Be careful, TSA loose (for crew members)

[nycbusdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/7/2003 4:34:30 PM JetTroop wrote:


...Everyone can be a possible terrorist...including me. It can happen. You can't just say, I'll only search some of the people but only ones that meet this profile because the terrorists will learn from that and find others that are sympathetic to their causes and recruit them. It would be shortsighted to think that only certain people could cause harm to us and attempt overtake an airplane. Including a pilot. Stranger things have happened. To ensure better security screening, you search everyone...or rather, you allow everyone to be searched....

----------------
[/blockquote]

JetTroop -

You've just pointed out the fallacy of the entire TSA screening process. It's NOT continuous and does NOT allow everyone to be searched. The majority of airline/airport workers bypass screening every time they report for work. They have been issued pass cards that allow them to use security doors hidden from the public. No one stops them. No magnetometers. No x-ray machines.

If, as you say, "everyone can be a possible terrorist," then why does the TSA let all those folks go unchallenged, day in and day out?

 

[Zephyr]

JetTroop says:

"Why aren't they searching all airport workers? I don't know."


Consider that customers see access points for aircrews. Customers do not see the access points for the majority of airport workers.

Conect the dots.

 

[nycbusdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 9:43:42 PM Zephyr wrote:

JetTroop says:

"Why aren't they searching all airport workers? I don't know."


Consider that customers see access points for aircrews. Customers do not see the access points for the majority of airport workers.

Conect the dots.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Exactly. The rules (at least previous to 9-11) only required that everyone passing a security checkpoint HAD to be screened. 'Secret' door...no screening...perfectly legal. This is just another example of the system being "more show than substance." In CLT, crew members have a 'secret' door, and can bypass screening. Makes very little sense that I can proceed to work unencumbered by security hassles in CLT, but get a thorough shakedown in full view of the incredulous public in PHL.

I thought the whole idea of the TSA was standarization at all airports. If the airport managers can still make these types of security decisions, why do we have the bloated federal TSA system?

 

[flyin2low]

The problem with flight crewmembers and screening is that they can't verify who you are. You're company ID means squat to them. Yes, it does get you past TSA just like anyone with a fake DL. The only stop gap measure to verify you, is to confirm that your name appears on the flight release before being let out into the AOA. Since flight crewmembers don't get Airport ID's, we are not trusted employees to anyone other than a CSA working the gate that we are currently working out of.

 

[nycbusdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 8:08:13 AM flyin2low wrote:

The problem with flight crewmembers and screening is that they can't verify who you are. You're company ID means squat to them. Yes, it does get you past TSA just like anyone with a fake DL. The only stop gap measure to verify you, is to confirm that your name appears on the flight release before being let out into the AOA. Since flight crewmembers don't get Airport ID's, we are not trusted employees to anyone other than a CSA working the gate that we are currently working out of.
----------------
[/blockquote]


I have no idea what airline you work for, but what you describe is not USAirways' policy. True, the flight release cannot be handed over to anyone other than the captain until his name is verified by the agent (of course, many times I go to the podium, find no agent present but the printed flight release is sitting there for anyone to pick up. I take it and go about my job.) No agent stops me from opening the jetway door (since I know the door code and no agent is around,) and this is perfectly legal as long as I am displaying my USAirways ID (per Flight Operations Manual.)

In short, there is NO requirement to be verified on any flight release before being "released" into the AOA. If you were familiar with USAirways' operations, you would see the fallacy of that statement. I won't go into details, because THAT would be imprudent.

 

[Stick-n-Rudder]

TSA screener caught with his pants down
Airport security screener busted for indecent exposure
Jennifer Johnson

March 4, 2003

A federal security screener working for the Nashville Airport is arrested on four counts of indecent exposure. Detectives say 25 year old Brian Lowe had been flashing children from inside his home located at 428 Tyler Drive.

The duplex is directly across the street from two schools, Dupont Middle and Tulip Grove Elementary. Police cited two different incidents, however the victims tell Channel 4 he had exposed himself at least nine occasions.

A seven-year-old boy and his fifteen-year-old cousin are the ones who told their parents then called police. Investigators say there could be other victims out there that they're not aware of.

Officials with the Transportation Security Administration have put Lowe on administrative leave while the incidents are investigated. Even if he's not convicted of the crimes, Lowe could lose his job as an airport screener.

For now, Lowe is being held in the Metro jail on a $25,000 bond.

Suspect flashed children repeatedly

Feds Investigate Sandwich Stolen From Break Room
Posted: 12:09 p.m. EST March 5, 2003

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Who took the peanut butter sandwich?

It may be too sticky a case for police in Des Moines, so they've turned it over to the federal Transportation Security Administration.

Christine Woods says her sandwich was taken from a break room at the Des Moines airport.

The only ones who have access to the room are 16 federal security workers. They have to punch a code into a keypad to get in.

Police Lt. David Huberty says the theft of a sandwich is still a theft. But he says if he were to send a detective to interview 16 people about it -- it would be an "inappropriate use of resources."

The woman whose sandwich is gone says she's afraid a wallet or purse could disappear next time.

 

[dogdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 8:08:13 AM flyin2low wrote:

The problem with flight crewmembers and screening is that they can't verify who you are.

Flyin2low,
I totally agree. I just wonder what they are going to do about this identification problem once we are armed. If they don't change the procedures it's going to look pretty dumb searching someone only to let them pass with a gun. Unfortunately, considering who runs this show I'll bet we see some pretty dumb things in the near future. I can't wait.

 

[nycbusdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 1:01:44 PM dogdriver wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 8:08:13 AM flyin2low wrote:

The problem with flight crewmembers and screening is that they can't verify who you are.

Flyin2low,
I totally agree. I just wonder what they are going to do about this identification problem once we are armed. If they don't change the procedures it's going to look pretty dumb searching someone only to let them pass with a gun. Unfortunately, considering who runs this show I'll bet we see some pretty dumb things in the near future. I can't wait.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Just when you thought things couldn't get any dumber, the federal government steps in (in the form of Homeland Security and TSA) and proves you wrong.

 

[JetTroop]

[blockquote]----------------
On 3/9/2003 2:25:25 PM nycbusdriver wrote:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any dumber, the federal government steps in (in the form of Homeland Security and TSA) and proves you wrong.

----------------[/blockquote]

Again, I've been informed that it's the Airport Manager's discretion to search the aircrew, not the TSA. Although I'm for searching everyone and no armed aircrews.

I agree with your last statement but it's the flying public and airline workers that prove me wrong. Just when I think they have a clue about security, I realize they don't. Generally in form of not looking at the whole picture.

 

[dogdriver]

On 3/9/2003 2:48:48 PM JetTroop wrote:


Again, I've been informed that it's the Airport Manager's discretion to search the aircrew, not the TSA. Although I'm for searching everyone and no armed aircrews.

JetTroop,
Have you been informed as to what airport managers intend to do as far as pilot screening goes after they are armed? Also, what is your professional opinion as to the outcome of the 911 hijackings if the pilots were armed? Could it have been any worse?

 

[flyin2low]

_______________________________________________
"I have no idea what airline you work for, but what you describe is not USAirways' policy. True, the flight release cannot be handed over to anyone other than the captain until his name is verified by the agent (of course, many times I go to the podium, find no agent present but the printed flight release is sitting there for anyone to pick up. I take it and go about my job.) No agent stops me from opening the jetway door (since I know the door code and no agent is around,) and this is perfectly legal as long as I am displaying my USAirways ID (per Flight Operations Manual.)

In short, there is NO requirement to be verified on any flight release before being released into the AOA. If you were familiar with USAirways' operations, you would see the fallacy of that statement. I won't go into details, because THAT would be imprudent."

_______________________________________________

Maybe in LGA you have the codes. I'll bet alot of the places that you fly out of you don't have the code because you have to swipe an airport ID(which you don't have) to get out.

You seem to think that you have more importance than you really do....

 

[JetTroop]

----------------[/blockquote]Furthermore, why aren't we drug/alcohol testing law enforcement officers? (or for that matter congressmen, judges, corporate executives?) You always hear comments like "you're no better than anyone else" until the person making the comment has THEIR ox gored.
----------------[/blockquote]

I was drug tested and I have no problem to be continued to be drug tested on a random basis like I was in the military. So many city, county and state agencies that the federal government would have to mandate the states to begin testing.

I'm all for it.

BTW...what do you mean "alcohol" testing? I know of departments that if the smell it, you're given a intoxilizer test and if you fail, you're suspended. I'm sure quite a lot of agencies are doing this already.

 

[JetTroop]

[blockquote]----------------
On 3/9/2003 343 PM dogdriver wrote:

JetTroop,
Have you been informed as to what airport managers intend to do as far as pilot screening goes after they are armed? Also, what is your professional opinion as to the outcome of the 911 hijackings if the pilots were armed? Could it have been any worse?
----------------[/blockquote]
Sorry, I haven't heard what the plan is after pilots are armed. I'm sure there will be some confusion on the part of the TSA but hopefully that will be kept to a minimum.

As for my professional opinion about the 9/11 hijackings and if the pilots were armed...good question.

It's hard for anyone to speculate what could or would have happened had the pilots been armed. We have take a couple things inconsideration. Like the number of attackers and could the pilot recognize the threat in time. This was the period before re-enforced doors, so they could have kicked in the door without the pilots prior knowledge that there was an incident in the back. If so, could the pilot reach for a sidearm, turn and defend the cockpit from 5 armed people who were willing to die for their cause? That's a tough challenge for anyone. A pilot getting bum rushed in the cockpit isn't going to be able to fend off 5 attackers all that well when he is surprised, just not a lot of room and time for that. So in that case, I don't think much would have changed.

Now had the pilot know about the attack prior to the door being kicked in, yes. He could have had his weapon ready and addressed an breaches of the door as they occurred. Again, having 5 attackers who didn't care about dying changes the scenario quite a bit. One or two would probably have been more than willing to sacrifice themselves to disable the person with the firearm. Still, with 5 attackers and the pilot having knowledge of the hijacking prior to them coming in the door, yes I think it would have changed some...but not completely. Too many attackers.

One of the main issues with arming pilots is that if anything does happen and the door is breached, you've introduced a weapon in the environment. So if an attacker/hijacker didn't have access to one, they do now. Much like in a prison, prison guards inside the prison never carry firearms and usually not even sticks. Any weapon that the guard has is a potential weapon that an inmate might get. The real question is: Can the pilot can identify the threat, reach for the weapon, then turn and address the situation in time? In the end, it's tough to say what would have happened, I would like to think a different outcome...but I really don't know.

 

[X-U]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 9:43:42 PM Zephyr wrote:

JetTroop says:

"Why aren't they searching all airport workers? I don't know."


Consider that customers see access points for aircrews. Customers do not see the access points for the majority of airport workers.

Conect the dots.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Furthermore, why aren't we drug/alcohol testing law enforcement officers? (or for that matter congressmen, judges, corporate executives?) You always hear comments like "you're no better than anyone else" until the person making the comment has THEIR ox gored.

 

[X-U]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/10/2003 9:44:06 AM JetTroop wrote:

----------------[/blockquote]Furthermore, why aren't we drug/alcohol testing law enforcement officers? (or for that matter congressmen, judges, corporate executives?) You always hear comments like "you're no better than anyone else" until the person making the comment has THEIR ox gored.
----------------[/blockquote]

I was drug tested and I have no problem to be continued to be drug tested on a random basis like I was in the military. So many city, county and state agencies that the federal government would have to mandate the states to begin testing.

I'm all for it.

BTW...what do you mean "alcohol" testing? I know of departments that if the smell it, you're given a intoxilizer test and if you fail, you're suspended. I'm sure quite a lot of agencies are doing this already.
----------------
[/blockquote]

DOT regulations require drug and alcohol testing of transportation workers. If the Federal government can mandate it for this, why not for ALL law enforcement offficers. Why not for others who make decisions that affect the lives of hundreds, or even millions? While your support of such an idea is fine, the police union put the kibosh on plan that was being proposed at the time it was being placed on transportation workers. The Supreme Court also cried "invasion of privacy" when drug/alcohol testing was put forward for judges. Now, back to the TSA, do they get in the face of the State Trooper who is standing by the check point to s try to smell alcohol on their breath? It is ironic that transportation workers, pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, are considered to be in such vital positions that they are tested for drug and alcohol use, have their backgrounds checked multiple times, IDs validated and re-validated, sent to recurrent training every year, sent to undergo physical exams twice a year (for pilots), but when it comes time to get a little respect from somebody, "they aren't better than anyone else". While threatening to cut someones head off displays a lack of professionalism, one has to wonder what drove this person to make that remark. Do you really think that pilot woke up that morning deciding to behead a TSA screener? Or was was he goaded into making the comment? Do you suppose the massive furloughs and paycuts have any affect on his state of mind? If so, what about the Mechanics who worked on the airplane or the Flight Attendants who ensure the safety of the passengers? Have airline employees been pushed to the brink? While I am not trying to make any excuse for the conduct of the the pilot in question, nor am I trying to disparage the TSA screeners who for the most part are vastly superior to the previous screeners, I do think the TSA should back off a little and quit trying to make an example of airline workers to justify themselves to the passengers. And if the government can come up with an ID system for federal workers to access sensitive areas, they should be able to put one in place for transportation workers. Using biometrics, you can be pretty certain the person with the ID is who it says they are.