100% airline security!!


User currently offlineborism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 23):
Well, that's definitely a contradiction, lol!!! If all planes were grounded forever then there would be no need for airport security.....and the end result is 100% airline security!!

Yes, our air will be secure of those stupid planes forever. Well, until terrorists acquire missiles. Wait, they already have those...

But that will leave millions of people without work (hey TSA screener, I'm looking at you) and huge infrastructure without much use other that organized crime, much like some seaports.


25 MoltenRock : "Smarter"? Are you kidding me? I think the TSA may be getting dumber every day. The non-exploding UnderRoos bomber had lots of red flags that airline
26 Post contains images seabosdca : Watching the news, you'd think terrorism was the #1 danger to healthy Americans. It's not. Poor road safety is. Occupational hazards, street crime, h
27 Post contains links MoltenRock : Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know that as that's what they were saying after the attempt. Looks like it got published a number of places /
28 m11stephen : There are 28,000 flights (approximately) everyday in the US. There have "only" been two attempted terrorist attacks since 9/11. Flying is very, very s
29 NWADC10LUVER : I will tell you this that paying for a ticket in cash should never be a red flag- that is a discrimination to some of us who will never get a credit c
30 Post contains images xero9 : Simple solution.. You stay in a sterile room for 2 days before your scheduled flight to make sure any explosives you might have eaten have passed thr
31 borism : you guys obviously won't stop any terrorist from going on your flight, as they are much more creative than you. don't you think it would be no proble
32 AirNZ : But you're ignoring the fact that a terrorist getting on to an aircraft, and a terrorist getting on to an aircraft with weapons/explosives are two di
33 MD80fanatic : There is no need to tell you why, it's obvious. Too many different ways to affect an airliner negatively to possibly account for all, train for all,
34 ZRH : This question is easy to answer: NO. No where in life there can be 100% security or safety. Such is life, so are human beings and technology.
35 brilondon : It could be 100% but you would not like it. No luggage would be allowed in the cabin. You would have to fly naked. You would also be shackeled to you
36 Ltbewr : Simple answer - No. As long as there sufficient motivation to want to take one's own life to acheive a political goal some demented persons will try a
37 avt007 : I'm talking about baggage handkers, caterers, fuelers. rampies, towers, all these low paying, easy to get jobs that allow access to the aircraft. Tha
38 rwessel : There is certainly no such federal law, and I am unaware of any state that actually has a law generally requiring businesses to accept cash as a form
39 spacecadet : *Nobody* involved in security will tell you they can ever make anything 100% secure. It can't be done. Not just in aviation, but in anything. This is,
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...
Is It Possible To Check Overbooking In Advance? posted Wed Mar 19 2008 07:25:30 by Jaumett
Is It Possible To Tell, Just By Listening? posted Sat Mar 1 2008 07:01:52 by Readytotaxi
Is It Possible To Know The Reg. Of A Future Flight posted Tue Nov 7 2006 22:01:13 by Tony Lu
Is It Possible To Convert 777-300ER To Combi? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 22:45:31 by AirCanada014
Is It Possible To Try And Fly 1 Day Earlier? posted Fri May 20 2005 06:43:42 by Birdwatching
Is It Possible To See LX Loads In LH System Now? posted Mon Apr 18 2005 12:20:17 by Nethkt
Is IT Possible To Get A Flight On A L-1011? posted Fri Apr 15 2005 15:29:50 by COAMiG29
Is It Possible To Fly EK FCO To MXP? posted Mon Nov 1 2004 14:30:11 by IDAWA
Is It Possible To Retreive A/C Registration? posted Thu Aug 26 2004 16:52:58 by SXMbyKLM747
Is It Possible To Fly On Mostly One Airline? posted Sat Mar 6 2004 03:29:59 by WhyNotTu204