Originally Posted by
Superguy
Ah, a sister agency to TSA under the DHS umbrella. I'd really like to see a non-DHS study of that.
Well, the tactics are Delta Force tactics, and they're the ones who set up the drill, so I personally take that as gold.
This puts us back to the blame game. If you ask TSA, they'll blame the airlines for this. If you ask the airlines, they blame TSA.
Indeed. But as a FLEO I know who it is that demands me preboard, and that is the pilot.
I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of "high risk" flights that don't have FAMs on them. And even if there is higher risk, higher risk compared to what? Are we talking like 1 in a million vs. 1 in a billion?
I'm not sure how they compute it. But by risk I don't think its economic as much as likelihood, but I may be wrong on this. As far as many high risks not having FAMs, I think that is more a manpower issue than anything else.
Wish they would have given us literature and notes as it was primarily a lecture. Small class and it was a very good class (interestingly enough, the gov't contracted a Canadian to teach it), but they didn't give us much to take home. A lot of good survival skills taught in that class though.
Interesting. I would have liked to attend that. My experience and education says that moving dramatically increases your life expectancy.
To Be Honest ... sorry gamer lingo coming thru.
I'm a gamer too, but not online so much. The ten year old kids whipping me is hell on my therapy bill.
And I think the first principle is where you and a lot of us get hung up. You see it as necessary while a lot of us don't. We all have our reasons for thinking why we do.
Absolutely. If you can't agree on the first principle then the rest is irrelevant. Take, for instance, Texas Dawg. He is opposed to any type of screening unless the business wants it. So everything else is mute. Other people will say that screening is a good idea, then get hung up on the best way to do it (TSA vs. private, weapons vs. bombs, etc.).
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not too confident that many of them care what they have to enforce. It's just a job to a lot of them at this point.
I'd disagree with this. A lot of them have risked their careers to highlight security issues and effect change, particularly in the FAMS.