[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking#1958–1979
TSA (Thousands Standing Around) is much more effective as a jobs program than a security program in my estimation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
Its visiblity and intrusiveness is precisely the point. Not its effectiveness.
A jobs program for the private screeners that the TSA replaced.
It’s main original purpose (at least, of federalizing screening) was an excuse to transfer liability for future risks away from the airlines, which the airlines explicitly lobbied for in the immediate wake of 9/11.
The TSA checkpoint is mostly a security theater. It stops people who don't try to hide and people who are unable to think of a way to get past it. It also limit the amount of weapons that airline personal need to see so that when they see it they can assume ill intent.
The "random" checks and blacklists seem to have mixed quality. According to some they actually worked when good investigators identified high risk people. According to other it was mostly just racism and personal vendettas. Hard to give it a definitive grade.
Locked doors and strict policy against people getting access to the cockpit seems to have worked.
- Background checks cross-references with photo ID before flying (e.g. the do not fly list)
- Enhanced security screening (there’s YouTube footage of a totally incompetent pat down of one of the 9-11 hijackers)
- Locked and strengthened cockpit doors
- A chance of an Air Marshal on a flight
- The knowledge that passengers will fight back
- Strict no-fly zones around sensitive areas like DC
I’ve gotten cleared to land in the “DC-3” airports and have landed at College Park (inside the FRZ) and Fort Meade (inside the SFRA) many times in light aircraft.
There are restrictions, but they’re quite far from being “no-fly zones”.
Do you have a link? I can't find this.