Sunday, January 2, 2011

Appearance of Safety


During my 10.25 mile run yesterday morning, I witnessed numerous airplane approaches at the San Antonio Intergalactic airport.  The strong, northerly wind forced airplanes to land from the south, taking them almost directly over one of my favorite running trails – Robert Tobin Park.  I couldn’t help but be reminded of the TSA as I watched plane after plane bear down on the nearby airport.  I thought of the billions of dollars the TSA consumes on a regular basis and the utter wastefulness of their efforts.

The TSA performs 100% screening of all passenger baggage, along with a full body scan or good ole groping, your choice.  (I’m actually shocked we have a choice here)  We’re told the TSA is committed to securing the friendly skies and the battalion of federal agents waiting to feel you up is for our safety and security.  Lovely.  However, it’s nothing more than the appearance of safety.

There are literally hundreds of opportunities for taking down an aircraft.  Walking onto the plane with weapons or the intent to hi-jack is just one.  The park where I run provides excellent cover for a would-be attacker.  A terrorist equipped with a high-powered rifle could inflict untold damage before blowing his cover.  Multiply this scenario times the number of airports around the country and you quickly see that safety is elusive.  Think of all the ancillary services tending to the airplane while parked on the tarmac.  I see fuel trucks, baggage carts, food and drink services, and many others, all potential ports of entry for an attacker.  Lastly, what of the pilots.  If the pilot wishes to drive the plane into the ground, how can we stop that? 

Perhaps we should federalize the pilots as we did airport security.  But why stop there – let’s federalize the whole operation, including the airlines themselves.  That should make us all safer, right?  Absolute safety doesn’t exist short of banning flying, and the TSA should stop pretending is does.  Our government foolishly wastes billions while not increasing our safety in the least.  There are better and cheaper ways to guard the skies, and we should all accept that with flying comes with a little risk.

13 comments:

  1. It's back to the grind tomorrow, so the posts will fall off a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Heavy. Not me! Unless you consider research to be a grind. I guess some do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't mind what I do most of the time. I would so love to hang out my own shingle someday. Who knows, perhaps that day will come.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BTW, downloaded Power and Market. I plan to blog some about free-market defense. It's an interesting topic, especially since I'm in the business.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Think of all the ancillary services tending to the airplane while parked on the tarmac. I see fuel trucks, baggage carts, food and drink services, and many others, all potential ports of entry for an attacker. Lastly, what of the pilots. If the pilot wishes to drive the plane into the ground, how can we stop that?

    I work at O'Hare Airport. For obvious reasons I can't give you a list of security measures that exist to prevent security breaches, but I will say that they are good and continuously getting better at keeping bad guys out of secured areas of the airport. The pilots and crew have to pass an extensive background check, and their behavior is constantly being observed by each other.

    That said, there is no such thing as perfect security (duh)! A lot of what TSA does is give an illusion of security since without that the airlines would go bankrupt (as they almost all did after 9/11). My suspicion is the body scanners are the result of some connected lobbyist with deep pockets more than anything else. The first priority (rightly) is to prevent a highjacking, they should continue to adapt and improve their defenses. But there are all kinds of questions that need to be answered, like how much should we spend? How much inconvenience will we put up with? What security projects should get priority? I don't know all these answers, and I'm glad that I'm not the person who has to grapple with them.

    Interestingly, the pilots were calling for reinforced cockpit doors long before 9/11 but the airlines wouldn't install them. It is expensive, and if one airline did it but the others didn't, the others would have the advantage of higher profits (or smaller losses). Then reinforced doors were mandated by law and all the airlines did it. No airline got the competitive advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " A lot of what TSA does is give an illusion of security since without that the airlines would go bankrupt (as they almost all did after 9/11). "

    Well said Tschaff. The same of course is true about the stock market. There must be the illusion of fairness/safety, the SEC is pitiful at actually preventing fraud but if there was no SEC there would be no stock market.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "if there was no SEC there would be no stock market."

    Why do think that this must be so?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "the airlines would go bankrupt..." Hardly. The airlines have the most to lose from attacks on their assets. Should Congress allow airlines to secure their own planes, I'm quite sure they would take that role seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "if there was no SEC there would be no stock market." You think that, absent some government agency, we could not function as a society?! I say we would function better in most ways.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Should Congress allow airlines to secure their own planes, I'm quite sure they would take that role seriously.
    You've got to be kidding me. Like they did with hardened aircraft doors pre-9/11? Actually if I'm not mistaken they were in charge of their own security pre-9/11.. There was no TSA, just airport rent-a-cops the airlines paid for. Baggage wasn't getting x-rayed, carry on's weren't being swiped for explosive residues. It was much more simple time. They still had the most to loose.

    I also don't think airlines should be in the business of security, nor do I think they can create and maintain a national terrorist watch list or have access to the resources of the intelligence agencies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tschaff,

    What is TSA's record relative to the number of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11? I recall the shoe bomber - stopped by passengers, and Cptn. Underpants, also stopped by passengers.

    9/11 was big, not denying that. But this is a story of tradeoffs. Are the security tradeoffs worth the TSA? The airlines have to make rational calculations regarding expenditures v. expected returns. The government operates under no such restriction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The right to pursue happiness does not equal the right to be protected from any and everything that could potentially get us. Our country has lost its mind. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the TSA feeling up Grandma or spending billions to preemptively strike a nation that had no WMD's, no ties to Bin Laden, and posed no imminent threat.

    Approximately 40,000 die in automobile accidents each year. With the highways becoming more congested and the rising popularity of texting, MiFi, etc... should we get the government much more involved and start a war on driving next?

    Yes we need a certain degree of security for flying. For the most part it has always been hard to get any significant weapons on board an airplane. And as Prof J mentioned we need everyday citizens doing their part by simply being aware of their surroundings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "billions to preemptively strike a nation that had no WMD's, no ties to Bin Laden, and posed no imminent threat."

    Word my man. Word.

    ReplyDelete