That's not a movie plot threat. The FedEx example was a real example of a disgruntled employee trying to crash a plane.

Yes, and he was a passenger, not one of the pilots scheduled for the flight.

But the point is: he was impersonating a pilot.

If pilots didn't have to go through security, we'd presumably see a lot more of this.

Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.

> Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.

Wouldn't fingerprints be enough to avoid identity theft?

Among less or more technical means to clone somebodys fingerprints to fool the reader there is circumventing method involving the axe.

I've heard this method was used in Asia by some car thieves.

Gasp! :-|

However, security officers would block anyone trying to pass past security checks using chopped off fingers or fake ones.

How is scanning his body and frisking him going to help identifying him?

It's not going to help identify him.

It's going to help limit the damage if somebody impersonates him, by making sure they don't have a bomb/gun/what-have-you.

You do get this, don't you?

Of course he does, but he won't admit it because it dents his argument and won't get him any upvotes.

They hopefully would've noticed the speargun he was carrying?

He was in uniform, maybe, but he was not in charge of flying anything that day. So he was a passenger that day (in a pilot uniform).

I call out BS.

"Prior to the departure of this flight on April 7, 1994, Mr. Calloway presented himself at the plane in full flight gear and with carry-on items. Although he was not a member of the flight crew, he entered the cockpit and began adjusting instruments and controls as if he were."

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95...

Yes, he did stuff he was not supposed to do, but on that flight he was a passenger. That he knew his way around the aircraft and that he knew exactly how to misbehave is exactly what I meant when I wrote that you are going to have to put trust in people at some point.

Pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met and in general will not get up to stuff like this nearly as often as 'regular' folks do.

If they did there would be suicide induced plane crashes every other day with the number of pilots in active service.

Incidents will always happen, the question is if you think that it is worth draconian safety measures to get the incident level down an unmeasurable fraction.

Again, all it would take for a major accident is for one guy to lift his foot for 2 seconds while taxiing.

You could not stop that if you wanted to.

I don't think you're an idiot, so stop pretending like you don't realize that he used his special privileges as a pilot to get concealed weapons onto the plane.

And stop advocating for lifting security requirements off pilots with ridiculous arguments like "pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met" and "he already has full control of the plane, so heck, he should be allowed to bring whatever the fuck he wants onboard anyway".

Did you read at least some of the most prominent articles from Schneier on security? Do it, it's worth it. The basic tenet is this : filtering potential threats at the bottom of the plane is almost useless, but makes a nice "security theater". Investigating the menace is harder, doesn't show off as well as nice big machines in airports, but it's efficient.

Scanning people shoes is useless. Full body scanners are useless. As the pilot said, what will they do when someone try to blow up a plane with dynamite in his rectum? Rectal check for everyone? This is absurd, expensive and serves only one purpose : covering TSA officials' asses.

See for instance some of these: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html

I read Schneier all the time and agree with him most of the time.

Not once did he advocate not screening pilots, did he?

Please read carefully :

http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html

Security in airports is already much too high, too annoying and too costly. There must be a point when it stops getting tighter and tighter. It won't catch the next terrorist anyway. We need a better use of resources and people (better than taking away mineral water bottles, and full-body scanning everyone and his dog).

I absolutely agree that security measures have to achieve balance between security, comfort and civil liberties.

But I'm still not seeing him advocating not screening the crew. And how could he advocate something like that.

It would be like him saying "use strong encryption to protect your information, but make sure that passwords are written on post-its so it won't get lost".

"I recommend that people write their passwords down on a small piece of paper, and keep it with their other valuable small pieces of paper: in their wallet." (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_you...)

Oh well... Nice!