Airport Security is Killing Us

[Ted]

Very well-written.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us

 

[nddons]

I'd have to agree.

When DHS was created, I supported the idea (despite the Eastern-block-sounding name) ONLY to fix the problem of problems of interagency communications brought to light leading up to 9/11/01. Of course, that was foolish, because history shows that if you give any government agency an inch, they will take a mile. I never supported a government-run TSA, and believed that the airlines were doing fine with their own security.

Unfortunately, the sheeple think that the TSA is the ONLY solution to their flying safety, regardless of the pedophile-attracting invasiveness of their searches, and the overreach of the power-hungry high school dropouts wearing uniforms.

 

[Ted]

I'm not sure how many people really like the TSA. How many people say they're happy getting x-rayed, fondled, etc.? I've never heard a single positive comment about them from anyone. Even folks in the groups who support more security seem to dislike them. 10 years ago when they started, that was another issue.

The fact is, they need to go.

 

[AggieMike88]

The fact is, they need to go.

While I agree with this, I always ask, "Do we still need passenger screening? And if yes, who runs this? What form and method is going to,work the best?"

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I'm not sure how many people really like the TSA. How many people say they're happy getting x-rayed, fondled, etc.? I've never heard a single positive comment about them from anyone. Even folks in the groups who support more security seem to dislike them. 10 years ago when they started, that was another issue.

The fact is, they need to go.

Mother in law was just harangued by a friend of hers, who heard she was flying on a 30 seat public charter shuttle out of KMMU this week.

Said "friend" was shocked that she would do something so dangerous -- there is no TSA at that airport and any terrorist could get on that plane and just "take it over."

 

[steingar]

In a democracy, the electorate often gets what they deserve. The TSA is quite popular in the US, as few have the critical reasoning resources to really analyze what they're being protected against and at what cost.

In these corners they are despised, but we are in somewhat rarified company.

 

[AggieMike88]

Said "friend" was shocked that she would do something so dangerous -- there is no TSA at that airport and any terrorist could get on that plane and just "take it over."

I wonder if the same friend advocates anti-air batteries on IRS buildings in Austin?

 

[fgcason]

I wonder if the writer of that article ended up on top of the gustappo's super secret threat list...after all, he's suggesting getting rid of the organization.

Said "friend" was shocked that she would do something so dangerous -- there is no TSA at that airport and any terrorist could get on that plane and just "take it over."

And yet that same person wouldn't mind walking into a mall on christmas berzerker shopping days with 5-6 80,000lb semi trailers parked 100 feet from the entrance that was parked there by individuals unknown with contents unknown.

The terrorists haven't had to do anything in over a decade because they don't have to. They're getting us to do ourselves which is far more damaging than what they could pull off.

The whole thing is a 20th rate circus act with doped up clowns.

 

[weilke]

I'd have to agree.

When DHS was created, I supported the idea (despite the Eastern-block-sounding name) ONLY to fix the problem of problems of interagency communications brought to light leading up to 9/11/01.

An acquaintance of mine has made a career in one of the agencies that is now part of DHS. From his insiders perspective, there has been little change in the sharing of information across agencies beyond what is done at the local joint terrorism taskforce level. Forming the agency was an elaborate rearranging of the furniture with a chair still being a chair and a table still being a table.

 

[N801BH]

.........
The whole thing is a 20th rate circus act with doped up clowns.

Make that.. union backed, well paid, doped up clowns... In fact I bet regular clowns have to go through a more extensive background check then the thieving, molesting TSA blue shirts...

 

[wsuffa]

I'm not sure how many people really like the TSA. How many people say they're happy getting x-rayed, fondled, etc.? I've never heard a single positive comment about them from anyone. Even folks in the groups who support more security seem to dislike them. 10 years ago when they started, that was another issue.

The fact is, they need to go.

Ted, flying out of DCA one day, there was a 60-ish yer old person who effusively thanked each and every TSA screener she saw - thanking them for protecting her and "our freedoms". She lit into a business traveler that complained about something the screeners did to him, much like a mother would scold a child. She then went up to the screener involved and effusively thanked him.

I almost wondered if she was trying to hide something....

Weilke, my friends that work with DHS describe it as a really screwed up organization, even at 10 years in existance.

 

[Ted]

Of course you have individuals, but what's the opinion of the average person who's dealt with TSA? It's profoundly negative.

 

[zaitcev]

The terrorists haven't had to do anything in over a decade because they don't have to.

Ridiculous nonsense like "terrorists haven't had to do anything" is a great reason why TSA remains popular: because anti-TSA people spout garbage together with well-reasoned arguments. It is obvious to anyone who has any clue about the history of terrorists attempts on airlines, e.g. the shoebomber, Christmas (aka "underwear") bombers, and binary liquid attempts, that terrorists continue their efforts, and that TSA had material effect on their approaches. You can cry "security theater" all you want and the fact is that the "teater" worked. It made terrorists attempt more and more baroque, fragile terror schemes.

Another fact about terrorists is that they continue attack targets other than airliners. Sometimes, they succeed. The "Jeep Jihadi" was running people over in a rental jeep, for example. Sometimes, they fail, like Occupy protesters that wanted to blow up bridges in Cleveland. Why haven't they exploded a 20 ton trailer at a mall yet? Because of liberty-curtailing fascist regulations, of course -- of controlled substances. The devilish part of the bargain when you trade liberty to obtain safety is that it works, at least to an extent.

 

[flyingmoose]

While I agree with this, I always ask, "Do we still need passenger screening? And if yes, who runs this? What form and method is going to,work the best?"

Yea I think we need some kind of security.
Private company s could do a better job.
Form/method im not sure of, but it must include common sense, be cause we have NONE now.

 

[fgcason]

The "Jeep Jihadi" was running people over in a rental jeep, for example.

Oh bad thing there. Evil bad. Try driving 10 miles in denver sometime. Over half the drivers on the road would be classified as terrorists - lethal aggressive murders the whole lot of 'em.

shoebomber

Defeated by pax, not TSA.

Because of liberty-curtailing fascist regulations, of course -- of controlled substances.

Oh please. Anyone with a credit card, or cash and a car can buy diesel or autogas. Anyone can go buy fertilizer. Just take their time and do it over a few years instead of 20 tons in one shopping trip. Do you have any idea how easy it is to buy a vehicle capable of carrying that stuff? There are no barricades and inspections at malls, turn into the parking lot and it's there. Of course it's illegal to do that so illegal makes it impossible for bad guys to pull it off...

 

[Bob Noel]

Ridiculous nonsense like "terrorists haven't had to do anything" is a great reason why TSA remains popular: because anti-TSA people spout garbage together with well-reasoned arguments. It is obvious to anyone who has any clue about the history of terrorists attempts on airlines, e.g. the shoebomber, Christmas (aka "underwear") bombers, and binary liquid attempts, that terrorists continue their efforts, and that TSA had material effect on their approaches. You can cry "security theater" all you want and the fact is that the "teater" worked. It made terrorists attempt more and more baroque, fragile terror schemes.

I would be happy to have an in-person conversation of the effectiveness of the TSA airport procedures. To claim that "the 'teater' worked" is a gross overstatement bordering on irrational.

In the mean time, don't overlook the resources wasted on these "security" procedures.

 

[comanchepilot]

I've seen TSA at the train station in LA. I ignore them completely and walk around them. One of them accosted me and tried to stop me. I asked him to please step aside. He looked at me and said they were searching bag - I asked him to cite me a regulation indicating a) I need to consent to a search before boarding a train and b) what the prohibited items were. He stepped aside.

Sheeple.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

It is obvious to anyone who has any clue about the history of terrorists attempts on airlines, e.g. the shoebomber, Christmas (aka "underwear") bombers, and binary liquid attempts, that terrorists continue their efforts, and that TSA had material effect on their approaches.

... none of which the TSA had anything to do with halting or discovering -- passengers or other agencies did the work here. However, the TSA did do react, long after each of the events you mentioned passed, adding shoe screening, nudiescopes, and liquid restrictions while looking in the rear view mirror..

The TSA is looking at a $5 billion budget for 2013, to sustain more than 62,000 employees, including 3,770 bureaucrats in DC and more than 9,300 administrative personnel.

We dump far more money every year into the DHS than NASA receives. For what return???

You can cry "security theater" all you want and the fact is that the "teater" worked. It made terrorists attempt more and more baroque, fragile terror schemes.

Worked at what???

Some people have been focused on disrupting society for thousands of years. TSA won't change this, and there is zero evidence that they have stopped a terrorist act to date.

Not one arrest of a single terrorist. Zero.

Oh... and are you aware that the TSA dropped the requirement for their screeners to even hold a GED several years ago. Just about the time they started advertising for employment on pizza boxes and self-serve gas pumps.

Another fact about terrorists is that they continue attack targets other than airliners. Sometimes, they succeed. The "Jeep Jihadi" was running people over in a rental jeep, for example. Sometimes, they fail, like Occupy protesters that wanted to blow up bridges in Cleveland. Why haven't they exploded a 20 ton trailer at a mall yet? Because of liberty-curtailing fascist regulations, of course -- of controlled substances. The devilish part of the bargain when you trade liberty to obtain safety is that it works, at least to an extent.

Ah... an argument to expand the TSA further. Maybe increasing their budget and adding more VIPR teams to highway, rail, and water traffic?

We already get our genitals groped and dirty blue gloves stuffed down our pants in airport secondary inspections. Why not when driving to the mall or the beach as well?

This function could be done at a reasonable cost with realistic staffing levels, but turned into a bloated bureaucracy with too few checks and balances.

Security is not a zero risk game in a free society, and will never be no matter how many billions we throw at it. The TSA is, however, happy to continue to be more invasive for ever-diminishing returns on our "investment."


But, hey ... I feel better that the Mule Skinners in a historic kiddie park in Easton PA must pass DHS TWIC background checks, while the TSA is willing to fight to hire convicted felons as screeners.

 

[DeeG]

Oh please. Anyone with a credit card, or cash and a car can buy diesel or autogas. Anyone can go buy fertilizer.

I went to a training class on domestic terrorism a couple years ago. The instructor was shocked that I had ~300lbs of ammonium nitrate in my garage, along with ~40 gallons or so of diesel fuel. He was even more disturbed that i could take my p/u truck and go by all the bags that the truck could carry and that I didn't have to fill out paperwork for it. And horror of horrors, I thought he was going to have a stroke when I told him that no one in my neck o the woods bats an eye when there is a tractor/sprayer combo slowly making its way down the road, or that sprayers and plastic 200 gallon containers of unknown type chemicals are left unattended in an orchard or outside a barn.

City folk. They need to get out more.

Which reminds me, I do need to head down and pick up some more....gotta get this stuff spread before the snow falls.

 

[N801BH]

I've seen TSA at the train station in LA. I ignore them completely and walk around them. One of them accosted me and tried to stop me. I asked him to please step aside. He looked at me and said they were searching bag - I asked him to cite me a regulation indicating a) I need to consent to a search before boarding a train and b) what the prohibited items were. He stepped aside.

Sheeple.

I like the way you think..

 

[DrMack]

I enforce all of the Texas Security Agency regulations on my airplane: you can bring all the firearms and ammo you can fit in the rear baggage compartment but I draw the line at hand-grenades. Fine liquor in gallon jugs is also allowed.

 

[livitup]

I enforce all of the Texas Security Agency regulations on my airplane: you can bring all the firearms and ammo you can fit in the rear baggage compartment but I draw the line at hand-grenades. Fine liquor in gallon jugs is also allowed.

This reminds me about something I've been meaning to ask...

Assuming one has a Concealed Handgun Permit, and that state law does not prohibit the possession of a handgun at airports unless in an "air carrier airport terminal", is there any FAA or other Federal regulation/law against flying while armed and/or flying with a gun in the plane?

 

[tlglenn]

Assuming one has a Concealed Handgun Permit, and that state law does not prohibit the possession of a handgun at airports unless in an "air carrier airport terminal", is there any FAA or other Federal regulation/law against flying while armed and/or flying with a gun in the plane?

Typical part 91 G.A.? Nope.

 

[LDJones]

Who has the bigger vested interest in airport security? The airline with multimillion dollar planes and its reputation at risk? Or a govt bureaucrat?

I will never forgive Bush (who I admire) for creating the TSA...and DHS, for that matter.

 

[PilotAlan]

While I agree with this, I always ask, "Do we still need passenger screening? And if yes, who runs this? What form and method is going to,work the best?"

The attack tactics on 911 will never work again. They were obsolete within minutes, as demonstrated on Flight 93, and since then on numerous occasions where airline passengers overwhelmed attackers.
Additionally, the installation of reinforced cockpit doors has removed the "takeover hijacking" as a threat.

Do we need screening? Yes. But we need to screen for dangerous PEOPLE, not dangerous THINGS. A dangerous person is far more hazardous than pair of nail clippers.

But what is the difference between a bunch of minimum wage morons employed by the Federal government, vs minimum wage morons working for an airport contractor?

Answer: There IS a difference.
1 - The contractor can ACTUALLY be held accountable for its work. The Feds could write standards for screening, and inspect the work of screeners employed by the airports or airlines. If they fail, they're fired.
There is nothing remotely like this in the government sector, where federal employees cannot be fired for anything as minor as gross incompetence.

2 - Performance of the contractors would be public record, and accountable to the public, airport, and airlines.

3 - The private company employees don't get power trips, threatening to arrest people, and try to expand their power into the idiotic stuff TSA has tried. Like setting up a checkpoint in a train station and screening people getting OFF the train

And this is without getting into the idiocy of the security theater, where thousands of people have access to secure areas without background checks or screening, plus cargo and catering contractors who can get anything onto an airplane.

 

[EppyGA]

Is San Fran better overall? It's a contract operation.

 

[Everskyward]

Is San Fran better overall? It's a contract operation.

I would say no. It's about the same. I haven't had any problems with the TSA recently although I was selected for additional screening (they looked in my bag) at the gate last week. That was in Denver.

 

[Silvaire]

Here's my analogy of the whole scene:

There is a fly loose in a China shop and we have sent in a Gorilla to kill it.

 

[j1b3h0]

Tuck the FSA. Billions spent on complete window dressing. What a joke. Given these distressed economic times I suppose it can be argued that there are so many more walmart applicants gainfully employed, now that us taxpayers are footing the bill.

 

[flav8r]

I have been in the airline business for close to thirty years and I get the treatment from TSA almost everyday.
Meanwhile the clown with a couple of days on the job that delivers food and supplies to the vendors is allowed to bring in unchecked boxes.

 

[cowman]

The problem with the TSA is really a problem with the public.

The public is really really bad at risk assessment and understanding probabilities. And they have unreasonable expectations of absolute security all the time.

Car accidents by far kill more people than terrorism. We could protect people better by requiring the same roll-cage, 5-pt harness, and helmet that race car drivers use for people driving on public roads. It would almost certainly save lives but most people would see it as excessive even though this is one of the more likely things to actually happen to them.

But long lines, intrusive searches, great expense, and loss of civil liberties for something about as likely to kill you as getting hit by lightning? Many see that as reasonable.

And the politicians have to do this. Yes people are annoyed now but imagine the outrage if they didn't and there was another attack! The public actually seems to believe that the government had almost omniscient control over the dangers in life if they just spend the money/make the effort. They expect the impossible. Dangers like terrorism can be mitigated but here's no way to prevent them with 100% certainty and still have a functioning society.

 

[MAKG1]

Answer: There IS a difference.
1 - The contractor can ACTUALLY be held accountable for its work. The Feds could write standards for screening, and inspect the work of screeners employed by the airports or airlines. If they fail, they're fired.
There is nothing remotely like this in the government sector, where federal employees cannot be fired for anything as minor as gross incompetence.

2 - Performance of the contractors would be public record, and accountable to the public, airport, and airlines.

3 - The private company employees don't get power trips, threatening to arrest people, and try to expand their power into the idiotic stuff TSA has tried. Like setting up a checkpoint in a train station and screening people getting OFF the train

Umm, you do realize that when the Federal government talks about a "contractor" in the "other" FARs (Federal Acquisition Rules), they are talking about companies, not individuals. The government is not allowed to manage individual contractor employees. I suggest you chew on that for a while before making assertions about privatization being "more accountable." In real life, it has precisely the opposite effect. I've seen a handful of civil servants reassigned due to inappropriate behavior. I've never seen a contractor's employee suffer a similar fate. I've also never seen a contractor lose a contract over poor performance, even when such was deserved, and despite the threat of such being part of government contracting for many decades.

For a civil servant to simply ask for my help solving a problem, it has to go through their chain of command, to the COTR or contracting officer, to our contracts office, and back through my chain of command. The rule is bent very often for trivial things, but a firing wouldn't be trivial.

Details of contracts are also not public record. They very often contain proprietary information.

Civil servants can be fired for cause, including incompetence. The problem is that the cause must be proven. Would you really advocate a system where that is not so? Civil service rules exist because of excessive politicization of the federal workforce, and they helped kill "political machine" politics. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[bbchien]

This reminds me about something I've been meaning to ask...

Assuming one has a Concealed Handgun Permit, and that state law does not prohibit the possession of a handgun at airports unless in an "air carrier airport terminal", is there any FAA or other Federal regulation/law against flying while armed and/or flying with a gun in the plane?

Illinois. The last state left in the union, controlled by Chicago.

 

[N801BH]

...... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

.

With all the reports of TSA agents stealing the "bathwater" your comments don't pass the smell test...

 

[MAKG1]

.

With all the reports of TSA agents stealing the "bathwater" your comments don't pass the smell test...

So, you would fire employees based only on an assertion of wrongdoing, regardless of whether or not there is any basis to it? I definitely do not want to work for you.....think before you type.

 

[PilotAlan]

Umm, you do realize that when the Federal government talks about a "contractor" in the "other" FARs (Federal Acquisition Rules), they are talking about companies, not individuals. The government is not allowed to manage individual contractor employees.

I very much understand the rules, I am a federal contractor.
That's why I specifically stated that security should be contracted to the airport or airlines, with the Feds being a standards body.

You write a contract that if the contractor is found in violation of standards, the contract is void. If the contract is with the local or state government, then the state public records laws apply.

Further, the problem with TSA is that massive federal bureaucracies are not responsive to the customer. They could not care less what we think of them and the manner in which they do their work. Complaints are useless, and the organization is just too big to have an effect on.

BTW, if you really think federal civil service rules allow incompetent people to be fired (in the real world, not theoretically), then I suspect you're part of the problem, not the solution. You clearly are very familiar with the federal space, and you should also know that there are a tremendous number of people in the fed space who have no idea that they are doing, and don't care.

 

[denverpilot]

Answer: There IS a difference.
1 - The contractor can ACTUALLY be held accountable for its work. The Feds could write standards for screening, and inspect the work of screeners employed by the airports or airlines. If they fail, they're fired.
There is nothing remotely like this in the government sector, where federal employees cannot be fired for anything as minor as gross incompetence.

2 - Performance of the contractors would be public record, and accountable to the public, airport, and airlines.

3 - The private company employees don't get power trips, threatening to arrest people, and try to expand their power into the idiotic stuff TSA has tried. Like setting up a checkpoint in a train station and screening people getting OFF the train

I generally agree with your assessment, Alan... But there already was a private company responsible for your security prior to TSA... The Airline providing the transportation.

I have deeply suspected for a long time that the already bankrupt airlines pressured politicians to create TSA after 9/11 because they knew that one single event would fiscally destroy the airline if anything like it ever happened again. And they knew tort reform in this area had as much chance of happening as a snowball has in hell, or that tort reform in anything related to aviation will EVER happen.

The people that run Airlines have politicians on speed dial. The rest of us, not do much. We have websites with canned answers to our letters to our so-called "Representatives". It took a Senator busting FAA regs to get Washington off the dime on legislation to reign in FAA and make them share evidence against a pilot for infractions. That only went so far. Today the NTSB announced that they're not going to presume innocence (as usual) when FAA gives them evidence, nor treat the Appeals process any differently than they have ever treated it. The check and balance is still in favor of the Washington in-crowd between FAA and NTSB. Every pilot organization in the country came out against this decision, it mattered exactly ZERO in the halls of Washington D.C. today.

The checks and balances were all there for passenger safety. Airline provides transport, doesn't keep passengers safe, is sued out of existence. it would have hurt. It would have scared the remaining airlines into getting serious about security, and not to downplay it -- that threat, mixed with the sadness of losing not only their passengers, but their own that day, it would have gotten fixed without government. Airlines could compete with levels of safety. They're not interested. Especially not if they can foist the entire thing off on government and the taxpayer. So much cheaper to buy a Senator or two than pay for Security, and be responsible.

It was a FAR better business deal to convince people the government needed to handle it, which took all the liability away, and the need for liability insurance away, if they could even get it. And our government LOVES a crisis to manage. It wins at the polls. Only ten years later does the concept of "Hey, this is too expensive for the services rendered" start to enter the public psyche.

Make the problem the people's problem via government spending and debt, just like bailing out AIG for their bad insurance sold to crooked mortgage lenders that they KNEW were crooked... Same diff. Just a different way to spell "bailout".

 

[N801BH]

So, you would fire employees based only on an assertion of wrongdoing, regardless of whether or not there is any basis to it? I definitely do not want to work for you.....think before you type.

..

NOPE.... I am speaking about the numerous incidents of theft of items from baggage that were video taped and several of the crooks protested and are still on the TSA payroll.... They claim innocence....

What part of stealing is ok ???

 

[Fearless Tower]

An acquaintance of mine has made a career in one of the agencies that is now part of DHS. From his insiders perspective, there has been little change in the sharing of information across agencies beyond what is done at the local joint terrorism taskforce level. Forming the agency was an elaborate rearranging of the furniture with a chair still being a chair and a table still being a table.

Not suprising at all. Just look at the USCG. They are just one of the entities within the DHS and they don't even share info within their own organization.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Do we need screening? Yes. But we need to screen for dangerous PEOPLE, not dangerous THINGS. A dangerous person is far more hazardous than pair of nail clippers.

That may be true, but it is much more difficult to screen the dangerous people than the dangerous things.

1 - The contractor can ACTUALLY be held accountable for its work. The Feds could write standards for screening, and inspect the work of screeners employed by the airports or airlines. If they fail, they're fired.
There is nothing remotely like this in the government sector, where federal employees cannot be fired for anything as minor as gross incompetence.

In reality, it does not really work out that way. Yes, in theory the contractor can be held accountable. But government employees CAN indeed be fired. The issue with BOTH is the red tape that is required to get through in order to take action. You will see people on both sides that know how to play the system and use it to their advantage to the point where in the end, supervisors give up trying to hold them accountable....From my vantage point within the DOD, I have seen this equally on both sides (federal employees and federal contractors).

The problem with federal contractors is that when the contracts are poorly written, people will find the loopholes to avoid that accountibility and the next thing you know, the government becomes just as accepting of mediocrity from its contractors as it does from its own federal employees.