http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html

This is the type of reporting that's flat out irresponsible.

I think the mere possibility that there's someone prepared to settle a hijackers hash is a deterent. Now along comes the media to let the fools that be know they have far better odds to get away with it than they thought.

Bravo...bravo

Or you can take the stance like me...

I am glad they are pointing out these failures that most of us had assumed were better after 9/11.

To quote a marshal from the article:

"I'm afraid in the past, the only things that have really worked has been to call out the media and say we need people to call their congressman, call their senators and tell them they want better protection, and hopefully the changes will trickle down to us."

Once the public is more aware of this, maybe there will be some outcry to get us back to perceived level of security that we expect after 9/11.

I guess there are two views to the story. Isn't there another option tho? Couldn't the media have arranged a meeting between the FAA and the offending airlines?

See there's one side affect on having such an open media. We as a people can be more informed, but that also makes our enemies more informed.

Kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't. The problem with CNN taking it to the FAA (or the reporter, etc.) is that without any public outcry, the FAA will have no motivation to rectify the situation. Also, if there were some hi-jacking 6 months down the road, and then it was pointed after the incident that CNN had information like this, we'd be all over them from keeping it from us.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html

This is the type of reporting that's flat out irresponsible.

I think the mere possibility that there's someone prepared to settle a hijackers hash is a deterent. Now along comes the media to let the fools that be know they have far better odds to get away with it than they thought.

Bravo...bravo

No, the type of reporting that was flat out irresponsible is the reporting that allowed us to get into Iraq. This type is the necessary reporting that keeps our government responsible for its actions or inaction. This is typical of the homeland security bullshit rhetoric that the Bush administration has supposedly been right on top of, lots of talk with their only actions to piss on the constitution.

I really don't believe that passengers on any plane will sit back and allow another 9/11 hijacking to take place, much like those on flight 93 was it? If I'm on a plane and people stand up and say they are taking the plane, I'm taking them or I'm going to die trying.

Does anyone really fear flying or the "terrorists", regardless of how many air marshals there are?

The TSA is a (bad) joke. Since day one, every study shows them ineffective at screening baggage for weapons and explosives. If there were any volume of legitimate threat, we'd have had another incident by now, regardless of the TSA's invasive and inconsistent methods.

Just a few weeks ago, my girlfriend and I flew into NY. Without realizing it, her carry-on had a metal item from the prohibited list, both coming and going. Neither the LaGuardia or Hartsfield TSA security checkpoints caught it.

You know what? I wasn't any more or less worried about "terrorists" after we realized that. "Terrorists" were about as high on my list of worries as catching foot fungus from being forced to walk around the airport barefoot for TSA.

You know what? I wasn't any more or less worried about "terrorists" after we realized that. "Terrorists" were about as high on my list of worries as catching foot fungus from being forced to walk around the airport barefoot for TSA.

I'd be more worried about the foot fungus. I am sure the odds of getting fungus from being barefoot there are better than getting hijacked.

Well, I did have socks on.

This harkens back to Gereldo Rivera drawing maps in the sand, when attached to the Marines during the invasion of Iraq......

A major reason we have freedom of the press is for government oversight. This doesn't even come close to what Geraldo did. As Americans, we have a right to know 1) how our tax dollars are being spent, 2) when our government is misleading us 3) to know when our safety could potentially be at danger

I am sorry, but the US isn't a warzone. Making a comparison to a reporter on the ground in a warzone giving out tactical information is folly.

You know what? I wasn't any more or less worried about "terrorists" after we realized that. "Terrorists" were about as high on my list of worries as catching foot fungus from being forced to walk around the airport barefoot for TSA.

Don't forget every single one of us is carrying a device so powerful that it can potentially crash the plane on takeoff and landing by merely being powered-on, but that toothpaste had better not be your in carry-on, mister!

Don't forget every single one of us is carrying a device so powerful that it can potentially crash the plane on takeoff and landing by merely being powered-on......

Mythbusters busted that 1....

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html

Taleren, while I believe that freedom of the press is a good thing, there are times and places when it isn't a good idea.

There was a time when the Press understood this. I remember seeing movies about WWII where the Press was told, they couldn't print something due to National Security. Funny thing was, they listened, and didn't report it.

Now every reporter is trying to find the next "scandal"gate al la Woodward/Bernstein.

I agree if something is about the Government is messed up, the public should be informed.

What I don't agree with, is the Press drawing a blueprint for someone to be able to exploit that weakness. There's a way to report, and not divulge sensitive information.

Yes, anyone who can spell electromagnetism knows cell phones can't crash planes. The airline safety regulations are all security theatre that are equally effective as the National Guardsmen standing around in airports with unloaded M16s were in 2001, and everybody who isn't an idiot knows it.

As to the ratio of Air Marshals to flights, it is infeasible to have them on enough of them to make it more likely to have one that not. However, I suspect the 280 or whatever average number of daily flights they are on will be known "high risk" flights (ie, not commuter hops from Wyoming to Montana) and it's exactly the same as any other "random inspection" sort of deterrence. You're not going to stop a determined attacker, ever, but you can increase the risk level above that acceptable to the more common miscreants, which has historically been a net win.

Yes, anyone who can spell electromagnetism knows cell phones can't crash planes. The airline safety regulations are all security theatre that are equally effective as the National Guardsmen standing around in airports with unloaded M16s were in 2001, and everybody who isn't an idiot knows it.

As to the ratio of Air Marshals to flights, it is infeasible to have them on enough of them to make it more likely to have one that not. However, I suspect the 280 or whatever average number of daily flights they are on will be known "high risk" flights (ie, not commuter hops from Wyoming to Montana) and it's exactly the same as any other "random inspection" sort of deterrence. You're not going to stop a determined attacker, ever, but you can increase the risk level above that acceptable to the more common miscreants, which has historically been a net win.

I work in the Avionics field bud, and I can tell you that you are correct that airplane electronics are shielded from NORMAL cell phone operation. Sadly if you work the field of electronics and understand RF you know that when things go wrong and spike they can spread their mess across the spectrum.

During take off and landing the airplane is more succeptable due to the gear doors being open and therefore less shielding to the avionics bay which is generally between the crewcabin and landing gear. Which is why they ask you not to use them during that time in the event that your phone spikes.

Part of the issue is the cost. 280 flights a day = 101,920 flights a year when you divide that by the 720 some million a year granted the program(not exact number, remebering something heard earlier) that comes to a total of $ 7,064.34 to put an air marshall on a flight. I gotta get me one of them jobs.
And that 720 mill a year only puts marshalls on about 1% of all domestic flights.
For that kind of scratch we definately should be getting better.

And Sixee the Al'Quaida knew even before 9/11 that if it succeded that it would be a one trick pony. re-enforcing and locking the cockpit doors has done more to prevent highjacking than all of the efforts of the TSA combined.

There's a good reason to turn off cell phones while flying, and it has nothing to do with safety.

Due to the distance to the cell towers when flying in a plane 7 miles off the ground, cell phones have to transmit at a higher power than usual, even in standby mode. This drains the battery quickly. I've accidentally left my phone on for ~4 hour flights before, and every time the phone battery was drained to the point of my phone not turning back on afterwards (even when fully charged before the flight).

Sadly if you work the field of electronics and understand RF you know that when things go wrong and spike they can spread their mess across the spectrum.

Any airplane that was in such a state would be crashed first by any combination of cell phone towers, power lines, generators, satellite transmitters, radio stations, atmospheric ionization ... they didn't shield planes against cell phones, the shielding was already there because any sensitive circuit that is operating in an environment in which unplanned induction is possible has been shielded since the 1880s and RF interference specifically since ~1930. And by "environments where unplanned induction is possible" I mean the entire world, because unless you live in a cabin in the mountains you walk through a hundred EM fields stronger than even a specially rigged cell phone transmitter can possibly produce given its power and transmission circuitry limitations every day.

Hint: If lightning doesn't make the plane crash, neither will your cell phone. Neither do the microwave ovens they operate constantly in flight too, any of which operates at higher voltage and wattage than 50 cell phones combined.

If there was any real danger from cell phones, there wouldn't be a firm suggestion to have them turned off. They wouldn't be allowed on the plane period. Unlike security, airline mechanical safety is administered by people who can find their ass with both hands and MapQuest.

Well, the airlines could arm the flight crew, but that might result in negligent discharge of firearms in the cockpit. /smirk.

Cell phones don't operate on any frequency close to navigation systems. They have their reserved bands and phones have theirs. The FCC assures that.

Also with airlines not flying unless the plane is over booked, terrorists will be really hard pressed to ever find a plane as large as a 767 to skyjack with only 30 something passengers. They like soft targets.