Hacker News Reader

What terrorists understand (but we don't) is that nobody will ever successfully hijack a plane again.

The 9/11 attacks worked because historically, a hijacked plane would invariably be diverted to some far-flung airstrip and become a hostage situation. Anyone in such a situation understood that their risk of being killed was very low, so long as they complied with the hostage-takers. It took less than a day for passengers to realise that the risks of action and inaction had inverted, as we saw in the case of flight United 93.

The hijacking MO used on 9/11 was a one-time deal. Passengers now understand that rather than being safe so long as they comply with hijackers, they are doomed unless they fight back. As such, a knife on a plane is no more dangerous than a knife on a bus or a train - the attacker might injure or kill a handful of people, but they'll quickly be overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers.

It's for this reason that all subsequent terrorist plots against aviation have been bombs, with the intention of taking down the plane in flight.

Schneier has repeatedly pointed out this systematic failure in security thinking - responding to the last threat, rather than the next.

> With training, any device that can cut a pilot's or flight attendant's carotid artery can be used to take over a plane.

Cockpit door locks.

That and, unless you have half the plane on your side, the odds on a 9/11 style attack resulting in anything but you being beaten into a coma are next to nil.

I'd rather have less invasive searches than tiny pocketknives too, but I don't think such knives present any real risk of taking over a plane.

Sure, an attacker could kill people with a small knife, but killing and/or threatening passengers and flight attendants will not gain an attacker access to the cockpit. Everyone involved now assumes that a hijacker who gains access to the cockpit will try to crash the plane in to a building, so a significant portion of people will fight to the death against any attempt to enter the cockpit. I suspect everyone who would seriously contemplate hijacking a plane knows this and would not attempt a plan using only small knives.

How would a larger weapon change that?

No hijacker, whether of the crash-the-plane or hostage-exchange sort, actually wants to use their weapon. Neither running around slashing people, nor shooting off bullets in a plane. So bigger, scarier weapons are more effective at the job of creating terrified compliance. People who would rush a pocket knife may balk at rushing a machete.

It wouldn't. A hijacking attempt with say... a katana might injure or kill a few more defending passengers than a pocketknife, but the outcome would be the same.

Actually, I would figure it'd be easier for them to hurt you with a pocket knife than a katana. Airplanes are small spaces, and large swords are unwieldy. Even samurai used wakizashis indoors more than huge katanas.

That said, I want neither in carry-on.

Every time I fly, I think of the images in my head from the Soviet and Nazi eras, about having to have papers to travel and go anywhere.

I don't like that association in my head.

I don't really see this lasting for very long. All it will take is one drunk, out of control idiot with a pocket knife to ruin the whole thing. I think most of us remember those two RIM employees who were so drunk they tried to chew their way through their restraints. Now imagine if they had pocket knives...

We managed for 50+ years allowing knives, lighters, etc. on flights--hell, they used to let you smoke in-flight, and nobody started a fire (maliciously).

It's funny that when people enter into the realm of hypotheticals they never think about how a laptop or tablet can put a good sized dent in someone's head.

The thing that keeps airplanes safe is the miniscule number of bad actors. That's about it. Unfortunately, that truth makes people feel insecure. Me? I'd fly even if there was no security at all. The odds are in favor of safety.