Practical Travel Safety Issues - How many TSO's, LTSO'S, STSO'S, Leo's, BDO's etc. are on this forum?

I would like to know how many TSO's, LTSO'S, STSO'S, Leo's, BDO's etc. are on this forum?

Why do you want to know that?

twenty-leven...

I would like to know how many TSO's, LTSO'S, STSO'S, Leo's, BDO's etc. are on this forum?

Welcome to FlyerTalk!

I am N965VJ, and I am not a screening clerk. I hope I've never confused anyone in the past.:D

I would like to know how many TSO's, LTSO'S, STSO'S, Leo's, BDO's etc. are on this forum?

I'm not a TSO, nor do I play one on TV.

I am, however, originally, a Jersey Guy.

Welcome!

Welcome to Flyer Talk TS/S.

To answer your question, probably less that a dozen from the TSA DHS realm.

Combined, there are about five to seven that infrequently contribute, and about three regulars. Most are screeners, two who moved from screener to the office, one is a lead, another one is a supervisor. One is a BDO, and there are about three FAMs who are a glutton for punishment.

The environment here has gotten very hostile over the last couple of years, so most of them contribute once in a blue moon. Suspicion that one of them has two logins.

There is also one regular who works for the Canadian TSA equivalent.

But there are a LOT more lurkers, from the rank-and-file to folks at DHS and TSA HQ who read this forum.

Combined, there are about five to seven that infrequently contribute, and about three regulars. Most are screeners, two who moved from screener to the office, one is a lead, another one is a supervisor. One is a BDO, and there are about three FAMs who are a glutton for punishment.

The environment here has gotten very hostile over the last couple of years, so most of them contribute once in a blue moon. Suspicion that one of them has two logins.

There is also one regular who works for the Canadian TSA equivalent.

But there are a LOT more lurkers, from the rank-and-file to folks at DHS and TSA HQ who read this forum.

Of course as in any forum there has to be comedians :) I have been a "lurker" here for quite some time and I have to say that a lot of the posts here are absolutely "hostile" towards TSA and their employees (which covers alot of people) and most of them don't truly know a dang thing.......
The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......

BTW thank you for your honest reply.....seems not alot of that is present in this forum :)

Of course as in any forum there has to be comedians :) I have been a "lurker" here for quite some time and I have to say that a lot of the posts here are absolutely "hostile" towards TSA and their employees (which covers alot of people) and most of them don't truly know a dang thing.......
The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......

BTW thank you for your honest reply.....seems not alot of that is present in this forum :)

Examples, please. And are you employed by TSA?

The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......

And what evidence do you have of this?

And BTW, TSA isn't doing their job ... that's the problem.

BTW thank you for your honest reply.....seems not alot of that is present in this forum :)

Off to a good start in this forum eh? :rolleyes:

Examples, please. And are you employed by TSA?

Given the name and the attitude, it wouldn't surprise me if she were employed at EWR.

Given the name and the attitude, it wouldn't surprise me if she were employed at EWR.

:D

Of course as in any forum there has to be comedians :) I have been a "lurker" here for quite some time and I have to say that a lot of the posts here are absolutely "hostile" towards TSA and their employees (which covers alot of people) and most of them don't truly know a dang thing.......
The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......

BTW thank you for your honest reply.....seems not alot of that is present in this forum :)

Excuse me?

No honesty? You must be on something.

The hostility for the TSA is real, at least my views. The TSA has not:
*caught ANY terrorists since 2001
*prevented ANY attacks since 2001

But they have:
*trampled on passengers rights since 2001
*shredded the constitution since 2001


The TSA refuses to give passengers any guidelines on what will cause a pat-down. It's "secret." They are not consistent, are poorly trained, and are basically people who couldn't get a job anywhere else.

I for one do not like the government telling me I cannot travel within my own country without submitting to them.

So, get off your high horse and why don't you just realize that people here are entitled to their opinions.

And, FYI, if there is another attack, I won't blame the TSA, as we all know it doesn't work now. I will blame the Government for their inability to come up with a solid security plan, instead foisting this theater upon us.

The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......

And when there is an attack again on US soil? Not that I am hoping/ready for one, but I think it's just a matter of time until the ineffectiveness of the TSA is showcased in a horrifying, yet brilliant, display.

I have been a "lurker" here for quite some time and I have to say that a lot of the posts here are absolutely "hostile" towards TSA and their employees (which covers alot of people) and most of them don't truly know a dang thing.......

The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland... I would say there's much more hostility and ignorance in evidence at the average TSA checkpoints, most of it generated by TSOs. The testimony here and elsewhere is overwhleming.

And I doubt anyone here would second-guess TSA if there were another attack on our country (what is it with "homeland" all the time? Doesn't it sound Orwellian? What's wrong with "country"?)... as nobody here believes most TSA initiatives reduce the odds of such an attack in the first place. This is theatre criticism.

a lot of the posts here are absolutely "hostile" towards TSA

Respect, as well as enmity, is earned. In this case the enmity is well earned.


most of them don't truly know a dang thing.......

And you do?


The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......

The ignorant ones are those who think that 9/11 had anything to do with screening failures (it didn't, the 9/11 hijackers met the screening standards that were in effect at that time), and will willingly give up any & all of their dignity & civil liberties in the pursuit of "security".

I would say there's much more hostility and ignorance in evidence at the average TSA checkpoints, most of it generated by TSOs. The testimony here and elsewhere is overwhleming.

And I doubt anyone here would second-guess TSA if there were another attack on our country (what is it with "homeland" all the time? Doesn't it sound Orwellian? What's wrong with "country"?)... as nobody here believes most TSA initiatives reduce the odds of such an attack in the first place. This is theatre criticism.

Actually, there have been several attempts, all foiled by other passengers. TSA shown itself adept at getting whacked by the ACLU (Bierfeld, Fofana) and grabbing boobs.

The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad......


Actually, hostility and ignorance do NOT seem to go hand in hand in this anger toward the TSA. I'd say it's the intelligent folks - those nuts who have some familiarity with the constitution and fourth amendment rights - that are entering their protests over the TSA. (Darn, wish I could commission a poll asking people their IQ or highest educational level attained! :) Wouldn't that be an interesting poll?)

In my mind TSA is looking for a needle in a haystack with a Bulldozer.
Somehow I think there might be a more effective approach.

Actually, there have been several attempts, all foiled by other passengers. That is true. TSA has been a lot better at keeping shampoo off airplanes than evil-doers. And, yes, fondling peoples' breasts and crotches for no good reason.

Following along with TSA tradition, it would seem that we have another "hit and run" poster here.

Combined, there are about five to seven that infrequently contribute, and about three regulars. Most are screeners, two who moved from screener to the office, one is a lead, another one is a supervisor. One is a BDO, and there are about three FAMs who are a glutton for punishment.

The environment here has gotten very hostile over the last couple of years, so most of them contribute once in a blue moon. Suspicion that one of them has two logins.

There is also one regular who works for the Canadian TSA equivalent.

But there are a LOT more lurkers, from the rank-and-file to folks at DHS and TSA HQ who read this forum.

There was at least one poster who was a TSA screener who retroactively deleted all of his posts. I am sure that this FT'er had valid reasons for doing so (and this is not the time or place to speculate about it), but it was a bit silly, since many of the deleted posts had been quoted by other posters, and thus still quite visible.

There was at least one poster who was a TSA screener who retroactively deleted all of his posts. I am sure that this FT'er had valid reasons for doing so (and this is not the time or place to speculate about it), but it was a bit silly, since many of the deleted posts had been quoted by other posters, and thus still quite visible.

I know who you're talking about.

But there's a second one that has been surreptitiously doing the same thing.

No "hit and run" poster here :) it seems the hostility that is directed to TSA and TSO's is from being treated disrespectful at checkpoints. For that, the TSO is directly responsible NOT TSA. I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe. If you (all of you) except for LessO2 want to bash me for expressing my opinion then so be it.....

It seems to me that we all have had at one time or another had bad experiences whether it be with checkpoints at airports or other transportation vessels......I just voice what is my opinion and thankfully I am thick skinned :)

So, bash away......Oh, btw, I had real life things to do and that is why I didn't post for the last few days :)

No "hit and run" poster here :) it seems the hostility that is directed to TSA and TSO's is from being treated disrespectful at checkpoints. For that, the TSO is directly responsible NOT TSA. I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe. If you (all of you) except for LessO2 want to bash me for expressing my opinion then so be it.....

It seems to me that we all have had at one time or another had bad experiences whether it be with checkpoints at airports or other transportation vessels......I just voice what is my opinion and thankfully I am thick skinned :)

So, bash away......Oh, btw, I had real life things to do and that is why I didn't post for the last few days :)

Just so you're aware, you are NO SAFER with the TSA in charge than you were on 9/10/2001.

All the TSA has done is make it more difficult for a US Citizen to move with his own country.

The TSA has done nothing to make the air safer. In fact, I'll dare say they've done more to make it less safe.

But you believe what you want.

so, why do you feel safe each time you are on an airplane?

Is it that you feel confident the aircraft maintenance crew have done their job?

That the refuelers have put the correct fuel into the tanks?

The pilot is well trained and certified?

The Flight Attendants are well trained and certified?

Your seat meets safety standards?

Your seat belt meets safety standards?

Your underpants elastic is 'fit for purpose'?

All these things are mandated and measurable, the TSA circus and TSO charade, not so much...

No "hit and run" poster here :) it seems the hostility that is directed to TSA and TSO's is from being treated disrespectful at checkpoints. For that, the TSO is directly responsible NOT TSA. I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe. If you (all of you) except for LessO2 want to bash me for expressing my opinion then so be it.....

It seems to me that we all have had at one time or another had bad experiences whether it be with checkpoints at airports or other transportation vessels......I just voice what is my opinion and thankfully I am thick skinned :)

So, bash away......Oh, btw, I had real life things to do and that is why I didn't post for the last few days :)

Actually, the TSA is responsible for the actions of its screeners as TSA has stated that passengers will be treated with respect and dignity. If TSA does not take action to eliminate rogue screeners, the organization is culpable.

You also need to remember that the actions and attitudes of screeners are driven from the top down, as with any organization. If top management doesn't care, neither will the lowest level personnel.

No "hit and run" poster here :) it seems the hostility that is directed to TSA and TSO's is from being treated disrespectful at checkpoints. For that, the TSO is directly responsible NOT TSA. I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe. If you (all of you) except for LessO2 want to bash me for expressing my opinion then so be it.....

It seems to me that we all have had at one time or another had bad experiences whether it be with checkpoints at airports or other transportation vessels......I just voice what is my opinion and thankfully I am thick skinned :)

So, bash away......Oh, btw, I had real life things to do and that is why I didn't post for the last few days :)

Why do you feel safe when on commercial airplanes?

TSA does not screen all cargo.

TSA does not screen all of the workers on the ramp or in the sterile areas of the airports.

TSA does not screen airport vehicles when they enter the airport operation areas.

The risk is as much present today just as it was 10 years ago. Any person wishing to attack commercial aviation will exploit the weaknesses that are available and TSA places a dinner plate full of opportunities to would be terrorist.

What you see that makes you feel safe is mostly show and does not add much to the safety quotient.

The environment here has gotten very hostile over the last couple of years, so most of them contribute once in a blue moon.

Unfortunately, this forum has been very unwelcoming and hostile to any and all TSA/DHS employees from Day One and not just the last couple of years.

I've been a moderator in this forum since it opened for business in 2004 and have seen well over 200 TSA/DHS FT'ers run out of town on a rail.

It seems to me we'd want to encourage a few to stay around so that we could cuss and discuss TS/S issues with them rather than just argue amongst ourselves.

But that's just me I guess.

Unfortunately, this forum has been very unwelcoming and hostile to any and all TSA/DHS employees from Day One and not just the last couple of years.

I've been a moderator in this forum since it opened for business in 2004 and have seen well over 200 TSA/DHS FT'ers run out of town on a rail.

It seems to me we'd want to encourage a few to stay around so that we could cuss and discuss TS/S issues with them rather than just argue amongst ourselves.

But that's just me I guess.

To be fair, a number of those were run out of town by their employer. It's not just the regulars here that have impacted participation.

To be fair, a number of those were run out of town by their employer. It's not just the regulars here that have impacted participation.


You're right about that, at least in the early days of this forum. I remember going in and deleting all posts for some panic-stricken TSA'ers who said they didn't realize they would be fired for posting here.

Maybe I'm imagining it but there doesn’t seem to be as many barriers for TSA folks to post on IBB's any longer.

But I wouldn't wade in here and post if I were a TSO. Why deal with the anger and hostility?

And, hey, as a very frequent flier myself, I'm as angry and hostile toward the TSA as anybody else on this board. But I can also make the distinction between the big, bad TSA/DHS bureaucracy and FT'ers who are also TSO's and who want to contribute here.

so, why do you feel safe each time you are on an airplane?

Is it that you feel confident the aircraft maintenance crew have done their job?

That the refuelers have put the correct fuel into the tanks?

The pilot is well trained and certified?

The Flight Attendants are well trained and certified?

Your seat meets safety standards?

Your seat belt meets safety standards?

Your underpants elastic is 'fit for purpose'?

All these things are mandated and measurable, the TSA circus and TSO charade, not so much...

+1000 It's not passenger screening that gives me any sense of safety.

...I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe... The key word being "feel." TSA theater fools some of the people, some of the time. Please think critically about how safe you really are, and whether taking off your shoes, having your naked body scrutinized by strangers, etc. really results in a more secure aircraft... or just a vague, illusory "feeling" of safety.

To be fair, a number of those were run out of town by their employer. It's not just the regulars here that have impacted participation.

It's also possible that some have also gone on to other employment. I know one that has recently expressed disgust at having to do enhanced patdowns, and is thinking about (or has) quit the TSA.

Of the at least 200 TSO's who used to post here, trust me, the great majority were run out of town. The number who stopped posting due to a fear of losing their job was much smaller. At least where we know the actual reason they stopped posting.

And, BTW, let's not name any names here. This is just for general discussion. We had to delete a post a few minutes ago where a member was specifically naming other members. We don't allow calling out other members, TSA'ers or not.

I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe.

Maybe your first post shouldn't have called most of the board ignorant. The first ugly bantered in this thread was by you.

...a lot of the posts here are absolutely "hostile" towards TSA and their employees...

Hostile, as in calling people ignorant?

...and most of them don't truly know a dang thing... ...are hostile and ignorant...

Care to clarify what exactly is ignorant? What would you say about somebody that claims THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T APPLY TO TSA (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14887520-post73.html) or that we don't have the right to freedom of movement?

...thank you for your honest reply.....seems not alot of that is present in this forum :)

Care to elaborate or are you going back to lurking? FT'ers thrive on the debate. Bring it on.

The ones that are the hostile and ignorant are the ones who would be the first to scream that TSA wasn't doing their job if we had an attack on our homeland....it is quite sad...

You might want to rub the crap off your crystal ball. We are already complaining that TSA isn't improving security. What we have now is very expensive, very ineffective security theater at the expense of our personal liberties. You can bet our screams are not (and will not be) for an encore of security theater.

No "hit and run" poster here :) it seems the hostility that is directed to TSA and TSO's is from being treated disrespectful at checkpoints. For that, the TSO is directly responsible NOT TSA. I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe. If you (all of you) except for LessO2 want to bash me for expressing my opinion then so be it.....

It seems to me that we all have had at one time or another had bad experiences whether it be with checkpoints at airports or other transportation vessels......I just voice what is my opinion and thankfully I am thick skinned :)

So, bash away......Oh, btw, I had real life things to do and that is why I didn't post for the last few days :)

I share the same concerns and disgust about the TSA that most others here do. The difference is that some (and only some) here, I feel, take the conversation and overall theme right into the toilet sometimes, and that's a shame.

Because I think there is potential for this forum to be a conduit, whether official or unofficial, to DHS/TSA headquarters. I hold out hope someday that some of us can speak directly to someone at TSA (and not just a spokesperson or public affairs person), and express our concerns and let us give them some constructive feedback.


Unfortunately, this forum has been very unwelcoming and hostile to any and all TSA/DHS employees from Day One and not just the last couple of years.

I've been a moderator in this forum since it opened for business in 2004 and have seen well over 200 TSA/DHS FT'ers run out of town on a rail.

It seems to me we'd want to encourage a few to stay around so that we could cuss and discuss TS/S issues with them rather than just argue amongst ourselves.

But that's just me I guess.

I think that's partially due to the one-sided nature of things at checkpoints. Some front-liners just have this "talk to the LEO" attitude if anything is said out of the ordinary. For that, I can completely understand this being a place to vent.

However, that feeling and mentality is not just a by-product of this board, it's what drives this board. Revert back to the previous reply.

...some (and only some) here, I feel, take the conversation and overall theme right into the toilet sometimes, and that's a shame.

^Constructive debate would be ideal.

The OP, on the other hand, in her first volley into this forum, chose to label everyone ignorant.

I share the same concerns and disgust about the TSA that most others here do. The difference is that some (and only some) here, I feel, take the conversation and overall theme right into the toilet sometimes, and that's a shame.

Because I think there is potential for this forum to be a conduit, whether official or unofficial, to DHS/TSA headquarters. I hold out hope someday that some of us can speak directly to someone at TSA (and not just a spokesperson or public affairs person), and express our concerns and let us give them some constructive feedback.




I think that's partially due to the one-sided nature of things at checkpoints. Some front-liners just have this "talk to the LEO" attitude if anything is said out of the ordinary. For that, I can completely understand this being a place to vent.

However, that feeling and mentality is not just a by-product of this board, it's what drives this board. Revert back to the previous reply.

I don't see TSA showing any desire to engage in dialogue. With TSA information only flows in one direction if it flows at all.

It was the hope of many that PV would be a true place of discussion but that hope was short lived.

I too would like to see real discussion but TSA has to open the door first.

I actually am not here to banter uglies back and forth but to say that I am thankful each time I am on a airplane that I feel safe.

Welcome to FT.

Would you still feel safe if you knew that loaded guns are ending up planes and in airports today, brought on by people not otherwise authorized to have them in these areas, precisely because of TSA security screening procedures in place today?

Would you still be thankful if you knew that the 9/11 hijackers used weapons placed on planes by people who today are still not screened per TSA policy?

How do you, JoiseyGirl, being electronically strip searched, patted down, frisked, scrutinized, and otherwise restricted in free travel within the borders of your own country feel any safer today knowing that loaded guns, knifes, and terrorists get on planes not in spite of TSA procedure and TSO behavior, but because of it?

And I take exception to your statement that we will be among the first to cry foul against TSA if something happens. I am crying foul today because exactly the things TSA is doing today puts us, our infrastructure, and our values at risk. Today.

Unfortunately, this forum has been very unwelcoming and hostile to any and all TSA/DHS employees from Day One and not just the last couple of years.

I've been a moderator in this forum since it opened for business in 2004 and have seen well over 200 TSA/DHS FT'ers run out of town on a rail.

It seems to me we'd want to encourage a few to stay around so that we could cuss and discuss TS/S issues with them rather than just argue amongst ourselves.

But that's just me I guess.You are not alone.

Because I think there is potential for this forum to be a conduit, whether official or unofficial, to DHS/TSA headquarters. I hold out hope someday that some of us can speak directly to someone at TSA (and not just a spokesperson or public affairs person), and express our concerns and let us give them some constructive feedback.

^Constructive debate would be ideal.I think there's significant difference between 'constructive feedback' and 'constructive debate'. The intent behind many threads is the former but the discussion too often skips even a pretense of the latter quickly sliding into 'destructive debate'.

The OP, on the other hand, in her first volley into this forum, chose to label everyone ignorant.It's hard not to take the bait, no question, but in the interest of 'constructiveness' we must resist the urge to return fire.

I don't see TSA showing any desire to engage in dialogue. With TSA information only flows in one direction if it flows at all.

It was the hope of many that PV would be a true place of discussion but that hope was short lived.

I too would like to see real discussion but TSA has to open the door first.I disagree. I think the Flyertalk community is a powerful voice in the travel industry and the TS/S subforum is an ideal place for public discussion but only if we commit to a higher level of discourse for the long haul. Not that the TSA will in fact come if we open the door first, but without prior demonstration of extended civility I don't them even sniffing the welcome mat. Maybe we could achieve this by initiating a lounge thread for venting or moving some threads to OMNI/OMNI PR. (I don't have a solution off the top of my head.)

^Constructive debate would be ideal.

The OP, on the other hand, in her first volley into this forum, chose to label everyone ignorant.

Part of my dismay is kind of what you said in reply to the OP. That's kind of the heart of the problem here. So what if she said what she said? I've heard a LOT worse, MUCH worse, dished out from people directed at GAs or FAs, and they just let it slide.

I think if we were able to do that here, the mood here would change for the better. I mean, this is an internet discussion board, not life or death.


I don't see TSA showing any desire to engage in dialogue. With TSA information only flows in one direction if it flows at all.

It was the hope of many that PV would be a true place of discussion but that hope was short lived.

I too would like to see real discussion but TSA has to open the door first.

I think they have opened the door into FT. However, they clearly do not like what they see in here. And I can't really say I blame them.

But you're right, as a whole, they don't really seem to care about us in general. My hope is that constructive dialogue in here might get some people at HQ thinking about listening to what we have to say.....whether it's culling ideas from discussions on the board or actively soliciting our ideas, it doesn't matter.

Frankly, when things like "Nappy," "Pissy" and "Skeletor" come onto this board, I don't blame them for dismissing us. To some (but not me) it's fun and/or funny to call them names, but the end result is a lumping of everyone who contributes in this forum to being in the third grade.


You are not alone.

I think there's significant difference between 'constructive feedback' and 'constructive debate'. The intent behind many threads is the former but the discussion too often skips even a pretense of the latter quickly sliding into 'destructive debate'.

It's hard not to take the bait, no question, but in the interest of 'constructiveness' we must resist the urge to return fire.

I disagree. I think the Flyertalk community is a powerful voice in the travel industry and the TS/S subforum is an ideal place for public discussion but only if we commit to a higher level of discourse for the long haul. Not that the TSA will in fact come if we open the door first, but without prior demonstration of extended civility I don't them even sniffing the welcome mat. Maybe we could achieve this by initiating a lounge thread for venting or moving some threads to OMNI/OMNI PR. (I don't have a solution off the top of my head.)

Well said.

You are not alone.



I think there's significant difference between 'constructive feedback' and 'constructive debate'. The intent behind many threads is the former but the discussion too often skips even a pretense of the latter quickly sliding into 'destructive debate'.

It's hard not to take the bait, no question, but in the interest of 'constructiveness' we must resist the urge to return fire.

I disagree. I think the Flyertalk community is a powerful voice in the travel industry and the TS/S subforum is an ideal place for public discussion but only if we commit to a higher level of discourse for the long haul. Not that the TSA will in fact come if we open the door first, but without prior demonstration of extended civility I don't them even sniffing the welcome mat. Maybe we could achieve this by initiating a lounge thread for venting or moving some threads to OMNI/OMNI PR. (I don't have a solution off the top of my head.)

FT could be an excellent platform if TSA HQ wanted to participate.

The front line TSA folks that have come here give good information that is helpful but have little pull to change things.

I agree that TSA types get a full ration of BS here, I am as guilty as anyone, but I have attempted to dial back the comments in an attempt to share thoughts instead of anger.

I would still like to see some discussion from TSA instead of telling the public how it will be. TSA truly seems to have zero customer service skills.

I pledge to attempt constructive discussions from here out.

I pledge to attempt constructive discussions from here out.

That's a start. Thanks.

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??

I'm definitely in.

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™?? Sure, as long as it doesn't mean limiting ourselves to Larry King-league softball questions. I agree the cross-eyed anger here over TSA, while mostly justified, is repetitive and eventually non-constructive -- as in the abortion debate, after awhile you've played every card in the deck, and there's nothing new to say. But I think we can be civil while remaining an activist force / voice.

I'm definitely in.

:cool:

Sure, as long as it doesn't mean limiting ourselves to Larry King-league softball questions. I agree the cross-eyed anger here over TSA, while mostly justified, is repetitive and eventually non-constructive -- as in the abortion debate, after awhile you've played every card in the deck, and there's nothing new to say. But I think we can be civil while remaining an activist force / voice.

I think where we need to make a distinction is between criticizing the TSA as a bureaucracy and institution and jumping down the throats of the few FT TSA'ers and DHS employees who still post here.

The former needs criticizing IMO and the latter, for the most part, are just the messenger. And no sense in shooting the messenger IMO.

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??

I’m in. :)

One other suggestion I have would be to scale back on the use of slang and acronyms. Right at this moment there are three times as many unregistered guests in the forum as FTers, and I wonder how many of them will make any sense out of what the thread “Censorship on PV (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1135243-censorship-pv.html)” means, just as an example. Okay, PV = Propaganda Village = TSA Blog, and I know there is a stickied glossary, but that doesn’t help the Google bots that would otherwise direct more and more people here.

Take a look at these Google searches:

“censorship at tsa blog” (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=censorship+at+TSA+blog&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

Compare this to

“flying with a warrant” (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=flying+with+a+warrant&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

There's no reason why FT shouldn't be at the top of Google searches for things like TSA censorship or anything else, and all we have to do is use plain language. ;)^

I’m in. :)

One other suggestion I have would be to scale back on the use of slang and acronyms. Right at this moment there are three times as many unregistered guests in the forum as FTers, and I wonder how many of them will make any sense out of what the thread “Censorship on PV (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1135243-censorship-pv.html)” means, just as an example. Okay, PV = Propaganda Village = TSA Blog, and I know there is a stickied glossary, but that doesn’t help the Google bots that would otherwise direct more and more people here.

Take a look at these Google searches:

“censorship at tsa blog” (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=censorship+at+TSA+blog&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

Compare this to

“flying with a warrant” (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=flying+with+a+warrant&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

There's no reason why FT shouldn't be at the top of Google searches for things like TSA censorship or anything else, and all we have to do is use plain language. ;)^

While I don't disagree my arthritic hands find even a few less key strokes helpful.

I’m in. :)

One other suggestion I have would be to scale back on the use of slang and acronyms. Right at this moment there are three times as many unregistered guests in the forum as FTers, and I wonder how many of them will make any sense out of what the thread “Censorship on PV (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1135243-censorship-pv.html)” means, just as an example. Okay, PV = Propaganda Village = TSA Blog, and I know there is a stickied glossary, but that doesn’t help the Google bots that would otherwise direct more and more people here.

Take a look at these Google searches:

“censorship at tsa blog” (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=censorship+at+TSA+blog&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

Compare this to

“flying with a warrant” (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=flying+with+a+warrant&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

There's no reason why FT shouldn't be at the top of Google searches for things like TSA censorship or anything else, and all we have to do is use plain language. ;)^

Point well put. I'll avoid acronyms not known outside this blog from now on.

Point well put. I'll avoid acronyms not known outside this blog from now on.

In that case, I'm in :)

No "hit and run" poster here :) it seems the hostility that is directed to TSA and TSO's is from being treated disrespectful at checkpoints. For that, the TSO is directly responsible NOT TSA.

Actually, the TSA is composed of TSOs and their supervisors who do nothing about the TSOs who do things wrong. So it is the TSA.

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??Count me formally in. :)

One other suggestion I have would be to scale back on the use of slang and acronyms. ... There's no reason why FT shouldn't be at the top of Google searches for things like TSA censorship or anything else, and all we have to do is use plain language. ;)^Good point. ^

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??

Most certainly...and also willing to "oversee" the TSA Disparager elite program to keep the personal attacks and jargon out of the "official printed materials". :p

Um, is "TSA Disparager" itself verboten?

Of the at least 200 TSO's who used to post here, trust me, the great majority were run out of town. The number who stopped posting due to a fear of losing their job was much smaller. At least where we know the actual reason they stopped posting.

And, BTW, let's not name any names here. This is just for general discussion. We had to delete a post a few minutes ago where a member was specifically naming other members. We don't allow calling out other members, TSA'ers or not.

To be fair, there were several that garnered the respect of us, your morons, even if we did ultimately disagree. A lot of it revolves in how they present themselves on the forum. As many of them have presented themselves in the same way as many of the "few" Bad Apples® we complain about at the checkpoints, I can't say it's a surprise that some of them have been run out of here.

You're right about that, at least in the early days of this forum. I remember going in and deleting all posts for some panic-stricken TSA'ers who said they didn't realize they would be fired for posting here.

Maybe I'm imagining it but there doesn’t seem to be as many barriers for TSA folks to post on IBB's any longer.

But I wouldn't wade in here and post if I were a TSO. Why deal with the anger and hostility?

And, hey, as a very frequent flier myself, I'm as angry and hostile toward the TSA as anybody else on this board. But I can also make the distinction between the big, bad TSA/DHS bureaucracy and FT'ers who are also TSO's and who want to contribute here.

I'm fine with the pledge, but that pledge of respect for the individual must go both ways.

I would likewise ask that each TSA member here take a similar pledge to show respect for the other participants on this board. No naming names, but there have been a few over the years that have shown disdain and disrespect to folks that don't agree with everything they say.

I have to admit, I really don't understand why anyone would willingly take that job and participate in what seems to be a full assault on our civil rights. If all the screeners quit, nobody would be left to run the Nude-o-scopes, right...?

That said, I will pledge to sit on my hands if I don't have anything constructive to say. For the most part.

I'm fine with the pledge, but that pledge of respect for the individual must go both ways.

I would likewise ask that each TSA member here take a similar pledge to show respect for the other participants on this board. No naming names, but there have been a few over the years that have shown disdain and disrespect to folks that don't agree with everything they say.

+1

Sorry, I won't be participating in "being nice to the TSA".

They will be shown no quarter in my eyes.

Every time they tell a pax "Do you want to fly today?" It's a slap in the face of all Americans.

Every time they come on here and say "Well, we don't have to tell you anything" its further eroding of the American ideal.

The TSA deserves no respect, and shall receive none from me. As for the employees of that agency, if you don't like being dumped on because of your employer, find new employment.

Until a real solution to air security is found, we're more and more unsafe because of the TSA.

So, therefore, I will not be nice. I will challenge anything they say, and I will use only the amount of civility required to keep within the forum TOS.

Sorry, I won't be participating in "being nice to the TSA".

They will be shown no quarter in my eyes.

Every time they tell a pax "Do you want to fly today?" It's a slap in the face of all Americans.

Every time they come on here and say "Well, we don't have to tell you anything" its further eroding of the American ideal.

The TSA deserves no respect, and shall receive none from me. As for the employees of that agency, if you don't like being dumped on because of your employer, find new employment.

Until a real solution to air security is found, we're more and more unsafe because of the TSA.

So, therefore, I will not be nice. I will challenge anything they say, and I will use only the amount of civility required to keep within the forum TOS.

Few, if any, here will argue about the TSA's actions both in their SOP and some individuals.

The question is why can't we discuss this in a civil manner?

Few, if any, here will argue about the TSA's actions both in their SOP and some individuals.

The question is why can't we discuss this in a civil manner?
Civility has been tried, and failed.

Clearly the TSO sees no reason to discuss things like rational adults. OUR WAY OR YOU DON'T FLY!!!! isn't acting like rational adults. Telling us that they will not discuss procedures because it would be "handing the playbook to the terrorists" is just plain stupid.

Do it our way and there will be no problems isn't how you open discussion about anything.

Yet the TSA does this all the time, from the top down to their TSOs.

Unless we meet the hostility of the TSA with hostility of our own (not FT by itself, but collectively), they will continue to walk all over us.

Its been proven that those TSOs who have been civil here (and 99% of the time that civility has been recriprocated) get spoken to by their superiors. That's even more messed up.

I'm skeptical that a civil TSO here is the exception, not the rule. Certain interactions with them here by me have made that even more clear to me.

I'm angry, and I don't have to put up with the TSA any longer. I will, loudly, proclaim to anyone who will listen just what the TSA isn't doing and that the only way to effect change will be to make sure that our elected dimwits get the point, and if that means storming the castle with pitchforks and torches, so be it. If that means that we're less than polite with a TSO, well, they should grow a thicker skin or find new employment.

Its not personal. None of these individuals have done anything to me personally. Hell, I'd probably enjoy a beer with them if they weren't TSOs.

But that's the point. They are the public face of a goverment farce. And I cannot any longer be polite to that government farce, especially when it's clearly wasted MY money.

If that makes me a pariah, then so be it. I can take it.

That's a start. Thanks.

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??

I pledge to be more civil, I think this is a great idea.

+1

I'm fine with the pledge, but that pledge of respect for the individual must go both ways.

Most certainly

Count me formally in. :)

In that case, I'm in :)

I’m in. :)

I pledge to be more civil, I think this is a great idea.

Thanks folks.

We're not asking anybody to love and embrace the TSA. Far from it.

We're simply trying to make this forum a more hospitable place for all to discuss travel safety and security issues. And that includes treating your fellow FT'ers with dignity and respect....the same way you'd like to be treated.

This has nothing to do about your opinion of the TSA, your experiences at the airport, your politics, religion or sex. It's all about how we act and interact in this little corner of FlyerTalk

In my mind TSA is looking for a needle in a haystack with a Bulldozer.
Somehow I think there might be a more effective approach.

Hmmm, interesting. :cool: Insightful, please elaborate.

I have asked several times here for viable ideas that would provide better security than we have now, yet have received none. Please, please, be the first.

I have asked several times here for viable ideas that would provide better security than we have now, yet have received none. Please, please, be the first.

What to do with the TSA short term-

1. Full accountability of TSA employees, with levels of discipline up to and including termination.

2. Initiate a focus on customer service training for screening clerks, instead of barking and asking “Do you want to fly today?” The fact that the TSA has publicly stated that customer service is not a priority in its Engage! training is appalling.

3. End the War on Liquids. The exemptions make it pointless, and even if there was such a Magic Liquid™ that could be used to create a bomb airside without laboratory conditions if you just had enough of it, just send ten guys through the checkpoint with their Kippie Bags and combine it airside.

4. End the Shoe Carnival. The X-Ray machine cannot detect explosives, period.

5. Eliminate the gate screenings. The fact that this is being done in MCI, where each gate area pretty much has its own checkpoint to start with, is proof that this is nothing more than security theatre and workfare.

6. Get rid of the No Fly List. There’s no effective means of redress or oversight how the list is managed. If the people on these lists are so dangerous, arrest them.

7. Stop the ID checks. The TSA has no need to know who I am or where I’m flying. This is nothing more than revenue protection on behalf of the airlines. The thought that I must “present my papers” to travel within the border of my own country is disgusting.

8. Stop using the checkpoint as a dragnet. College kids with a fake IDs, illegal aliens, or some common criminal wanted on a drug charge somewhere are not a threat to commercial aviation. We have other government agencies tasked for this.

9. Kill LASP dead in its tracks. There is no reason whatsoever the TSA should encroach on General Aviation. This is nothing more than a back channel way for the airlines and the Air Transport Association to make GA less of a viable alternative.

10. End the mission creep. What on earth was the mayor of TPA thinking when he asked the TSA to provide junk science screening clerks (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/19/eveningnews/main6500349.shtml) at the Super Bowl? What do sporting events have to do with transportation? The junk science SPOT program also gets the boot.

11. Stop the use and deployment of Nude-O-Scopes. They don't see into body cavities or detect explosives, are an intrusion into privacy and needlessly add to cumulative lifetime radiation doses. All that is needed is WTMD, x-ray, and ETD/ETP.

12. The wearing of metal “LEO style” badges is stopped immediately, and replaced with the screening clerk’s name and identification number that is plainly visible.

13. Eliminate theatrics like the TSA Honor Guard. There is no need for screening clerks to dress up in silly costumes and parade around.

14. Stop any consideration of having screening clerks armed with firearms, or having any LEO powers.

What to do with the TSA long term-

The TSA should become a part of the DOT. Actual screening should be done by private contractors with oversight by the DOT or FAA. Funny how we never heard the constant stories of mistreatment and harassment of PAX, organized rings of theft and general thuggery when this was being done by private sector firms.

What to do with the TSA short term-

1. Full accountability of TSA employees, with levels of discipline up to and including termination.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public.

2. Initiate a focus on customer service training for screening clerks, instead of barking and asking “Do you want to fly today?” The fact that the TSA has publicly stated that customer service is not a priority in its Engage! training is appalling.

While this also has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public, it’s a position that I can agree with and support. TSA has made several forays into this area in my tenure with them, but more is needed.

3. End the War on Liquids. The exemptions make it pointless, and even if there was such a Magic Liquid™ that could be used to create a bomb airside without laboratory conditions if you just had enough of it, just send ten guys through the checkpoint with their Kippie Bags and combine it airside.

“Enhancing” the security of the flying public, not degrading it.

4. End the Shoe Carnival. The X-Ray machine cannot detect explosives, period.

Again, “enhancing” security. Your right though, the x-ray machine cannot detect explosives. It can however detect anomalies in shoes, which will lead to other types of investigations that CAN detect explosives.

5. Eliminate the gate screenings. The fact that this is being done in MCI, where each gate area pretty much has its own checkpoint to start with, is proof that this is nothing more than security theatre and workfare.

Actually, in part the members of FT are to blame for this one. You folks have been screaming for more than a year that I personally am aware of about the possibilities of some unscreened airport workforce member being able to hand off dangerous prohibited items to passengers post-checkpoint, this technique address’ that minor flaw in the system. You asked for it, and now that you have it you don’t like it? Ever hear the term “Be careful what you ask for”?

6. Get rid of the No Fly List. There’s no effective means of redress or oversight how the list is managed. If the people on these lists are so dangerous, arrest them.

Having seen the actual no-fly list, I’d say that you ask the impossible. The majority of the folks listed there are not US citizens, do not reside in the USA, and therefore cannot be arrested by US authorities. Those that are, well they can’t be arrested unless they commit a crime, and being a threat to aviation is believe it or not, not a crime. Better to tell them to walk, don’t ya think?

7. Stop the ID checks. The TSA has no need to know who I am or where I’m flying. This is nothing more than revenue protection on behalf of the airlines. The thought that I must “present my papers” to travel within the border of my own country is disgusting.

Verifying that the individual who is holding the boarding pass is the individual it was meant for is a security step. And gee, it only takes about 30 seconds of your time.

8. Stop using the checkpoint as a dragnet. College kids with a fake IDs, illegal aliens, or some common criminal wanted on a drug charge somewhere are not a threat to commercial aviation. We have other government agencies tasked for this.

Yes, and we TSO’s are citizens just like you. We fulfill one of our civic duties by reporting suspected criminal activity to the appropriate authorities. You want us to stop doing that? First please ask all of your neighbors, then get back to us with their reactions.

9. Kill LASP dead in its tracks. There is no reason whatsoever the TSA should encroach on General Aviation. This is nothing more than a back channel way for the airlines and the Air Transport Association to make GA less of a viable alternative.

Opinions vary on this. I don’t know enough about it to really comment, and I get the feeling that neither do you.

10. End the mission creep. What on earth was the mayor of TPA thinking when he asked the TSA to provide junk science screening clerks (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/19/eveningnews/main6500349.shtml) at the Super Bowl? What do sporting events have to do with transportation? The junk science SPOT program also gets the boot.

There is no such thing as “mission creep”. Transportation Security Administration. As for the Super Bowl, I’m going to refer you to the local police department that requested TSA’s assistance. And on SPOT, you can believe what you like about it, I see it work every day. Not only is it viable, its effective.

11. Stop the use and deployment of Nude-O-Scopes. They don't see into body cavities or detect explosives, are an intrusion into privacy and needlessly add to cumulative lifetime radiation doses. All that is needed is WTMD, x-ray, and ETD/ETP.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public. We are not going to get rid of an effective technology because a few folks believe that there are problems with it. Bring some facts to the table, “peer reviewed and validated” and you might have an argument.

12. The wearing of metal “LEO style” badges is stopped immediately, and replaced with the screening clerk’s name and identification number that is plainly visible.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public. You don’t like it, I get it, life’s a rock.

13. Eliminate theatrics like the TSA Honor Guard. There is no need for screening clerks to dress up in silly costumes and parade around.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public. If it makes them feel better about themselves then let ‘em do it.

14. Stop any consideration of having screening clerks armed with firearms, or having any LEO powers.

“Enhancing” the security of the flying public, not degrading it.

What to do with the TSA long term-

The TSA should become a part of the DOT. Actual screening should be done by private contractors with oversight by the DOT or FAA. Funny how we never heard the constant stories of mistreatment and harassment of PAX, organized rings of theft and general thuggery when this was being done by private sector firms.

DOT, been there, done that. Also, I have seen these “private contractors”. You have absolutely no idea what you are asking for. The “organized rings of theft and general thuggery” would expand exponentially. Funny how you cant hear things when you are not listening.

That's a start. Thanks.

Anybody else willing to take The Pledge™??

Please add my name to the list.

I try, lord knows I try, but I am not perfect.

But as another poster said, I will not toss softballs. If someone makes a dumb statement, I will try harder to explain why its dumb rather than just calling it dumb and leaving it at that.

I have asked several times here for viable ideas that would provide better security than we have now, yet have received none. Please, please, be the first.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your participation. Thanks for keeping the posts coming.

That said, I must disagree with the premise of your question. Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.

It appears that the majority on this board feel that TSA is currently skewed too far toward absolute security, or the perception thereof. Many here are willing to accept less security in exchange for greater personal rights, convenience, and thrift...especially those who understand that airport screening is only a small part of the larger, counter-terrorism picture.

In short, I'm all in favor of ideas that increase convenience and personal dignity with minimal increases to risk.

Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.

1. There is no limit to TSA's authority - we can do whatever we think might make people safer (or feel safer).
2. Cost is no object.
3. **** Civil Liberties - We're out to catch Tewwowists!
(of course, we've never actually caught one yet, we just need to spend more money and get more people)

4. It's for your own good - quit whining!

:mad::mad::mad:

for some, obviously the only way to 'enhance' security is just to add more to the existing theatre.

For others, it requires a critical look at, and risk analysis of what is currently being done - keeping the elements proven to reduce risk for a reasonable cost, abandoning the rest and perhaps implementing other strategies not currently in use - like screening at the same level for all persons entering the 'sterile' area (an oxymoron if ever there was one) as one example.

But as posted dismissively above, in regard to a response to enhancing security - handing out tin badges to clerks, employing clerks with attitude, checking someone has a drivers licence etc, etc does nothing to enhance security either, yet the TSA introduced it and trumpets it as somehow useful.

None of these things happen at our airports.

Yes Australia and Australian's have been the target of terrorist activity.

Yes it probably will happen again.

We prefer to take a risk/benefit approach to security - not a theatrical one.

I have asked several times here for viable ideas that would provide better security than we have now, yet have received none. Please, please, be the first.

What to do with the TSA short term-

1. Full accountability of TSA employees, with levels of discipline up to and including termination.

2. Initiate a focus on customer service training for screening clerks, instead of barking and asking “Do you want to fly today?” The fact that the TSA has publicly stated that customer service is not a priority in its Engage! training is appalling.



Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public.

While this also has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public, it’s a position that I can agree with and support. TSA has made several forays into this area in my tenure with them, but more is needed.


Ron, you asked what would provide for better security, not enhanced security. :)

Since you seem to agree on point #2 about making TSA a more customer focused organization, how could you not agree that his first point goes hand in hand with the second? Please tell me how you can expect to effectively manage an organization without applying discipline, up to and including termination, when appropriate. When those agents that make life miserable for the average passenger (and I'm not talking about the folks that automatically bristle and puff up at the mere mention of TSA) are properly dealt with, in will be a start in making TSA a better agency.

It has always amazed me how many federal, state, and local government employees manage to keep their jobs for doing things that would get a private sector employee fired in a heart beat. N965VJ is spot on that stating TSO should be held responsible for their actions. If administrative discipline and re-training doesn't fix the issue, then termination is the only option. As with any government agency, we all know that everything is done in baby steps, and that is one that needs to be put at the top of the priority list.

I have asked several times here for viable ideas that would provide better security than we have now, yet have received none. Please, please, be the first.

1. Return to the security protocols of 9/10/01 as there is nothing the TSA does today that would have prevented 9/11/01.

2. Take the money that would be saved by returning to those protocols (no more NoS, no more TDCs, no more gate checkers, etc.) and funnel that money directly into intelligence gathering to discover dangers to the system well before they erupt into fruition.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your participation. Thanks for keeping the posts coming.

My pleasure, but I have the feeling that many of our fellow FTers would disagree.

That said, I must disagree with the premise of your question. Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.

I would tend to agree with the basics of your statement, and I believe that the TSA adheres to such a principal. The problem comes when one tries to set a standard. If you read some of the comments in posts below yours you will see what I mean. Everyone seems to have their own ideas on how things should be done, and it’s very rare that any two are alike. But a standard must be set, a line where we will not go past, and someone must set that standard. Many are not going to agree with where that line is placed, some vehemently so, but there are folks who have the responsibility to set that standard and to do so while taking into account all of the wide and various factors that affect it. It’s easy to second guess them, and many here do, but they do so without the background, intel, experience, or responsibility that those who actually have to set that standard have.

It appears that the majority on this board feel that TSA is currently skewed too far toward absolute security, or the perception thereof. Many here are willing to accept less security in exchange for greater personal rights, convenience, and thrift...especially those who understand that airport screening is only a small part of the larger, counter-terrorism picture.

In short, I'm all in favor of ideas that increase convenience and personal dignity with minimal increases to risk.

Many of the folks here are willing to place their fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity. But they don’t bear any responsibility for that decision, they don’t have the background or experience to make the decision, and they really don’t give a dam that they don't have any of it.

We vote for our leaders. Hopefully we vote for the one’s who’s views equal our own or at the very least seem reasonable to us. By voting for them we trust them to make appropriate decisions about a vast number of things that directly affect our lives. And these are the folks who bear the responsibility for the decisions concerning how government interacts with its citizens and how government serves its citizens. These are the folks that set policy, including TSA policy, for all levels of government. We trust them to make rational and appropriate decisions, yet it always seems that one group or another disagrees with their decisions. OK, if so then it’s the responsibility of that group to have someone else elected to those offices who will change policy to something more to their liking. That’s our responsibility, to hold our leaders accountable for their decisions on our behalf. Yet more than 75% of our fellow citizens refuse to do so by not voting. Just who’s fault is that?

Many of the folks here are willing to place their fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity. But they don’t bear any responsibility for that decision, they don’t have the background or experience to make the decision, and they really don’t give a dam that they don't have any of it.

1. I am perplexed as to how you became the arbiter in determining if people have the background or experience to make these decisions. What special background, experience and training do you have that seats you as the judge of who has the credentials to make those decisions? In any event, I doubt you have the full dossier of each person on this board to make a determination as I can guarantee you that every single person who posts on this forum has not disclosed everything about themselves.

2. Your statement deriding those that would "place fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity" is directly at odds with the founding mechanics of this country. Fifty-six men in Philadelphia placed fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, conveniences and personal dignity yet I never hear a word from those who are more than willing to give up their rights to feel safe talk about how terrible those 56 men were for doing such a thing.

Hmmm, interesting. :cool: Insightful, please elaborate.

Ok..:rolleyes:

The needle= viable: terrorist / terrorist plot / USA bomb threat
The haystack= 4 billion+ passenger screenings by TSA
the bulldozer= TSA Modus operandi; now with improved, enhanced, turbo screening....

Found anything, yet?:o

Many of the folks here are willing to place their fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity. But they don’t bear any responsibility for that decision, they don’t have the background or experience to make the decision, and they really don’t give a dam that they don't have any of it. (emphasis added)


Don't take the bait, folks!

I challenge the assertion that folks on this board are willing to accept measures that add significant risk to security. Many have families. Enough said. A more accurate statement is that most of us believe that our ideas will result in zero to minimal/insignificant/acceptable additional risk.

I also challenge the assertion that folks on this board do not have the background or experience to make such decisions. I feel that anyone with a background in actuary, chemistry, psychology, medicine, computer security, military science, finance, or any of a number of analytic disciplines--combined with common sense, keen observation, and an awareness of current events--can make sound judgments on this issue. I suspect that includes most of us.

Security is just a variant on risk management, which shows up in most every professional field.

9. Kill LASP dead in its tracks. There is no reason whatsoever the TSA should encroach on General Aviation. This is nothing more than a back channel way for the airlines and the Air Transport Association to make GA less of a viable alternative.

Opinions vary on this. I don’t know enough about it to really comment, and I get the feeling that neither do you.


LASP is an ill-advised plan to bring Part 121 (commercial aviation) style security to General Aviation (GA) that was announced in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking two years ago. The proposal failed to recognize the inherent differences between GA and airline operations. Organizations like the National Business Aircraft Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, etc. all rallied against the proposal. There is a misconception that GA is comprised of nothing more than “corporate fat cats” cruising around in Gulfstreams. In reality, business aircraft are utilized by well over 10,000 small and medium-sized companies flying into 5,000 public use airports around the country.

After seeing a “Geraldo” style TV newz report about how GA airports called “"Is Houston a Sitting Duck for Terrorism?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee asked the DHS Office of Inspector General to investigate. The OIG concluded that GA was a “limited and mostly hypothetical tool for terrorists”, and stated in a challenge to the TV report "Houston Is Not a Sitting Duck for Terrorism.” Rep. Jackson Lee was not happy with the findings of the OIG, and called them “disrespectful”. Rep. Jackson Lee is the same person that asked a NASA scientist if the Mars Pathfinder took a picture of the flag that Neil Armstrong left behind. :rolleyes:

If you want to get an idea of the encroachment of freedom and civil liberties LASP represents, take a look at what the EAA has to say:

Personal Liberties — For the first time, the TSA’s regulatory activities would be extended to personal GA aircraft, historic and vintage aircraft, and operators, passengers, and pilots flying for personal and business use. As such, the LASP is a radical departure from anything the TSA has enacted to date. It would, in effect, require governmental review and authority before you could operate your own personal vehicle.

And it would require separate review and authority for every single flight that included passengers. Nothing like the LASP has been imposed on cars, trucks, boats, or any other privately owned, privately operated vehicles. The TSA’s proposal raises serious constitutional questions about personal liberty, privacy, and freedom of movement.

The LASP could also have a significant and chilling effect on interstate and intrastate commerce. It would place new and significant costs and restrictions on the freedom of individuals and companies to move people and goods around the country by personal, company-owned, or chartered aircraft. (http://www.eaa.org/govt/tsa.asp)

(the bolding is in the original document)

You know, besides being a vital business tool, General Aviation is also a lot of fun as a recreational activity. Flying off somewhere for a “$100 hamburger”, helping a friend do an Annual on their Cessna, or even just hanging out at the airport on a weekend is a way of life. There’s no way we’re going to just stand by while the TSA sets up shop at our airports they way they have with commercial aviation.

1. I am perplexed as to how you became the arbiter in determining if people have the background or experience to make these decisions. What special background, experience and training do you have that seats you as the judge of who has the credentials to make those decisions? In any event, I doubt you have the full dossier of each person on this board to make a determination as I can guarantee you that every single person who posts on this forum has not disclosed everything about themselves.

I've challenged TSORon about this several times, and he told me to stop pointing out my education as if it qualified me to say anything, let alone my profession and clearances.

2. Your statement deriding those that would "place fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity" is directly at odds with the founding mechanics of this country. Fifty-six men in Philadelphia placed fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, conveniences and personal dignity yet I never hear a word from those who are more than willing to give up their rights to feel safe talk about how terrible those 56 men were for doing such a thing.

Also, that was a case where there was direct and significant risk. In this case, there is a vague, indirect threat from people thousands of miles away who lack the means that the British army in 1776 had.

TSORon is asking us to stipulate to there being significant risk. I would like to see him prove it. He can't, because it doesn't exist.

He's created a false dichotomy and a straw man so that he can more easily defeat us by claiming that we want thousands of dead Americans. It's disgusting.

I see no mileage in trying to argue with TSORon and his ilk

Just point them in the direction of this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1137802-aviation-insecurity-security-theater.html) where the TSA admit they are rubbish and watch the fun as they try to twist the logic of those TSA people not being the real experts

You're right about that, at least in the early days of this forum. I remember going in and deleting all posts for some panic-stricken TSA'ers who said they didn't realize they would be fired for posting here.

Maybe I'm imagining it but there doesn’t seem to be as many barriers for TSA folks to post on IBB's any longer.

But I wouldn't wade in here and post if I were a TSO. Why deal with the anger and hostility?

And, hey, as a very frequent flier myself, I'm as angry and hostile toward the TSA as anybody else on this board. But I can also make the distinction between the big, bad TSA/DHS bureaucracy and FT'ers who are also TSO's and who want to contribute here.

I don't work for TSA but I do work for CBP. I thank you for your viewpoint. It is much more on point then many here realize. I wish some of your fellow colleagues and moderators could see this.

FB

Actually, in part the members of FT are to blame for this one. You folks have been screaming for more than a year that I personally am aware of about the possibilities of some unscreened airport workforce member being able to hand off dangerous prohibited items to passengers post-checkpoint, this technique address’ that minor flaw in the system. You asked for it, and now that you have it you don’t like it? Ever hear the term “Be careful what you ask for”?

How about screening the airport workforce then this would be unnecessary? :td::confused:

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public. You don’t like it, I get it, life’s a rock.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public. If it makes them feel better about themselves then let ‘em do it.Full body cavity searches would "enhance" the security of the flying public. :)

What would actually enhance security is to look just for credible threats. If you narrow the universe of what you are searching for, you are more likely to not miss the critical items. That has been proven time and time again. Stop the ID checks; stop looking for small knives; stop looking for liquids.

Also, I have seen these “private contractors”. You have absolutely no idea what you are asking for. The “organized rings of theft and general thuggery” would expand exponentially.There is no factual basis to support this.

I disagree. I think the Flyertalk community is a powerful voice in the travel industry and the TS/S subforum is an ideal place for public discussion but only if we commit to a higher level of discourse for the long haul.

Addendum: Apropos to no particular post or thread, I want to go on record about how heartened I am by the surge of creative response to the latest TSA screening protocols and constructive activism displayed in this forum the past few weeks. Keep it up guys! ^

Addendum: Apropos to no particular post or thread, I want to go on record about how heartened I am by the surge of creative response to the latest TSA screening protocols and constructive activism displayed in this forum the past few weeks. Keep it up guys! ^

I'm quite curious, what are these "latest TSA screening protocols" you discuss? I have seen numerous guess's as to what they “might” be, but nothing really all that concrete. Care to let us in on your version?

I'm quite curious, what are these "latest TSA screening protocols" you discuss? I have seen numerous guess's as to what they “might” be, but nothing really all that concrete. Care to let us in on your version?

Why don't you tell us, since you're obviously in the know and taking way too much glee in holding it over our heads.

I'm quite curious, what are these "latest TSA screening protocols" you discuss?

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/102810_patdown.shtm

"TSA is in the process of implementing new pat-down procedures at checkpoints nationwide as one of our many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe."

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/102810_patdown.shtm

"TSA is in the process of implementing new pat-down procedures at checkpoints nationwide as one of our many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe."

Pretty short on detail isn’t it. Yet the folks here are making all kinds of guess’s or outright “I know all about it” kinds of statements. Don’t you find that interesting, and of course entertaining?

Why don't you tell us, since you're obviously in the know and taking way too much glee in holding it over our heads.

I'm not holding anything over your head sir, in fact the one word I have had to say on the subject is "Nope". No glee, no holding, pretty much a non-response. Could you be confusing me with someone else?