Neither is the scenario of someone trying to attempt a 9/11-style hijacking, either. But that's what we seem to be trying to defend against these days.

I agree with a lot of what was written. TSA needs,amongst other things to treat passengers and people. Not treat them as 'suspects'. What about so called 'liquid drink testing' after security. This is by far the most stupid idea ever.

It's far easier than you seem to think to generate a fake barcode. The schemes for state ID barcodes are all open standards. There's a website where you can scan your ID barcode and decode it in seconds to see what information is there. Spending money on barcode scanners is not the answer to anything.

Thank you for the informative opening post.

However you are wrong on one item. Please check before repeating �facts� you may have heard around the coffee table at work. There is a lot of misinformation out there. I am sure much is spread by the older generation of the Created by 9/11� employees.

The 9/11 Staff Report disproves your claim quoted above. From the report it appears a total of 6 hijackers had direct immigration violations, three for giving false information on their applications and three for violations on their visa entry provisions.

However all 19 had some sort of US visa and all had been questioned by INS, several in secondary questioning because they were suspicious, and allowed into the US. Thirteen of the 19 had valid visas on 9/11, due to the mentioned violations.

Only two 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visa, one by four months and the other by nine months. Running the 9/11 hijacker passports under the rules in place at the time would have cleared at least 13 and probably 17 of them. Your claim that they were "all overstayers" is simply wrong.

And they followed all screening procedures in place at the time. Everything they carried on board was legal, and they were properly screened by prevailing regulations.

Along with others who have posted, I disagree with the notion that �ID=Security.� Checkpoints are NOT warrantless �Papers Please� universal dragnets, although you seem to be in the group that believes they should be. Your desire to link checkpoints to more and more instant check databases is called a "Police State" in my opinion.

The 9/11 hijackers showed real IDs in their real names that matched their real BPs on tickets in their real names. If the airline computer check allowed them to buy a ticket and get a BP today, their IDs would pass your checkpoint today. Proving your whole ID Theatre is just a joke.

And �95% of the passengers are low risk�??? You screen 2 million per day, and you are telling me 5% or 100,000 PER DAY are High Risk? In ten years you have seen 365 MILLION high risk passengers? TSA has found ZERO terrorists total in ten years. ZERO is a long way from 365,000,000. If you really believe that 5% of the passengers you see daily are a threat to the flight they are about to board, then you need to put in for hazardous duty pay. And have the bomb squad remove every botle of confiscated water.

Absolutely untrue.

You don't think pilots can be bribed? Especially an RJ pilot that makes $24k per year, and thinks he is just transporting marijuana for his friend, but it is actually a bomb?

You don't think that officials can be bribed to let people become pilots?

http://www.examiner.com/homeland-sec...pilot-licenses

Exactly... It is shocking that some people do not realize this. If somebody said that 9/11 would happen to me in August 2001, I would have shrugged my shoulders and said, "yeah, maybe." These are remote possibilities.

The point is that the TSA should close obvious, huge holes to security and NOT create new ones. Then, they should decide an appropriate level of general security (WTMD, I suggest), and not attempt to do strip searches or overly invasive searches on a routine basis.

Terrorists will go after the easiest "hole" in security. Giving pilots a free pass to the secure area creates a huge new large hole.

Of course you have every right to not answer the questions. Its not going to land you in jail for not answering the questions. It might make you seem a little uncooperative, and maybe youll get a little more screening. But thats about as far as it would go...

I know where i work, weve had cases of people who just dont like the screening process getting loud and angry. The supervisors call the BDO's and tell them the person is showing unusual behavior. THe BDO's usually can tell in about 2 seconds that the person isnt a threat... Theres a big difference between someone who is pissed off because they are inconvinienced and just dont like screening, and someone who is truley angry to the extent that hes going to inflict harm on others. Most of us who have been around a while, have learned to tell the difference. Others assume that because someone's swearing and yelling, they are automatically a bad guy. No, theyre just pissed.

The behaviors they are looking for arent your everyday guy who is pissed off because he doesnt like to take his shoes off, or someone who is a little nervous because theyve never flown before. There are very specific behaviorial traits that would be an indication that someone is in the mindset of doing physical harm to others. Afterall, if a bad guy is smuggling something in his shoes, the last thing hes going to do is throw a fit over taking his shoes off. Or if he is asked questions, the last thing hes going to do is not answer them at all. Hes going to answer them pretty plainly as if rehearsed. Heck, getting a little annoyed when being asked questions by the guvment IS normal behavior.

No, I don't (ATPL in the US).

Wow, you're that smart? It's so simple, all you have to do is derive from what you know of the passenger! Success to you, old chap.

Here is a documentary training video, demonstrating one technique of "mind-reading" threat detection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

Well, I'm very happy you aren't in charge of security. That is simply a silly assertion.

I'd also like to think that all [pilots, doctors, police, lawyers, judges, <insert group here>] can't be bribed to do anything wrong, but it is simply an untrue statement, despite the fact that in magical-thinking land it would be wonderful to assume otherwise.

Ok, +5 ^ for the PB reference. I love that movie and still can't pass it on the tv...

(bolding mine) Good points.

It is unprofessional to retaliate against anyone who questions any aspect of the process (such as 'opting out', particularly if the physical limitation is not immediately obvious to the screener, the screener assumes that the pax is lying about the disability and decides to 'teach' him/her a lesson by giving him/her a punitive grope).

It is also unprofessional to lie and exaggerate (it is also wrong for the pax to do this). Not everyone who disagrees or asks a question or tries to volunteer helpful information (like the cancer survivor who was not allowed to provide the card explaining the apparent anomaly in her breasts) - not everyone who does this is really 'yelling and hostile and showing attitude'.

good points. Anyways, ive said pretty much all ive had to say here... just be patient, remember alot of us are just as frustrated as the pax are. Changes are coming, its just taking time.

personally, im hoping to get into the agriculture business soon and leave behind the hussle and bussle of the airport.

safe flying guys. ^

That is what many people are afraid of, knowing the history of the TSA.

Quit widening the discussion.

The premise that a commercial pilot in uniform and on duty could be bribed to carry something dangerous through a TSA checkpoint is beyond silly; it boggles the imagination. Where have you been the past 10 years ?

What makes a uniformed on-duty commercial pilot so special that they are not susceptible to bribery? (Or even through coercion of threat to family?)

While it may be silly and boggle the imagination, the reality is that it can happen (and likely has). If you want to discuss from the standpoint that the odds of it happening are small or it's only happened for innocuous banned items like a cupcake in a jar, then I can agree with that assertion.

However, with TSA's "every passenger is a terrorist until proven not" attitude and the small chance of a pilot being bribed not being at all different than the potential of the average passenger being a terrorist, why should the screening be any different?