AIRPORT SAFETY --- Or Is It Airport Un-Safety?

DOUG FROM UPLAND - Song Parodies ^ | 5-21-02 | Doug from Upland

[doug from upland]

Here is another installment of the saga of our unsafe airports.

As some of you know, the closest short-term parking spaces have been re-opening at many airports after receiving an FAA waiver. Immediately after the WTC, all close parking lots were shut down across the country. Authorities worried that a car bomb would be parked in them.

Airport structures are required to survive a 400-lb blast from 300 feet away. Those airports getting the waivers are showing info from structural engineers that the building will survive such a blast and passenger and cargo flights can continue.

Here is the problem. They are not considering the glass as part of the structure in their equations. In other words, people are expendable.

A 400-lb car bomb will send metal projectiles at tremendous speed for up to 1000 to 2000 feet. When the force hits glass and causes it to explode, the flying shards of glass have a killing range of 161-182 feet. People within that distance of the glass have a great chance of being torn to shreds.

A high-ranking explosives expert with the TSA has confirmed this problem. Their hands are tied because the federal law apparently cares only about the structure itself and not the people inside. According to the letter of the law, they are forced to give the waivers. It is a matter of the bottom line. Airports were losing tremendous sums of money from the closure of their close short-term parking.

I have one good report for you. In Reno, they stop everyone driving into the airport and search their cars, including the trunk. That is how it should be at every airport.

[doug from upland]

Pay attention, Doug. This should not have had a tagline of a song parody. Doh!

[EggsAckley]

AIRPORT IN-SECURITY

[TexRef]

I have one good report for you. In Reno, they stop everyone driving into the airport and search their cars, including the trunk. That is how it should be at every airport.

Whatever -- this is a total waste of time!

At Houston Bush Airport (IAH) they simply open your trunk and peek inside. What the hell are they looking for?!? I don't think that even they know.

More bureaucracy, less security.

[noexcuses]

Returning to the Oklahama City Airport, an unifromed guard stopped our rental car, popped the trunk which was full of luggage, peeped in then sent us on our way.

The rental car agent was right there when we parked and immediately had us take our luggage from the trunk.

The rental agent did more for security than the guard in my opinion.

[doug from upland]

Here is what they should do. There is a sniffer device that can be imbedded into a speed bump at the entrances. It will sniff nitrates and can detect a bomb.

[doug from upland]

We still don't get it. They could very easily blow up several terminals at the same time and shut down air traffic again, this time for a longer period of time. It will cripple our economy. What the hell are our officials doing.

[colorado tanker]

I haven't seen anything since 9-11 that I thought actually improved safety, Doug. I see lots of little old ladies and other low-percentage picks subjected to full search while suspicious types walk by. I walk through security with a pocket full of change - no reason I couldn't replace the change with a box cutter. A close relative recently reported Boston security is still a joke.

The only real improvement I've heard of has not been implimented - the new luggage scanning equipment that can detect bombs.

What would have really helped would have been side arms for pilots, so of course that has been rejected.

Somehow I feel as if the same people who tell me I'm safer by being exposed to nuclear attack with no air defense, and the people who say I'm safer from criminals if I'm defenseless are in in charge of defending me from terrorist attack.

[doug from upland]

The pilots being armed would help. But I would go further. We have to stop people carrying bombs before they even get into the terminal. They have to go thru a nitrate "sniffer" before they get near the terminal.

[doug from upland]

Job one, of course, is to get rid of all Muslims and Arabs who are not citizens. We have the right to be mean and make them leave.

[colorado tanker]

I agree with you 110% Plus, the method of the next attack will likely be different than the last - some sort of bombing of a terminal would make a lot of sense (to a terrorist, that is).

The problem I have is that so many airports have roads that can't be closed right next to the terminal, like at LAX. Sure parking isn't permitted, but a suicide bomber could pull up in a truck and set if off before he could be stopped or towed. So, I like your idea of passing a sniffer before entering the area.

[doug from upland]

Just got this issue on the Sean Hannity show.

[doug from upland]

The sniffer is in action evaluating cargo containers at a major port in England. It is great technology. We also need the device at every port.

[colorado tanker]

"Ports" We sure need to beef up security in the ports. Of course I'm a landlubber, but when I see how many containers come into a major port like Oakland and I see the statistics on how few Customs can inspect, I get real worried. On another thread is an alert concerning the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge - a sea attack would be much easier than air right now.

[doug from upland]

Yes, ports are a huge problem.

[cruiserman]

I have one good report for you. In Reno, they stop everyone driving into the airport and search their cars, including the trunk. That is how it should be at every airport.

That's good news?

[doug from upland]

There is a good chance that a national story is going to be done on this topic. We have been raising enough hell, that at least one airport may be backing down and doing something about the problem. The commissioner had no idea.