[N/A] Idiot Comment gets PAX detained by TSA

[Dave Krall CFII]

I was responding to this comment of yours:



I just can't agree with that one Iota. A quick trip to Lagos or Port au Prince will explain why. That is power which no government should have, and America has fought against that kind of oppression since conception. We have gone on foreign soil to help others, yet you espouse to allow such here for the illusion of safety. I can't buy into it myself.

The way I see it, this is they way our successful system has always been. ie: A police officer (or even plain citizen) sees someone on the street talking drunk and/or beligerent as he walks to a car, as worthy of questioning to determine degree of posible danger, even though the person in question has not harmed anyone yet.

The foreign countries you mention are far removed from what we now have in our USA and in the examples under discussion here. Granted, we must always be vigilant not to fall into that quagmire, especially since in our Democracy with all its desirable liberties, we are never far from the edge of the muck.

Your second to last sentence, I just don't understand because I may not be reading it right or something so as to understand the gist of it.

 

[TMetzinger]

The way I see it, this is they way our successful system has always been. ie: A police officer (or even plain citizen) sees someone on the street talking drunk and/or beligerent as he walks to a car, as worthy of questioning to determine degree of posible danger, even though the person in question has not harmed anyone yet.

Going up and asking a question is different than detaining someone.

 

[EdFred]

I'm tempted to wear nothing but cowboy boots and my duster when I head of to Charlotte in a couple weeks.

 

[tdager]

Going up and asking a question is different than detaining someone.

If the person being questioned does not want to stay and answer questions? Well then he is "detained".

BTW...I do not think the comment warranted the harrassement, nor did the LEO think any law was broken.

In the end his actions, while laudable from an individual "standing up for his beliefs" point, did nothing but inconvenience him and make a talking point for the rest of us.

I just rather pick and choose my battles a bit better...this one seemed like more of a waste of everyones time than anything else.

 

[ApacheBob]

Please forgive the interruption, Jeff, could you check the Coast-to-Coast thread.
Sorry. Please continue.
ApacheBob

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Besides, realistically you would have to have a pretty capable GA airplane to beat the airlines on a regular basis, especially if you're travelling a long distance.

Not any more.

My last flight on an airline was from MSP to ABQ about three years ago. I really was leaving from MSP, but my destination was Socorro.

That's an 1100+ nm trip IIRC, and the airline even had an advantage on this one because there was no layover. It was a direct flight.

Despite that fact, I realized after I got where I was going that the door-to-door time of my trip would have been just as fast in a Piper Archer. Betweeen security, waiting for my bags, waiting again for the rental car, and driving the last hour and a half to my final destination (where there was a perfectly good GA airport right in town), a rather humble little single-engine bird would have made it in the same time.

Now, had I actually flown it myself, I would have probably spent some extra time at some of the stops getting food, stretching my legs, etc... But if I would have tied 'em in an Archer without that, I probably could have realistically tied them in a 182, and beat the heck out of them with a Mooney, or a Cirrus, or a Seneca, or a Cherokee Six, or... Well, you get the point.

The only advantage the airlines still have is price. Period. And I'll be doing my best to avoid ever going on them again. (I've had the 182 as far away as TX since my last airline flight...)

 

[Everskyward]

I am no fan of the airlines but I have not been able to justify, for myself, that an airplane in the range of a Piper Archer is a reliable and cost-effective alternative to the airlines unless you are travelling relatively short distances to small markets. That's not even considering the problems you may have with weather. I suppose if your time schedule is very flexible it would help. When you're talking long distances between large cities I think the airlines definitely have the advantage, especially in cost like you mentioned yourself.

Of course, like the credit card commercial, the joy you get from flying yourself can be priceless and that counts for a lot.

 

[Anthony]

I am no fan of the airlines but I have not been able to justify, for myself, that an airplane in the range of a Piper Archer is a reliable and cost-effective alternative to the airlines unless you are travelling relatively short distances to small markets.

I think your smaller markets comment is accurate. I can fly my Tiger in less or about the same time door to door from Lexington to Denver than I can get their in the airlines. This is due to no direct flights being available, security wait time, travel time to and from the large airports, etc. I can go right into Centennial and be exactly where I need to be instead of going all the way from DEN.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am no fan of the airlines but I have not been able to justify, for myself, that an airplane in the range of a Piper Archer is a reliable and cost-effective alternative to the airlines unless you are travelling relatively short distances to small markets. That's not even considering the problems you may have with weather. I suppose if your time schedule is very flexible it would help. When you're talking long distances between large cities I think the airlines definitely have the advantage, especially in cost like you mentioned yourself.

But even when you go to a big city, you have a distinct advantage. Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, etc. all have numerous GA airports which are often more strategically located (and usually lower-priced) than the big ones serviced by the airlines.

Also, as I noted, even a longer-distance flight can be competitive except cost.

Weather is where the airlines also have an advantage, but someone with a known-ice twin like Bruce can probably do just as well the vast majority of the time.

 

[Everskyward]

But even when you go to a big city, you have a distinct advantage. Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, etc. all have numerous GA airports which are often more strategically located (and usually lower-priced) than the big ones serviced by the airlines.

Also, as I noted, even a longer-distance flight can be competitive except cost.

I guess I'm biased because I live in Denver which is the hub for two airlines with lots of direct flights to the place I want to go most often, San Francisco, and to many other places. Either that or I'm travelling for work where I have no choice but to take an airline. Looking at today's weather there is no way I would have taken off in anything less than a turboprop to go to California and it's like that many times except perhaps in the summer. I've watched someone try to make regular trips to southern California in a Comanche and he's cancelled many times. Besides as far as cost is concerned, you can't beat that $300 (or less) round trip ticket. But that's my personal decision. I know others feel differently, especially on a pilot's message board.

I absolutely know how convenient GA travel is because I fly for a charter/management company. The planes are about as fast as an airliner and all you have to do as a passenger is drive up to our parking lot and walk on the airplane and we can take you to almost anywhere as long as the runway is long enough. The cost, however, is in a whole different ballpark...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Looking at today's weather there is no way I would have taken off in anything less than a turboprop to go to California and it's like that many times except perhaps in the summer.

Yeah, the mountains do make a difference too. Around here, ice is the biggie.

Just the other day, we had airmets for turbulence, IFR, and ice and a convective SIGMET all at once!

 

[bobloblaw310]

I was at Milwaukee (sic?) airport when this guy was detained. This just was not a good idea, especially when you are going to pass through the same people you are insulting. All it takes is an inkling of suspicion to get pulled out of line, your bags checked, and detained without cause. This guy put himself on the TSA's radar and will probably have more shakedowns in his future. The TSA uses facial recognition software.

 

[wsuffa]

I was at Milwaukee (sic?) airport when this guy was detained. This just was not a good idea, especially when you are going to pass through the same people you are insulting. All it takes is an inkling of suspicion to get pulled out of line, your bags checked, and detained without cause. This guy put himself on the TSA's radar and will probably have more shakedowns in his future. The TSA uses facial recognition software.

Ah, yes, ruling America by fear. Somebody has to be a patriot, might as well be him. This incident alone has attracted more attention to problems at the TSA than any other in recent memory.

BTW, a lot of the rank-and-file TSA folks don't much care for Hawley, either. Take a look at http://www.tsa-screeners.com . The problem is that any jobs program like TSA that gives rank-and-file pseudo-police powers will attract its share of authoritarian-wannabes. So, there are good screeners and bad.

I've posted before that TSA and DHS in Washington are widely viewed in the DC area as being a real "mess". That's based on my discussions with a number of people in and out of government. For an agency that's supposed to standardize rules, the screeners in the field are far from standardized. Take, for example, the 3-ounce bottles. There are widespread reports that *some* airports have TSA confiscating containers that are not factory-labeled, others permit unlabeled bottles through. There is no prohibition against unlabeled bottles, and Hawley was quoted in the press as saying they're OK.

 

[gismo]

I guess I'm biased because I live in Denver which is the hub for two airlines with lots of direct flights to the place I want to go most often, San Francisco, and to many other places. Either that or I'm travelling for work where I have no choice but to take an airline. Looking at today's weather there is no way I would have taken off in anything less than a turboprop to go to California and it's like that many times except perhaps in the summer. I've watched someone try to make regular trips to southern California in a Comanche and he's cancelled many times. Besides as far as cost is concerned, you can't beat that $300 (or less) round trip ticket. But that's my personal decision. I know others feel differently, especially on a pilot's message board.

I absolutely know how convenient GA travel is because I fly for a charter/management company. The planes are about as fast as an airliner and all you have to do as a passenger is drive up to our parking lot and walk on the airplane and we can take you to almost anywhere as long as the runway is long enough. The cost, however, is in a whole different ballpark...

I live in the Minneapolis area which is a NW hub (and HQ) but I can still beat the airlines to most of the places I go especially when I factor in the extra time needed to get through security etc. Some trips I make out way better than the airline and some I do a little worse, but not by much.