TSA: I'm a believer

[Timebuilder]

I will say one look at the security and I did decide that going to the large airports would be avoided at all costs.

I think that a great many people have already made that decision.

 

[V-1]

Re: Do it...

V 1, I say do it. Bull your way right over them. Things like that usually work out great for the person who does it...Heavens forbid they slow you down enough to take a look at you and decide whether you or someone else they slow down needs more attention. Profiling has got to start somewhere and a good look at a person makes sense to me.


I will say one look at the security and I did decide that going to the large airports would be avoided at all costs.

I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of my reply.

For the record, I'm not in any particular hurry to get through security. My workday doesn't really start until I get to the airplane. My point was that most people have a personal "comfort zone" of about three feet when it comes to sharing space with a stranger, particularly if that stranger is challenging that person face-to-face. I can't believe that a security screener is so blind they need to get within two feet of someone to get a good look at their mannerisms.

A "good look at someone" that "has got to start somewhere" starts at the entry point, where the TSA personnel examines a passenger's ticket and photo ID. It starts for me in the same place, where my company identification is examined. I agree that examinations should continue throughout the security process, however the confrontational connotation by screeners who insist in standing in the way of the passenger, or professional, who is politely working to comply with their requests is not necessary or called for. No one travelling through security needs to be molested, and the TSA professionals have done a good job eliminating this, from my experience. Standing two feet on the other side of the metal detector, blocking egress is a practice that many people will view as confrontational however, which is in sharp contrast with the overall professional conduct of the TSA screeners.

...(haven't flown that much either).

I go through security, in uniform, with seven different pieces of identification that can be cross-checked, or examined individually to confirm my identity as an airline pilot (and I'm not including library cards, voter id cards, etc.) on an almost daily basis. I see the improvements that have been made. I see further improvements that can be made, in professionalism, and security. I'm concerned about the treatment the paying passenger, whose identity is less verifyable than mine, and the impression they're getting from the confrontational nature of the practice I was discussing.

I will say one look at the security and I did decide that going to the large airports would be avoided at all costs.

This is exactly what airline professionals are frustrated about, and what prompted my reply.

Perhaps if you had eight security screeners to get through before you were allowed access to the 152 you fly, you'd be interested in their improvements in professionalism, and the areas they still need to work on.

Like it or not, General Aviation is the current "weak link". I know of at least three models of piston twins that can be started without keys. One of these models has a 3000 pound useful load (use your imagination). It's not uncommon to see these aircraft unsecured and unguarded day and night at uncontrolled airports around the nation. I think the most successful piston single manufacturer only used perhaps three different key designs for every ignition switch they put in their aircraft, it's common knowledge that just about any similar key will start them. You may be the next to experience security procedures that need improvement. Until then, don't pretend to understand the viewpoint of someone who sees the system everyday.

Profiling has got to start somewhere and a good look at a person makes sense to me.

...I on the other hand, a small Irish guy, haven't been selected...

Be careful what you wish for. Last time I checked, there were Irish terrorists who are fundamentally no better than Muslim terrorists. They all kill innocent civilians to achieve their objectives.

Regards,
V-1

 

[RichardFitzwell]

I've also noticed the propensity for the TSA screeners to stand just beyond the opening in the metal detector, blocking my path. I've wondered if it was a tactic to get me to slow down through the machine...

Bingo!

That is exactly what we are doing. WE stand close to the walk through metal detector to control the flow of passengers entering the sterile area. WE are trained to visually inspect each person as they walk through. This is not profiling. The metal detector is most effective when people walk through at an even pace with their hands at their sides. Passengers cannot carry bags and cell phones through the metal detector, even though they try.

Passing through the metal detector too fast or touching the sides will set off the alarm. As you know by now, when the alarm sounds, you will be directed aside for further screening. My advice to you is to pass through it slowly. I have metal shanks in my shoes, a metal belt buckle and a metal money clip. We don't have metal badges. If I walk through it slowly, I am O.K. If I try to pass through quickly, I set off the alarm everytime.

I guarantee, when a passenger passes through the metal detector, it is only detecting that passenger. It is not detecting the person standing next to the machine. I have stood right on the edge of the metal detector without sounding the alarm.

As for being grabby -- yeah some people might consider it, "too grabby" but WE are trying to throughly inspect a lot of people in a short amount of time. I agree that some people might consider it rude and an invasion of their privacy but it needs to be done. I always tell people exactly what I am going to do before I do it. But people still become angry at times. The next time you are placing you wallet in the tub, tell the person doing the inspection you want your wallet inspected in front of you. (They will always inspect it infront of you but they don't need to get your permission first).

Not many people realize when they pass through the walk through metal detector they are giving up some of their rights as a U.S. citizen. You are allowing yourself to be searched. It is implied consent.

As a furloughed airline pilot, I realize the importance of my job. I always try to put myself in the passenger's position. I understand that if we make this experience too uncomfortable for them, they will not fly in the future and I really want them to fly in the future.

 

[Typhoon1244]

The metal detector is most effective when people walk through at an even pace with their hands at their sides... If I walk through it slowly, I am O.K. If I try to pass through quickly, I set off the alarm everytime.

Well I'll be dam_ed, I didn't know that! That's the most useful piece of information I've seen on this board to date. Maybe I can stop taking off my wallet and watch now...

I have a question for you, RichardFitzwell. And I'm not asking you this as a representative of the T.S.A....I'm asking you. Don't you look a little more closely at physically fit, 18-29 year old Arab men than you do at other people? It would seem to be only natural.

For you dissenters, remember what I said: I don't think the T.S.A. is going to revolutionize airport security. In fact, I don't think any security agency established by a democratic American government will be able to make our airports air-tight. The T.S.A. has accomplished three things:

1. They've restored airport security to the status it should have been at all along (i.e. no more uneducated foreign nationals responsible for security).

2. They've (apparently) recognized the general trustworthiness of a uniformed, badged flight crew member...at least here in D.F.W.

3. Although they probably will never be able to stop a determined, well-trained, professional terrorist, they will probably be able to stop the various lunatics and "lone nuts" which are more common anyway.

It didn't take me long to see that the collective I.Q. of the screeners in D.F.W. is far above what we had before. I do, in fact, feel like this is now a safer airport. (Funny...I didn't feel that way when the B.D.U.-clad teenagers with safety-wired M16's were strolling around.)

 

[gsrcrsx68]

<<I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of my reply. >>


Ditto, obviously I don't think you should run over the security agent.

I read these boards for entertainment and useful information, but what I see a lot of is disrespect. Disrespect from the top, most experienced people directed at those below. Those people then disrespect anyone they can find. Don't agree with unions...you are crap. Don't want to train the same way...you are crap. Don't have the same degree...you are crap. Take a job as a screener and don't do it the way the pilots(who are not security specialists) would ...you are crap. You fly planes....wow. Does it give people the right to disrespect others? Not even a bit. Does it even give you extra knowledge or do you mainly have a narrow focused skill?

Prima donna-ism is nothing new, just sad.

<<Last time I checked, there were Irish terrorists who are fundamentally no better than Muslim terrorists>>

UUhhhh you mean like the American terrorists that through the English out of this country? Seriously, examine the situations in their totality. Not even close to the same, but if you want to throw the terrorist term around like that then you might want to think about who couldn't be labeled terrorists. Certainly other countries could easily label the USA terroristic.

And finally, I do understand your frustration. Personal space is a dear issue to everyone. I couldn't walk through those areas day in and day out, but either come up with a better system or put up with it til someone does. I personally think flight crews should be able screen or validate themselves. Stage crews outside security, two crews check each other, unknowns get scrutinized. Just an idea and maybe a bad one. I'm not claiming to have the answer, I just think the screeners probably try to do their best in a stressfull situation. If you think it is bad to have your personal space violated think how stressful it must be to violate peoples space all day long.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Someone mentioned Northern Irish terrorists versus Muslim terrorists. I would add that a guy who shoots up an abortion clinic is no better than any of Osama's buddies.

I know this is a dangerous subject to raise, but...I've noticed that you never hear about a radical agnostic group blowing something or somebody up. I wonder why that is...?

 

[Flydaplane]

I can't remember who posted claiming that caterers don't get screened. All I can say is are you sure? Have you ever asked one if he's been screened? Ask one next time if they EVER get screened, you'll probably be surprised. General Aviation is about to change a lot of its security practices (if there even were any) also.

Its funny because we (myself included) complain now because there is too little security on the GA side of things, but when the enforcement of new requirements starts, you'll hear the complaining twice as loud. Read the proposed rules for the 12,500 and 95,000 lbs operators....oh boy some people are going to be pissed.

I've been observing many checkpoints, and it really doesn't take that long to go through, even if you get hand wanded. Next time you go, time it, and see how bad it is (granted the peak times and holiday travel will still take a while, as will poorly designed airports). Sometimes its just a perception that it takes a long time to go through when it actually takes less than a few minutes (especially if all your metal goes through the x-ray the first time).

Expect to see a lot of construction at almost all the airports during the next year as the checkpoints are widened and expanded and improved. The TSA chief Loy wants it to take no more than 10 minutes to get through security, now we just have to see if Congress approves the $$$.

TSA still has a long ways to go, and there will always be problems with things getting through the checkpoint, but its good to see that at least at some airports things have improved a little.

 

[V-1]

I know this is a dangerous subject to raise, but...I've noticed that you never hear about a radical agnostic group blowing something or somebody up. I wonder why that is...?

Funny, and good point.

UUhhhh you mean like the American terrorists that through the English out of this country? Seriously, examine the situations in their totality. Not even close to the same, but if you want to throw the terrorist term around like that then you might want to think about who couldn't be labeled terrorists. Certainly other countries could easily label the USA terroristic.

I don't recall a single instance during the American Revolution where non-combatant civilian populations (women, children, etc.) were targeted, unlike the IRA's tactics over the last several years.

Typhoon1244 is right and, I think, got the message I was trying to convey. A white, male American held the record for the worst instance of domestic terrorism in pre-9/11 America. Profiling sounds like a nice solution, so long as the proponent doesn't fit into a class of people who may feel they have sufficient cause to commit acts of violence as political statements. Name one group of people who have never had a bone to pick with their government, society, etc.? Every one of us can just as easily be lumped into a group of troublemakers based on skin color, clothing, religous preferences, nationality, sex, or whatever the flavor of the moment is. My point was meant to be "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." - not a condemnation of the cause of non-terrorist Irish nationals who are working positively to restore their country's independence. The end does not always justify the means, which is a lesson America often forgets as well.

Certainly the U.S. is viewed as a terrorist nation in some parts of the world. Those people are economic, scientific, educational, and in some cases, cultural failures whose only solution to their shortcomings is to lash out at those who have worked hard to be successful. If these people would spend half the energy working to build a better future that they spend destroying the present, they might finally realize that the problem is not "out there". Why is it that abdication of personal responsibility is so rampant in some parts of the world (here in the U.S. as well)? I guess it's just easier to blame one's problems on something outside one's control.

Just because I fly for an airline does not make me an elitist. My career choice, in itself, makes me no better than the person who collects my garbage. That said, it still doesn't mean I shouldn't question policies I don't understand. I'll only understand if I question. With the comments about lax GA security, I was trying to point out it could just as easily be you faced with security challenges in the future. Perhaps then it'd be you who might ask a question about an operating procedure you don't understand.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

V-1

<<I don't recall a single instance during the American Revolution where non-combatant civilian populations (women, children, etc.) were targeted, unlike the IRA's tactics over the last several years.>>

You mean since the American history books we have all read didn't proclaim the slaughter of unarmed and helpless Brithish that it never happened? I just say winners write the history books. Here's another one you won't find in books. Write to Sen. Bob Kerry and ask him about slaughtering women and children in Vietnam. Huh, I didn't see that in history books. As far as the IRA goes, show me where women and children wouldn't be considered "collateral damage", much the same as we label when we kill civilians in Iraq or any other part of the world. Further, the middle eastern terrorists have killed thousands more people than the IRA or any other alledged NGO's around the world.

The point I am making is sometimes the label terrorist is a bs. Made up by one country, normally the one with greater power, to justify actions that are just as terroristic in nature. The IRA in large part is labeled terrorist to prevent any negotiations from occuring.

<<Profiling sounds like a nice solution...>>
No, but it does sound like a tool to use as part of a system.

<<Perhaps then it'd be you who might ask a question about an operating procedure you don't understand.>>

Well I am sure I could have misunderstood what you were saying. I just don't see why so many people actually put down the screeners. After 911 everyone wanted to say they didn't have enough education to do their job. Nothing but scapegoating. They didn't design the system then and they didn't design the system in place now.

 

[skeezer]

I guarantee, when a passenger passes through the metal detector, it is only detecting that passenger. It is not detecting the person standing next to the machine.

I am gonna have to beg to differ. Here in DAY I have seen on multiple occasions the metal detectors going off with absolutley nobody walking through them. Every time it happens is when some passenger puts their bag (loaded with who knows what) on the x-ray belts about 1 1/2 feet from the detector. Even the people working the machines know about this phenoninom (sp?). So in my opinion, standing close does have an effect.

If the detectors are gonna go off when people walk through too fast why stop them? Let 'em go fast and get wanded. You slow them down and you let them get by with more metal.

I dunno, the TSA seems to do a more proffesional job but they are a little too confrontational when I am walking through the metal detectors. At 5 am I don't need someone yelling at me to walk normal and get my hands out of my pockets.

One more thing, anyone know why the x-ray machines back up before they go forward? I have had my hat cruched on multiple occasions when I forget about this occurrence.

Peace Out Homies

Skeezer

 

[Timebuilder]

Just so I'm clear about this...

You mean since the American history books we have all read didn't proclaim the slaughter of unarmed and helpless Brithish that it never happened?

Are you talking about soldiers? Civilians? Do you have some reason to mention this as a possibility, or are you saying that the history written by the winners is always in error?

Write to Sen. Bob Kerry and ask him about slaughtering women and children in Vietnam.

This is always an interesting point. Bob will tell you, if he is being honest, that there was no "civilian non combatant" population in Viet Nam, using conventional definitions from our American culture. The war was literally fought by every man, woman, and child. Bob may even show you pictures of captured Viet Cong squads made up of ten and thirteen year old girls. He may tell you of the small children who would walk up to a group of GI's in Saigon, and pull the pins on a string of grenades they had strapped to their waists.

This is the part of Viet Nam that you may not see in history books: the nature of the combatants, and why they were not spared simply because we found their members to be offensive to our cultural sensibilities.

While it is true that the identity of a terrorist is open to interpretation, you can usually sparate the sheep from the goats by the aim of the group. Are they guerilla soldiers fighting an opressive regime, or are they sociopathic malcontents intent on destruction and anarchy?

Clearly, we can put aside this academic exercise on the nature of terrorism, and instead move against the perpetrators that we know of. McVey is dead. I don't find millions of militant McVey wannabes here. I do see a number of groups who are unwilling to publically condemn the actions of the September 11th hijackers, and I do see millions of similar people who want to follow in their footsteps. For the time being, those terrorists are our major concern.

Not my grandmother, US Senators, and CMH recipients.

And not me. Or, my shoes.

 

[RichardFitzwell]

"I am gonna have to beg to differ. Here in DAY I have seen on multiple occasions the metal detectors going off with absolutley nobody walking through them. Every time it happens is when some passenger puts their bag (loaded with who knows what) on the x-ray belts about 1 1/2 feet from the detector."

Hmmm...haven't heard that one before. I know kicking the side of the machine will set it off with no one in it but typically the machine is designed to only detect metal inside the machine. I think that may be a defective machine or the sensitivity may be turned up too high.


"If the detectors are gonna go off when people walk through too fast why stop them? Let 'em go fast and get wanded. You slow them down and you let them get by with more metal."

WE are trying to be more accurate than that. WE would like to use the machine for what it was designed for and not just let people walk through for the he11 of it. The screening process will be a lot slower if WE had to hand wand every person just because they didn't want to follow directions. The walk through is set at a certain value. It's been determined that this preset value is the maximum amount of metal to be allowed into the sterile area on any one passenger. Travelers walking too fast with their hands in their pockets only causes them more aggravation than necessary.


"One more thing, anyone know why the x-ray machines back up before they go forward? I have had my hat cruched on multiple occasions when I forget about this occurrence."

They back up the machine to crush flight crew's hats. Its a lot of fun. My record in one day is seven hats. Its a hoot.

Seriously though...the machine backs up to get a complete scan of an item. WE stop on every item to analyze it before clearing it. If the next object to be scanned gets cut off when the scan takes place, the belt will back up enough to get a complete scan of the next object on the belt...and to crush your hat.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Hey Timebuilder

<<Are you talking about soldiers? Civilians? Do you have some reason to mention this as a possibility, or are you saying that the history written by the winners is always in error? >>
I wasn't being specific. However when we speak of the genious of hiding, shooting and running agaisnt the professional British soldier, if we had lost would certainly have been conveyed as cowardly and terroristic. No, I am not saying written history is always incorrect, but that it is almost impossible for it to be bias free. Perspective.

<<Bob will tell you, if he is being honest, that there was no "civilian non combatant" population in Viet Nam,>>

Actually what Sen. Kerry said:
"I've never been able to justify what we did, either militarily or certainly not morally," Kerrey said

Kerry claims it was an accident, however others in his squad say different:
Gerhard Klann said the squad, acting on Kerrey's orders, rounded up people and intentionally killed civilians.

Now one of these persons has a political career to worry about.

I don't think you will find him saying anywhere that they were all in on it(vietnamese women and children as combatants) , although your point about women and children being involved and used is taken.

The USA has commited atrocities during war, against civilians as I would say most combatants have and even worse than most countries ever could. The two Nuc bombs in Japan and the bombing of Dresden. Funny your comment about "there were no non-combatants "... the same thing was said to help justify those actions. The basis of the claims being that the people killed were part of the industry required to produce goods to supply troops or some variation of that. Doesn't really matter other than the fact that they were not legit military targets and we bombed them anyway.

The rules of convetional warfare have been written by us, for us(us being the USA and Europe). They are set specifically so we can destroy our enemies any way we see fit. Any nation dumb enough to challenge us on the battle field will lose. Any nation who operates outside our rules allows us to disregard our own rules. Kinda funny, unless you are on the receiving end.

Basically this brings me back to the original point. Terrorism is a word being used to allow us to secure our interests throughout the world via military force and I think we need to be careful about the use of the word terrorist. Many around the world could easily associate the USA with terrorism in their coountries.


ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Perspective...

 

[Timebuilder]

While examining our actions and motives is valuable, especially in retrospect, we have to do so in a framework of foundational beliefs, or absolutes. Without the firm foundation, we are philosophically lost in a miasma of second guessing ourselves.

A civilized society has the right to create conventions to guide the conflicts which are an inevitable part of the human condition. We must have logical standards for our application of words like "terrorist", and not get lost in the stretching and twisting of words as we over-intellectualize their application from the perspective of our enemies. That is not a part of our job. Our job is to protect and defend our freedom, our system of government, our culture, and our national interests. Our job is not to be bias free, but to have the bias that is appropriate for our society.

Bob Kerry has suffered from the fact that we had to do a lot of things in southeast asia that were completely outside of our normal belief structure. We had never been faced with a military action against a society where children were used as an expenable munition. I feel for him. Many of my friends and schoolmates never returned from Viet Nam, and those who returned alive were all deeply scarred, within and without.

As with all war the innocents (who decides who is innocent?) often die along with the soliders. I doubt if there has been any time in history when this was not true. Perhaps it is one of the reasons that our first intent is to keep the peace. As the last superpower, we have a great responsibility to our world. As humans, we will not be perfect. We will, however act in the manner we deem appropriate to fulfill our responsibilities. We will try to do it in a conscientious manner, with valor, and with honor.

God willing, we will be victorious.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Timebuilder

1242 TT and 1242 posts!!!

<<While examining our actions and motives is valuable, especially in retrospect, we have to do so in a framework of foundational beliefs, or absolutes. Without the firm foundation, we are philosophically lost in a miasma of second guessing ourselves. >>

As humans we have the ability of reasoned, logical thought. It is a true shame if people cling to absolutes as opposed to evolving with knowledge over time. The evolution clearly challenges our most fundamental beliefs at times. That is the only possible way to know if our beliefs have true meaning or our merely imprinted by society without merit.


<<A civilized society has the right to create conventions to guide the conflicts which are an inevitable part of the human condition. >>
So does one society have the right to dictate those terms to others societies? Does that society then have the right to change the standard to fit situational needs or should it live up to what it once considered "principles". Using terrorism to promote new wars seems like a hard sell to me. We have technology other than military which we could use to promote safety.

<<Our job is to protect and defend our freedom, our system of government, our culture, and our national interests.>>
Agreed. However I would say that we can best do this by increasing technology for detecting threats as opposed to killing people. The more people we kill, the more ill will is generated towards the USA. Figuring out low tech ways to kill is not that tough as 911 proved. Better to spend time, money and energy on productive, positive improvements.

<<Bob Kerry has suffered from the fact that we had to do a lot of things in southeast asia that were completely outside of our normal belief structure>>
I support the military man's actions in Vietnam. What I don't support is a contention that as a country we had to do anything their. Both the British and the French had already given up in Vietnam when we took up the cause. It was a bad move. As far as children used a munitions, you can bet it was harder on the people of that part of the world than anyone else. Imagine the level of desparation and dispare felt by those people. Before you say we in this country would never do such a thing, we have used children as soldiers here as well. It is basically a measure of how desparate the circumstances are, not necessarily how barbaric a population is.

<<As with all war the innocents (who decides who is innocent?) >>
Point somewhat taken...however the list of true innocents is long and easy to define. Certainly we can start with people in the twin towers, then if you can think of yourself as a citizen of the world as opposed to just one country it is quite easy to expand upon this list.

<<As the last superpower, we have a great responsibility to our world. >>
True, and as citizens we have the responsibility to make sure our gov't acts as honorably as possible and does not become a tool of a possibly vindictive person or group acting more in their own interests than that of the country.

We could go on here forever. Hopefully if you respond we will wrap it up with that, cause we are way off topic of not only this thread, but even the entire board. I think I am going to have to shut of internet to stay off message board. Takes up way too much time.