exerda

The chain of reasoning here is not difficult to follow. We are told that liquids are a threat, and that is why the water ban is in place. Yet liquid explosives were used on an airline over a decade ago, and NOTHING was done--clearly no planning or thought whatsoever went into the problem on the security side. They were either criminally negligent in ignoring a demonstrated threat for so long, or are today lying or at best completely disengenuous in overstating the threat of liquid explosives. It's that black-and-white, and I'm a shades of grey man.

exerda

I'm one of them that says liquids are a non-credible threat, and that the focus on them distracts from more important threats, such as that of plain-jane solid explosives, explosives in cargo, the limited but real threat of shoulder-fired missiles, etc.

However, liquid explosives HAVE been used on planes before, and the current security procedures really don't even address that over a decade-old threat. I can think of several ways to successfully smuggle onboard a greater quantity of liquid explosives than was used in '94 within the asinine rule system we have in place now.

The kabuki illusion of "security" we're seeing neither addresses the very small potential for a liquid explosive-based bomb--which ostensibly they are designed to prevent--and in fact carry out their theatre at the expense of real screening.

Clearly, you are arguing just to be argumentative... well, that's fine, I guess, but it seems rather silly to me.

onlyairfare

I'm a long-time lurker, recently prompted to begin posting by these examples of TSA employees practicing medicine, apparently without proper training and licensure to do so.

As a board-certified physician, I agree with suggestions made to report these activities to the relevant State Board of Medical Examiners (the exact agency name may vary by state). TSA appears to be concerned with "looking like" a protector of safety, whereas the Board of Medical Examiners actually takes actions to protect public health and safety. As mentioned, in most states the practice of medicine (or nursing, or other duly licensed health professions) is a crime, punishable by various measures which can include fines and jail/prison sentences.

I have seen newspaper stories where TSA claims to have sought medical expertise in the promulgation of its regulations, but the continued engagement in medically harmful practices by TSA suggests this consultation is not occurring, or their recommendations are ignored. I am one of many physicians who have complained to TSA about their medically inappropriate and harmful regulations and actions; I have never received a response to any of my complaints.

The reality is that only a relatively small number of patients are affected, so it is difficult to generate the groundswell of opposition (until a prominant person dies from these actions), given the large number of sheeple, usually not frequent flyers, who say "Anything for safety" and the political mileage gained by those in authority who engage in this "War on Terror" by prohibiting and seizing medications.

It's sad, but we should keep on fighting, and hope that the state Boards of Medicine might have an impact where others have failed, preferably before someone dies in the air from anaphylactic shock because his/her 4 ounce bottle of Benadryl was confiscated at the checkpoint.

mikeef

So the current question of the day is why the government would ban liquids? Well, I suppose that there is someone in the military/scientific community somewhere who can make an argument that a liquids could pose a threat on a an airplane. Of course, the current procedure ignores modern innovations such as pockets, but I think that point is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't think anyone at the TSA truly believes that there is much of a threat of an onboard explosion from someone's chemistry set. Of course, putting McGyver on the no-fly list could solve this problem.

So what's the motivation? Simple: the government has to show that it is doing something. The general population (including myself), does not like to read about terrorist smuggling liquid explosives onto an airplane. The general population (unfortunately, I fear that this also includes me) is also not particularly good at risk assessment. There is a particular vividness (see any good behavioral finance course or, alternatively, wikipedia under "misleading vividness" or "availability heuristic") to a terrorist act/threat that causes us to vastly overestimate the possibility that it will actually happen to us personally.

Still, the government knows how important air travel is to the economy and general population. It also knows that a perceived threat to safety would have a significant impact on air travel and the economy. Finally, it knows that the perception of safety, rather than reality, will have a far bigger impact on whether people fly. Thus, the creation of the TSA and the seeming attempt to ban even the most harmless items has a more pronounced effect on the population's impression than "behind-the-scenes" work that would actually help (screening cargo/checked bags, etc.).

On numerous occasions, Bart has talked about risk management rather than risk avoidance. Bingo. And clearly, we are willing to manage risk if such a process is deemed necessary. For instance, I would think that an explosive device in an electronic device (laptop, ipod, vibrator, etc.) would all be a more likely place to hide a bomb and would offer more certainty to the terrorist's mission than a bottle of Gatorade and a chemistry set. Yet a ban on electronics would provoke such a backlash from the business community that the TSA decided that the impact on the economy and health of the airlines was worth the risk. But apparently, somebody decided that travelers would tolerate the confiscation of liquids, thus allowing the appearance of safety, even though there is virtually no real impact on the risk meter.

The irony of this whole thread is that someone mentioned cars as an alternative to flying. And as everyone on this board knows, including the person who mentioned that, you are far more likely to die in an auto accident than in a terrorist incident. If cars were planes, the government would have us all driving 20 miles per hour. It's really all about appearances.

Mike

DriveByDoc

They teach us illegible handwriting instead.

The current TSA regulations and erratic enforcement thereof are not well thought out and a burden to many passengers - from minor inconvenience to major suffering. Unfortunately, as onlyairfare points out, it will take a major incident involving a prominent personality splashed all over the media to effect change.

Like most things, anything to do with safety and injury prevention, it seems to be retroactive rather than proactive, because the sad truth is that it's less expensive that way. For example: the majority of medical errors in US hospitals involve medications - either incorrect dosing or wrong medicines to begin with. There are programs designed to catch these errors and keep track of patients medications and allergies via bar code readers and other safety mechanisms to decrease human error. Some hospitals have them, others don't. Why? Because they're expensive up front costs, and it takes a major media splash (like the stories about the heparin-dosage neonatal deaths in Indianapolis) to create a ruckus so that things change for the better.

The sad truth is that someone will have to die before things change. That sends a cold chill down my spine, but that's the way it is. I have many things I lobby my PAC (political action committee) for on both a state and federal level, and TSA regulation change is one of them. The government needs to be made aware and create the necessary changes, but that has to start on an individual level, one enlightened mind at a time.

stimpy

I'm still on the same RTW trip. I had no problems with all my carry on baggage at SIN, BKK, MUC, ZRH, DXB, and then I arrived at MUC for a two day stay. Upon leaving MUC, the new rules were now in place for Europe. I knew about this in advance and had my baggie ready, but I couldn't fit in the special sun screen or my usual bottle of Nyquil that I carry everywhere.

The Nyquil was determined as medicine, but the screeners said the sun screen is not. I asked them if they were doctors and if they were aware of skin cancer, but I might as well have been talking to a wall. The Polizei came over, but they were no better. I tried the "illegal to practice medicine without a license" on them, but that didn't work. They said they would take all my baggage away if I persisted.

Then I returned back to the main terminal and asked for a doctor. European airports all have medical centers. They pointed me to the medical center and the people there understood what skin cancer was and they gave me a piece of paper saying I could bring it on board. I returned to the same check point and they were astonished that I got a medical form for what they thought was normal sun tan lotion. But like true government weenies they followed the piece of paper religiously.

Now we just need a EU medical lobbying group to take this on. It is more likely to succeed here than in the US I think.

GUWonder

Glad to see that you got your way. ^^

The security screening insanity in the "war on liquids" is unfortunately part of an increasingly global epidemic.

Future generations will be entertained by stories of the current international hysteria and at the collectively stupid responses thrust upon us by governments "of 'our' choosing".

oldpenny16

Thanks for the update. You are fighting for all of us!

mikeef

My big fear is that future generations will be saying, "Wow, they didn't drug you, put you to sleep and make you wear a straitjacket on the plane? Cool!"

Mike

GUWonder

That's a possibility too, especially if freedom and privacy aren't appreciated values.

thebug622

Several years ago on a flight from Lax- NRT our plane made a landing at Anchorage because a passenger had left medication in their luggage,now TSA removes it before you fly.

bordeauxboy

I certainly hope this ends up being the outcome. Because...

...the alternative is a little too frightening . Or a little bit too V for Vendetta.