Musings From Above Your Head

So . . . I’m writing this on a plane, en route to Trinidad and Tobago. I actually had a not-bad travel experience thus far – checking in and security took a grand total of about twenty minutes – and I’ve downed my awful dinner and thought I’d spout off a bit while at 35,000 feet. Naturally, I want to discuss air travel and the security measures that we have in place, because they demonstrate some pretty biased decision-making that is probably not the most effective, efficient, or logical way to meet goals.

Let’s take the removal of shoes as an example. Almost a decade ago one man tried to board a plane with a bomb in his shoe. He was caught, and since then all travelers have had to remove their shoes and have them go through the x-ray machine (explanation provided for those of you who have not travelled by air in the past several years). Has this measure prevented future shoe-bombing attempts? One answer to that question could be “well, no one has bombed a plane with a shoe since then,” but that answer is fairly moronic. No one has tried to bomb a plane with a device implanted in their fake breast, either, it doesn’t mean that there was a security system in place to prevent it. So why still remove the shoes?

A more reasonable answer might be that it is an issue of liability. Once Richard Reid tried to shoe-bomb, shoe-bombing was in the public consciousness. If someone did successfully bomb a plane with a shoe and there had been no system in place to prevent it, the FAA and TSA would be liable because they were aware of a threat and did nothing about it. Never mind the fact that Reid was thwarted in his attempt at a time when no one had to remove their shoes to board planes.

The other possibility is that it is a perceptual issue. Being inconvenienced by shoe removal is a very active way of reminding passengers that there are security measures in place. Today, because I was not traveling to the U.S., I did not have to remove my shoes. I don’t feel like it’s less safe, but it was in the front of my mind that they were not doing a step to which I had become accustomed.

The same goes for liquids – again, there was an attempt to use an explosive involving the combination of liquid and solid components, so now all liquids other than those in small amounts are banned. On its surface: inconvenient, but kind of makes sense. Dig deeper and it is just foolish. First of all, I, like most humans, produce at least a couple of liters of liquid a day, so obtaining liquid on a plane is not a problem. Second, if each passenger is allowed to bring 100 mls (3 oz) of liquid on a plane, and you need a liter to have a sufficiently powerful explosive device (I’m guessing – I actually don’t know how much you need, having never build one), it’s certainly possible for any ill-minded group to buy ten seats and have their each bring the allowable amount. So it doesn’t actually make us any safer. Again, liability and perceptions.

Of course, now that I’ve written this and posted it on the Web, I’m going to get set aside for special screening every time. I think I’ll opt for the pat-down; I should at least get some sort of thrill out of it.