You all know those local news segments. Some reporter investigates accusations of some official or businessman acting sleazy. Cue gotcha confrontations and a bit of compelling action, at least for local news, usually saturated with reports of crime and general mayhem.
It's rare that you see one of them that ties these local issues to national implications. I don't think I ever had, actually.
And let's face it. Most media organizations these days do not do much investigative journalism anymore, the way it should be done.
But for once, a local news reporter actually makes the most of one of these segments. It's an issue that should rightly draw outrage throughout the country, from people who have been campaigning for the last ten+ years over these security issues. It ties the story to issues we all face, to the schemes of our Congressional critters, and finally to the ever-present corporate greed.
And given the constant media barrage recently of the tenuous links between turmoil in the Middle East to threats here at home, this is an issue that, to me, draws far more concern.
So here is the news segment I am talking about, from local CBS Philly on the continued danger posed by current cockpit safety regulations: I-Team Investigation: Cockpit Danger.
By Charlotte Huffman
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — More than a decade after 9/11 security measures were put into place, questions are being raised about cockpit security.
A former federal air marshal and many other aviation industry experts tell CBS3 Investigative Reporter, Charlotte Huffman that the post 9/11 measures are not working like they should be and the cockpit is still vulnerable to an attack.
I don't consider myself a big fearmonger over security and terrorism threats. The 9/11 attacks did not draw much visceral outrage on my part; although I was in high school, I was still relatively well-versed in the issues the US faced overseas. Drawing connections to the Embassy bombings in Africa, followed by the attack on the USS Cole, I was one of the few kids in my school who had even heard of Osama Bin Laden before September 11.
Likewise, I do not see a lot of the security measures that were inspired after 9/11 as all that necessary, or effective. To me, it more of security theater, and a waste of time and scrutiny, at the expense of more effective use of government resources.
However, this seems to me to be a far more reasonable concern for airflight safety.
STUDY’S FINDINGS “SHOCKED AVIATION INDUSTRY”
Among other things, the study determined that during transitional times when the cockpit door opens, a potential hijacker can breach the cockpit in less than two seconds even when the most robust form of security is in place – a flight attendant and a drink cart.
“We’ve done training drills where in two to three seconds you’re over that flight crew, you’re over that cart and you’re at the cockpit already,” said Klein.
“What we found shocked the aviation industry,” said Folsom.
“What we have now is not good enough, in fact the cockpit is more vulnerable now than before because now with the fortified door, once they’re in, they’re in,” he said.
No, I did not consider this a problem, mostly because before this report, I was not all that aware of this problem in the first place. But isn't that what journalism like this is supposed to be about? Instead, these days what the majority of the news organizations want to focus on
is far more inferior.
Additionally, according to internal reports, there is even evidence of dry runs and probes of current security measures, indicating the need for a strong response to this security vulnerability.
A very reasonable way to address this vulnerability is a secondary barrier, to be closed while the cockpit door is open. Currently, the only substantial security measure is that a flight attendant block the path with a beverage cart.
Utterly ridiculous.
It boggles my mind that this is what stands for a reasonable response to a valid security threat, one that has been shown to be clearly vulnerable to these types of attacks.
Think about where a lot of the attention is focused, on all the pre-flight drama that is primarily to prevent dangerous weapons and explosives from boarding the plane in the first place. Now, I am not saying this is completely unnecessary. This is obviously a reasonable thing to address, to an extent.
But it's not like an unarmed person, who takes the time to train and prepare and has a certain objective in mind, can't just incapacitate or otherwise overcome any number of other unarmed attendants and pilots.
As Huffman's report indicates, naturally, the airline industry is reluctant to install this more secure second gate, with the most likely reason being the cost. Over passenger, and national safety, airlines would rather save about $10,000 per airplane.
So the only alternative would be for the federal government to mandate the installation of these security devices, but lo and behold,
The Saracini Aviation Safety Act sits in the Transportation Infrastructure Committee chaired by Representative Bill Shuster.
Congressman Shuster is the one person on Capitol Hill who can bring the bill to a vote on the house floor.
The Republican congressman from Pennsylvania represents Shanksville where Flight 93 crashed but has not acted on the bill since it was introduced a year and a half ago.
“It’s dumbfounding to me … What agenda do they have?” said Saracini.
The I-Team dug up the campaign finance reports for Rep. Shuster who is running for his 8th term this election and found over the past year, Rep. Shuster received more money from the airline industry than any other member of Congress.
His top contributor is United Continental Holdings, the owner and operator of United Airlines.
So as usual, we have corporate greed, facilitated by the politicians they have in their backpocket. So in a lot of cases, this might be where the story ends.
But once again, here I commend the reporter, Charlotte Huffman. She actually goes to Washington to confront Shuster. Not that it brought any effective difference in response. Still it shows a determined persistence and thoroughness that is rarely seen out of even more respected journalistic organizations today.
Which is not to say this is a typical issue of Republican obstructionism through and through that we are wont to blog about here. The Saracini Aviation Safety Act was originally introduced by Mike Fitzpatrick, a fellow Republican Rep from Pennsylvania.
Still, I think out of all the major terrorism stories that we are currently facing and hear more about, this issue of cockpit safety feels like a much more salient threat. And likewise, it seems to be the one far more likely to lead to the next major catastrophe. Which also likewise makes it only the more likely that we only address this issue once it's too late.
And let's not forget that by and large, it is the Republican Party that has had the largest hand in ballooning our security state, at the expense of our civil liberties and the lives of our military personnel. To have one of their members so concretely standing in the way of an actual action that could actually prevent another attack like 9/11 makes it all the more galling.
But it doesn't have to be this way. We must remind the voters that in November, we are going to the polls to undo much of the damage that the people like Shuster benefiting from corporate greed and callousness are doing to our country. While Shuster himself is unlikely to be defeated this November, we can send a message across the nation as a whole, that business as usual, that shirking responsibility, that ignoring real threats over perceived threats, is no longer acceptable out of people with so much authority.
In this diary, I want to sincerely thank reporter Charlotte Huffman and her whole team, for bringing to light what I personally consider to be a serious issue we should address. Thank you for reporting so thoroughly, for tying together local and national narratives, and even connecting to the roles our democratic representatives play in all this. It goes far beyond what I normally see out of US news today. I wish we still saw even half as much investigative journalism out of our national news organizations.