James Fallows mocks the security fear-mongering against an enemy menace that could be anywhere: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...-non-menace-pilot-potty-break-attacks/243725/ Including a "new" threat presented in the Atlantic's own pages that he could not silently abide: He pokes fun by showing the logical conclusion if you race down every rabbit hole: Unfortunately he concludes by assuming the kinder, gentler, more sensible TSA may emerge. But you can voice your opinion to the author.
The obvious solution would be to fit all pilots on flights over 90 minutes with urostomy bags. This should make the Known Crewmembers' occasional random screenings much more interesting. Bathroom breaks aside, the most appealing planes for terrorist attacks are wide-bodies with large fuel loads, and these often fly routes long enough that relief crew must be rotated in & out of the cockpit -- it's not just bathroom breaks. Typically there will be one pilot-in-command (PIC) & two first officers (FOs). The PIC normally will be in the cockpit for takeoff & landing, so he must be rotated out of the cockpit early in the flight when the fuel load is still large. As living, breathing animals, the cockpit crews also need to be fed & watered on long flights. On long hauls, the first meal is usually served 60-90 minutes after takeoff when there is still lots of fuel in the tanks. I don't believe TSA has the capacity to become kinder & gentler. They are an entrenched bureaucracy that only knows how to become more draconian & authoritarian.
A similar article in Gizmodo that comes with a health dose of skepticism .... Gizmodo: How This Barrier Method Could Help Stop a Hijacking How dare they question "improvements" in TSA's screening processes? What nerve!
James Fallows has also picked up the story of Shoshana Hebshi and the two Indian men, all of whom were abused after being hauled off their flight in Detroit. So have other pubs. Updates at thread marked "Some Real Shock and Awe."
