TSA mulls a plan to eliminate security checkpoints at 150 smaller airports

[GeorgeC]

"Schiavo said people would be afraid to fly if TSA ended screenings at their local airports."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...de850c-95cc-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Highly disagree. Take away security screenings and you would see terrorism incidents. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. I believe that one of the primary reasons for having such a good safety record in US Commercial aviation is due to the TSA and excellent crew training.

There is no good evidence that the TSA prevents terrorist attacks, and plenty of reasons to think they have little effect.

For example, it would be fairly easy to execute an attack on the long lines which the TSA creates pre-screening, yet this has not happened yet it the US.

And before people say “but there have been no attacks since 2001”, it turns out if you compute the frequency of attacks where non crew members deliberately destroy airliners departing US terminals before and after 2001, there is NO statistically significant difference in the frequency. It is a very rare event and you would have to wait about 50 years to be able to detect that difference.

The money and time spent on the TSA could be 100X more effectively spent on other safety measures if what one really cares about is saving lives. The TSA is about making people “feel” like something is being done - security theater - not about actual safety. It also serves as an 8 billion dollar public works program.

See http://realairlinesecurity.org for more information on this.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Not sure what you’re meaning.

In the 70's and 80's one would just check-in, and walk to the gate. Family and friends could go to the gate and wait with the travelers before they took off.

Screening with metal detectors began in 1973 and was run by the FAA. It was a delayed response to the increase in hijackings in the 60s (such hijackings peaked in 1969 actually so it is hard to see how even that program really helped).

Non-ticketed people could go through the detectors and proceed to the gate.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

There is objectively no reason why that couldn't be the case today.

Basically that is the recommendation of people like Bruce Schneier -- if we have to have government mandated screening, then return to pre-2001 system.

My thoughts are we would be better off with privatization and allowing the airlines to make these decisions in a market based way. The appropriate trade-off between security and convenience is not obvious and not necessarily the same for every airline/flight/airport. The market should decide. Of course, that would mean the airlines also have to be liable for all damages due to them operating their planes, including them being crashed - presently they are shielded from that. More at http://realairlinesecurity.org .

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Their very expensive radio system at DEN hasn’t had security turned on or configured in over a decade since it was installed.

Interesting, especially since the corralled in areas at DEN for security lines appear to be very dangerous in terms of potential attack. There are relatively narrow walkways above these that could be used to wreak real havoc on those waiting in the lines below. I find that setup sort of scary to go through.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That said, if we had zero security do you really think the bad guys wouldn’t try to bring down an airliner??

The strawman fallacy. Most of the posters are saying either

1. Go back to pre-2001 levels of security, or,
2. Privatize it and let the airlines decide.

Neither of those is zero security.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Do you think ILS minimums should be set by the airline by customer demand, or should the Feds regulate that? What about maintenance? Should the traveling public be able to travel on a cheap airline because they don’t do maintenance? How would the traveling public even know which airline opted to skip the last C check?
Should the airlines offer lower fares if the market will bear student pilots in the cockpit, or should the Federal Government step in there?

Interesting to think about how to privatize even more of this and decrease the footprint of federal bureaucracies, which are not very responsive or efficient beasts.

Some of these seem like there is a legitimate police function involved. For example, ILS minima. It seems plausible that these being set too low endangers innocent people on the ground.

Maintenance though seems like the primary risk is born by the airline and passengers. In a truly free market it seems like there would firstly be a reputational factor at stake. Presently passengers probably figure all airlines are equally safe because they are all government approved. But if that were not the case people might pay more attention to airline reputation. Indeed, there might evolve things like Consumer Reports for airline safety that people pay attention to.

Some ideas to think about as alternatives to having the government involved, which always implies a group willing to use violence to enforce its rules. We just tend to take the Federalization of the airways for granted, since it has been around so long, but I think it is interesting to contemplate some alternatives.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How do you let the airlines decide?

Ah, we’ve been through that before I believe, at some length. If you like I can dig up references to the posts, if you are interested.

I must confess, however, the fact that this starts again with a strawman fallacy doesn’t make me hopeful that there really is interest there. Though I suppose I could be persuaded if we agree to avoid that type of fallacy as well others such as the ad hominem.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

And just how does an airline achieve a poor maintenance record without oversight? Three crashes in one year killing 600 people?? Is that acceptable? Then who investigates and places blame if not the government?

What if the government just said, airlines you are now responsible for all damages caused by failures of your planes - no limits on liability. Work it out with your insurers.

In this day and age airplane crashes are big news, reported within minutes. I imagine the economic impact of even a single crash would be felt almost immediately. Since these crashes are of great interest, reporters and potentially independent rating agencies would be extremely interested in their frequency and causes. The economic incentives to be a safe airline would be enormous given the general public’s fears.

It is possible that such a system, due to the speed of market reactions, would effectively “police” safety much more quickly and effectively than the Federal bureaucracy we presently have, making travel overall safer.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes, please dig them up. I’m open to change my mind if anyone can show me a practical way it can be done.

Fair enough. I will try and dig them out tomorrow and try and figure out a good first step for a proposal to discuss.

In the interim, back to studying for the FOI written.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well Denver suggested walking off different entrances for different airlines.
Yes, please dig them up. I’m open to change my mind if anyone can show me a practical way it can be done.

OK, below are two quotes from two prior threads where we discussed this issue extensively. If you'd like to review the data and arguments in those threads I suppose one might be able to make some progress. Those are posts #2257613 and #2391504.

In terms of the steps to take, I really do like the way we presented it at http://realairlinesecurity.org. 3 steps or privatizations that lead to a more free market oriented solution.

I also think that trying to debate why some particular solution is "impossible" or not practical is premature before the market has had a chance to work. The marketplace tends to be rather good at working out solutions to problems, much better than bureaucrats or people speculating on the internet.

In terms of that analogy, the problem is we don't know what pulling the stopper out corresponds to. Was it the introduction of the TSA mass screenings, was it the fact that terrorists are no longer able to arrange this type of attack due to other factors, or was it the fact that people now will fight back and knowing this the terrorists think their odds of succeeding are too low?

Given the enormous costs of maintaining the TSA, in money, time, invasion of privacy, and collateral deaths on the highways, it is important to figure out whether it works. What evidence is there that it does? I'm happy to look at the data, but none has been presented here.

The TSA's failures to find weapons argues pretty strongly that it probably doesn't work very well, so to keep such an expensive program, it seems rational to ask that there be some evidence that mass screenings work. Where's the data?

Sure, there have been 4 incidents where non-crew members destroyed a plane in flight departing from a US airport since 1961. They were in 1961, 1962, 1987 and 2001. So if you work out the rate of such attacks before the TSA (including the 2001 attacks), that is 4 per 40 years, or about 1 per 10 years.

Given that frequency, it is not that improbable that 16 years might elapse without such an attack. (One can work that out more precisely of course, but I think one can see that it is not that unlikely for 1.6 10 year periods to go by without an attack when one only expects 1 per 10 year period).

Thus the argument that the TSA works since there have been no attacks since 2001 is, statistically speaking, invalid.

Given the lack of good evidence that the TSA works, and plenty of other evidence to suggest their procedures are not effective, spending $8.1 billion per year on this "security theatre" seems a very severe mis-allocation of resources. If one wants to spend that kind of money on saving lives, there are likely 100X more effective ways to spend it.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Instead of speculating on why privatizing security is "not practical" or "impossible" I spent a little time speculating on how things might work in a free market. Some ideas...

Perhaps airline security would become more like a super version of TSA Pre. Most people would be pre-screened and fairly well known to the airlines they fly, perhaps related to the frequent flyer program. These people would be id'ed and have a background check.

So if 90% of people are enrolled in something like that, then 90% would present extremely low risk of engaging in a terrorist attack. They could proceed to the gate where their id, possibly biometric, is checked against the boarding manifest and they get on the plane. They could also stop along the way with the same verifications to check luggage.

So in a plane of 180 passengers, that leaves 18 other people to deal with. Now it would be known when purchasing a ticket that these people fall into that category so they could advised to allow extra time for additional screening or sign-up for the verification program, either in advance or on the day of flight. Let's say 9 of them decide to sign up. When they are done, they can also go to the gate.

That leaves 9 people that will need to be screened more carefully on the day of flight. They have been forewarned this was coming and can be prepared. Probably most of them (let's say 8 of 9) have a decent id document with them. So they can be screened, sort of the like the present Secondary Selective Security Screening that is done without ID presently. Double searches, etc. If they pass, that can be annotated in the passenger manifest and they can go to the gate to be checked.

That leave one person without decent id to deal with. After searches and verification on any background information, they can either have a tamper resistant temporary id issued and then go to the gate where it is matched with the manifest, or be walked down there.

Another idea is to have the flight crew involved in the screening at the gate. These are people who have a strong self interest to actually get it right.

These are just some alternative ideas, but the sort of thing that companies competing in a marketplace would be incentivized to try, versus TSA bureaucrats who are incentivized to expand their domain and budget while ignoring customer service.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

LOL LOL LOL. I so want to see the complaining on any pro pilot message boards when the company hands out a box of latex gloves to the Captain and FO and says they get to fondle everyone’s junk while boarding. LOL LOL LOL.

That would be funny. I misspoke. I was thinking the flight attendants. But hopefully with other market driven revisions this sort of groping would largely go away. Mostly this could hopefully be checking the IDs against the manifest, which shows the prior background checks or searches, and observing the passenger’s behavior and demeanor.

I think most passengers really object to the groping and in a free market this would be one of the things to be eliminated.