chollie

I stand corrected, I was a bit sloppy with my wording.

You are correct, the goal is to prevent fatal damage to the aircraft itself or to significant numbers of pax.

Schmurrr

That statement ought to apply to airlines allowing VIP flyers to take an expedited path through the checkpoint. Seriously. Why should airlines be allowed to take advantage of onerous security procedures so as to offer a perk for their FFs and first-class flyers?

chollie

I'm not sure that's how it's done.

IIRC, TSA asked the airlines to opt in by providing information to TSA on their frequent fliers - assuming the FFs themselves opted in. Quite clever, really. It would appear to be the airlines that were offering their FFs a new perk, so they'd be motivated to pass info to TSA. TSA still made the actual determination as to whether a pax actually got Pre. Initially, some folks had pretty mixed results, and you couldn't get Pre on any international itinerary.

That got things up and running fairly quickly and relatively painlessly - the airlines and the invited FFers were all too willing to hand over information to TSA. Now, of course, being an FFer is really only one way to improve your access to Pre. You can also pay for the service, get it via government/military ID, get it via managed inclusion, ie, pure luck.

Schmurrr

Oh, I was talking about expedited boarding lanes, not PreCheck. That is, I meant the the expedited lanes that existed before PreCheck. But your point about PreCheck is very interesting.

RadioGirl

I think I wasn't clear.

I'm not talking about deciding, passenger-by-passenger, whether something is needed or not. I'm talking about the process of developing a policy that then applies to everyone.

I agree with you that the main criteria should be whether something is a danger to the aircraft itself (although many people are convinced that taking over the plane is still a reasonable threat, and that attitude will be reflected in their considerations).

But TSA (and many in the public) believe that liquids, for example, COULD BE explosives*, and therefore are a danger to the aircraft. TSA and many passengers (and the FA unions) believe that small knives still COULD BE used to threaten a FA and take over the airplane. We've seen countless examples here of TSA employees confiscating some harmless item because they are able to construct some implausible chain of events by which 3" cable ties or a cupcake or a lens cleaner could be used to either blow up the plane or force the pilot to hand over control. Left to their own devices, TSA would ban as many things as possible Out Of An Abundance Of Caution, Because You Just Never Know, Think of the Children.

*Whether anyone actually believes this any more, or whether they're embarrassed to admit they over-reacted, the end effect is the same. They keep SAYING it.

The people who believe, as you do, that we should only ban things that are dangerous, but who also believe, as you do not, that anything could be dangerous, claim that no one NEEDS these things on the plane, so why not ban them all? Self-identified TSA employees have, on this board, said such things as "If it was up to me, there would be no liquids allowed on board, not even drinks served by the airline" or "It would just be easier if no carry-on bags were allowed at all." Christopher Elliott said in the original article: "Conventional wisdom says we should permit fewer things on a plane, not more."

So my individual need for medicine, a gun or a bottle of water is indeed irrelevant. But the fact that (nearly) everyone on long-haul flights - and certain people on short flights - need liquids is very relevant. If the only criteria was "is it dangerous?" and if TSA believes that liquids ARE dangerous, the obvious conclusion would be to forbid all liquids completely, as they did for a few days in 2006. In the long term, this would destroy long-haul travel, since no one is going to fly 6, 10, 14 hours without anything to drink. No pre-departure drinks or champagne in F, alienating the HVPs. It would eliminate travel for people with infants and those with liquid meds. It means checked bags for anyone who wants toothpaste or deodorant at their destination. Even TSA can see that a "no liquids at all" policy would be catastrophic for the industry and the economy. So we get the ridiculous 3-1-1 rule, and the exceptions for meds and breast milk, and the unscreened airline liquids, all of which do nothing to diminish the (imaginary) danger but allows (most) people what they (mostly) need.

Similarly, TSA could easily decide that a laptop makes a good bludgeon for swinging in small spaces and is therefore dangerous, or has a battery and electronics and might be a bomb in disguise. But if they implemented a "no laptop" policy, business travel would tank. Instead, they confiscate souvenir baseball bats and the odd student electronics project, which are less dangerous than a laptop but don't disrupt the industry.

On the other side of the coin, nearly everyone (including me) agrees that firearms, while a potential danger to passengers, are not a danger to the aircraft itself; you can't destroy the plane with a gun, nor (I believe) can you threaten your way into the cockpit. In most respects, a gun is no more of a threat than a large knife; you can hurt a lot of people but you're not going to take over the plane. Yet nearly everyone (including me) considers that guns should not be allowed on a plane. From the pure "can it destroy the plane?" argument, guns should be allowed. If the potential for harm is balanced against "would it be a major inconvenience to a significant proportion of the traveling public?" it tips the scale the other way.

That said, I agree that the list of "not allowed" should be limited to explosives, guns, and stuff like poisons. TSA's current list is based on fear-mongering and is way too long.

Schmurrr

Regarding guns, I would think that the damage that can be caused by a gun would be limited by the amount of ammunition one is carrying. Maybe limiting the quantity of ammunition carried on could be a compromise between the no-guns and the right-to-bear-arms positions. Ammunition can be detected by a metal detector, so there would be a reasonable means of controlling the quantity of ammunition going through a checkpoint.

(I am just brainstorming.)

WillCAD

I disagree.

While the damage to an aircraft from a single firearm is limited, I am still completely against allowing firearms in the cabin.

Firearms are dangerous weapons, far more so than impact or edged weapons. They also, even with a limited ammunition supply, pose a threat to a far larger number of pax than an impact or edged weapon, for exactly the reason why impact and edged weapons pose so insignificant threat: the close confines of an aircraft cabin.

In the confines of a cabin, swinging or jabbing an impact or edged weapon is severely restricted by the seats, the walls, the overhead bins and cielings, and the other pax. This limits such a weapon's effectiveness.

However, the close confines of an aircraft work in favor of a firearm, allowing a single shot to strike multiple people, since they're all lined up nice and straight in the seats, and makes it far easier for a shooter to aim at one person, another person, another person, etc., before the intended victims could run or dive for cover.

Additionally, a firearm does pose a small danger to the aircraft itself. A singel shot from a pistol won't bring down a plane, but it will pop a hole in the fuselage or in a window, causing drop in cabin pressure which will necessitate diversion and emergency landing.

My greatest fear in regards to allowing pax to carry firearms in the cabin is accidental discharge. As a responsible and consientious gun owner, I am often appalled by the abject stupidity I see and hear about in regards to firearms safety. Such stupidity is what leads to someone forgetting that their loaded .45 is in their briefcase or sachel - and it is also what leads to what is euphemistically called "accidental" discharge (which are almost always a result of negligent handling).

Even an accidental discharge can cause serious injury to at least one person, or minor damage to the aircraft which would require diversion and emergency landing. And due to the epidemic of unfathomable stupidity when it comes to firearms handling, such an accidental discharge is nearly inevitable. Given the number of firearms that TSA misses, I am shocked that it hasn't happened yet.

gsoltso

Hiya PT! I never really left, just slowed down for a bit. I would love to make the money associated with most of the policy making positions, but I am certain that I would not love moving away from home and family to the blender known as DC to earn it! I guess maybe if you could get the Administrator to create me a telework position? Or a regional consultant/program analyst position?

I am not a lone voice in this type of attitude, luckily I work with some folks (both locally and nationally) that are of fairly similar notions. We just don't get as much publicity as the knuckleheads stealing, driving drunk and smuggling.

I have not seen that part of the SOP! That must be the Level 7 stuff...

BamaDude

- delete -