Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Is the TSA intentionally hyping incidents where guns are found?

Is the TSA intentionally hyping incidents where guns are found?

Old Dec 7, 11, 7:49 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
You make an interesting point, but miss the obvious. You can’t be flown into a building unless you are on board an aircraft, so while the threat really does exist to you on the street, it’s the same personal risk that every person in this country faces.
That's a very very weak argument and I think you know it.

The only way the airplane is going to be flown into a building is if the captain allows the bad guy access to the cockpit. Sure a bad guy to try to coerce the captain to grant such access by threatening a passenger with a gun. But that same bad guy could use an object legally on board the airplane to make just as lethal a threat. What makes you you think the captain will open the cockpit door to prevent someone being killed with a gun and not open it to prevent someone being killed with some other object?
OttawaMark is offline  
Old Dec 7, 11, 8:33 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 156
Just let it go, he'll say just about anything to justify his employer's continued existence including trying to discredit one of the only two things to have actually improved commercial aviation safety in the last 10 years (hint: the other one doesn't work for the government).
TheOneTheOnly is offline  
Old Dec 7, 11, 8:48 pm
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
You make an interesting point, but miss the obvious. You can’t be flown into a building unless you are on board an aircraft, so while the threat really does exist to you on the street, it’s the same personal risk that every person in this country faces.
Ron, the final two layers of US aviation security (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/layered_strategy.shtm) -- hardened cockpit doors and passengers -- will assure that no more planes will be hijacked and flown into buildings.

And frankly, those two layers alone would have been just as effective the past decade as all the others, at a fraction of the cost.

A gun in an airplane cabin is not much more dangerous than the same gun in a crowded mall or on a bus or train. There may be several casualties, but that gun will not turn the plane into a weapon.
saulblum is offline  
Old Dec 8, 11, 12:12 pm
  #19  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,575
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
When the “Red Team” does a test, they ALWAYS out-brief the officers and that airports management team. Sometimes we miss them, sometimes we don’t. They have the advantage in knowing what our procedures are and how we screen, so its expected that we should miss some of their tests. We see them as learning opportunities more than anything else..........
By "out-brief" do you mean a post-mortem or informing you (not you specifically ) that the test is going to be held on a certain date or during a certain time period? As we have all learned, the latter doesn't work as there are still failures with this kind of open book test.
goalie is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 12:56 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by saulblum View Post
Ron, the final two layers of US aviation security (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/layered_strategy.shtm) -- hardened cockpit doors and passengers -- will assure that no more planes will be hijacked and flown into buildings.
Sorry but no. Neither of those two measures provide an absolute guarantee that it won’t happen again. All they do is provide 2 additional layers that may be difficult to overcome, but no promises. And as for hardened cockpit doors, read below.

Originally Posted by saulblum View Post
And frankly, those two layers alone would have been just as effective the past decade as all the others, at a fraction of the cost.
I disagree. Screeners prior to 9/11 were under-trained, under-paid, under-motivated, and did not have access to the intelligence venues and operational authority that the TSA has. The 9/11 Commission Report clearly states this. Would you like a link to it? It’s actually very interesting reading.

Originally Posted by saulblum View Post
A gun in an airplane cabin is not much more dangerous than the same gun in a crowded mall or on a bus or train. There may be several casualties, but that gun will not turn the plane into a weapon.
Also untrue. A gun in an airplane cabin be the initial starting point of explosive decompression, which neither a mall, bus, or train can be subject to. Additionally, a hardened cockpit door may not prevent a fired round from penetrating into the cockpit and killing the air crew, you know, the folks driving the plane. And while it may kill a bus driver or a train engineer, neither of those travel at 600mph 30,000 feet above the ground. A bus will stop, as will a train eventually, and the chances of folks surviving is pretty high. Not so with an aircraft. Nor are either likely to crash into a high-rise building and cause it to collapse killing everyone inside and those in the immediate vicinity.
TSORon is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 1:01 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by goalie View Post
By "out-brief" do you mean a post-mortem or informing you (not you specifically ) that the test is going to be held on a certain date or during a certain time period? As we have all learned, the latter doesn't work as there are still failures with this kind of open book test.
An "out brief" is an after action report. It’s a military term that the TSA has adopted, and the military uses to discuss what worked and what did not, and why. It provides both the testers and the tested opportunities to learn from each other and improve performance on both sides.

Oh, and BTW, the Red Team only provides notice of a test to the local law enforcement agency who are required by federal law to not notify those being tested. That way it cuts down on the casualties of an unformed police officer charging into a test situation thinking it’s a real-world incident.
TSORon is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 2:49 pm
  #22  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
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.
saulblum is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 3:31 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
A gun in an airplane cabin be the initial starting point of explosive decompression
Myth.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 3:40 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,108
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Sorry but no. Neither of those two measures provide an absolute guarantee that it won’t happen again. All they do is provide 2 additional layers that may be difficult to overcome, but no promises. And as for hardened cockpit doors, read below.
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?

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
I disagree. Screeners prior to 9/11 were under-trained, under-paid, under-motivated, and did not have access to the intelligence venues and operational authority that the TSA has. The 9/11 Commission Report clearly states this. Would you like a link to it? It’s actually very interesting reading.
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?

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. It bears repeating, Ron: 9/11 was NOT a failure of airport screening. 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.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Also untrue. A gun in an airplane cabin be the initial starting point of explosive decompression, which neither a mall, bus, or train can be subject to. Additionally, a hardened cockpit door may not prevent a fired round from penetrating into the cockpit and killing the air crew, you know, the folks driving the plane. And while it may kill a bus driver or a train engineer, neither of those travel at 600mph 30,000 feet above the ground. A bus will stop, as will a train eventually, and the chances of folks surviving is pretty high. Not so with an aircraft. Nor are either likely to crash into a high-rise building and cause it to collapse killing everyone inside and those in the immediate vicinity.
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.

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.

And by the way, poking holes in an aircraft with bullets will not cause explosive decompression. 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.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 4:23 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
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.
To help your point, aircraft crashing in crowded areas have not typically done much damage either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_587 <- 1 killed on the ground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_191 <- 2 killed on the ground
TheOneTheOnly is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 7:05 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by saulblum View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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?
TSORon is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 7:47 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Kinda like the cannonball experiment they did earlier this week, right? Tell that to the home owner.
What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Try re-reading what I wrote please, not what you think I wrote.
I did, and I don't see the contradiction.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Dec 10, 11, 9:38 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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.
Checkpoint Operations Guide. This document was approved by the
FAA. The edition of this guide in place on September 11, 2001, classified “box cutters,”
for example as “Restricted” items that were not permitted in the passenger cabin of an
aircraft. The checkpoint supervisor was required to be notified if an item in this category
was encountered. Passengers would be given the option of having those items
transported as checked baggage. “Mace,” “pepper spray,” as well as “tear gas” were
categorized as hazardous materials and passengers could not take items in that category
on an airplane without the express permission of the airline.
On the other hand, pocket utility knives (less than 4 inch blade) were allowed. The
Checkpoint Operations Guide provided no further guidance on how to distinguish
between “box cutters” and “pocket utility knives.”
...
they had to develop a plan they felt would work anywhere they
were screened, regardless of the quality of the screener. We believe they developed such
a plan and practiced it in the months before the attacks, including in test flights, to be sure
their tactics would work. In other words, we believe they did not count on a sloppy screener.
...
Our best working hypothesis is that a number of the hijackers were carrying permissible
utility knives or pocket knives
. One example of such a utility knife is this “Leatherman”
item. We know that at least two knives like this were actually purchased by hijackers and
have not been found in the belongings the hijackers left behind.
Unless Ron subsequently found some other weapons which everyone else somehow didn't, the evidence is that the act of screening did not fail.

A revisionist could claim that the rules per the Checkpoint Operations Guide were insufficient, and perhaps they were, but that has no bearing on whether the private employees were or were not less competent than their current government equivalents.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Dec 11, 11, 9:47 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,108
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
First of all the view that TSA is bloated and impractical is again one of those myths. Makes nice copy though.
An agency which employs 65,000 people to screen 450 locations is not bloated and inefficient? Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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.
My opinion is shared by hundreds of people on FT alone, and tens of thousands more in travelers' groups, civil rights organizations, and web sites all across the US, so my island is a lot bigger than you think.

And, um - which court cases have been adjudicated since late 2010 that said the current screening methodology is within the confines of the Constitution? Refresh my memory, because I was under the impression that not one single lawsuit filed against the current methodology has yet been judged or settled.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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.
There is a minuscule percentage who complain here on FT, but that doesn't mean that the percentage who agree with me is limited to FT. People may not get in your face at the airport and complain to you by the dozen, but that's because they're afraid of your agency, your uniform, your badge, and afraid of the threats and intimidation tactics that your agency has used to quell free speech - threats of denial of flight, retaliatory screening procedures, arrest and detainment, confiscation of property, and other forms of harassment. Don't take their silence to mean agreement, Ron; it mostly means they're cowed and afraid, not that they're cheering you on.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Technology advances. This was my first cell phone. I don’t carry it anymore. Do you still carry something like it?
We're not talking about technology here, Ron, we're talking about freedoms, about rights, and about abusive governmental power. Yes, the AIT scanners are remarkable pieces of technology - but so is endoscopy. Should that be used as a screening method to differentiate between legitimate medical metal and implanted explosives?

The AIT scanners and full-body rubdowns DO have a place; I've always said that. Their place is at police stations, where they should never be used without a search warrant. Using them on innocent travelers to resolve WTMD alarms, without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion, when less invasive, less dangerous methods (i.e. HHMDs, ETD swabs, and limited area pat-downs) are available, constitutes an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment, and is specifically prohibited by the Davis decision which created the administrative search doctrine in the first place. ("...does not exceed constitutional limitations provided that the screening process is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose...")

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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.

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.
WallyBird's quote pretty much debunks your ridiculous assertion here. Knives and some other sharps were not prohibited. The hijackers used knives or some other sharps to hijack the planes. The exact type of sharps is not known; they are commonly referred to as "box cutters" but could have been Leatherman multitools or some other type of small knife. The items they used were not prohibited, so the hijackers were able to carry them aboard the planes with impunity because they were cleared by screening. Screening did not fail that day. Your belief that it did is an inaccurate belief, which you, and many others, continue to repeat as some sort of justification for TSA's existence and continued mission creep and ever more draconian screening measures which violate the rights of travelers and sometimes put their health in danger.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
So, in your world FA’s are also pilots? Interesting experience base in your world.
Say what? Where did I mention FAs being pilots? Where did I even mention FAs? What in the name of the Seven Pillars of Booloo are you talking about?

As you said to JKH, try re-reading what I wrote, please, not what you think I wrote.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
“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?
You missed the entire point of what I said. As you said to JKH, try re-reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Yes, as I said, if you kill the ENTIRE flight crew, through the cockpit door, the plane will quite probably crash when it runs out of fuel. That's not a certainty, however, since the plane could be on auto-pilot at the time of the attack, and could remain in the air long enough to be landed safely by an unqualified person such as a flight attendant or passenger with piloting experience, if they are able to break into the cockpit. Again, that particular vector is a crapshoot with some possibility of success, but no certainties. Getting into the cockpit after the flight crew is dead or incapacitated is iffy, but not impossible; an unqualified person landing a plane with radio guidance from the ground is iffy, but not impossible; the possibility of someone with real piloting experience being on board as a passenger is iffy, but not impossible. The plane will probably crash. But it might not.

And the gist of what I was saying is that, although it's possible (just not certain) to bring a plane down IF the attacker is able to kill the ENTIRE flight crew THROUGH the cockpit door before being stopped by the other pax, it's not possible to use the plane as a guided missile using that attack vector, because the attackers will be overcome by the pax and not be able to get into the cockpit to guide the plane to a specific target. The best they can hope for is that the plane would crash into a random highly populated area such as a dense cityscape like lower Manhattan.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
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?
What's the price of grapes in Carthage? I have no idea what you're talking about with the "choice" thing.

That incident had one fatality, a flight attendant who was blown out of the hole because she was not belted into her seat at the time (which is a great argument for remaining belted in any time you're seated, whether the light is on or not, but that's a completely irrelevant aside). Why was she blown out? Because the hole was bigger than she was.

How big is a bullet hole? Can people be blown through them? No? Hence, my original assertion that decompressing an aircraft cabin by shooting a few holes in it will not kill anyone except those who may be hit by the bullets on their way from the gun to the cabin walls. And, I think you glossed over my other assertion that shooting a few holes in the cabin will not bring down the plane; obviously, some >1" diameter holes will cause far less damage to a plane than the huge chunk of Aloha 243's roof that was ripped off, yet Aloha 243 was able to divert and land safely.

My point, which you completely missed before you went off on some wild and irrelevant tangents, is that guns and knives remain a threat to the individual people aboard the aircraft, but no threat to the aircraft itself. Thgus, the possibility of hijackers gaining control of an aircraft using those weapons and turning it into a guided missile, as they did on 9/11, is so remote that we shouldn't even be discussing it here. That threat vector has been closed for all practical intents and purposes, and not by anything that TSA does at the checkpoint; the vector was closed by the locking and reinforcing of cockpit doors to prevent hijacker access, and by the complete change in public attitude toward cooperation with armed hijackers.

As you said to JKH, try re-reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

The one thing that you and I agree on, Ron, is that guns are dangerous items that should be prohibited from commercial aircraft cabins. But harping on the dangers of a gun-weiding psycho bringing down a plane is both utter nonsense and an intentional distraction from the current threats, from TSA's lousy record of missing prohibited items, and from TSA's deliberate and systematic history of violating Constitutional rights, failing to follow its own internal SOP, poorly training its people, and flouting Congressional authority.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Dec 11, 11, 3:39 pm
  #30  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,575
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
An "out brief" is an after action report. It’s a military term that the TSA has adopted, and the military uses to discuss what worked and what did not, and why. It provides both the testers and the tested opportunities to learn from each other and improve performance on both sides.

Oh, and BTW, the Red Team only provides notice of a test to the local law enforcement agency who are required by federal law to not notify those being tested. That way it cuts down on the casualties of an unformed police officer charging into a test situation thinking it’s a real-world incident.
Thanks ^ tho you could have saved the bandwidth and just left it at "after action report" <ducking> but I do have a question with the bolded part.....

If the local LEO's are not supposed to notify those being tested and only they and the Red Team know about the tests, how does an airport like EWR find out about it (and then still fail )?
goalie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: