Reporters smuggle knives onto 14 flights

[RichardFitzwell]

Here's a little more information this report failed to point out. Of the 11 airports tested, NONE of them are 100% TSA. Here's the break down of Federal employees at the airports tested (as of September 4th)...

Las Vegas - NONE of the airport is TSA
Newark - Only terminal A
Boston - Only part of Terminal C
Washington Dullas - NONE
Portland - NONE
LaGuardia - Only A 1-2 terminals
Kennedy - Only terminals 6, 7 & 8
Ft. Lauderdale - NONE
Santa Barbra - NONE
Chicago - Only terminals 2 & 5
L. A. - NONE

This can be verified at URL=http://www.tsa.gov/briefing_room/briefing_room_index.shtm]http://www.tsa.gov/briefing_room/briefing_room_index.shtm[/URL] link to TSA progress.

As of today, the TSA is only at 82 aiports nation wide. WE have to staff over 430 more airports. Only Rhode Island and Connecticut are 100% Federal.

Also this article fails to mention that the TSA found 100% of the prohibited articles hidden in those lead-lined film bags. Prohibited items only made it through security at airports where independent companies were doing the screening.

Timebuilder, you won't have to remove your shoes if you buy shoes without metal shanks in the inseam. Also, you can carry nail clippers as long as they don't have a knife on them.

I agree we have a long way to go but we are definitely headed in the right direction. My question is how did they dispose of the mace that did make it through security?

 

[1900laker]

Slide33,

You say taking a gun on the aircraft is a terrible idea. What about airmarshalls? They are doing it now. Even better, what about normal law enforcement officers? They are too.

As for inpenetrable doors. No door is impenetrable if it is ever designed to open. And even more so vulnerable if it is ever opened in flight. Since neither of these is currently a posibility, what do we do. You can only descend out of 390 to an airport so fast and still in-tact. So howbout firearms for the guys up front with rules of engagement that they are only to be used if someone is literally breaking the door down. Remember crash-ax head? He didn't make it through, but he was making headway. And since our security is still not 100% in detection of even normal passengers bringing guns on board, I would rather not be in a gun fight armed with only a crash-ax. It only takes one pilot to fly these things, so the other can put down the hand mike, and pick up their firearm.

One more point. You argued that law enforcement officers are better trained with their firearms than 99.9% of pilots out there.
That first of all is a very bold statement. Some departments only actually train their folks semi-annually and some less than that. And a lot of pilots out there are ex-military, and trained with firearms, and yes....ex-law enforcement officers out there too. Don't make the point that they are trained, so don't let them carry. TRAIN THEM, TO AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, THEN LET THEM CARRY!!!! That's kind of like saying to a brand new student, "your not trained to land the airplane, therefore you are never going to solo." If there had been firearms on the flightdeck on september 11th, would it all have happened? Perhaps. But what if just one incident (one of the towers, the pentagon, or Pennsylvania) could have been prevented by firearms on the flightdeck? Would the risk have been worth it? These terrorist brought their own weapons on-board. They ran a very well organized campaign. I seriously doubt they would launch a plan to hijack an airliner with the intent of having to capture one of the pilots firearms first in order to carry it out.

 

[wingnutt]

i understand the animosity...but if you ask me, some reporters need to get ticketed/fined/jailed for being enough of a twit to smuggle illegal items thru security, and then have the balls to print it in the newspaper. thats the biggest load of crap, and what if they HAD been caught? "oh we were just testing the security for the safety of the american people" BULL CRAP, i say. im all for free speech, but sometimes the guise of journalism goes too far. what, they think that potential terrorists dont pay attention to the newspaper/magazines/tv news? ...whatthehellever.

sign me,
disgusted with the media

 

[Flydaplane]

My "personal" observation

Are we a little bitter toward the pilot community abd ALPA?

Not at all just pointing out to Dep676 (by looking at his profile I'm not even sure if he is an alpa member) that there are certain limits to what ALPA can do. Can they stage a walkout because they don't think they should be screened? I doubt it. There are limits to ALPA's power.



When government officials make heavy handed statements like "do what you're told", we've taken one step closer to becoming a dictatorship. I hope your attitude is not truly representative of the TSA.

Oh yeah "do what you're told" means I'm a dictator, should I have been nicer and said "obey the rules"....okay, obey the rules, by the way, that was ALPA's advice, not mine or TSA's, so relax.


Awful bold statement from someone who is a furloughed pilot. You sound a little bitter toward pilots who are still working, and also your union. Again, I hope your attitude isn't the standard at the TSA. I should think your superiors wouldn't approve of statements like this.

Why is that bold, its true. Don't worry about my attitude towards pilots. I am constantly defending US and trying to make it better for pilots. I'm simply stating a fact based on my personal observations. They dread having to wand pilots. Ask your GSC's (air carrier ground security coordinators who work at the checkpoints) if they think pilots are a pain at the checkpoints. Why do you think my supervisors wouldn't approve of that, hell my supervisors the one who pointed it out to me in the first place. I didn't believe him until I asked around and observed for a while. Ask a screener next time your being hand wanded if he would prefer to hand wand a pilot or a passenger.

If you don't alarm, you shouldn't be hand wanded, put all you metal stuff through the xray (including your shoes if you have shanks in them) and you'll probably get through easier (this is just a suggestion illfly not a TSA mandate!!)

Not flaming you, just pointing out an apparent bias.
Interesting you ask for a public outcry in the same diatribe in which you tell us to just "do as we're told". Which one is it now?

It is both, you can obey the rules while working for change as I and many others are. "Do as your told"...obey the rules. Write your Congressman, last time I checked there's nothing illegal about doing that is there?

 

[slide33]

1900laker

You maka a good point. I should have been more specific. I don't think air marshalls are a bad idea.

But I do think that pilots carrying firearms in the cockpit is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong here. I'm active duty military qualified with m-9's and m-16's. I'm not anti-gun at all. My opinion is that a pilot's responsibilities are to fly the airplane safely, fly the airplane safely, and fly the airplane safely. There are just too many invariables and things that can go wrong when that pilot opens that door with a loaded weapon. Jeopardizing the controls of the aircraft should never be an option. That means inaccessible cockpits.

I think your argument against inaccesible cockpits is pretty weak. I am very confident that the engineering technology exists today to design a cockpit door that can prevent unwanted entry. The reason these are currently "unavailable" is they cost $.

As a pilot, you should never be in a gunfight in the first place. You should be securely in the cockpit taking whatever emergency actions are required to maintain the overall safety of the aircraft. It has been demonstrated more than once that pax no longer carry the "bank robbery" attitude. The mindset of "just do what they want and nobody gets hurt" doesn't exist anymore. Pax are willing to fight back now.

If my stating that police officers are better trained with a firearm than pilots is bold, then I'm one bold sum-bich. I don't care how many ex-G.I's or ex-cops or ex-whatever are pilots. You didn't have a response to the 1 in 5 cops killed with a firearm are done so with their own weapon. What happens if the pilot loses the weapon? You're telling me that's not a very realistic possibility?

you said

Don't make the point that they are trained, so don't let them carry. TRAIN THEM, TO AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, THEN LET THEM CARRY!!!! That's kind of like saying to a brand new student, "your not trained to land the airplane, therefore you are never going to solo."

I don't even have a response to this other than you're countering points and making analogies that aren't even close to what I said. You're twisting my words to make your argument.

What if a hijacker had his knife to the FA's throat and demanded the pilot's gun? What then? I'd rather there have been air marshalls on board 9/11. I also think todays passengers wouldn't have sat and watched. They would have done exactly what flight 93 did. They would have fought back.

 

[DarnNearaJet]

Hard to believe some people still don't get it.

"What if a hijacker held a knife to an F/A's throat?"
Too bad, maintain control of the aircraft.

"What if a pilot misses the hijacker and injures someone in the cabin?"
1) How can you miss someone standing in a doorway 3 feet behind you? (What kind of training do you need for that for God's sake?)
2) OK, let's sacrifice the entire a/c and 3,000 people on the ground because of the minor risk that someone in the cabin might take a stray bullet.

"Pilots should concentrate on flying the a/c"
It's hard to fly the a/c when your throat's been cut from behind. It's also hard to fly the a/c when someone is breaking through the cockpit door.

"What if the gun gets into the hijackers' hands?"
How?


Oh well, I guess its better to let the a/c be shot down by an F-16 than to allow pilots to be armed.

PS: I am a New England liberal and anti-gun in general.

 

[scarface]

To follow up on the United response how do the reporters get legal waivers to do this stuff? What if pilots decided to run their own security check by trying to smuggle weapons on board? I'm sure the repurcussions would be quite severe. It just makes me nervous when reporters capriciously set out to pentrate defenses and then publish the locations and the strategy. Oh well, I'm sure the bad guys don't read our papers.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

<<1) How can you miss someone standing in a doorway 3 feet behind you? (What kind of training do you need for that for God's sake?)>>

Train all you want. A pistol shot is never a given. On top of that what the bullet does after it strikes anything is anybodies guess. So if there is a serious gunfight from the cockpit back, you can bet there are gonna be stray bullets.

Also you can bet a weapon on board is a target for anyone trying to take over. Weapons can certainly be taken away from those with them. Easy example...Hijacker holds edged weapon to FA throat, FAM stands up pulls gun, gets attacked by 4 or 5 other guys. And that is 2 seconds of thought on my part. Those people can sit around and think about it for as long as it takes to come up with a really good plan.

That said, I am glad pilots can have guns. Just another deterent. But if you ever see a pilot pointing his gun back in to the cabin at a terrorist, I suggest you try to get small, not assume the bullet will hit its target or stop when it does!

 

[SpeedRacer]

"Slide33" give it a rest.

I have NEVER been impressed with ANY "Military Cop" in my 10 years in the military. You think your training, judgement and experience far exceeds what any professional pilot could attain through an intitial and annual scheduled firearms course? I recall soooo many cops screwing up on the job, from discharging their weapons accidentally to loosing their M-16 rifles, you guys aren't perfect by any standards.....

You also don't realize that any flight crewmember is trained and ready to handle ANY emergency by themselves. . It doesn't take two to handle emergencies in every scenario. If a bad guy was trying to come in I'll expect the Captain direct me to shoot anybody that forces their way in while he gets us down - by himself. He can work the radio, run a checklist and even get the gear and flaps down. It's not rocket science. He can reach across the instrument panel......

You said:

I think your argument against inaccesible cockpits is pretty weak. I am very confident that the engineering technology exists today to design a cockpit door that can prevent unwanted entry.

Would you care to bet your life, your passengers and thousands of innocent people on the ground with some "low cost bidder's" inaccessible door? Not me, I'm signing up for weapons training as soon as it's offered, we've already had one nut (Auborn Calloway) try to hijack one of our FedEx DC-10's.........

You also said:

Pax are willing to fight back now.

Once again, I would not be willing to relieve the final responsibilty of security to my passengers!! What if you're carrying a bunch of 4-H kids or elderly tourists?! You could never count on your passengers be willing to fight back 100% of the time......But I'm sitting nice and neat in my locked cockpit, waiting for the calvary (the elderly passengers and kids in your case) to save the day and praying that they can't kick in the cockpit door........Geez......

Okay, I'll give it rest now....Adios

 

[1900laker]

_______

I think your argument against inaccesible cockpits is pretty weak. I am very confident that the engineering technology exists today to design a cockpit door that can prevent unwanted entry. The reason these are currently "unavailable" is they cost
_______


Slide, Can you give me a brief description of your airline experience. I might be off-base, but my guess you may not be an airline pilot. Am I correct? Not a slam here, just trying to see if we are working from the same point of view. If not, I will try best to explain it.

My point about the doors was not that they are not technological possible, they currently are not even operationally possible. Until I get issued piddle packs to relieve myself sometime during that 4 hour flight, that door is going to have to open to allow flight crew to use the lavs. As I said before, there is no such thing as an impenetrable door that will have to be opened during flight. If the terrorist is sitting in row 1, there is a distinct possibility that he is going to make his way in the cockpit in the brief time that door is open.

And in terms of the doors, even if there is a way of installing destruction proof doors, and an operational way of keeping them shut from engine start to shutdown, all of this is going to take a pretty long time to make happen. But another hijacking could occur tomorrow for all we know. Why not be prepared. I think the risks associated are pale in light of the consequences.

The other point I wanted to make is that firearms on the flightdeck are for one purpose; saving the people on the GROUND not the airplane. When we are saying last line of defense, we are talking about defending against becoming the terrorist's ultimate weapon.

Rules of Engagement must be a familiar term for you having been in the military. It would read something like.."under no circumstance will the flight crew open the cockpit door during a disturbance in the cabin."

 

[slide33]

Well, since I did just post I'm active duty mil. - your hunch is absolutley correct. I am not an airline pilot. And I'm not a military cop either SpdRcr.

We could verbally spar all year on this. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. Here are my points and I'll leave it at that.

I understand and agree with a lot of your ideas. Basically, I feel that firearms in the cockpit carry a greater overall risk to the a/c and people on the ground than reinforced cockpit doors and air marshalls.

and here's a tid-bit from today's paper:

"The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday that manufacturers and airlines agreed that an April 9 deadline to install the new doors could be met."

The heads of 21 airlines, which opposed the Senate measure, sent a letter to each senator yesterday saying they wanted to discuss the idea of arming pilots with Congress and the administration.

"While we are spending literally billions of dollars to keep dangerous weapons off of aircraft, the idea of intentionally introducing thousands of deadly weapons into the system appears to be dangerously counterproductive," the letter said.

 

[1900laker]

Slide,

Your right, we could go on debating this for a year.

I have read and heard hundreds of opinions of those opposed to arming airline pilots. And guess what the majority of them have in common. They are not airline pilots.

I can't understand why we don't trust the professional airline pilots of america to make the best informed decision about this issue. When there is an issue on Global warming, or HIV, or West Nile, we as a nation always run to the experts to make the policy. Who better would be able to answer the question than an experienced airline pilot whether they thought they could maintain control of the aircraft while wielding a firearm if necessary.

I hear your statements about the doors, but again, I have asked over and over, and not just you, but how are we supposed to operate that aircraft for the long hours that we do, and not have a method of relieving bladders, having access to more fluids if we get dehydrated, etc? Noone yet has given a good answer to that question.

But I guess that all this is moot anyways. The senate approved the bill by a vote of over 80 senators in favor and in the house of over 300 in favor of arming pilots on a 2% test basis. Over 75% of ALPA pilots polled were in favor as well. So while the press has not listened to the professionals, apparently congress has.