PTravel

Great story from the article (my highlight):

This is REALLY a terrific article. Another quote:

TNGALINFLORIDA

I'm not sure what kind of fly by night practice you go to, but I have never once been alone in the room with my OB-GYN while the exam was performed. And yes, that includes both female and male physicians. There has always been an assistant present during the exam, acting as both an aide and an observer to ensure that nothing innappropriate occurs. Since I don't have a penis, I can't speak for the men on the board, but I would imagine that when they have a prostate exam done, there is also someone in the room observing.

If TSA is perfomring genital manipulation on passengers that choose to a) opt out, b) set off the WTMD or c) have an SSSS on their boarding pass - why is there not a second observer there to witness their actions? Because they've been "trained' to pat the the pax down appropriately?

If we expect and require this of trained medical professionals who have spent years upon years in school studying in their field, why are we not requiring the same of a TSA agent who maybe watched a video, read a handout, and had a little "hands on" training?

InkUnderNails

Are you on speaking terms with terrorists? Your know their intentions with certainty?

Pardon me, but the TSA and DHS is missing out on a great resource by having you screen poor little ol' airplane passengers. With all of your knowledge about what the terrorists know and what they are doing you would be much more valuable in DC.

Or, maybe there is another reason you know so much. You may be one of 'em. No wonder you suspect that everyone might be a terrorist, it's projection.

PTravel

Hunh? So, even though I "believe" I'm not going to blow up a plane, I might blow one up anyway? How does that work? Subliminal suggestion? Hypnotic control? Radio control devices installed in my brain?

You've been watching too many science fiction films. When I board a plane, I can guarantee, 100%, that I am not going to blow it up.

Well, first of all, the folks on Flight 93 didn't crash the plane, the terrorists did. I can say with confidence that 100% of the innocent passengers on Flight 93 boarded knowing with absolute certainty that THEY would not crash the plane.

Your point, which is not, in the least, responsive to mine, is that even though a passenger knows that he himself is not a terrorist, he can't know that about other passengers.

First, that merely validates what I said: Forcing me to be scanned does not increase my security one iota.

The question, then, is: does forcing others to be scanned increase my security? The answer, of course, is, "not really." The reason for that is that TSA isn't looking to stop terrorists from destroying planes. It's looking to stop anyone from bringing on specific implements.

Obviously, it is impossible for TSA to identify every specific implement that could be wielded as a weapon. My ballpoint pen will penetrate your jugular quite nicely. My computer power supply could be used as a perfectly functional sap. My necktie or shoelaces could as easily serve as a garrote. Accordingly, unless TSA requires us to fly naked with nothing, there is no way to prevent "weapons" being brought on board.

Worse still, Al Qaeda & Friends have already demonstrated a technique for bringing on-board quite deadly explosives. All that is required is shoving up one's . . . um . . . nether parts -- they've already carried out one assassination using this technique. Neither frisk nor WBI will detect this.

So, how is my security served by requiring that everyone be x-rayed and/or given an enhanced pat down, particularly when everyone isn't subjected to this humiliating and dangerous procedure?

Wrong. I believe there is no benefit to me in my being screened. That's because, contrary to your science fiction fantasies, I know that I am not going to blow up an airplane.

First, I don't think this is accurate. Regardless, the fact that most passengers believe this (if, in fact, they do) is irrelevant. The question is whether TSA's screening procedures are effective. There have been at least three instances in which, TSA notwithstanding, terrorists have boarded planes, and two of these attempted to blow them up. Moreover, TSA continues to perform hideously on GAO tests of their detection ability. It is clear that, irrespective of some passengers' beliefs, TSA is incapable of keeping weapons off of airplanes and is also completely ineffective at detecting terrorists.

Well, fortunately, there is a third choice: litigate the obvious constitutional violation. That is going to happen and, probably thanks to Capt. Roberts, sooner rather than later. And I think you're going to be very surprised by the result.

Actually, it is your arguments that OBL & Friends love. They have accomplished exactly what they set out to do: disrupted the U.S. and ruined its economy, and YOU and your agency are a primary instrument that they used.

You're certainly not making their jobs any harder. See above. Your agency is a complete failure by any metric.

ryan182

Is this your version of "facts"?

Quick, what number am I thinking of right now? I assume you should know this since you apparently can read people's minds, how else would you claim that someone is wrong when they state they know they aren't going to blow up a plane?

If I say, I know for a fact I will not blow up a plane, least of all one I'm on (I find myself far too important to rob the world of my awesomeness ), how can you seriously claim that is an incorrect statement and further claim that its only a "belief"? Everyone on those planes knew what they were about to do unless your suggesting that an otherwise normal passenger arrived at the airport to take a flight, with no intention or plans to do wrong, and only after getting on the plan they conjured up some weapons and spontaniously decided to hijack them......hmmmm...yeah I don't think that's how it happened. By the same token, I know I am not going to blow up a plane, see simple@:-)


I am starting to gain a better understanding of the "logic" we deal with at checkpoints......

TSORon

OK, so we assume that you are right, you are not going to blow up a plane tomorrow. Will the guy sitting next to you? Can you be absolutely certain of that? And how do I know that you wont change your mind? How about the FA, how is she going to know?

I didn’t say that the passengers crashed it, I said the terrorists did. Kindly read what I wrote. (and of course I should take my own advice, I misread your original statement in the first paragraph above)

Interesting, parsing of words. And on that specific statement I will agree. But scanning you does increase the security of every other person on that plane.

And this is again your belief, not something supported by any facts. IMO you are more than welcome to your belief’s, have at it dude.

Oh, the “all or nothing” argument. Specious.

And it has been decided by the experts in the field that this is not a threat to an aircraft. To small a space for a person to hide enough explosive to critically damage an aircraft, surrounded by energy absorbing tissues, difficult to retain for the length of time needed to get it from the door to the airport to the aircraft and into the air. Again, a non-starter.

Because it’s a pipe dream. It’s a “what if” that cannot work. Its an argument that is reminiscent of the “Man in the Moon”, and it just as inane.

Again, how about the guy next to you, can you say the same of him?

And here we are again back to “belief’s”. Nice circular thinking.

Not really. He made his choice, he didn’t fly. Again I was correct. Now, as to the litigation part, well my experience with the courts tells me that it’s very difficult to tell what a judge is going to do with any given case. Sure, we can speculate, we can quote laws and precedent, and we can demand, but none of that in the end will makes a tinkers dam.

And back to belief’s we come again.

You claim to be an attorney, and I suppose if such is true that you are at least adequate at it. Adequate enough to make a living, and as such you should have an inkling of what I discuss in the previous paragraph. And well then since I claim to be an expert on security and have been doing it for more than 15 years, and continue to make a living at it, then I believe that I have a better understanding of the topic than you do.

By your metrics. The one’s I get to see tell a completely different story. Then again mine are not based on emotion and supposition.

halls120

I can say with a certain amount of certainty that the hardening of cockpit doors and the arming of flight crews poses a greater deterrent to potential terrorists than any aspect of TSA's Kabuki Theater.

I can also say with a great deal of certainty that TSA suppressed the findings of USG aviation experts who, after an 18 month thorough examination of all aspects of aviation security, found under the wing security a far greater threat than passengers. That study never saw the light of day because Chertoff and Kip Hawley knew it would threaten the police-state security apparatus they were so carefully constructing.

camerawork

As always, Halls 120 is right on the mark.
And a simple question to TSO Ron: Without "badging", how many flights, domestic and international, do you take a year? Frequency of travel is the prime reason most of us are so critical of your organization so it would be interesting to see how often you join us without using your creds to get past the frisking and NOS.

Scubatooth

Ron - Im sorry your argument is udder bull cookies. Aircraft were never a medium target they were always a soft target. There are so many other ways of taking a flying object down other then using a take over schema. Your united 93 reference is a shameful patronization of those people who showed true patriotism and did what needed to be done even it it meant giving up there lives. The difference between those on that flight and others is that they took a stand against the hijackers and were determined to take them out. That is sort of what is happening with people taking a stand against TSA as its true colors have been seen and they are not "For out safety" nor good intentions. As sad as it is i dare say there many historical comparisons/parallels of TSA to organizations in the past as well as the 9/11 hijackers.

furthermore there is nothing that TSA has done to stop a terrorist act or even prevent one . The most effective changes that were made by the airlines and the pilots and FA(and there unions) of hardening the cockpit doors and crews not submitting to the demands of idiots attempting anything. TSA is like the FAMS a big expensive embarrassing waste as they havent caught anything and are more show and theater then anything else, that just needs to be buried. Since 9/11 its been passengers that have stopped off events or outbursts on flights at all or before the FAMS sitting in a stolen first class seat could get there, blow there cover and put the idiot in cuffs.

Then a question for you, which cost more in terms of losses (of people, property, jobs, productivity), economic damage in the short and long-term. the events of 9/11 or 2001 numbers killed/injured in auto accidents on the roads/interstates/etc?

Superguy

Are you willing to tell someone who's been raped, sexually abused, or otherwise sexually assaulted that such a scan that can see them naked isn't going to cause them any harm?

bluenotesro

Something mentioned in the article was CrewPass. Korean air crews at Incheon simply scan their ids at a dedicated line and 'voila' they're through the lines if outgoing and immi when incoming.

I assume they have been pre-screened and checked out and, for the Koreans, the ID is sufficient to by-pass the peasants' security lines and immi lines.

Makes sense....why can't the Americans do it?

Keyser

very well done michael....if there were only more pilots like you then we would be rid of this problem altogether....

Bouncer

The easiest way to get TSA to reverse their policy is for EVERY pilot on EVERY airline to simply go on strike until the policy is rescinded. It'll take about 24-48hrs, MAX. And TSORon and all his arguments for it will be stuffed by his superiors when they realize that, gosh golly, you NEED pilots for an air transport system more than you need some assinine rule. But of course it won't be his superiors who make that call. It'll be their superiors superiors superiors.

The CEO's of United/Continental, Delta/NWA, US Airways, SouthWest, UPS, Fedex, and DHL airlines will be on a conference call with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security within an hour after the strike starts. I wouldn't be surprised if the President or Vice-President sat in. Napolitano will be told to solve this right-effing-now as this is costing the economy billions of dollars a day and that's not something we can afford.

She will tell TSA to suspend the program immediately until "further review" is conducted. Calls will flow down hill, and Michael will be able to, just like he has for the last four years, go to work and do his job.

Even though I have flights coming up soon, I would welcome a wide spread civil action on the part of all commercial cargo/passenger pilots to start to stem the tide of the TSAs air-safety theater crap.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Boggie Dog

Since our elected representatives seem uninterested in the public's opinion about TSA civil disobedience might be the only remaining avenue to effect change with TSA.

Electronic Strip Searches, invasive pat downs of the genitals, naked images of children and all the other indignities forced on travelers must be balanced with the real threat to aviation.

I for one think DHS/TSA is using fear mongering to advance their agenda and that agenda does not relate to any real terrorist threat.

bdschobel

I also would love to see airline employees, not just pilots but certainly including them, strike in protest of obnoxious, counterproductive TSA actions. I have spoken with countless (at least hundreds) of airline employees who utterly despise the TSA. But nobody ever does anything about it! Everyone is too intimidated. (Except Michael Roberts, that is!!!)

Bruce