TSA Failed In Stopping Weapons & Bomb Materials 95% Of The Time

Kritchlow said:
I am fine with that in theory, and would be fine with that in reality, IF-
The crew was okay with it, AND every person within fuel range of the unsecured aircraft was okay with it.
Seeing as though that's not practical, we have no choice. Personally I would be everything that sooner rather than later the bad guys will take one of the unsecured.
Click to expand...

Oh, we always have choice. If you are going to exclude everyone within fuel range why stop there? How about the people getting into the airport at the unsecured gates? What about those in the shopping mall, east coast train platform, etc?

For every impractical block you can put up, I can put up a solution. How much security is enough? You think TSA is enough, well lets just go further and make sure 100% nothing gets through. Back to the neck collar with the electric shock built in.
 
docmirror said:
Oh, we always have choice. If you are going to exclude everyone within fuel range why stop there? How about the people getting into the airport at the unsecured gates? What about those in the shopping mall, east coast train platform, etc?

For every impractical block you can put up, I can put up a solution. How much security is enough? You think TSA is enough, well lets just go further and make sure 100% nothing gets through. Back to the neck collar with the electric shock built in.
Click to expand...

And everyone flies naked with no carry on baggage allowed. No checked baggage either. We are going for 100% after all.

Make sure never to fly through MSP or DTW though. *shudder* (and I'm not talking from the cold)
 
Lol!!! You know, aviation may be the only subject I side on the side of "non-libertarian". I am basically somewhere between conservative and libertarian, but I find myself at odds with no oversight on airlines (I'm also pro Union for airlines ONLY).
I believe in security, and also regulation governing pilot and maintenance standards. After all, the mandated aircraft maintenance also adds to the price of a ticket. Yes, the free market would eventually weed out the airlines who didn't do maintenance, but it may cost many accidents in the mean time until the market adjusts and says no to those airlines.
 
Post 9/11 security paranoia resulted in a cabin door lock being installed in commercial airliners. That safety feature recently was a major factor in the recent German wings crash.

In regards to the TSA, I don't think anyone is saying we should have no security but maybe we have too much. I recently visited Australia and they just do a basic metal detector and baggage x-ray. I got pulled out of the line for an explosives check(I have a huge laptop that I guess looks funny on x-Ray) and it was still quicker and les intrusive than a standard TSA screening.

9/11 can't happen again. If the people on those flights had any inkling of what the terrorists might do the passengers would have overwhelmed them and stopped it before it went anywhere. The TSA haven't caught any terrorists as far as I know but vigilant passengers and crew members have repeatedly. I think we'd be just as safe backing off to pre-9/11 style security and just maintaining vigilance of passengers and crews.
 
I think concealed carry would do a world of good. I'm guessing that in the time before 9/11 plenty of people carried on a plane. I didn't bother, but I could have pretty easy. Even if it was a permit system on a comm plane I'm a big fan of CC making for polite company, cause the alternative is pretty serious.
 
cowman said:
Post 9/11 security paranoia resulted in a cabin door lock being installed in commercial airliners. That safety feature recently was a major factor in the recent German wings crash.

In regards to the TSA, I don't think anyone is saying we should have no security but maybe we have too much. I recently visited Australia and they just do a basic metal detector and baggage x-ray. I got pulled out of the line for an explosives check(I have a huge laptop that I guess looks funny on x-Ray) and it was still quicker and les intrusive than a standard TSA screening.

9/11 can't happen again. If the people on those flights had any inkling of what the terrorists might do the passengers would have overwhelmed them and stopped it before it went anywhere. The TSA haven't caught any terrorists as far as I know but vigilant passengers and crew members have repeatedly. I think we'd be just as safe backing off to pre-9/11 style security and just maintaining vigilance of passengers and crews.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear- The German Wings crash may not have happened here, as another rule implemented was two people in the cockpit.
 
Really folks, the ONLY thing the TSA needs is more funding and the whole problem will disappear....

and maybe congress can put up a whole raft of "BOMB FREE ZONE" signs so no bombers will try anything.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Really folks, the ONLY thing the TSA needs is more funding and the whole problem will disappear....

and maybe congress can put up a whole raft of "BOMB FREE ZONE" signs so no bombers will try anything.
Click to expand...

This is one of the funniest posts I've read!!... And to be funny it's sad that some actually believe this.

Do I think we should have tight security at our airports? Absolutely. That said, I think we should get some REAL security experts to revamp and redesign the entire system. AND... Don't let the PC non profilers get in the way.
 
Kritchlow said:
That said, no lost airplanes in the past 14 years does say something. If there was no TSA, and no security whatsoever, do you honestly believe we could still say that??
Click to expand...

Yes, we most certainly could. No airplanes were lost in the previous 14 years either, with no TSA. That says nothing at all about deterrence. The only "evidence" is presumption.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, we most certainly could. No airplanes were lost in the previous 14 years either, with no TSA. That says nothing at all about deterrence. The only "evidence" is presumption.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can say one way or the other. I'm betting the stats would be different. YMMV.
 
The aho tsa does nothing for security. Last year I flew commercial to Alaska and the screeners gave me chit for having a piece of paper in my pocket(boarding pass) when they had said empty everything out of your pockets. Little did they know there was a (in their eyes, very illegal) knife in my backpack , that I didn't know was there until after I arrived. My wife didn't know I took my backpack hunting and didn't empty it out after deer hunting. And she packed my bags. Tsa is all about prepping the public to accept being searched for "the good of the public" and all that crap.
 
Kritchlow said:
I am fine with that in theory, and would be fine with that in reality, IF-

The crew was okay with it, AND every person within fuel range of the unsecured aircraft was okay with it.

Seeing as though that's not practical, we have no choice. Personally I would be everything that sooner rather than later the bad guys will take one of the unsecured.
Click to expand...


Umm, this is reality and practical for some of us, who choose the non TSA alternatives WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

Shocker #2, some of us are even willing pay a little more for the privilege and convenience of avoiding security theatre.

Sorry if you are "within fuel range." Maybe there's a shelter somewhere for you to hide in when we fly overhead, since we left our shoes on and might have a bottle of water in our carryon luggage.

https://ultimateairshuttle.com
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Umm, this is reality and practical for some of us, who choose the non TSA alternatives WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

Shocker #2, some of us are even willing pay a little more for the privilege and convenience of avoiding security theatre.

Sorry if you are "within fuel range." Maybe there's a shelter somewhere for you to hide in when we fly overhead, since we left our shoes on and might have a bottle of water in our carryon luggage.

https://ultimateairshuttle.com
Click to expand...
How does one pay extra to avoid security?
TSA pre check is far from avoiding security if that's what you're referring to?? I think that Clear thing is about the same.
 
Oh... Okay. I see now. Some sort of shared charter ops I think. Been there done that for 20 years as pilot. Depending on the aircraft the bad guys don't really care much about small stuff.
 
Kritchlow said:
How does one pay extra to avoid security?
TSA pre check is far from avoiding security if that's what you're referring to?? I think that Clear thing is about the same.
Click to expand...

Private jets..... The fleet is growing because of TSA...:yes:
 
Kritchlow said:
Oh... Okay. I see now. Some sort of shared charter ops I think. Been there done that for 20 years as pilot. Depending on the aircraft the bad guys don't really care much about small stuff.
Click to expand...


You can stuff a G-5 with ALOT of explosive products.... :rolleyes:
 
N801BH said:
You can stuff a G-5 with ALOT of explosive products.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Such is true, but unlikely. That would pretty much require a lot of people in the know... A different kind of person. Think ramp guys watching them load the airplane....

But certainly not impossible.
 
N801BH said:
I rest my case sir......;)
Click to expand...
You know... Our highest sales volume came right after 9/11. Anyone that could remotely afford a share, bought a share. That didn't last long....
 
timwinters said:
It seems our right-wingers need to compare notes before posting. :rolleyes2:


:thumbsup:

.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't necessarily see those as contradictory...a good profiling system would catch the low-level employees, too.
 
EppyGA said:
Just think of this. The TSA tries to stop anyone from getting on a plane with anything dangerous, but no one is trying to stop someone from walking in the ticketing area with one or more suitcases packed with explosives and setting them off.

I am a bit surprised this hasn't been done yet. Maybe it's hard to hire suicide bombers here? :dunno:
Click to expand...

They're holding out for $15/hour minimum wage! :D
 
Kritchlow said:
Oh... Okay. I see now. Some sort of shared charter ops I think. Been there done that for 20 years as pilot.
Click to expand...

Looks like an airline. Scheduled like an airline. Customer service like airlines of yore.

30 seat planes, so TSA clowning around and the existing flights are consistently booked and expanding. No panic anywhere. Who would have guessed?

Hmmm... I just might be a passenger on one this week, again. :yes:


What are the advantages of flying Ultimate Air?
Passengers park for free, board quickly without going through a TSA security check point and take a comfortable, direct flight via charter service. Additional benefits include free snacks and drinks on flight, free concierge service, no baggage fees, no cancellation penalty for changes made at least 24-hours in advance, and late check-in up to 15 minutes before time of departure, all courtesy of Ultimate Air Shuttle.

Large, 6’2” stand-up cabin
All-leather interior with comfortable seating for up to 30 passengers
Excellent short field capability (4,800 ft.)
Cruising speeds of more than 460 mph
Nonstop flights of up to 1,000 miles
Dispatch reliability rate of over 99.8%
Professionally-trained and courteous Flight Attendant
Certified to fly throughout the US, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean

Ultimate Air Shuttle issues tickets and administers passenger funds in accordance with DOT regulations that provide for enhanced consumer protections not available from scheduled airline providers.

Ultimate Air Shuttle provides a flight experience that is comparable to what discerning private charter clients expect – with the ease of purchasing an airline ticket.

ujc_seatconfiguration.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ElPaso Pilot said:
Looks like an airline. Scheduled like an airline. Customer service like airlines of yore.

30 seat planes, so TSA clowning around and the existing flights are consistently booked and expanding. No panic anywhere. Who would have guessed?

Hmmm... I just might be a passenger on one this week, again. :yes:
Click to expand...
But an airliner holds that weight in fuel. I say that cautiously, as I'm not certain of the gross weight of a DO 328 (although I have 3200 hours in the 228).
 
Who cares how much fuel it carries, terror doesn't need a big body count. That is what makes it effective. Especially against effeminate nations like the USA.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Who cares how much fuel it carries, terror doesn't need a big body count. That is what makes it effective. Especially against effeminate nations like the USA.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Big fuel is what makes the heat and explosion. 2000 gallons of fuel won't do it. That's one reason they picked long range airplanes and crashed them early with plenty of fuel.
 
Kritchlow said:
I am fine with that in theory, and would be fine with that in reality, IF-
The crew was okay with it, AND every person within fuel range of the unsecured aircraft was okay with it.
Seeing as though that's not practical, we have no choice.
Click to expand...

Kritchlow said:
But an airliner holds that weight in fuel. I say that cautiously, as I'm not certain of the gross weight of a DO 328 (although I have 3200 hours in the 228).
Click to expand...

Tough to keep up with you when the bar keeps moving to support your argument.

Glad the TSA gives you such a warm and fuzzy. Please don't wish that on everyone else.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Tough to keep up with you when the bar keeps moving to support your argument.

Glad the TSA gives you such a warm and fuzzy. Please don't wish that on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't read my posts.
 
What, exactly, was wrong with the security on 9/11?
 
EppyGA said:
What, exactly, was wrong with the security on 9/11?
Click to expand...
You are exactly right. The blades they brought through were legal at the time. There was no lapse in security to the best of my knowledge.
 
Kritchlow said:
Wrong. Big fuel is what makes the heat and explosion. 2000 gallons of fuel won't do it. That's one reason they picked long range airplanes and crashed them early with plenty of fuel.
Click to expand...

Dude you are trying to stop a terror attack from a decade and a half ago. Time moved on if someone is going kamikaze it won't be against the carrier fleet they sunk a long time ago. Has there ever even been a repeat attempt or valid chatter of a repeat? Maybe if the TSA had battleships they could win the war on terror.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Dude you are trying to stop a terror attack from a decade and a half ago. Time moved on if someone is going kamikaze it won't be against the carrier fleet they sunk a long time ago. Has there ever even been a repeat attempt or valid chatter of a repeat? Maybe if the TSA had battleships they could win the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Yes, there has been repeat attempts.

-shoe
-underwear
-liquid plot

We had a reactive response to all. Obviously we don't have enough tech know how to stop it without invasive measures.

They do still have interest in airplanes. If they did away with all security screening you would see for yourself.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You are hell bent on preventing the last terror attack. Not the next one.
Click to expand...

I am all about prevention. That's why I started the thread for how to make the system better. :)
 
Kritchlow said:
I am fine with that in theory, and would be fine with that in reality, IF-
The crew was okay with it, AND every person within fuel range of the unsecured aircraft was okay with it.
Seeing as though that's not practical, we have no choice. Personally I would be everything that sooner rather than later the bad guys will take one of the unsecured.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point so spectacularly that I have to wonder if it is deliberate. As has been proven time and time again, all of the planes currently in the air are unsecured. Current airport screening accomplishes nothing. If any of the soldiers who've "accidentally" made it through security with explosives were terrorists, they'd have had a bomb on a plane. Same for the 95% of the red team members who were able to get bombs and weapons on planes. 95%! Why would you think that real terrorists would have a lower success rate than the fake, red team terrorists? The evidence suggests that abolishing the TSA would only make a hypothetical terrorist 5% more likely to get a bomb on a plane.

On NPR this morning, a panel was discussing how programs like Pre Check are the solution to all this. Couldn't be further from the truth. It was clear that most of the panelists had some wild ideas about how difficult it is to get pre check. Fill out an application, have a background check, have an interview. AN INTERVIEW! OMG, from hearing these people talk you'd think pre check was the equivalent of an SCI clearance. The application asks for nothing more than publicly-available information, and my interview consisted of "put your fingers on the screen and look at the camera."

The reason the TSA is trying to get everyone in pre check is because they know the screening does nothing, and they want an excuse to let people out of it without scaring the sheep.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You are hell bent on preventing the last terror attack. Not the next one.
Click to expand...
Right. Because the politicians know they'll catch hell if the last one is successful next time. But if it's something different, who could have known? The entire TSA exists for no reason other than to make the scared among us feel safe enough to fly.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, there has been repeat attempts.

-shoe
-underwear
-liquid plot

We had a reactive response to all. Obviously we don't have enough tech know how to stop it without invasive measures.

They do still have interest in airplanes. If they did away with all security screening you would see for yourself.
Click to expand...
How many of the above were thwarted by screening? Zero. Those events don't prove we need screening; they prove its lack of value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top