# Airline security to increase -- attempted terrorism Amsterdam-Detroit



## wayman

As a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit neared Detroit, a passenger attempted to set off an explosive which "appeared to be a sophisticated device made from a mixture of powder and liquid, which failed to detonate". "Passengers who were on the plane said that that they heard a loud pop, smelled smoke and then saw flames in one area of the plane." The suspect was subdued by passengers. One or more passengers (possibly including the suspect) were injured, but nobody died.

Airline Incident Was Terrorism Attempt, White House Says



> The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that airline passengers should expect to encounter additional security measures on all flights, adding to a travel season already made difficult by severe winter weather affecting large areas of the country.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Lots of varying reports on this one! The big thing to me is how did he get the materials for the so called "bomb" past security? And I've heard that pax were the ones that grabbed this fanatic, other reports say it was flight crew?

Sounds like Flight 51 on 9-11, glad no-one was seriously injured except hopefully this cretin! :angry:

Look for lots of "tightening up" by TSA @ the airports even though this idiot got on in a foriegn country!


----------



## wayman

jimhudson said:


> Lots of varying reports on this one! The big thing to me is how did he get the materials for the so called "bomb" past security? And I've heard that pax were the ones that grabbed this fanatic, other reports say it was flight crew?Sounds like Flight 51 on 9-11, glad no-one was seriously injured except hopefully this cretin! :angry:
> 
> Look for lots of "tightening up" by TSA @ the airports even though this idiot got on in a foriegn country!


"Friday’s incident brought to mind Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight between Paris and Miami in December 2001 by igniting *explosives in his shoes*. ... Since then, *airline passengers have had to remove their shoes* before passing through security checkpoints in American airports."

"Mr. Abdulmutallab told law enforcement authorities, the official said, that he had had *explosive powder taped to his leg*"

Does this suggest the new security measure *airline passengers must remove their pants* to anyone else?


----------



## DET63

wayman said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of varying reports on this one! The big thing to me is how did he get the materials for the so called "bomb" past security? And I've heard that pax were the ones that grabbed this fanatic, other reports say it was flight crew?Sounds like Flight 51 on 9-11, glad no-one was seriously injured except hopefully this cretin! :angry:
> 
> Look for lots of "tightening up" by TSA @ the airports even though this idiot got on in a foriegn country!
> 
> 
> 
> "Friday’s incident brought to mind Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight between Paris and Miami in December 2001 by igniting *explosives in his shoes*. ... Since then, *airline passengers have had to remove their shoes* before passing through security checkpoints in American airports."
> 
> "Mr. Abdulmutallab told law enforcement authorities, the official said, that he had had *explosive powder taped to his leg*"
> 
> Does this suggest the new security measure *airline passengers must remove their pants* to anyone else?
Click to expand...

Women might be able to get around some of this by wearing dresses or skirts to facilitate showing security personnel that their legs weren't being used to smuggle explosives. As for men, however . . . well, I suppose taking up cross-dressing is one option. :lol:


----------



## jis

DET63 said:


> Women might be able to get around some of this by wearing dresses or skirts to facilitate showing security personnel that their legs weren't being used to smuggle explosives. As for men, however . . . well, I suppose taking up cross-dressing is one option. :lol:


Or men could pretend to be Scottish and wear kilts :lol: For full effect they could carry along fake bagpipes too


----------



## MattW

Or we could just shutdown national airspace to commercial traffic permanently, and use Amtrak...OH WAIT A MINUTE! Amtrak doesn't have as much coverage as these airlines supposedly do...oh well, just shutdown the airspace and we'll figure out something.


----------



## DET63

MattW said:


> Or we could just shutdown national airspace to commercial traffic permanently, and use Amtrak...OH WAIT A MINUTE! Amtrak doesn't have as much coverage as these airlines supposedly do...oh well, just shutdown the airspace and we'll figure out something.


We did that for a few days after 9/11. In fact, the airspace was shut down to all air traffic, except some military traffic.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

i say get rid of the taking your shoes off and all the other s rules and in addition to the metal detector you already pass through have a x-ray machine that you pass through. they already got one but not all places have it and its a option if you want to use it. if they had this machine this guy would never have gotten past security. but that's to simple the TSA needs to complicate it.


----------



## GoldenSpike

Sitting at PDX airport waiting for NWA flight to MSP enroute Green Bay for Packer game tomorrow.

Business as usual going through security. The only thing out of the ordinary was one female pax got wanded.

Her appearance suggested she may have set off the detector due to body piercings. At least her face didn't

look like she fell into a fishing tackle box.

Stayed in good graces with Amtrak getting here: Parked car at VAN, took Talgo to PDX 15 minues away, crossed street at Union station and boarded light rail to airport. Easy and painless method!

In better graces coming back in early January. Using points to do a CHI-LAX-VAN w/bedroom both segments.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

With each additional hassle, I wonder more and more why people put up with this. Why aren't people yelling, screaming, kicking, and beating the floor with their feet telling congress this is NOT WHAT THEY WANT!


----------



## jis

amtrakwolverine said:


> i say get rid of the taking your shoes off and all the other s rules and in addition to the metal detector you already pass through have a x-ray machine that you pass through. they already got one but not all places have it and its a option if you want to use it. if they had this machine this guy would never have gotten past security. but that's to simple the TSA needs to complicate it.


Since when does TSA do security check in Amsterdam? 

I will be flying back from Delhi in a week. It should be an interesting experience. Of course in India their favorite method is to hand search everything, carryon baggage and person, once at the security barrier and then a second time at the boarding gate on the jetway. The latter is usually enforced only for nonstop flights to the US. I wonder if they will do anything extra beyond that. As has been suggested, what they will do will probably be unpredictable by design.

I don't mind the last one hour curfew on the flight, if that reduces the chance of me becoming a statistics in the terror campaign. I seldom move about too much at that time anyway. It would be the last one hour of a 15 hour flight. The last one hour of a one hour flight would seem to be much more significant though. 



GML said:


> With each additional hassle, I wonder more and more why people put up with this. Why aren't people yelling, screaming, kicking, and beating the floor with their feet telling congress this is NOT WHAT THEY WANT!


So what would their entire plea be to the Congress? Something like "_We do not want this. please remove security checks. We are willing to live with an occasional plane falling out of the sky or being hijacked and run into a building, or even into an Amtrak train_?" <_<

I am just looking for some practical ideas here, not emotional reactions.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> So what would their entire plea be to the Congress?


I think that the plea should be for security that makes sense - not reactionary half measures designed to give the appearance of security rather than actually prevent bad people from attempting to do us harm.


----------



## jis

HokieNav said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what would their entire plea be to the Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the plea should be for security that makes sense - not reactionary half measures designed to give the appearance of security rather than actually prevent bad people from attempting to do us harm.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. However, practically, what test does one apply to differentiate between those procedures that make sense and those that don't?

Honestly I have no idea how to answer that question of mine. Apparently everyone is in uncharted territory here. I don't believe the Congress has a magic wand to specify such a test either.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

jis said:


> So what would their entire plea be to the Congress? Something like "_We do not want this. please remove security checks. We are willing to live with an occasional plane falling out of the sky or being hijacked and run into a building, or even into an Amtrak train_?" <_<
> I am just looking for some practical ideas here, not emotional reactions.


We don't want security theatre. We don't want security that does nothing more then to provide a demonstration that we are making it look like we have security. I have yet to find evidence that the security rules in various ways do more than hassel people.

For example, Jishnu, please give me some demonstration of exactly WHAT not allowing me to be sitting with things on my lap for the last hour of the flight is going to do?

IF someone wants to get through our security checks, they will do so. There are so many ways of doing so. XKCD posted a comic that is actually an interesting point- the average laptop battery, in its normal state with only a few invisible modifications, has the explosive capability of a small hand grenade. This is security theatre that pointlessly harasses innocent people. Investigations can be safely done without harassing innocent people.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> For example, Jishnu, please give me some demonstration of exactly WHAT not allowing me to be sitting with things on my lap for the last hour of the flight is going to do?


I am not sure I or anyone can. As I said the initial reaction tends to be to prevent a repeat of the specific method, and various things are done with that in mind. It seems to me that this is consistent with human nature



> IF someone wants to get through our security checks, they will do so. There are so many ways of doing so. XKCD posted a comic that is actually an interesting point- the average laptop battery, in its normal state with only a few invisible modifications, has the explosive capability of a small hand grenade. This is security theatre that pointlessly harasses innocent people. Investigations can be safely done without harassing innocent people.


Since you are such an expert I suggest that you offer your services to DHS/TSA to set them straight. It is always easy to rant on and on when no responsibility lies on your shoulder 

So what concrete suggestions do you have?

I am the first to admit that many of the practices don't make any sens to me. But I also do not know exactly what objective test to apply to determine which ones are effective and which ones are not specially when the consequences of failure of anything is so horrible that one is unable to do experimentation to establish relative efficacy of techniques used.

Stepping back from the emotional aspects of this there appears to be two broad philosophies on which security of this sort is based. Basing methods on establishing the intent of a person at security checkpoints, which takes vastly superior and sophisticated training of the personnel manning such posts, is apparently the one used by Israel. Most of the rest of the world appears to use one which is based on establishing identity and preceding behavior of an individual with that identity. This requires less sophisticated training of security personnel, but the downside is that individual with same identity can change ones mind and start behaving differently after spending a vacation or two in NWFP/Waziristan. So then you have to establish exactly where one has been and whether one has gone through a life changing transformation in the process, which is not easy to do. Once you determine the inherent weakness, then one starts applying odd heuristics, the exact efficacy of which is hard to establish. This is what is happening at present.

Having been through the demonstrably efficacious (so far) Israeli method, which incidentally involves extensive profiling of each individual, I am quite sure people in the US would go completely non-linear if such were used across the board in the US.

Unfortunately the problem of terrorism in the sky is not one that can be wished away in today's world, and it is inevitable that some set of actions will continue to be taken with the hope of preventing as much mayhem as possible. Some will be effective and some will be just for show perhaps. But at the end of the day what else can one do given the nature of the beast? Gratuitously calling those that are operating in a difficult situation trying to protect lives, ****s and terrorist reflects more on the the ones making such statements and their juvenile idealism perhaps, than it adds to a reasoned debate and discussion of the matter at hand.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Protection is highly overrated. In any situation, be it sex or travel. You remove so much of the pleasure in life in avoiding things that almost never happen.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

they can protect us without making it complicated. we don't have to remove our shoes and other stuff just to get on a freaking plane if they had simple yet effective screening. they have x-ray machines for baggage so get one for people. some airports have them but not all. they will show if anyone is hiding anything taped to there leg or chest or smuggling something up there you know what. but no we have to remove our shoes belt coat get frisked etc when a x-ray machine will make that obsolete unless they find something. but no that's too easy and effective.and now thanks to that recent attack attempt we may have to remove our pants.


----------



## DET63

One of the things that worried me in the wake of 9/11 was the question of whether we'd have to make a choice between freedom and security. So far, we haven't, but I wonder how long we'll be able to have both. From the looks of other posts here, I'm not the only with that worry.


----------



## Ryan

DET63 said:


> One of the things that worried me in the wake of 9/11 was the question of whether we'd have to make a choice between freedom and security. So far, we haven't, but I wonder how long we'll be able to have both. From the looks of other posts here, I'm not the only with that worry.


I'd argue that we don't have both now, and that it's not possible to give up freedom to obtain security. I think that people are going to have to recognize that the world is a dangerous place and that people are going to attempt to do us harm.

With the cabin door secured, there's not going to be a repeat of a 9/11 style hijacking. Drop all of the security theater at the airport, use the money we save to put 2 -3 air marshals on every aircraft to stop boneheads from trying to pull this maneuver.


----------



## jis

amtrakwolverine said:


> but no that's too easy and effective.and now thanks to that recent attack attempt we may have to remove our pants.


Not to mention that frequent fliers will be exposed to significantly higher risk of cancer from all the radiation dosage that they will get from the X-Rays. But I suppose that is OK. Afterall that might force them to ride Amtrak. :unsure: 

I as a frequent flier, given the choice, would prefer to take my belt and shoes off rather than get random radiation therapy at each security checkpoint.

A massage at each security checkpoint is far more preferable to getting radiation therapy IMHO :lol:


----------



## PetalumaLoco

There's talk of banning use of electronics in flight.


----------



## GG-1

jis said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> but no that's too easy and effective.and now thanks to that recent attack attempt we may have to remove our pants.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that frequent fliers will be exposed to significantly higher risk of cancer from all the radiation dosage that they will get from the X-Rays. But I suppose that is OK. Afterall that might force them to ride Amtrak. :unsure:
> 
> I as a frequent flier, given the choice, would prefer to take my belt and shoes off rather than get random radiation therapy at each security checkpoint.
> 
> A massage at each security checkpoint is far more preferable to getting radiation therapy IMHO :lol:
Click to expand...

Aloha

How close are we to the Mechanics Ilustraded story, a bunch of years ago, where Air travelers would go to the Airport And have to change into paper jumpsuits, for the trip, their personal items sent in a separate container.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

PetalumaLoco said:


> There's talk of banning use of electronics in flight.


here we go again. electronics had nothing to do with the recent attempted attack. all he did was try to light so powder and liquid taped to his leg. so now we ban electronics. like another member said why why why do people insist flying is is great and amtrak sucks when you can't do nothing on a plane.


----------



## Neil_M

amtrakwolverine said:


> like another member said why why why do people insist flying is is great and amtrak sucks when you can't do nothing on a plane.


Because not everyone has 4 days to cross a country.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Neil_M said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> like another member said why why why do people insist flying is is great and amtrak sucks when you can't do nothing on a plane.
> 
> 
> 
> Because not everyone has 4 days to cross a country.
Click to expand...

so then don't take a vacation people will put up with this crap just so they can get a meeting in hong kong. stupid. instead of spending our tax dollars on security that won't do much spend it on highspeed trains that can go from chicago to L.A in 24 hours.


----------



## Neil_M

amtrakwolverine said:


> so then don't take a vacation people will put up with this crap just so they can get a meeting in hong kong. stupid. instead of spending our tax dollars on security that won't do much spend it on highspeed trains that can go from chicago to L.A in 24 hours.


So what happens when the nasty terrorists move along to blowing trains up? Just stay in your house and hide under the bed and cry like a baby.


----------



## stlouielady

amtrakwolverine said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> like another member said why why why do people insist flying is is great and amtrak sucks when you can't do nothing on a plane.
> 
> 
> 
> Because not everyone has 4 days to cross a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so then don't take a vacation people will put up with this crap just so they can get a meeting in hong kong. stupid. instead of spending our tax dollars on security that won't do much spend it on highspeed trains that can go from chicago to L.A in 24 hours.
Click to expand...

Some people don't fly just for vacation. Some of us HAVE to fly in order to do our jobs. I frequently have to go from St Louis to Las Vegas, or to Pendleton, OR, or to Miami, FL, or to Northern California, or to Puerto Rico (not many trains from St Louis to San Juan), etc, etc, etc. Some of us have ONE day to get to these places, and do not have the ability to take the train, provided there is even a train station nearby. When you do consulting for a living, you travel to where the work is; whether that is 20 miles aways, or 1200 miles away. I would LOVE to take the train everywhere, but, the timing required with work does not allow that. I have to be at a customer site on Monday, return home on Fridays, and have to travel again on a Monday, 3 weeks a month. I have NO choice except to fly. The only option I have to eliminate flying is to quit my job, and I'm not able to do that.


----------



## Bob Dylan

stlouielady said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> like another member said why why why do people insist flying is is great and amtrak sucks when you can't do nothing on a plane.
> 
> 
> 
> Because not everyone has 4 days to cross a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so then don't take a vacation people will put up with this crap just so they can get a meeting in hong kong. stupid. instead of spending our tax dollars on security that won't do much spend it on highspeed trains that can go from chicago to L.A in 24 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people don't fly just for vacation. Some of us HAVE to fly in order to do our jobs. I frequently have to go from St Louis to Las Vegas, or to Pendleton, OR, or to Miami, FL, or to Northern California, or to Puerto Rico (not many trains from St Louis to San Juan), etc, etc, etc. Some of us have ONE day to get to these places, and do not have the ability to take the train, provided there is even a train station nearby. When you do consulting for a living, you travel to where the work is; whether that is 20 miles aways, or 1200 miles away. I would LOVE to take the train everywhere, but, the timing required with work does not allow that. I have to be a customer site on Monday, return home on Fridays, and have to travel again on a Monday, 3 weeks a month. I have NO choice except to fly. The only option I have to eliminate flying is to quit my job, and I'm not able to do that.
Click to expand...

Used to be among the crowd youre in with, I feel for you the way things are going, as a business traveler you soon won't be able to get any work done while on the plane, probably not @ the airport either'there's talk of making all baggage checked with NO carryons and increased fees to cover the costs!

I was fortunate to be able to stop flying for business and ride the NEC trains, and now I'm retired dont have to fly! It's a great world, and our cousins across the sea will suffer if they want to come here to visit, I'm not saying that everyone should stay home, just put some heat on the politicians to not give catre-blanche to Homeland Security to create an oppressive/police like state @ airports and on planes, let alone trains! We are fast heading that way,

if responsible business travelers and in fact all travelers do become involved politically we can remake the system to where it's somewhat safe (no-one is ever completely safe except when dead!)and sensible and affordable! A fine balance, the essence of our country and society! Good traveling, take trains when you can!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

wayman said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of varying reports on this one! The big thing to me is how did he get the materials for the so called "bomb" past security? And I've heard that pax were the ones that grabbed this fanatic, other reports say it was flight crew?Sounds like Flight 51 on 9-11, glad no-one was seriously injured except hopefully this cretin! :angry:
> 
> Look for lots of "tightening up" by TSA @ the airports even though this idiot got on in a foriegn country!
> 
> 
> 
> "Friday’s incident brought to mind Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight between Paris and Miami in December 2001 by igniting *explosives in his shoes*. ... Since then, *airline passengers have had to remove their shoes* before passing through security checkpoints in American airports."
> 
> "Mr. Abdulmutallab told law enforcement authorities, the official said, that he had had *explosive powder taped to his leg*"
> 
> Does this suggest the new security measure *airline passengers must remove their pants* to anyone else?
Click to expand...

I just watched pictures of the bomb on CNN-- it was apparently taped inside of his underwear... So taking off your pants might not be enough for this one... :blink:


----------



## DET63

> I just watched pictures of the bomb on CNN-- it was apparently taped inside of his underwear... So taking off your pants might not be enough for this one...


Yes, we'll all have to wear dresses and go commando (i.e., without underpants) whenever we fly.

So much for the "Friendly Skies."


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Yeah, that was quite clever. You could use a kid's diaper or a "feminine" product, and get the same kind of effect... the pair of underwear were only a tight pair of briefs.


----------



## jis

jimhudson said:


> Used to be among the crowd youre in with, I feel for you the way things are going, as a business traveler you soon won't be able to get any work done while on the plane, probably not @ the airport either'there's talk of making all baggage checked with NO carryons and increased fees to cover the costs!


Fortunately as of today the last hour curfew on international flights have been relaxed and made at the discretion of the Captain in Command, an authority that s/he already has for the entire flight, not just the last hour anyway. Also people will be allowed to keep pillows and blankets through the period. One carry on is allowed though it will be hand searched for flight to the US. Passengers will be hand searched at the boarding gate for flights to the US. This is of course almost the same as what was pretty much common practice for nonstop flights to the US originating in India even before the incidents last week.

Eventually some semblance of sanity will prevail I think.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Used to be among the crowd youre in with, I feel for you the way things are going, as a business traveler you soon won't be able to get any work done while on the plane, probably not @ the airport either'there's talk of making all baggage checked with NO carryons and increased fees to cover the costs!
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately as of today the last hour curfew on international flights have been relaxed and made at the discretion of the Captain in Command, an authority that s/he already has for the entire flight, not just the last hour anyway. Also people will be allowed to keep pillows and blankets through the period. One carry on is allowed though it will be hand searched for flight to the US. Passengers will be hand searched at the boarding gate for flights to the US. This is of course almost the same as what was pretty much common practice for nonstop flights to the US originating in India even before the incidents last week.
> 
> Eventually some semblance of sanity will prevail I think.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jis, sanity might prevail yet! They got the President involved today because the Homeland Security honchos were putting out contradictory statements and people on planes were making up rules as they went! (leaving the lights on during night flights, no electronic devices, no getting up to go to the bathroommetc.) Good to hear they are tightning up boarding procedures, I still am glad I dont have to fly anymore,Amtrak travel is heaven in comparison!


----------



## jis

jimhudson said:


> Thanks Jis, sanity might prevail yet! They got the President involved today because the Homeland Security honchos were putting out contradictory statements and people on planes were making up rules as they went! (leaving the lights on during night flights, no electronic devices, no getting up to go to the bathroommetc.) Good to hear they are tightning up boarding procedures, I still am glad I dont have to fly anymore,Amtrak travel is heaven in comparison!


One should keep in mind that the strictest part of the rules apply only to International flights destined for the US and departing from the US. It is not clear to me which of those additional rules apply to US domestic flights at the present time. It is indeed quite possible that individual airlines or airports are doing silly things. For example apparently yesterday even at CDG (Paris) they were insisting on no hand baggage. But I am hoping that things will settle down in a week or two to something resembling a level of sanity.

In effect except for Canada to US flights these seemingly most obnoxious rules apply only to flights that cannot be substituted by an Amtrak journey.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

As small as Honolulu Airport is Today's KHON news announced that the recommended time to go through "Security" was being increased from 1 hour to 1.5 hrs. That is longer than most inter-island flights. This does not include going from your car to airline checkin or to the gates so now incuding that It will take about 9 hours to get to Los Angeles.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> As small as Honolulu Airport is Today's KHON news announced that the recommended time to go through "Security" was being increased from 1 hour to 1.5 hrs. That is longer than most inter-island flights. This does not include going from your car to airline checkin or to the gates so now incuding that It will take about 9 hours to get to Los Angeles.


Still faster than the train


----------



## jis

Here is a blog my friend Bob Blakley posted on this matter. I found it interesting reading. Here is a short excerpt:



> Just to be perfectly clear, it looks to me like these rules are DHS's (specifically TSA's) attempt to protect the people on the ground, not the people on the plane. The underlying assumption is that terrorists who try to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane will succeed, at least some of the time.
> Given the failure of TSA screening to detect pretty much all hazardous materials, this assumption is depressingly realistic.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Here is a blog my friend Bob Blakley posted on this matter. I found it interesting reading. Here is a short excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be perfectly clear, it looks to me like these rules are DHS's (specifically TSA's) attempt to protect the people on the ground, not the people on the plane. The underlying assumption is that terrorists who try to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane will succeed, at least some of the time.
> Given the failure of TSA screening to detect pretty much all hazardous materials, this assumption is depressingly realistic.
Click to expand...

Excellent points jis, you hang out with smart people! I'll predict that Janet will be leaving the cabinet in the near future for health reasons or be "promoted" to a position that means nothing and sounds iumportant, opps, guess she already has that job! :lol: But your friend is correct,

much pr, little action! As GML said we don't need security theather in our airports, we need security that prevents kooks from getting dangerous items on the planes period! I prefer that on international flights that sky marshalls be on all flights, thought that was their purpose all along?Everyone knows I'm no fan of the Bush gang but this one is on Obama and company, we don't need anymore!


----------



## Ryan

From the posting:



> What tipped me off was the weird restriction of the new rules to the last hour of the flight - what DHS apparently really doesn't want is a plane exploding in an urban area on TV, because that would look too much like 9/11. If we're going to lose one, let's make sure it goes down over a farm - like United 93.


I think that Bob's giving too much credit to the TSA/DHS. I think that this is nothing more than a knee jerk, futile method of trying to look like they're "doing something" to keep Americans safe. Instead of doing the easy thing and making silly little rules like this, they should mandate that those 3D body scanners be put into play across the country. While I'm generally sensitive to the privacy concerns being expressed by some, in this case the scans are easily avoided - just stay off of a plane!
While I'm on the soapbox, I'm also disappointed that this is already being assumed to be an intelligence failure. I had a brief (2 year) stint in the intelligence community when I was on active duty, and the amazing number of data points that come in make it darn near impossible to tell which Dad walking into an embassy expressing concern relates to a kid that's going to take down an airliner someday and which is just another false alarm. In the perfect clarity of hindsight, it seems so obvious to connect the dots into the picture, but before hand it's nothing but a jumble of dots, some relevant and some not, and a near-infinite number of pictures that can be constructed from them.

Are there things that can be done better in the IC? Certainly. Is that different from any other organization (public or private)? Absolutely not.


----------



## jis

Further entertainment brought to you from DHS/TSA....

Apparently they released a Security Directive without marking it SSI. This got released by someone in TSA to a few people, who published it in their blog. This ticked off TSA and they subpoenaed those that published it trying to figure out who released it from within TSA. What a hopelessly incompetent outfit.

Here is one of the Blogs that set them off.

Here is a further Blog about what they did.

Meanwhile apparently Ms. Nepolitano's boss is not at all amused. He thinks that there was a phenomenal failure of the system essentially refuting Ms. Nepolitano's initial "Everything worked as it should have" line. Yeah of course.... people with bombs in their underwear are supposed to be able to occasionally get on planes afterall, even after their Dad notify the US Embassy that the son is a dangerous person ... Right! I wonder how long Ms. Nepolitano will continue to warm the chair at the head of DHS. She seems to have suffered from a severe case of Hoof ... er... Foot in mouth disease.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> ...Meanwhile apparently Ms. Nepolitano's boss is not at all amused. He thinks that there was a phenomenal failure of the system essentially refuting Ms. Nepolitano's initial "Everything worked as it should have" line. Yeah of course.... people with bombs in their underwear are supposed to be able to occasionally get on planes afterall, even after their Dad notify the US Embassy that the son is a dangerous person ... Right! I wonder how long Ms. Nepolitano will continue to warm the chair at the head of DHS. She seems to have suffered from a severe case of Hoof ... er... Foot in mouth disease.


Of course, Ms Nepolitano's boss only became incensed when the publicity got a little to negative. For three days he was silent while his underlings went out and tried to put a positive spin on the situation. Do you think that the head of DHS and the White House press secretary went on the Sunday news shows without clearing it with the boss? Once that didn't work, it's time for Plan B: go public and blame someone. He'll throw somebody, likely Ms Nepolitano, under the bus, and claim he was shocked, shocked at the failure.

Maybe they should have sent Oprah to the Sunday news shows instead.


----------



## jis

Good point. So far this seems to have been handled exemplarily poorly by all concerned.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Good point. So far this seems to have been handled exemplarily poorly by all concerned.


Wan't going to comment anymore till I read the blog and postings! Hate to say it but it's a perfect example of what's wrong in WAS no matter who's elected! A bunch of unqualified political hacks are appointed to policy making positions, the keystone cops are placed in security positions and when people attempt to express their first ammendment rights the ***** is sent out to their home to third degree them! And in the mean time pr flacks hold meetings to come up with press releases that put the correct "spin" on Monty Python type fiascos! Finally when the American people awaken and start lampooming these clowns the elected officials are all SHOCKED! SHOCKED! and will get to the bottom of this! Heads will roll, yes, heads surely will roll!It's Alice in Wonderland meets Con Air brought to you by TSA and HS! Get ready for more crowded trains and highways, if you have to fly, I feel your pain!

SIGH :blink:


----------



## Ryan

This isn't a hit on the politicians, this is a hit on the people that are paid to advise them and make recommendations (both appointed and career, but mostly career).


----------



## AlanB

HokieNav said:


> I think that Bob's giving too much credit to the TSA/DHS. I think that this is nothing more than a knee jerk, futile method of trying to look like they're "doing something" to keep Americans safe. Instead of doing the easy thing and making silly little rules like this, they should mandate that those 3D body scanners be put into play across the country. While I'm generally sensitive to the privacy concerns being expressed by some, in this case the scans are easily avoided - just stay off of a plane!


There's a pivotal point that escapes me here. How does a full body scanner installed at all US airports stop someone from Amsterdam, which is not a US airport, from getting on a plane with explosives?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the technology, especially since they've perfected things to a point where it isn't as intrusive as the original ones, yet it still lets you see things like the explosives that were on this terrorist's body.



HokieNav said:


> While I'm on the soapbox, I'm also disappointed that this is already being assumed to be an intelligence failure. I had a brief (2 year) stint in the intelligence community when I was on active duty, and the amazing number of data points that come in make it darn near impossible to tell which Dad walking into an embassy expressing concern relates to a kid that's going to take down an airliner someday and which is just another false alarm. In the perfect clarity of hindsight, it seems so obvious to connect the dots into the picture, but before hand it's nothing but a jumble of dots, some relevant and some not, and a near-infinite number of pictures that can be constructed from them.
> Are there things that can be done better in the IC? Certainly. Is that different from any other organization (public or private)? Absolutely not.


This I would agree with whole heartedly. It's always easier to armchair quarterback once all the pieces of the puzzle are in place, than it is before you have all the pieces.


----------



## Ryan

PRR 60 said:


> Of course, Ms Nepolitano's boss only became incensed when the publicity got a little to negative. For three days he was silent while his underlings went out and tried to put a positive spin on the situation.


Or perhaps he kept his mouth shut while waiting for information to come in before breaking out the "jump to conclusions" mat, which is a welcome breath of fresh air.


----------



## Ryan

AlanB said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Bob's giving too much credit to the TSA/DHS. I think that this is nothing more than a knee jerk, futile method of trying to look like they're "doing something" to keep Americans safe. Instead of doing the easy thing and making silly little rules like this, they should mandate that those 3D body scanners be put into play across the country. While I'm generally sensitive to the privacy concerns being expressed by some, in this case the scans are easily avoided - just stay off of a plane!
> 
> 
> 
> There's a pivotal point that escapes me here. How does a full body scanner installed at all US airports stop someone from Amsterdam, which is not a US airport, from getting on a plane with explosives?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the technology, especially since they've perfected things to a point where it isn't as intrusive as the original ones, yet it still lets you see things like the explosives that were on this terrorist's body.
Click to expand...

That points to a larger issue that we as a country need to figure out - while ultimately we can't control security at non-American airports, we can deny entry into US airspace any flights originating in countries that don't have security standards that are up to snuff. That'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, be difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably upset the Canadians when we start diverting "unsecure" flights to land in their territory instead.


----------



## Neil_M

HokieNav said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Bob's giving too much credit to the TSA/DHS. I think that this is nothing more than a knee jerk, futile method of trying to look like they're "doing something" to keep Americans safe. Instead of doing the easy thing and making silly little rules like this, they should mandate that those 3D body scanners be put into play across the country. While I'm generally sensitive to the privacy concerns being expressed by some, in this case the scans are easily avoided - just stay off of a plane!
> 
> 
> 
> There's a pivotal point that escapes me here. How does a full body scanner installed at all US airports stop someone from Amsterdam, which is not a US airport, from getting on a plane with explosives?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the technology, especially since they've perfected things to a point where it isn't as intrusive as the original ones, yet it still lets you see things like the explosives that were on this terrorist's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That points to a larger issue that we as a country need to figure out - while ultimately we can't control security at non-American airports, we can deny entry into US airspace any flights originating in countries that don't have security standards that are up to snuff. That'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, be difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably upset the Canadians when we start diverting "unsecure" flights to land in their territory instead.
Click to expand...


Why not just build a big wall around the US and put a roof over it all? That will keep all the bad guys out, apart from the ones already in.....

Whatever you do, you will always be one step behind the bad guys. You just have to learn to live with that because you can never be ahead. This latest guy got on the plane despite all the precautions your government demands being in place, but somehow he was not picked up. Makes you wonder how efficient and worthwhile all the checks are.

Surely not just a bit of theatre?

Even if you check all passengers 100% all the time, then fine, super extra safe and secure.

Just don't ask how much airfreight is screened for things that go bang, that might make you have a little toilet related accident.......


----------



## PRR 60

HokieNav said:


> ..That points to a larger issue that we as a country need to figure out - while ultimately we can't control security at non-American airports, we can deny entry into US airspace any flights originating in countries that don't have security standards that are up to snuff. That'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, be difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably upset the Canadians when we start diverting "unsecure" flights to land in their territory instead.


I believe we already do that. No USA-bound flight can depart until released by DHS. All airports originating USA-bound flights must meet security requirements. That is not as big a deal as it seems since most airport security is pretty thorough.

NW 253 was released from AMS since the individual in question was not on the no-fly or even the watch list. The latter would have subjected him to a full screening which, in all likelihood, would have found the explosives. AMS has full body scanners. They are now being used to screen all USA-bound passengers.


----------



## Bob Dylan

PRR 60 said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..That points to a larger issue that we as a country need to figure out - while ultimately we can't control security at non-American airports, we can deny entry into US airspace any flights originating in countries that don't have security standards that are up to snuff. That'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, be difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably upset the Canadians when we start diverting "unsecure" flights to land in their territory instead.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we already do that. No USA-bound flight can depart until released by DHS. All airports originating USA-bound flights must meet security requirements. That is not as big a deal as it seems since most airport security is pretty thorough.
> 
> NW 253 was released from AMS since the individual in question was not on the no-fly or even the watch list. The latter would have subjected him to a full screening which, in all likelihood, would have found the explosives. AMS has full body scanners. They are now being used to screen all USA-bound passengers.
Click to expand...

That's the point, this should have been SOP on all international flights to and from the US, we are not exempt from our own terrorists, should every guy who looks like Tim McVey be checked extra close when going taround Govt. buildings?Everyone should be checked closely, those that have not been in combat zones or dangerous places such as Israel or London during "the troubles" don't understand this! It's totally a failure of the system and no amount of spin and pr bs with "New speak" will change that fact!


----------



## Ryan

PRR 60 said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..That points to a larger issue that we as a country need to figure out - while ultimately we can't control security at non-American airports, we can deny entry into US airspace any flights originating in countries that don't have security standards that are up to snuff. That'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, be difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably upset the Canadians when we start diverting "unsecure" flights to land in their territory instead.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we already do that. No USA-bound flight can depart until released by DHS. All airports originating USA-bound flights must meet security requirements. That is not as big a deal as it seems since most airport security is pretty thorough.
> 
> NW 253 was released from AMS since the individual in question was not on the no-fly or even the watch list. The latter would have subjected him to a full screening which, in all likelihood, would have found the explosives. AMS has full body scanners. They are now being used to screen all USA-bound passengers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't write exactly what I was thinking - it would be a much bigger deal if we ratcheted the requirements way up. The missing piece was that we would mandate that anyone flying into the US would have to go through the scanners, like is the case at AMS (although that was their decision, not ours). Do we have American TSA agents stationed at every airport that originates flights to the US?


----------



## jis

HokieNav said:


> That points to a larger issue that we as a country need to figure out - while ultimately we can't control security at non-American airports, we can deny entry into US airspace any flights originating in countries that don't have security standards that are up to snuff. That'll inconvenience a hell of a lot of people, be difficult and expensive to enforce, and probably upset the Canadians when we start diverting "unsecure" flights to land in their territory instead.


This is what is supposed to happen today, so what you are proposing is nothing new. Passenger secondary security check at the boarding gate follows procedures laid down by the US for US bound flights that are reviewed and certified by US. Passenger lists are supposed to be transmitted to US before departure and a departure to US is supposed to take place only after permission is received from DHS. There have been cases of denial of entry into US airspace too, when after the fact US discovered that they did not like the name "Ahmad" on the passenger list. 

This flight in question was cleared by US. Actually it might surprise some to learn how much US controls security for US bound flights at off-shore airports through secondary check at the gate. Whichever way you look at it, this is a cockup that did not take place without US involvement.

As for Security standards, US does not have either the most effective or the most foolproof airport security procedures of the various countries that I have traveled through. So it may very well be a case of the blind leading the deaf perhaps. That is not to say that there aren't places where security procedures are absolutely abysmal and far worse than it is in the US too.


----------



## Ryan

You missed my post directly above yours where I clarified things a little bit. I'm talking about the US imposing actual, difficult screening measures on all inbound flights.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> You missed my post directly above yours where I clarified things a little bit. I'm talking about the US imposing actual, difficult screening measures on all inbound flights.


And you believe that a scanner would be more likely to find stuff that will not be found by a full body massage that we get before boarding a flight to US already? Doesn't happen in Europe but is mandatory in many Asian airports. If Americans had to go through what one needs to go through to get to the US, they would possibly reduce flying considerably, since Americans are much more antsy about having their body touched by someone else.

Has it been established that this guy's underwear would have been flagged by a body scanner?

Besides TSA is often unable to detect and detain even stuff that is patently visible in their current X-ray machines. What makes you think that giving them a more sexy toy will make them become more astute? We have this fascination with technology when the problem typically lies elsewhere. Human problems cannot always be fixed with random application of technology.

Bottom line is I am sure everyone will do US biddings as long as it is backed up with appropriate amount of money, which of course US will have to borrow from the some of the same clods that they will be enforcing this on


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> And you believe that a scanner would be more likely to find stuff that will not be found by a full body massage that we get before boarding a flight to US already? ...
> 
> Has it been established that this guy's underwear would have been flagged by a body scanner?


I've seen that stated in the news several times, so I'll accept that it is. One of the stories that I saw talking about the full body scanners mentioned the fact that current policy is to allow people to object to the screening to be manually patted down, which is far less effective.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

sense were increasing security why not force the other country's to increase there. after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.


----------



## Ryan

That's exactly what we're talking about.


----------



## AlanB

amtrakwolverine said:


> after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.


Actually that's not really true. He flew into Amsterdam and remained within the secure area prior to boarding the flight to the US. So while Amsterdam did give him some security checks, they didn't give him the full treatment since he had already cleared security for his first flight. Had he exited the secure area at Amsterdam, there might well have been a better chance that he would have been caught. No guarantees, he might have still slipped through, but the point is that in this case Amsterdam isn't totally to blame; that first airport gets the lion's share of the blame.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Any plane coming in to the US must be approved by the DHS. DHS gets a final copy of the manifest and reports from a flight and must approve its entry in to the US before the flight takes off.

IIRC any passenger coming in to the US must pass the same security standards as anybody flying domestically regardless of country of origin. DHS deals with many aspects of security in airports abroad.

In other words neither airport/city/country can really be faulted-- DHS was just one of the few organizations that dropped the ball on this one.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Don't forget the CIA,NSA and other sundry secret intel agencies! The info was out there, once again it wasn't shared which was the whole principal behind creating a Gigantic DHS and having another Intellegence Czar ( a misnomer in this casr for sure!)! This was like the Gang that couldn't shot straight under Bush, no wonder the Prez is PO'd! To England's credit they got it right in this case, perhaps we need to take a few lessons from our allies and few friends

overseas!


----------



## Ryan

jimhudson said:


> Don't forget the CIA,NSA and other sundry secret intel agencies! The info was out there, once again it wasn't shared


Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:



HokieNav said:


> While I'm on the soapbox, I'm also disappointed that this is already being assumed to be an intelligence failure. I had a brief (2 year) stint in the intelligence community when I was on active duty, and the amazing number of data points that come in make it darn near impossible to tell which Dad walking into an embassy expressing concern relates to a kid that's going to take down an airliner someday and which is just another false alarm. * In the perfect clarity of hindsight, it seems so obvious to connect the dots into the picture, but before hand it's nothing but a jumble of dots, some relevant and some not, and a near-infinite number of pictures that can be constructed from them.*
> Are there things that can be done better in the IC? Certainly. Is that different from any other organization (public or private)? Absolutely not.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ryan said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget the CIA,NSA and other sundry secret intel agencies! The info was out there, once again it wasn't shared
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm on the soapbox, I'm also disappointed that this is already being assumed to be an intelligence failure. I had a brief (2 year) stint in the intelligence community when I was on active duty, and the amazing number of data points that come in make it darn near impossible to tell which Dad walking into an embassy expressing concern relates to a kid that's going to take down an airliner someday and which is just another false alarm. * In the perfect clarity of hindsight, it seems so obvious to connect the dots into the picture, but before hand it's nothing but a jumble of dots, some relevant and some not, and a near-infinite number of pictures that can be constructed from them.*
> Are there things that can be done better in the IC? Certainly. Is that different from any other organization (public or private)? Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'll grant you your point about the flood of info that IAs handle daily but the British managed to deny this clown entry, and I still say that The State Dept. is ultimately @ fault also because they issued this cretin a 2 year unlimited visa! As to your point about nobody's perfect, agreed! But Intels job is to gather the info, collate it and SHARE with those that need to know! IMO that's why the President is angry, and rightfully so, these guys screwed up big time and of course it's not the first time either, theres an old saying from the 60s about getting your s**t together, bout time with all the billions we spend on these spooks!


----------



## tp49

AlanB said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's not really true. He flew into Amsterdam and remained within the secure area prior to boarding the flight to the US. So while Amsterdam did give him some security checks, they didn't give him the full treatment since he had already cleared security for his first flight. Had he exited the secure area at Amsterdam, there might well have been a better chance that he would have been caught. No guarantees, he might have still slipped through, but the point is that in this case Amsterdam isn't totally to blame; that first airport gets the lion's share of the blame.
Click to expand...

His airport of origin was Lagos, Nigeria. The cynic in me really wants to say do I need to say anything else? Considering Nigeria's history of systemic corruption that the Lagos Airport meets international security standards was to me surprising. Maybe the international aviation community needs to take Lagos off of the list of airports that meet these security standards. I read in some newspaper online that had Lagos not been on that list the passengers connecting through from the KLM flight from Lagos to Amsterdam would have had to exit the secure area and reclear through the checkpoints at Amsterdam.


----------



## jis

tp49 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's not really true. He flew into Amsterdam and remained within the secure area prior to boarding the flight to the US. So while Amsterdam did give him some security checks, they didn't give him the full treatment since he had already cleared security for his first flight. Had he exited the secure area at Amsterdam, there might well have been a better chance that he would have been caught. No guarantees, he might have still slipped through, but the point is that in this case Amsterdam isn't totally to blame; that first airport gets the lion's share of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His airport of origin was Lagos, Nigeria. The cynic in me really wants to say do I need to say anything else? Considering Nigeria's history of systemic corruption that the Lagos Airport meets international security standards was to me surprising. Maybe the international aviation community needs to take Lagos off of the list of airports that meet these security standards. I read in some newspaper online that had Lagos not been on that list the passengers connecting through from the KLM flight from Lagos to Amsterdam would have had to exit the secure area and reclear through the checkpoints at Amsterdam.
Click to expand...

I thought separate security check at the boarding gate for US bound flights was instituted across the board after 9/11. Has that been discontinued? At least the last time I was in Amsterdam I was security checked an additional time just before boarding. So I am dubious about claims that this guy did not go through at least one security check at Amsterdam. And this latter check is actually done per DHS instructions and handled by the airline in question and not necessarily by the airport security. The airline in some cases contracts with airport security to handle this too

The ball on this one was primarily dropped by DHS. If they cannot manage their list of individuals with security concerns then why bug everyone to send them the APIS lists in the first place?

BTW, more security circus at Newark yesterday  . See here. This has delayed the flight that I am taking back from Delhi later today by over 4 hours. It is interesting that the end of it all they are apparently not even certain what happened, who it was and whether they actually managed to get him/her to go through security check or not. :unsure: h34r:

Here are some comments from people who were there, excerpted from airliners.net, just for your entertainment  :



> I just got out of EWR. The brilliant security folks had arriving passengers blocked from leaving the airport for two hours. They kept unloading arriving planes into the mess until they had complete gridlock and then apparently couldn't figure out what to do. All because someone wasn't watching an exit.If I ever get out of Newark on time I'm calling the Vatican to report a miracle.





> I'm at EWR terminal C waiting for a flight to Sao Paulo which is now scheduled to leave at 120am (3 1/2 hrs late). Been waiting in a crowded terminal for 4 hours and the th place is a zoo.Don't know if it's true but I heard that they never found the guy that supposedly breached security and in fact concluded that the entire incident never happened.
> 
> TSA = Keystone Kops.


You can see further reaction from people that were there in this airliners.net thread.


----------



## George Harris

It is way past time we do serious profiling on passengers, the ACLU be d**ned. And I do mean serious, not silly.

Thiis "buying a one way ticket for cash" nonsense is exctly that, nonsense because it is so easy to circumvent, and also targets the wrong people. I recall one incident a few years ago where a black man did the cash / no luggage thing out of Nashville and got the whole treatment, in part because the $100 bills he used as part of his payment had cocaine residue. That applyies to something above half all the $100 bills incirculation, by the way. Seems he was flying to Mobile, best I remember, metting someone and driving a truck back to Nashville. All quite legit.

Quite simple, until proven otherwise people of certain ethnenticities will get special treatment, not because they are all terrorists, but because all terrorists so far have been one of them. Maybe that will encourage peole from those parts of the world to clean their own house.

I this is all non-PC, that is tough, get over it. It is silly, not just silly, but stupid, not ignorant, but stupid, when elderly people born US citizens with prosthetic devices get the whole suspicious character treatmetn when others that are likely suspects blow right through.


----------



## John Bredin

> Quite simple, until proven otherwise people of certain ethnicities will get special treatment, not because they are all terrorists, but because *all terrorists so far have been one of them*. Maybe that will encourage peole from those parts of the world to clean their own house.


(Emphasis added.)

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was Arabic? No, nor was he originally a Muslim.

Neither was John Walker Lindh, the infamous "American Taliban".

The "parts of the world" were the UK for Reid and here in the USA for Lindh.

(As an aside, both were convicted in federal criminal court, although by guilty pleas rather than trials, and are serving sentences in federal prisons.)

I agree that any attention paid to one-way cash tickets is utterly useless for catching terrorists.


----------



## jis

One good news is that at least some sanity has prevailed. They have gotten rid of all the brilliant ideas of inflight restrictions that they had come up with. There was nothing different from three weeks back on the flight back from Delhi.

Also gate security at Delhi was the same as a year back, which is already much more stringent than anywhere in the US. Hand search of all carryon baggage at the gate and pat down of all passengers once at the airport security barrier (after they pass through the magentometer irrespective of whether they set it off or not!) and then again at the boarding gate. I heard a rumor that there are plans to install millimeter wave body scanners at the airport security barrier, but even after that there will still be the pat down and hand search at the gates. Frankly I don't blame them given the neighborhood that they are in.

Interestingly, in Delhi you have to go through magnetometers and baggage hand search to get into the Metro and any of the dozens of large malls too!


----------



## amtrakwolverine

i can see the pat down cause a metal detector and hand wands are not going to find plastic explosives etc or a couple baggies filled with anthrax or cocaine or Heroin etc


----------



## amtrakwolverine

found this picture







'Well I think you should've told me you have a wooden leg, a glass eye and haemorrhoids.'


----------



## Ryan

John Bredin said:


> Quite simple, until proven otherwise people of certain ethnicities will get special treatment, not because they are all terrorists, but because *all terrorists so far have been one of them*. Maybe that will encourage peole from those parts of the world to clean their own house.
> 
> 
> 
> (Emphasis added.)
> 
> Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was Arabic? No, nor was he originally a Muslim.
> 
> Neither was John Walker Lindh, the infamous "American Taliban".
> 
> The "parts of the world" were the UK for Reid and here in the USA for Lindh.
> 
> (As an aside, both were convicted in federal criminal court, although by guilty pleas rather than trials, and are serving sentences in federal prisons.)
> 
> I agree that any attention paid to one-way cash tickets is utterly useless for catching terrorists.
Click to expand...

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. It's also worth noticing that folks released from US custody were likely behind the most recent attempt. I'm sure that George has the US in mind when he was referring to "those parts of the world".

You also forgot such foreigners as McVeigh and the Unabomber if you expand the scope of terrorists outside of "terrorists who used airplanes".


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Alert gate agent stops potential terrorist.


----------



## Bob Dylan

PetalumaLoco said:


> Alert gate agent stops potential terrorist.


Another classic example of Security Theater and post incident hysteria, and this by an Airline employee, not even a spook!What on earth is this world coming to when famous people are third degreed (she had a valid passport!) and real suspects are allowed to waltz onto planes with bombs in their drawers! I know it's not an easy job but common sense and calling for a supervisor =if unsure should be SOP, sounds like more training is needed by ALL airport personnel and that Joan should get a travel voucher to fly around the world! :lol:


----------



## PetalumaLoco

jimhudson said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alert gate agent stops potential terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic example of Security Theater and post incident hysteria, and this by an Airline employee, not even a spook!What on earth is this world coming to when famous people are third degreed (she had a valid passport!) and real suspects are allowed to waltz onto planes with bombs in their drawers! I know it's not an easy job but common sense and calling for a supervisor =if unsure should be SOP, sounds like more training is needed by ALL airport personnel and that Joan should get a travel voucher to fly around the world! :lol:
Click to expand...

Well Joan Rivers looks pretty scary to me, maybe we should give the gate agent some slack this time.


----------



## tp49

PetalumaLoco said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alert gate agent stops potential terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic example of Security Theater and post incident hysteria, and this by an Airline employee, not even a spook!What on earth is this world coming to when famous people are third degreed (she had a valid passport!) and real suspects are allowed to waltz onto planes with bombs in their drawers! I know it's not an easy job but common sense and calling for a supervisor =if unsure should be SOP, sounds like more training is needed by ALL airport personnel and that Joan should get a travel voucher to fly around the world! :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Joan Rivers looks pretty scary to me, maybe we should give the gate agent some slack this time.
Click to expand...

Especially when you consider the amount of plastic surgery she's had and how bad some of her acts have bombed I could see how an airline employee might confuse her with plastique. :lol:


----------



## jis

amtrakwolverine said:


> i can see the pat down cause a metal detector and hand wands are not going to find plastic explosives etc or a couple baggies filled with anthrax or cocaine or Heroin etc


Funny thing is that the hand wands get set off by the little chip that is buried within the new E-Passports! So it goes beep-beep when waved over the pocket. Ooops what is that? Ah of course! Your Passport!


----------



## GoldenSpike

amtrakwolverine said:


> sense were increasing security why not force the other country's to increase there. after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.


Israel gets it: In the past Israel's Ministry of Transportation will not allow Israel-bound planes to take off from airports not meeting safety requirements


----------



## Ryan

GoldenSpike said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> sense were increasing security why not force the other country's to increase there. after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel gets it: In the past Israel's Ministry of Transportation will not allow Israel-bound planes to take off from airports not meeting safety requirements
Click to expand...

We have the same requirements.


----------



## jis

GoldenSpike said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> sense were increasing security why not force the other country's to increase there. after all this guy slipped through Amsterdam's airport security not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel gets it: In the past Israel's Ministry of Transportation will not allow Israel-bound planes to take off from airports not meeting safety requirements
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking both Israel and US and several other countries deny entry into their airspace to aircrafts that have not followed the specified protocol required of flights seeking permission to enter said airspace. This of course includes getting APIS clearance in case of US. If somebody still decides to takeoff knowing that they will be denied entry into airspace there is nothing that can realistically be done to prevent such a takeoff. But needless to say said plane will not make it to its destination involving entering into the restricted airspace.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

jis said:


> BTW, more security circus at Newark yesterday  . See here. This has delayed the flight that I am taking back from Delhi later today by over 4 hours. It is interesting that the end of it all they are apparently not even certain what happened, who it was and whether they actually managed to get him/her to go through security check or not. :unsure: h34r:
> Here are some comments from people who were there, excerpted from airliners.net, just for your entertainment  :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got out of EWR. The brilliant security folks had arriving passengers blocked from leaving the airport for two hours. They kept unloading arriving planes into the mess until they had complete gridlock and then apparently couldn't figure out what to do. All because someone wasn't watching an exit.If I ever get out of Newark on time I'm calling the Vatican to report a miracle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm at EWR terminal C waiting for a flight to Sao Paulo which is now scheduled to leave at 120am (3 1/2 hrs late). Been waiting in a crowded terminal for 4 hours and the th place is a zoo.Don't know if it's true but I heard that they never found the guy that supposedly breached security and in fact concluded that the entire incident never happened.
> 
> TSA = Keystone Kops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can see further reaction from people that were there in this airliners.net thread.
Click to expand...

an update on that. they arrested the guy that caused that mess http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-natio...ort.Evacuation/


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

He should be happy he made it this long without getting caught!


----------



## jis

Long Train Runnin said:


> He should be happy he made it this long without getting caught!


He should also be happy that he did not get caught doing this in his native China. 

As for my flight from Delhi that day, fortunately the weather gods cooperated and the usual thick fog did not descend upon Delhi airport soon after midnight that a few days earlier had made operations even using CAT IIIB all but impossible diverting dozens of flights. So CO 82 from Newark finally managed to land at 2:30am (instead of 9:20pm) and CO 83 managed to depart at around 5:30am instead of the scheduled 11:45pm. As luck would have it I was complementary upgraded to Business-First, so I was a happy camper. It was odd eating a huge dinner at 6:30am though.

During the delay Continental treated us, both Economy and Business-First passengers to a full dinner and those with internet access had pretty much upto the minute status info from continental.com in detail, from flight status. Needless to say I was glued to my iPhone viewing continental.com/pda. The Edge network provided by Vodaphone IN at the airport was reliabe but a bit slow

All's well that ends well I suppose.


----------

