Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by barbell, Sep 6, 2012.
To be fair, the National Sekurity playbook is fairly predictable, no matter what Kippie claims.
Of course. Kip Hawley is STILL an idiot.
That said, he WAS smart enough to get out and write a book about how much an idiot he was. The idiots who're still taking paychecks from the TSA are even dumber.
Except for the ones who're actually intelligent, but lack anything resembling morals or ethics...
However, the hoax victim's entertainment was not over. When his second flight landed in Dallas, he was again hauled off the plane ... for outstanding warrants.
I suspect the FBI, etc., found out about the warrants when they were checking him out in Philly and called ahead to arrange a VIP arrival at DFW. States usually won't extradite for this minor stuff, but that's not an issue when your wanted arrive as self-loading/self-extraditing cargo.
Philadelphia Inquirer: Man victim of airline hoax in Philly, then gets busted in Dallas
THE FIRST time Christopher Shell was taken off an airplane in handcuffs Thursday, it turned out he was the victim of a "nasty" hoax. The second time Shell was taken from a plane and handcuffed Thursday, it turned out that his criminal history had apparently come back to bite him. A happy 29th birthday? Not so much....Once the plane landed, Shell was taken away in handcuffs, this time for outstanding warrants from law-enforcement agencies in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, said DFW Airport spokesman David Magana. Shell was found guilty in Texas in 2006 of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 15 months' probation, court records said. Records also indicate that Shell was convicted of theft in New Jersey and sentenced to 24 months' probation, but it was unclear when that occurred. It was also unclear what led to the arrest warrants.
So how much did this little gem cost?
Besides, wasn't it too late once the plane was airborne?
So much for the See Something program. Had this been a legitimate tip and it didn't pan out the caller would be in trouble. What a great incentive.
"You're under arrest."
"I DON'T KNOW JUST ARREST"
Can't win for losing.
No way, if it was legitimate, the evil evil tewwowist would have TOTALLY bought the "Returning for technical difficulties" ruse. Sneaky sneaky.
I wonder if this will lead to a panicky reaction and injuries to passengers on a real technical malfunction - not because of the malfunction, but because some paranoid low-level perp thinks he's going to end up face-first picking pavement out of his teeth because he snitched on his supplier or something?...
If a person had an explosive and found out they were returning why not detonate the device right then and there? Nothing like a fireball being spread down a runway to get peoples attention.
Because he'd be afraid that F-16's escorting him would shoot him down. Duh.
When I first saw the flight path my immediate thought was, "Why return to PHL when they appear to have flown right over the airspace for PIT, CVG, LEX, CLE, and DTW in turning back to PHL?" Those airports and associated cities, and any other number of others that were also in the area are sufficiently large enough to accommodate not only an A319, but also the bomb on board it.
Seriously. DHS/TSA is convinced that a liquid bomb is going to blow up a plane, and they now have a tip that a liquid bomb is on a plane. Their response should have been, "Batten down the hatches! Get the thing on the ground!"
Instead they put on a big show.
They may have returned to PHL because it was the city of origin and the location of the complaint. It may not make as much sense as dropping into one of the other airports, but if you have a threat of questionable origin and are uncertain, maybe they simply thought it best to bring it back to the origination point to make the LEO smaller.
Oh, that makes perfect sense.
Thank you for clarifying that if there is a BOMB ON BOARD an aircraft the most reasonable thing is not to get it on the ground IMMEDIATELY, but rather to fly it through the airspace of at least 5 major airports and over countless homes, businesses, and cities merely to return it for administrative convenience. That makes perfect sense. I sure am glad real emergencies aren't handled this way.
Are you implying that a medical emergency is best handled by returning to the origin to make the emergency response smaller?
This reasoning is just plain stupid.
If there is a bomb on board, then there is a bomb on board. Yes, best to get it back to the origin than to the closest airport. I'm certain that mitigates the disaster.
Stupid. (expletive deleted) stupid.
During my many years of flying the cardinal rule was in case of an emergency land at the nearest suitable airport. Only an idiot would pass over a safe place to land. I suspect the airline and police agencies had more information than is being let on and knew there was nothing dangerous on the plane.
Again, we need a show, a big show!
The PHL TV market is bigger than the others through which this dangerous BOMB FERRYING PLANE! flew, and so this dangerous BOMB FERRYING PLANE! was returned to put on a big show. Also to make the LEO response easier. There's no need to worry about all of the potential areas a BOMB FERRYING PLANE! could have BLOWN UP! We need to make the LEO response as easy as possible. We also need a lot of cameras.
Good God the people in charge of National Sekurity are morons.
It takes an idiot to implement a policy designed by a moron.
Stupidity in the TSA is not limited to the upper echelons. It's endemic (with the exceptions of those who understand how stupid it is, but like the job because it lets them shout at people, grope them, and steal their belongings.)
As I indicated, if it was of questionable origin, and they did not necessarily think it was viable, they may have made a decision to bring it back, rather than an immediate landing. I am with you, if I think there is a bomb on board, then land it on Uncle Franks farm emporium if that is the closest place. However, they may have had credible reasons (such as the threat was deemed non-viable, but because they had a criminal complaint, they decided to return rather than LRT), and as a result of that determination, they brought it back to the origination point.
What happened with that? Google search only comes up with the original incident.
Most of which you pump out of your own soil. Or produce on your own after eating that poison you call "chilli".
Nah, it's the pintos and cornbread.
If it was questionable why not continue to destination?
The whole deal makes little sense.
I agree that it does not make as much sense to me as simply landing, but they may have made the determination to return to origin due to the criminal complaint or something along those lines. If they have a criminal complaint, returning to origin would have allowed them to process the whole situation with one LEO group, instead of involving another jurisdiction and having the challenges that go with extradition (even though that is as simple as a couple of phone calls and sending someone to pick up the suspected individual).
Separate names with a comma.