Hacker News Reader

Comment by fooker | Hacker News Reader

It acts as a deterrent, similar to door locks in homes.

Lockpicking is relatively easy, and there is always brute force.

I suspect the better deterrent, and the reason we haven’t seen another attack remotely similar to 9/11, is that the terrorists know we won’t fall for that again. There would be a whole airplane full of people willing to take down a would-be terrorist.

The TSA is just a pacifier for people who buy that they’re effective.

Yes that attack was viable for less than 1 hour. On flight 93 the passenger revolt began at 9:57AM, and the the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:01AM

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

> After the hijackers took control of the plane, several passengers and flight attendants learned from phone calls that suicide attacks had already been made by hijacked airliners on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Many of the passengers then attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. During the struggle, the plane crashed into a field near a reclaimed strip mine in Stonycreek Township

And if that hadn’t worked, before the crash the military was already authorized to shoot down that flight. So the system adapted quickly.

Also, we lock cockpit doors now and pilots aren't going to let someone in just because they threaten passengers or crew members with harm.

I think we should give up on the TSA theater, but most people seem to want it. Makes them feel better, even if their rational minds know it's a lie.

> just because they threaten passengers

I'd say "especially if" rather than "just because".

Cockpit doors are also thicker steel now as well

This might be a stupid question, but, airplanes are computerized, can they be programmed such-that they simply won't fly into buildings, cities, restricted airspace, etc..

I think that would set a dangerous precedent. Systems mess up in all kinds of strange ways. The human pilot needs the final say, especially in an emergency situation.

I think they were saying the autopilot only kick in if the pilots fail to acknowledge it.

So, you'll put locations of all things that plane is not supposed to fly into on the plane? Also you will program it to automatically fly around? #whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Air plane auto-pilots keep the plane on a specified course; they don't do obstacle avoidance. Planes aren't even programmed to avoid mountains, let alone buildings.

No. Computers aren't magic in that way, and we leave those types of decisions up to pilot's for a reason.

With any advanced system, we use automation to decrease the complexity of a task by which to act as a throughput modifier by decreasing barrier to entry for safe pperatiom.

If you start throwing in computers which fight the operator at every step, you'll start seeing people (1) move away from the system, (2) subvert the system, (3) start trying to make a buck off of selling systems they claim will fix everything, while not really dealing with the issue.

Plus, computer vision just isn't there yet.you're talking about giving a machine the ability to integrate a whole lotus different streams of data and reliably making a decision to veto the pilot's instructions.

I'd argue a better deterrent is knowing that there /might/ be an air marshal on the plane AND/OR the unknown security screening done on my checked luggage after it leaves my hands. The TSA are a terrible experience for anyone that encounters them, often giving a poor impression of the US to many first timers, and they are bad at their job! Yet we're not looking to take another approach? It's frankly...pathetic.

With all do respect, that's not the best deterrent. The best deterrent is the door.

Anyone who knows anything about the Germanwings crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525) knows this. The pilot used an axe on the door for minutes while knowing he was going to die. He didn't get in. Everyone died.

The risks of hijacking are slim to none, unless you're going to hack the plane. If you're going to hack the plane you just need a laptop.

The TSA is a federal jobs program. A nice joke I heard is to disband the TSA and have them be the workers building the wall. Sure it would be useless, but at least it wouldn't inconvenience law abiding citizens just trying to go about their day, treating them like criminals.

We could in theory draft them into the Army Corps of Engineers and make them push wheelbarrows full of sand and gravel around in the Sonoran Desert.

I like this idea.

While it might just make me feel better about all the times they made me remove my laptop from my bag, or take off my shoes, I would almost rather see them given real skills so they can be a useful part of humanity.

If you’re talking hijacking sure, i still think someone claiming “i have a bomb” will get commands through the door without it ever opening if they’re smart enough about it. The door is a good defence from immediate physical harm for sure, and probably the best change the industry has made in a long time, but i still think the security through stated obscurity element of the TSA could be improved to socially influence those considering any act against an air crew.

So the choice is:

1. Open the door and the person uses the plane as a big bomb.

2. Don't open the door and the person uses a smaller bomb.

You die either way. What's the choice here?

That’s kind of my point? The door while having an impact doesn’t really change much.

I'm not really at all sure how to even begin to respond to that.

I mean surely you think that flights AA 11, ua 175, and AA 77 were materially different than UA 93. So I really don't get your point.

You mean that one made it to it’s target and the other didn’t? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point because it doest really feel like a discussion, rather an interview?

Like, sure, if that’s success then ok...again I’m just saying i think there are alternative ways to improve security, and while a locking door is one of them, the TSA is probably another great place to look for improvements. It feels like the US airport security situation is stuck in the world of “look busy and sound strict, people will behave and respect the security of planes”, but really it’s just a giant pain in the ass for most people and meanwhile mostly ineffective at stopping actual risks from passing through to the aircraft.

Real question: do you work for the TSA or airport security in some way?

I mean I feel like it's obviously true that a successful hijacking means using the plane as a bomb.

If you want to just kill a lot of people there are far cheaper and more effective ways. Check out the concerts being attacked.

So the door is all you need.

Yeah, it's certainly a big success to use the plane as a bomb. I'm really just trying to say, and obviously doing a bad job at it, that i don't think access to the cockpit is required to achieve this. So far that hasn't been demonstrated, but the fact that the cockpits were so accessible in the past obviously meant that people didn't need to worry about it. I predict in the future we'll see similar attacks carried out, despite not getting access to the cockpit. It'll require creativity, but it just seems like a matter of time to me.

> The door while having an impact doesn’t really change much.

What do you mean? Without access to the controls of the plane, they hijackers cannot accomplish their goal of using the plane as a big bomb. They are deterred because it costs a large amount of operational resources to only fail the mission. If they wanted to simply kill people, they have simpler means (much cheaper means) to hit soft targets.

Not only that, the complex, involved missions involve more people which raises the risk of failure, of being caught ahead of time, and of unwinding the clues up the stack. If they are going to take those risks, they want a certain chance of success * size of outcome.

I said this below, but just to throw it here anyway: while that's been true up until now, i'm expecting that to change. Using the plane as a bomb has historically required cockpit access, i expect in the future we'll see a similar attack without cockpit access...just because people will get creative and find a way, if they really want it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com