Newsstand - TSA Is The Screen Door On The Security Submarine

Condition Orange!

Looking At The TSA, The Terrorists Must Be Thrilled

AviationPlanning.com Article (http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc11.htm)

"Total chaos.

That's the only way to describe the readiness of US airport security.

In light of the increased danger of terrorism, one look at the screening mess that's unfolding out there in airportland, and it's certain that anybody who claims the TSA is in a "heightened security state" is either just back from Mars, or needs to get to the Betty Ford for a spin-dry."

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Here's a fact that virtually every airport director in America knows well, but which some of the veneer media has missed: The TSA had no plans whatsoever for a code Orange event. None. No procedures, no direction, nada. They've been making it up as they go. At some airports - if not all - the TSA found out about the "heightened threat" from the media, not official channels. (True.) Yeah, we're ready, alright. As long as CNN's on the tube, the TSA'll be on top of things.
</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
But, the local TSA FSD was sanguine about the whole affair: "Based on our screening procedures, and the fact we swept all the terminals and found nothing... we're satisfied," he said. </font>

Just like at DFW today. TSA was happy, but if it had been a real threat, many hundreds, maybe thousand, of people could have died.

The TSA apparently doesn't even have procedures for situations when someone suspects that maybe there might possibly have been something pointy on the X-ray screen, but the passenger up and left before the screener had a chance to examine the item. There have been a number of instances where a couple of hours later a light bulb appeared over some supervisor's head and the entire terminal was evacuated in a fit of magic-wand-waving security whimsy. I don't know if that counts as a procedure, but it's certainly not ISO 9000 material. Given the TSA's performance on these occasions, does anyone actually expect this organization to be able to cope with a real (read: non-imagined) terrorist threat? My $2.50 says no.

That is because they have only been taught to look for pointy objects and evacuate terminals if a door is open or a machine has been unplugged. This isn't now, nor has it ever been real security.

Smoke and mirrors .... seems the mirrors are starting to break.

Want real security? Come to dC and take a look around. I'm scared now

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

This is not news, but an opinion piece that belongs in the security forum.

"Some money is missing, including half a billion dollars that was supposed to go to airports. Instead, the TSA mis-appropriated the money into other uses. That's theft. From the fine folks who are supposed to make our airports safe. Loy, again, was not concerned by these charges."

I think it's time for James Loy to step down, too. He's had his chance to right this rapidly listing and water-filled ship. He's blown it.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 02-17-2003).]

My opinion, of course, is that each of you should be well compensated by Aviation Planning as shills for their entertaining and ham handed attempts to drum up consulting business by delivering great sound bites.

It doesn't look like it is working too well.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Factotum:
The TSA apparently doesn't even have procedures for situations when someone suspects that maybe there might possibly have been something pointy on the X-ray screen, but the passenger up and left before the screener had a chance to examine the item. There have been a number of instances where a couple of hours later a light bulb appeared over some supervisor's head and the entire terminal was evacuated in a fit of magic-wand-waving security whimsy. </font>

There is a procedure. But it never should come to that. The bag with a suspect item is NOT to leave the XRay machine until the person performing the bag search is in control of it.

Maybe. But I think it's the stupidest thing in the world to evacuate a terminal because something pointy might (or even did) slip by.
The TSA really needs a course in Probability Theory and could use Economics and Common Sense too...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by XRayGuy:
There is a procedure. But it never should come to that. The bag with a suspect item is NOT to leave the XRay machine until the person performing the bag search is in control of it. </font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Maybe. But I think it's the stupidest thing in the world to evacuate a terminal because something pointy might (or even did) slip by.
The TSA really needs a course in Probability Theory and could use Economics and Common Sense too...</font>

I would gather to think that they evacuate the terminal because IF something DID happen then SOMEONE would DIE. So because they DIDN'T do their JOB. Why risk it? If they don't evacuate and nothing happens, you'll say, "They don't even care. They let one slip by and poof..nothing. What if..."

If they let one slip by and something does happen you'll say, "They should have evacuated...blah, blah, blah".

I've been at small airports where things seen to be rushing by in the screening area. Everyone wants to hurry, hurry, hurry and if a mistake happens, fix it. Don't let someone die because you where afraid that Spiff might think you're looking out for his safety.

Overall I found the article to be humorous at best. To think we should have different levels of airport security is absolutely crazy. I have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to morons who fly and deem themselves to security experts when they haven't walked a beat, manned a post or served their country. There should only be one level of security, a high one. I don't want weapons on the plane now, next week or next year. I don't care what you think are weapons because again...you don't know what your talking about. Did you see the cell phone gun they found recently? Ever seen a ball point pen gun? I have.

Secondly, the US Army deploys routinely with things called CNN terminals. They are satellites so that we can get the current feeds. Why? Because CNN knows what's going on before we do often times. We had them in Haiti and other missions. How rapidly do you expect the government to tell every employee about an increased threat? I don't expect TSA employees to know officially. Do your job to the highest standards everyday. ****, is that crazy? I don't think so. You want extra security for only special days?

Criminals aren't going to wait and attack when you're prepared. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. Less security, then it's a good time. Heightened security, bad time. That's common sense. Not some Frequent Flyer know-it-all who gets pissy because the other 100 some people on the plane could care less his feelings are hurt he is being searched.

Lastly, again if you ever worked patrol or dealt with criminals you'll realize they have a bad case of paranoia. Every officer that looks at them, makes them nervous. They think the officer is on to them. So the extra security, make them think there are Air Marshals on board, etc...that works. They'll buy it.

The system isn't perfect but I'm not going to panic the public because you don't like how it is run. I point out positives and negatives. You only point out the negatives in everything.

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-14-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazi:
[B] Nothing you have ever said has shown any sense of humor. Thank you for sparing us.

You should have stopped at " Nothing you have ever said has shown any sense.."

Mike</font>

Now THATS Funny.

Rawbert

Well then....

Why don't we install speed governors on every vehicle on the road? Without limiting speed, SOMEONE WILL DIE. Fact of life. Each year thousands of people die in preventable automobile accidents. By your illogic, we should do all we can to prevent this from happening. And this is documented - there is no evidence that the idiocy at our nations airports has prevented a single death.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JetTroop:
I would gather to think that they evacuate the terminal because IF something DID happen then SOMEONE would DIE. So because they DIDN'T do their JOB. Why risk it? If they don't evacuate and nothing happens, you'll say, "They don't even care. They let one slip by and poof..nothing. What if..."

If they let one slip by and something does happen you'll say, "They should have evacuated...blah, blah, blah".

I've been at small airports where things seen to be rushing by in the screening area. Everyone wants to hurry, hurry, hurry and if a mistake happens, fix it. Don't let someone die because you where afraid that Spiff might think you're looking out for his safety.

</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JetTroop:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to morons who fly and deem themselves to security experts when they haven't walked a beat, manned a post or served their country. </font>

Who are you calling a moron? Frankly, some of the posts I have seen from TSA screeners who have shown up here, and claim to have been in the military fit, that description better than most. I don't think serving your country gives you any more right to an opinion about airport security than anyone else. It certainly does not make you a security expert.

Perhaps there shouldn't be additional security at the airport. They actually did make up a plan, likely mostly for show though. I'm all for them stopping the additional pointy object searches that have resulted because of it and the searches of cars and the parking restrictions.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-15-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Who are you calling a moron? Frankly, some of the posts I have seen from TSA screeners who have shown up here, and claim to have been in the military fit, that description better than most. I don't think serving your country gives you any more right to an opinion about airport security than anyone else. It certainly does not make you a security expert.

Perhaps there shouldn't be additional security at the airport. They actually did make up a plan, likely mostly for show though. I'm all for them stopping the additional pointy object searches that have resulted because of it and the searches of cars and the parking restrictions.</font>

Well, mainly travelers who think because they travel they are security experts. Opinions are great, we all have them but experts they aren't. I drive a vehicle daily but that doesn't make me a mechanic who fixes cars nor am I a civil engineer who designs roads.

BTW, I'm not a security screener. Never have been and probably never will be. However, I do have a military, security and law enforcement background with 11 years in the field.

[This message has been edited by JetTroop (edited 02-15-2003).]

Oops, I almost said something bad. But it was really funny.

You will have to speculate.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 02-15-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Why don't we install speed governors on every vehicle on the road? Without limiting speed, SOMEONE WILL DIE. Fact of life. Each year thousands of people die in preventable automobile accidents. By your illogic, we should do all we can to prevent this from
happening.
</font>

Hey! Don't give them any new ideas! You know there are people who will demand that cars be speed controlled if they heard the idea.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Oops, I almost said something bad. But it was really funny.

You will have to speculate. </font>

Nothing you have ever said has shown any sense of humor. Thank you for sparing us.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazi:
[B] Nothing you have ever said has shown any sense of humor. Thank you for sparing us.

You should have stopped at " Nothing you have ever said has shown any sense.."

Mike

I will request again that you please do as I have and disengage yourself from further conversation involving me, if this is the highest level to which youa re able to elevate yourself. I make this request in public since you have elected to remain anonymous and unaccountible.

Since whatever converstaion once existed in this thread seems to have evaporated, it seems like it is time to close it down. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 02-15-2003).]

"Think about what went on in these hearings. And what the results were, which were nothing. Everybody in that chamber was made aware by example after example that the TSA is a cruel, expensive failure. Yet Lott and his Senatorial playmates just sat there like a pack of dopey walruses while the IG spewed out the TSA's failures. Naturally, that done, the IG himself has absolutely no intention of doing anything about those failures. Loy and his TSA screening scam get a pass."

I fully intend to vote accordingly in the next election. It's time to send a message to Congress that we're not going to tolerate this smokescreen "security" scam any longer!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
I will request again that you please do as I have and disengage yourself from further conversation involving me, if this is the highest level to which youa re able to elevate yourself. I make this request in public since you have elected to remain anonymous and unaccountible.

Since whatever converstaion once existed in this thread seems to have evaporated, it seems like it is time to close it down. Thank you. </font>

The highest level I can elevate myself? Such as your comment here? I would say I had to lower myself to your level in order to reply.

The conversation didn't evaporate until you showed up. You have repeatedly come into security related threads posting veiled insults and requests to close them down. Your posts are obviously intended to be disruptive and offer nothing to the discussion or its topic. Why not just pass them by if you have nothing to offer?

Edited to comment on the "unaccountable" comment made by Brian. My email address is not listed because someone chose to sign me up for every newsletter about.com publishes. This equated to over 200 emails per day and took me the best part of two weeks to undo. My feeling is that personal contact be reserved for those I consider friends and wish to converse with outside this forum. This in no way means I am avoiding accountability for anything I post here. I don't need to explain myself or my opinions in private to anyone.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-15-2003).]

Tazi, thank you for closing your last post with such a wonderful quote from Ben Franklin. We would all do well to act on such wise words.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JetTroop:
Well, mainly travelers who think because they travel they are security experts. Opinions are great, we all have them but experts they aren't.</font>

You don't mean experts like those that recommended duct tape and plastic sheathing, do you?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
"Some money is missing, including half a billion dollars that was supposed to go to airports. Instead, the TSA mis-appropriated the money into other uses. That's theft. From the fine folks who are supposed to make our airports safe. Loy, again, was not concerned by these charges."
</font>


This is a reference to the Boeing contract. You can find more details about this in The Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General's statement (http://commerce.senate.gov/~commerce/press/03/mead020503.pdf) at the February 5th Aviation Security Hearing (http://commerce.senate.gov/~commerce/press/03/2003204C05.html)

Here is a quote from that statement:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In an effort to provide some relief to the airport community for costs associated
with EDS and trace machine installations, Congress, in TSA’s FY 2002
supplemental appropriation, provided a $738 million set-aside for “physical
modification of commercial service airports for the purpose of installing EDS and
trace machines.” There now appears to be some question as to whether the
set-aside was spent for its intended purpose. In a joint letter to Secretary Mineta,
dated January 30, 2003, the American Association of Airport Executives and the
Airports Council International reported they had learned that $500 million of the
$738 million was shifted to fund the Boeing contract.</font>

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-17-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by L-1011:
You don't mean experts like those that recommended duct tape and plastic sheathing, do you?

</font>

I don't really see a parallel.

I could as easily point to the "experts" that say airport searches are unconstitutional, but what would be the point?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
I don't really see a parallel.

I could as easily point to the "experts" that say airport searches are unconstitutional, but what would be the point? </font>


On the contrary, I do see the parallel since those making the recommendations are actually security experts. On the other hand, since none of those here who find seaches to be unconstitutional have proclaimed themselves to be security experts, there is no point to your last statement.


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

They certainly have proclaimed themselves to be knowledgeable in the "correct" interpretation of the constitution.


[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 02-17-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
They certainly have proclaimed themselves to be knowledgeable in the "correct" interpretation of the constitution. </font>

And how does that relate to being a secuirty expert? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

That's not fair, Brian. You really have to be an "expert" to speak knowledgeably about security issues. But most U.S. citizens are knowledgeable about the Constitution to a degree. This is part of elementary-school education across the country. And the Constitution is not a technical document, anyway. It was written in plain English and intended to understood by ordinary citizens.

Just because most of us are not lawyers does not mean that our interpretations of the Constitution are worthless. By that logic, the only interpretations that matter are from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
That's not fair, Brian. You really have to be an "expert" to speak knowledgeably about security issues. But most U.S. citizens are knowledgeable about the Constitution to a degree. This is part of elementary-school education across the country. And the Constitution is not a technical document, anyway. It was written in plain English and intended to understood by ordinary citizens.

Just because most of us are not lawyers does not mean that our interpretations of the Constitution are worthless. By that logic, the only interpretations that matter are from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Bruce</font>

I agree with you, Bruce, per se, especially about the need to be an expert to speak knowledgeably on security issues. However, the prior poster attempted to draw a parallel between two different circumstances. I was just pointing out the double standard at work. If you prefer, you can pick any other similar analogy that you find more directly comparable.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 02-17-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
However, the prior poster attempted to draw a parallel between two different circumstances.</font>

The prior poster just pointed out that even "security experts" can have moronic opinions (using the words of the originally quoted poster).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by L-1011:
The prior poster just pointed out that even "security experts" can have moronic opinions (using the words of the originally quoted poster).</font>

They can, or lay people can be unable or have inadequate information to properly judge their opinions.

Everyone gets to pick what interpretation they find more likely.