why hasnt something bad happened?
 

This is an honest question and Im not putting forth an opinion any way. I actually asked this in another thread, but thought it warranted a thread of its own. This isnt brought as a rhetorical question:

If the TSA is as inept as some here contend, and the US has so many enemies determined to do harm, why hasn't a plane been hijacked or brought down "on their watch"?

Already asked by you and answered there:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...8&postcount=68

Because my magic rock, which keeps tigers away, also keeps terrorists away.

Attempts to credit the TSA with deterring terrorism are as specious crediting my magic rock with such an accomplishment. And my magic rocks costs 18 billion dollars less.

Do you honestly believe that you could completely eliminate the TSA (not replacing it with anything) without injury or loss of life?

Replace [TSA] with [Spiffs magic rock] and I would agree. As written I cannot agree.

You mentioned you would not like to interject opinion or rhetoric, but here you're putting words in Spiff's mouth. I vote for the re-privatization of security at airports, as do most people here. The govt. has no accountability for its actions. I thought they'd like to be able to point the finger, but no, they'd rather just spend the money on themselves.

didnt mean to put words into anyones mouth. I just wanted to point out that the magic rock analogy isnt fair.

Privatization sounds like a good idea. Government organizations are notoriously innefficient. Privatization would have its own set of problems though (ie low bidder gets contract and can only afford low quality staff ...)

To a certain extent, yes.

I believe that if all checkpoint screening were eliminated for a brief period (1 hour to 1 day) at a time and airport that were not pre-announced, that nothing bad would happen.

The math is such that it's just not reasonable to assume that at least one real bad guy tries to go through each airport every hour (or day). (Note: Guy who forgot his pocket knife in his pocket or idiot who forgot his pistol in his jacket but have no intent to commit bad actions do not count as bad guys; i.e., just because TSA confiscates something that day doesn't mean they stopped an attack.)

This simple math is why I think it is asinine that TSA SSSS's all passengers in the event the airline's boarding-pass printers aren't working or virtually shuts down screening in the face of a power outage. Even in a total blackout, a sane policy of hand wanding and random bag checks (not 100% bag checks) would be more than adequate. If TSA were run by people with a clue instead of idiots, they would have such contingency plans in place. Instead they have a shoe fetish, run a War on Water, and virtually collapse in the face of any kink in their process.

ABSOLUTELY.

The only reason we are stuck with the TSA is because the airlines and airports do not want to take on the liability claims should another terrorist attack happen.

What needed to be done after 9/11 was updating the list of prohibited items and better screening equipment, NOT this dog-and-pony show to make Ma and Pa Kettle feel safer.

About $20 billion later, the TSA has only done three things to make us safer.
One is the deployment of CTX machines, deployment of 'puffer' machines (which the TSA has since halted delivery on) and updated the list of prohibited items (the reasonable stuff, not the farcical war on liquids).

The problem is that the TSA wants you to think they are on the front lines of preventing a massive terrorist attack. Even that is not true. The truth is that the passengers on any airplane nowadays WILL fight back...THAT is the front lines right there.

The most effective means of defense is the intelligence gathered well before any attack would be executed. That said, it looks like the eagerness of the United States might be costing the British in their ability to prosecute the "liquid posse."

While al-Qaeda is very, very patient in waiting things out (9/11 was five years in the making), I have more confidence in the CIA or MI5 to sniff something out than the TSA.

Who instills more confidence in snuffing out terrorists? People at the CIA or MI5, who actually go out and infiltrate these groups, or someone at the airport who yells at you for having the wrong type of plastic baggie?

Terrorists are extraordinarily patient. I didn't expect anything to happen within the first few years following 9/11 for a couple of reasons. First, the terrorists were on the run and still are today. Yeah, some folks will scoff at this. Second, I credit terrorists for being smart enough to realize that the longer they wait, the more complacent we become. It's the same formula we use in conducting combat raids on guarded facilities. Two or three in the morning is always the best time to attack: the night shift has gotten "comfortable" and the morning shift is still in bed.

Since private security was brought up, I strongly oppose returning to private security screening. It's not because I am employed by the TSA. I used to be part of the management as well as the screener workforce for a very prominent security corporation. And while I realize this was only one company among many, and it would be unfair to paint them all the same, I still have grave reservations about putting this in the hands of the lowest bidder.

I'd like to reprivatize it, but with a drastic change: take 1 billion from the then defunct TSA and create a system that will actually challenge and test the private systems, and create a real pressure that makes sure that the standard of people emloyed (and hence pay) should have an acceptable level.

-A

Most terrorists are extraordinarily eager to attack once they have the means. They more often than not don't pass on an opportunity once they have the means.

I vote for replacing the TSA with the magic rocks.

Bart,

You are absolutely right about the issue of privatization of essentially government functions. It is inherently uhealthy, and not for some of the reasons that the "drown government in a bathtub" crowd might think. When a human service is privatized, the cost savings are achieved by hiring workers who are willing to accept lower wages. Inevitably, companies that bid for these contracts recruit the employee willing to work for the least and put in the most time. In addition, over the period of the contract, the wages rise, and the margins for the security company begin to shrink. Companies in this business then start to churn employees who have received cost of living or merit increases, by assigning them to unpopular (dangerous, unpleasant) shifts or posts, in order to encourage them to leave.

Now, I don't believe that hijacking an aircraft is as likely an event any longer, because all of the pax on the plane will rise up to prevent individual or organized attempts at aircraft safety. I remain concerned about terrorists or deranged individuals smuggling an explosive device on board, not the liquid or gel foolishness, but a bomb either disguised, or missed by careless screeners.

I fail to see how a private security company, absolved of professional liablility will offer either the status quo, or an increase in passenger safety on airliners.

This article raises some interesting ideas in response to your question:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200609...st-threat.html

I think you take the magic rock analogy too far. It's OP I think meant to make the point that "correlation does not equal causation", and that just because the TSA around and nothing has happened does not mean the TSA is responsible for it. After all, nothing much happened before the TSA (except for 9/11, obviously, but there hadn't been a major act of terrorism related to the airlines in the U.S. for a long time before that) and nothing much has happened since. I think the best deterrent against a future 9/11 is the fact that passengers are wise to the threat and future attempts will meet he same level of success as the plane that crashed in PA (or less, since I'm not sure they would be able to get control of the plane these days).

One big change we do have with the TSA (collectively with its predecessors) is lots more stupid rules (applied capriciously) and abuses of power that we see almost daily on this board and elsewhere. Sadly, the TSA is just too likely to attract the underqualified and those prone to power trips. Nobody else would want such a miserable job, and if you want to protect the country there are probably better ways to participate (sorry to TSA members of the board, but that's sure how it looks to me every time I go through the airport).

I just don't think the TSA is doing us as much good as it could, and I think it is creating rules as it goes along to prevent political embarassment or any possible incident with little or no regard for the wishes and needs of the traveling public or the airline industry (or whether the measures will actually reduce the likelihood of an incident). One notable exception is how quickly they turned around on the airside liquids rule, but that came down to cold, hard cash, not safety. The airports were looking at losing all those nice concessions, and money talked.

I was wondering as I flew back from London yesterday if I could think of any example of the TSA's being proactive, identifying a threat and taking measures against it. I couldn't. All I could think of were ham-fisted reactions to things that had happened, such as the shoe bomber and the (alleged) liquid bomb threat. And I'm not sure they've really got a solution to the liquid bomb threat.