New TSA directives

[Gilldiver]

So are all the little shops that sell booze and last minute gifts before you board the plane all closing as we cant carry that stuff on anymore?

You mean the ones you can buy 151 Rum at?

Lets say you get a book of matches aboard, some paper towles from the bath, add in 2 liters of 151, and say Molotov!

 

[chiefelectusn]

Political correctness crap, politicans do not want to make anyone unhappy, except the citizens! Go to Israel, they know security! If it looks like a duck, they are going to look at it, screw racial profiling.
John Q Public is not the problem in this country, it is radical muslims, and the politicans who do not want to offend them.

 

[jstamets]

It appears that the new rules were active only through December 30, and are no longer in effect. I don't think anyone was buying that they were in any way effective at, well, anything, really (except making the TSA look foolish and annoying a lot of legitimate travellers).

Apparently I need to post a few more times in order to post urls, but go to Christopher Elliots blog at elliot dot org slash blog slash the-latest-from-the-tsa-layered-approach-to-security-and-what-it-means-to-you

Here is the snippet of relevance:

Update (11:15 a.m.): From an airline insider. TSA’s “silly rules” have been lifted on inbound international flights.

- IFE, wireless internet and moving maps are no longer needing to be disabled.

- Passengers are no longer required to remain seated within one hour of landing at a US airport when leaving an airport outside the US.

- Passengers are now able to have blankets, pillows on their laps and they can access their carry-on luggage inflight in the last hour.

 

[RAWalker]

Knee-jerk reactions are usually the result of emotionally-charged decision-making, not rational thinking.
Why create another problem trying to fix an existing one?

Issuing firearms may sound and feel as if it would make life more secure, but not at 35,000ft. Imagine what one stray shot through an aircraft window from a trigger-happy passenger would do. The sudden pressure change would lead to hypoxic conditions onboard, with everyone scrambling for their oxygen mask.

The alleged terrorist would be left alone to carry on.

No security there. Stun guns would be more appropriate.


The last hour of enforced seating means that the time available to any terrorist who may want to use the toilet for his/her misguided aims (no pun intended) is simple condensed into the balance of flight time before shutdown begins.
So the last hour will only mean that the detonated aircraft will not cause any collateral damage - meaning civilian lives lost - on the ground.
Therefore it logically follows the plane has a better chance of being blown up on the first, say, three hours of a four-hour flight. Somewhere over water.

I ask you, if my plane en route to NY next week is downed by some crazy guy over the Atlantic, will it mean that the current security measures will be deemed a success?

I have worked for over thirty years in security, and my opinion on this latest reaction is that of an ill-thought-out, politically-influenced action that does nothing to address the main problem - screening the passengers before they board, not after.

Short-term response to a long-term problem. No strategy.


Seadeuce

No Knee-jerk reaction here.
Maybe you missed it but my response was well thought out.
You assume armed citizens would be a problem but no there are no stats to back up that assumption.

Not only would you need a carry permit but also specialized training that included weapon and ammo selection for use on a plane. This would also weed out most of the few so called trigger happy and leave us with the better odds with another 10 or more well trained civilians on each flight ready to retake control from terrorists.

Unfortunately just like police there are not enough Federal Air Marshals to go around. They can't be everyplace they may be needed all the time. People need to be able and prepared to insure their own safety. If a Federal Air Marshal can carry a firearm on a plane there is no good reason to stop a properly equipped, trained and permited civilian.

If armed citizens were a fact of flying the only other problem for the gov't to deal with would be bombs which proper scanning and inspections are perfectly effective at preventing.

Your stun-gun idea on the other hand is not very well thought out since people can be trained so their resistance to the effect of a stun gun are increased.

 

[Doc]

I am...

.......................

.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ge...ussions/316907-close-call-whats-deal-tsa.html

.
.

 

[DennisS]

No Knee-jerk reaction here.
Maybe you missed it but my response was well thought out.
You assume armed citizens would be a problem but no there are no stats to back up that assumption.

Not only would you need a carry permit but also specialized training that included weapon and ammo selection for use on a plane. This would also weed out most of the few so called trigger happy and leave us with the better odds with another 10 or more well trained civilians on each flight ready to retake control from terrorists.

Unfortunately just like police there are not enough Federal Air Marshals to go around. They can't be everyplace they may be needed all the time. People need to be able and prepared to insure their own safety. If a Federal Air Marshal can carry a firearm on a plane there is no good reason to stop a properly equipped, trained and permited civilian.

If armed citizens were a fact of flying the only other problem for the gov't to deal with would be bombs which proper scanning and inspections are perfectly effective at preventing.

Your stun-gun idea on the other hand is not very well thought out since people can be trained so their resistance to the effect of a stun gun are increased.

How would you determine how many amateur armed civilians are allowed onboard. Do they bump the poorest scorers on the test and allow the top shooter or let everyone carry. We could end up with 10 scared/panicked shooters emptying their guns on a crowded plane. I wouldn't want to be a middle eastern looking air marshall. How do they identify each other, a secret sign? The bomber would probably have a dead mans switch anyway. I can see an innocent incident turning into a slaughter. I can also see a terrorist getting one of those guns




It is known in police parlance as “contagious shooting” — gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too.

The phenomenon appears to have happened last year, when eight officers fired 43 shots at an armed man in Queens, killing him. In July, three officers fired 26 shots at a pit bull that had bitten a chunk out of an officer’s leg in a Bronx apartment building. And there have been other episodes: in 1995, in the Bronx, officers fired 125 bullets during a bodega robbery, with one officer firing 45 rounds.

And that was the reactions of trained professionals that spend every working day in stressful situations

 

[Gilldiver]

Explane how any armed officer or passenger would have helped out with the shoe bomber or this new "Shorts" bomber?

They were both stopped by unarmed passengers, no arms were needed, required, or would have been useful. Aware and ready to react passengers are the best defence against the loner.

 

[Seadeuce]

No Knee-jerk reaction here.
Maybe you missed it but my response was well thought out.
You assume armed citizens would be a problem but no there are no stats to back up that assumption.

I think maybe you missed my point...

What happens if one bullet shatters a window?
Pressure inside plane about 7,500-8,500ft, outside plane 35,000ft. That differential would cause a serious problem.

Or do you have that well thought out?

My mention of stun guns was to emphasise that no harm would come to other passengers in their use. I agree they may not be the best, but they won't create the problem a real gun can.

Seadeuce

 

[RAWalker]

I think maybe you missed my point...

What happens if one bullet shatters a window?
Pressure inside plane about 7,500-8,500ft, outside plane 35,000ft. That differential would cause a serious problem.

Or do you have that well thought out?

My mention of stun guns was to emphasise that no harm would come to other passengers in their use. I agree they may not be the best, but they won't create the problem a real gun can.

Seadeuce

That is controlled by the correct calibre and ammo type for use on a plane.
I believe 9mm, .380 .32 and 25 with fragable bullets would be effective. This would be taught in class and enforced during security checks. Again if Air Marshals can be armed no reason for properly train civilians not to be allowed. There is no way to be 100% sure that there isn't colateral damage but it is better to keep control of the plane in the hands of those it should be in then to allow a plane to be used as missile. Flight crews can handle decompression and get a plane below 10,000 ft for the rest of the passengers to breath without masks. So that was well thought out by the airlines when they started flying above 10,000 ft.

 

[BigBothersom]

And just wait until some lunatic tries to strangle a flight attendant with a pair of pants.
The TSA in their typical reactionary brilliance with then have us all flying with no pants.
Dear God in heaven we're a stupid nation.