Airport security

[akodo]

Recently someone posted a link involving a woman that had some nipple rings that set off the TSA's metal detector, and they made her remove them, which was extremely difficult and involved tools etc etc.

Now we had a pilot probably playing with his gun and negligently discharging it.

We Xray shoes and confiscate bottles of hand lotion basically after the horse is out of the barn. It is odd that our screenings is such a joke that when testing it seems TSA always fails to find the fake guns, but gets hung up on nipple rings.

Also recently I was discussing with friends the different types of security of airlines. One brought up El-Al (sp? the isralie airline) and mentioned they have 2-3 armed men on every flight, rather than US flights that might possibly have an air mashal, but probably not.


We were also discussing how in addition to armed security, El-Al is much more stringent about searching luggage. I brought up that I thought El-Al xrayed the "checked bags" the stuff being brought into the luggage hold, but most US airlines don't do this. Someone else said that they thought they did, or at least passed bags through an Xray or metal detector as you handed them to the ticket person as you checked them.

Anyone have any info on how likely El-Al is to have armed people on board and in what quantity? About other El-Al security measures, and if US carriers scan checked bags when they handed over at the ticket counter?

 

[Fly320s]

El Al does have excellent security. They can do so because they are a national airline and they have few flights compared to U.S. airlines.

As for El Al and U.S. security information, sorry, you're on your own.

www.tsa.gov may have some answers for you.

 

[Drail]

Actually the pilot was not "playing with his gun". See Michael Bane's blog for some more info.

 

[jackmead]

Things sure have changed, back in 1978 I was flying on Eastern airlines from houston to newark, and all that I got was a pat-down by a pretty girl. That put a pistol in my pocket.

 

[mekender]

El Al also has this nifty little protocol where as armed guards surround each plane from the time they taxi into the terminal until the time they leave... and every one that gets on the plane gets searched...

 

[Titan6]

Anyone have any info on how likely El-Al is to have armed people on board and in what quantity? About other El-Al security measures, and if US carriers scan checked bags when they handed over at the ticket counter?

I can't think of any possible good reason why you should want to know this. If you get any straight answers I will be absolutely amazed.

 

[Ithaca37]

I can't think of any possible good reason why you should want to know this.

Maybe he is curious? Maybe he wants to compare US standards for security to those of Israel?

Why do you people get all doom and gloom serious every time somebody asks a question? Not everybody is a damn terrorist. Calm down.

To the OP, all carry-ons are x-rayed when you go through security....at least that has been my experience.

 

[Titan6]

Why do you people get all doom and gloom serious every time somebody asks a question? Not everybody is a damn terrorist. Calm down.

You People? I guess because fighting terrorists is what I do for a living. Certainly discussing security procedures such as the questions the OP is asking fall into the "do not discuss" category.

 

[M203Sniper]

Interesting Article

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/06/09/askthepilot189/


Wiki History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al


From USAToday 13 Sept. 2001

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/israelisecurity.htm


http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSL2723659620080127

TEL AVIV, Jan 27 2008 (Reuters) - Israel's government has agreed to pay 80 percent of the security costs of the country's airlines, up from 50 percent until now, El Al Israel Airlines ELA.TA said on Sunday.

The government also decided that Israel's transportation minister will rule whether to open up certain routes to additional Israeli airlines, ending El Al's exclusivity on those routes for scheduled flights.

"El Al welcomes the government's decision by which it expands its policy of opening the skies to competition while increasing its financing of security costs of Israeli airlines to 80 percent," it said in a statement.

The government's decision will help Israeli airlines to compete as the number of seats offered by foreign airlines to Israel expands, El Al said.

Since April 2006 the number of seats offered by foreign airlines to Israel has increased by 45 percent, it added.

Israel's leading airline has long contended that due to its heavy security burden it faced difficulties in competing with foreign airlines.

Israel also has two smaller carriers, Israir and Arkia Israeli Airlines. Israir already flies regularly scheduled flights to New York in competition with El Al. (Reporting by Tova Cohen; Editing by Quentin Bryar)





Do not Discuss??

 

[Titan6]

M203 Sniper- Strange, I did not see the OPs questions answered in the articles by the El AL airline. Perhaps this is because they do not discuss airport security measures.

 

[JWarren]

You People?

Why do people get bent out of shape over this statement?

Let's see...


People.

"Which People?"

You People.

'Oh, OK. He meant me."

Certainly discussing security procedures such as the questions the OP is asking fall into the "do not discuss" category.

While I agree with not disclosing information that would AID terrorists, I do not believe anything is above scrutinity.



-- John

 

[Oro]

Certainly discussing security procedures such as the questions the OP is asking fall into the "do not discuss" category.

Having lived in the US my entire life, I've never been told that as an informed public citizen, there was a "do not discuss" category. Public scrutiny, open forums, and citizen oversight is what makes the US what it is. We can discuss any element of public policy we want, and should. Sure, there are those who are trusted with secrets, and they shouldn't violate them, but the public performing it's due diligence is not only permissible, it's vital.

 

[Titan6]

While I agree with not disclosing information that would AID terrorists, I do not believe anything is above scrutinity.

I suppose. Try going to Wal-Mart and ask to check out their inventory control and stop loss measures. I am sure you will find them accomadating. Tell them you are worried that shoplifting will raise prices at the store and you want them to remain the "low price leader".

 

[Titan6]

Perhaps I was misunderstood. When I say "do not discuss" I meant by the security personnel, people who would actually know the answers, not speculators on the internet. Certainly people can discuss whatever. But even when I worked at a corner store in college years ago, we were instructed not to discuss security measures at the store.

 

[JWarren]

Try going to Wal-Mart and ask to check out their inventory control and stop loss measures. I am sure you will find them accomadating.

Isn't the airport funded by taxpayer money?

Its quite a leap to compare something WE are paying for in our taxes to a private, shareholder-owned company.

There are things that I don't have to divulge about my home to others, but there ARE things that I am accountable for legally.

Technically, the taxpayers have ABSOLUTE right to know where their money goes. If a valid reason is given that we would not want that information out, the taxpayers may waive that right collectively.

But it is THEIR right to waive it, not the an agency's right to deny it.

We are in trouble as long as we believe otherwise.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

Perhaps I was misunderstood. When I say "do not discuss" I meant by the security personnel, people who would actually know the answers, not speculators on the internet.

Fair enough. I agree.


-- John

 

[Titan6]

Isn't the airport funded by taxpayer money?

Its quite a leap to compare something WE are paying for in our taxes to a private, shareholder-owned company.

I see what you are saying but the questions revolved around one particular airline's measures not an airport.

Technically, the taxpayers have ABSOLUTE right to know where their money goes. If a valid reason is given that we would not want that information out, the taxpayers may waive that right collectively.

But it is THEIR right to waive it, not the an agency's right to deny it.

We are in trouble as long as we believe otherwise.

I understand what you are saying but this simply is not the case. This is why there are secret documents that contain security plans for military bases, nuclear waste dumps, chemical depots, ariports and such. Closed door sessions of congress determine where the money goes. We have placed a lot of trust in our legislators and the executive to ensure that the money is wisely spent. Sometimes it is not. By some people's accounting more often misspent than not.

 

[mccook8]

The PRIMARY method used by El Al is defense-in-depth.

That, and the goal to "look for the BOMBER, not the BOMB."

El Al passengers will be approached and questioned several times, by several different people, prior to boarding their flight.

To SOME extent, this has been adopted by TSA as well.

As for their air marshals, they're not telling.

(and neither are we)

Frankly, it's BEST that it remains a "shell game".

 

[JWarren]

I understand what you are saying but this simply is not the case. This is why there are secret documents that contain security plans for military bases, nuclear waste dumps, chemical depots, ariports and such. Closed door sessions of congress determine where the money goes.

Actually, it IS the case. Those closed-door meetings are meetings with (presumably) the representatives of the people, and are (presumably) stewards of the peoples' money.

How well of representatives they are and how responsible of stewards they are remains the focus of another debate.

However, it is possible that NO agency of the goverment or recepient of taxpayer money is above the final word of the people.

Enough outcry or electorial consequences can trump ANY representative or federal mandate.

But we are on the same page. INDIVIDUALS may be denied answers, but the people never will be as long as we are a Representative government.

-- John

 

[Lonestar49]

Over Kill does it again..

Quote: Actually the pilot was not "playing with his gun". See Michael Bane's blog for some more info.
------------
...

Geez, what's next, the pilot's one hand and wrist is handcuffed to the yoke/wheel, making it nearly impossible for terrorist, without a bolt cutter or big enough knife, unable to fly the plane themselves, easily??


My take on this is, maybe, in reasserting the lock, the pilot got it in-front of the trigger and somehow pulled, then, pushed on the gun to ensure it was locked down/in, and, the lock during the pull, then the "push", made the lock push-on the trigger and the gun, indeed, went off.. ?


Ls


Pic of FAA approved holster with lock

 

[otasan]

Sounds Like an ND to Me

The pilot mishandled the holster lock and caused the gun to discharge. The whole locking holster thing is an ND waiting to happen, and it did happen.

 

[Cosmoline]

El-Al also makes a POINT of what we call "profiling." If someone looks like trouble, they are singled out. A system that lets the swarthy nutter muttering Koran verses to himself by while strip searching grandma is uniquely American. Our vast, backlogged lines of shoeless citizens being checked over by gibbering TSA foreign hires are a perfect, I'd say INVITING target to someone with some high explosives. A single enterprising terrorist could kill several hundred Americans with a single bomb. A few working in combination could literally stampede the crowd into the checkpoints before setting off more suicide bombs in their midst. The system woud choke on its own red tape. In fact this is basically what the 9/11 bunch did. They used the feds' own rules and regs against us. The crew had been trained not to resist and the security ensured nobody would have a better weapon than a box knife. We're walking into this again by creating yet more idiotic rules that create crowds of unarmed, shoeless people at the airports like lambs for the slaughter.

Trusting the federal government to protect us was not a particularly good idea to begin with.

 

[mekender]

Having lived in the US my entire life, I've never been told that as an informed public citizen, there was a "do not discuss" category. Public scrutiny, open forums, and citizen oversight is what makes the US what it is. We can discuss any element of public policy we want, and should. Sure, there are those who are trusted with secrets, and they shouldn't violate them, but the public performing it's due diligence is not only permissible, it's vital.

funny those same arguments were used by the New York Times and other newspapers after the revealed classified information on multiple occasions... the release of such information directly impacted anti-terrorism operations... but hey, its the publics right to know huh?

 

[MarkDido]

A while back someone from Israely Security said something to the effect of; "...in America you look for weapons, in Israel, we look for terrorists"