-

This photo from the Orlando Sentinel tells me that there is some fine tuning needed in air marshal procedure. One almost wonders if the follow-on response, which included blowing up baggage and interrogation of passengers, was intended to increase the atmosphere of crisis so that the shooting of a crazed passenger seemed more reasonable.
Yes, I understand the need for airline security since 9/11, but the federal response at every step has seemed rather heavy-handed and bureaucratic. Does anyone really think that passengers will ever again allow a lightly armed hijacker to take over a plane? 300 people held at bay by scissors? Or that a passenger really might sneak a bomb through in their carry-on? Is screening that bad?
Posted by Kevin Murphy at December 8, 2005 09:14 AMNo, screening isn't that bad. However, do you want the air marshalls to assume that screening is perfect? I wasn't there so I can't say how realistic the threat may have been. It is easy to second guess but I'd say the real lesson learned is if you are crazy and taking medicine to make you less crazy don't forget to take your medicine. How often do we hear stories of somebody going nuts and then a family member being quoted saying "He's been doing better, but must have stopped taking his medicine?"
Posted by: LargeBill at December 9, 2005 08:22 AMScreening is good enough that they would pass only some tiny percentage of what they find. I'm sure that they find (inadvertent) guns daily, knives hourly, etc. Bombs? Considering that every time they actually found a luggage bomb they'd clear the terminal and the press would report it, I'd say they find bombs almost never.
So, given the possibility that a passenger that claims to have a bomb actually does have one is vanishingly small -- Yes, they SHOULD assume that a claim of "bomb" is bogus. Unless they have considerable other reasons to suspect a bomb, they shouldn't take such an assertion from a crazy-acting passenger as valid.
This goes double for any luggage that just went through the super-customs inspection like one gets coming from flipping Medellin. Such as the suitcases they had in the hold.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 9, 2005 09:56 AMYes, they SHOULD assume that a claim of "bomb" is bogus. Unless they have considerable other reasons to suspect a bomb, they shouldn't take such an assertion from a crazy-acting passenger as valid.
And that would be hunky-dory right up until the occasion when a crazy-acting passenger claiming to have a bomb, really did.
Posted by: McGehee at December 9, 2005 10:51 AMIt's quite likely that the next crew that pierces security will be part of a much more sophisticated operation than 9/11. You can task people that are perfectly clean to get jobs in security and have them work for years without incident, only to pass that bomb carrier through security. No matter how many people are needed to let it happen, it's possible to have that many moles that periodically all come together in the correct shift order. That's why they take bomb threats seriously. They know that security can be suborned.
Here's another thing to ponder. Al Queda has a track record in Iraq of handing suicide packs to the mentally disabled, people with Down's or other mental handicap. Just because a guy's acting crazy or is crazy or is mentally disabled is no proof that he has no bomb.
All that being said, there should be an investigation of what happened, exactly, procedures should be adjusted to increase the chance of a better outcome. And if the Marshal didn't follow established procedure and went a little crazy himself, he should feel the full force of the law.
Balancing all this, I really don't know what's going on. I'll reserve judgment until there's actual information sufficient to make a reasonable one. I highly recommend that line in most cases of law enforcement incidents.
Posted by: TM Lutas at December 10, 2005 07:42 PM