More from the TSA

[mscard88]

how old was he when they hired him!!?? Retired as a pilot then started with them?

60 as that was the airline retirement age at the time. He's had military time, then a number of years as a controller until Rayguns fired him and 10,000 other controllers. But it was worth it getting on with a guv't agency because all his military and FAA time counts toward a retirement w/ a pension.

 

[dweyant]

60 as that was the airline retirement age at the time. He's had military time, then a number of years as a controller until Rayguns fired him and 10,000 other controllers. But it was worth it getting on with a guv't agency because all his military and FAA time counts toward a retirement w/ a pension.

You mean fired him for staging an illegal strike?

 

[Unit74]

You know... getting REAL tired of these broad stroke characterizations.

I'm generally a moderate "leftist." I think the TSA is a friggin' joke because they're a massive utilization of federal dollars to insure that we have the same rate of transportation terrorism as we had before 9/11. We somehow managed for a good long time without massive security screening... then 9/11 happened and instead of responding proportionally, I can't take a bottle of shampoo with me on a damn airplane and someone's 87 year old grandmother is getting groped in secondary screening, all so the TSA can fail 95% of their screening tests. I know of one case where one person I work with forgot she had a VERY PROHIBITED item in her carry on. Bag went through the x-ray machine. Still got on to the plane with her. Thanks TSA.

I'm also a moderate "leftist" that believes that if you take off sprinting from a secondary screening area, you're going to get tackled, and that it's not UNREASONABLE for that to happen.

You know who really likes to make broad characterizations of "leftists" as though they're an enemy on a battlefield? Ignorant people.

How ironic of you to defend an ideological position that without facts, chooses to consistently martyr innocent people doing their job consistently within the law. Where anyone with a badge is the enemy and convicted criminals are somehow victims, even in the face of their own wrong doing.

The "left" is destroying this country. Ignorant people? Do you actually known what that word is defined as?

It's no secret TSA has problems. And yes you can bring just about anything you want on a plane, including a gun or your assault shampoo. It's location on that plane is where your angst is centered. I haven't seen an airport that I can walk in and take a shower just yet.

You have no argument. Only emotions, which where "the left" centers itself because facts are meaningless to them and ramrodding their PC ******** down everyone's throat till they choke is SOP.

 

[PPC1052]

From the article she got screened out to more scrutiny and then bolted. They chased and tackled her. WTH do you think they are gonna do? Let you go? What am I missing here? If I did that at a security checkpoint, they'd tackle my ass too, and I'd expect it's coming. In a foreign country, they'd effing choot me!

Sucks she got ruffed up, but damn, don't bolt from security. She's gonna sue? For what? Deep pockets is what she sees. What I see is no personal responsibility. She caused the whole mess.

The problem is that they have no way to deal with these special cases. When they force everyone through their system they are guaranteed to get people that need special care. But they have neither the common sense nor the compassion to respond appropriately. A 19 year old deaf blind paralyzed clearly confused girl traveling with her family who was trying to explain her disability and all the TSA can do is pummel her?

 

[Unit74]

They do have procedures, but I speculate they were unaware of her condition before she went sideways. They are not going to stop and discuss your problems while you flail and try to run. That's not gonna happen. After the fact, it's easy to slaughter them for doing their job. During the event, they must react immediately to the conduct. That's exactly what happened. Happens a lot with drunk drivers who turn out to be in a diabetic emergency. They don't stop, run lights, crash cops drag them out cuff and stuff. Then, they figure out they need EMS and off they go.

That's why there is Supreme Court case law that basically says, what was known to the officer at the time the event occurred and would another person have reacted the same way with those facts. If the answer is yes, it's legit. If the answer is no, they have problems.

 

[PPC1052]

That's why there is Supreme Court case law that basically says, what was known to the officer at the time the event occurred and would another person have reacted the same way with those facts. If the answer is yes, it's legit. If the answer is no, they have problems.

Except that this isn't a traffic stop where an officer stops an erratically operating vehicle. This is screening every person (minors and the disabled included) boarding a plane. The same standards are not appropriate.

 

[Unit74]

It's what they will judged against. What was known to the officer at the time and would another officer do the same.

Doesn't matter if it's a traffic stop. It's constitutional law where there was an infringement on the 4th by the government. The standard applies.

 

[mscard88]

You mean fired him for staging an illegal strike?

 

[RJM62]

They do have procedures, but I speculate they were unaware of her condition before she went sideways. They are not going to stop and discuss your problems while you flail and try to run. That's not gonna happen. After the fact, it's easy to slaughter them for doing their job. During the event, they must react immediately to the conduct. That's exactly what happened. Happens a lot with drunk drivers who turn out to be in a diabetic emergency. They don't stop, run lights, crash cops drag them out cuff and stuff. Then, they figure out they need EMS and off they go.

That's why there is Supreme Court case law that basically says, what was known to the officer at the time the event occurred and would another person have reacted the same way with those facts. If the answer is yes, it's legit. If the answer is no, they have problems.

Your assumption that the girl's family did not inform the agents of her condition, aside from being the same sort of unfounded indictment of which you accuse the rest of us, flies in the face of common sense. What possible motivation could they have had for concealing it? To intentionally use their sick daughter to precipitate a violent attack on the girl (which would also presuppose that they knew in advance that the particular agent who screened her would be a brute who lacked common sense) so they could later file a lawsuit?

Your comparison of TSO's with LEO's also stretches credibility. How many police departments hire people with no experience or post-secondary education and put them on patrol with only nine days of training? And that's assuming that the TSO's in question had even that much. TSA itself admits that prior to establishing their nine-day "academy," TSO's were trained in a "piecemeal" manner, presumably by supervisors who'd been trained in the same way.

My argument continues to be for better training, oversight, accountability, and yes, pay for TSA agents. What they have become is a modern-day Stasi, but one without the benefit of the intensive selection and training that process that East Germany employed. From Wikipedia:

Regular commissioned Stasi officers were recruited from conscripts who had been honourably discharged from their 28 months' compulsory military service, had been members of the SED, had had a high level of participation in the Party's youth wing's activities and had been Stasi informers during their service in the Military. The candidates would then have to be recommended by their military unit political officers and Stasi agents, the local chiefs of the District (Bezirk) Stasi and Volkspolizei office, of the district in which they were permanently resident, and the District Secretary of the SED. These candidates were then made to sit through several tests and exams, which identified their intellectual capacity to be an officer, and their political reliability. University graduates who had completed their military service did not need to take these tests and exams. They then attended a two-year officer training programme at the Stasi college (Hochschule) in Potsdam. Less mentally and academically endowed candidates were made ordinary technicians and attended a one-year technology-intensive course for non-commissioned officers.

What we have today is a modern-day Stasi, but one composed of poorly-trained individuals whose main qualifications for selection were the willingness to work for low wages and a desire to wear a badge and push people around. That is what needs to change. TSA's mission is important one, as much as it pains me to say that; but the caliber and training of its staff are, at best, woefully inadequate.

Rich

 

[PPC1052]

It's what they will judged against. What was known to the officer at the time and would another officer do the same.

Doesn't matter if it's a traffic stop. It's constitutional law where there was an infringement on the 4th by the government. The standard applies.

No. The nature of the stop absolutely goes into the mix in determining what is reasonable under constitutional analysis.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

 

[Palmpilot]

 

[red4golf]

Let's all be afraid, that's a wonderful way to live life. Let's be afraid of being killed by terrorists, mass shootings, drive by, out of control cops and other things that are roughly equal to being struck by lightning. This is coming from a guy who has actually shot a man with a suicide vest..... relax, live life and stop letting the news and the people in DC scare you in to giving up your money and personal freedoms. /rantoff

 

[flyingron]

Actually, I've been having good luck with the TSA of late. Amusingly, I've been using my TWIC as my photo ID and they've never even looked twice at it.

 

[wsuffa]

Actually, I've been having good luck with the TSA of late. Amusingly, I've been using my TWIC as my photo ID and they've never even looked twice at it.

Ya, it depends on who you get and where.

I use my passport card without any real problem at most places, save for the occasional one that hasn't seen one yet. Passport itself was problematic in 2 places on domestic flights where the TSA insisted that I couldn't use it unless I was traveling internationally (supervisor cleared that up). Global Entry card has been a mixed bag (even though GE is what gets me pre-check, go figure).

All in all, it's gotten better over the years.

 

[flyingron]

I'm always amazed they know what a TWIC is. It just says TWIC and my name, picture, and expiration date. Not even a number or anything on the face (it's on the back). Of course, it's actually the one form of ID that's actually issued by the TSA so I guess they have to accept it.

 

[James331]

Let's all be afraid, that's a wonderful way to live life. Let's be afraid of being killed by terrorists, mass shootings, drive by, out of control cops and other things that are roughly equal to being struck by lightning. This is coming from a guy who has actually shot a man with a suicide vest..... relax, live life and stop letting the news and the people in DC scare you in to giving up your money and personal freedoms. /rantoff

 

[Kritchlow]

Heck... I think anyone should be able to take any personal risk they choose. You should be allowed to jump out of an airplane without a chute if you're planning the tree branches will break your fall. I'm fine with that as long as your stupidity doesn't raise my insurance rates.

That said, trying flying in an airliner without security you are not making a personal decision. You are making the decision for several hundred passengers that may not share your viewpoint.

 

[red4golf]

There is nothing wrong with security but there is something wrong with using our fears to grow a program that is no better than what we had before or stripping our rights because it is the only way to be safe.

 

[Kritchlow]

There is nothing wrong with security but there is something wrong with using our fears to grow a program that is no better than what we had before or stripping our rights because it is the only way to be safe.

Huh?? I assure you it is better.
I know most here would disagree, but that's only because they don't like complying with the TSA rules (so they they get hostile toward the system), or. flat out they don't think their system works..... Obviously a crock seeing as though airline terror has been minimized. They'll quote you 95% missed, but look at the facts... How many planes have been taken over since 9/11 ??? Would you fly on a completely unsecured flight?? Doubt it.

 

[red4golf]

Remember that the hijackers used items that were legal at the time. I routinely carried a pocket knife prior to 9/11. I never said that security wasn't necessary but I don't believe for a second that the TSA offers a reasonable product at a reasonable price. Before 9/11 hijacking was seen as a different animal, it wasn't a guaranteed death sentence as it was that day. Most people came away scared after a time in some foreign country but made it home alive. This is one reason that nobody resisted until word got around about the towers. Why risk life and limb when people generally make it out alive? After 9/11 people decided to take an active part in their own safety as we have seen many times. Aviation will always be a target because of the headlines generated by the littlest of incidents but it is not as soft as it once was and I don't give much of the credit to the TSA for that.

 

[James331]

Huh?? I assure you it is better.
I know most here would disagree, but that's only because they don't like complying with the TSA rules (so they they get hostile toward the system), or. flat out they don't think their system works..... Obviously a crock seeing as though airline terror has been minimized. They'll quote you 95% missed, but look at the facts... How many planes have been taken over since 9/11 ??? Would you fly on a completely unsecured flight?? Doubt it.

I think you're probably one of the only people who believes that, unless you're just going for a reaction.

 

[Larry in TN]

I haven't seen an airport that I can walk in and take a shower just yet.

I've taken showers at both the Frankfurt and Atlanta airports. Shampoo, soap, and towels all provided. Showers in the airline clubs at international gateway airports are pretty common.

 

[flyingron]

Some of the airline lounges in the US even have them. The Centurian lounge at DFW has them. I've seen them in some of the American lounges (at least in airports that serve the overseas flights).

 

[Everskyward]

I saw signs for pay lounges with showers in Heathrow.

 

[Unit74]

I've taken showers at both the Frankfurt and Atlanta airports. Shampoo, soap, and towels all provided. Showers in the airline clubs at international gateway airports are pretty common.

Anytime I have flown international, I was in camouflage and all my worldly possessions fit in a sea bag!

 

[wsuffa]

Some of the airline lounges in the US even have them. The Centurian lounge at DFW has them. I've seen them in some of the American lounges (at least in airports that serve the overseas flights).

AA has them at many of their clubs in major citie (JFK, ORD, LAX, DFW, MIA, etc). The AMex centurion lounges have them, as do certain Delta lounges at JFK and ATL.

 

[ircphoenix]

Huh?? I assure you it is better.
I know most here would disagree, but that's only because they don't like complying with the TSA rules (so they they get hostile toward the system), or. flat out they don't think their system works..... Obviously a crock seeing as though airline terror has been minimized. They'll quote you 95% missed, but look at the facts... How many planes have been taken over since 9/11 ??? Would you fly on a completely unsecured flight?? Doubt it.

How many US planes were hijacked in the years immediately prior to 9/11?

Was the TSA responsible for all of those planes that didn't crash into buildings too?

 

[flyingron]

How many US planes were hijacked in the years immediately prior to 9/11?

The only US plane that was hijacked in the 1990s was the FedEx plane in 1995. Prior to that a muslim terrorist in 1987 tried to hijack a DC-9 at IAD with the goal of crashing into the White House. He was outsmarted by the captain before the plane left the ground. 1983 and prior saw a lot more.

 

[Palmpilot]

Huh?? I assure you it is better.
I know most here would disagree, but that's only because they don't like complying with the TSA rules (so they they get hostile toward the system), or. flat out they don't think their system works..... Obviously a crock seeing as though airline terror has been minimized. They'll quote you 95% missed, but look at the facts... How many planes have been taken over since 9/11 ??? Would you fly on a completely unsecured flight?? Doubt it.

Part of the problem is that so many security-motivated changes have occurred that it's difficult to know for sure which ones are actually responsible for that result, and which had little or nothing to do with it.

 

[ircphoenix]

The only US plane that was hijacked in the 1990s was the FedEx plane in 1995. Prior to that a muslim terrorist in 1987 tried to hijack a DC-9 at IAD with the goal of crashing into the White House. He was outsmarted by the captain before the plane left the ground. 1983 and prior saw a lot more.

Wow. The TSA was doing a pretty good job in the 20 years prior to 9/11.

Oh wait....

 

[Everskyward]

We often hear that if someone wants to cause harm they will find a way. So it must be the case that either no one motivated enough, or security measures in this country are working. But as @Palmpilot points out, there were so many measures put in place that it's hard to tell which measures those might be.

 

[Kritchlow]

How many US planes were hijacked in the years immediately prior to 9/11?

Was the TSA responsible for all of those planes that didn't crash into buildings too?

Irrelevant. Everything changed after 9/11.

That said, I remember several as a kid. Can't remember specifics without researching though.

 

[flyingron]

When I was a kid they were taking them to Cuba. I remember when they added the first metal detectors and carry x-rays. Times change. But it was correct, the incidents I listed were the only ones in 13 years or so before 9/11. One was almost the SAME scenario as the 9-11 hijackers used just not as well executed (only one hijacker).

But still, it doesn't change the matter that the TSA has done nothing. Security rules existed before 9/11 and the changed after 9/11. There are entry points into the system as secure (or more) than the TSA protected ones that are working fine. Creating a massive government bureaucracy that scraped the bottom of the barrel for staff inside an even larger and largely more pointless bureaucracy doesn't do anything other than open the possibilities up for corruption and waste taxpayer money.

 

[Kritchlow]

Don't forget db Cooper. Not sure if that's a hijacking per se, but still.....

 

[Palmpilot]

Don't forget db Cooper. Not sure if that's a hijacking per se, but still.....

He ordered the pilots to take the plane where he wanted, so I would say that it qualifies as a hijacking, at least for the portion of the flight that he was on board.

 

[flyingron]

DB Cooper was 30 years before 9/11/

 

[ircphoenix]

Irrelevant. Everything changed after 9/11.

That said, I remember several as a kid. Can't remember specifics without researching though.

The kneejerk reaction of creating of a bloated ineffective bureaucracy is what changed after 9/11. To disregard X amount of years of effective policing of passenger air travel based off of one event is, no matter how callous it sounds, the very demonstration of kneejerk political posturing.

Creating reinforced cockpit doors, changing hijacking procedures, and implementing the sky marshal program alone could have been sufficient.

But even after the TSA was created, we had an underwear bomber and a shoe bomber, both unsuccessful attempts, but now we all have to take off our shoes and have multimillion dollar 3D scanners installed in airports all over the country that aren't effective, then became tools for the TSA to play with and make fun of passengers, and ultimately just led to good old fashion groping.... all for screeners to fail 95% of the time when test articles are introduced, because they're so focused on toe nail clippers that they miss guns.

Or is that all irrelevant too?

 

[hindsight2020]

 

[Kritchlow]

The kneejerk reaction of creating of a bloated ineffective bureaucracy is what changed after 9/11. To disregard X amount of years of effective policing of passenger air travel based off of one event is, no matter how callous it sounds, the very demonstration of kneejerk political posturing.

Creating reinforced cockpit doors, changing hijacking procedures, and implementing the sky marshal program alone could have been sufficient.

But even after the TSA was created, we had an underwear bomber and a shoe bomber, both unsuccessful attempts, but now we all have to take off our shoes and have multimillion dollar 3D scanners installed in airports all over the country that aren't effective, then became tools for the TSA to play with and make fun of passengers, and ultimately just led to good old fashion groping.... all for screeners to fail 95% of the time when test articles are introduced, because they're so focused on toe nail clippers that they miss guns.

Or is that all irrelevant too?

They failed 95% of the time, but that was with our best trying to beat the system. I doubt the terror people are that good.
Yes there were shoe and underwear bombers, as well as liquid threats.
I'm confused.. Do you suggest we just pretend that doesn't exist and not guard against it?