TSA - Going too Far?

[NorthSideSox72]

f***, or maybe Obama didn't. I can't find much info on the program, other than TSA seems to oppose it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Flight_Deck_Officer

I'm not sure either, but that was a bad idea to begin with anyway.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure either, but that was a bad idea to begin with anyway.

Couldnt' you apply the same logic to the air marshall program?

[NorthSideSox72]

Couldnt' you apply the same logic to the air marshall program?

Not at all. Is a pilot an air marshall?

 

[Balta1701]

Not at all. Is a pilot an air marshall?

If you set the training requirements highly enough then why not?

 

And anyway...the reason I asked...you worried about a pilot being a terrorist...why can't an air marshall be one?

[NorthSideSox72]

If you set the training requirements highly enough then why not?

 

And anyway...the reason I asked...you worried about a pilot being a terrorist...why can't an air marshall be one?

Two subjects here.

 

As for armed pilots versus armed masrhalls, the air marshalls go through months training, which follows years of background investigation and vetting. Pilots aren't in the same realm. Furthermore, its not a good use of them anyway. They are pilots, they need to fly the plane. Expecting them to act as marshalls as well is just an unworkable concept.

 

Now about marshalls versus pilots being terrorists, first of all, I wasn't saying they have to be. What happens if someone blackmails a pilot? Its a lot easier to find a pilot and follow them home, than an air marshall. Further, even if you are talking terrorists, as I said, the background work is much deeper for air marshalls and it would be much harder to slip by.

 

[Balta1701]

Two subjects here.

 

As for armed pilots versus armed masrhalls, the air marshalls go through months training, which follows years of background investigation and vetting. Pilots aren't in the same realm. Furthermore, its not a good use of them anyway. They are pilots, they need to fly the plane. Expecting them to act as marshalls as well is just an unworkable concept.

 

Now about marshalls versus pilots being terrorists, first of all, I wasn't saying they have to be. What happens if someone blackmails a pilot? Its a lot easier to find a pilot and follow them home, than an air marshall. Further, even if you are talking terrorists, as I said, the background work is much deeper for air marshalls and it would be much harder to slip by.

I think if we're looking at all the possibilities in the 2nd bit, there seems to be very little solution to those.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think if we're looking at all the possibilities in the 2nd bit, there seems to be very little solution to those.

Perfect solutions? There are none. But going backwards from what they already had to do was the opposite of a solution, it was adding to the problem. Meanwhile, passengers are treated like animals at the vet. This will not go well.

 

[Texsox]

Not at all. Is a pilot an air marshall?

 

 

The intent is not for the pilot to enter the cabin and act in that capacity. The intent of the program is the final chance that a planeload of passengers may have against a terrorist attack. If the terrorists breech the cabin door, is it in the passengers' best interest to have an armed or unarmed pilot? I don't see how any conclusion other than armed could be reached.

[NorthSideSox72]

The intent is not for the pilot to enter the cabin and act in that capacity. The intent of the program is the final chance that a planeload of passengers may have against a terrorist attack. If the terrorists breech the cabin door, is it in the passengers' best interest to have an armed or unarmed pilot? I don't see how any conclusion other than armed could be reached.

Disagree. The single best thing they did to secure planes, they already did - make the door nearly impossible to penetrate. If they have enough firepower to get through that door, then the a pilot with a pistol is hopeless. Further, I simply do not trust someone with virtually no training with a gun in a cockpit. It just won't go well.

 

[Balta1701]

We should have put out some type of feelers and talked to the American people about this before we implimented this type of plan

Incoming Rep Allen West (R-FL).

[Texsox]

Disagree. The single best thing they did to secure planes, they already did - make the door nearly impossible to penetrate. If they have enough firepower to get through that door, then the a pilot with a pistol is hopeless. Further, I simply do not trust someone with virtually no training with a gun in a cockpit. It just won't go well.

 

 

Disagree on the no training. It seems like a pretty decent training program. Now back in 2008 one piloy had a little problem stowing his guyn and there was an accidental misfire, but no one was hurt and the plane returned safely.

[Texsox]

Disagree. The single best thing they did to secure planes, they already did - make the door nearly impossible to penetrate. If they have enough firepower to get through that door, then the a pilot with a pistol is hopeless. Further, I simply do not trust someone with virtually no training with a gun in a cockpit. It just won't go well.

 

 

What if it's the unarmed navigator that is trying to take over the plane? Earlier you were worried about an armed pilot taking over the plane, how about an unarmed member of the crew? BTW, the flight deck officer rating is also available to the co-pilot or navigator.

[Balta1701]

Rate my backscatter!

[BigSqwert]

So here's a scenario that I just thought about. What if a potential terrorist used a prosthetic penis made from real skin and filled it with whatever they were trying to sneak onto the plane? Would the backscatter see through the fake penis? Couple that with some items hidden in their anal cavity and now you've just let someone on board with who knows what.

 

I could see it now. They send a couple of test subjects through with nothing in the prosthetic to see if they get pulled aside.

Edited November 22, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Jenksismyhero]

Using odds is a silly way of judging how we should secure ourselves. What were the odds on September 10, 2001 of someone high-jacking four planes and using them as weapons? Considering it had never happened before, that put the odds at about zero. What are the odds of someone exploding a nuclear device in the US at sometime in the future? Should we not prepare for that because the odds are low?

 

You say this as though we do nothing right now. We've got a number of security procedures and precautions in place to prevent an attack. Nothing is going to guarantee safety, so there's a tipping point somewhere, and I'm arguing we've reached it. A seven year old boy getting strip searched in front of hundreds of people JUST TO GET ON A f***ING PLANE. That's ridiculous. No disrespect to the families of 9/11, but I'll take the one in however many million chance of a plane blowing up because a terrorist gets through with some homemade devise than subject our entire country to an SS-level security process.

 

And I know the response will be "well thanks for choosing that for me." But I just don't get how we've gotten to the point where in air-travel ANY measure of security is ok and necessary, but there's not a demand to protect buildings or whatever to the same degree. There's been one Oklahoma City bombing. There's been one 9/11. One has reasonable security, the other has gotten out of control.

 

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

[LittleHurt05]

So here's a scenario that I just thought about. What if a potential terrorist used a prosthetic penis made from real skin and filled it with whatever they were trying to sneak onto the plane? Would the backscatter see through the fake penis? Couple that with some items hidden in their anal cavity and now you've just let someone on board with who knows what.

 

I could see it now. They send a couple of test subjects through with nothing in the prosthetic to see if they get pulled aside.

 

Like Onterrio Smith & the Whizzinator???

[Texsox]

So here's a scenario that I just thought about. What if a potential terrorist used a prosthetic penis made from real skin and filled it with whatever they were trying to sneak onto the plane? Would the backscatter see through the fake penis? Couple that with some items hidden in their anal cavity and now you've just let someone on board with who knows what.

 

I could see it now. They send a couple of test subjects through with nothing in the prosthetic to see if they get pulled aside.

 

 

Terrorists have used fake penises, we have to check all penises to be certain they are real or the terrorists win!

[southsider2k5]

You say this as though we do nothing right now. We've got a number of security procedures and precautions in place to prevent an attack. Nothing is going to guarantee safety, so there's a tipping point somewhere, and I'm arguing we've reached it. A seven year old boy getting strip searched in front of hundreds of people JUST TO GET ON A f***ING PLANE. That's ridiculous. No disrespect to the families of 9/11, but I'll take the one in however many million chance of a plane blowing up because a terrorist gets through with some homemade devise than subject our entire country to an SS-level security process.

 

And I know the response will be "well thanks for choosing that for me." But I just don't get how we've gotten to the point where in air-travel ANY measure of security is ok and necessary, but there's not a demand to protect buildings or whatever to the same degree. There's been one Oklahoma City bombing. There's been one 9/11. One has reasonable security, the other has gotten out of control.

 

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

 

To me the line isn't some random compilation of odds and statistics. The line is where it is legally. If you cross the line legally, that is where I stop.

 

It is disrespectful to the value of people's lives to draw some arbitrary line based on what we do already. That is the exact backwards thinking that allows a 9-11 to happen.

[BigSqwert]

Like Onterrio Smith & the Whizzinator???

No. That would obviously come up on the backscatter x-ray. This would have to look like it's really part of the man's body, hence made from either a real penis (From a dead guy I presume) or something made from real skin. And could you imagine what they could hide inside the penis of John Holmes? Maybe a couple of guns!

Edited November 22, 2010 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

The new TSA procedures pose an interesting concern for transgendered people. Here's a blog I just read on the subject.

[BigSqwert]

Why Cavity Bombs Would Make the TSA Irrelevant

[Controlled Chaos]

Why Cavity Bombs Would Make the TSA Irrelevant

QFT

 

Terrorists do not need to hijack a plane, or blow one up in mid-air, to wreak havoc on civilian air travel and the American economy: All a terrorist needs to do to bring the American transportation system to a catastrophic halt is to detonate a bomb while waiting on a TSA line. No need to conceal such a bomb in your rectum, of course -- you could join the pre-screened line with a bomb in your knapsack. Or in a shopping bag.

 

Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas.

 

 

[lostfan]

Saw someone posted this on Facebook:

 

Here's a solution to all the controversy over scanners at the airports all we need is to develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth.This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be no racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials

 

"Attention passengers, we now have a seat open on Flight ___"

[BigSqwert]

Saw someone posted this on Facebook:

 

Here's a solution to all the controversy over scanners at the airports all we need is to develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth.This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be no racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials

 

"Attention passengers, we now have a seat open on Flight ___"

[Jenksismyhero]

QFT

 

Terrorists do not need to hijack a plane, or blow one up in mid-air, to wreak havoc on civilian air travel and the American economy: All a terrorist needs to do to bring the American transportation system to a catastrophic halt is to detonate a bomb while waiting on a TSA line. No need to conceal such a bomb in your rectum, of course -- you could join the pre-screened line with a bomb in your knapsack. Or in a shopping bag.

 

Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas.

 

Yep, exactly. Agree 100%.