College Student, The TSA and Southwest Airlines (A Poll!)

Well, speaking for myself, if I ever seen anyone doing anything even moderately suspicious on an airplane, I'm going to do something about it.

And if some towelhead even approaches the cockpit door with so much as a plastic butter knife, he's gonna get a serious can o' whoop@ss.

My .02
 
So what happens when me (a skinny, frail, pastily white kid) walks up and does the same thing? A nod and a smile?

Muslims are not the problem, nor are racist remarks in their direction.

Cheers


John Herreshoff
 
Ok, I'll be a little more equal opportunity...

ANYBODY acting threatening towards anyone else on a plane is going to get a serious butt kicking from this skinny frail white boy.

Now of course, blanket statements like that aren't exactly accurate, but my point that I'm trying to make is that I do not agree with pilot602 in saying that people won't care if they feel their lifes are in danger in a similar way as 9/11

peace
 
[ QUOTE ]
"amateur testing of the system like this does not in any way assist us where there are flaws."

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way this could even remotely be logical was if this "amateur" didn't fit some kind of profile and wasn't examined as thoroughly as someone who fit some kind of profile ... so, now they're profiling? (doubt it)
 
TSA and HLS, as usual are missing the friggin point. They are blinded by their power and budget, and they have been embarassed in front of the world. This kid had no where NEAR the budget terrorist organizations have, and he managed to do it. What if a terror (or as Bush pronounces it 'terra') organization planeted those items to be used by a suicide bomber who conveniently got up to use the lav in flight? Would it be a 'terrible tragedy that could have been avoided' or 'an amateur breach of security that fails to show where our faults are?' I'm no security guru, but I could see the above scenerio happening EXACTLY how those items were placed on the aircraft. To me, that's a big 'ole security fault...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Option three is to kick the living daylights out of the hijacker and subdue him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it's wise to depend on passengers fighting back. First off, the passenger on UAL 93 were uniquely qualified to fight off terrrorists with a high percentage of martial artists, law enforcement, and military, but the best that they accomplished was a draw.

A hijacker that is smart enough and well equipped enough to successfully take control of an airliner would presumably have the foresight to pick a flight that he had good odds of controlling the passengers. UAL 93 was only about 25% full.

It wouldn't take much more to ensure a successful hijacking than to simply increase the number of hijackers. How many would a group of passengers be able to take on at one time? Five? Ten? Fifteen?

Second, passengers will be scared and many will tend to believe a hijacker if he says that he won't hurt them. After all, it's easier to sit back and do nothing and hope for the best.

In WWII, the Nazis killed six million Jews and the vast majority of them went to their deaths without a struggle. Some of them had to have had an idea of what was going to happen, but the Nazis used psychological tricks to keep them in line. They kept telling them that they were going to be okay and the people wanted to believe it.
 
Bureaucracies don't like to be shown that they're incompetant from the top down, and especially don't like this dirty laundry being exposed to the public/congress, since this affects their $$$.

Heatwole is getting the wrath of the TSA, plain and simple. He pissed them off by showing them up.

What did we get after 9/11? Bamboozled, that's what. Every dip• congressman and senator that wanted camera time and to make a name for themself pushed the idea of a new federal agency, a new bureaucracy to dump taxpayer money into all in the name of perceived security. What should've been done is analyze and monitor terrorist organizations and try to predict/match their next moves, not waste time treating ordinary americans like the prison population with these airport "prove your innocence" checkpoints.

Heatwole should get a freaking commendation.

Screw TSA and their "leaders".
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that it's wise to depend on passengers fighting back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this should be the second to last line of defense, with the last line of defense being the crash axe in the cockpit.

I personally think we are once again fighting the last war. Osama bin Laden isn't dumb, because if he was, we would have his head on a silver platter by now. The odds of terrorists seizing a plane are very low now.

There's the screening, which, although highly flawed, adds difficulty to getting the tools needed to hijack a plane on board it. Yes, I know the kid who should spend some time in jail managed to do it, but that doesn't mean that it's not more difficult.

Then there's the rule that the cockpit door does not open, period. It's hard to get access to the flight deck if you can't get past the door and more difficult when there's a pilot sitting there with the crash axe ready to take your head off if you do manage to get in.

Then there's the passenger factor. We can speculate all day long whether or not a passenger revolt will occur or not (folks saying it won't can point to the the September 11 attacks and folks saying it will can point to the shoe bomber) but we can definitely say it adds uncertainty to the hijacking equation.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a hijacked plane will NOT be allowed to hit a target. It will be shot down. The likely goal of terrorists would be to not only kill the passengers and crew on the plane but to also inflict massive casualties on the ground. Well, if they can't accomplish that, then it's likely they won't try.

I think we ought to be trying to anticipate the next tool the terrorists will use instead of fighting the last war.

Just my two cents, folks.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There's the screening, which, although highly flawed, adds difficulty to getting the tools needed to hijack a plane on board it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it only makes it more difficult to get what I would consider conventional weapons on board (i.e. knives, guns, box cutters, etc.), but as I've said before the 9/11 hijackers knew exactly what they could get through secuirty and what they couldn't. Consequently they didn't have to sneak anything through security.

There are tons of common everyday items that can be used as weapons that will go through security just fine. I mean I once upon a time was also in martial arts. We were taught how to slice someone up pretty bad with a credit card. A well placed stab to a vital area with a ballpoint pen will take someone out. The wire on some stereo headphones would make a nice garrote. I'm not advocating requiring people to go onto airplanes naked with no luggage. What I am saying is that the TSA has been setup to stop another 9/11, executed the same way that it was on 9/11.

So no knives etc. on the plane, and the other wrinkle they added was you can't get on the concourse without a ticket. Hello? The 9/11 guys had tickets, in fact as I recall they hijacked their connecting flights. What idiot in the DHS (which should probably stand for Dimwit High School) said, "You know these terrorits are cheapskates and wouldn't be able to buy a $200 plane ticket!"...nevermind they dropped thousands of dollards on flight training.

So bottom line.
TSA security screeners: ineffective waste of good tax payer dollars.
Ticketed passengers on the concourse only: ineffective. Reinforced cockpit doors: good idea.
Air marshalls: Good idea, but being poorly executed from what I've read.
DHS: Politcally motivated rat-hole.
No shoes through security: Please does anyone really think that someone will try this again?

So what does work IMHO?

X-ray Screening for checked and carry luggage, by well-trained personel

The continuance of, no knives, guns, explosives on an airplane (duh!). Incidently, I think that rule was in existence before 9/11.

The FBI, CIA, and INS having ONE database where they can track potential terrorists entering this country, and getting together to share intelligence.

Finally, I think the TSA needs to be ended once and for all. I don't know about you, but to me we already have a group of well-trained individuals who's mission it is to protect our points of entry in this country: The Coast Guard. Before the DHS took them over they were part of the DOT. Makes perfect sense to put them in the airports. Now I'm sure they'd piss and moan about being security screeners, but I feel that those people (and those folks in the military in general) are better trained (or would be) and much more loyal to this country. If anything, they appear to be much more disiplined. Which would result in every airport having a consistent screening procedure.

Anyhow. The DHS as I said is nothing but a rat-hole for our tax dollars to go down. This administration in a knee jerk reaction has cursed us with yet another addition to the alphabet soup of big governent.

BTW you ever wonder why we need an DHS, CIA, and NSA?

Later.

Naunga

In the end the TSA will always stand for "Thousands Standing Around"
 
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this should be the second to last line of defense, with the last line of defense being the crash axe in the cockpit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is it shouldn't be "counted" on as any line of defense.

[ QUOTE ]
The odds of terrorists seizing a plane are very low now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? They were considered pretty low on 9/10/2001 and look what happened 24 hours later.

[ QUOTE ]
Then there's the rule that the cockpit door does not open, period. It's hard to get access to the flight deck if you can't get past the door and more difficult when there's a pilot sitting there with the crash axe ready to take your head off if you do manage to get in.

[/ QUOTE ]

But cockpit doors are still pretty flimsy. The case of the AA flight to South America proved it. It was a "re-enforced" door but the guy still managed to get his head inside the cockpit.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a hijacked plane will NOT be allowed to hit a target. It will be shot down. The likely goal of terrorists would be to not only kill the passengers and crew on the plane but to also inflict massive casualties on the ground. Well, if they can't accomplish that, then it's likely they won't try.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the object is to kill and terroize American citizens I see no greater demoralizing event than forcing our own military to shoot down a civil aircraft.
mad.gif


[ QUOTE ]
I think we ought to be trying to anticipate the next tool the terrorists will use instead of fighting the last war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree - but assuming they won't strike the same place wice is unfounded. The same targets are hit on a weekly bassis in Isreal/Middle East (busses, cafes, etc.) - the fact that these targets are known and watched over doesn't stop them from beig targeted.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What should've been done is analyze and monitor terrorist organizations and try to predict/match their next moves, not waste time treating ordinary americans like the prison population with these airport "prove your innocence" checkpoints.


[/ QUOTE ]

That makes way to much sense to be taken seriously in Foggy Bottom. Why do something that might work when you can create a huge new federal bureaucracy and possibly even unionize the workers to expand your power base?

[ QUOTE ]
the last line of defense being the crash axe in the cockpit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or the FFDO's pistola!
grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to get access to the flight deck if you can't get past the door and more difficult when there's a pilot sitting there with the crash axe ready to take your head off if you do manage to get in.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that a door has been made that can't be breached. This is especially true on aircraft where weight restricts the materials that can be used. 'Nuff said.

[ QUOTE ]
a hijacked plane will NOT be allowed to hit a target. It will be shot down.

[/ QUOTE ]

A viable strategy but it is a lose-lose proposition for us. They crash where the want to for maximum damage or they get shot down in the boonies, either way we lose and they win. Maybe they just don't win as big as they wanted. Besides, what makes you think that they believe that we have the intestinal fortitude to shoot down one of our own civilian airliners?

[ QUOTE ]
I think we ought to be trying to anticipate the next tool the terrorists will use instead of fighting the last war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
 
Back
Top