What If The Worst Happened

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by FetePerfection, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    In this case, I do not think that is the case. The two guys I have talked to worked with him on JTTF for a bit and said he was a pretty stand up dude. One of these guys was my LT. (one of 2 LTs I had that I would have actually followed into the teeth of hades) He has never lied to me, and if he didn't have anything good to say, he would have given me the "Well, I just can't talk about that guy". The other was my former boss, and a member of the Army as well, he was prone to saying things like "I can't give you any information" or "That is not a subject I am comfortable discussing at this time" if he didn't like the person. Both said the same basic message - "He was a stand up dude" and the other said he was a "hard charger but fair, and unafraid to back his guys" which was fairly high praise coming from those guys.
     
  2. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Any alarm (of any kind) has a resolution process and steps to be followed. Again, if you just let the baby go, without resolving these alarms, it is allowing someone an easy and viable way to send anything they want onto any plane at any time.
     
  3. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    At this point, the SOP says things that are different than what you wish screening to be. I think that there are some things we should be doing differently, but I am unable to affect those changes currently (and due to the fact that I am a peon, it probably will not change in the future). Your definition of reasonable is yours, and while you may have a consensus on this site, it does not translate into a consensus nationwide. Changes like what you may wish to happen, are not likely at this point, and if those changes do come, it will probably be a long while before they show up.
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I wouldn't count on that. TSA is spinning out of control.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  5. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    These are 100% false in that they flag individuals who have elements common to household items, cleansers, fertilizers, what have you, that people DO have and DO use. It is a fact that 100% of the time nobody flagged has explosives on them. And for those poor odds, john and jane doe are getting their genitals rubbed by you folks. That is not right. It should not be a crapshoot when I go to the airport as to whether my family's groins are going to be groped or not and there is nothing that we can do to avoid incurring this penalty. And yes, getting your groin rubbed is a penalty.

    Most people book flights days and weeks if not months beforehand. You could have someone from the intelligence community analyse who these people are, you can determine who is the frequent flyer, who used the same credit card they've been using for 20 years, etc, and you can march them through WTMD and be done with it. Others who have insufficient signals and/or new or questionable track records, you could run through a different process. To treat everyone the same is the height of dumbness.
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Have their ETD swabs ever detected real explosives at an airport checkpoint?
     
    Rugape likes this.
  7. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Is it true that the ETD's alarm on Clear Care contact lens solution that contains only 3% hyrodgen peroxide?

    That seems to be the case and if the ETD alarms on something I can put in my mouth without any harm then they are worthless.
     
    Lisa Simeone and Rugape like this.
  8. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I was responding to your post which seemed to say that screening should be as thorough as possible. Was that not your point?
     
    Rugape likes this.
  9. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    You have hit on a very good point. A person who has little or no travel experience might be a higher risk than a frequent flier and warrant a bit higher level of scrutiny by the security apparatus.
     
    Rugape likes this.
  10. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    In other words, they should do something intelligent with all the data that they are already collecting.

    Probably a radical suggestion ....
     
    Rugape likes this.
  11. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I agree that some sort of clearing and checking prior to departure can take place, and I believe that will be a part of the newer inititatives coming out soon, where we move to what Pistole outlined a while back - intel driven, threat based screening. I have no idea on specifics, I have no idea on implementation schedules, but I do think that will be part of the newer procedures coming out.
     
  12. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I can neither confirm nor deny that, because I do not know.
     
  13. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Not that I know of. I indicated above, without bazillion dollar equipment in each checkpoint, you can't discount what the ETDs tell you, that is the limitation on tech at this moment, the same with the xray machines. A good xray operator is still working with 1970s tech and while they can tell you what 99% of the items in a bag are, there is still that 1% that would have to be cleared by hand.

    We could go out and buy all these machines that tell you conclusively that something has explosive residue on it, but the costs for that would necessitate an increase in funding of exponential amounts at a time when all government entities are cutting budgets. The final element in the screening equation still comes down to Joe TSO clearing a bag or person by hand - and until we can have better tech at the other end of the price spectrum, we are going to face these limitations.
     
  14. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    It certainly was, and I was merely pointing out that the reality will probably be slow change. I agree there are things we could do different but I also indicate that I am not privvy to all the info used to make the policy decisions, so I can't say with certainty that the policies are stupid, just that I do not necessarily agree with them or that from my POV, things could be done different to make things more secure. I have a background in Nuke security, so my idea of security would shut down aviation as a viable travel option, so what do I know?
     
  15. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Some things can be known from valid inferences.
    Since TSA has on many occasions publicised their good catches, it would be reasonable to assume that this would be a a HIGHLY valuable catch given the PR damage TSA is absorbing weekly, and would be an immediate news release. So we don't really need to "wait" for any confirmation on that. They haven't caught anyone.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  16. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Or, the opposite may be true. That will be the problem with determining who to give additional screening to, someone that has never traveled but lived at the same address and worked at the same company for 40 years may be less of a risk than the guy that has lived in 14 cities over the last decadde and flies 4-10 times a week.... It is going to be a tough matrix to formulate and there are so many variables that will crop up. Sometimes I am truly glad I am just a peon.
     
  17. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I try my best not to assume anything. If they truly caught some AQ operative, do you think they would publicize it? If I were in charge, you would never hear about it until after the JTTF and intelligence services wrung them dry of info - but again, I am a sharp end of the stick sort of guy, and tend to think like a grunt. Sometimes the intel can offset a ton of negative press from the user end POV.
     
  18. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm not asking what your privy to but your opinion. I took your opinion to be that of doing everything possible to mitigate threats.

    I do not hold that opinion. I think we should do those reasonable things to mitigate threats which will in fact provide some small possibility of something getting through. The risk of a terrorist attack using commercial air is very low and screening should recognize that.

    Today under TSA's tutelage I think things are well past ridiculous.
     
    Lisa Simeone and DeafBlonde like this.
  19. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I tend to agree with this. They even brag about their bad catches, we'd surely have heard about real explosives.
     
    Lisa Simeone and DeafBlonde like this.
  20. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Yes, I absolutely think they would plublicize it. Beyond question. First, because politics trumps security always. Second because those are low level peons, not persons who would know much of consequence.
     
    Lisa Simeone and DeafBlonde like this.

Share This Page