Huh: Boom CEO Proposes Abolishing Airport Security, “It Will All Be Ok”

The real airport security should be screening people long BEFORE they even make it to the airport. By the time you make it it's game over. If you wanted to you could cause chaos just by blowing up the airport itself which would severely effect the airline industry worse then a plane or two being blown up. Two medium sized airports being blown up would have major fallout across the airline industry even if very few lives are actually lost or nobody's lives are lost.

I think y'all have forgot something called bomb sniffing dogs or explosive sniffing dogs. I watched Dog Squad and one about dogs in Britain and they are VERY good (if trained right) better then any human or machine could ever do. If airports got rid of security but the risk of random patrol dogs that would put a damper to any would be terrorists plan as they could at any time be found out. Though the BEST airport security is long before you actually REACH the airport at all.

Now if we could only get rid of the pilots and air traffic controllers then we'd be on to something.

I think there's merit to what he says. No, I'm not crazy, just hear me out on this. First, and most obviously, you've written about JSX (JetSuiteX) before. Do you think they should be banned? They essentially use a loophole in FAA regulations to do exactly this. I've flown on them before. The convenience was awesome and I'd gladly fly them again even with no security screenings or really any checks of any kind (even baggage didn't get screened, compared to what this guy is recommending). Second, by keeping reinforced cockpit doors (and I would add requiring explosion-proof cargo compartments), you are essentially limiting any damage to the people on the plane alone, and that too would be significantly limited by what a person can bring into the cabin. IOW, there can be no 9/11 where people can commandeer a plane and use it as a makeshift weapon or bomb. At most, they can kill the passengers inside which is putting 200-400 lives at risk. That may sound like a lot, but I think you're falling into a fallacy of not comparing risks properly. Yes, an airplane can't be stopped because it's in the air. But a train can do a lot of damage precisely because it's on the ground. If someone brings a bomb onto one of the numerous rail lines that run under Penn Station in NY, they could potentially cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention disabling the central area of one of the most critical cities in the world. Similarly, imagine a bus blowing up in the Port Authority in midtown manhattan, or maybe timed to go off in the Lincoln Tunnel, something that would cause billions of dollars in damage and economic harm not to mention the loss of life in hundreds of cars. An airplane blowing up in the sky has far less potential for damage (barring its use as a weapon to attack ground-based targets, which the reinforced cockpit doors should prevent) than a train. From a risk/reward ratio, there are very little assets and/or humans in the sky compared to on the ground. So why do we panic so much more about security for flights compared to trains or buses? Just like worrying about flights crashing while getting into your car every day is a misunderstanding of risk, I think hyperventilating about possible guns on an airplane while walking into any mall or restaurant every day is also misunderstanding risks. Third, you mention the culture of safety in aviation. But you misunderstand it. That culture is about *accidents* i.e. non-intentional harm. That means reducing manufacturing defects, opportunities for pilot error, ATC rules to keep planes from bumping into each other, etc. A safety culture that addresses reducing errors (or harm from errors) is very, very, very different than an effort to reduce *intentional* harm. The former is all about human factors psychology, science, engineering, etc. The latter is all about law enforcement, criminal profiling, judicial penalties, etc. Very different subjects. At the end of the day, I'm not necessarily ready to throw out *all* screening. But it's clear that TSA is not keeping us safe (just because there have been no hijackings since TSA was started is another logical fallacy). And rather than just tinker on the edges (like increasing the amount of allowed liquids), I think starting fresh is a good idea. Now, whether the current administration and his officials are the right type to have a somber, rational analysis of airport security is another matter...

BOOM is so fast. They arrived before terrorists can do anything.