Sal

Kelly

1. Once they get put a security system in place, it shouldn't take 4-5 hours. But so what if it does. Will I spend an additional 10 hours driving to avoid a four-hour security check? I don't think so. BTW, the best thing that could come from this IS Air Tran going out of business.
2.See my previous post.
3.And what is supposed to protect us, the passengers? The marshall who MIGHT be on our flight? Why not employ more stringent checks before we get on the plane so that the Marshall who MIGHT bo on the plane has fewer worries also.

IMO, I have not found the security at the Eureopean airports I have flown through to be much tougher than the US. They did have bomb-sniffing dogs posted in Amsterdam, but that's only difference I've seen.

Sarah

Marshall's on the flights, skilled responsible people at check in and baggage check, sealed cockpit door to name a few. WE ALL WANT SECURITY, WE DON"T WANT RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.

Daniel

You could not understand why they were interrogating a young woman with an American passport Ruth? Perhaps they know a little bit more about the profile of someone who may cause harm than you do. It is only a few years ago that El Al Security found plastic explosives in the handbag of a woman (British, I believe) at Heathrow airport. The woman had no idea that she was carrying the explosives. They had been placed there by her "boyfriend". Had security not asked her personal questions, they may not have discovered the explosives.

I've traveled on El Al on at least 15 occassions. The questioning itself in my experience lasts generally lasts no more than 5 minutes. Sometimes there is a 20 minute wait in line for security. I think these stories of 4 hours to get through El Al security are highly exaggerated. Having said that, I think it would be impossible to replicate in the U.S. Everyone flying on El Al is on an International flight, and are more likely to put up with getting to the airport very early for a flight. However, certain aspects of El Al security could be replicated. If people had to deal with a separate security counter before checking in (even if it moves faster than El Al and has fewer questions asked), and if checked luggage were opened in front of the passengers at random, it may deter terrorism on planes.

Make a distinction

Racial profiling or zeroing in on people there is reason to believe might be a threat in airports? Absolutely, but let's keep in mind that the minute we think we can confine scrutiny to just one group/type of people, the terrorists will switch to using another. Don't expect a terrorist to be a woman? Next one will be.

But please please please, let's not take profiling out to the 7-11 or the Drive-thru or the mosque or the neighborhood. Leave it to the FBI, CIA, etc., and remember what America is supposed to be.

x

You're right. We don't need to bring racial profiling to the local 7-11. But if you're a librarian and you notice "some Arabic individuals pulling up maps and geographic data of the East Coast. They were making photo copies and taking numerous notes." (Happened this week.) You need to make a phone call to the local FBI office.

Sue

I feel certain Texas will speak for himself, but I understand his post to you. I think that like me he's obviously seeing that the irony in the fact that we all think security issues should apply to everyone else, because afterall, we KNOW we have no ill intent. It's the OTHER GUY who should be subjected to all manner of security measures. How did you make a connection that he approved of or didn't understand that El Al giving into to an irate passenger's fit was a very bad policy?

Regarding the first incident, Ruth thinks someone was singled out unfairly. How does she know that the agents didn't have good reason? Assuming a young African American navy mom is incapable of anything that would justify pulling her off the plane is just as wrong as assuming that any person of Arab should be an immediate suspect. Perhaps one of her answers to the questions they posed triggered the need to investigate further. Perhaps she was carrying something on the plane for someone else. Ruth herself says she does not know the circumstances, yet is critical.

She noticed they were "passing on all men" & concentrating on young women. It's a stretch, but perhaps the men were El Al agents, known to them? Perhaps they had reason to think a young woman was going to attempt something untoward that day? Perhaps it was a customs issue? The point I'm trying to make, Ruth does not know the circumstances & only assumes.

As for Ruth, well she says it took 5 minutes of questioning before she turned vehement. Trainees or not & regardless of the reason for it, she should have never been allowed to board the plane after an outburst. She should be glad that all that happened was the confiscation of her pack & being treated poorly by flight attendants. Her outrage at what she perceived to be mistreatment of the young woman was best kept to herself. Her outrage at the performance of trainess would have been better directed at El Al officials at a later date (or if she chose to miss her flight & assert herself) right there on the premises.

IF the situation happened exactly as Ruth perceives & reports, then it points up the need for strict & STEADY security. It does not in anyway mean that El Al's procedures are not a good standard by which to measure. I think that's what Texas was saying to Robert.

As far as abusing someone's right to be "snappy" goes, I'm still puzzling over what right or wisdom there is in being "snappy" in a security situation.

Sue

Ruth

Daniel you are still missing the point I was agreeable to answer whatever questions I could until they became more reflective of a this idiots social values. I had a problem with them training people on me, being denied a very small carry on because they were mad and lastly having things stolen. Someone once said to me maybe they were looking for you to yell. The African American Navy mom never yelled yet they moved away from her immediately when I pointed out they were being inappropriate. It looked like the young and I am talking very young counter attendants were enjoying their 3 on one inquisition of this woman. I was particularly incensed because this all happened in front of her son. Why was it so easy for them to drop her when I made a comment? If she was truly a threat than nothing I said should have changed that. I think Sarah said it best, Restrictions with Accountability. I don't want children learning on me. You think I am threat fine I understand that but I did not buy my ticket to teach kids how to do their job. I certainly did not deserve people stealing my things.

so?

Maybe that's what works best, Ruth. Maybe it's necessary to put some passengers under pressure to ascertain their intentions. When the 2 suspected highjackers that didn't board one of the targeted flights Tues. were offered seats together but refused, the ticket agent thought that was strange. Those guys took off. It's not a leap to see that putting pressure on people to see how they react can be useful.

Daniel

I'm not missing your point Ruth, I just think you are petty. You don't want people training on you? Who should they train on? Should they only train in artificial situations? Do you object at McDonalds when you get a trainee? Maybe they were finished on her when you yelled at them and that's why they moved on to you.

You sound a little naive and paranoid Ruth. I highly doubt that the security people later went back into the luggage area, found your luggage and stole from it because you yelled.

Kelly Robinson

Ah, the sweet smell of compassion!!!

Peralta

Kelly, you are foolish, what does compassion have to do with security?
If our security agents had your attitude, I really wouldn't fly.
Wise up/grow up and face a world that isn't safe.

L

Looking at what occurred at Logan, perhaps ailrines should not be permitted to sell tickets at the last minute ... this has long been considered an unsafe practice. Strong locks on cockpit doors are necessary, plus a small WC in the cockpit (which might fit where the flight engineer sat in older planes). Pilots also need their own separate ventillation systems and food, served before the flight. And it must be understood that the cockpit door stays closed, no matter what. That must be a part of every training program for all in-flight personnel. It should also be impossible to turn off a plane's transponder, and a highjack signal needs to be built in and voice activated, for the pilot's own voice, to be reprogrammed as part of the checklist prior to departure. There are many things that could be done ... and they will cost some money ... but it will be a pittance compared to the loss that occurred last Tuesday. I am in favor of airlie ID cards that people muts qualify for. No card, no flight. Or use thumprints or eye prints with computer aids to verify people's identify. And no one without a current work visa could fly in the USA. We could have done all of these things years ago too. Ciao

Linda

Peralta, I really believe Kelly's "sweet smell of compassion" comment had nothing to do with security, as much as with the comments being made on this thread.

Kelly Robinson

Peralta,
maybe you haven't noticed but the tenor of this post has degraded quite a bit. it's turned into quite a bit of name calling, including - not that I care - your calling me foolish. From the last servral posts here, I see very little compassion towards out fellow man, but a whole lot of vitriol.
Peralta,
I'm curious -- have you ever had to defend yourself? Have you ever had to kill someone? Or do you sit back and let someone else do it for you? And how can you be SO sure that you wouldn't want me as a security agent? Do you REALLY know that?

Kelly Robinson

Thank you, Linda. I'm glad someone else picked up on my ironic comment. So few people seem to get irony anymore.
By the way -- great post, Leone. Ciao!

Not A Pilot

L, I know you mean well, but some of your ideas are really out there.

As has been mentioned on the board in the last few days, you can't design a plane so that the pilots cannot go into the cabin at all. They must check for ice on the wings, landing gear problems, engine fire/failure. Fortify the door if you wish.

The military has advised that it will shoot down any commercial airliner that does not respond. Your voice activated hijack code could result in a hijack code being given in error, which might set up a plane to be shot down due to a misunderstanding.

I see no reason to restrict who can learn to fly in the U.S. Foreign pilots come here on student visas to study something -- flying. It is in everyone's best interests if foreign pilots receive the best training in the world, which is in the U.S. (If you are ever a passenger on a foreign airliner, you understand what I'm saying). Some of the terrorists were trained pilots already, and they could have received their training abroad and then come here. This restriction will just make it difficult for law-abiding foreign flight students while not reducing the risk of terrorism at all.

The transponder cannot stay on all the time. Having it operating on the ground is confusing to the controllers who direct taxiing aircraft. It could be redesigned to stay on during flight, however.

Let's not devise a hodge-podge of strange restrictions to foil this exact plot. Let's revamp security so that we can plug the gaping holes in security and foil future attacks.

L

Not A Pilot, allow me to clarify. I don't believe you read my posting carefully.

I did suggest exactly that ... a fortified door which only the pilots could open. By the way, it is quite easy to enlarge the cockpit area to include a WC ... check the space forward of first class seating ... there is some extra room. Designing such a door and area should have been done years ago.

Watch what Secretary's Mineta's two task forces come up with by October 1 ... I imagine the one task force on airborne safety will suggest major layout changes in the cockpit area.

I would like to see some evidence that Bush has given the military carte blanche authorization to down planes of suspicious nature, including those who do not respond. That is not the case. In fact, if you watched Cheney yesterday on Meet The Press, you'd know this shoot-down issu was a major problem, but Bush did make that decision. Again, show me evidence to support your claim.

You misread in a significant manner several aspects of my posting. I suggested that people without a current visa should not be allowed onboard an airline. I was not discussing training. I was saying they should not be permitted to be a passenger.

The plane's transponder stays on all the time ... how do you think the ATC tracks planes? I am not sure what you're referring to. In fact, the transponder must emit an approved number. It is interesting that ATC was attracted to the jet that crashed in Pa. by the fact that one highjacker evidently turned off the transponder for 30 seconds, and when he turned it on again it emitted a bogus number.

There are only limited ways to highjack ... many were employed in these four instances. Thus, one must begin a redesign around what has failed. In the four planes, highjackers gained entry to the cockpit. This is an example of using what has occurred to redesign. Thus, isn't it obvious we start by changing whether highjackers gain entry.

I'm not sure why you believe my ideas are well meaning but useless. Lets see what the two panels come up with.

Voice activation. Pupil identification. Other areas. All are in use. Full-proof ID cards. Time to apply them to airlines. Ciao

Crump

Fool proof ids? Why not go a step further, require passports? Couldn't they be made fool proof? And there would be a clear stamp of just where each person had been lately & how long they stayed.

Bill

Kelly-That was Midway Airlines that folded not Midwest. Midway was unstable before last Tuesday and had already declared bankruptcy. They had cancelled routes before the tragedy.

Ruth-Women can be just as blood-thirsty and evil as men. IMO, you chose to fly El Al, knew their reputation for no nonsense and should have kept your yap shut. Americans have to realize they don't get special treatment from foreign carriers.

I am with Texan, better to be delayed a few hours and be safe than the alternative.

Texas

No need to reply to Robert. That's been done nicely, thanks.

Now Ruth, here's a thought. What better cover for a terrorist than to have a young child in tow? A sad & heartbreaking thought, but worth pondering.