Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I really enjoyed reading this article and the nearly 90 responses to it. It still amazes me that with so much intelligent discussion of this problem (and I'm not being facetious here), the real problem is rarely if ever addressed: how do we effect a solution that will guarantee an airplane will never again be flown into a building? The answer, like all things, lies in the movies. I'll explain.
Why don't we have onerous security regulations governing train travel? Simple: you can hijack a train, but ultimately you can't do much of anything with it other than stop it on the tracks and maybe blow it up...tragic, yes, but limited to the train itself and the several hundred or so (if that many) people on the train. What I propose is simple: put the airplanes on "tracks" too! The technology is simple: at any time an airplane's course or behavior is deemed suspicious, the cockpit controls are overridden by the closest Air Traffic Control center (obviously with appropriate authorization) and the plane put into level flight until the situation can be resolved. This technology, first pioneered in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (remember Captain Kirk uses it to take over Khan's ship) would use existing public-key strong encryption that can't be hacked or cracked without the use of parallel-processing supercomputers. These systems would be standard equipment on all aircraft (much like the infamous "black boxes"). Existing planes could be retrofitted with this technology that would be systemically integrated with the aircraft's avionics systems, and could not be compromised without destroying the plane. Once the cockpit controls have been overridden, ATC can decide whether to continue the flight or even bring the plane in for a remote landing if warranted.
Once this system is in place, we can go back to the saner pre-9/11 era when only minimal security and screening was necessary and all we complained about was the food. Sure, there will be an occasional mid-air tragedy when someone smuggles an explosive device or firearm on board, but the threat of a national tragedy on on the order of 9/11 will be neutralized.
I'm a 20-year software professional and can assure you that the technology required for this is relatively cheap, reliable, and exists today. So why aren't we pursuing it? Could it be for the same reason we don't implement a flat income tax...bureaucracies like the TSA and IRS are self-perpetuating entities that, like Keith Richards, can't be killed?
I've flown considerably since 9/11, both domestically and internationally, and I've noticed a general improvement with TSA, specifically in the set-up and management of lines and in the demeanor of most personnel.
This is not at all to endorse the arbitrary and after-the-fact nature of the basic process as well as the specific prohibitons. And perhaps I've simply been lucky with the airports, dates and times.
No one in this series of comments has observed that the human body itself is quite capable of inflicting severe damage without any supplementary devices. Arms can choke to death, the side of the hand can kill, fingers can gouge out eyes, kicking feet can cause concussions, etc.
The ultimate regulation, therefore, should require straitjackets and foot-manacles. Long straws would be provided with beverage service, and food service would be out of the question in coach. High-fare passengers could be hand-fed a very light snack menu.
Someone in this list said she'd abandoned sewing scissors for dull-pointed children's scissors. Well, to partial success I abandoned small pointed scissors used for clipping newspapers and other publications, for these same child scissors. I've had them confiscated, I've had them given back to me. The last time they were confiscated (they're cheap to replce), ironically, was in Europe -- where I'd never had problmes with them before -- either at Frankfurt or CDG in Paris, and on the same trip they'd passed through Tampa, JFK, and Nice.
Another inanity not previously mentioned is that the size restriction on liquids, gels and pastes is on the container, not the contents, at least according to my last run-in. I was told (whatever the facts are) that the permitted maximum container was 3.3 liquid ounces and my container was marked to hold 3.5 ounces. Well, the TSA attendant and I went back and forth about that, and then got onto the fact the 3.5 oz. container was less than 1/3 full. How was this potential risk to the airliner resolved? The attendant consulted another, and then both went to a supervisor. After this second discussion I was then allowed to put the less than one ounce of hand and body lotion that was in the 3.5 oz. container back into the one-quart transparent zip-lock bag.
A nice little note on this brouhaha is that the required one-quart plastic bags can serve as an effective decoy away from "contraband" concealed elsewhere. That is, plastic containers of any size carried in pockets (if the containers are not so bulky as to attract visual attention), purses or carry-ons will not be detected by the screening devices, and won't be discovered unless there is a search by hand. Nonetheless,I of course put all my lotions, etcetera, in the zip-lock bag.
I too was caught on a trip when the liquid restrictions first went into effect, banning ALL liquids from carry-on. I've never flown with more than one bag, and had never checked it. My response was to check it so I could keep my liquids, and to change my Southwest PHX-TPA flight from a one-stop where I could have a casual airport lunch, to a nonstop on a starvation peanut diet at a less convenient time. This way I figured that there would be less chance for them to misdirect my bag at the transfer point (I presumed that other liquid-preserving people might create a flood of checked baggage). The sum of it is that my bag, no matter that it was checked a couple of hours before flight-time, didn't make it onto the plane, which it took a long wait at the TPA baggage carousel to determine, and another relatively brief siege at the baggage office to launch a search (I found my bag at the door when I woke up the following morning).
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
