TSA, the Fun Never Ends..

[HowardE]

Trip 1/ Tampa-NY & return. Nothing said about matches and I traveled with them.

Trip 2/ (one week after trip 1) Tampa-NY-Boston-London & return. Nothing said about matches going but on my return I was told no matches so I handed them in, forgetting about the book of matches AND lighter in my inside pocket. I got all the way back to Tampa with them.

Trip 3/ (one week after trip 2) Tampa-NY-London & return, no mention of matches, I had matches going and coming back.

TSA works...sometimes?

RE: Matches -

Matches

You may not bring matches in your checked baggage because of safety regulations. You may, however, bring up to four books of safety (non-strike anywhere) matches in your carry-on baggage or on your person.

Referring to someone else's replies...

I don't recall anyone saying that the TSA is the best system out there, or that we should feel ultimately safe because of them. Can anyone honestly say that the systems in place today are WORSE for security than they were 6 years ago?

 

[ianr33]

Are you sure it didn’t get a neutron bombardment test?

Dont know. Went through a normal X ray type machine on a conveyor belt. I was very surprised that no one raised an eyebrow as it normally gets the second degree,and understandably so.

 

[ReefHound]

With 100 bombs and a bunch of idealistic/unsuspecting mules yes,I am sure a few of them would get through.

Or I would just check it. Or bribe the cleaning crew.

A few? If even one were to be detected that could bring down your whole plan.

What exactly would you consider effective against a shotgun approach that only hoped to get a few out of a hundred attempts through?

 

[ReefHound]

Terrorists intent on destroying aircraft are unlikely to use the same playbook that was followed in the past.

Nevertheless, virtually every security measure is focused on previously employed tactics.

The second sentence is what is responsible for the first sentence. Would you prefer that we let them run the same play over and over?

 

[PriusDrIVER]

I don't recall anyone saying that the TSA is the best system out there, or that we should feel ultimately safe because of them. Can anyone honestly say that the systems in place today are WORSE for security than they were 6 years ago?

Worse off in a direct sense, perhaps not. Worse off in that the resources that are being dedicated to it could be allocated to better use? Most likely. No, I do not think a plane is less secure than it was prior to TSA being created, but likewise...do you have more faith in FEMA now that it is part of Homeland Security (as is TSA)? Perhaps not directly related, but names and titles of agencies don't make the titles fact.

What if they left the security as it was and just put real doors on the cockpits, isn't it just as likely we'd have the same results? I am certain we would see it in the news if an airport was shutdown due to a successful discovery of bombs in a carryon...however, as mentioned by another poster we are always a step (or several) behind on our method of discovery. Why did the 9/11 attacks succeed? Because we hadn't expected them. Why did the shoe bomber make it past security, because we hadn't seen it before. Apparently, the terrorist is more crafty at inventing new methods of getting stuff past our security systems than our imagination is for the extent the terrorist is willing to go. This isn't to say no security should be in place, but it is to say that the increased screening and such is a large blunder of resources.

Look at the bigger picture. Who benefits from the increased security that to date hasn't been proven to detect anything (and regularly fails tests to detect the expected)? The no-bid contractors and manafacturers of the screening equipment. Its all part of the no-bid defense machine, its a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar business. We are talking on a scale that likely dwarfs all honest industry, and yet it gets a wink and nod and a large check.

What is life without liberty? What is "America" without freedom? Yes, and maybe sometimes that freedom leads to death of the citizens by actions of others. Abandoning all of our principles of freedom in the name of life makes us a much closer relative to the basis of society that Americans fear, such as the form of both our greatest trade partner and a small cigar producing island in the Carribean that we have isolated for 50-years, which is apparently of greater threat than the former.

 

[Diver Dennis]

Terrorists intent on destroying aircraft are unlikely to use the same playbook that was followed in the past. Nevertheless, virtually every security measure is focused on previously employed tactics.

In 1994, Ramzi Yousef brought a bomb made from liquid explosive onto Philippines Airline flight 434. It was a successful test run that killed one passenger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434

This was the blueprint that the London terrorists were going to use and that led to the banning of liquids for a period of time. So yes, they are likely to use the same tactics.

 

[lamont]

What changed on 9/11 was that hijackings were no longer a risk that could be negotiated over, so it became necessary to not just make them an annoyance, but completely avoided. How many hijackings have we had since 9/11?

How many hijackings were there in the 5 years prior?

 

[Bill51]

Worse off in a direct sense, perhaps not. Worse off in that the resources that are being dedicated to it could be allocated to better use? Most likely. No, I do not think a plane is less secure than it was prior to TSA being created, but likewise...do you have more faith in FEMA now that it is part of Homeland Security (as is TSA)? Perhaps not directly related, but names and titles of agencies don't make the titles fact.

What if they left the security as it was and just put real doors on the cockpits, isn't it just as likely we'd have the same results? I am certain we would see it in the news if an airport was shutdown due to a successful discovery of bombs in a carryon...however, as mentioned by another poster we are always a step (or several) behind on our method of discovery.

No, because there only needs to be one pilot or crew member that panics while listening to each passenger one by one get their throats slit – or worse, and the door will open. Arm the pilots (if they wish), and allow off duty law enforcement to travel with their weapons – that will reduce the appeal of airliners to terrorists, and drive them to go more after ships, trains, trucks, busses, and shopping malls.

No, you most likely won't hear about a bomb that is caught at an airport security check.

You have plenty of problems with the current system, but no recomendation of where those human resources should be redeployed.

 

[HowardE]

Worse off in a direct sense, perhaps not. Worse off in that the resources that are being dedicated to it could be allocated to better use? Most likely. No, I do not think a plane is less secure than it was prior to TSA being created, but likewise...do you have more faith in FEMA now that it is part of Homeland Security (as is TSA)? Perhaps not directly related, but names and titles of agencies don't make the titles fact.

Personally I don't think that titles of agencies make things better or worse. I think it's about time that the govt got involved with security. Leaving something vital like security in the hands of independent contractors leaves room for inconsistancy, and lapses in security. It's much harder to standardize the system without the govt. getting involved.

FEMA is not a fair example to compare to TSA. FEMA - bogged down with beaurocracy was a total failure in both New Orleans, and South Florida last year. TSA has a clear mission, FEMA never quite knew what their goals were, or how to accomplish them.

What if they left the security as it was and just put real doors on the cockpits, isn't it just as likely we'd have the same results? I am certain we would see it in the news if an airport was shutdown due to a successful discovery of bombs in a carryon...however, as mentioned by another poster we are always a step (or several) behind on our method of discovery. Why did the 9/11 attacks succeed? Because we hadn't expected them. Why did the shoe bomber make it past security, because we hadn't seen it before. Apparently, the terrorist is more crafty at inventing new methods of getting stuff past our security systems than our imagination is for the extent the terrorist is willing to go. This isn't to say no security should be in place, but it is to say that the increased screening and such is a large blunder of resources.

Where did the Shoe bomber make it through security??? That wasn't because of a lapse in US security, he boarded a flight in Paris. But the U.S. response was swift and level across the playing field. No worries about filtering the information through several independent companies and relying on them enforcing a policy.

Look at the bigger picture. Who benefits from the increased security that to date hasn't been proven to detect anything (and regularly fails tests to detect the expected)? The no-bid contractors and manafacturers of the screening equipment. Its all part of the no-bid defense machine, its a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar business. We are talking on a scale that likely dwarfs all honest industry, and yet it gets a wink and nod and a large check.

Sure some business has profited from the forced update of the obsolete equipment that many airports had for security screening, but again, do you feel that the older equipment was better? Is it not worth the expense?

What is life without liberty? What is "America" without freedom? Yes, and maybe sometimes that freedom leads to death of the citizens by actions of others. Abandoning all of our principles of freedom in the name of life makes us a much closer relative to the basis of society that Americans fear, such as the form of both our greatest trade partner and a small cigar producing island in the Carribean that we have isolated for 50-years, which is apparently of greater threat than the former.

So you're saying that we're just 1 step closer to communism (a true red herring) because the US is finally taking airport security seriously and has made it into a government agency? Without getting too political and violating ScubaBoard TOS, that just seems like "old school thinking" - This is not the same world as many of us grew up in.

Times are changing, and you can poo poo TSA as much as you want. Sure it's easy to point to testing that shows that sometimes people can make it through security when they try to, and that some systems will fail to detect things that should be detected. But did anyone even TRY that 10 years ago?? Where are the studies that show how well the system worked before?? Where is the evidence that previous security measures would have caught anything?

 

[lamont]

We lost 4 on 9/11. Some would say we should count TWA 800 and Egypt Air 990.

TWA 800 blew up because of the center fuel tank. I got paranoid at one point after 9/11 and looked into the possibility that it was hit by a shoulder-fired missile and came out convinced it was just the fuel tank. None of the other theories hold up.

Nobody has ever tied terrorism to Egypt Air 990 either.