The airport security kerfuffle: some perspective

[jawnbc]

News of yet another terror plot involving commercial aircraft has struck a lot of people's nerves right now. Extremes of opinion seem to range from the wholly self-absorbed ("Wah! I can't bring my evian spritzer with me!") to the wholly cynical ("Bush and co, trying to prop up their plummeting numbers").

But for those of us who travel frequently and are knowledgeable about airline/airport security issues, this isn't a surprise at all. In fact, it's about 10 years overdue. And thank Gawd the plot was stopped.

Lemme 'splain. There have been rules about not bringing combustibles onto IATA aircraft for years. For example, most nail polish, polish remover, facial toner, or most alcohol based astringents aren't supposed to be on board. But if you fly a lot, it's not unusual to see passengers doing their nails in flight--in some instances, the flight attendants themselves. One of the reasons these rules aren't stringently enforced is the lack of an efficient mechanism to screen hand luggage. Tests for explosive materials (and their derivatives) are more common today, but they cannot pick up many chemicals unless there's a leak in the containers. On an x-ray hundreds of bottles show up every hour. Look at the queues at airports the last couple of days and you see why (on some level) the air travel industry didn't want to adopt a per-liquid inspection protocol: just tossing all bottles has meant huge delays in processing passengers.

The ban on combustibles was largely based on the premise of accidental fire or explosion. But the use of combined combustible explosives using readily available liquids (in places like India, but also the London bombings of July 2005) should have encouraged public officials to more proactively strategize about ways to vet carry-on liquids for commercial aviation. One possibility is an outright ban; another would be the deployment of much more sophisticated sensory equipment at security points. However even with more state-of-the-art equipment, checking every container would still mean tremendous delays in moving passengers from check-in to their seats on board. Time is money, especially for business travellers. I fear those sort of economic arguments have held sway. Until now.

But there's still one huge security issue to be tackled: the internal security of airport/airline personnel. At least one of the suspects worked at Heathrow in security, which would make planting (or permitting) those with malicious intent to gain easier access. But more troubling to me is that many airport personnel who have access to secure areas don't go through rigorous security clearances. And why would they, when the work is usually low waged?

Right now is a great time to push things forward. We need to have greater security at airports--from staff and passengers and interlopers alike. That would also probably mean the end of "nickel/dime" wages for aiport staff, especially security staff.

Right now wer'e still in the realm of the superficial. And quite frankly that's not good enough. For any of us, whether we fly or not. So long as there are people so twisted they thinking using a passenger jet as a weapon is a reasonable thing to do...

Comments

[danthered.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of what you say here. Also, something occurred to me this morning while listening to the news on my way to work: Whenever I cross the border by car, I'm nervous and afraid. Even though I have a clean record and all my papers are perfectly in order, there's nobody else in the car, I have no contraband, not even so much as a candy bar to declare...when I pick a lane and queue up, I'm nervous and afraid. The knot in my stomach grows bigger and my mouth grows drier as I get closer to the checkpoint booth. Not because I have anything to hide, but because they're gonna grill me, and I need to give them all the right answers immediately, without having to stop and think about it, and they may well decide to search my car, my bags and/or my person and do a records check on me.

By contrast, I have never, ever been afraid or nervous when going through airport security, anywhere in North America. Annoyed, inconvenienced, peeved, sure. But never nervous or afraid, not even a little bit. And y'know? I think that might be a problem worth solving. Maybe we need to stop staffing the airports with bored minimum-wagers jabbering amongst themselves and scarcely paying attention, and instead recruit airport security personnel from, say, Israel.

And yeah, I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect we need much, much more stringent monitoring and background checks for airport personnel, both before hiring them and periodically/randomly during their employment.

None of this, however, excuses certain airlines' treatment of passengers like cattle.

[jawnbc]

One thing I don't want to see again was the faux security displays post 11/9. National Guardsmen with semi-automatic weapons make for a great show, but neither better nor more efficient security. In the 6 months after 11/9 I travelled to/from the US via flights at least 6 times. On none of those security searches in the US were any of my non-laptop electronic devices inspected. Whereas at every Canadian airport they were all looked at, often turned on, and sometimes chem screened.

I think really smart security staff are polite: it disarms folks trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Have you noticed how much nicer Can Customs agents are? They're still thorough, but don't waste energy on the testosterone schtick.

[danthered.livejournal.com]

Agreed, again, on all points.

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

I would be curious as to the kind of background checks are done for airport employees. It always seems like the TSA employees seem rather...relaxed about their job.

[jawnbc]

I think a good start would be two rules:

1.) no gum chewing
2.) no big hoop earings

what else?

[danthered.livejournal.com]

Native-level fluency in English (US) English/French (Canada). Without this, it is much harder to detect the signs of nervousness and obfuscation that can give probable cause to probe further.

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

How about paying attention to what they are doing????
It just seems like most are standing around not doing too much. The person looking at what are in the carry-on luggage looks really bored and like he isn't paying close attention. I am sure it is a pretty damn dull job.

Heck one time I came into the country and accidentally smuggled in cheese. I forgot I had it and yet I wandered right through. Not a problem.

I would like to ask that the ladies lay off the talons. I don't mind being groped by the TSA but the talons worry me.

[mikeybill.livejournal.com]

no big hoop earrings? Damn!

But seriously, the whole thing is a nightmare - and sooner or later they will bring down a civilian aircraft I am sure. I can't help wondering if this is al Qaeda trying to get some of the limelight back from Hizbullah. They really don't like each other.

Hope Toronto goes ok. A mixed bag of NZers going. Some I have a lot of respect for and others... well... let's say there's history ;-)

[holden-wake.livejournal.com]

"Bush and co, trying to prop up their plummeting numbers"

Damn, thats what I was going to say. You stole my thunder. :p

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I like the Cory Doctorow approach: anaesthetise the passengers and wake them up at the destination. Think of all the problems that would be solved if you're just moving the bodies not the people.

[jawnbc]

That applies specifically to UK flights on BA only. If your meds are liquid form you can carry them in-cabin on other carriers.

[gav-and-rog.livejournal.com]

What another great social observation you make. I have to agree that there should be better screening of all security and airport personnel, and not just at the beginning of their career. You'll remember the Shapelle Corby story here, where there was some suggestions that the drugs in her bag were put there by airport baggage personnel in Sydney. Correct or incorrect, it does bring another highlight to the story of why personnel should be better checked (and of course, pay them more to give them more incentive to care too).

Now I don't have a problem with no water/soft drink etc brought on planes. After all, this can be provided easily by the the airlines. We should need to think about how we look at contact lens containers, medicines, baby milk formulas for the trip etc.

However, (and why am I more concerned about this, dunno), but I do think it a bit harsh to hear that you can't bring books, iPods, and laptops onto planes. The airlines do provide entertainment of sorts but I'm afraid that on my last two trips overseas it bored me greatly and stuck in a confined space for 16 hours is a lot to ask of someone who's bored.

Anyways, in the meantime, I like the idea of pushing greater awareness of security and of better security staff who are respected because they do a great job and are being paid the right wage to do the job.