Foiling aircraft attacks isn't rocket science(so why the Bush 2 yr delay?)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/07/foiling_aircraft_attacks_isnt_rocket_science/

GEOFFREY FORDEN AND THEODORE POSTOL
Foiling aircraft attacks isn't rocket science
By Geoffrey Forden and Theodore Postol, 1/7/2004

MORE THAN two years after the horrifying airplane suicide attacks on the World Trade Center, there continues to be a depressing lack of focus on the possibility that thousands more could die in future attacks.

Commercial airplanes can be used to target nuclear power plants, chemical plants that produce large volumes of hazardous materials, liquid natural gas tankers, and skyscrapers. In spite of this threat, the Bush administration has succeeded only in changing the nation's air transport security system from one that was mostly dysfunctional to one that is largely dysfunctional.

It is time for the Bush administration to abandon its look-good feel-good approach to air transport security. Its failure to do so leaves the country in grave danger.

The sensible course is to use already proven technologies and operational procedures to build a truly secure air transport security system. One element of this system would be aimed at greatly increasing the situational awareness of crews on aircraft in flight. The other element would be technical and procedural steps that could make it nearly impossible for an aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Multiple tiny video cameras could be placed throughout a plane's passenger compartment to record initial actions that might leadto a takeover. Wireless videocams could even be worn on the clothing of flight attendants. The doors to the cockpit should not only be strengthened so terrorists cannot gain access from the passenger compartment; sensors could be placed in the barrier to record any attempts to breach it. Biometric devices could be added to the aircraft control system so only authorized individuals could fly the aircraft.

Aircraft could also be fitted with a control system that prevented it from flying into prohibited space. The control system could use the Global Positioning Satellite System to monitor the location of the airplane and an onboard computer that would store the locations of all excluded airspace.
<snip>


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/06/missile.defense/index.html

Three firms to research SAM defense for airliners
Six-month deadline to consider how to adapt military technology
From Mike Ahlers
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, January 7, 2004 Posted: 11:10 AM EST (1610 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday that it has selected three companies to continue research into ways to thwart shoulder-fired missile attacks on U.S. commercial aircraft.

BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman Corp. and United Airlines will each receive about $2 million to determine whether systems used on military planes can be adapted for use on civilian airliners, and to study associated safety, cost, maintenance and other issues.
Although terrorism experts say the low cost and easy availability of shoulder-fired missiles make them a concern, Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson said the announcement was not prompted by any specific or credible threat. <snip>

The companies will submit an analysis of the economic, manufacturing and maintenance issues within six months, then test a prototype.
Capitol Hill critics have said the process has taken longer than necessary, but Homeland Security officials defended the program Tuesday, calling it "extraordinarily aggressive."


Antimissile devices on military aircraft typically use flares to lure away heat-seeking missiles. But the pyrotechnic flares burn hot and can ignite fires on the ground, especially if used at a low altitude. <snip>