Yep, those TSA pat-downs are really working....

[Don]

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Hairspray-Styles-Bomb-Scare-Miami-Aiport.html

Just put your explosives in your checked baggage.

Don't those pat-downs make you feel safer?

 

[annsni]

Ummm - That was in checked baggage - NOT carried on to the plane so I don't see how the TSA pat-downs even comes into play here.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Ummm - That was in checked baggage - NOT carried on to the plane so I don't see how the TSA pat-downs even comes into play here.

I think that was the point of the post?

The people who fly are being treated like pariahs...

While, checked baggage is not checked suffucuently well.

This was one of many things pointed out by an Airline Pilot who is now being treated as a federal Pariah for having pointed it out on a YouTube Video.

Also, ground crews and other ramp access personnel generally have only to swipe a card to gain access with their tool boxes which are not inspected.

If they were serious, all tools and tool boxes would be provided by the airlines and not allowed to cross the security boundary.

Also, lunch boxes and eating areas should be either outside the security zone or inspected on entry...

These are just a few of the gaping holes in airpirt security that we "accept" while be p-o-r-n photographed or fondled!

Me, I'm driving!

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Of course then there was the total idiot who packed loose ammunition in checked baggage!

When thrown down on the conveyor belt they bumped and at least one round went off.

The TSA has guides to allow the checking of Firearms in checked bags...

Apparently, this dim bulb didn't bother to check it out...

Nor, apparently, did the screener think anything of the danger of loose rounds rolling around in a bag!!!!!

We pay these people way too much for their obvious (extremely low) education level!!!!!!

 

[glfredrick]

Of course then there was the total idiot who packed loose ammunition in checked baggage!

When thrown down on the conveyor belt they bumped and at least one round went off.

The TSA has guides to allow the checking of Firearms in checked bags...

Apparently, this dim bulb didn't bother to check it out...

Nor, apparently, did the screener think anything of the danger of loose rounds rolling around in a bag!!!!!

We pay these people way too much for their obvious (extremely low) education level!!!!!!

By nature, "checked baggage" does not go through the conveyor belt TSA screening system. It goes from the ticket agent at the front counter to the hold of the airplane. No passenger has access to the hold of the airplane, Hollyweird movies aside.

"Carry-on baggage" does go through the screener and they are rather efficient at discovering items that do not belong. Though, to be sure, human error can exist.

Do you fly at all? Just wondering, as some of this is self-evident if one passes through an airport on a regular basis.

Also, as I understand, the bag that "exploded" during baggage handling had some primers within it. Primers are not loaded cartridges. They are the very small propellant caps that serve to ignite the charge of powder. They, in themselves, cannot really do much damage, and even if a complete brick were set off, the resultant "explosion" in an un-contained package like a piece of luggage would probably result in the bag being shredded -- and that's about all.

I have done a bunch of hand-loading over the years and often dispose of primers that I am suspicious of causing mis-fires by smacking them with a hammer or lighting them on fire in a coffee can. They mostly fizzle or pop like a roll of caps. The charge within them is very small -- about the size of a pin-head.

If ammo were carried loosely, and one was set off (difficult to do, as the primer must be struck directly) the bullet would not "fire" for any distance, as there is no container, such as the breach of a rifle barrel to contain the charge to force it in any one direction. It would mainly be like a fire-cracker.

Oh, and it is legal to travel with firearms and ammunition. It just has to be checked baggage and properly documented. Happens all the time.

 

[KenH]

Unless someone has to fly I don't see why anyone would put up with this mess anymore.

 

[glfredrick]

Unless someone has to fly I don't see why anyone would put up with this mess anymore.

For a lot of people, flying on a regular basis is a fact of life. Best way to get from point A to point B without taking days or weeks to do so.

Yes, there are definitely inconveniences, but almost everything we do in life has them. For instance, you are on the Internet, which presupposes that you have electrical hookups and some form of data line in your home that you have to track and pay for. Just the way it goes.

What is great about the air is that we can now send missionaries and teachers all over this planet and still hope to communicate, see them, and yes, bring them home for medical attention, etc., instead of just sending them out and hoping that all is well. God has been good to us!

 

[Don]

By nature, "checked baggage" does not go through the conveyor belt TSA screening system. It goes from the ticket agent at the front counter to the hold of the airplane. No passenger has access to the hold of the airplane, Hollyweird movies aside.

"Carry-on baggage" does go through the screener and they are rather efficient at discovering items that do not belong. Though, to be sure, human error can exist.

Do you fly at all? Just wondering, as some of this is self-evident if one passes through an airport on a regular basis.

You missed the point that SMM made: Checked baggage not going through the screening process is exactly the problem. Instead, we're getting "reasonable suspicion/probable cause" searches at the walk-through points.

We're being fed a lousy line of "illusionary security." This incident, and the airline pilot who posted the aforementioned video, proves it.

So the next time you get patted down, just remember: that guy behind you? His checked baggage isn't getting the same sort of security "attention" as your groin.

 

[poncho]

That's because this isn't about security at all. It's about conditioning us to lick our master's boots.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Since it is obvious that checked baggage is not being screened, that passenger could have just as easily had a time bomb in his checked luggage.

To think, the passenger gets exploited and then takes a chance of getting blown to bits by a bomb in a suitcase in the cargo hold.

 

[Don]

Since it is obvious that checked baggage is not being screened, that passenger could have just as easily had a time bomb in his checked luggage.

To think, the passenger gets exploited and then takes a chance of getting blown to bits by a bomb in a suitcase in the cargo hold.

Not to mention (again, as SMM pointed out): The airline pilot who actually cares about your/our safety, has been singled out for blowing the whistle on this glaring security hole.

 

[glfredrick]

You missed the point that SMM made: Checked baggage not going through the screening process is exactly the problem. Instead, we're getting "reasonable suspicion/probable cause" searches at the walk-through points.

We're being fed a lousy line of "illusionary security." This incident, and the airline pilot who posted the aforementioned video, proves it.

So the next time you get patted down, just remember: that guy behind you? His checked baggage isn't getting the same sort of security "attention" as your groin.

You assume that luggage going to the cargo hold is not screened. That is not completely accurate. Note that we do not have planes blown out of the sky on a regular basis due to bombs in the cargo hold. One can legally transport all sorts of things in the cargo hold of a plane, like firearms, ammo, etc., as long as it is properly packed and on the manifest.

I'm also not quite sure about your problem with flying. It is obvious that you do not fly, nor care to fly. Probably a good thing. You would almost certainly be one of the ones singled out for special inspection. They tend to love newbie "scared" fliers. :laugh: Perhaps we'll have a video of you screaming, "Don't touch my junk!" :laugh:

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I would think that if they had scanned the checked luggage, it would not have even made it on the flight out of Boston.

 

[Don]

You assume that luggage going to the cargo hold is not screened. That is not completely accurate. Note that we do not have planes blown out of the sky on a regular basis due to bombs in the cargo hold. One can legally transport all sorts of things in the cargo hold of a plane, like firearms, ammo, etc., as long as it is properly packed and on the manifest.

I'm also not quite sure about your problem with flying. It is obvious that you do not fly, nor care to fly. Probably a good thing. You would almost certainly be one of the ones singled out for special inspection. They tend to love newbie "scared" fliers. :laugh: Perhaps we'll have a video of you screaming, "Don't touch my junk!" :laugh:

GL - I'm in the Air Force. Over the last couple of years, I've done quite a bit of traveling. Most of it via air.

And yes, the next time I fly, you probably will have a video of me shouting words similar to those.

The problem is not with flying. Flying is still statistically the safest way to travel. My problem is with unconstitutional searches that have produced nothing more than the illusion of safety. If I pay a private organization to transport me to a location, I expect to follow their rules and regulations; but the government has mandated these procedures, and is utilizing federal employees to execute them. This is an over-extension of governmental powers. (Yes, in a way, I'm instituting a double-standard: I'm okay if the individual airline uses its own people to "touch my junk," but I'm not okay when the government does it....)

You'll recall a month or so ago, when they found printers with explosive or explosive-like material in them in the cargo hold of a plane. Added to this incident, and you have two examples--that we know of--of the ineffectiveness of the system.

BTW: The suitcase in question held primers (as was pointed out, by you, I think). Primers by themselves fall into a different category, and are not legal to be transported.

 

[glfredrick]

But the primers were not a threat to the airplane, nor were they a terrorist act.

 

[Don]

But the primers were not a threat to the airplane, nor were they a terrorist act.

Look, I really like your posts up in the Debate section; but you're not making much sense here.

If I have my facts correct, TSA allowed a bag with 600-700 primers in it to go through their screening process, travel aboard an aircraft, and would never have known if one of them hadn't gone off when the baggage was being unloaded.

This example indicates that baggage is not being screened as thoroughly as your underwear.

If one bag with 600-700 primers was able to make it through, does that not indicate that other explosives may be going through as well?

 

[NiteShift]

You missed the point that SMM made: Checked baggage not going through the screening process is exactly the problem.

One reason TSA is more interested in your underwear is that Umar Farouk Adulmutallub smuggled a bomb in his. And they are interested in your shoes because Richard Reid smuggled a bomb in his shoe. They are interested in carry-on bags because Ramzi Yousef and others have assembled bombs aboard aircraft from components carried with them.

Basically you are saying that there is a hole in security procedures e.g., that there should be tighter security for checked baggage. TSA could require better screening of checked bags, but of course that would drastically slow down loading of the aircraft and would provoke even more outrage. <shrug>.

The airline pilot who actually cares about your/our safety, has been singled out for blowing the whistle on this glaring security hole.

Well I read the whistleblower pilot's complaints, and to me it sounded more like his problem was that, Hey! Pilots have to go through security but ground crew do not!

 

[Don]

Well I read the whistleblower pilot's complaints, and to me it sounded more like his problem was that, Hey! Pilots have to go through security but ground crew do not!

It doesn't bother you that your pilot has to be x-rayed or patted down, but the guys loading baggage on your plane don't?

 

[NiteShift]

It doesn't bother you that your pilot has to be x-rayed or patted down, but the guys loading baggage on your plane don't?

The ground crew are in and out constantly. I think it would not be possible to pat them down every time they work on or load an aircraft. The pilot? Well I'm sure they don't like it, and I guess they could make the case that they should be exempt. Frankly I don't care that pilots have to walk through security. They make alot more money than I do

 

[generichaze]

couldn't they just use some bomb / drug sniffing dogs and the good ol' metal detecting wand?

i know if i was traveling with my niece and they wanted to search her, or put her though one of those scanners that lets them see her naked i would rather leave the airport.