FAA: Your Services Are No Longer Required
 

Days after the tragedy, I have still not heard one of our elected officials step up and call for a wholesale re-working of airport security. It's an ugly job, but I will have a go. If I were in charge, I would take the following steps: <BR> <BR>1. Henceforth, the FAA will not longer have anything to do with airport security. They will focus on flight rules, flight safety, pilot training, accident investigation, etc. <BR> <BR>2. The new Air Transport Service ("ATS")will be founded. It will be a branch of the Treasury Department, like the Secret Service. Its only function will be ensuring security at our nation's airports, the same way that the Secret Service protects the president. <BR> <BR>3. The new ATS will have three divisions. One is the air marshall unit. As there are 40,000 flights a day in this country, we might need around 150,000 air marshalls to be hired so that no flight takes off with fewer than two undercover, armed air marshalls. Their routes will vary so the bad guys can't case a flight and determine who the undercover marshall is. <BR> <BR>Another division is the security screening division. They will run checkpoints, screen baggage, and inspect aircraft prior to boarding. They will have the authority to take common sense measures like prohibiting or greatly restricting carry-on luggage. <BR> <BR>The last division is the personnel division. They will perform checks on all ground personnel, pilots, mechanics, and of course, air marshalls and ATS personnel. They will also monitor the activities of contractors like food service providers. <BR> <BR>4. Funding will be through general revenues, a levy on airlines, and a passenger fee. The fee will be high: perhaps $50 for a cross-country ticket. <BR> <BR>What's so hard about that? <BR>

Some good ideas here.

Sounds good to me, too, and I expect it wouldn't cost $50 per ticket. Hey, if it gets too expensive, I'll settle for just the marshalls, OK? <BR> <BR>We might want a new name/acronym, since "ATS" sounds a lot like "ATF," which is already the very busy agency for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. <BR> <BR>A handy way of figuring out how many marshalls are needed would be to find out the number of flight attendants, and divide by 3.

How about the Airport Security Service? :) <BR> <BR>Just kidding. How about Airport Security Adminstration ("A.S.A.")? <BR> <BR>No name will ever be more cool and hip than the "Secret Service," though. <BR> <BR>On funding, I don't know, it could get expensive. But then again, you could use all of the funds currently spent on security and augment them, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

Hmmm, Do you work for the C.I.A.? I admire your thoughts.

This sounds like a plan we need to be sending to our Congressmen. Though it certainly needs fine tuning, as a first draft, it is workable. I urge everyone to send it to those who can make it happen, your senators and representatives, of both parties. With cut-and-paste technology, it would be an easy thing to do. If every Fodorite reading this board did just that, the seeds of the idea would be planted and it may just happen.

You're absolutely right. The FAA has been under the thumb of the airline and general aviation lobbyists for too long and permitted private-sector bottom lines to dictate safety. <BR> <BR>But why would you put your new agency under Treasury? Why not Defense? We'd need the cooperation of intelligence resources as well as the powers of training and enforcement? <BR> <BR>And why limit it to air travel -- same problems in train travel and, conceivably, bus travel (though much less, but who knows?) and maybe even trucking? Maybe "Transport Security Agency" + TSA?

Your ideas sound interesting to me. <BR> <BR>Here's another issue: <BR> <BR>I don't understand why it isn't possible to design some sort of system that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any hijackers to get into the cockpit. A locked, bullet-proof door? (I know the pilots have to leave occasionally during a long flight, but it seems possible to work something out in that regard.) <BR> <BR>If it was impossible for a hijacker to get into the cockpit, innocent passengers might still be killed, and the plane might crash if there were a bomb on it, but at least terrorists would not be able to turn the plane itself into a guided missile to destroy targets on land.

I've been reading all of these threads about the FAA and airport security. Everyone seems to forget that these idiots did nothing illegal until they were on the planes and hijacked them! <BR> <BR>They did not take anything illegal through the security check-points. You and I could have taken exactly the same thing onto the airplane. They did their research very well. <BR> <BR>When it comes to locking the cockpit, that is fine. It is my understanding that they were TORTURING flight attendents to get the pilots to open the doors!!!! <BR> <BR>You figure it out. <BR> <BR>Dick

Thanks, everyone. It's nice to know there are a few people out there who are ready for real change. <BR> <BR>The only reason I would put the new agency under Treasury is because the Secret Service is the model I'm using. The Secret Service is in the Treasury Department. The military bungles things frequently; the Secret Service does not. If the Secret Service doesn't need to be in the defense department to get the intelligence they need, then neither does the new airline security agency. <BR> <BR>If I might climb on my soapbox for just a quick minute, it really is amazing that anyone would think that airline security ought to be premised on a patchwork of local control, using largely unregulated local contractors jockeying for position as the lowest bidder. Can you imagine the uproar if someone proposed having the Secret Service privatized, so that locally hired and trained (or not trained) agents would meet Air Force One and protect the President before handing him off to the next team of underpaid locals? So why is this system good enough for our airlines and airports? <BR> <BR>Someone said that the hijackers didn't violate any laws by bringing these weapons on the planes. And your point is what? The new agency would decide what could and could not be brought aboard. The new agency would have probably caught some or all of these guys at security, and if they didn't, the air marshalls would have blasted 19 terrorists right out of the sky. <BR> <BR>As far as expanding the agency's jurisdiction to include other transport, we probably don't need to do this yet. If the agency is going to get off the ground quickly and efficiently, its mission must be limited. <BR> <BR>Anyway, I have enjoyed this discussion. If you use this idea as a model to send to your Congressperson, great. Just clean up my typos first, will ya?

Back to the Top! The Washington Post carried an article today suggesting just this sort of re-working of security.

<BR>What about our ports? Fishing vessels & pleasure craft along coastal waters would be tough to oversee, but shipping interests & cruise ship security could & should be tightened & as well. Give the Coast Guard more authority? <BR> <BR>And a big issue in my state --- our border with Mexico. President Fox just last week was pushing the US for a relaxation of immigration laws & issues. Made me shudder because the INS already does such a poor job, largely in part to understaffing. And we need to rethink the wording of NAFTA. All those trucks with minimal checks! Bad enough they are on our roads with bald tires, failing brakes & drivers who sometimes can't read our signage, they can also convoy human cargo. <BR> <BR>Lots to think about. We have a lot of catching up to do, things that should have been done all along, and now is the perfect time, while the sentiment of the nation is one of cooperation. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

From the Washington Post: <BR> <BR>During a security check a few years ago, a screener was able to get through security several sticks of fake dynamite tied together and attached to a clock. <BR> <BR>Did you know that airport security is the only major law enforcement function in this country that is entrusted to a loosely regulated band of private companies? Prisons, police, border patrol, FBI, courthouse security, secret service -- all run by federal, state, or local government.

I urge everyone to read the following two pieces: <BR> <BR>'Paying The Price'by Paul Krugman <BR> <BR>http://nytimes.com/2001/09/16/opinion/16KRUG.html <BR> <BR>'Even Workers Can See Flaws in Airlines' Screening System' By <BR>STEVEN GREENHOUSE and CHRISTOPHER DREW, <BR>NY Times, Sept. 14, 2001 <BR>http://nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14SECU.html <BR> <BR>

For those interested in what foreign airlines do, read: <BR> <BR>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/in...pe/20MANC.html. <BR> <BR>It is a NY Times article about some of the security put into place in Britain after Pan Am 103. <BR> <BR>If I understand this article correctly, the x-ray machines at carry-on baggage screening have "fake weapons imaging" softwear built in. This means that on 20% of the bags, the x-ray machine will show the screener a gun, knife or something else suspicious. They see the fake image, and they search the bag. This keeps the screener alert, apparently, and insures that a good chunk of bags will be randomly searched. <BR> <BR>Somebody's really thinking over there in Britain.

I, too, am in favor of the above suggestions, especially thorough background checks on transporation employees. <BR> <BR>However, my biggest concern is also with immigration. We have been SO lax! Our borders are basically open to all. Thousands enter the US illegally every day. I do not understand why people who are known by the CIA to have links to terrorist organizations are allowed into our country? Isn't there a database check of passports/visas? We are understaffed and that needs to change! We also need to be fully aware that if we crack down in one area - airport security - terrorists will just go on to the next easiest target. We need to be vigilant in all public areas -- cruise ships, schools, sports events, trains, etc.

According to Bush's speech a few minutes ago, he's going to have Gov. Tom Ridge chair a cabinet-level agency called the Office of Home Land Defense. <BR> <BR>Sounds like a plan to me. Someone is listening!

How could Bin Laden brother have emigrated here, with a known terrorist <BR>relative. Even years ago when I emigrated there were background checks .Of course we were not millionaires. As for what is still being put in carry on lugguge, after the attack, LAX showed guns, saws, hammers knives. What is the mentality here?? J

Well, we do manage to keep out those with TB, AIDS, Communists, etc. who use normal paperwork and gateway cities for entry.

I am starting to think that Norman Mineta (head of FAA) has got to go. He testified before Congress, and he sounds like he is still in favor of a plodding, go slow, approach. <BR> <BR>Senator Cleland suggested that the government should assume control of baggage screening, saying that "The sad news is our screeners look at going to work at Cinnabon as a promotion." Mineta responded that he had not yet decided conclusively what "is the best way to go." He suggested an interim step: imposing federal training and performance standards on the security companies that run the screening operations. <BR> <BR>Mineta doesn't get it. Perhaps Tom Ridge will.