It's quite possible that they consider the release of such images to be a security issue, and perhaps it's wise to be vague. I'm more than a wee bit frustrated every time I see my hometown newspaper essentially spell out how to manufacture methamphetamine every time there's a local bust - and would probably react in similar fasion if incendiary devices were put on display for all to inspect and potentially copy.

I agree for the most part. Some elements do *appear to be* unnecessary, and some elements probably *are* unnecessary to an extent. And yes there are holes and there always will be - it's simply impossible to create a system that is 100% secure, there are just toooooo many variables.

But the powers that be are really in a tough spot. After 9/11, everyone was howling (and appropriately so) because we'd grown complacent about security. Most issues were given only cursory attention...day to day duties were done by rote without much thought. And oh how it ever bit us in the ....

So now, the powers that be are trying to remain dilligent and proactive. That diligence is tough - we're all letting our guards down again, becoming complacent and annoyed again. Soon as we do, it will happen again. You may not understand WHY certain specific security measures are in place, but most of them do exist for a specific reason. I know some get antsy because we have not caught a terrorist red-handed with a shoe bomb or some such thing - but you have to keep in mind that the measures are intended to *prevent* attempts at a security breach as much as they're intended to catch them when they happen. How's the old adage go? Prevention is 90% of the cure or some such thing?

As it is, I spend a great deal of my personal and professional time on commercial aircraft. The threat may be slim, relatively speaking, that we face another 9/11-esque attack. But the risk is still there. The chance of having a serious inflight mechanical difficulty may be slim to none, but certainly all of us would raise a ruckus if we started seriously skimping on preventative maintenance measures. Similarly, skimping on security measures in an imperfect and ever-changing system makes no sense either.

I do get annoyed too. I don't enjoy standing on cold dirty tile floors, waiting for my shoes to be cleared. Especially when I'm in uniform, wearing my wings, having cleared extensive background checks. I'm there to protect all of you, and yet I still have to endure the wand and the bag checks. But if taking my shoes off every day in public keeps another Richard Reid from loading his with explosive, then I'll do it.

If we stop looking there and elsewhere, it becomes another hole...another avenue by which some idiot thinks he can slip through.

Likewise, with this attitude we will continue to grow and grow and grow more impatient, more complacent, less tolerant, and less vigilant. Reopening the flaws that existed pre-9/11 will not fill the gaps that still exist.

Wasn't me who said that.

I hope you keep your "suspects" under better observation than that on the job or the "evil doer" may slip by while you are blaming the wrong person.

more IED stuff
 

The target on 9/11 was not airplanes or air travelers. The targets were enormous office buildings. There are myriad ways to target office buildings without using airplanes. Why isn't the hysteria focused on protecting office buildings? Why aren't we charging people a $10 security fee to drive large trucks past office buildings? The charade of checkpoint screening isn't a hassle that helps anyone; it's an enormously expensive boondoggle.

With all due respect, sir, if Richard Reid had been the "Underwear Bomber" would you have made the same statement -- replacing shoes with underwear???

My perspective is that the TSA is the LAST line of defense. But, it's very visible and "sexy" to public affairs types, so it continues to exist. To make a comparison, in warfare, one of the most visible and "sexiest" forms of combat is the Dogfight. But, any planner will tell you that the least cost-effective and efficient way of gaining air superiority is air-to-air combat. For example, it's much more efficient to drop a few iron bombs on a runway or hanger BEFORE the enemy airplanes get into the air.

Put another way, the TSA has become so institutionalized as to be completely ineffective. I equate them to the old Soviet Politburo. We were taught in Air War College that the primary purpose of the Politburo was to perpetuate the Politburo.

I humbly submit that the primary purpose of the TSA is to perpetuate the TSA.

That's old school,UAVs are now in fashion with laser and GPS.

... and with your clearance, I know you know just how effective they are...

Several people, both in these forums, and in the media, have proposed a screening system similar to that used by El Al, which includes a very thorough questioning, lots of cross-checking to see if an individual's answers contradict themselves, and other checks and procedures.

I've never personally flown El Al, but from what I was able to find, El Al's security procedures do not require passengers to submit to a shoe screening.

Yes, there are problems with the El Al system, most notably that it's very expensive to operate. I'd imagine that on a per passenger basis, it's more expensive than the TSA ... however, I think the TSA leadership could take some lessons from El Al, and work to actually improve security, rather than just putting window dressings up and ignoring the real problems.

(I have no gripe with the front line screeners who are just doing their job. I have a problem with the management who is instituting the stupid policies to be carried out, and not standardizing across the nation (which, I thought, the TSA was supposed to solve))

Several others have stated they want no form of this verison of security. Because to cross check, they have to know personal information, which people have huge issues with (CAPPS2). It's a great system for a single airline but how well would it work with mutliply airlines in one airport?

I was involved with UAVs by accident. My last duty assigment was at the Army Safety Center. I was assigned to handle UAV mishaps. Very protective community. Major aircraft manufacturers are banking that this is the way the military will go for all needs except for rotory wing. Here is a good source for UAV info available to the public, http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/predator.htm.

Well WhinesWay2much, I guess he does know...

Shoes are not what worries me the most
 

Interesting responses to this subject. And I agree with statements made on both sides, therefore I will add my 2 cents (it is worth much less).

I Agree with TSAMGR, don't take it out on the person doing their job find the TSA Manager and take it out on them. :D

Every trip through Denver I willing go through secondary screening because I wish to wear shoes that will not set off the detector. I do not give the person a hard time but find the process stupid. Terrorism 101 will teach me how to avoid the secondardy screening, I will be trained to take off my shoes.

My major concern is not the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber it is the checked baggage bomber. We need to do a better job in this area, and yes it may cause some delays but so be it.

In another post someone pointed out a couple of thing to me, the first and most important was my bad spelling, and the other was that employees do not have to go through secondary screening (even with shoes on) if they do not set off the detector.

Therefore in Terrorism 102 a employee working in conjuction with another individual could bypass the entire system put in place to catch the shoe bombers.

I guess all that I am saying is that we need to be looking forward and not back, the people we are trying to stop are looking for new ways to beat the system.

So, I guess these statements place me in the camp that is called the "Whiners" so be it. :rolleyes: But, I continue to fly on average 3 to 4 times a week and accept that what I can not change (except I will speak up when possible).