5 ms·

I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing screenin

I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing screenings. Somehow that got warped into government agents doing the work. Why is it 'unthinkable' to let people enter a plane without a security check? We let people get on a bus without a security check. If you're worried specifically about someone taking over the plane and crashing it into a building, you can protect the pilots separately from the people. International flights are a little different, because someone already needs to verify a passport. Even there, I don't think the security checks are actually necessary. I'm definitely opposed to classifying this as a 'funding issue' and giving the TSA even more money.

CaptainZapp 11y ago
Then we probably have to agree to disagree. Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train. Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high powered rifle, or a - pistol. In addition I, for one, prefer to take a flight without a bunch of open carry zealots believing that they have a god given rigth to take their guns everywhere and which would surely wind up armed on commercial flights. But again, we seem to have a completely different opinion here and I have no urge to try to convince you why I don't think it's a good idea to abolish security checks for flights.
- MichaelBurge 11y ago
  You can ban the guns on planes and fine people if anyone spots them. That should discourage open carry zealots. You could also ban carry-on bags, so it's harder to hide them. I guess people could bring on knives, pistols, or box-cutters; I don't know if there's a technical way to make planes resistant enough to these to give the pilot a chance to land in an emergency. There's still room for disagreement even after all of these, though.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  A normal metal detector will deter the open carry zealots. What's wrong with pre-911 security + reinforced cockpits?
  - CaptainZapp 11y ago
    Nothing, except that bags where scanned prior to 9/11. What was essentially added was prohibitions to take a nail clipper onto a plane (which, of course is utterly ludicrous), the rules regarding liquids and the whole cowboy attitude (apparently mostly in the US). Reinforcing the cockpit doors was actually one of the better ideas. Unless, that is, you have a psychotic, suicidal first officer. But that's a whole different story and anyway couldn't have been caught by airport security.
panglott 11y ago
You're thinking about this backwards. Passengers are willing to tolerate hour-long intrusive security screenings before boarding an airplane, so we should look at implementing security screenings on buses and trains. Right now, they're totally unsecure!
avn2109 11y ago
>> "...the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them..." The TSA was created solely to transfer liability from the airlines to the government in order to prevent the airlines from being sued into oblivion after 9/11. As nice side effects, it trains the population to accept the trappings of the police state and to disregard the sanctity of the 4th Amendment while proliferating bureaucracy. But the main purpose is corporate welfare for commercial passenger aviation.
superuser2 11y ago
> the airports would be responsible for doing screenings Airports are generally productions of municipal governments and badly mismanaged, money-losing construction projects. I don't anticipate county-managed security programs being any less awful than federally-managed security programs.

CaptainZapp 11y ago

Then we probably have to agree to disagree. Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train. Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high powered rifle, or a - pistol. In addition I, for one, prefer to take a flight without a bunch of open carry zealots believing that they have a god given rigth to take their guns everywhere and which would surely wind up armed on commercial flights. But again, we seem to have a completely different opinion here and I have no urge to try to convince you why I don't think it's a good idea to abolish security checks for flights.

MichaelBurge 11y ago
You can ban the guns on planes and fine people if anyone spots them. That should discourage open carry zealots. You could also ban carry-on bags, so it's harder to hide them. I guess people could bring on knives, pistols, or box-cutters; I don't know if there's a technical way to make planes resistant enough to these to give the pilot a chance to land in an emergency. There's still room for disagreement even after all of these, though.
saint_fiasco 11y ago
A normal metal detector will deter the open carry zealots. What's wrong with pre-911 security + reinforced cockpits?
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  Nothing, except that bags where scanned prior to 9/11. What was essentially added was prohibitions to take a nail clipper onto a plane (which, of course is utterly ludicrous), the rules regarding liquids and the whole cowboy attitude (apparently mostly in the US). Reinforcing the cockpit doors was actually one of the better ideas. Unless, that is, you have a psychotic, suicidal first officer. But that's a whole different story and anyway couldn't have been caught by airport security.

panglott 11y ago

You're thinking about this backwards. Passengers are willing to tolerate hour-long intrusive security screenings before boarding an airplane, so we should look at implementing security screenings on buses and trains. Right now, they're totally unsecure!

avn2109 11y ago

>> "...the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them..." The TSA was created solely to transfer liability from the airlines to the government in order to prevent the airlines from being sued into oblivion after 9/11. As nice side effects, it trains the population to accept the trappings of the police state and to disregard the sanctity of the 4th Amendment while proliferating bureaucracy. But the main purpose is corporate welfare for commercial passenger aviation.

superuser2 11y ago

> the airports would be responsible for doing screenings Airports are generally productions of municipal governments and badly mismanaged, money-losing construction projects. I don't anticipate county-managed security programs being any less awful than federally-managed security programs.