Positive TSA experience

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.

Isn’t the absence of TSA-like procedures just as effective in preventing a repeat event?
Click to expand...
One change I noticed when I rented a truck the year after the 9/11 attacks is that they wanted three forms of ID.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are being silly again. I have seen no one here, and certainly not me, advocate for zero security on commercial airliners (though I do fly on regularly scheduled TSA-free charter services out of class D airports, without fear.) Did you fear the effectiveness of pre 9/11 airport screeners?

Our fearless leaders have created a monster with poor accountability, little to no science backed policy, and nearly unlimited budget. That is the problem.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
You are being silly again. I have seen no one here, and certainly not me, advocate for zero security on commercial airliners (though I do fly on regularly scheduled TSA-free charter services out of class D airports, without fear.) Did you fear the effectiveness of pre 9/11 airport screeners?

Our fearless leaders have created a monster with poor accountability, little to no science backed policy, and nearly unlimited budget. That is the problem.
Click to expand...
Well, you say no to the TSA yet gave no alternative.

What do you suggest??
 
Locks keep honest people honest.

They do not deter people who are bound and determined to break in.

Similarly any type of rigorous inspection deters some activity- -imagine what air travel would be like with no inspections whatsoever. But I agree with most of the posters here, the previous airline based security was adequate. I think the TSA was inspired during a period of collective madness when America lost its head and lost its path. Seriously, when former Stasi agents express admiration of your surveillance system you know you are on the wrong path. And in a way the TSA provides jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployable, so in the balance they are not so bad. But, I refuse to kowtow to them and refuse to forget how things were before.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

BTW, TSA misses 95% of the prohibited items in screening tests. How many box cutters ( or equivalent knives) do you think fly every day without incident? A box cutter will never take down a plane again.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well, you say no to the TSA yet gave no alternative.

What do you suggest??
Click to expand...
We had an alternative prior to TSA. The prohibited item screening criteria could have been changed, and cockpit doors could have been reinforced without spending $8 billion a year on theatre that you and I both know is mostly window dressing.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
BTW, TSA misses 95% of the prohibited items in screening tests. How many box cutters ( or equivalent knives) do you think fly every day without incident? A box cutter will never take down a plane again.
Click to expand...
True. But that's the most sophisticated stuff we can come up with. Still leaps and bounds above the bad guys.

That said, wouldn't you want to stop 1/20, plus deter god knows how many??
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
We had an alternative prior to TSA. The prohibited item screening criteria could have been changed, and cockpit doors could have been reinforced without spending $8 billion a year on theatre that you and I both know is mostly window dressing.
Click to expand...
News flash. The old security dudes are mostly the TSA today. It was taken over by the Feds, but I think in a good way.

Make no mistake. I am not a proponent of the TSA, but I do think it's the best we have for now.
 
Kritchlow said:
News flash. The old security dudes are mostly the TSA today. It was taken over by the Feds, but I think in a good way.

Make no mistake. I am not a proponent of the TSA, but I do think it's the best we have for now.
Click to expand...

News flash. Most of the old dudes quit the business early on because they couldn’t handle the garbage management structure that was put in place.

TSA had the worst job dissatisfaction survey returns of any federal job for awhile.

Turnover was so high, TSA eventually had to drop even their GED requirement to keep the lines staffed. They were advertising for employment on pizza boxes and gas pumps — looking for the finest employees out there, I suppose.

It’s the best we have because they disbanded and threw out the baby with the bath water.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
News flash. Most of the old dudes quit the business early on because they couldn’t handle the garbage management structure that was put in place.

TSA had the worst job dissatisfaction survey returns of any federal job for awhile.

Turnover was so high, TSA eventually had to drop even their GED requirement to keep the lines staffed. They were advertising for employment on pizza boxes and gas pumps — looking for the finest employees out there, I suppose.

It’s the best we have because they disbanded and threw out the baby with the bath water.
Click to expand...
Assuming you're correct, what does that have to do with the job they do today????
 
Kritchlow said:
Make no mistake. I am not a proponent of the TSA, but I do think it's the best we have for now.
Click to expand...

How did you like that junk science of thousands of Behavior Detection Officers strolling the gates looking for magic micro-expressions?

Or the warehouses full of puffers and sniffers that were deployed nationally without proper testing and then scrapped because they didn’t work?

Leadership spent billions without science or accountability. Shame on all of us for accepting it.
 
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...
Yes, you can still easily rent the truck.....but good luck trying to buy the bulk fertilizer to fill it with.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
How did you like that junk science of thousands of Behavior Detection Officers strolling the gates looking for magic micro-expressions?

Or the warehouses full of puffers and sniffers that were deployed nationally without proper testing and then scrapped because they didn’t work?

Leadership spent billions without science or accountability. Shame on all of us for accepting it.
Click to expand...
Youre right. I concede. There should be zero security at airports.

A few a day may blow up, but after all you have your liberty.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

As in many things, and I believe we have discussed before, I suspect the best real solution is to let the airlines decide in a market driven process what the appropriate trade-off is between security and convenience (see http://realairlinesecurity.org).

And yes, I would probably be willing to board such an aircraft if myself and other passengers could be armed and they had the same policies as now about hardened cockpit doors and not giving up control of the plane.

I don’t think there are that many people that want to blow them up in the US because there haven’t been any attacks on the lines leading to TSA security, which would make a very soft bomb target.
 
Kritchlow said:
Youre right. I concede. There should be zero security at airports.

A few a day may blow up, but after all you have your liberty.
Click to expand...

Back to silly talk again. You are the only one here proposing zero security.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
As in many things, and I believe we have discussed before, I suspect the best real solution is to let the airlines decide in a market driven process what the appropriate trade-off is between security and convenience (see http://realairlinesecurity.org).

And yes, I would probably be willing to board such an aircraft if myself and other passengers could be armed and they had the same policies as now about hardened cockpit doors and not giving up control of the plane.

I don’t think there are that many people that want to blow them up in the US because there haven’t been any attacks on the lines leading to TSA security, which would make a very soft bomb target.
Click to expand...
Good for the armed part. But, some terrorist will bring a bomb on board. No doubt.
 
Kritchlow said:
No doubt.
Click to expand...
What makes you so certain this is a highly likely event?

If they are that motivated, why haven’t they bombed some TSA lines? As many or more people as in a typical flight, no screening beforehand, has worked in other countries.

If we are just swimming in terrorists that want to attack us, why haven’t they executed that attack? Why isn’t it happening with some frequency actually?

It certainly can’t be TSA screening before the TSA screening line. There must some other factors, perhaps good policing or simply the good life people enjoy here that demotivates that type of attack. If policing works, great, let’s spend some of the $8.1 billion on that and less on security theatre.
 
That was 92. In fact the only reason the FBI caught the bomber was, and I am not kidding, he went back to get his security deposit. OKC waa a fews years later, 96 I think.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

That’s a very interesting question. I’m going to have to think about that.

What level of security, or to put it another way, what’s the lowest level of security that would make me willing to get on a commercial airliner?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, you can still easily rent the truck.....but good luck trying to buy the bulk fertilizer to fill it with.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So, is this a case of a government bureaucracy settling in on a solution to a big problem that is actually reasonable?
 
Kritchlow said:
Also has been previously mentioned, and agreed upon, we live in a different environment post 9/11. 1961 stats mean absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Lol, a different environment. It's always nice to move the goal post when the numbers don't suit your conclusion. The data says what it says. Events like '61, '62, '87, and '01 don't occur with any frequency. They are rare events, that while tragic and devastating, aren't likely to be prevented by TSA in their current state. TSA has an incredibly high rate of missing the very prohibited items they are supposed to be focused on finding. The fact that they are inept-enough not to find the very small number of items they are specifically trained to find, says that even if a terrorist was to try and sneak something through, they'd likely get through anyway. So, that drives the point that spending $8B in tax revenue to support an entity that isn't capable of actually stopping anything is likely a fruitless endeavor. I agree with the others in this thread that hardened cockpit doors and the change in protocol for crew members dealing with hijackers (and likely passengers helping out, too) has a much higher impact on deterrence from acts of in-flight terrorism. There are so many ways to sidestep the security measures to get something onto an aircraft that it's almost comical.

Am I for zero security? No, don't be silly. I don't think it's necessary to have full-body scanners and pat-downs though.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I don't think it's necessary to have full-body scanners and pat-downs though.
Click to expand...
A big part of why the 9/11 attack was successful was that we didn't anticipate it so the security systems in place weren't prepared for it. If you believe that a 9/11-style attack is the threat against which we must prepare you are missing the next attack just as we missed on 9/11.

What do you think is the current threat and how do we defend against it?
 
hankrausch said:
That was 92. In fact the only reason the FBI caught the bomber was, and I am not kidding, he went back to get his security deposit. OKC waa a fews years later, 96 I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the security deposit thing always gave me a chuckle. Can't remember if he bought the insurance or not.
 
Larry in TN said:
A big part of why the 9/11 attack was successful was that we didn't anticipate it so the security systems in place weren't prepared for it. If you believe that a 9/11-style attack is the threat against which we must prepare you are missing the next attack just as we missed on 9/11.

What do you think is the current threat and how do we defend against it?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that knives/box cutters aren't going to be able to get through reinforced cockpit doors, so I'm not concerned about the 9/11-style threat from a security standpoint. With 3D printing, it's going to be hard to even identify a gun if it is able to be disassembled and packaged ambiguously. I have a feeling that simply getting a bomb planted in an aircraft cargo area or wheel well (by an airline employee or someone disguised as such) is a much more likely scenario than seeing another hijacked aircraft.
 
Larry in TN said:
A big part of why the 9/11 attack was successful was that we didn't anticipate it so the security systems in place weren't prepared for it. If you believe that a 9/11-style attack is the threat against which we must prepare you are missing the next attack just as we missed on 9/11.

What do you think is the current threat and how do we defend against it?
Click to expand...
The current threat has been soft targets. For many years now areas without security screening and large groups of people have been targeted successfully.

There is no particular driver for terrorist/freedom fighters/bad guys to look at aircraft. In the 9/11 attacks the aircraft were just a means to an end which was attacking buildings that were significant politically as well as in casualties. The aircraft themselves were far from full flights.

Defending against these attacks requires removing the political motivation for the attacks. Arab spring was part of that process. There is still a long way to go on this front.
 
hankrausch said:
That was 92. In fact the only reason the FBI caught the bomber was, and I am not kidding, he went back to get his security deposit. OKC waa a fews years later, 96 I think.
Click to expand...

If I remember right, he was very adamant on getting his deposit back.

I think the vehicle was identified by the VIN stamped in the rear axle housing.

Wasn't a plain cargo van used in the OKC bombing, not a rental?
 
Zeldman said:
If I remember right, he was very adamant on getting his deposit back.

I think the vehicle was identified by the VIN stamped in the rear axle housing.

Wasn't a plain cargo van used in the OKC bombing, not a rental?
Click to expand...
Ryder rental truck. "Minimization of capital requirements for terrorist activities by using rental or otherwise acquired equipment" is the title of an MBA candidate's thesis I'm sure.
 
Why would a terrorist go through the trouble, and the increased risk of being caught during the background checks, to become an airline employee if they could just take the explosive on as a passenger?
 
Larry in TN said:
Why would a terrorist go through the trouble, and the increased risk of being caught during the background checks, to become an airline employee if they could just take the explosive on as a passenger?
Click to expand...

I suspect that most employees that would do such a thing were convinced after they were hired. As opposed to simply trying to get hired as a mole.
 
Larry in TN said:
Why would a terrorist go through the trouble, and the increased risk of being caught during the background checks, to become an airline employee if they could just take the explosive on as a passenger?
Click to expand...

Anymouse said:
I suspect that most employees that would do such a thing were convinced after they were hired. As opposed to simply trying to get hired as a mole.
Click to expand...

Yup. I was thinking converts like many of the ISIS-inspred attacks. Also, assuming they have nothing crazy in their background, I don't know that the airport employee background check is going to be that difficult. You could probably be a fuel truck driver, or baggage handler without too much fuss as long as you aren't on a terrorist watch-list.
 
You're both avoiding the question.

Why would terrorist organizations decide to take the risk of being turned in by trying to convert airline employees to their cause instead of just taking the explosives onboard themselves as passengers?
 
Larry in TN said:
You're both avoiding the question.

Why would terrorist organizations decide to take the risk of being turned in by trying to convert airline employees to their cause instead of just taking the explosives onboard themselves as passengers?
Click to expand...
What risk of being turned in? Recruiting is online. If they carry explosives onboard then they have to die. Exchanging emails is nothing and that is how these people work. Contrary to popular belief the instigators are not stupid. The soldiers may well be stupid but not the puppet masters.
 
Larry in TN said:
What do you think is the current threat and how do we defend against it?
Click to expand...


People with SIDA badges who are allowed to drive through airport gates in vehicles that don’t get searched and then have access to airplanes. They could very easily plant a bomb or a weapon that could be accessed by a co-conspirator.

Another is an attack on the large number of people mired in a security check point.

There are many other possibilities.
 
You are both still avoiding my question.

There's no shortage of people willing to blow themselves up in attacks. Wouldn't that be much easier? No need to spend months, or years, trying to recruit airport employees into a mission where they're sure to be caught. Why go through all that time, trouble, and risk when you can just walk the explosives through the TSA checkpoint with a 95% success rate?

Vehicles entering the airport grounds are searched. Often see long lines of vehicles waiting to be searched at the entry point at EWR near P4, for example. I also see stock for the shops and restaurants being x-rayed at employee security checkpoints.
 
I have driven through major airport gates countless times and have had my vehicle searched just a few times and not searched very well. This includes LAX, SFO, LAS and others.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have driven through major airport gates countless times and have had my vehicle searched just a few times and not searched very well. This includes LAX, SFO, LAS and others.
Click to expand...
I am fairly certain the number if random searches has increased over the past year. We have gotten memos to that point.
 
Larry in TN said:
A big part of why the 9/11 attack was successful was that we didn't anticipate it so the security systems in place weren't prepared for it. If you believe that a 9/11-style attack is the threat against which we must prepare you are missing the next attack just as we missed on 9/11.

What do you think is the current threat and how do we defend against it?
Click to expand...

Small attacks like the one in Manhattan this past Tuesday. Big 9/11-style attacks would be much more difficult to pull off these days. They would require more people and more funding and would generate more chatter. They're also the model most of the current surveillance was modeled on.

Some dude renting a truck, on the other hand, doesn't arouse much suspicion in and of itself; and even purchasing materials that can be used to make explosives is easy enough as long as you keep the individual purchases small and pay in cash. Yeah, most of the stuff is microtagged, but that doesn't prevent the attack from happening. It just makes it easier to investigate after the fact, which is irrelevant to a guy who's planning to blow himself up as the grand finale of his attack.

Rich
 
If I wanted to take down an airliner I would just use some piano wire and wooden dowels--no problem getting through security--to garrote a few FAs. The pilots are trained to not open the door, no matter what, and I know they believe they can perform all these acrobatics to mitigate the threat, but after a few FAs have been garroted there would be no one to instruct the passengers and those acrobatics would kill or injure many of the passengers. You would need one actor for each FA plus one or two for crowd control. At the end it would be a Mexican standoff, the terrorists would not be able to enter the cockpit but the pilots would be powerless to prevent the carnage back aft. At this point interceptors would be vectored and probably down the airliner to prevent it's being used as a weapon. This would require no Marshalls onboard but those fellows are fairly obvious to spot so worst case if one was onboard it would be a mission abort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top