I have major objections to many of the screening methods the TSA has trotted out. But for me it boils down to this: all I want is to get on a plane without fearing that my body will be sexually violated. Is that too much to ask? I need a rule that says strangers will not be grabbing my breasts and fondling my labia. Is that really, really too much to ask, bbc1969?

it seems to be a matter of convenience.

That is not too much to ask. I work in aviation security, and have been a peace officer for many years, as I have said before. Having said that I too believe certain aspects of our current system need to change, or revert back to the "way they were before". Some of the current mandatory "pat-downs" in certain situations being among them.

However it does seem to me that quite often some of the threads here end up "chasing their tails" so to speak. They become soap boxes with plenty of opinion, and rhetoric which if you read multiple posts by the same people over a cross-section of the threads in the safety/security forum, seem to indicate my previous point.

Those responsible need to strive for a good, reasonable system. Changes need to be made. But I think that no matter how much improvement is made
the complaints will continue to pour in.

Oh, shame on me! I want air travel to be convenient. How could I forget that "everything changed on 9/11/01"? :rolleyes:

Bruce

Now I am just being pedantic, but firearms do have their place in airports and airplanes -- It may just be urban legend, but I remember reading several times that a firearm and ammuntion of some sort are required for small (< 15 pax) aircraft operating within the state of Alaska, as part of a comprehensive survival kit.... a good idea if you asked me.

Your correct. Canada has similar rules, with constraints on what kind of firearm.

Thanks, bbc1969. I am glad that you are sympathetic to at least this much of my complaint. I may have said it before, but the day, the very day, that the TSA institutes a rule that protects my sexual areas from being violated is the day I will quit being an anti-screening gadfly. I suspect I'm not the only one frequenting these boards who really actually is here because of a "screening" that felt like an assault. Whatever else we complain about is secondary to the feeling that somebody attacked our bodies and we couldn't fight back and we don't know what to do with all that pent-up adrenaline rage.

No problem. Things do need to change at the checkpoint. Even those of us working in the system question these things. We do our jobs, but we continue to question. I have pointed out many times that on 9-11 the checkpoints did not fail. Those people who committed these crimes came through, were screened and allowed to continue with items not prohibited at that time.

Deploy the technology that is already available, keep a comprehensive but logical list of "no-fly" items, and have specific procedures for those who alarm/or have specific information connected with them. We are supposed to be using a "layered defense" type of system. That is logical, and can work well. Each layer should be as user friendly as possible, while complementing each other layer of security, that way there are checks and balances in the system. Nothing is ever 100 percent...

Thanks again, bbc1969.