![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcNews 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...
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...
no subject
Date: 2006-08-12 04:24 am (UTC)1.) no gum chewing
2.) no big hoop earings
what else?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-12 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-12 05:18 am (UTC)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.