quade 4 #1 November 4, 2003 Ok, 1 down and 110,826,000 to go. We should really all get together and vote these clowns out of office.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #2 November 4, 2003 Quote We should really all get together and vote these clowns out of office. That's a lot of clowns, specifically though, which clowns are you talking about? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 November 4, 2003 Quote That's a lot of clowns, specifically though, which clowns are you talking about? Well the number was the approximate number of voters in the last election. We should get all of those people together and vote OUT the current Administration that created this additional and wasteful bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. Odd that the Administration campaigned on a a platform of smaller government and then created the largest government we've ever known. Whoops! Damn it! I said I wasn't going to talk about this anymore on THIS Forum. Damn it! Would somebody PLEASE move this thread over to Talkback?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #4 November 4, 2003 "Well the number was the approximate number of voters in the last election. We should get all of those people together and vote OUT the current Administration that created this additional and wasteful bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration." Sadly, it really makes no difference if you vote the current adminstration out or not.. what will replace it will be as bad, or worse! It matters not which party is in office.. not a dime's worth of difference between them!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 November 4, 2003 Quote Sadly, it really makes no difference if you vote the current adminstration out or not.. what will replace it will be as bad, or worse! It matters not which party is in office.. not a dime's worth of difference between them! ONLY a different Adminsitration can make this change because there's no freekin' way any politician is going to cut an entire Department he created.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 November 13, 2003 Quote ONLY a different Adminsitration can make this change because there's no freekin' way any politician is going to cut an entire Department he created. And keep in mind that based on the example shown by Janet Reno's department prior, it's not enough to vote out the Bush Administration. You have to really clean house to stop the intrusions of late. And sad to say, you won't find enough voters to do it. People like the TSA and the silly ineffective but good looking measures. Skydivers have a very difference sense of the notion of freedom than the average man. Freedom to put your life at risk...and to then save it. Apparently a new color coding system is coming into effect to replace the profiling system dating back to the 90s. I guess we can be thankful our credit information will not be in it...snort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverDanH2O 0 #7 November 13, 2003 Out of morbid curiosity, how exactly would you have dealt with the issue of airline security after a terrorist cell had bypassed the system in place, gained control of four different aircraft, and then killed some 4,000 people, and as an after effect put tens of thousands of people out of work, and the entire country into finacial termoil. I just gotta know what the all inclusive answer is. I'm not saying the TSA is perfect, far from it (I work in the safety department of an airline, we are not friends). Hell I fly 3-4 days a week, work for an airline, and have already had the FBI check and all of that other shit, and I still have to deal with them. But the situation required an immediate reaction. Terrorists look for and exploit opportunity whether it is in the reserve container or a baby's diaper, or in a grandmothers purse. In one huge incident aircraft were proven to the entire world to be a great terrorist weapon. The idea is to make things more difficult for a terorist to get on or take over an aircraft. Unfortunately that equates to a minor inconveniece for the traveling public, but if it helps to prevent another 911..........Why Not? Previously, security scanners were contracted through any variety of companies, required no edcaution, and minimual training to sit at the X-ray machine, and were not required to go through standardized recurrent training. With the formation of the TSA, over thousands of "scanners" were let go because of a criminal past that included some type of violent crime. (I believe your idea was to beef up this existing force) So this guy was a prick, I'll go on a limb and say this probably wasn't this persons first encounter with an asshole. Oh yeah, who is Kate Cooper??? It's usually just better to plan on asking forgiveness instead of permissonIt's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 November 13, 2003 Quote Out of morbid curiosity, how exactly would you have dealt with the issue of airline security after a terrorist cell had bypassed the system in place, gained control of four different aircraft, and then killed some 4,000 people, and as an after effect put tens of thousands of people out of work, and the entire country into finacial termoil. I just gotta know what the all inclusive answer is. Dan, you know as well as the rest of us that most of the TSA measures are window dressing, not to mention major bureaucracy creep. People still manage to carry hand guns on board (generally without even trying, as they somehow forgot they had one in their bag) And to achieve this level of insecurity it is a great hassle for everyone. How do you respond to what happened? 1- you beat the crap out of every enemy in sight. We've done that, and I don't think it's accidental that none of the promised later attacks have happened. 2- you secure the doors, arm the willing pilots. There has been major feet dragging on this one, which puts us all at risk. You'll never effectively remove potential weapons from getting on board. So why continue to ensure that everyone is a sitting duck? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #9 November 13, 2003 >you secure the doors, arm the willing pilots. Which works until one of the pilots takes the gun, shoots the other pilot, and then flies the plane into the Sears Tower while the passengers and flight attendants pound ineffectively on the door. Don't think that can happen? It already has - an Egyptair flight was taken over by a crazed pilot who kept muttering "Tawakkalt ala Alla" during his attempts to crash the plane. He disengaged the autopilot and tried to dive the plane into the ocean. Since cockpit doors were not yet reinforced (this was 1999) and there was no gun on board, a fight broke out between the other pilot (who was in the galley when the first pilot took over) and the crazy pilot. The returning pilot managed to pull the plane out of the dive by using a very odd safety feature of the 767's control system, but the crazy pilot then started to shut down systems (including the engines) and the second pilot lost the fight to keep the plane flying. Ask yourself if you want the same thing to happen with a reinforced door and a gun in the cockpit, especially after 9/11 has shown people like that what you can do with an airplane full of fuel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 November 13, 2003 Quote >you secure the doors, arm the willing pilots. Which works until one of the pilots takes the gun, shoots the other pilot, and then flies the plane into the Sears Tower while the passengers and flight attendants pound ineffectively on the door. Don't think that can happen? It already has - an Egyptair flight was taken over by a crazed pilot who kept muttering "Tawakkalt ala Alla" during his attempts to crash the plane. He disengaged the autopilot and tried to dive the plane into the ocean. Since cockpit doors were not yet reinforced (this was 1999) and there was no gun on board, a fight broke out between the other pilot (who was in the galley when the first pilot took over) and the crazy pilot. The returning pilot managed to pull the plane out of the dive by using a very odd safety feature of the 767's control system, but the crazy pilot then started to shut down systems (including the engines) and the second pilot lost the fight to keep the plane flying. Ask yourself if you want the same thing to happen with a reinforced door and a gun in the cockpit, especially after 9/11 has shown people like that what you can do with an airplane full of fuel.*** Yeah, lets forget about implementing ANY safety procedures because of something that happened one time and could happen again. We can then assure it won't happen by scrapping the TSA. Their nothing but a bunch of Nazis who want to take away our freedom anyway. Good thinking , Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 November 14, 2003 Quote >you secure the doors, arm the willing pilots. Which works until one of the pilots takes the gun, shoots the other pilot, and then flies the plane into the Sears Tower while the passengers and flight Bill - you're already entrusting the pilot with the operation and safety of the aircraft. If you can't trust him or her to do that, you've already lost the battle. Giving them a gun doesn't make them any more capable of killing the plane. Meanwhile, it makes up for the fact that no measures taken by the TSA will prevent weapons from getting onto the airplane. More Complex systems only increase the failure rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #12 November 14, 2003 >Yeah, lets forget about implementing ANY safety procedures because > of something that happened one time and could happen again. That's a dumb attitude. You implement safety procedures that make sense. Better scanners, better ways to detect bombs, stricter screening of luggage, stricter screening of flight crews. Giving guns to pilots is like trying to cover buildings with foam rubber. If the airplane is on target for the building you've already lost; if there's a terrorist in the cockpit (whether flight crew or passenger) again, you've already lost. Despite all that, today terrorists can still smuggle knives on planes. The thing that will make the most difference is the attitude of the people on those planes. If there is another attempt to take over a plane, it will be the Todd Beamers, rather than the gun-wielding pilots, who will stop them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #13 November 14, 2003 Quote Out of morbid curiosity, how exactly would you have dealt with the issue of airline security after a terrorist cell had bypassed the system in place, gained control of four different aircraft, and then killed some 4,000 people, and as an after effect put tens of thousands of people out of work, and the entire country into finacial termoil. I just gotta know what the all inclusive answer is. The first step in solving a problem is to acknowledge that a problem exists in the first place. That there is a problem with current TSA procedures is quite apparent to the traveling public. It is not, in general, the traveling public's role to fix the problem. If it takes a lot of bitching and whining to make TSA take note, so be it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverDanH2O 0 #14 November 14, 2003 You won't get a huge argument out of me, a void needed to be filled and it was. Does it need to be changed? Absolutely. Will the searches go away? Never. You can bank on the TSA staying as well, if for only this one reason. Before 9/11 the airlines had to pay for contractors to supply security scanners. Now that the TSA (a government agency) is in place the airlines no longer foot the bill. There is a "fee" added to every ticket price on all US carriers, which pays for the TSA. So technically if you choose to fly you are the one paying for the TSA. So let's say hypothetically speaking, a new administration comes in and announces they are going to do away with the TSA. (this by the way would be political suicide) The airlines pipe up with "Without the TSA personell and equipment we can not ensure safe travel" is this a true statement, no, (without TSA they will have to spend money) however such a statement made publicly would definately effect public opinion on the new administrations views on providing for safe travel. It's all political jockeying bullshit.It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #15 November 14, 2003 I'll just interject my insignificant professional opinion. How many people are stabbed to death every year in prisons in the US? OK...now.....do you think we should be concentrating on weapons or terrorists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverDanH2O 0 #16 November 14, 2003 Apples and Oranges dude, Apples and OrangesIt's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #17 November 14, 2003 Quote Apples and Oranges dude, Apples and Oranges Not really.....if you can't keep weapons out of a prison....how the hell do you think they are going to keep them off airplanes? Exactly...they can't. Current procedures only work for people that are A) Unknowingly carrying prohibited items or B) Just not all that smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 November 18, 2003 Quote Not really.....if you can't keep weapons out of a prison....how the hell do you think they are going to keep them off airplanes? Exactly...they can't. Current procedures only work for people that are A) Unknowingly carrying prohibited items or B) Just not all that smart. And the current procedures clearly don't work well enough for people in A), as occasionally someone discovers that they did in fact bring their CCW piece on board. And we only hear about the fellows crazy enough to reveal that fact midflight, guaranteeing everyone on board a niusance when the pilot looks for the nearly airport to get rid of the guy and gun. A wiser man keeps his mouth shut at this point, and learns a lesson on sloppy packing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #19 November 18, 2003 Quote A wiser man keeps his mouth shut at this point, and learns a lesson on sloppy packing. Yep....I couldn't believe that the cops arrested a lady in Atlanta for declaring a weapon that she had accidentally taken onboard an aircraft. What idiots!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverDanH2O 0 #20 November 19, 2003 Which had nothing to do with the TSA,....According to the report I read, she was detained, cited for breaking a city ordinance which prohibits carrying a concealed weapon into a public place (like an airport), paid a small fine and released. I can't believe I get speeding tickets for speeding when i have a good excuse, but it happens.It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
