John_Jones
New Member
Well said Doug!
Where will the TSA go next?
- Thread starter chris6387
- Start date
[ QUOTE ]
Well said Doug!
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, let's think outside of the box for a second.
Since 9/12/01, has the TSA caught a single terrorist?
Not one.
Have they prevented another terrorist attack?
Doubtful.
The attitude of the travelers is what is preventing another similar terrorist event like 9/11.
Richard Reid got through security just fine.
The bozo that tried to enter the cockpit over South America on the UAL 777 cleared security with flying colors.
What's different? Passengers, awareness and the the average American "Joe Six Pack" realizing that it's life or death -- we're not dealing with benevolent people with groucho masks and cap guns vying for attention from the media to free the Tibetian Monks.
Not one poltician, not one piece of legislation, not increased budgets, larger beaurocacies, fifedomes, selfish empires, special programs or security directives has done a single thing to improve security one iota beyond pissing off frequent travelers.
Personally, I'd say screen baggage, including all checked luggage and give every single passenger machetes!
(kidding)
Well said Doug!
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, let's think outside of the box for a second.
Since 9/12/01, has the TSA caught a single terrorist?
Not one.
Have they prevented another terrorist attack?
Doubtful.
The attitude of the travelers is what is preventing another similar terrorist event like 9/11.
Richard Reid got through security just fine.
The bozo that tried to enter the cockpit over South America on the UAL 777 cleared security with flying colors.
What's different? Passengers, awareness and the the average American "Joe Six Pack" realizing that it's life or death -- we're not dealing with benevolent people with groucho masks and cap guns vying for attention from the media to free the Tibetian Monks.
Not one poltician, not one piece of legislation, not increased budgets, larger beaurocacies, fifedomes, selfish empires, special programs or security directives has done a single thing to improve security one iota beyond pissing off frequent travelers.
Personally, I'd say screen baggage, including all checked luggage and give every single passenger machetes!
John_Jones
New Member
The Air Marshalls do have quite the boring job though. Just sit around looking at lugage and people all day, thats no excuse for the Marshalls but I guess it could give you some lack of concentration...
chris6387
New Member
In all seriousness, despite the minor problems with the TSA and the inconviences they cause, if I had to choose between keeping the TSA the way it is now, or not having a transportation security administration at all, I'd definately keep the TSA.
I mean, they have to be doing something because there have been no such incidents as 9/11 since 9/11 thus far, even if there haven't been any attempts. If anything, they are there as an intimidating factor to discourage illegal and other such events aboard airliners.
I mean, they have to be doing something because there have been no such incidents as 9/11 since 9/11 thus far, even if there haven't been any attempts. If anything, they are there as an intimidating factor to discourage illegal and other such events aboard airliners.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, they have to be doing something because there have been no such incidents as 9/11 since 9/11 thus far, even if there haven't been any attempts. If anything, they are there as an intimidating factor to discourage illegal and other such events aboard airliners.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only thing these bozos are capable of intimidating are a) donuts and b) certificated pilots ("Pilot Insecurity Bill"). Everyone else knows they're a joke.
Granted they're slightly better than version 1.0, but that's like saying the second year Yugos were better than the first year models.
I mean, they have to be doing something because there have been no such incidents as 9/11 since 9/11 thus far, even if there haven't been any attempts. If anything, they are there as an intimidating factor to discourage illegal and other such events aboard airliners.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only thing these bozos are capable of intimidating are a) donuts and b) certificated pilots ("Pilot Insecurity Bill"). Everyone else knows they're a joke.
Granted they're slightly better than version 1.0, but that's like saying the second year Yugos were better than the first year models.
davetheflyer
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Arnt pilots subject to the same screening processing by TSA as the general public
[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on the airport. I can think of about half a dozen places where we can bypass TSA by going throught the ticket counter (at one airport, ops gives us the option of riding the baggage conveyor!
). I think that it at the discretion of the airport administrator.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd argue that the "world" is pretty much the same as it was prior to 9-11 regarding terrorism. The biggest difference is that it happened here and not "over there".
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree. As as I can tell, the 9-11 attacks were the largest and most costly (in terms of life) terrorist attacks ever. There had been terror bombings throughout the world before (including here), but none of them changed our policy, responses, and perception of the world like the 9-11 attacks.
---
Doug and Pilot602,
I don't really disagree with you. The TSA has a lot of problems. Personally, I was opposed to the idea of a federal agency for airport screeners from the beginning. I figured that it would become a bloated bureacracy and it would take the same inept screeners from private security services and make them impossible to fire as civil service workers.
Further, since TSA has come into being it has brought forth a series of scandals ranging from recruiting at expensive resort hotels to having screeners without security clearances and with criminal records.
However, I think that TSA does serve two important purposes:
1. First and foremost, it helps to restore confidence in airline security among the traveling public. This gets people back in the air and helps the airline bottom line, hopefully trickling down to pilots.
2. It helps to ensure that if there are bad guys on board, they won't be armed any more than the rest of the pax.
I know that the statement about pax carrying machetes was intended as a joke, but I have thought from 9-12-01 that if there were a couple of passengers carrying legal firearms on even one of those hijacked airliners, then the death toll would have been a lot lower. I don't see a problem with allowing people with a concealed carry permit (this entails a background check) to carry aboard a flight.
A fundamental flaw of the TSA (and gun control in general) is that it seeks to disarm people who are not a threat. The bad guys don't care for the law and will break it if practical. It is not out of the question that a terrorist could sneak a gun on board even with TSA. In that scenario, we would have an armed hijacker with a defenseless load of pax and cabin crew (the pilots may have a weapon), and would, at best, result in the deaths of numerous pax in the attempt to subdue the bad guy. At worst, everyone on board would die as a result of a brace of AIM-9s from an F16.
I really don't expect passengers to start carrying weapons, but it is food for thought.
Arnt pilots subject to the same screening processing by TSA as the general public
[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on the airport. I can think of about half a dozen places where we can bypass TSA by going throught the ticket counter (at one airport, ops gives us the option of riding the baggage conveyor!
[ QUOTE ]
I'd argue that the "world" is pretty much the same as it was prior to 9-11 regarding terrorism. The biggest difference is that it happened here and not "over there".
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree. As as I can tell, the 9-11 attacks were the largest and most costly (in terms of life) terrorist attacks ever. There had been terror bombings throughout the world before (including here), but none of them changed our policy, responses, and perception of the world like the 9-11 attacks.
---
Doug and Pilot602,
I don't really disagree with you. The TSA has a lot of problems. Personally, I was opposed to the idea of a federal agency for airport screeners from the beginning. I figured that it would become a bloated bureacracy and it would take the same inept screeners from private security services and make them impossible to fire as civil service workers.
Further, since TSA has come into being it has brought forth a series of scandals ranging from recruiting at expensive resort hotels to having screeners without security clearances and with criminal records.
However, I think that TSA does serve two important purposes:
1. First and foremost, it helps to restore confidence in airline security among the traveling public. This gets people back in the air and helps the airline bottom line, hopefully trickling down to pilots.
2. It helps to ensure that if there are bad guys on board, they won't be armed any more than the rest of the pax.
I know that the statement about pax carrying machetes was intended as a joke, but I have thought from 9-12-01 that if there were a couple of passengers carrying legal firearms on even one of those hijacked airliners, then the death toll would have been a lot lower. I don't see a problem with allowing people with a concealed carry permit (this entails a background check) to carry aboard a flight.
A fundamental flaw of the TSA (and gun control in general) is that it seeks to disarm people who are not a threat. The bad guys don't care for the law and will break it if practical. It is not out of the question that a terrorist could sneak a gun on board even with TSA. In that scenario, we would have an armed hijacker with a defenseless load of pax and cabin crew (the pilots may have a weapon), and would, at best, result in the deaths of numerous pax in the attempt to subdue the bad guy. At worst, everyone on board would die as a result of a brace of AIM-9s from an F16.
I really don't expect passengers to start carrying weapons, but it is food for thought.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Not sure I'd go that far. Look, the TSA will probably deter the random hijacker with little training. So they serve that purpose. You won't have a joker doing something like happens in Cuba, where someone sneaks a knife onto a plane and makes it fly to Florida or something.
However, the determined terrorist, who is well trained, will likely be able to slip by the TSA. That's nothing against the TSA. The guys who we're fighting against are very smart and they train their people well.
Now, the thing that will happen that will prevent even the determined and well trained hijacker from succeeding in his mission is that we all know there are three possible outcomes. Two of the outcomes are bad -- you either die without fighting or you die fighting. The third outcome is good -- you kill the terrorist and you live.
Given those choices, most people will try to make the third one happen. When you've got 150 people with that mindset, the hijackers are going to fail.
However, the determined terrorist, who is well trained, will likely be able to slip by the TSA. That's nothing against the TSA. The guys who we're fighting against are very smart and they train their people well.
Now, the thing that will happen that will prevent even the determined and well trained hijacker from succeeding in his mission is that we all know there are three possible outcomes. Two of the outcomes are bad -- you either die without fighting or you die fighting. The third outcome is good -- you kill the terrorist and you live.
Given those choices, most people will try to make the third one happen. When you've got 150 people with that mindset, the hijackers are going to fail.
TSA is window dressing to make the sheep flying public feel safe.
TSA can do nothing about the terrorist firing the SA-14 at the airliner.
And that doesn't have to happen at the airport perimeter, nor within miles of it.
In fact, in the PHX area, one only needs to observe the arrival feeder routes for a couple of nights. The go hike one of the local mountain ranges, say the McDowells which sit under the STARs that come from the northeast for Sky Harbor, and right there it's only @ a 4000'-5000' elevation difference between the aircraft and the terrain. Shot taken, and the shooter gone before anyone knows what happened, can respond to the mountains, etc.
TSA can't protect against that. Not their fault, just outside their scope of operation.
But at the same time, they shouldn't make false promises of security to the flying public.
TSA can do nothing about the terrorist firing the SA-14 at the airliner.
And that doesn't have to happen at the airport perimeter, nor within miles of it.
In fact, in the PHX area, one only needs to observe the arrival feeder routes for a couple of nights. The go hike one of the local mountain ranges, say the McDowells which sit under the STARs that come from the northeast for Sky Harbor, and right there it's only @ a 4000'-5000' elevation difference between the aircraft and the terrain. Shot taken, and the shooter gone before anyone knows what happened, can respond to the mountains, etc.
TSA can't protect against that. Not their fault, just outside their scope of operation.
But at the same time, they shouldn't make false promises of security to the flying public.
davetheflyer
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
However, the determined ist, who is well trained, will likely be able to slip by the TSA. That's nothing against the TSA. The guys who we're fighting against are very smart and they train their people well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree totally with both Tony and Mike D. There is no way to be 100% secure. The best we can do is to make things difficult for the bad guys.
I'd also like to point out that in the incidents since 9-11 when passengers have intervened, there has only been one bad guy. Several times these were just mentally deranged people.
We have yet to see (in the post-9-11 world) passengers rise up against a professionally trained and highly planned and organized assault. I don't think that would be as easy or as likely to succeed as the everybody vs. one guy scenario.
But again, I agree with Tony. If it's a choice between passively going to certain or having a fighting chance at life, I know what I'd pick.
However, the determined ist, who is well trained, will likely be able to slip by the TSA. That's nothing against the TSA. The guys who we're fighting against are very smart and they train their people well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree totally with both Tony and Mike D. There is no way to be 100% secure. The best we can do is to make things difficult for the bad guys.
I'd also like to point out that in the incidents since 9-11 when passengers have intervened, there has only been one bad guy. Several times these were just mentally deranged people.
We have yet to see (in the post-9-11 world) passengers rise up against a professionally trained and highly planned and organized assault. I don't think that would be as easy or as likely to succeed as the everybody vs. one guy scenario.
But again, I agree with Tony. If it's a choice between passively going to certain or having a fighting chance at life, I know what I'd pick.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
We have yet to see (in the post-9-11 world) passengers rise up against a professionally trained and highly planned and organized assault. I don't think that would be as easy or as likely to succeed as the everybody vs. one guy scenario.
But again, I agree with Tony. If it's a choice between passively going to certain or having a fighting chance at life, I know what I'd pick.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that the terrorists know that even the best trained, and most motivated person is going to fail in the mission. If their mission is to crash the plane into a landmark, that's not going to happen, even if they kill all 150 passengers and crew. The plane will get shot down before it can accomplish its mission.
Since the mission is almost guaranteed to fail, I don't think they'll try the airplane trick again. It's a lot easier to pack a truck full of explosives and drive it into the middle of a large city and detonate it.
We have yet to see (in the post-9-11 world) passengers rise up against a professionally trained and highly planned and organized assault. I don't think that would be as easy or as likely to succeed as the everybody vs. one guy scenario.
But again, I agree with Tony. If it's a choice between passively going to certain or having a fighting chance at life, I know what I'd pick.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that the terrorists know that even the best trained, and most motivated person is going to fail in the mission. If their mission is to crash the plane into a landmark, that's not going to happen, even if they kill all 150 passengers and crew. The plane will get shot down before it can accomplish its mission.
Since the mission is almost guaranteed to fail, I don't think they'll try the airplane trick again. It's a lot easier to pack a truck full of explosives and drive it into the middle of a large city and detonate it.
[ QUOTE ]
[
Since the mission is almost guaranteed to fail, I don't think they'll try the airplane trick again. It's a lot easier to pack a truck full of explosives and drive it into the middle of a large city and detonate it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. There's NEVER any guarantees, either way.
2. The airplane trick can work again, they'll just have to get their own plane (not AS likely on a pax airliner).
[
Since the mission is almost guaranteed to fail, I don't think they'll try the airplane trick again. It's a lot easier to pack a truck full of explosives and drive it into the middle of a large city and detonate it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. There's NEVER any guarantees, either way.
2. The airplane trick can work again, they'll just have to get their own plane (not AS likely on a pax airliner).