9 ms·

It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological. First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation

It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological. First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0]. Second, the circumstances under which 9/11 happened would be impossible to repeat. Plane cockpits are all but impenetrable[1] - the only reason that some of the 9/11 hijackers were successful was that the standard protocol for dealing with hijackers assumed that hijackers wanted to take the plane hostage for ransom, not use the plane as a weapon. This protocol was fixed almost immediately. (Note that United Airlines Flight 93 did not face the same fate as the other three planes, because the passengers knew what the hijackers were planning.) Since it's impossible to take control of the cockpit as a hijacker these days, even if someone managed to bring a gun on board a flight, the most damage they could do is kill all the passengers (leaving the pilots unharmed). That is truly a horrible scenario, but that makes flying no more risky than going to the movies or going to school (eg. Newtown, Arapahoe, Boulder). Of course, one "logical" conclusion is therefore to establish TSA-style security at every school, cinema, mall, etc... in which case we have turned the country into a police state, and we should expect the same crime rates as within federal prisons: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194 [0] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-... [1] I believe I read another comment on Hacker News a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door.

Crito 13y ago
> "[1] I believe I read another comment on here a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door." I can't find a report of this ever happening, though I did find an article from December 2001 which pointed out potential danger to pilots behind locked doors. It also notes that the danger of an incident mid-flight can be reduced by having a flight attendant step into the cockpit whenever one of the pilots steps out. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_1_cockpit-doors-flight-attendant-pilots http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_... (Edit: Lest my nitpicky comment be misunderstood, it also talks a little about how strong the reinforcements are; I think your point about cockpit doors being extremely solid can be reasonably taken as fact.)
- Theodores 13y ago
  Well done for researching that. With seatbelts and their introduction there were anecdotes about people crashing their cars into ponds, lakes etc. where their lives were saved because they were not wearing their seatbelts. I think it is human nature to want to repeat the one incident where the safety measures could have led to disaster. Since you are so adept at research, can you find this one for me? Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types. It bugs me now that I can't find the quote or remember whether it was Gordon Brown or some other politician.
  - ericd 13y ago
    God, I wish... Non-TSA plane every single time. Suddenly it would almost be like riding the train, which is wonderful.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      Those little commuter planes are decidedly less safe in bad weather, and the pilots operating them tend to be younger/less experienced. It's not a perfect trade-off.
      - viame 13y ago
        Indeed they are but every plane needs to avoid bad weather as much as possible. Of course the bigger the plane the higher its limits. Now on pilots, this really depends which pilots you are talking about. North American pilots, and here I am pointing at Canadian pilots more because I am in Canada and I am in the process of getting my PPL (for pleasure),however, I am sure this also applies to US pilots, very well trained. To get a job at a big airline you need experience, and where do you get the best experience, far up north where harsh weather, huge winds and tiny landing strips are located. I don't think that 3 years college will do, unless you are lucky. I also talk to a lot of commercial pilots as my girlfriend is a flight attendant, so during the travels we go out and chat about everything. As far as safety, over exaggerated, really. No one cares, well, people do but they shouldn't, because if someone wants to hijack I am sure they will find a way to do it. This is the big boys game on a government level. Tax payers are paying for scanners etc, whoever wins the bid makes them and they are sponsoring the next election. (I will not get into this here but you get the point). Scanners are useless. This is an older video from 2010, scanners give better pictures nowdays but are still as useless as before. I got scanned at Schiphol 3 months ago, the scanner was not much different from the one shown this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo It is great to fly small planes, no security, quick, and more fun to fly than a big airliner. Opinions are personal.
FrankenPC 13y ago
You forget about the subset of crazed American freedom-lovers that may be on any given plane. Hijackers would have to somehow get past people willing to die to stop them. It's just not a viable method anymore.
- shawndumas 13y ago
  I am not sure if you meant it that way but that came across as insulting.
  - aroman 13y ago
    I assume he/she was being facetious or sarcastic.
  - FrankenPC 13y ago
    Anyone who has the guts to take down an armed intruder to save anonymous people from becoming victims of a terrorist plot has my undying appreciation. But, you have to be crazed to do that. There is such a thing as good-crazy. We call it courage. I guess I wasn't clear on that. My bad.
    - Crito 13y ago
      It would not just be about saving anonymous people. It would be about the potential of saving your own life (not fighting back is a sure death, fighting back is only a possible, perhaps likely, death). It is also about saving the lives of family members or friends who might also be on the plane. Not all fighting back scenarios involve crashing the plane into a field. In fact, now that cockpit doors are reinforced, most fighting back scenarios will end in the plane safely landing. There have already been several cases of passengers successfully fighting back before much damage was done. tl;dr: I think fighting back is a rational response.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        Fighting back if nobody else are willing to take the first step is a rational response. Doing what everyone else is doing is a safer first response - in the hope that someone is crazy enough or desperate enough to be the first person to throw themselves at the guy with a weapon.
peteretep 13y ago
How about the shoe bomber or underpants bomber? Neither was successful, but neither would have required access to the cockpit either
- FrankenPC 13y ago
  Great point. Not sure this isn't a technology solution though that could be automated by fast computers with automated sensors.
- cstejerean 13y ago
  I think both of those are a great example of the fact that X-Ray + metal detectors provide sufficient protection in conjunction with alert passengers. Is the guy next to you trying to light his shoe or trying to set his pants on fire? Take him down. More importantly, security is provided by catching would be terrorists before they even get anywhere near the airport. Because otherwise they can do a lot more damage at a crowded security checkpoint than they could with whatever explosives they managed to mix in their underwear. This is a job for intelligence agencies, not for the TSA.
- bicknergseng 13y ago
  Bomb sniffing dogs are more effective at a fraction of the cost. But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. The question is not "should we try to stop people from blowing things up?" The question is "what are reasonable and effective means to stop people from blowing things up?"
  - laureny 13y ago
    > But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the plane in the first place, and since no bombs have been going off on a plane for quite a while, isn't that a sign that the security measures are working?
    - greedo 13y ago
runarb 13y ago
Thus cockpits doors are not impenetrable if you could bring the necessary tools with you. If we did remove the security screening an attacker could come with 30 kg of professional cutting gear in his bag, and not even safes and concrete walls can withstand that for long.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  Do you not think someone would spot them sawing the door open? Also keep in mind that pilots are FLYING THE AIRPLANE. They can just start to do maneuvers that would make it impossible for attackers to even stay at the cockpit door, let alone take it apart.
  - warmwaffles 13y ago
    Pilots would ground the plane before doing ludicrous maneuvers like you are suggesting. Those planes aren't very nimble.
    - jrockway 13y ago
      Completely false :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 "About twenty minutes after takeoff, as the flight crew carried on a casual conversation, Calloway entered the flight deck and commenced his attack. Every member of the crew took multiple hammer blows which fractured [the flight crew's] skulls. A lengthy struggle ensued with the flight engineer and captain as Tucker, also an ex-Navy pilot, performed extreme aerial maneuvers with the aircraft, at times flying upside down, with the intent to keep the hijacker off-balance." It worked, too. Everyone survived.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Doesn't matter. By the time they cut through the door, the pilot would already have performed an emergency landing at a nearby airport. You're going to have a hard time cutting through the cockpit door when a SWAT officer is pressing your head against the floor.
wahsd 13y ago
Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. Let's also remember what genius methods and techniques the "terrorists" used to hijack some planes....they "smuggled" some box cutters on the plane. .... The END ... FIN I bet you if any one of you put a plastic craft blade, you know, the marker sized ones with the break away blades, in your carry on bag you would not be stopped or discovered; especially if you placed it with the blade on edge to the image. Here's a tip though, never, NEVER ever will another plane be hijacked by anyone else using those means. Not only did the "authorities" finally secure the cockpits like it had been pleaded for years prior to 9/11, but I can guarantee you that anyone even attempting would be ripped apart by the limbs. I, for one, don't care if you were able to smuggle a middle-earth battle axe on the plane; you will be dead within seconds of pulling some shit. That being said, I'm not quite certain if it has gotten any better, but just relatively recently it was still rather easy to access the runways and bays. Just saying, the phantoms we are fighting might get "genius" and pull of a "highly sophisticated plot" that my seven year old could plane and execute with just a tablet computer at their disposal.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. The transfer of existing security responsibilities from airlines to the federal government wasn't a make-work program, it was a measure to eliminate potential airline liability for future security failures. It was about the economy, because reducing the airlines liability risk going forward was one of many steps taken to help the airline industry, but it wasn't primarily a "make-work" program.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    It was also at least partly intended to streamline coordination of all the parties involved. You had various federal organizations under Treasury, DOJ, DOD, FBI, DOT, and others that were all silos. Sounds good on paper, merge them into one overall "DHS" and poof everything runs like a Swiss watch. Of course that never happens in reality. It was just an even bigger bureaucracy that still has a bunch of internal silo organizations.
laureny 13y ago
> First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0]. This is like saying that we're seeing fewer and fewer occurrences of tuberculosis, therefore TB vaccines are useless.
- cheeseprocedure 13y ago
  That comparison is valid only if you have data demonstrating that the TSA has successfully deterred/foiled aviation terror plots. If you have that data (which I'd love to see), there are still powerful arguments that TSA funding would have been better spent in many other ways (better training budgets for security/investigative personnel, more "soft" layers at airports, fewer kneejerk infrastructure upgrades).
EdwardDiego 13y ago
> First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US That's funny, because I got searched more thoroughly leaving the USA than when I was flying to the USA.
- WA 13y ago
  Might be because the airplane is already over US territory. Thus, if you smuggle a bomb on board and the plane explodes, it might crash into a US city. Flights going to the States need to travel for quite a few hours before they reach US territory.
Schwolop 13y ago
It's not hugely complex to create interlocks such that the cabin occupancy is monitored and the locks are opened when the cabin has fewer than two occupants. I can't immediately think of a completely failsafe version, but I suspect with a bit of time this could be readily achieved.

Crito 13y ago

> "[1] I believe I read another comment on here a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door." I can't find a report of this ever happening, though I did find an article from December 2001 which pointed out potential danger to pilots behind locked doors. It also notes that the danger of an incident mid-flight can be reduced by having a flight attendant step into the cockpit whenever one of the pilots steps out. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_1_cockpit-doors-flight-attendant-pilots http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_... (Edit: Lest my nitpicky comment be misunderstood, it also talks a little about how strong the reinforcements are; I think your point about cockpit doors being extremely solid can be reasonably taken as fact.)

Theodores 13y ago
Well done for researching that. With seatbelts and their introduction there were anecdotes about people crashing their cars into ponds, lakes etc. where their lives were saved because they were not wearing their seatbelts. I think it is human nature to want to repeat the one incident where the safety measures could have led to disaster. Since you are so adept at research, can you find this one for me? Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types. It bugs me now that I can't find the quote or remember whether it was Gordon Brown or some other politician.
- ericd 13y ago
  God, I wish... Non-TSA plane every single time. Suddenly it would almost be like riding the train, which is wonderful.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Those little commuter planes are decidedly less safe in bad weather, and the pilots operating them tend to be younger/less experienced. It's not a perfect trade-off.
    - viame 13y ago
      Indeed they are but every plane needs to avoid bad weather as much as possible. Of course the bigger the plane the higher its limits. Now on pilots, this really depends which pilots you are talking about. North American pilots, and here I am pointing at Canadian pilots more because I am in Canada and I am in the process of getting my PPL (for pleasure),however, I am sure this also applies to US pilots, very well trained. To get a job at a big airline you need experience, and where do you get the best experience, far up north where harsh weather, huge winds and tiny landing strips are located. I don't think that 3 years college will do, unless you are lucky. I also talk to a lot of commercial pilots as my girlfriend is a flight attendant, so during the travels we go out and chat about everything. As far as safety, over exaggerated, really. No one cares, well, people do but they shouldn't, because if someone wants to hijack I am sure they will find a way to do it. This is the big boys game on a government level. Tax payers are paying for scanners etc, whoever wins the bid makes them and they are sponsoring the next election. (I will not get into this here but you get the point). Scanners are useless. This is an older video from 2010, scanners give better pictures nowdays but are still as useless as before. I got scanned at Schiphol 3 months ago, the scanner was not much different from the one shown this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo It is great to fly small planes, no security, quick, and more fun to fly than a big airliner. Opinions are personal.

FrankenPC 13y ago

You forget about the subset of crazed American freedom-lovers that may be on any given plane. Hijackers would have to somehow get past people willing to die to stop them. It's just not a viable method anymore.

shawndumas 13y ago
I am not sure if you meant it that way but that came across as insulting.
- aroman 13y ago
  I assume he/she was being facetious or sarcastic.
- FrankenPC 13y ago
  Anyone who has the guts to take down an armed intruder to save anonymous people from becoming victims of a terrorist plot has my undying appreciation. But, you have to be crazed to do that. There is such a thing as good-crazy. We call it courage. I guess I wasn't clear on that. My bad.
  - Crito 13y ago
    It would not just be about saving anonymous people. It would be about the potential of saving your own life (not fighting back is a sure death, fighting back is only a possible, perhaps likely, death). It is also about saving the lives of family members or friends who might also be on the plane. Not all fighting back scenarios involve crashing the plane into a field. In fact, now that cockpit doors are reinforced, most fighting back scenarios will end in the plane safely landing. There have already been several cases of passengers successfully fighting back before much damage was done. tl;dr: I think fighting back is a rational response.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Fighting back if nobody else are willing to take the first step is a rational response. Doing what everyone else is doing is a safer first response - in the hope that someone is crazy enough or desperate enough to be the first person to throw themselves at the guy with a weapon.

peteretep 13y ago

How about the shoe bomber or underpants bomber? Neither was successful, but neither would have required access to the cockpit either

FrankenPC 13y ago
Great point. Not sure this isn't a technology solution though that could be automated by fast computers with automated sensors.
cstejerean 13y ago
I think both of those are a great example of the fact that X-Ray + metal detectors provide sufficient protection in conjunction with alert passengers. Is the guy next to you trying to light his shoe or trying to set his pants on fire? Take him down. More importantly, security is provided by catching would be terrorists before they even get anywhere near the airport. Because otherwise they can do a lot more damage at a crowded security checkpoint than they could with whatever explosives they managed to mix in their underwear. This is a job for intelligence agencies, not for the TSA.
bicknergseng 13y ago
Bomb sniffing dogs are more effective at a fraction of the cost. But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. The question is not "should we try to stop people from blowing things up?" The question is "what are reasonable and effective means to stop people from blowing things up?"
- laureny 13y ago
  > But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the plane in the first place, and since no bombs have been going off on a plane for quite a while, isn't that a sign that the security measures are working?
  - greedo 13y ago

runarb 13y ago

Thus cockpits doors are not impenetrable if you could bring the necessary tools with you. If we did remove the security screening an attacker could come with 30 kg of professional cutting gear in his bag, and not even safes and concrete walls can withstand that for long.

ars_technician 13y ago
Do you not think someone would spot them sawing the door open? Also keep in mind that pilots are FLYING THE AIRPLANE. They can just start to do maneuvers that would make it impossible for attackers to even stay at the cockpit door, let alone take it apart.
- warmwaffles 13y ago
  Pilots would ground the plane before doing ludicrous maneuvers like you are suggesting. Those planes aren't very nimble.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Completely false :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 "About twenty minutes after takeoff, as the flight crew carried on a casual conversation, Calloway entered the flight deck and commenced his attack. Every member of the crew took multiple hammer blows which fractured [the flight crew's] skulls. A lengthy struggle ensued with the flight engineer and captain as Tucker, also an ex-Navy pilot, performed extreme aerial maneuvers with the aircraft, at times flying upside down, with the intent to keep the hijacker off-balance." It worked, too. Everyone survived.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 13y ago
Doesn't matter. By the time they cut through the door, the pilot would already have performed an emergency landing at a nearby airport. You're going to have a hard time cutting through the cockpit door when a SWAT officer is pressing your head against the floor.

wahsd 13y ago

Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. Let's also remember what genius methods and techniques the "terrorists" used to hijack some planes....they "smuggled" some box cutters on the plane. .... The END ... FIN I bet you if any one of you put a plastic craft blade, you know, the marker sized ones with the break away blades, in your carry on bag you would not be stopped or discovered; especially if you placed it with the blade on edge to the image. Here's a tip though, never, NEVER ever will another plane be hijacked by anyone else using those means. Not only did the "authorities" finally secure the cockpits like it had been pleaded for years prior to 9/11, but I can guarantee you that anyone even attempting would be ripped apart by the limbs. I, for one, don't care if you were able to smuggle a middle-earth battle axe on the plane; you will be dead within seconds of pulling some shit. That being said, I'm not quite certain if it has gotten any better, but just relatively recently it was still rather easy to access the runways and bays. Just saying, the phantoms we are fighting might get "genius" and pull of a "highly sophisticated plot" that my seven year old could plane and execute with just a tablet computer at their disposal.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. The transfer of existing security responsibilities from airlines to the federal government wasn't a make-work program, it was a measure to eliminate potential airline liability for future security failures. It was about the economy, because reducing the airlines liability risk going forward was one of many steps taken to help the airline industry, but it wasn't primarily a "make-work" program.
- ams6110 13y ago
  It was also at least partly intended to streamline coordination of all the parties involved. You had various federal organizations under Treasury, DOJ, DOD, FBI, DOT, and others that were all silos. Sounds good on paper, merge them into one overall "DHS" and poof everything runs like a Swiss watch. Of course that never happens in reality. It was just an even bigger bureaucracy that still has a bunch of internal silo organizations.

laureny 13y ago

> First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0]. This is like saying that we're seeing fewer and fewer occurrences of tuberculosis, therefore TB vaccines are useless.

cheeseprocedure 13y ago
That comparison is valid only if you have data demonstrating that the TSA has successfully deterred/foiled aviation terror plots. If you have that data (which I'd love to see), there are still powerful arguments that TSA funding would have been better spent in many other ways (better training budgets for security/investigative personnel, more "soft" layers at airports, fewer kneejerk infrastructure upgrades).

EdwardDiego 13y ago

> First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US That's funny, because I got searched more thoroughly leaving the USA than when I was flying to the USA.

WA 13y ago
Might be because the airplane is already over US territory. Thus, if you smuggle a bomb on board and the plane explodes, it might crash into a US city. Flights going to the States need to travel for quite a few hours before they reach US territory.

Schwolop 13y ago

It's not hugely complex to create interlocks such that the cabin occupancy is monitored and the locks are opened when the cabin has fewer than two occupants. I can't immediately think of a completely failsafe version, but I suspect with a bit of time this could be readily achieved.