I'm personally in favor of the TSA relaxing the rules, just as a lot of people here are opposed to any sort of rules. However a) I thought it would be intersting for people to engage with the reasons why some son't want to see those rules changed - for flight attendants, after all, the low risk -per-flight is multiplied by the very high number of flights they are on; and also to reflect that people opposing the rule change are organized whereas people supporting rule changes are not, and have so far greeted the proposed rules changes with total indifference.
So if the TSA decides to leave the current rules in place and continues to prevent passengers from carrying on anything larger than a paperclip, it might be because people who want change have failed to advocate for it. I'm surprised, for example, that Bruce Schneier has had nothing whatsoever to say on the the subject.
BTW I am not one to recommend the WSJ comment pages, but you can see further examples there of why many people prefer to trade freedom/dignity/convenience for security.
So, I see certain groups (union of airline attendants) opposing knives in cabins.
It sounds reasonable enough for their safety... until I consider the fact that anyone can have a knife, virtually anywhere, already. On the bus. On the train. On the subway. In a bar.
Yet in none of those places is anyone contemplating removing them. So now that the cabin door is reinforced, what's so special about planes that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a swiss army knife? I just don't see the logic.
Reinforced doesn't mean impregnable, for one thing. For another, on the ground people can flee. On a plane you could still have a bad hostage situation even if the cockpit is not taken over, because there's nowhere people can go while it's in the air.
"Reinforced doesn't mean impregnable, for one thing."
The reinforced cockpit doors are meant to be safe from being penetrated by small arms fire and fragmentation grenades. [1] I doubt knives of the size that the TSA plans to allow would be more dangerous.
"on the ground people can flee. On a plane you could still have a bad hostage situation even if the cockpit is not taken over"
You could have a similarly bad hostage situation on a bus, on a train, or in the subway.
The reinforced cockpit doors are meant to be safe from being penetrated by small arms fire and fragmentation grenades. [1] I doubt knives of the size that the TSA plans to allow would be more dangerous.
It's harder to get through a reinforced door in a hurry, but I can think of plenty ways of either getting through it more slowly, or of making the cockpit unpleasant to be in without breaching it - lighting a fire outside it, for example. At the least this would necessitate a dangerous emergency landing.
You could have a similarly bad hostage situation on a bus, on a train, or in the subway.
No, you couldn't. Those are all bad hostage situations, but the difference is that if you manage to escape the confined space then you'll probably be able to run away, whereas on an airborne plane there's no where you can run away to because you're thousands of feet from the ground.
Ignoring this rather obvious difference seems obtuse.
"It's harder to get through a reinforced door in a hurry, but I can think of plenty ways of either getting through it more slowly, or of making the cockpit unpleasant to be in without breaching it - lighting a fire outside it, for example."
I can think of a number of ways as well, but most of them do not involve the type of knives that will be allowed.
"the difference is that if you manage to escape the confined space then you'll probably be able to run away"
You specifically used the words "hostage situation", which implies an inability to escape.
"Ignoring this rather obvious difference seems obtuse."
HN guidelines aside (I do not think it is civil to call someone obtuse), the original article you submitted states that the TSA does not think that small knives are sufficient to let people with bad intentions crash airplanes. I do not think that the situations you have mentioned (slowly breaching a cockpit door or a hostage situation in the cabin) call this into question.
Read the actual rules in the graphic in the article. The "knives" they are talking about are the tiniest little scrapers, first class cutlery would be more dangerous.
For example, the Leatherman Wave is too long (by 7mm) too broad (by 1mm) and locking in any case. That was in my toolkit in my cabin baggage all the time back in the 90s.
When I heard about this rule change, I checked all my knives. Out of the 6 non-kitchen knives I have, not a single one of them is short enough to go on the plane. Disappointing. Even my little Buck folder, the best little utility knife, is too long.
He, as a 9/11 family member, makes a persuasive emotional argument. However, he is unaware of, or ignores, a special type of blindness people develop when doing repetitive tasks like searching baggage. People will only see the common, ignoring the uncommon all together. An example of this is the gorilla and basketball experiment. TSA emploies have a similar problem they will only see the common things they need to confiscate, small knives and water bottles, but miss the rare and dangerous stuff, guns or bombs. They have done studies where they send a bag though airport screening with a bomb and a water bottle in it, and what happens frequently is the TSA will find and confiscate the water bottle but miss the bomb. This is not a fault of the TSA being incompetent it is because the TSA emploies humans. By allowing small knives through not only does it make passengers happier it makes it so that the TSA is not distracted from real dangers.
11 comments
[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadSo if the TSA decides to leave the current rules in place and continues to prevent passengers from carrying on anything larger than a paperclip, it might be because people who want change have failed to advocate for it. I'm surprised, for example, that Bruce Schneier has had nothing whatsoever to say on the the subject.
BTW I am not one to recommend the WSJ comment pages, but you can see further examples there of why many people prefer to trade freedom/dignity/convenience for security.
It sounds reasonable enough for their safety... until I consider the fact that anyone can have a knife, virtually anywhere, already. On the bus. On the train. On the subway. In a bar.
Yet in none of those places is anyone contemplating removing them. So now that the cabin door is reinforced, what's so special about planes that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a swiss army knife? I just don't see the logic.
The reinforced cockpit doors are meant to be safe from being penetrated by small arms fire and fragmentation grenades. [1] I doubt knives of the size that the TSA plans to allow would be more dangerous.
"on the ground people can flee. On a plane you could still have a bad hostage situation even if the cockpit is not taken over"
You could have a similarly bad hostage situation on a bus, on a train, or in the subway.
[1] http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...
It's harder to get through a reinforced door in a hurry, but I can think of plenty ways of either getting through it more slowly, or of making the cockpit unpleasant to be in without breaching it - lighting a fire outside it, for example. At the least this would necessitate a dangerous emergency landing.
You could have a similarly bad hostage situation on a bus, on a train, or in the subway.
No, you couldn't. Those are all bad hostage situations, but the difference is that if you manage to escape the confined space then you'll probably be able to run away, whereas on an airborne plane there's no where you can run away to because you're thousands of feet from the ground.
Ignoring this rather obvious difference seems obtuse.
I can think of a number of ways as well, but most of them do not involve the type of knives that will be allowed.
"the difference is that if you manage to escape the confined space then you'll probably be able to run away"
You specifically used the words "hostage situation", which implies an inability to escape.
"Ignoring this rather obvious difference seems obtuse."
HN guidelines aside (I do not think it is civil to call someone obtuse), the original article you submitted states that the TSA does not think that small knives are sufficient to let people with bad intentions crash airplanes. I do not think that the situations you have mentioned (slowly breaching a cockpit door or a hostage situation in the cabin) call this into question.
For example, the Leatherman Wave is too long (by 7mm) too broad (by 1mm) and locking in any case. That was in my toolkit in my cabin baggage all the time back in the 90s.