Pilots Group Grades U.S. Aviation Security an 'F'

Tom Fleischman wrote:
This brings me to an idea: what about embarassing the screeners? Just put
some adult toys in your luggage. Are there some legal restrictions in the
US?


Yes, in fact there are. You and your baggage can be denied access to
the aircraft if you are found in posession of what the screeners deem
to be "obscene materials".

I don't think so.

The biggest risk would be the TSA employee being so distracted by the
dildo that they missed the .357 underneath the crotchless panties.

Doug Carter wrote:

I don't want to be an apologist for TSA or any other government agency
but how do you explain the fact that despite numerous attempts the
terrorists have been unable to kill anyone else in this country since 9/11?

Allah has not been willing.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

We may have a disconnect here. I think you are talking about one possible action you might take based on a profile match. What I have seen proposed is *not* asking the extra questions, taking a second look at paperwork, etc. of those people who clearly *do not* match the profile.

What's the difference? In both cases, you are treating one group to
more harassment and inconvenience, based on a superficial resemblance to
the hate-club-of-the-week.

Keep in mind that banning sharp things serves only to reduce collateral damage to the passengers.

Here we have a disconnect. I have never heard this as a stated reason,
nor is it a plausable reason. If a terrorist decides to crash the
airplane I'm flying in, I'm not sure what collateral damage to me will
result from my carrying a nail clipper.

Sadly, this is impractical since jittery, untrained passengers would probably spend more ammo shooting each other than the very occasional terrorists anyway

Darwin.

Except that in the case of terrorists we have long lists of them that are in the country using fake ID. Seems like a good idea to look for them.

Fine. Look for them. But that's different from filtering people as
they enter an airport.

I don't like [the DC TFR] either but if you have ever launched to the North from DCA you can see that its not practical to shoot down an attacking aircraft before it nails the capital or white house.

So the solution is to 1: allow airliners, which can do huge amounts of
damage, to take off to the North, because, well, they are airlines.
And 2: to prohibit the little guys (who would have a hard time breaking
a window) from doing the same thing, because, well, they are little
guys. I think I get it.

There does not seem to be a good solution for this.

Bingo. And where there is no solution, one should not try to solve it.
Accept the fact that there is no solution. Either that, or find a
number that's greater than six and less than four. Do that and I'll
accept any solution you provide.

Airlines are clearly the biggest tank of jet fuel but if a PC-12 loaded with TNT make it to the Mall I don't think people would be happy with that either.

They wouldn't be happy with it making it to the mall either, and there
are many more malls than Malls.

The DC TFR is much like putting am eight foot door on the border between
the US and Mexico, and then insisting that a big lock on the door will
stop illegal immigration.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Doug Carter posted:
Jose wrote:
It is the nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. It
ceases to be an open society long before it ceases to be vulnerable.
Profiling is just one way this happens.

I don't, for the most part disagree, but, consider this: Would you
suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be
looking for "two humans?" The reaction to so called "profiling" is,
for the most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights
movement in this country rather than a fundamental issue.

The reaction to "so called 'profiling'..." is because of the way it is
implemented. Where its application has violated civil rights, it is an
issue, though not an emotional one. Does anyone recall how
"middle-eastern" people were suspected of the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg.
bombing? It's *not* OK to trample peoples' civil rights on the basis of
such erroneous and prejudicial notions.

Neil