Slashdot Mirror
Airline Pilots Allowed To Dodge Security Screening
OverTheGeicoE writes "Wired has a story about TSA's known crewmember program, which allows airline pilots to bypass traditional airport security on their way to the cockpit. Pilots will be verified using a system known as CrewPASS that relies on uniforms, identity cards, fingerprints, and possibly other biometrics to authenticate flight deck crews. Once they are authenticated, they can enter secure areas in airports without any further screening. Participation at present is voluntary, and applies at Baltimore/Washington (BWI), Pittsburg (PIT), Columbia (CAE) and now Chicago O'Hare (ORD) airports. TSA is hoping to expand the program nationally. Bruce Schneier thinks this program is 'a really bad idea.' Pilots are already avoiding scanners and patdowns at security checkpoints (video). Is the new program just a way for TSA to hide this fact from the flying public?"
Couldn't a pilot who's convinced to pull off a terrorist attack just, well -- do it? They are at the controls and all...
Who the hell cares? Getting your flight crew to the cockpit as easily as possible is the best idea that the damn TSA has had so far, and I'm all for not pissing off the people that can make my flight god awful.
My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
1. Compromise the pilot via blackmail, family hostages, etc
2. Profit!
Of course the pilot is flying a big bomb, so they don't have to bring a weapon with them through security if they want to do damage. There's no real reason to screen them...so maybe this -is- a good idea after all. Hey, wait!
Send them through a breathalyzer-only checkpoint and you will have satisfied me.
The issue is whether a terrorist can impersonate a pilot long enough to bypass the screening process.
Once you introduce multiple avenues for clearance, you introduce vulnerabilities.
But what if the pilot got hold of a weapon they could use to hurt people! Like an aircraft for example... Oh wait....
The US government could F up a cheese sandwich, or make it cost $20,000.
Could? You've clearly never eaten at one of their mess halls / no-bid contract cafeterias.
Yeah, the pilot will put the gun to his head and hold himself hostage.
"Drop your guns, or the pilot gets it." "Oh that poor man, can't somebody help him."
As the pilot drags himself to the cockpit and takes over the control from the pilot, the pilot would force the pilot to crash the plane into a building.
Fight Spammers!
Is there really any significant advantage to not screening crew?
Sure, for the crew. If you, the crew, have to go through the same tired, intrusive screening 3, 4, 5 times a day...you'd get pretty damn tired of it.
So far, the TSA has stopped zero terrorists.
And you know this how?
Not saying they have, but we here on the outside cannot say that definitively.
And you know this how?
If the TSA had actually achieved anything at all, don't you think they'd be shouting across the media to publicise that fact?
Why would it be "a million times more useful"?
Why NOT run the pilots and crew through the regular security? Including checking their bags?
Because once you create a group where you do NOT check their luggage, you create an opening for terrorists to move large amounts of weapons past security.
So, 20 terrorists want to take down 20 planes.
1 terrorist spends the time to get listed as a pilot for some minor airline.
Then that 1 terrorist moves 100 pounds of explosives (and detonators) through security without being checked.
The other 20 terrorists buy tickets and travel without weapons.
Once past security, the "pilot" hands the bombs off to the 20 terrorists.
And all that would have been avoided if the pilots had to go through the same screening as everyone else.
Yeah, the pilot will put the gun to his head and hold himself hostage.
No, the pilot will hand the gun to a terrorist who's going to use it to... well, I don't know, some kind of terrorist crap.
I work at an international airport. There's only one gate between the street and the runway. The 'guards' routinely flag us through from over 100 feet away if we so much as hold up something that looks remotely like it might be a badge. I've held up credit cards, library cards, and once, the Queen of Diamonds. So why in the hell should I submit to a full body X-ray operated by someone without a medical degree, or submit to sexual molestation if I refuse that? Is that supposed to make me feel safe?
is that if security is equally inconvenient, more consideration will be placed on it's effectiveness, and efficiency. That why I think lawyers and judges should have to wait in line to get into the court house.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Does El Al screen their pilots?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Hi! I'm Captain Jack! You probably didn't know that I was scheduled to fly this airplane what with you and the co-pilot being employed by the airline. But trust me. See my uniform? Obviously I'm a pilot and this is a plane and so forth. So don't bother calling security that there's some weird guy in a pilot's uniform trying to talk you out of the cockpit. Just give me the controls and I'll take over. You can have yourself a nice relaxing day off while I take the flight that you thought you were scheduled to fly.
Impersonating a pilot to get past TSA security is one thing. ... yeah, that's something else.
Convincing the real pilot to let you fly the plane
Why am I apparently the only one that is happy that that the TSA are finally starting to back off a little?
I'm looking forward to the day when the TSA go away entirely and flying goes back to being as easy as pre 9/11 days.
I mean how many actual terrorist attempts (even failed ones) on aircraft have there been since 9/11 compared to the number of flights that happen daily? If not actually 0, its so small as to be statistically insignificant risk per flight. Isn't the continued perceived threat of terror completely just our own paranoia now? The more we continue to live in fear the more the ghost of Osama still wins. I say F him and lets live in freedom again.
Actually, we can to a high degree of certainty. It is as much in the nature of a disliked government agency to crow from the rooftops any small success it might have as it is for water to flow down hill.
They haven't crowed.
We do know that two terrorists slipped right through the TSA since 9/11. Both were stopped by the passengers.
In baseball, that's called an Ofer
And you left one thing off.
And the consequences of FAILING with a false positive (terrorist mistaken for authorized pilot).
I think the problem here is the same as with the TSA in general.
People hear "pilot" and they think "person flying the plane".
Which assumes 100% verification of every pilot, every time, at every location. Including 100% verification of NON-pilots.
Once you get past that assumption, the flaws are obvious.
I have a friend who is a commercial airline pilot. After 911, TSA insisted on taking his fingernail clippers because he "might commandeer the plane with them." His reply "I am the commander of the plane, who would I commandeer it from, myself?" was only met with blank stares.
They are talking about biometric verification, that's not the same as dressing someone up in a pilot suit and waving them through...
Joel
Airline crews are limited to flight hours as a means to limit the radiation they receive to stay under OSHA limits. It is one of the careers that receive relatively high doses over their careers. Doses are cumulative (think about how people develop skin cancer supposedly from sun burns as a child).
For these reasons pilots try to avoid even small doses of radiation where they can, and walking through a body scanner several times every day they work over several years would add up.
Examples of industries with significant occupational radiation exposure:
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53939/radiation-exposure/
The rest of the screening is stupid. The reason is that the pilot has hands on the controls and can crash the plane, if they wish. What's more they can get a license to have a gun in the cockpit, and many do because you get a pay bonus. So a pilot can kill everyone on board if they wish, you HAVE to trust them.
That means there's no point in screening them for weapons and so on, because who cares? It is a waste of time. All you need to do is screen their identity. Make sure that the person is who they claim to be. If so, then off they go.
And you know this how?
Because it is impossible to hijack a plane and crash it into a building while you are rolling on the floor with laughter.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
And that's the logical failure of your argument. You hear "pilot" and you think "has hands on the controls".
Meanwhile, a terrorist can impersonate a pilot to get through security (or get licensed by a small airline) and move multiple bombs through security to hand off to other terrorists on other flights.
The TSA introduces 1 weakness into the system and now every single flight is more vulnerable.
Again, no. You'd have to be able to tell who is NOT a terrorist. Not who IS a pilot.
And this system is not able to do that.
Verifying the identity of the pilot is no defense against some sort of suicidal/terrorist/crazy action taking place. Check Egyptair Flight 990 in 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
the common word in all your scenarios is TSA. how hard to completely replace the TSA shift with terrorists? not too hard, just have to impersonate a bunch of.....let's just say the bar is low.
You're telling me that the guy who determines whether the airplane stays in the air or not might be carrying a weapon? SCARY!
Talk to anyone who flies regularly. They'll explain the situation to you.
Do airline crews really go in and out of airports 3,4,5 times a day? I'd think the vast majority of their days would be going between planes or waiting and therefore they are almost staying inside the security zone. Only time I'd think they leave is to either go home in their home airport or go to the hotel. Either way that only means they've entered an airport security checkpoint once that day, same as the people they're shuttling around. Unless you have air crew that are determined to always leave airport terminals during extended layovers between flights or they just really, really want to go somewhere other than the airport for food (not a bad idea, of course), then I can't see why they'd leave the airport all that much during their typical workday.
I guess that's why they still have to go through bio-screening?
sheesh, calm done and think.
Why does a pilot need a bomb?
No, you are showing an ignorant view of security.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even if TSA could tell with 100% accuracy who was a pilot, who was a passenger and who was a terrorist, it wouldn't solve anything:
"Hello, my name is Achmed bin Farteen. Your wife and son are with me. Would you like to speak to them?" <hands the wife the phone long enough to convince the pilot that he really does have the pilot's family with him.> "I will begin torturing your family by <insert fiendish plan here> unless you carry this package through security for me and leave it in the third stall in the second men's bathroom to the right after you clear security..."
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Each pilot would normally have control of one plane, but each pilot that gets a special pass through security could, if they were inclined to do nefarious things, brings weapons through and deliver them to terrorists inside the "secure" area who had already passed through security (since they aren't pilots) but who would each board other planes.
Immediately after 9/11 -- with the reports from the planes of weapons including not only box cutters, but also guns -- there was a lot of speculation that this is essentially what happened with the terrorists in those attacks, that weapons had been brought through by one or more airline employees who were permitted to bypass the screenings that were in place for passengers entering the secure area of airports. That was one of the reasons given for federalizing airport security and eliminating the exceptions to the screening requirements.
Well, you could probably get a disgruntled crew member sooner or later who debunks the whole security theater 'cause he can't take the shit anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The US government could F up a cheese sandwich, and make it cost $20,000.
It's not like you had to choose, they are perfectly capable of doing both at the same time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's see... the TSA somehow slowly should justify their existence. They cost a shitload of money every nanosecond they exist, so some kind of justification would be great.
If any of those TSA goons had ever caught anything but a cold, rest assured it would have been the news of the day. For as long as they could possibly convince the networks to carry it. Because then, no matter what gets spend, see, we stopped a terrorist, and human lives have no price tag, do they?
One, just ONE case would have been enough to shut up anyone protesting their existence. They could easily point to some 100 people on the plane and tell anyone protesting to tell those why he wants them DEAD since he thinks the TSA should go away. The system works, let's be glad they only tried it once! Huzzah, we're great, we exist for a reason!
So far, I didn't even hear about a single case. Not a single one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
'The Event'" on NBC last year
Ugh...BTDT. Definitely don't eat the cod sandwich <shudder> The turkey club was pretty good, though.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Y'know, since TSA's budget is in the billions and our country is in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since 1929, I'd kind of imagine that the onus is on THEM to convince the taxpayer that they (TSA, not the taxpayer, just to be clear) are providing value for the money we are spending on them...
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Yeah, allow me to repeat myself.
Hi! I'm Captain Jack! You probably didn't know that I was scheduled to fly this airplane what with you and the co-pilot being employed by the airline. But trust me. See my uniform? Obviously I'm a pilot and this is a plane and so forth. So don't bother calling security that there's some weird guy in a pilot's uniform trying to talk you out of the cockpit. Just give me the controls and I'll take over. You can have yourself a nice relaxing day off while I take the flight that you thought you were scheduled to fly.
Yeah.
Someone posing as a pilot might be able to get through the proposed "security" system.
Posing as a pilot and getting control of an airplane ... are you serious?
I guess they are considered like all other airport employees having security clearances and working behind the TSA security veil... There are thousands of people going in and out of the "secure" areas every day in any airports through the world each day without seeing such security screening.
They do simple background checks on these employees. I can't see any reason to threat crew differently.
Understood? It's not his job to understand anything. Actually, I'm pretty certain that it's easier to do that job if you don't even try. Saves you the headaches. His job was to keep you from carrying weapons on the plane and that he did.
Don't expect too much from a TSA agent. Also, try to limit your vocabulary when talking to them to two syllable words. Some get really pissy when they don't understand you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
C'mon, the whole system already has more holes than threads that string those holes together. Is there anyone but sardine class passengers who still gets to get pestered with this security theater? From airport personnel to VIP passengers, from airport shop clerks (in the "secure" area) to crews now, there is virtually nobody but the cargo class passengers left that get to pay homage to the almighty TSA goon.
Security is the security of the weakest link. So, in this case, there is exactly ZERO security gained by the whole security show. Not that this wasn't the case already, but I guess now it should be obvious, or isn't it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Screening pilots was always idiotic. If they're at the controls of the plane and they want to kill everyone on board, they don't need to blow it up, do they?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
While I detest the security theater at airports these days, your argument has a major hole. If the present day security has dissuaded someone from attempting a terrorist attack because they couldn't think of a way to bypass the security, then that's a success, but not one that the TSA could ever know occurred. Perhaps only those people who think of a way through are willing to try it.
The normal way to measure the deterrent effects of security is with statistics. Terrorist attacks are too infrequent for this approach to work, but that doesn't mean that there is no deterrent effect.
For my part, I don't think this is the case. I think international terrorism is a bogeyman, and doubly so as it relates to air travel. The enormous waste of money and lives in Iraq aside, Al Qaeda has been sufficiently disrupted by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that they aren't really able to attack, and no other organization has the means or desire to do so. Most terrorist groups are far more interested in effecting change in their own societies.
Additionally, terror groups can achieve better results with numerous small attacks against soft targets. They aren't stupid. Crazy, maybe, but not stupid. If they had the means and motive to attack us, they would be bombing grocery stores and schools and such, like they were in Israel ten years back, or in Ireland during the Troubles. The fact that they're not suggests that those that want to can't, and those that can don't want to.
Couldn't a pilot who's convinced to pull off a terrorist attack just, well -- do it? They are at the controls and all...
A pilot *may have* already done it. Opinions vary depending on what investigative agency you ask.
"As the crash occurred in international waters, the responsibility for investigating the accident fell to the Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority per International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13. As the ECAA lacked the resources of the much larger American National Transportation Safety Board, the Egyptian government asked the NTSB to handle the investigation. Two weeks after the crash, the NTSB proposed handing the investigation over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as the evidence they had gathered suggested a criminal act had taken place and that the crash was intentional rather than accidental. This proposal was unacceptable to the Egyptian authorities, and as such the NTSB continued to lead the investigation. As the evidence of a deliberate crash mounted, the Egyptian government reversed their earlier decision, and the ECAA launched their own investigation. The two investigations came to very different conclusions: the NTSB found the crash was caused by deliberate action of the Relief First Officer; the ECAA found the crash was caused by mechanical failure of the airplane's elevator control system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
If the TSA made a terrorist decide not to attack an airplane, they wouldn't immediately stop being terrorists, they'd just attack something else. Since no one has attacked anything else, it would be fair to assume that no one's been dissuaded form attacking airplanes.
Read the last paragraph of my post. I make the exact same point.
I wasn't trying to say the TSA was effective. I merely pointing out that the argument made by sjames was a weak one, and that there are stronger arguments to be made.
Anyone who leaves the 'h' off of the end of Pittsburgh ought to be immediately suspected of being a terrorist and subjected to a full strip search!
A third person enters the cockpit while the co-pilot is in the bathroom. Otherwise, there would be a single point of failure for the plane--if just one person died, nobody else could enter the cockpit.
Yeah, I walked in to complain about the editor's lack of editing, too (though I guess average opinion here is that the editors generally don't edit).
As a native Pittsburgher, I demand that Soulskill correct the error in the summary, like the editor that he's supposed to be.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Even if TSA could tell with 100% accuracy who was a pilot, who was a passenger and who was a terrorist, it wouldn't solve anything:
"Hello, my name is Achmed bin Farteen. Your wife and son are with me. Would you like to speak to them?" <hands the wife the phone long enough to convince the pilot that he really does have the pilot's family with him.> "I will begin torturing your family by <insert fiendish plan here> unless you carry this package through security for me and leave it in the third stall in the second men's bathroom to the right after you clear security..."
"Hello FBI? Listen, someone just called from phone number 555-555-5555, yeah, it's on caller ID. I'm looking it at it. Well, anyways, they have my family hostage wherever that phone is. So, if you could get them back and get me a package that looks like this one here, I'll go ahead and place it where they want. Be sure to beat the shit out of whoever picks it up.
K? Thanx."
Or, if they were smart enough to use *67 before dialing, you won't see the phone number, but I guarantee you the FBI can.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
While not caused by the aircrew, the plane was essentially brought down by a former PSA employee using his badge to get by security. This happened while PSA was in the process of being folded into UseLess Air (USAir).
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
This has been one (one the many) criticisms of the TSA for a while. It's not just a case of wearing the uniform and showing an ID. They need to be "known" pilots. The airline vouches for them and they need to provide fingerprints.
If it was such a powerful deterrent, there wouldn't have been two terrorists stopped by passengers.
As for the rest, the argument is way too close to the tiger repelling rock to be credible.
Nearly every discussion seems to revolve on what pilots can do in or with their own airplanes, but what would prevent them from passing weapons and other dangerous items to the real terrorists that are waiting to board other planes? They would stay alive and make a lot of money in the process.
It's in the best interest of the TSA to screen aircrew, because any items being passed on to terrorists by unscreened people are likely going to be turned into another news story about how terrorists managed to smuggle another weapon through security.
Just as below Anonymous Coward stated below, no FAA time of duty regulations are tied to radiation exposure. It is all based on fatigue. I could come up with many citations of FAA regs and studies related to this. I defy anyone to find a reputable citation that claims FAA or OSHA considered radiation exposure when setting FAA time of duty regs.
Advantage for whom? The TSA/airport/government? No.
For the crew themselves? Of course. They otherwise would have to get exposed to x-rays multiple times per day, something that we all agree probably *is* harmful to one's health, no matter what they'd like to have us believe.
they should just get rid of most of the screening, for everyone, not pilots. the current 'screening' is not more than a 'security theater', giving a (false) impression of security. it is invading, mostly harassment, unnecessary and totally pointless.
without such stupid and pointless procedures, the whole flying experience would be pleasant - again. with the same amount of 'security' as you have now.
and would be a whole lot cheaper too.
"Hush Harriet, that's a sure way to get him killed!"
The 2 pilots that flew into the buildings had all the right id with them, nothing could have avoided that from happening, if they can infiltrate the pilots, you are telling me they cant infiltrate the security companies hired to do the airport security?....Seriously, this is all a smoke screen to let people think they are safe, when in fact does nothing to really protect us. I think they should allow this to happen, although technically if they had strapped a bomb to their chest , no one would be there to scan them or pat them down....
Either way, I would rather we have more bullet trains for travel then airplanes.