Originally Posted by greentips (Post 14164635)

And the FAA still does. The FAA is responsible for safety of flight and airworthiness. They have very specific and public procedures available to anyone under FOIA. They do not hide behind secret directives.

TSI are NOT repeat NOT what the FAA used to do and still does. Never have been, never will be.

FAA inspectors have worked in the business, either in general aviation, commercial non-scheduled aviation or air carrier service. They are generally highly skilled and qualified, many of whom carry Airframe and Powerplant Mechanics ratings and/or Inspection Authorizations. Every FAA inspector I have ever dealt with has treated me with courtesy and respect and a degree of mutual understanding.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me why the TSA is a dangerous organization and needs to be shut down. TSO appear to generally show ignorance in virtually every aspect of their mission, from harassing mule skinners to busting airplanes and stealing my pepsi to looking at my naked . . . .

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 14164825)

No argument from me on your observation. TSI's are the regulatory branch of TSA and they are responsible for the inspection and compliance of aircarriers in respect to the handling of passengers and cargo

Originally Posted by VH-RMD (Post 14163205)

you called it surrender under duress - there is no consent in duress. Perhaps you should actually get your law degree before quoting legal concepts.

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 14164825)

No argument from me on your observation. TSI's are the regulatory branch of TSA and they are responsible for the inspection and compliance of aircarriers in respect to the handling of passengers and cargo

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 14162848)

Tom,
We have been down the road on this so many times. No one has a "right to fly." It is just a preferred mode of transportation that is quick. It is a give and take. IF you as a customer of the airline want to get somewhere fast, you have to give up some things (for about 5 or ten minutes.) IF you want to keep your privacy and 4th amendments right then you can take another mode of transportation.
I am going to stand on the line that I took about layers of security and that is all. I am not going to admit anything about holes (other than it was a good movie.) I learned that from the CIA "Admit nothing, deny everything."

Originally Posted by coachrowsey (Post 14165667)

Goalie:
That's exactly what he said.

Originally Posted by coachrowsey (Post 14165667)

Goalie:
That's exactly what he said.

Originally Posted by coachrowsey (Post 14164991)

eyecue:
If water is dangerous like your agency says it is, how can you just throw it in the trash bin at the checkpoint ? If it's dangerous it needs to be disposed as hazmat, I don't care what it causes. Your agency is a pathetic joke.

Originally Posted by greentips (Post 14165513)

Glad we see eye to eye on this. Now, we need to get your management on board. As for TSI inspectors if they stick to their very narrow scope of responsibility then we will do just fine.

But they should keep their hands and feet off of aircraft unless invited by and accompanied by airline personnel. The TSA/TSI/TSO have also sabotaged aircraft cabins, rendering O2, fire extinguishing and other essential safety equipment inoperative on aircraft sitting at the gate overnight, causing maintenance dispatch delays while the aircraft is fully inspected to fix what they did and verify the airplane is airworthy.

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 14166891)

MY agency? I dont own it! Anyway I Thought I covered that in some other post. THe fact is that it is a contradiction in how it is percieved and how it is handled. If they handled it as a haz mat it would not last long because it would cost a fortune. The lighter fiasco last time cost 5 million a year because it was haz mat. With liquids being much more common and volumous it would cost mega more.

Originally Posted by goalie (Post 14165654)

bolding mine: so you're saying that as an employee of the tsa, our right under the 4th amendment of the u.s. constitution is violated by the tsa when we fly? sorry <and ducking> but gotta be careful how you say things....;) :)

Originally Posted by coachrowsey (Post 14166916)

If water is dangerous deal with it whatever the cost or stop the stupid non sense.

Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer (Post 14166907)

So, if it's as potentially dangerous as the agency makes it out to be, then cost should be no object. That's why we're being subject to electronic strip searches at the checkpoints - because the amount of additional "security" they provide is as negligible as would be provided if water were treated as hazmat.

You really can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 14166942)

I can tell you that if it was handled in the manner that you are speaking then the airlines would go broke because the cost would be handed down to them.

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 14166936)

Not my call. I wish that I could, it is a can of worms.