4 ms·

I'd be interested to see how they got the 95% failure rate. If the TSA was sneaking in actual bombs that could bring down airplanes, that is a horrific. But if

I'd be interested to see how they got the 95% failure rate. If the TSA was sneaking in actual bombs that could bring down airplanes, that is a horrific. But if they were testing someone bringing in a nail clipper with a 1 inch blade tucked into it, a plastic gun, a disassembled "bomb" with no explosive residue, etc, then it's not that bad. The fact that there have been attempts to blow up airplanes, and they all involved using explosives designed to get around TSA procedure suggests it works or terrorists think it works. The shoe bomber had to put a tiny bomb into his shoe without electronics. The underwear bomber had to build a crude bomb on board the plane. If there was no security, they'd walk on with a prebuilt bomb and take out a flight. In the 60's and 70's there was a goldenage of hijacking airplanes. If you could just walk onto a plane with a gun, people would do it again. Maybe you think that risk is low enough per flight to not matter. Objectively it's still less risky than driving to the airport. But like you allude to, the people aren't going to buy that argument. "Just accept that al Qaeda or Isis will bring down a 747 or two each year, it's still safer than a roadtrip" will get you punted out of office in record time.

jrcii 10y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#Screening_effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini... "In July 2007, the Times Union of Albany, New York reported that TSA screeners at Albany International Airport failed multiple covert security tests conducted by the TSA. Among them was a failure to detect a fake bomb."
- rhino369 10y ago
  I wasn't very clear, but what is a fake bomb? some timer taped to a couple circuits like clockboy and with no explosive residue? Or a real bomb with the detonator removed but with a fake detonator? How realistic the bomb was would radically change the test.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    > How realistic the bomb was would radically change the test. Not really - the screening is done by looking at x-ray images of bags on a conveyor belt. The visual representation of a 'bomb' on the agent's screen would not change one iota if a pipe bomb didn't contain a real detonator. Detecting the presence or absence of a real detonator would require much more sophisticated techniques, equipment, and personnel than are in use at tsa checkpoints
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    A fake bomb is a real explosive with safe, inert detonators. You need the real stuff, or the bomb-sniffer dogs and gas chromatographs won't be able to help.
lisper 10y ago
> If you could just walk onto a plane with a gun, people would do it again. No, they wouldn't. In the 70's the unwritten rule was: you hijack the plane, land it, make your demands, get your TV time, and then you surrender (or get away) but no one gets hurt. It is only because of that unwritten rule that you could get away with it because everyone assumed that the best route to survival was to cooperate with the hijacker. All that changed on 9-11. Cooperating is no longer seen as a viable option, and so if you try to hijack a plane you can expect the passengers and crew to put up a fight. At best you can bring down the plane. But you won't get your TV time, which is what most hajackers really want. Actually, you don't even need to look at the track record on airplanes. The TSA, by making everyone stand in line, is creating a nice soft target just outside the security zone. Any terrorist who wanted to make the headlines would set off a bomb in the TSA line at O'Hare. It would be trivial. The fact that no one has tried it is more evidence that our fear of terrorism is a vastly bigger problem than actual terrorism.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  We're 2 steps further along than the passengers and crew resisting. Cockpit doors are reinforced and locked and wider adoption of a 2 person rule for the cockpit. (Apparently the FAA adopted the 2 person rule along with locking the door. Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 made it clear to other jurisdictions that it was a good idea)
- rhino369 10y ago
  There have been a couple hijackings in recent years. I think trying to get cockpit access is probably impossible, but you could still take hostages and demand the pilots fly somewhere. >Any terrorist who wanted to make the headlines would set off a bomb in the TSA line at O'Hare. It would be trivial. Trivial, but less carnage than a full plane going down. Airplane bombings multiple the deaths by 10X.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jrjarrett 10y ago
chrismcb 10y ago
If there was no security, you could walk into a movie theater with a prebuilt bomb and take out a room full of people. Or walk into a school, or walk into a mall, or onto a train, or walk into... well you get the idea. We have a few people do that with weapons, but no prebuilt bombs. Yet I can still walk into a theater with no security, but not board a plane. You are more likely to die in a plane crash due to a maintenance issue than you are to a terrorist bomb.

jrcii 10y ago

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#Screening_effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini... "In July 2007, the Times Union of Albany, New York reported that TSA screeners at Albany International Airport failed multiple covert security tests conducted by the TSA. Among them was a failure to detect a fake bomb."

rhino369 10y ago
I wasn't very clear, but what is a fake bomb? some timer taped to a couple circuits like clockboy and with no explosive residue? Or a real bomb with the detonator removed but with a fake detonator? How realistic the bomb was would radically change the test.
- djrogers 10y ago
  > How realistic the bomb was would radically change the test. Not really - the screening is done by looking at x-ray images of bags on a conveyor belt. The visual representation of a 'bomb' on the agent's screen would not change one iota if a pipe bomb didn't contain a real detonator. Detecting the presence or absence of a real detonator would require much more sophisticated techniques, equipment, and personnel than are in use at tsa checkpoints
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  A fake bomb is a real explosive with safe, inert detonators. You need the real stuff, or the bomb-sniffer dogs and gas chromatographs won't be able to help.

lisper 10y ago

> If you could just walk onto a plane with a gun, people would do it again. No, they wouldn't. In the 70's the unwritten rule was: you hijack the plane, land it, make your demands, get your TV time, and then you surrender (or get away) but no one gets hurt. It is only because of that unwritten rule that you could get away with it because everyone assumed that the best route to survival was to cooperate with the hijacker. All that changed on 9-11. Cooperating is no longer seen as a viable option, and so if you try to hijack a plane you can expect the passengers and crew to put up a fight. At best you can bring down the plane. But you won't get your TV time, which is what most hajackers really want. Actually, you don't even need to look at the track record on airplanes. The TSA, by making everyone stand in line, is creating a nice soft target just outside the security zone. Any terrorist who wanted to make the headlines would set off a bomb in the TSA line at O'Hare. It would be trivial. The fact that no one has tried it is more evidence that our fear of terrorism is a vastly bigger problem than actual terrorism.

maxerickson 10y ago
We're 2 steps further along than the passengers and crew resisting. Cockpit doors are reinforced and locked and wider adoption of a 2 person rule for the cockpit. (Apparently the FAA adopted the 2 person rule along with locking the door. Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 made it clear to other jurisdictions that it was a good idea)
rhino369 10y ago
There have been a couple hijackings in recent years. I think trying to get cockpit access is probably impossible, but you could still take hostages and demand the pilots fly somewhere. >Any terrorist who wanted to make the headlines would set off a bomb in the TSA line at O'Hare. It would be trivial. Trivial, but less carnage than a full plane going down. Airplane bombings multiple the deaths by 10X.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jrjarrett 10y ago

chrismcb 10y ago

If there was no security, you could walk into a movie theater with a prebuilt bomb and take out a room full of people. Or walk into a school, or walk into a mall, or onto a train, or walk into... well you get the idea. We have a few people do that with weapons, but no prebuilt bombs. Yet I can still walk into a theater with no security, but not board a plane. You are more likely to die in a plane crash due to a maintenance issue than you are to a terrorist bomb.