Home / airlines
Showing posts with label airlines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label airlines. Show all posts
Claim: the airport scanners are pretty easy to fool

Claim: the airport scanners are pretty easy to fool

From the UK Daily Mail:

Controversial nude body scanners used at U.S. airports have come under fire again - after a blogger claimed he could easily smuggle explosives through them onto a plane.
Engineer Jonathan Corbett has published a video where he shows how he took a small metal case through two of the TSA's $1billion fleet in a special side pocket stitched into his shirt.
This is because, he suggests, the scanners blend metallic areas into the dark background - so if an object is not directly placed on the body, it will not show up on the scan.
The metallic box, he claims, would have set off an alarm had he passed through the old detecting system. . . .
Obama administration stops program that allowed airports to have private employees do passenger screening

Obama administration stops program that allowed airports to have private employees do passenger screening

Obama administration sees no "clear or substantial advantage" to private employees screening passengers. I assume that the Obama administration sees no advantage to seeing private companies doing anything that the government does. So much for any rumors that the Obama administration is ending its hostility towards private companies. This is basically a public union protection scheme.

A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.
TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.
Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.
The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive. . . .
But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.
"I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said. . . .
Airline flight cancelations: another cost of government regulations

Airline flight cancelations: another cost of government regulations

How well does government balance off the costs and benefits of its regulation? I would argue not very well. Indeed, in the context of people getting upset about having to sit on airplanes, I would argue that there is no reason for government regulation. How much do passengers want to get to their destination? How upset are they by sometimes having to wait on the runway in a plane? How much does it raise the price of fares to have trips cancelled so as to avoid getting people stranded? Airlines compete against each other for passengers. Airlines compete on numerous dimensions, including avoiding having people stranded on runways. If the airlines don't get the tradeoffs on these dimensions right, passengers will fly on other airlines. To use economic jargon, there is no externality problem here. Fox News has the story here:

Charges have been flying that airlines prematurely canceled flights ahead of the East Coast snowstorm because of new rules fining airlines for leaving planes standing idle on tarmacs, though transportation experts say that such claims are impossible to quantify.
In April, new rules went into effect that threatened airlines with a $27,500 per passenger fine if their planes didn't take off within three hours after pulling out to the tarmac. The move was aimed at reducing a spate of horror stories from people stuck in claustrophobic conditions on planes without access to bathrooms, water or food.
The regulation seems to have had its desired effect. According to the Department of Transportation, since new rules were enacted in late April, the number of tarmac delays over three hours has dropped considerably. From May to September 2009, 535 tarmac delays over three hours were reported; in May through September this year, the number was 12.
But after an East Coast storm threatened to ravage New York area and other airports, hundreds of flights to and from the region were cancelled – several even before the snow started to fall -- and complaints are mounting that the airlines were deserting their customers for fear of racking up fines.
"There's no doubt about it, airlines (were) pre-emptively canceling flights because they don't want to be stuck paying $27,000 per passenger," said Vaughn Cordle of Airline Forecasts.
"I think it's safe to say that there are many passengers who would have reached their destination, albeit with non-trivial delays, had the ... ruling not be in effect," said Amy Cohn, an associate professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan and an affiliate at MIT's Global Airline Industry Program. . . . .
TSA harasses pilot who points out security flaws

TSA harasses pilot who points out security flaws

It is hard to think of what legitimate reason that the TSA should be upset with this pilot. Obviously the TSA might be embarrassed, but as to legitimate reasons anyone who worked at the airport would have understood the problems that he pointed out. Robert Crandall, the former head of American Airlines, was on Fox News earlier today, and he thought that the TSA response was out of all proportion to any harm that the pilot might possibly have done (and he didn't see how any harm had been done).

An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. . . .


The pilot explained why he posted the videos on YouTube here:

The airline pilot who posted video on the Web critical of airport security said he was not prepared for the government's response.

"I just tried to address my concerns and voice it on YouTube," he said in an interview with News10, which broke the story Wednesday.

The 50-year-old pilot has asked that neither he nor his airline be identified while he's under investigation by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

The pilot, who was deputized by the TSA to carry a handgun in the cockpit as a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), posted a series of six cell phone video clips showing what he believes to be a serious flaw in airport security.

Current regulations require flight crews to pass through a TSA checkpoint, while ground crews can gain access to the same aircraft simply by swiping a card at an unmanned door.

"How effective is security when everybody on board is screened and everybody on the ground isn't?" the pilot asked. . . .
TSA failure rates in detecting guns and bombs are so bad that the government says that the results are classified

TSA failure rates in detecting guns and bombs are so bad that the government says that the results are classified

If you have a "70 percent failure rate" in detecting guns and bombs, might the resources be better spent someplace else? Might their be other approaches? The whole process reminds one of why you don't want government doing these things. A private company that wasn't unionized would probably more closely tie the quality of performance with salary. These jobs might be boring, but you can still do things to improve performance.

According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times. . . . .
Apparently it is easy to fool the new TSA scanners

Apparently it is easy to fool the new TSA scanners

With all the controversy surrounding these scanners, this was needed.

The Transportation Security Administration's X-ray backscatter scanners have been the center of a widespread controversy, following concerns from privacy advocates that they take nearly naked photos of people. The trade-off is improved security, of course. Yet Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson, two physics professors at the University of California, San Francisco offer a stark conclusion: They can be easily duped, according to a recent paper published in the Journal of Transportation Security.
"It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology -- ironically because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the researchers said in the paper. Kaufman and Carlson conclude that some types of foreign objects can be reliable detected only if they are packed outside the sides of the body, and some well hidden items would be impossible to see even with the scanner.
"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box-cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," the paper notes. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)