It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CNN probe finds weak link in air security

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:19 AM
Is uninspected cargo a potential threat?

Is it a real threat at all?

Or is this more scare-mongering?

On most of the flights that the FAA inspector observes, almost none of the cargo is inspected.


The FAA inspector told CNN that a passenger's suitcase gets more scrutiny than cargo. Much of the cargo is trucked to airports and those routes are not secure, the inspector said, adding that any terrorist could follow drivers and tamper with their cargo loads.

This just seems foolish. As naive as it might seem, I'm tempted to ask...."If you have a blatantly flawed system, why on earth would you announce it and perhaps alert potential enemies to those flaws?".

Then again, this could be blowing a situation entirely out of proportion.

Either way, it's very, very unnerving.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:24 AM
This has been going on since before 9/11. They use a "known shipper"standard to accept cargo. it's a broken system, and they're in no rush to fix it.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:28 AM
Yeah, when I worked in England there was a similar "preferred shipper" protocol in place.

If anything, I'd think the Pan-Am bomb would have triggered more stringent controls, if not 9/11.

Apparently not.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:40 AM

What should concern you the most is that CNN didn't find anything. This weak link hasn't been lost. Check out the date on this ATSNN article I wrote on this very subject:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:55 AM
Thanks for that link!

I'm very sadly reminded of the George Carlin "No airline security" skit.

Is this being blown out of proportion? I realise that you're still safer in the air than on the roads, but there is a difference when you're theoretically leaving your safety in the hands of an airline, versus your own vehicle, and though it's apparent that the vast majority of airline incidents are not due to bombs or terrorist activity, it's still unnerving. To say the least.

Then again, perhaps that's what we're meant to believe. Airlines = dangerous....and that means the terrorists win.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:02 AM
I don't think this is being blown out of proportion. And, unfortunately, on this issue, whomever is trying to "scare us" or "kill us" win whether we decided to blissfully ignore this issue or just let it eat us up with the fear to the point we row to international locations.

The fact is that the cargo hold of the plane you fly on is probably the softest target that exists. And what bothers me is that apparently nothing has been improved on this point.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:10 AM
I know; even when I was running the shipment of (of all things) nuts and bolts from England to Norway, I was amazed at how "preferred shipper" status gave us basically carte blanche to ship whatever we wanted, realistically, as the cargo wasn't being x-rayed.

It is a soft target, you're right.

And my fear is that it's going to take another massive loss of life before something is done about it.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:44 PM
Don't count on anything being done before that happens. The FAA is an "Improve by death" organization. Shortly after 9/11 there was an article about the FAA in Playboy of all magazines that I read that was remarkably accurate, saying that the FAA is more dangerous than the terrorists. IIRC there has never been an improvement by the FAA before a major accident/incident.


log in