2 ms·

How many terrorist “bombs” do you think it stops? If they had easy access to bombs why would they waste it on planes when they could just go into hospitals, tra

How many terrorist “bombs” do you think it stops? If they had easy access to bombs why would they waste it on planes when they could just go into hospitals, trains, and buses and cause just as much havoc? There were very few plane bombings even when bombing was popular (Oklahoma city, wtc, etc). Planes are only interesting to terrorists as a weapon, not a target. Pre-9/11 the assumption was most nut job with guns on a plane wanted to hijack it as part of some heist, etc. 9/11 changed that assumption, locks went on cockpit doors, a few protocols were tweaked, and that actually solved the problem. The naked scanners on the ground were for theater of “being secure”.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
There are loads of examples that terrorists love blowing up planes. There are plenty of terrorist bombs that screening stopped (search the famous El Al case), or alternatively that terrorists were able to successfully bypass which led to stronger rules in the first place (e.g. the shoe bomber), or which they planned (e.g. the Bojinka Plot). I can easily buy the argument that a lot of other commenters are making that a lot of the specific rules can be improved, or that there are other targeted approaches that could work better. What I absolutely don't buy, because there are plenty of examples to the contrary, is that screening itself is unnecessary.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Based on the timeline here they've mostly stopped. [1] The last one with any meaningful injuries was almost a decade ago, and the one before that a decade earlier. Compare that to the 70s and 80s. We don't do any screening at FBOs/private terminals so long as the plane has less than some number of passengers. Every flight out of Oakland on JSX has zero screening whatsoever, you just walk on and those are 30-seat Embraers. Larger than some of the stuff going out of the regional gates at the main concourse. It's even in their marketing material under "bye bye hassle." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... [2] https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > Based on the timeline here they've mostly stopped. [1] The last one with any meaningful injuries was almost a decade ago, and the one before that a decade earlier. Compare that to the 70s and 80s. So, in other words, airline bombings have gone way down as screening procedures have increased?
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      If the only thing standing between America and another airplane based incident is the tireless work of the TSA, who fail 95% of their own red team attempts - why would there not be an incident out of a private aviation terminal where there is literally no security? Either there’s some other non-security reason the likelihood has gone down and we don’t need the TSA — or it hasn’t, and something else (like reinforced cockpit doors) is stopping them and again we don’t need the TSA. We’ve been running an A/B test the whole time between the public and private aviation terminals, and the results seem pretty compelling. To answer your question directly: the procedures at the private terminal haven’t changed at all.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

There are loads of examples that terrorists love blowing up planes. There are plenty of terrorist bombs that screening stopped (search the famous El Al case), or alternatively that terrorists were able to successfully bypass which led to stronger rules in the first place (e.g. the shoe bomber), or which they planned (e.g. the Bojinka Plot). I can easily buy the argument that a lot of other commenters are making that a lot of the specific rules can be improved, or that there are other targeted approaches that could work better. What I absolutely don't buy, because there are plenty of examples to the contrary, is that screening itself is unnecessary.

arcticbull 3y ago
Based on the timeline here they've mostly stopped. [1] The last one with any meaningful injuries was almost a decade ago, and the one before that a decade earlier. Compare that to the 70s and 80s. We don't do any screening at FBOs/private terminals so long as the plane has less than some number of passengers. Every flight out of Oakland on JSX has zero screening whatsoever, you just walk on and those are 30-seat Embraers. Larger than some of the stuff going out of the regional gates at the main concourse. It's even in their marketing material under "bye bye hassle." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... [2] https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Based on the timeline here they've mostly stopped. [1] The last one with any meaningful injuries was almost a decade ago, and the one before that a decade earlier. Compare that to the 70s and 80s. So, in other words, airline bombings have gone way down as screening procedures have increased?
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    If the only thing standing between America and another airplane based incident is the tireless work of the TSA, who fail 95% of their own red team attempts - why would there not be an incident out of a private aviation terminal where there is literally no security? Either there’s some other non-security reason the likelihood has gone down and we don’t need the TSA — or it hasn’t, and something else (like reinforced cockpit doors) is stopping them and again we don’t need the TSA. We’ve been running an A/B test the whole time between the public and private aviation terminals, and the results seem pretty compelling. To answer your question directly: the procedures at the private terminal haven’t changed at all.