Positive TSA experience

PeterNSteinmetz said:
A good question. I’ve been meaning to go through and classify incidents along these lines and compare with total passenger miles. However, given other issues presently, I would anticipate at least 6 months before I could do that.
Click to expand...

No rush. It was more rhetorical than anything else. I think I can safely say the there have been more "mere" hijackings than there have been aircraft intentionally being destroyed or otherwise used as a weapon.

I also suspect that hijackings are probably down significantly since 9/11. And more importantly, passengers are now taking the lead in defeating hijackers/terrorists that get past TSA and their international counterparts. (Think shoe/underwear bombers.)
 
Anymouse said:
I also suspect that hijackings are probably down significantly since 9/11. And more importantly, passengers are now taking the lead in defeating hijackers/terrorists that get past TSA and their international counterparts. (Think shoe/underwear bombers.)
Click to expand...

This.

Plus the locks on the cockpit doors, and the change in crew response from quietly cooperate to resist.

TSA, not so much.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Sure, there have been 4 incidents where non-crew members destroyed a plane in flight departing from a US airport since 1961. They were in 1961, 1962, 1987 and 2001. So if you work out the rate of such attacks before the TSA (including the 2001 attacks), that is 4 per 40 years, or about 1 per 10 years.

Given that frequency, it is not that improbable that 16 years might elapse without such an attack. (One can work that out more precisely of course, but I think one can see that it is not that unlikely for 1.6 10 year periods to go by without an attack when one only expects 1 per 10 year period).

Thus the argument that the TSA works since there have been no attacks since 2001 is, statistically speaking, invalid.

Given the lack of good evidence that the TSA works, and plenty of other evidence to suggest their procedures are not effective, spending $8.1 billion per year on this "security theatre" seems a very severe mis-allocation of resources. If one wants to spend that kind of money on saving lives, there are likely 100X more effective ways to spend it.
Click to expand...
I don't see any correlation. The world today is much different than 1961.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
This.

Plus the locks on the cockpit doors, and the change in crew response from quietly cooperate to resist.

TSA, not so much.
Click to expand...

Yes double "this". As a passenger myself I can testify that I'm alert and at the ready to do a Flight 93 if need be and I'm very sure many other pax would join me. (Except without the crash it into a field part.) There is approximately zero chance terrorists could pull another 9/11 style attack because the passengers would never allow it so they aren't even going to bother. They'd have to get someone hired into the cockpit to pull a Germanwings and there are far easier ways than that to kill a whole lot more people. We can expect the next big attack to be a poisoned water supply or a hit on the electric grid or a sneaked in dirty nuke. That $8 billion should be going toward shoring up those modalities but no, government plus the general public in their collective idiocy prefer p!$$!ng away that money and pretending it's what's prevented another airplane attack.
 
Rushie said:
Yes double "this". As a passenger myself I can testify that I'm alert and at the ready to do a Flight 93 if need be and I'm very sure many other pax would join me. (Except without the crash it into a field part.) There is approximately zero chance terrorists could pull another 9/11 style attack because the passengers would never allow it so they aren't even going to bother. They'd have to get someone hired into the cockpit to pull a Germanwings and there are far easier ways than that to kill a whole lot more people. We can expect the next big attack to be a poisoned water supply or a hit on the electric grid or a sneaked in dirty nuke. That $8 billion should be going toward shoring up those modalities but no, government plus the general public in their collective idiocy prefer p!$$!ng away that money and pretending it's what's prevented another airplane attack.
Click to expand...
If I was interested in killing a bunch of people I'd do it in the cattle pen security check in. Zero "security" there.
 
Kritchlow said:
I don't see any correlation. The world today is much different than 1961.
Click to expand...

Certainly a lot of changes, but if true, then the argument that we should somehow compare the rate of attacks before and after the implementation of the TSA to conclude that the TSA has prevented attacks is even less valid.

I believe we may have discussed this before, so let me ask, other than the lack of attacks since 2001, is there any other actual evidence that the TSA prevents terrorist attacks which is convincing, in your view?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Certainly a lot of changes, but if true, then the argument that we should somehow compare the rate of attacks before and after the implementation of the TSA to conclude that the TSA has prevented attacks is even less valid.
Click to expand...

The comparison between the rate of attacks before and after the implementation of the TSA was posted by you, to conclude that the TSA has NOT prevented attacks:

"One can look at the rates of such attacks before and after formation of the TSA. These are very rare events, but based on that data, no evidence of a change in rate due to the TSA."​

I believe we may have discussed this before, so let me ask, other than the lack of attacks since 2001, is there any other actual evidence that the TSA prevents terrorist attacks which is convincing, in your view?
Click to expand...

My statement was that we don't know whether the TSA has stopped any terrorists. I don't think that your method of comparing the number of attacks before and after TSA's inception is sufficient to tell us, because there are too many variables that are unaccounted for.
 
Palmpilot said:
My statement was that we don't know whether the TSA has stopped any terrorists. I don't think that your method of comparing the number of attacks before and after TSA's inception is sufficient to tell us, because there are too many variables that are unaccounted for.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. If the TSA had stopped any terrorists, Homeland Security would be shouting it from the mountaintops to justify their existence and further funding.

What we don't know if if the TSA deterred any terrorists who moved onto other, easier targets. But for that sake, if pre-TSA security had been left in place until today, the result very well may have been no different. 9-11 was not an airport security gate screening lapse.
 
Last edited:
ElPaso Pilot said:
Yes we do. If the TSA had stopped any terrorists, Homeland Security would be shouting it from the mountaintops to justify their existence and further funding.
Click to expand...
That would only be true if the TSA knew how many would-be terrorists, if any, have been deterred from trying. I don't see any practical way for them, or us, to find that out. The only thing that's available seems to be theories and plausibility arguments.
 
So really, it becomes a question of: given the lack of indisputable evidence that TSA has actively or passively mitigated the risk of terrorism on domestic flights, is it worth $8B/yr to operate ad infinitum when there is no set of metrics for which they can be evaluated?! God I want that job, lol.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So really, it becomes a question of: given the lack of indisputable evidence that TSA has actively or passively mitigated the risk of terrorism on domestic flights, is it worth $8B/yr to operate ad infinitum when there is no set of metrics for which they can be evaluated?! God I want that job, lol.
Click to expand...
Zero major aircraft terrorism in the US since 9/11 is a pretty good metric imo. I believe that proves at least some amount of deterrence.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So really, it becomes a question of: given the lack of indisputable evidence that TSA has actively or passively mitigated the risk of terrorism on domestic flights, is it worth $8B/yr to operate ad infinitum when there is no set of metrics for which they can be evaluated?! God I want that job, lol.
Click to expand...
Really? You have to weigh at least 300 pounds, wear a skin tight uniform and grope members of the same sex not that there’s anything wrong with any of that.
 
Kritchlow said:
Zero major aircraft terrorism in the US since 9/11 is a pretty good metric imo. I believe that proves at least some amount of deterrence.
Click to expand...
Ahh, kritch is back. Who had your account yesterday?
 
Kritchlow said:
Zero major aircraft terrorism in the US since 9/11 is a pretty good metric imo. I believe that proves at least some amount of deterrence.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is, similar to the one I posed above, has the TSA made a difference? Or could the same results have been obtained with the mish mash of airport security we had prior to 9/11?
 
Clark1961 said:
Really? You have to weigh at least 300 pounds, wear a skin tight uniform and grope members of the same sex not that there’s anything wrong with any of that.
Click to expand...
Some sacrifices might have to be made in exchange for getting paid an obscene amount of money and not having to produce any tangible results. :)
 
Kritchlow said:
Zero major aircraft terrorism in the US since 9/11 is a pretty good metric imo. I believe that proves at least some amount of deterrence.
Click to expand...

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there have only been 4 incidents of fatal aircraft terrorism in the US since the modern flight era began . . . statistically, we're inside the range where we wouldn't expect to have one anyway, even pre-9/11 TSA.
 
SoonerAviator said:
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there have only been 4 incidents of fatal aircraft terrorism in the US since the modern flight era began . . . statistically, we're inside the range where we wouldn't expect to have one anyway, even pre-9/11 TSA.
Click to expand...
Also has been previously mentioned, and agreed upon, we live in a different environment post 9/11. 1961 stats mean absolutely nothing.
 
Anymouse said:
I guess the question is, similar to the one I posed above, has the TSA made a difference? Or could the same results have been obtained with the mish mash of airport security we had prior to 9/11?
Click to expand...
Who knows? After all, the 9/11 bad guys (I could be wrong) carried box cutters. Those were actually allowed on aircraft at the time, thus no security breach.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken about that.
 
Kritchlow said:
Who knows? After all, the 9/11 bad guys (I could be wrong) carried box cutters. Those were actually allowed on aircraft at the time, thus no security breach.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken about that.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Those screeners were in full compliance with the guidelines given them at the time.

I truly believe that a change in screening criteria and fortification of cockpit doors did not require the creation of an entire new bureaucracy at $8 billion per year, forever.
 
Palmpilot said:
My statement was that we don't know whether the TSA has stopped any terrorists. I don't think that your method of comparing the number of attacks before and after TSA's inception is sufficient to tell us, because there are too many variables that are unaccounted for.
Click to expand...

That is however the only data we have for comparing rates. Technically, what a failure to detect a significant difference means is that the data do not suggest there is a difference.

Remember, the burden of proof is on he who asserts existence of something (otherwise one is stuck trying to prove the non-existence of something). I agree that was not your statement.

However, if others wish to assert that the TSA has changed the rate of attack, there is no data which suggests that is true. And the assertion that zero attacks since 2001 proves the TSA works is just such an assertion of the existence of an effect and is statistically demonstrably mistaken.

As noted above, there are lots of other reasons to think the TSA don't work -- failure to detect contraband, the ease with which one can imagine work arounds, the lack of any demonstrated successes, etc.

Thus from a public policy point of view, as noted by @SoonerAviator, is it really worth $8.1 billion a year, the loss of everyone's time, and massive invasion of privacy?
 
Had a friend leave a loaded mag in his carry on. Of course they found it and took it, but were nice enough to hold it for him and returned it to him when he came back from his trip.
 
Kritchlow said:
Zero major aircraft terrorism in the US since 9/11 is a pretty good metric imo. I believe that proves at least some amount of deterrence.
Click to expand...
Zero major elephant attacks on aircraft in the US since 9/11 would seem to be a pretty good indicator of elephant deterrence as well.

Again, knowing the limited skill set and repeatedly proven lack of effectiveness of the TSA screeners at basic security tasks, there were more efficient ways than throwing untold billions of tax dollars at this problem.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Zero major elephant attacks on aircraft in the US since 9/11 would seem to be a pretty good indicator of elephant deterrence as well.

Again, knowing the limited skill set and repeatedly proven lack of effectiveness of the TSA screeners at basic security tasks, there were more efficient ways than throwing untold billions of tax dollars at this problem.
Click to expand...
Sorry... there hasn't been a MAJOR threat of elephant attacks on airplanes.

Please compare apples to apples.
 
1RTK1 said:
Had a friend leave a loaded mag in his carry on. Of course they found it and took it, but were nice enough to hold it for him and returned it to him when he came back from his trip.
Click to expand...
Obviously did not occur in one of the Constitution- violating states.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
...However, if others wish to assert that the TSA has changed the rate of attack, there is no data which suggests that is true. And the assertion that zero attacks since 2001 proves the TSA works is just such an assertion of the existence of an effect and is statistically demonstrably mistaken....
Click to expand...
I think it would be more meaningful to compare the number of fatalities. Comparing solely the number of attacks ignores the severity of the consequences.
 
I have found that if I dress business casual while traveling, I get treated better by TSA than if I wear a middle eastern goat herders outfit.....
 
What’s funny is before TSA pre-check, I would get treated worse if I was in uniform or used my military ID.
 
Fearless Tower said:
What’s funny is before TSA pre-check, I would get treated worse if I was in uniform or used my military ID.
Click to expand...
Indeed it has evolved.

KCM being the largest change, but precheck is also good.
 
Kritchlow said:
Sorry... there hasn't been a MAJOR threat of elephant attacks on airplanes.

Please compare apples to apples.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'll bite.

Ryder truck rentals have not been used again in a major bombing incident since Oklahoma City in 1995, which at the time was the largest terror event on US soil.

Anyone can still head down to Ryder and rent a truck unfettered.

Isn’t the absence of TSA-like procedures just as effective in preventing a repeat event?
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Sure, I'll bite.

Ryder truck rentals have not been used again in a major bombing incident since Oklahoma City in 1995, which at the time was the largest terror event on US soil.

Anyone can still head down to Ryder and rent a truck unfettered.
Click to expand...
Okay. What does that have to do with TSA??
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Sure, I'll bite.

Ryder truck rentals have not been used again in a major bombing incident since Oklahoma City in 1995, which at the time was the largest terror event on US soil.

Anyone can still head down to Ryder and rent a truck unfettered.
Click to expand...
But obviously rental cars/trucks have.
 
Reread my post. Don’t be silly yourself.

Are you suggesting we react to each and every event with another $8 billion annual expenditure and another federal bureaucracy creation until we collapse under the financial burden, or just in the industry you work in?
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Reread my post. Don’t be silly yourself.

Are you suggesting we react to each and every event with another $8 billion annual expenditure and another federal bureaucracy creation until we collapse under the financial burden, or just in the industry you work in?
Click to expand...
1) if North Korea blew off a big bomd, would there be a difference if it was the explosion or the radiation that killed you? No it's the bomb. Same for a tuck whether it mows you down or blows you up.

2) would you get on a commercial airliner with ZERO security?? I mean zero. Walk from your parking space, kick the tires, climb the jet bridge and board five hours early.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top