Commercial airline security after 9/11

[FloridaPilot]

Do you think airline security has improved safety for passengers since 9/11?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It is fairly likely that the TSA actually makes the traveling public less safe overall - due to a displacement from safer airline travel to car travel for short haul distances. It is estimated that this generates an excess of 500 deaths per year on the highways.

In terms of air travel, TSA procedures likely have no deterrent effect on terrorist attacks, because a terrorist is unlikely to be worried about a 4% chance of being detected, which is all the TSA produces.

It is nearly impossible to address a threat which represents such a low risk by pre-screening (the odds of dying in a terrorist attack on an airplane are about 1/2 that of being struck and killed by lightning). This is a general phenomenon known as the "false positive paradox".

OTOH - hardened cockpit doors may have helped - though their downside was illustrated in the GermanWings suicide.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Maybe it helped some with the shoe bomber? Came up with a ineffective dodge, based on defeating the security measures?

I believe he boarded outside the U.S. Interesting idea, though I am not aware of any data that he was limited in his attempt by the procedures in place at that foreign airport. But perhaps others have more data on that.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

[QUOTE="James331, post: 2138237]


Is this a serious question?[/QUOTE]

I wondered that as well. The trouble is that about 1/2 of U.S. citizens believe the TSA is effective at preventing terrorist attacks. This is why it is so hard to implement more effective changes.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Maybe very slightly, but honestly not much.

...

That change of mindset has done more to make air travel safer than anything the government has done.

The TSA really hasn't helped. In fact that agencies ineptitude is more of a potential point of exploitation by terrorists than anything. The TSA really doesn't know jack about anti-terrorism.

And there is one of the biggest problems with the current approach using pre-screening with the TSA. We spend $8.1 billion a year, invading the privacy of the traveling public, 660 million times a year, to achieve no real improvement in security while likely causing an excess 500 deaths on the roadways each year. That means in the 15 years since 2001, our polices have killed 2.5 times more U.S. citizen deaths than the original attacks.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It certainly does improve security.
To what extent nobody knows, as it's more of a deterrent than a "catch trying to board".

Just like placing one security guard in a mall somewhere nominally improves security there. But the question is - is the slight improvement worth the price. I. The case of the TSA that is $8.1 billion per year, plus the invasions of privacy, plus the people killed on roads due to displacement to driving.

When people have evaluated the tradeoffs in he case of the TSA, it appears it is about 100 less cost effective per life saved than many other possible uses of those dollars.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But ok, I'll run with your idea.
So instead of having 100 folks to shoot at in a plane, he's got 300 to shoot at standing in line with their hands full at a TSA line??

This is another big problem with our pre-screening approach and the TSA. The TSA lines are very attractive targets for attacks - as was recently demonstrated in Europe.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In my opinion if the government had taken charge of things back then when the industry failed to and demanded strengthened doors, 9-11 could not have happened as it did. But then, that would have been overreach, right? Nope. Instead, we did end up with overreach after 9-11 in the form of the TSA, TFRs, etc.

The history of airline security in the US is interesting in this regard. The government tried initially to take charge with the metal detectors, and then the questions about who packed your bags.

The airlines have always had a fairly cosy relationship with the regulators, and for example, are now exempt from bearing the full costs of the liability of their operations in the event of an attack. So just like other industries, say savings and loans or mortgage companies, which have been spared from bearing the cost of the liability of their operations by the government, they will tend to ignore those costs. In the case of airlines, that means not taking security seriously as their problem.

I believe in the long run, in order to return some sanity to airline security, it will be necessary to privatize this risk, the rules to be applied to deal with the risks, and the screeners.

The government will always err on the side of increased and costly surveillance, both because it let's them say they "did something" and because it increases the size of their tax spending and employees.

We have a website about this - http://www.realairlinesecurity.org .