polonius

This is the heart of the issue. I'm still waiting for a politician to explain to me why they'd rather tolerate half a million traffic deaths annually instead of imposing draconian requirements on the issuance of driving licences or implementing expensive technical barriers to bad driving, e.g., systems that make it impossible to start a vehicle if you are impaired. As the cops are so fond of reminding us, "driving is a privilege, not a right", yet they are more willing to sacrifice 100s of thousand lives to protect this privilege, than they are to shrug off what is at most a few dozen deaths due to "terrorism" in order to protect those things which ARE our rights. Same goes for American politicians when it comes to gun control - they continue to look indifferently at the 30 - 40K killed every year by firearms rather than impose any restrictions because guns are a "second amendment right" (not that the second amendment says anything about the "right" of people who are obviously not qualified to own a firearm to do so anyway); yet 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights -- and other rights -- are cheerfully consigned to the dustbin in an effort to control what is by comparison is more of a nuisance than a real threat. And this is only the start of the list -- smoking, obesity, poor diet, lack of exercise, lack of infrastructure maintenance, etc. etc. etc. there are probably over a thousand things that are higher up on the list of stuff you need to worry about than terrorism, and we have no problem tolerating those deaths rather than accepting compromises to our personal liberty. Accepting things like the TSA, the war on liquids and the patriot act make about as much sense as surrendering your freedom in order to help the FBI do a better job of protecting people from alligator attacks in Central Park. Such deaths may happen, but we have far bigger problems to worry about. And of course because the TSA sucks budget away from threats that are real, the TSA is actually responsible for causing deaths -- take away the TSA budget, let a plane or two drop out of the sky every year, and spend the 40 billion saved on free yoga lessons and your net gain in lives saved would be counted in the 10s of thousands.

PhoenixRev

Oh, well, since others are doing it, I guess that makes it A-OK.

halls120

No, It's probably because I associate with people of a higher caliber than you do. Moreover, I wouldn't have tolerated that kind of crap amongst people under my command. That you apparently think it is acceptable say a lot about you.

halls120

FAMs are next to useless against an IED but can be very effective against hijackings. [/quote]

And how many "traditional" hijackings occur each year? Training and maintaining a corps of FAMs can't be cheap, and when the threat they are most effective against is low, it is a horrible misuse of experienced personnel.

Because we need pilots on an aircraft. FAMs just take up revenue producing seats. Arm enough pilots (or more) so that you have the same or better coverage as with FAMs, and you've enacted a security layer that is both effective and economical.

Probably, but the lack of honesty amongst the politicians we pay to lead us is disgusting.

Boggie Dog

Not Hals120 but the way I see it no one can hijack an aircraft unless they gain access to the flight deck.

If the pilots are armed that access will likely be unsuccessful.

Superguy

Halls made some good points that I agree with, so I'll let his points stand so I don't have to waste the time of repeating him.

But this was my friend's point - that the FAMs would be able to do something against an underwear bomber.

For the most part, they sit watching the cockpit door to deal with an attempted hijacking attempt. All well and good, but they're likely not going to see someone trying to detonate a bomb (either in front of them or behind them) unless they're sitting right next to the person. In that case, you're entirely relying on the pax around the would-be-bomber to do something to try to thwart the attack. Fortunately, people do in those situations.

He was worried to the point that he would be willing to divide up his family (2 parents, 4 kids) across 2 flights to ensure that if something were to happen that his entire family wouldn't be wiped out. I asked him why then he had no problem taking his whole family in the family minivan where they were much more likely to be killed. Pretty much what it boiled down to was the "control" issue. The feeling of control in the car vs. the feeling of lack of control in the plane. Of course, that doesn't account for his wife and kids not having any control in the car too, nor does it account that an accident can be caused by some idiot completely out of his control too.

tsadude1

So you were an officer? Wasnt the Tailhook incident officers? Your guilty by association.

Superguy

Is that the awesome BDO training kicking in?

jkhuggins

Do you really want to go there?

As a result of Tailhook, fourteen admirals, and almost 300 naval aviators, either had their careers ended or permanently damaged --- many publicly. What kind of accountability will those involved with this incident experience?

halls120

LOL, nice try dude. You still haven't refuted the idea that you actually support these morons, so I guess that makes you just as guilty by association, right?

law dawg

How many school fires happen a year? And yet we still train students and teachers and the like for them. Are they wastes of time and money? Same principle.

Two problems, IMO-
1)International flights. FFDOs can't cover them
2)FFDOs are of no benefit in a non-9/11 type hijacking.

With this, I can find no argument.

halls120

How would a FAM have stopped the DL bomber if the FAM wasn't sitting in the same row as the bomber? Answer - he/she wouldn't have been able to.

How many flights inbound to the US have been "traditionally" hijacked over the past 10 years? Deploying FAM's to stop this threat is like having a fire station every two or three blocks.

You are correct on #1, which should be remedied, and as for #2, how can a non-9/11 hijacking take place without taking control of the cockpit?

law dawg

I'm on record saying FAMs aren't of much use in a IED incident except for cleaning up after the fact. Or the bomber uses the bomb as a threat device or they draw attention to themselves prior to activation. But if they just sit there are go off? No one is of much use there.

True, although worldwide there have been several.


#1 can't be remedied. That's the decision of the host country. It's been broached. They said no.
#2-As was done prior to 9/11. Do it on the ground, prior to takeoff.

Anyway, this horse has been beyond beaten to death over the years. I'll cede the floor and get it back to the OP.

N965VJ

TSA probing harassment allegations

WashingtonPost.com, 7-7-10

Homeland Security Department investigators plan to visit Transportation Security Administration workers in Orlando and Tampa next week as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of harassment against gay, lesbian and African American workers there, according to e-mails obtained by The Federal Eye.

The department's Office of Inspector General launched an investigation shortly after CNN reported in January about managers at the Orlando field office of the Federal Air Marshals Service who used a crew assignment board resembling the "Jeopardy!" game show to ridicule and keep score on women, gays and minorities.

But lawmakers have heard little about the investigation since January, according to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

"Several credible sources with direct, firsthand evidence into this matter recently contacted my staff," Issa wrote last week in a letter to DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner. "They expressed serious concerns about the sufficiency and expediency of [the Transportation Security Administration's Office of Inspection] investigation. In particular, these witnesses have advised they have not been contacted by OI or by your office. This is puzzling."

Global_Hi_Flyer

They're worried about harassment of workers by workers, but not worried about harassment of passengers by workers.

Some animals are more equal than others.