Homeland Security National Threat Advisory Level Raised to Orange

[Ned]

In case you don't quite see it in the bulletin below, at least for the time being, TSA is prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane.

Statement By Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announcing A Change To The Nation's Threat Level For The Aviation Sector

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

August 10, 2006

The Department of Homeland Security is taking immediate steps to increase security measures in the aviation sector in coordination with heightened security precautions in the United Kingdom. Over the last few hours, British authorities have arrested a significant number of extremists engaged in a substantial plot to destroy multiple passenger aircraft flying from the United Kingdom to the United States. Currently, there is no indication, however, of plotting within the United States. We believe that these arrests have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted.

For that reason, the United States Government has raised the nation’s threat level to Severe, or Red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States. This adjustment reflects the Critical, or highest, alert level that has been implemented in the United Kingdom. To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, we will also raise the threat level to High, or Orange, for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States. Consistent with these higher threat levels, the Transportation Security Administration is coordinating with federal partners, airport authorities and commercial airlines on expanding the intensity of existing security requirements. Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane. This determination will be constantly evaluated and updated when circumstances warrant. These changes will take effect at 4:00 AM local time across the country. Travelers should also anticipate additional security measures within the airport and at screening checkpoints.

These measures will continue to assure that our aviation system remains safe and secure. Travelers should go about their plans confidently, while maintaining vigilance in their surroundings and exercising patience with screening and security officials.

The United States and the United Kingdom are fully united and resolute in this effort and in our ongoing efforts to secure our respective homelands.

[missalf]

Also, local news (Balt/Wash) has stated that, I'm assuming in all airports, TSA is recommending that you arrive at LEAST two hours prior to any scheduled flight for the next few days -- the pictures on the news right now (approx 7:30 am est) show huge lines, monster backups in the security line, and packed airports.

From what I'm seeing I wonder if two hours is even enough -- they are going through all carry-ons with a fine-toothed comb.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(missalf @ Aug 10 2006, 07:25 AM) 33995</div>
Also, local news (Balt/Wash) has stated that, I'm assuming in all airports, TSA is recommending that you arrive at LEAST two hours prior to any scheduled flight for the next few days -- the pictures on the news right now (approx 7:30 am est) show huge lines, monster backups in the security line, and packed airports.

From what I'm seeing I wonder if two hours is even enough -- they are going through all carry-ons with a fine-toothed comb.
[/b]
I think you're right about two hours not being enough. I saw some local TV coverage at PHL. It showed almost every other carry-on being hand checked, and the line already longer than at any prior time in the history of PHL. It looked as though in the security line, which was on TV, that more than 500 people were waiting. I have never seen more than 100 in line at anytime I've been in the PHL airport, and I fly out of there all the time.

It's going to be chaos at airports for many many days.

TSA and US Airlines have now announced that some flights will have secondary screening at the gate, just prior to boarding.

If you're flying over the next few days, at least, be prepared for anything.

[LadyMac]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(missalf @ Aug 10 2006, 07:25 AM) 33995</div>
Also, local news (Balt/Wash) has stated that, I'm assuming in all airports, TSA is recommending that you arrive at LEAST two hours prior to any scheduled flight for the next few days -- the pictures on the news right now (approx 7:30 am est) show huge lines, monster backups in the security line, and packed airports.

From what I'm seeing I wonder if two hours is even enough -- they are going through all carry-ons with a fine-toothed comb.
[/b]

I am scheduled to leave tomorrow morning 0800 from IAD, through Atlanta, on to Freeport, The Bahamas on Delta. Of course, up until this morning, I was planning on travelling only with carry-on luggage.

Delta just informed me that I can bring shampoo, sunscreen, etc. in my carry-on bag and that the restrictions apply only to flights originating or travelling to the UK. This is totally contrary to everything I have heard on the news and online and I do not believe Delta Airlines.

So now my question is, should I bring any carry-on luggage at all? I will probably do one bag, but that's likely going to be it.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LadyMac @ Aug 10 2006, 07:55 AM) 34000</div>
I am scheduled to leave tomorrow morning 0800 from IAD, through Atlanta, on to Freeport, The Bahamas on Delta. Of course, up until this morning, I was planning on travelling only with carry-on luggage.

Delta just informed me that I can bring shampoo, sunscreen, etc. in my carry-on bag and that the restrictions apply only to flights originating or travelling to the UK. This is totally contrary to everything I have heard on the news and online and I do not believe Delta Airlines.

So now my question is, should I bring any carry-on luggage at all? I will probably do one bag, but that's likely going to be it.
[/b]
LM, I think it's clear that there's going to be confusion until the airlines sort out what the new rules are. The Delta person you spoke to is incorrect according to TSA. The TSA web site is clear about this, NO LIQUIDS. You can't even take that half finished bottle of soda on to your flight. There was a news conference I saw about an hour ago which confirmed the new TSA rules, and in a news conference I'm watching at this very minute, Michael Chernoff confirmed the rules again. He also said that the exceptions of some medication and baby formula would be rechecked at the gate to prove that they are ok, and that for a while there will be significant secondary security screening at the gate.

Clearly, if you want to take some items such as shampoo, liquid soap, contact lens solutions, sunscreen, etc., you'll need to have checked-in luggage. If I were traveling tomorrow, I would still take my carry-on with my camera equipment, laptop computer, change of clothes, medications, and toilet articles (no liquids, of course).

Enjoy your trip, however, make sure you allow much more time to get through airport check-in and security. There's going to chaos for a while and you need to be prepared for it.

[Kairho]

Right now it is but a couple of hours since this story emerged. Thus there will be confusion about rules and lots of conflicting information. Moreover, the rules (or at least the airlines' and press' interpretation of them) will probably be changing continuously. Live with it.

Best advice is to try to be as compliant as possible (like check a bag), as flexible as possible, as patient as possible, and don't make the lives of the TSA and airlines personnel any more stressful than they already are.

Also, don't completely trust the press (including Tripso) for information. Listen to your airline and write down what they say; and get the name and location of that person. Also, while things are still in question, make a final call before you leave for the airport.

[stephen_s]

It's a good idea that you arrive there in plenty of time. Do what I do, just get a day-pass to an airline lounge if they have one.

I'm leaving Friday to go to New York. I'll be arriving at the airport around 6:30 pm even though my flight is not until 10:10 pm. I'll just buy a day-pass to the Red Carpet Club and just relax.

[missalf]

I agree, check with your airline/airport for final answer, but they just had the chief of homeland security, the head of TSA and a couple other talking heads on TV in a news briefing and their rule of thumb was if it was water based (shampoo, lip gloss, hair gel, etc) it cannot be in a carry-on bag. It CAN be in your checked luggage.

As was said earlier, the airports are still sort of confused as to what they should do to comply with this threat, so the rules are going to vary a bit from airport to airport -- better safe than sorry.

Also, they said now in another venue that ALL SHOES will now come off (not saying they didn't before) until the threat levels lower.

Bottom line, get there way early and, at least for now, check as much as you can.

[Jeanie821]

I have a question...

In discussing this issue with one of my co-workers this morning, she mentioned that electronics of all kinds are also to be banned from aircraft. I looked on the FAA, TSA, and Delta websites, but nothing has been said about that. I travel with a portable CD Walkman and my cell phone in my carry-on luggage.

Please, someone, answer this question for me...

Are electronics also being banned from carry-on luggage?

Thank you!

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeanie821 @ Aug 10 2006, 09:18 AM) 34019</div>
I have a question...

In discussing this issue with one of my co-workers this morning, she mentioned that electronics of all kinds are also to be banned from aircraft. I looked on the FAA, TSA, and Delta websites, but nothing has been said about that. I travel with a portable CD Walkman and my cell phone in my carry-on luggage.

Please, someone, answer this question for me...

Are electronics also being banned from carry-on luggage?

Thank you!
[/b]
Electronic devices are currently banned from being taken aboard flights in the UK. In fact, no carry-ons are currently permitted to be brought aboard planes in the UK. Take a look at a post earlier this morning by Kairho Travel Notice for UK Departures (http://www.tripso.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8409&pid=34018&st=0&#entry34018) to see what they're doing in the UK at this time.

In the US, electronic devices are permitted in carry-ons at this time. Earlier today I posted the latest TSA prohibited items advisory (http://www.tripso.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8404&hl=).

This is a very fluid situation right now. If you're flying out in the next few days I would check with your airline and the TSA web site shortly before you travel to find out the lastest information.

[Arizona Road Warrior]

I am traveling this week and I will probably throw away all of my 'liquid' items such as shampoo and etc.

[Eileen Sellers]

I am traveling this week and I will probably throw away all of my 'liquid' items such as shampoo and etc.[/b]

Why would you throw them out? All you have to do is put them in your checked luggage.

The sum total of the difference for the domestic traveller is that you will check your toiletry items.
That may also mean that you check your carry on if you are only going for an overnight.
Again, no big deal.

[Arizona Road Warrior]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ Aug 10 2006, 09:24 AM) 34058</div>
Why would you throw them out? All you have to do is put them in your checked luggage.

The sum total of the difference for the domestic traveller is that you will check your toiletry items.
That may also mean that you check your carry on if you are only going for an overnight.
Again, no big deal.
[/b]

First, they are samples that I have picked up from the hotels so we are not talking about large bottles, money spent and etc. Second, I try to avoid checking luggage because I am not going to spend 30 minutes or more waiting for my luggage. Also, it means that I need to spend another 10 to 20 minutes waiting in line to check my luggage. It is not productive for me to spend 1, 2 or 3 hours a week standing around and doing nothing while I wait for my luggage at baggage claim or to check in my luggage.

If I only flew once or twice a month, quarter or year, then it will be a different story.

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arizona Road Warrior @ Aug 10 2006, 04:30 PM) 34096</div>
First, they are samples that I have picked up from the hotels so we are not talking about large bottles, money spent and etc. Second, I try to avoid checking luggage because I am not going to spend 30 minutes or more waiting for my luggage. Also, it means that I need to spend another 10 to 20 minutes waiting in line to check my luggage. It is not productive for me to spend 1, 2 or 3 hours a week standing around and doing nothing while I wait for my luggage at baggage claim or to check in my luggage.

If I only flew once or twice a month, quarter or year, then it will be a different story.
[/b]
So you are going to travel and bring pretty much only your wallet and ticket with you?

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arizona Road Warrior @ Aug 10 2006, 04:30 PM) 34096</div>
First, they are samples that I have picked up from the hotels so we are not talking about large bottles, money spent and etc.
[/b]
So that's why I had no shampoo last week at the Sheraton. :lol:

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 10 2006, 04:51 PM) 34099</div>
So you are going to travel and bring pretty much only your wallet and ticket with you?
[/b]
If I'm going away for a couple of weeks for leisure travel I'm going to have check-in luggage, because I'm not going to waste my trip time doing the wash or pay a fortune to the hotel to not get my stuff laundered the precise way I want it done. I generally fly FC and can check in at FC even if flying coach so check in time, especially at kiosks takes only a few minutes. Over the last couple of years I've only had to wait more than 15 minutes at luggage claim a handful of times.

If I'm going away for a business week I only take carry-on. I'm going to now have to reevaluate that because if nothing else, I don't want to waste time going to a drug store to find contact lens solution for gas permeable hard lens contacts. I also take my shampoo which is special in that I'm not allegic to it. Toothpaste and soap is usually easy to get though too expensive at the hotels.

Personally I can't see the liquids prohibition lasting forever, nor the rules moving to no carry-ons. First, the airlines aren't prepared to increase the amount of checked luggage they already handle. The way the system is designed they expect and need a substantial amount of luggage to go carry-on. If everyone has to now have a checked bag so they can bring along these prohibited carry-on items, it will overwhelm the baggage system. They need business travelers like me to carry all my belongings into the cabin. Second, if liquids aren't soon permitted or if carry-on is banned, short haul flights, especially in the heavily used northest, will suffer tremendously. People with children will especially avoid planes. They need to serve their kinds drinks and food far in excess of what will be available on flights from the airlines, if for no other reason, to keep the kids under some control. People will turn to Amtrak and driving. This could happen anyway, unless security lines are quickly eased. If you have to leave for the airport 3 or more hours ahead to fly from PHL to Richmond, for example, take an hour for the flight and a half hour to get your bag that's at least 4.5 hours, the same time it takes to drive there for a lot less cash than the ticket.

[amybhole]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 06:29 PM) 34116</div>
Personally I can't see the liquids prohibition lasting forever, nor the rules moving to no carry-ons. First, the airlines aren't prepared to increase the amount of checked luggage they already handle. The way the system is designed they expect and need a substantial amount of luggage to go carry-on. If everyone has to now have a checked bag so they can bring along these prohibited carry-on items, it will overwhelm the baggage system. They need business travelers like me to carry all my belongings into the cabin. Second, if liquids aren't soon permitted or if carry-on is banned, short haul flights, especially in the heavily used northest, will suffer tremendously. People with children will especially avoid planes. They need to serve their kinds drinks and food far in excess of what will be available on flights from the airlines, if for no other reason, to keep the kids under some control. People will turn to Amtrak and driving. This could happen anyway, unless security lines are quickly eased. If you have to leave for the airport 3 or more hours ahead to fly from PHL to Richmond, for example, take an hour for the flight and a half hour to get your bag that's at least 4.5 hours, the same time it takes to drive there for a lot less cash than the ticket.
[/b]


I agree with your thoughts here, Ned. I'm a with-kid frequent traveler who stopped flying as of today becuase flying is no longer an inconvenience, it's a near impossibility.

IMO, these new TSA rules hurt the airlines the most, for the various reasons you state here. Do you think corporate pressure is enough to change the rules? It's not like average people can protest anything the TSA does -- the costs of complaining at an airport are possibly too high (missed flights, detention, being placed on the no-fly list). I wonder if airlines will be hurt, and if they'll be vocal about it. And if corporate pressure does change TSA rules, what does that say about Homeland Security?

[Arizona Road Warrior]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 10 2006, 01:51 PM) 34099</div>
So you are going to travel and bring pretty much only your wallet and ticket with you?
[/b]

No...I will have my laptop and my carry-on luggage with my clothes and etc. with no 'liquids.'

If I was traveling to or from the UK that what I will be traveling with based upon what is posted on the US Airways' website.

I just read that toothpaste is on the list of prohibited 'liquid' items so I will either purchase\get\etc toothpaste from the hotels that I stay at or check my bags and waste a few hours every week waiting to check them and retrieving them.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 03:29 PM) 34116</div>
I generally fly FC and can check in at FC even if flying coach so check in time, especially at kiosks takes only a few minutes. Over the last couple of years I've only had to wait more than 15 minutes at luggage claim a handful of times.
[/b]

At the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, the US Airways FC\elite check-in is generally understaffed and you can easily wait 15 to 20 minutes before getting to an agent. It is my guess that the overwhelming majority will check their luggage instead of putting up with the inconveniences of purchasing these items when they arrive at their destination. This will generate substantial traffic for the FC\elite check-in making the wait even longer.

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 10 2006, 04:51 PM) 34099</div>
So you are going to travel and bring pretty much only your wallet and ticket with you?
[/b]My bad ... I was referring to the flights from the UK ... obviously not the case in this specific instance. I rarely travel domestic US and my mindset is international.

...Never mind.....

[Arizona Road Warrior]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 03:29 PM) 34116</div>
First, the airlines aren't prepared to increase the amount of checked luggage they already handle. The way the system is designed they expect and need a substantial amount of luggage to go carry-on. If everyone has to now have a checked bag so they can bring along these prohibited carry-on items, it will overwhelm the baggage system. They need business travelers like me to carry all my belongings into the cabin.
[/b]

I have the same concerns that the airlines aren't prepared to handle the increased amount of checked luggage. What is going to happen if they can't load all of the checked luggage into the plane? Also, this increased luggage is going to increase the time spent in baggage claim since there are more luggage to process.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 03:29 PM) 34116</div>
Second, if liquids aren't soon permitted or if carry-on is banned, short haul flights, especially in the heavily used northest, will suffer tremendously. People with children will especially avoid planes. They need to serve their kinds drinks and food far in excess of what will be available on flights from the airlines, if for no other reason, to keep the kids under some control. People will turn to Amtrak and driving. This could happen anyway, unless security lines are quickly eased. If you have to leave for the airport 3 or more hours ahead to fly from PHL to Richmond, for example, take an hour for the flight and a half hour to get your bag that's at least 4.5 hours, the same time it takes to drive there for a lot less cash than the ticket.
[/b]

I agree...I think that some travelers will resort to driving or taking the trains or buses instead of flying. This is going to hurt the airlines especially that most of them have posted profits for the last quarter and started to show some recovery after several quarters and years of losses.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amybhole @ Aug 10 2006, 06:49 PM) 34119</div>
...IMO, these new TSA rules hurt the airlines the most, for the various reasons you state here. Do you think corporate pressure is enough to change the rules? It's not like average people can protest anything the TSA does -- the costs of complaining at an airport are possibly too high (missed flights, detention, being placed on the no-fly list). I wonder if airlines will be hurt, and if they'll be vocal about it. And if corporate pressure does change TSA rules, what does that say about Homeland Security?
[/b]
Amy, you bring up an excellent point. The problem is, in my opinion, the die is cast, I believe. In an interview tonight on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Chernoff was already talking about studying the situation and threats uncovered by the British thoroughly, so they can "tune" the restrictions to an "appropriate" level.

More than that, the airlines would have to revamp their airplanes and the baggage handling facilities in the airports if these rules are going to last for any length of time. That will cost billions and the airlines don't have the money, not even the profitable ones. Also, this is at a time when the airlines are reducing weight allowances and there has been some talk about reducing the number of checked-in bags you can have, unless you pay extra for the privilege.

I think Homeland Security did today what needed to be done, but over the long haul they're going to have to think "out of the their box" and come up with a system that works, and that's not what they had yesterday, nor what they have today.

A final thought is somehow they ought to come up with something which actually might work a bit for all the tax dollars they've spent. There are countries and airlines which could still teach our people a lot, but so far Homeland Security seems too stiffnecked to implement their suggestions.

Just my thoughts.

[stephen_s]

To add to what Ned said, KNX 1070 (a Los Angeles NewsRadio station and a CBS Radio affiliate) intrerviewed an Aviation Security Expert (I forgot his name). He said that what Homeland Security did was more of a knee-jerk reaction. He felt that they should've worked on the threat itself rather than trying to inconvenience the public.

I have no opinion.

[weblet]

I don't want to waste time going to a drug store to find contact lens solution for gas permeable hard lens contacts[/b]

Ned! Here's your excuse to go get Lasik!! ;)

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(weblet @ Aug 11 2006, 07:52 AM) 34154</div>
Ned! Here's your excuse to go get Lasik!! ;)
[/b]
I'm smiling! I'm smiling! :lol: :lol:

[Paul Friedrich]

Comments from the Cato Institute...............

Did you drive to the airport? If so, you already took bigger risks than worrying about terrorists...

"Accordingly, it would seem to be reasonable for those in charge of our safety to inform the public about how many airliners would have to crash before flying becomes as dangerous as driving the same distance in an automobile. It turns out that someone has made that calculation: University of Michigan transportation researchers Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan, in an article last year in American Scientist, wrote that they determined there would have to be one set of September 11 crashes a month for the risks to balance out. More generally, they calculate that an American's chance of being killed in one nonstop airline flight is about one in

13 million (even taking the September 11 crashes into account). To reach that same level of risk when driving on America's safest roads -- rural interstate highways -- one would have to travel a mere 11.2 miles."

[Carchar]

Why are liquids not dangerous in checked luggage? Pardon my ignorance, but are liquid explosives only a problem in the cabin and not in the hold?

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Carchar @ Aug 11 2006, 05:48 PM) 34271</div>
Why are liquids not dangerous in checked luggage? Pardon my ignorance, but are liquid explosives only a problem in the cabin and not in the hold?
[/b]
Well, they are ... but the guvvermin doesn't want to acknowledge that.

The thinking now is that the liquids those UK guys were threatening to use were two (or maybe more) benign substances which, when mixed together, are explosive. Thus, no liquids would be permitted where someone could physically mix them. The thinking is that in the cargo hold there is nobody there to mix them. So far so good.

Unfortunately, it would not be all that difficult to build a machine which would be able to mix two liquids and detonate them with a cell phone or MP3 player, stuff it all into a shoebox, AND make it look harmless to Xrays, sniffers, MRIs and even eyeballs. Child's play for our engineering school students...

And with such happy thoughts ... have a pleasant weekend...

[Carchar]

Thanks for the explanation, Kairho.

Not to sound cinical or skeptical (on top of my ignorance,) but doesn't this plot discovery come at a time when Tony Blair is under extreme pressure to step down?
Oops! Did I ask that?? :o

Oh, well. I have about 3 weeks to resign myself to what it will be like flying to Paris with my daughter, her husband and my 2 grandchildren, aged 3 and 10 months. Maybe things will begin to relax a little by that time.

OK, that's way too much to hope for...

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Carchar @ Aug 11 2006, 06:40 PM) 34274</div>
Thanks for the explanation, Kairho.

Not to sound cinical or skeptical (on top of my ignorance,) but doesn't this plot discovery come at a time when Tony Blair is under extreme pressure to step down?
Oops! Did I ask that?? :o

Oh, well. I have about 3 weeks to resign myself to what it will be like flying to Paris with my daughter, her husband and my 2 grandchildren, aged 3 and 10 months. Maybe things will begin to relax a little by that time.

OK, that's way too much to hope for...
[/b]
As a graduate Chemical Engineer I can tell you that Kairho's explanation is right on the money. I will say this, however, if you knew what you were looking for, for specific chemicals, you could test for them, but I don't think that's the best way to go.

The holes in security, the way most of the world is running security, especially here in the US, is just another reason why Security needs to finally concentrate on looking for people, not objects. We shouldn't stop using what available methods we have, such as what we're using now, but as Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv, Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, said, "Screeners should focus more on finding suspicious people than on hunting for potential terrorist tools. It is extremely difficult for people to disguise the fact they are under tremendous amount of stress, that they are going to kill themselves and a lot of people around them in a short amount of time, and all the other factors that effect their behavior." El Al's and Israel's security people are considered the best in the world. We should be listening to them.

At least since you're going to Paris, and not the UK, you will be able to have a carry-on, in which you can take games, books, music, etc. to help make the time go ok. It's a shame you won't be able to take juices aboard for the 10 month old, but at least the 3 month old can have formula brought aboard. Have a fabulous trip.

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 11 2006, 07:52 PM) 34278</div>
As a graduate Chemical Engineer I can tell you that Kairho's explanation ...[/b]
Jeeze ... and I'm a graduate Electrical Engineer. We sure could cause some havoc, couldn't we!

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 11 2006, 08:36 PM) 34283</div>
Jeeze ... and I'm a graduate Electrical Engineer. We sure could cause some havoc, couldn't we!
[/b]
You bet, and look what we're doing with our engineering today. You're in travel and I'm in computers.

[weblet]

Sounds like Ned and Kairho should be running the TSA... At least they know something of what to look for...

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(weblet @ Aug 11 2006, 10:15 PM) 34291</div>
Sounds like Ned and Kairho should be running the TSA... At least they know something of what to look for...
[/b]
Well I do know a tube of Crest Clean Mint with Extra Whitening when I see it. And I know that the tube of Crest isn't a terrorist. Terrorists are taller. You know, pretty soon they're going to put a video camera in the lavatorys of the planes so you can't hide from the air marshals. With the video camera in there, the marshals can watch you in there to make sure you're brushing and not mixing. ;)

Have you ever had an air marshall in your plane? They're the only ones on the plane wearing a jacket so they can hide their gun. It's usually incredibly obvious when they're on board.

Yeah, I know I'm cynical about this. I just don't think what TSA is doing these days is amounting to a hill of beans.

[clarkef]

I don't disagree that profiling may ultimately be needed. But profiling is problematic at best. Profiling can be influenced by prejudices and paradigms which may ultimately be wrong. Consider the DC Sniper. Every profile suggested a lone white male...

Turns out it was two African Americans. That completely stunned law enforcement. It also meant that it took longer than necessary to find them because they did not fit the profile.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clarkef @ Aug 12 2006, 02:39 AM) 34302</div>
I don't disagree that profiling may ultimately be needed. But profiling is problematic at best. Profiling can be influenced by prejudices and paradigms which may ultimately be wrong. Consider the DC Sniper. Every profile suggested a lone white male...

Turns out it was two African Americans. That completely stunned law enforcement. It also meant that it took longer than necessary to find them because they did not fit the profile.
[/b]
Hi Clarke,

Good to hear from you. It's been a while, which is a shame because you seem to usually zero right in to the essential stuff.

What do you think of a multi-faceted approach where we continue to utilize the best object detection devices available within our ability to pay for them (and keep developing new and better detection), profiling, psychological detection, truly random checking for objects, high quality training, (profiling and psychological detection would neccesitate hiring much better educated people than is currently required), high quality TSA personnel background checking which is unevenly executed at best according to Congress' own investigations, unannounced covert periodic testing of personnel in the field, and continued intelligence gathering and analysis?

I say that because I agree with you that a dependence on profiling alone will not work. Consider the people arrested in the UK. While they all were apparently followers of Islam, when you couple in their other profile characteristics, their profile apparent would probably not have alerted anyone, without the intellegence gathered through tips, real detective work, and infiltration into their group.

These terrorists are smart, dedicated people in the sense that they can make a detailed plan to terrorize and kill, and carry it out, or at least their leadership, however fragmented it is at this point, is smart, and well financed. I would think no single approach is going to work.

Be that as it may, Homeland security seems to be stuck in "technology" and "intelligence" modes. This is in large part what led to the CIA and FBI missing 9/11. They're better at it today, but they're still depending too much on technology, in my opinion. They seem to be ignoring profiling (politically incorrect) and psychological surveilance and evaluation (no training at this point). I think that creates a big hole in their terrorist detection scheme.

When you look at the TSA employees on the front lines (airports) they don't appear to be equipped, trained, or have the intelligence to do psychological surveilance and evaluation, or profile evaluation. Furthermore, they are all concentrating on what they find with the machines anyway. No one talks to the passengers waiting in line, which is a hallmark of El Al, to help them evaluate passengers (El Al claims speaking to their passengers waiting in line is an "essential" tool, and they make sure their lines don't move too quickly so they have enough time to evaluate). Plus many of the TSA front line personnel are barely literate and couldn't pull off these kinds of evaluations even if they were there to do it.

We've got to get a whole lot better at this terrorist detection thing, in my opinion, and do it without destroying the air transporation industry, which I think the new rules may at least in part do, if maintained. Already, I know a number of people personally who are changing their plans away from short haul flights, and will get to their destination by methods other than flying. On a personal note, I was going to fly to Richmond VA next weekend, but have just purchased Amtrak tickets. I'd much rather fly, but the hassle, and the fact I'd have to take check-in luggage, or waste my precious time purchasing items in Richmond which I already own, has sent me to Amtrak.

I also know a number of people who were planning on going to the UK for the holidays, who are not going unless their rules change. They believe the UK rules have made it almost impossible to travel there, across the pond and back, with children. If you want a perfect example of how crazy the UK rules are, a family who lives up the block from me was not permitted to take disposable diapers in the cabin for their Gatwick to PHL flight, with their 6 month old. I'd like to know what kind of bomb you can make or trigger with a disposable diaper. US Air gave them several blankets during the flight, because the kid's bottom was oozing. You can't image how bad the odor wafting throughout the cabin was according to my neighbors. Oh my!!! The passengers and my neighbors delt with it, but why, in all sense, should they have had to do so. The UK isn't even letting you take a book on planes. I guess the UK is worried that the "pen" is truly mighter than the sword, er...bomb. In my opinion their rules are far beyond any sanity whatsoever. They've terribly overreacted beyond any reason.

I look forward to reading your opinions on this subject over the next days and weeks.

[amybhole]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 12 2006, 09:39 AM) 34310</div>
Already, I know a number of people personally who are changing their plans away from short haul flights, and will get to their destination by methods other than flying. On a personal note, I was going to fly to Richmond VA next weekend, but have just purchased Amtrak tickets. I'd much rather fly, but the hassle, and the fact I'd have to take check-in luggage, or waste my precious time purchasing items in Richmond which I already own, has sent me to Amtrak.[/b]


As you might know, I just got done with a two day drive, having cancelled a flight because of the new rules. I didn't want to deal with a child and the restrictions. It was, in a word -- WONDERFUL! When we arrive at the grandparents' house after a day of flying, I am stressed beyond belief and the baby is worn out. Not this time! I've always loved a good road trip, and have driven cross-country more than once, and it was nice to get back to that sense of freedom. I found a great hotel at the Daphne/Fairhope exit in Alabama. And everyone we encountered at hotels, gas stations, etc. was kind, helpful, and polite -- unlike the rude employees and stressed-out travelers you encounter at the airports! (The only downside -- every time I encountered a bad driver, I remembered how much more dangerous driving was than flying!)

That said, driving is just not always an option. All my UK family is due to come over in a couple of weeks, and I worry about them, as they'll be flying with my 23-month-old nephew. I hope things smooth out between now and then. I was very glad to see that Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair, spoke out against the government restrictions. I just hope things are vastly improved before we have to fly over there next summer!