Originally Posted by
saulblum
Ron, how many guns were found at checkpoints each year in the decade before the TSA entered the scene? I don't have the numbers, so I am asking. But I am willing to bet that it is comparable to today's numbers, except twenty years ago there probably was not a news story every time a passenger was caught with a gun.
And I'll ask again: how many of those same guns would have been caught if checkpoints continued to only use metal detectors and baggage x-rays. Again, I have no numbers, but I am willing to bet that almost all the "good finds" were using those two screening devices.
I admit that I am a wealth of knowledge and experience for the F/T crowd to use, but that is information I don’t have. If you find it please share.
Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
Kinda like the cannonball experiment they did earlier this week, right? Tell that to the home owner.
Try re-reading what I wrote please, not what you think I wrote.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
A valid point. There IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE. So why does TSA continuously add more layers to an already-bloated and near-impractical system, violating peoples' Constitutional rights, causing pain, humiliation, and discomfort (and quite possibly, cancer clusters which may needlessly take hundreds of lives over time) to millions of travelers, and spending billions of dollars, in the pursuit of an impossible ideal?
First of all the view that TSA is bloated and impractical is again one of those myths. Makes nice copy though.
Second, as it stands right now the courts say that we are within the confines of the constitution. That may change eventually, but then again it may not. Your opinion on the matter counts as exactly 1/300,000,000th. I believe you will find that yours is a really small island upon which to stand.
Third, all goals of perfection are impossible. That’s why they are called goals. Who was it that said the goal is not an important as the journey?
As for the rest, yes, sometimes things don’t go as we would like. But of the 1.8 million passengers who transit a TSA checkpoint every day, there is a minuscule percentage that feel the same way you do. A percentage so small that it cannot be quantified. Again, a very small island.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
Doesn't your union contend that today's TSOs are also under-paid and under-motivated? And given the number of complaints addressed by re-training, doesn't it seem like they're under-trained today as well?
Yeah, and they get paid a great deal of money to say that. But they are not “my” union, I don’t like unions and refuse to join.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
I'm not a frequent flier, but I remember security prior to 9/11, and in the 9 years between 9/11 and the implementation of the AIT/full-body-rubdown/podium interrogation methodology.
Technology advances.
This was my first cell phone. I don’t carry it anymore. Do you still carry something like it?
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
It bears repeating, Ron: 9/11 was NOT a failure of airport screening.
An inaccurate belief bears repeating? If you are unwilling to read the 9/11 Commission report then you are unwilling to find the facts. There were several failures in screening on that day, by airport screeners, and their supervisors. The 9/11 Commission report details them for us. Would you like a link? It’s a very interesting read.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
The weapons used by the hijackers were permitted items under the rules of the day, so no matter how good or bad the screening may have been on that day, airport screening COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED 9/11.
Some were, some were not. Again, read the 9/11 Commission report. You would be amazed by how much you don’t know about that day.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
It's big! It's up high! It moves fast! It's dangerous! Yada, yada, yada.
Sure, an airplane is a large and dangerous vehicle which has been used as a weapon of war many times in the past. And you certainly bring up a valid point about shooting through the door - assuming that the hardened cockpit doors won't stop a bullet, and assuming that a person with ill intent is able to bring a gun onto the plane (quite possible, considering your agency's abysmal record of allowing guns through the checkpoint that's supposed to be looking for them), assuming that the shooter is able to incapacitate the ENTIRE flight crew, and assuming the moment an evil-doer pulls the gun and starts shooting randomly into the flight deck, he's not tackled and beaten within an inch of his life by the other pax.
So, in your world FA’s are also pilots? Interesting experience base in your world.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
But aircraft are not likely to crash into buildings, either. You think an unpiloted plane will seek out a tall building and plow into it the way the 9/11 planes did? Hogwash! Those guys had to take piloting classes to learn how to fly the planes, and they were barely able to hit their marks. I suppose that if a bad guy took out the ENTIRE flight crew of a plane on approach to a major city airport like Laguardia or Reagan, the plane might fly itself into a populated neighborhood and kill a bunch of people. In NYC, it might even fly into a skyscraper, since there are a lot of them in a small area. But it's a crapshoot; you take out the ENTIRE flight crew, and the plane might crash someplace, or it might crash someplace else. Such an attack is so random and so difficult to predict casualty levels that it's an extremely unlikely attack vector.
“What goes up must come down.” Agreed? There are many examples available if you question this. One only need kill the actual flight crew to bring the plane down uncontrolled. Hardened cockpit doors, remember?
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
And by the way, poking holes in an aircraft with bullets will not cause explosive decompression.
AS I said to JKH, Try re-reading what I wrote please, not what you think I wrote.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
The holes are too small; they're nothing but leaks in the pressure vessel. Over time, they would cause a loss of cabin pressure and require the plane to descend to breathable altitude, but they won't bring the plane down, and they won't kill the occupants (though the bullets might on their way out). Planes can still be landed even with rather large holes in them.
See here for an example, and it's a WAY larger hole than any bullet could ever make.
I remember that one. An interesting case. How many people died in that one? Were those sucked out given the opportunity to decide to “be the one”, or was it a random act caused by the aircraft and the forces acting upon it, and what makes you think they were given a choice?