FlyerTalk Forums - Editorials on Secure Flight

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)

- - Editorials on Secure Flight (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/1020681-editorials-secure-flight.html)

Editorials on Secure Flight

See USA Today for 2 editorials regarding secure flight and an article regarding screening of cargo

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ir-cargo_N.htm

Quote:

All of which makes us skeptical about Secure Flight. There's always been the question of whether any watch-listed terrorist would be dumb enough to fly under his own name. The new obsession with matching the boarding pass and ID names raises a similar question: Wouldn't any semi-intelligent terrorist make a reservation under an alias and use an ID that matched it exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom M. (Post 12878905)

See USA Today for 2 editorials regarding secure flight and an article regarding screening of cargo

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ir-cargo_N.htm

Paul Leyh, director of the Transportation Security Administration's Secure Flight program, wrote a passive-voice mumbling op-op-ed defending his program:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...safe.html#more:

Quote:

By matching all of this data against watch lists, Secure Flight keeps known or suspected terrorists from flying while reducing the hassle for people who had previously been inconvenienced because their name was similar to someone who is actually on a watch list. By supplying this information, more than 99% of passengers will be cleared. Aside from providing this additional reservation information, passengers' experience under Secure Flight will be unchanged.

Which still leaves up to 20,000 passengers per day uncleared by this tiger-repellent-rock of a program. The "unchanged passengers' experience" is true since there are less than 1-in-5.6 billion passenger-terrorists flying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Gel-pack (Post 12879512)

I missed who he worked for. Knowing he works for TSA explains a lot about why it was unintelligible drivel that really didn't say much.

Did you fly with your six pounds today?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom M. (Post 12878905)

and an article regarding screening of cargo

Quote:

The report raises "legitimate concerns," as the TSA is under congressional mandate to tighten scrutiny of the 12 million pounds of cargo carried each day alongside luggage in passenger planes, said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

Well there is an interesting number. Two million pax fly domestic per day, sitting on 12 million pounds of cargo. Six pounds of cargo per pax. Assuming TSA is up to about 85% cargo screening, that is about one pound of unscreened cargo per pax on every flight today. One pound is the weight of the pint bottle of Poland Springs High Explosive Spring Water the TSO stole from the pax and threw in the Rubbermaid Grey Plastic Hazardous Waste and Bomb Disposal Trash Can Unit at the checkpoint.

Which presents a greater risk to the pax, a bottle of "water" carried by a fellow pax, or the one pound of unscreened cargo 12 inches under his feet?

TSA, PV, Rong, and Blogdad Bob cannot aswer that question, as it would cause them to actually discuss Risk Management instead of Knee Jerk Reaction to Pseudo Chemistry by British High School Dropout Jihad Wannabees.

Just about all comments are anti-TSA. People are getting it. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ir-cargo_N.htm

"The report shows the TSA does not have enough personnel to handle new rules for screening cargo, he said. Passenger planes carry everything from produce and medical supplies to computers and auto parts."

TSA wants to inspect repair shops but doesn't have staff enough to ensure cargo is inspected.

Seems some TSA Gate Gropers could be redeployed and actually accomplish something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 12880101)

The report shows the TSA does not have enough personnel to handle new rules for screening cargo, he said. Passenger planes carry everything from produce and medical supplies to computers and auto parts.

Of course, if TSA focused its resources on things that mattered instead of gate gropes, ID checks, ~~FAA~~ maintenance site inspections, BDOs, and nude-o-scopes, it would have the resources and personnel needed to accomplish cargo screening. Can't claim lack of resources to do a task when the existing resources are wasted and/or poorly used. TSA should reallocate the resources to accomplish what's needed and trim the waste, and THEN we can discuss needing more personnel to secure cargo if it's still found to be lacking.