A brush with the TSA today...

[timwinters]

So, I'll make it brief and admit up front that I was an ***. (Like almost everyone else here, I hate the TSA so I'm not particularly friendly when they start their BS).

I arranged to have the Diamond's oil changed this morning and told the mechanic I'd fly it to get things hot and then drop it off to him NLT 0900.

They were too busy to give me a ride back to the hangar so I walked. Headset in one hand, flight bag over my shoulder.

As I passed the north end of the "red box" (i.e. walking away from it) I hear someone shout "may I help you?" I turn around and there were three TSA agents standing at the terminal door yelling at me.

"NO, I'm just walking back to my hangar from the maintenance shop" I responded.

"Well, you need to stay out of the red box"

"I did, I walked around it."

"no you didn't."

"YES I DID, pull the tapes!"

"Well, you shouldn't be walking on a taxiway"

"This isn't a taxiway, it's a non-movement area, you might want to learn the difference."

"What's your name?"

"Joe Pilot"

And I kept walking as they kept yelling something that I couldn't make out.

After I closed the hangar, I drove through the same non-movement area like I do...and everyone else always does...every day unchallenged, parked at the terminal, went inside and asked if they wanted to continue the conversation in person.

They really didn't have much to say. The local city cop told me that they'll question every pedestrian they see on the ramp because they seldom see one especially if they get inside the red box.

"Whatever. I was carrying a headset and a flight bag...that should have been your first clue that I belonged here...and again...I didn't get inside of your freakin' red box.

Besides, I'm told by the people who run this airport (a class D with only commuter service) that the red box is only in effect if a plane is inside of it. Regardless, I never go inside of it even if it is empty whether I'm taxiing, driving or walking."

I ended by telling them "This is exactly what's killing GA, nobody feels welcome at an airport even the people who are based here."

And walked out.

I probably gave them something to talk about for a day or two. I'm sure they're bored.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The TSA has never stopped a single terrorist attack. It wastes $8.1 billion per year while likely indirectly causing an excess of 500 deaths on the highways each year due to people avoiding short haul flights and driving instead.

Unfortunately, about 50% of the US public believes they are doing some good in fighting terrorism.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The huge majority of those in the TSA are doing a great job.

The TSA only catches 4% of attempts to smuggle prohibited items into planes. By what standard is that "a great job"?

It is estimated that approximately 50% are engaged in some type of misconduct, such as theft or abuse of passengers - how can that be doing a "great job" ?

They are asked to perform an overall task which is statistically speaking nearly impossible for them to succeed at. This type of system will tend to corrupt people. So in that sense it is not the case of terrible individuals failing, but rather that screening for this type of very rare attack is a fundamentally flawed idea. Nonetheless, I believe individuals should be held responsible for choosing to perform such jobs.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Not when it comes to pre-boarding security.

If the decisions were made by the airlines, or by the PIC for the flight, I doubt we would have the 3.1 oz liquids rule or several other silly TSA rules.

I would agree that privatization of the airline security is the best answer. That way the airlines, their PICs, and the passengers can decide on the most appropriate trade-offs between security and convenience in a market driven process.

Have a website about this. See http://RealAirlineSecurity.org

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As I stated in another thread... there were 0 hijackings of commercial passenger airliners in the United States in 14 years prior to 9/11.

Was it only 14 years for a hijacking? If we don't count the explosion near Long Island in 1996, I believe the last time an airliner leaving a US airport was destroyed by a non- crew member was 1962, 39 years prior to the formation of the TSA.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Can you give me a link to the data supporting that so I can edumacate myself? Thanks.

Regarding nearly half of TSA employees engaging in misconduct, here is one article with other links to start: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-misconduct-nearly-third-multiple-times.shtml (google search on "fraction of tsa employees engaging in misconduct" will give others as well).

Regarding only catching 4% of contraband, here is one such article to start: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/ (google search on "amount of contraband caught by TSA" will give others).

The basic numbers in both cases are ultimately derived from government sources, which one would expect, if anything, to provide an optimistic view of the TSA's performance. By almost all objective measures, the TSA's performance is dismal, though this may reflect primarily the fundamental flaw of trying to prevent terrorist attacks by massive screening of otherwise innocent people.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

There have been numerous terror attacks in the US since 9/11. Any of them could have been directed towards airliners if security wasn't in place to deter them.

This is an interesting argument because it likely conforms with how the 50% of US citizens who actually think the TSA is doing some good view the situation. There are several lines of argument which suggest that this observation or the similar one that "there have been no more terrorist attacks on airliners since 2001" don't provide reason a to believe the TSA improves traveler's safety.

Perhaps most concretely there is the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the lines to enter TSA screening in the U.S. These lines often contain several hundred people who can't have been screened yet, because it is the line to be screened. This is a very attractive target for a terrorist attack, yet none has been performed in the US (it happened recently in Europe). That is likely because this type of attack is very rare and there just aren't that many people in the U.S. who want to commit that kind of terrorist act. It certainly can't be due to the TSA's procedures.

Secondly, there is the fact that the TSA's procedures only catch 4% of attempts to smuggle contraband through the checkpoints. Do we seriously believe that terrorists who are willing to die for their cause would be deterred by a 4% chance of being caught?

Thirdly, the TSA has never been able to provide any evidence that they have prevented a single attack.

Finally, and more abstractly, but perhaps most importantly, these are just extremely rare events so accurately reasoning about their causes or prevention takes a lot of data. The last time a commercial airliner leaving a US airport was certainly destroyed by a non-crew member prior to 2001 was in 1962. There was the explosion off Long Island which some theorized may have been a terrorist attack. Even if we count that, it would require 75 years from 2001 to be able to make a valid statistical argument that the rate of terrorist attacks had decreased since the institution of the TSA.

Given all of this data, what is the likelihood that the TSA's policies have prevented or will prevent a terrorist attack? I think quite low. From a policy perspective, that likelihood has to be balanced against the costs. Given the costs of the TSA, in dollars, other lives lost on the highways due to displacement to more dangerous forms of transportation, and the violation of innocent people's privacy, I think we have to ask -- is it worth it? Incredibly, the TSA has never performed a formal cost-benefit analysis of their policies.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Come to think of it, the F-35 is a lot bigger waste of money than the TSA.

Is that true. The TSA wastes $8.1 billion per year. It appears an average F-35 costs about $178 million.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

What about this one:

"7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37 other passengers were killed."

[http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm]
There was also Pacific Air Lines flight 773 in 1964 (Fairchild F-27 from Stockton to SFO). The pilot, Captain Ernest Clark, was the father of airshow performer Julie Clark.

Thanks for the pointers to those incidents - I stand corrected. Do you know of any others that would meet that definition?

I'll check for the 1962 incident. I'm interested in any going back to the start of commercial aviation as that will provide the best estimate of rate.

Two certain incidents in 39 years would still be such a low rate that it would require 75 years to know whether there has been a rate change.