It felt pretty safe in the sky Sunday. The flight was on its way to Seattle-Tacoma International, passengers were alert and aware, talking to one another and feeling out whether there was a threat. And there was none.
On the ground, though, it is clear that America’s security improvements are real but still limited. There is considerably more that can and should be done to improve air safety, even as the nation awakens to the need to guard against other forms of terrorist actions by barbaric opponents.
On Monday, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced major new steps against both hijacking threats and terrorists in general. He called for updating laws relating to punishment for terrorism and the ability to obtain wiretaps for suspected terrorists.
Ashcroft also announced that the federal government is increasing the number of federal agents assigned to fly as marshals aboard planes. That’s one step in the direction of making public safety on planes a government responsibility, not one that it expects airlines to contract out to security firms.
In coming weeks, the government will receive reports from two task forces, one on how to keep hijackers out of cockpits and the other on how to more reliably keep hijackers off planes.
Even without the reports, though, many flights are returning to the skies amid makeshift additions to security. As two passengers bound from San Jose to Seattle-Tacoma observed Sunday evening, there are good points and apparent shortcomings. The pair was asked three times for identification, and each time they and the documents were carefully scrutinized. Security personnel appeared to be rigorously checking passengers and luggage. A police officer was present behind the security checkpoint, in a position where he could watch over the boarding area for their flight.
In many ways, though, the security effort seemed to reflect a failure to keep up with the threat and the possibilities for preventing dangers. Passengers could still carry on entire suitcases, multiplying the volume of work for the security checkpoint personnel. X-ray screening rather than hand searches remained the norm. And where on earth was any sign that video surveillance technology was in serious use?
Technology also seems to have been under-utilized on the planes. For instance, it was not reassuring to think that — even with any number of passengers probably keeping cell phones handy — only the pilots had actually been provided with access to a way to alert controllers if our plane had been hijacked. The alert, of course, wouldn’t have done the passengers much good, but it could have saved other lives.
The airport security checkpoint personnel represent both the willingness of some good people to take responsible jobs at low pay and our federal government’s long-term failure to seize full responsibility for collective security. On an individual level, it’s admirable that people will take $8 per hour jobs guarding others and act responsibly. But that only underlines how unreal it is for the Federal Aviation Administration to make airlines find and pay for companies willing to contract for the work of protecting public safety. It’s as if General Motors were expected to contract for the highway patrol services across the nation.
That’s not a serious approach to what is an obviously serious threat. In coming weeks, though, the government and all of us will have chances to continue re-evaluating what we do to protect ourselves from a dangerous enemy.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.