The Ft. Lauderdale Airport Shooter And How TSA Dumbthink Makes Us Less Safe
We reinforced the cockpit doors after 9/11, which means the TSA's hunt for guns and knives is a silly show of "security" to those in the public too stupid to put together the reinforced cockpit doors = guns and knives useless thought.
Scanner-defeating civil libertarian, Jonathan Corbett, understands. In the wake of yesterday's Ft. Lauderdale airport shooting, he writes:
Pre-checkpoint airport attacks are in vogue, and the TSA makes it worse. Over the last decade, there have been several incidents of violence committed by individuals in airports prior to security screening. Domodedovo airport bombing (2011), LAX airport shooting (2013), Ataturk airport bombing/shooting (2016), etc. etc. etc.The TSA, by creating lengthy checkpoint lines that over the last year have often exceeded 1 hour, has created a target that, again, criminals know is unarmed and unable to fight back. What is the point of putting your blue-gloved hands all over our bodies to ensure that we don't hurt people on an airplane when any terrorist could just blow/shoot up the checkpoint instead?
...Airport screening should be quick and expedient, looking for the most dangerous items and ignoring your Swiss Army knife, bottle of water, and 10 oz. shampoo bottle, such that there is never a line of more than a few people. This can be accomplished by adjusting policies, throwing out the scanners (or selling them to fascist regimes where they belong), and putting bomb-sniffing dogs at the checkpoints.
Also, the Florida airport is a "gun-free zone."
That works really well -- to keep all the law-abiding, mentally together people from bringing their firearms into the airport.
Everybody else? Not so much.
But, wait -- turns out the terrorist carried his gun in his checked bag!
Authorities said a lone shooter who had carried a gun in his checked bag got off a plane at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Friday afternoon and shot 13 people, killing five of them, at a baggage claim area. Hundreds of travelers fled onto the tarmac amid scenes of chaos and gridlock around the airport. Officials said the shooter was in custody and unharmed.
Clearly, searching Amy Alkon's underpants for explosives is just the ticket -- if you want to provide the pretense of security.
Probable cause-based security? Well, what a silly idea.
Consider that the guy went to the FBI office and explained his mental state. Via the LA Times' David Fleshler, Susannah Bryan, Paula McMahon and Linda Trischitta:
Esteban Santiago, 26, came to the FBI's Anchorage, Alaska, office and was "acting crazy," telling agents he was being subjected to mind control. He was committed to a psychiatric hospital as a danger to himself or others, the sources said.
CBS goes further:
CBS News reported on Twitter that the shooter, Esteban Santiago, walked into an FBI office in Alaska several months ago and claimed he was being forced to fight for ISIS.
And then there's the photo of him making that one-fingered salute that's the sign of the tawhid -- "the absolute unity of the godhead."
If we actually had real security -- security that was meaningful in any way -- the guy wouldn't be running around with a gun...checking his gun in at the airport, no less.
So, we have this expensive, huge bureaucracy, and people being put on the no-fly list because they have the same name as some terrorist, but nobody thinks to put any little notiepoo in the TSA files about a guy who's reportedly hearing voices from ISIS?
Think about that, the next time some repurposed mall food court worker is (screw probable cause!) batting at your balls or sticking her hand up your hoohoo.
Can't remember where I read it, gotta think, but last I heard the secured cockpits have cost more lives that they've saved, by some forgotten calculation... Perhaps pilots stricken with illness who couldn't be helped. Anyone know anything real about this?
Crid at January 6, 2017 10:51 PM
The TSA has cost more lives than they've saved because of people driving -- which is far more dangerous than taking a plane.
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2017 11:00 PM
Link about that: https://mises.org/blog/how-tsa-kills-hundreds-people-every-year
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2017 11:02 PM
Can't remember where I read it, gotta think, but last I heard the secured cockpits have cost more lives that they've saved, by some forgotten calculation... Perhaps pilots stricken with illness who couldn't be helped. Anyone know anything real about this?
Crid at January 6, 2017 10:51 PM
Well there have been at least two incidents where crazy pilots/co pilots locked the rest of the crew out and deliberately crashed the plane.
German wings? was one of them
Isab at January 7, 2017 12:00 AM
Start here.
[Reading]
You guys are already on the case.
Free college in New York will be similarly compromised with outcomes unforeseen by those with no practical understanding of the world. (Hi Artemis!)
One of the best ways to motivate a student to engage in some seriousballs booklarnin' is to make him/her [A] pay for it or [B] fear the wrath of the family member who cuts the check.
If only they could have signed up the bass player from Foghat.
Crid at January 7, 2017 12:23 AM
Crid writes:
Artemis??? Crid, I'm crushed. I would have thought I was the one most out of touch with the world, at least according to you. I'll have to try harder. I wasn't aware I had competition.
In a sense, free college is no different that what we have now. Yes, the kids bury themselves in debt and will spend longer paying off student loans than they will their first mortgage (assuming they're ever able to afford a mortgage), but I get the impression they just don't see it that way.
It's just sign on the dotted line, and school is paid for. Without any immediate cost to them, I don't believe they value it.
When I was in college, part of my tuition was paid off through work study programs. Yes, I got some money for the work I was doing on campus, however, most of it went toward my tuition. Consequently, I had on ongoing cost that was real to me, and I actually saw the deductions to my work study paycheck. Gee, I work all these hours and this is all I get.
Consequently, since I could see at least part of what this was costing me, I realized I had to make the most out of this. When I wasn't working, I was studying.
But whether college is free or signing away a pound of flesh and your firstborn son to pay for it, there's no immediate cost to these kids; therefore, they just don't value it. Maybe they've convinced themselves that there will be student loan forgiveness by the time they graduate. Or that they'll move into a gated community and have a six-figure salary waiting for them by the time they graduate, so that student loan repayments will barely be a drop in the bucket. I don't know what they're thinking.
Which might explain why these kids value their protest time more than their actual studies.
Patrick at January 7, 2017 4:31 AM
"Can't remember where I read it, gotta think, but last I heard the secured cockpits have cost more lives that they've saved, by some forgotten calculation... Perhaps pilots stricken with illness who couldn't be helped. Anyone know anything real about this?"
Doesn't pass the smell test. No one outside the cockpit is going to save the aircraft in any case - and if the fatality occurs inside the cockpit and only involves one person, at least one other is fully qualified and tested to handle the airplane in all modes of flight. EgyptAir 990 occurred before reinforced doors were installed.
You haven't actually done this, but it borders on foolishness to suggest that a skilled third party is present and could understand that direct interference with the flight crew is the way to save the airplane in enough cases to produce the suggested ratio.
If it is suggested that no one has challenged the doors, and therefore they have not demonstrated their utility in preventing crashes, I first suggest that they HAVE been challenged, and secondly note that this is a case that produces a null: if every door is reinforced, you don't have an incident with a break-in to compare.
Radwaste at January 7, 2017 4:43 AM
A strike by Hollywood actors?
"Who will that inconvenience?" ~ Deep Thought.
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2017 6:05 AM
In a news report on this, an airport management person said the problem was that armed security was too far away to take him down quickly. I can't wait for that logic to underpin an argument to arm the TSA's repurposed mall foodcourt workers. After all, they're now being trained at FLETC, where we train the ATF, FBI, DEA, etc. And they're unionized.
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2017 6:11 AM
Gotta go with Rad on this vis-à-vis the smell test. How do you calculate how many lives locked cockpit doors have saved? Planes not hijacked and crashed? Like those global warming models, it smacks of a computer model designed to show what the model builder wanted it to show.
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2017 6:21 AM
Conan:
Valid point. Moreover, you don't necessarily need to take over the cockpit to bring down a plane. At least some don't seem to think so, e.g. the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber.
On the other hand, Isab raised a valid point about pilots and co-pilots opting to crash their own planes. The absence of a reinforced cockpit door might have allowed the flight crew and passengers to prevent this from happening.
Patrick at January 7, 2017 6:46 AM
It's people with bombs who bring down planes, not bombs independent of people. We will not be safe in any public location -- including airports -- if people who driven by Islam's commands to slaughter the infidel (with the express path to salvation that comes with) decide they want to take us out.
However, probable cause-based policing is one way to diminish the likelihood that we infidels will be murdered. And if it's true, here's an easy one: when a guy walks into an FBI office and says ISIS is telling him to kill.
Do we maybe get a little proactive about whether he has guns and whether he gets to get on a plane with one?
No, because we're too busy pretending an ambassador's Alzheimer's-stricken granny might have an incendiary device in her diaper. (This I was told about by the ambassador, whom I know.)
Amy Alkon at January 7, 2017 7:02 AM
Also, in the linked photo, he appears to be wearing a keffiyeh (style of scarf worn by Palestinians). I wasn't sure whether this could be bought where he served, so I didn't say anything about it in the post.
Amy Alkon at January 7, 2017 7:26 AM
"The absence of a reinforced cockpit door might have allowed the flight crew and passengers to prevent this from happening."
Once more, doesn't pass the smell test. For EgyptAir 990...
It's ~90 seconds to the water. The plane is maneuvering violently. IF you get to the flight deck AND break the door, you then find two pilots at the controls fighting... what?
As it turns out, each other. There was already someone there.
As for Germanwings, the descent was gentle. Only if you were the navigator could you know that a mountainside was your destination.
Radwaste at January 7, 2017 8:29 AM
I can tell you right now, if I was ever inclined to fly with my guns,( and I have done it three times) this latest atrocity will insure, that the TSA will require an armed TSA escort to the counter and and armed TSA escort out of baggage claim for anyone flying with a firearm.
Never mind that any joker can walk in from the parking garage and pull the same stunt unimpeded.
Just another reason never to get on a plane
Good thing gas is hovering around two bucks a gallon.
Isab at January 7, 2017 8:55 AM
One of the points about this incident that hasn't been covered was the way you could almost hear the media praying that this shooter would turn out to be a right-wing nutjob and not a Muslim.
Well, guess what? God heard their prayers and said, "Fuck you."
The media was quick to release his Hispanic name, and lighten his skin for the photo releases, but much slower to release his ISIS connections.
A friend of mine was even joking about it on Facebook while the media was dragging their feet about revealing what they already knew.
"Will he turn to be Presbyterian or Baptist?" he pondered.
I decided to join in.
"I bet he's a Methodist. You KNOW how they are!"
Pretty soon, we had a decent number of his friends joining in the fun. One person speculated Amish. (Can Amish even use guns?)
Until one person self-righteously huffed about how awful we were to be joking about this when people have been murdered.
Gee, we could get all upset about this, but that would help exactly what? Moreover, we're joking about the media's tireless insistence that Muslims are just as sweet as candy when yet another terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims happens...and the media is stalling to admit this.
But The Young Turks had the right idea. They harrumphed indignantly about Dylann Roof.
Who committed his horrific crime almost two years ago, remained in custody since then and is now on trial.
And since then, how many deaths have we had due to Islamic terrorists? Even the Pulse Nightclub shooter alone outdoes this rank amateur nearly 10 times over!
Patrick at January 7, 2017 8:58 AM
As for Germanwings, the descent was gentle. Only if you were the navigator could you know that a mountainside was your destination.
Radwaste at January 7, 2017 8:29 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought in the Germanwings crash there was black box evidence of the pilot leaving to use the restroom, and then more and more frantically pounding on the door after the co pilot refused to let him back imto the cockpit.
Isab at January 7, 2017 8:59 AM
" (Can Amish even use guns?)"
In the interest of proper grammar and syntax; of course the Amish *can* use guns, but if they follow the dictates of their religon they *may* not use them. :-)
Isab at January 7, 2017 9:06 AM
It depends on what you mean by the dictates of their religion, Isab.
Amish are pacifists, so they will not resist. However, they will hunt for food, or use firearms to eliminate pests. In fact, here's an interesting case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/27/amish-man-sues-to-buy-firearm-without-photo-id-in-gun-rights-religious-freedom-lawsuit/
So, yes, you need to watch out for radicalize Amish who might hold you down and shave your beard.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 7, 2017 10:47 AM
I read Crid's link about the proposed Hollywood strike. Could this be satire? The closing statement from the unnamed Resist Racism spokesman:
". . . because the God’s honest truth is – without Hollywood, there is no America. It’s like trying to run Nazi Germany without Hitler at the forefront – it just becomes pointless,” the spokesperson concluded."
Canvasback at January 7, 2017 11:13 AM
Would anyone really be inconvenienced by a Hollywood strike? Except Hollywood?
Actors with no practical skills would have to get real jobs. No more pretending to be people of consequence. Let's see how long they last stocking shelves at Walmart. There are no self referential awards to boost the egos of shelf stockers.
No more money flowing into Disney or Sony corporate coffers? Yeah, that'll last.
Since movies today display all the intelligence of having been written by drunk chimpanzees, a writers' strike might result in better movies.
This is just another hollow threat by the Left. And no one in Hollywood will actually want to see it carried out. No one in Hollywood wants to risk finding out how unnecessary to the national functioning they really are.
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2017 11:37 AM
Conan: Actors with no practical skills would have to get real jobs.
I think that would be cool if Hollywood went on strike. Independent film makers and non-union actors would find an increased market for their work. Hollywood striking would not mean movies would no longer be made. Just their movies would no longer be made.
Unfortunately, the biggest names in Hollywood would not have to start working. They've amassed sufficient wealth to live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives, if need be.
I don't expect to run into Tom Hanks working as a Wal-Mart greeter if Hollywood goes on strike.
Patrick at January 7, 2017 2:03 PM
"Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought in the Germanwings crash there was black box evidence of the pilot leaving to use the restroom, and then more and more frantically pounding on the door after the co pilot refused to let him back imto the cockpit."
You are right. I only linked to Patrick Smith; the Wikipedia page says he was locked out.
Now, the plane is behaving normally and there's a guy banging on the cockpit door. You're a passenger.
Who do you believe?
Say, you have super strength and you can break the reinforced door. Do you?
The idea that a passenger can save the plane is ludicrous, and that's Patrick Smith talking. I'd like to think I could do it and I sure would try, but, come on.
Radwaste at January 7, 2017 2:53 PM
> In a sense, free college is
> no different that what we
> have now. Yes, the...
In a sense, starting a sentence that way makes me think you're a ninny academic at a CC with a desperate need to appear on a cable TV despite having no clear perspective. Yes, starting a sentence with an arrhythmic & theatrical concession is also pretentious.
> You haven't actually done this,
> but it borders on foolishness
> to suggest that
Better than that, I suggested nothing even vaguely so elaborate... Only, casually, that the (uncited, unremembered) last thing I'd read on the topic implied that the doors had cost more than they'd saved.
You guys are SOOOOOoooo meen.
See also.
Crid at January 7, 2017 4:18 PM
Crid:
From a vacuous turd like yourself, I'm certain I'm so stung, I just might yawn.
I'm faintly curious, though. Where did you get the idea that I would like to appear on television? I absolutely would not like to appear on television and would resist any attempt to put me on it.
Patrick at January 8, 2017 4:43 AM
He was actually turned over to the local police who brought him to a psychiatric hospital for review. I don't believe the FBI had the authority to commit him, nor the Anchorage PD.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/06/ft-lauderdale-shooting-suspect-had-minor-criminal-history-honorable-discharge-from-national-guard.html
"Although Santiago stated that he did not wish to harm anyone, as a result of his erratic behavior, interviewing agents contacted local authorities who took custody of Santiago and transported him to a local medical facility for evaluation. The FBI closed its assessment of Santiago after conducting database reviews, interagency checks, and interviews of his family members,” the official added."
So, the FBI didn't fail in not holding him, but the Anchorage office of the FBI "closed its assessment" after checking databases, other agencies, and talking to family members, by phone one presumes since most of them lived in Puerto Rico. These same family members who now say their relative was crazy and are blaming the FBI for not having him locked up (which the FBI may not have had the authority to do).
And maybe the FBI does bear some blame. This is the same agency that closed its assessment on reports of 19 Middle Eastern guys, several on expired student visas, taking flying lessons but skipping the section on landing. Perhaps the standard for closing an assessment should be made more stringent. Or we should stop depending upon the FBI to identity and stop the crazies.
Conan the Grammarian at January 8, 2017 2:03 PM
> Where did you get the
> idea that I...
Late in life for you to receive this important lesson, but what the Hell... I'm all about lending assistance to the needy.
I refer you once again to January 7, 2017 4:18 PM. You will affirm that you don't have the time.You will need to make time.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 8, 2017 6:41 PM
Bassanio: Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff — you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search.
William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Act I, scene 1
Patrick at January 8, 2017 7:22 PM
College was available for free in New York City from 1937 through 1973 .
It is possible that what sunk the school was not the lack of tuition, but rather the combination of costs of new construction and the open admission:
"The college campus grew as buildings were constructed and enrollment increased. But changes beyond growth were in store for Queens College: in 1970,CUNY adopted the controversial policy of Open Admissions, which guaranteed a place at CUNY for any high school graduate in New York, regardless of traditional criteria like grades or test scores."
To support my theory, I offer only the anecdote that my parents graduated from schools in the city in the 1960s, one of my parents went on to work in education, and that parent once remarked in passing (if I recall correctly) that checks to cover the costs of tuition and books were mailed to students who didn't attend classes - etcetera.
Michelle at January 8, 2017 7:42 PM
"Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought in the Germanwings crash there was black box evidence of the pilot leaving to use the restroom, and then more and more frantically pounding on the door after the co pilot refused to let him back imto the cockpit."
Yes, the captain had gone to the head, and the first officer locked him out. The captain realized what was going on almost immediately. The way those systems work is: There is a keypad outside the door. If you enter the right passcode, the door will unlock after a delay period. In addition to the pilots, at least one of the FAs knows the passcode. (This is not in any expectation that the FA will be able to fly the plane, although it's not impossible, but that if someone else can get into the cockpit, they might be able to revive at least one incapacitated pilot.)
However, the people who designed the system were concerned that a hijacker might be able to coerce an FA into giving them the passcode. So they put an override button in the cockpit. When someone enters the correct passcode, it makes an alert noise in the cockpit and then there's a delay of a few seconds. If someone in the cockpit presses the override button, the door won't open. So the system works well in the case of both pilots being rendered unconscious, and it works well in the case of hijackers trying to get it.
What was not considered in the requirements was the case of a pilot wanting to commit suicide and take the airplane with him. So in the Germanwings crash, the FO was able to keep the captain locked out while he flew the plane into the ground, by pressing the override button each time the captain entered the access code. And possibly the same thing happened in the case of Malaysian flight 370, although we might never know for sure.
Cousin Dave at January 9, 2017 7:52 AM
Leave a comment