TSA Authority. (OK I giggled when I typed that.)

[retdetsgt]

What if this guy had something benign strapped to his leg just to try to get it past security, and he did so successfully? These lawmakers aren't beyond these sort of stunts, and they're surely no group of perfect, law-abiding citizens.

Allowing someone to go back through security that they just failed is an invitation for enormous, system-wide issues. If he doesn't set off the alarm the second time, then what? The score: one hit, one clean. Do you do a "best of three"? Do you just assume the clean scan is correct and not the positive hit?

Then I guess we need to search all Senators and Representatives every time they enter their office than. That have access to the most inner secrets of this nation and you sweat them boarding a plane?

It would have taken 10- 15 seconds and settled it. If the machine passed him the second time and he had done nothing, I guess the machines aren't doing much of a job of protecting us, are they? Besides, I've been sent back through metal detectors a half a dozen times in my life. Probably half the time, I'd found a nickle or something in my pocket and didn't set it off the second time.

And of course I didn't do a "best of three" on breathalyzer, I had a suspected drunk driver, not some US Senator boarding a plane. And for your info, fingerprints are checked and verified by several people after the machine. The machine only gives you possibilities and it's no invasion of privacy anyway. No one is detained or even questioned on what a fingerprint computer spits out until humans (at least 2) verify it.

And my wife was "clocked" by radar doing 45 mph after driving a distance of 35 ft in 1999 Honda CRV 4 cylinder from a complete stop after a right turn. She won in court. I frankly don't know if the radar was screwed up or the cop was a moron, but there is no way that car could have attained that speed. Besides, that's a irrelevant analogy and makes no sense. You can't retest a driving event like speeding or going through a red light

[Norm357]

Allowing someone to go back through security that they just failed is an invitation for enormous, system-wide issues. If he doesn't set off the alarm the second time, then what? The score: one hit, one clean. Do you do a "best of three"? Do you just assume the clean scan is correct and not the positive hit?

What if this guy had something benign strapped to his leg just to try to get it past security, and he did so successfully? These lawmakers aren't beyond these sort of stunts, and they're surely no group of perfect, law-abiding citizens.

You do understand that we are discussing a United States Senator and not some joe blow off the street, right?

[ET109]

The illusion of security is expensive. I think if we're going to have such a flawed system, the political representatives of the country should not be exempt, unless regular 'joe blow' citizens have a way to do so as well if they want to go through background checks. That said, TSA stepped in it this time. Not sure if general security procedures qualify as questioning or arrest, but Paul might decide to find out. Strange, I'd much prefer a pat-down to the machines. Different strokes.

I reject the notion that we shouldn't criticize the procedures if we can't figure out something better. If they want to pay me to try and figure that out, I'll take a check, analysts and expense account; expect a proposal in 8-16 months. Probably would involve lots of bomb detection machines and dogs. Until then, I'll just throw stuff from the peanut gallery.

[CPL1897]

Yall dont wann get me started on TSA and AIRPORTS....I WONT FLY SIMPLY BECAUSE I CAN CARRY ANYWHERE IN THE USA EXCEPT IN THE SKY...LOL...but I swear guys, Im an expert Marksman and carry frangible ammo and not a terrorist.....

[Cat_Doc]

I reject the notion that we shouldn't criticize the procedures if we can't figure out something better. If they want to pay me to try and figure that out, I'll take a check, analysts and expense account; expect a proposal in 8-16 months. Probably would involve lots of bomb detection machines and dogs. Until then, I'll just throw stuff from the peanut gallery.

I would just copy what Israel is doing at their airports and pocket the money.

[retdetsgt]

We need security, no doubt about it, but common sense just hasn't been equated into the government's solution. To be honest, I doubt it ever will be.

[Kimble]

I would just copy what Israel is doing at their airports and pocket the money.

Agreed. Israel relies on professionals trained in behavioral analysis (similar to techniques trained investigators use in detecting deception, or interdiction officers use when searching for big busts) vice screeners and random pat-downs. TSA folks will sometimes try to convince you they also utilize behavioral analysis, which to a degree they do, but the focus is on smoke and mirrors (i.e. screening passengers like cattle because it's the easiest "solution").

[retdetsgt]

TSA folks will sometimes try to convince you they also utilize behavioral analysis, which to a degree they do, but the focus is on smoke and mirrors (i.e. screening passengers like cattle because it's the easiest "solution").

Bingo! Add to that hiding behind the flag when criticized and being allowed the motto, "We don't care, we don't have to."

Again, the point Norm brings up about being able to make deliveries right up to the planes with little or no screening only enhances the Three Stooges approach to airline safety.

[greg72982]

Strange, I'd much prefer a pat-down to the machines. Different strokes.

You must be married.

[scott715us]

An actual solution is one thing I can't get out of many that I argue with about the issue of airline safety. While I don't necessarily agree with several of the policies/practices implemented by TSA I can tell you that screening is definitely better than pre 9/11. Our screening folks were basically lowest bid prior to 9/11 and they couldn't find a threat if it bit em in the arse. Obviously we have gone to the other side of the spectrum with TSA and some things need to stop. With that said, I think it's only fair that anyone who is overly critical of the TSA need to follow their opinion up with a reasonable solution. Many must understand that the screeners at the checkpoints are following a manual written by those within the DHS hierarchy. Suggesting that they be "disbanded" or eliminated is definitely not the answer. There has to be some sort of reasonable defense in protecting aviation. We all know it's not going to be Israeli-styled either. You have no rights when it comes to several of the things they do to combat terrorism.

[Norm357]

What's so great about Israeli security? - Slate Magazine

[ET109]

The Israel model came to my mind but I don't think it could ever be scaled up to meet the flying demands of the United States.

I guess I see the problem of the TSA as doing what such entities always do... fighting the last battle. Not like it hasn't been pointed out before, but the security is always behind the curve. They banned box-cutters after 9/11 (even though no one will ever be able to take over a US plane with one again), shoes after the shoe bomber (who was stopped by other passengers), and now are using imaging machines after underwear bombers. What's gonna happen when the first colon-bomber strikes here (has already happened overseas)? I think explosives residue detection equipment should be the main focus, at least compared to the 'find anything' focus right now.

[retdetsgt]

An actual solution is one thing I can't get out of many that I argue with about the issue of airline safety. While I don't necessarily agree with several of the policies/practices implemented by TSA I can tell you that screening is definitely better than pre 9/11. Our screening folks were basically lowest bid prior to 9/11 and they couldn't find a threat if it bit em in the arse. Obviously we have gone to the other side of the spectrum with TSA and some things need to stop. With that said, I think it's only fair that anyone who is overly critical of the TSA need to follow their opinion up with a reasonable solution. Many must understand that the screeners at the checkpoints are following a manual written by those within the DHS hierarchy. Suggesting that they be "disbanded" or eliminated is definitely not the answer. There has to be some sort of reasonable defense in protecting aviation. We all know it's not going to be Israeli-styled either. You have no rights when it comes to several of the things they do to combat terrorism.

Part of the problem pre 9-11 was the airlines. They encouraged people to just sit tight and let the hijackers take the plane wherever they wanted. Passengers could have easily overpowered the hijackers before they took over the cockpit had that been the mindset. Unfortunately, when the one flight did, it was too late to rescue the plane itself. That's why banning fingernail clippers was so stupid and a silly overreaction that just pisses off the public. No group of passengers is going to tolerate someone threatening with something as benign as that again. Two guys, one with a heavy coat to cover the box cutter could have overpowered anyone of them.

A couple, including the shoe bomber were spotted and stopped by passengers. The attitude of everyone is different now.

As far as a better quality of personnel, I can't speak for everywhere, but at PDX a lot of the Wachenhut screeners were hired by TSA. And looking at the number of arrests made just here doesn't speak much for their screening process either. About once a year or so, some TSA person is busted for stealing from passengers. And I understand they are following a manual, written probably by someone in academia who has no real world experience, hence the ban on nail clippers and lousy security on the tarmac. But in reality, the old screeners were just following a procedure too, it was just a lot more lax. I used to routinely carry a 3" blade locking blade knife on planes all the time, it was perfectly acceptable in the dozen or so of airports I flew out of over the years.

The primary problem is, it's a huge federal bureaucracy that has to continually not only justify itself, but vie with others for a bigger budget. And those creatures are virtually impossible to change because they aren't very accountable to anyone. The fact they screw with a US Senator says they believe themselves omnipotent and they probably are. What chance does anyone have in even reviewing their procedures if he can't?

[scott715us]

You are definitely right about the mindset of passengers. I don't think an American plane will be hijacked again. If someone even attempts it they're in a world of hurt. Since 9/11 I have dealt with quite a few unrulys on inbound aircraft. Those that got too out of hand with the flight attendant(s) received the wrath of some panicked passengers. One included a guy with a head injury from skiing before he boarded the flight. He became hallucinatory/paranoid and ended up being subdued by crew & passengers. He was beat up pretty bad. Not from getting punched, but wrestling in the cabin. He had carpet burns and was hog-tied when we boarded the aircraft. Now that it's been 10 years, we're starting to see an increase in bad behavior again. It could also be the fact the airlines are continuing to screw the public with fees (with the exception of Southwest).

There is going to have to be something done to change quite a few procedures to tone down the TSA mindset a bit. I think it has changed a little since they were first incepted. I was hired 6 months after 9/11 and the mindset of the agency and many of its employees were a lot more overboard than they are today.