Don't like the TSA? Just don't fly. Oh... wait...

[cstone]

I disagree! I do not want armed idiots on a plane with me. Now armed "trained" pilots or crew/air marshalls yes, but not just anyone. I dont fly unless I have to. I like to fly, just dont like the hassle/cost. And yes I know its safer then driving statistically.

I dont have any ideas/answers that people making way more money then me havent thought of I am sure. But I dont like the current system.

I don't like the current system either. I know there must be better ways to provide more security than currently provided today by TSA. I just don't know what they are. Besides that, the current system is ridiculously expensive for the level of security provided.

[Seamonkey]

How would you (this is a general call to anyone who reads this) prevent another 9/11 tragedy? How would you make over 30,000 domestic airline flights each day in this country safe?

Awhile ago The Onion came out with just such a report. Ban all passengers on airplanes.

[cstone]

Awhile ago The Onion came out with just such a report. Ban all passengers on airplanes.

Here is a non-passenger airplane assault which almost resulted in major catastrophe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_705

[Irving]

If passengers can carry on planes, then so can bad guys.

The TSA couldn't have prevent 9/11. The towers were hit by pilots that infiltrated from the inside. Could still happen again. Absolutely nothing about that aspect has changed.

The other planes that were taken down by guys with box knives were taken down because Americans are too used to someone else keeping them safe.

[cstone]

If passengers can carry on planes, then so can bad guys.

The TSA couldn't have prevent 9/11. The towers were hit by pilots that infiltrated from the inside. Could still happen again. Absolutely nothing about that aspect has changed.

The other planes that were taken down by guys with box knives were taken down because Americans are too used to someone else keeping them safe.

So your suggestion is? Again, the question is, how do you protect 30,000 daily domestic flights, and who do you trust with that mission?

[hollohas]

The bigger issue being addressed today in aviation security is not the armed attacker(s), but anyone whose aim is to cripple western economies by destroying the freedom to travel or transport goods. You don't have to have access to classified briefings to know that bringing a commercial airliner down is pretty high on the target list.

And the BGs have succeeded. Naked body scanners that violate the constitution, un-warranted searches...of a person's body no less. Don't like that then you get to have a person pat you down. Don't like that...then you get to go to the back room. Oh, sure you have a choice not to fly if you don't want a pat down or to have your naked body scanned but it is illegal to enter a security lane at an airport and then leave it before going through the screening process.

Citizen - "Mr. TSA, I refuse to get a pat down because it violates my right so I choose not to fly today."

Mr. TSA - "I'm sorry sir, you cannot do that or you will be held by the TSA and arrested by the police."

Our freedom to travel without our rights being violated has already been destroyed.

After all, life is full of risks. Who do you trust

Not the TSA. The TSA failed multiple times at stopping bombers from getting on planes. We are no safer than before 9/11 it's just that the recent bombers have failed on their own. Shoe Bomber? Underware bomber? Yup, TSA did a great job with them. Anyone know of an instance that the TSA has stopped a real BG?

Didn't think so.

And what do we get each time the TSA failed? New rules. 9/11 box cutters? Now we can't take nail clippers on the plane. Shoe bomber...now we take off our shoes and can't have large liquids. Underware bomber...now we get a naked scan.

Rectum bomber...oh crap, here we go, TSA will have an answer for that too I'm sure.

I don't disagree, but guns don't stop bombs. What else besides allowing armed passengers and crew?

Nope. But 9/11 wasn't a bomb. Guns sure do beat box cutters every time. I am not for citizens carrying guns on planes though. Crew only.

So your suggestion is? Again, the question is, how do you protect 30,000 daily domestic flights, and who do you trust with that mission?

You don't. You cannot make EVERYONE safe. There is risk in life and we need to balance that risk with our freedom. I fly EVERY SINGLE WEEK. And I would much rather have non-government security at airports. The problem with government run security is they are above the law. They can make any new regulation they want and no one can say diddly about it. Not the airline, not the passengers. We have zero say. That is wrong.

My suggestions.

1 - Take away the TSA and their limitless power.

2 - Have private security take over the job, managed by the airlines (and by connection, the passengers).

3 - Make it easier for pilots to carry. Right now it is a VERY complicated process paid for out of the pockets of the pilots who choose to do so. Few pilots carry.

4 - Target the threat. I'll give you a hint...It's not 90 yo grandmas, 1 yo kids or 28 yo business men who fly 2-4 times per week, every week (ME) that are the threat.

5 - Train the security personnel to read body language, threat, etc. Remove these people red flagged from line for additional screening. Don't believe this works? Read about how the men at the ticket counters that checked in two of the 9/11 BGs that had a gut feeling something was wrong. If they had been security men who had been trained to give additional screening to people that threw up red flags, maybe 9/11 would have been different.

6 - Require more from the security people. TSA personnel make nothing. We pay the people "protecting" our security like $30k per year and only require a GED. The vast majority of these people are DUMB. Very DUMB. This only happens in government. At DIA I have been through the bridge security at night with 10 other passengers in visual distance and there has been 50+ TSA there. 5-to-1. Not just one time, but this is true every time I fly after 8 or 9 pm. The government thinks they need far too many people (most likely because the employees are dumb) and so they pay less $$ to get more bodies. And less pay means less quality employee and less quality employee means more to do the job. Classic government. Private security would pay more, hire less, hire smart and train smart.

[Irving]

So your suggestion is? Again, the question is, how do you protect 30,000 daily domestic flights, and who do you trust with that mission?

I'm not offering to make any suggestions of solutions (this time). I can offer that it is retarded to go backwards by creating the TSA.

[cstone]

My suggestions.

1 - Take away the TSA and their limitless power.

No government agency has limitless power.

2 - Have private security take over the job, managed by the airlines (and by connection, the passengers).

This is how security was run on 9/11. It is possible to go back to the way things were, but it doesn't necessarily make things better.

3 - Make it easier for pilots to carry. Right now it is a VERY complicated process paid for out of the pockets of the pilots who choose to do so. Few pilots carry.

4 - Target the threat. I'll give you a hint...It's not 90 yo grandmas, 1 yo kids or 28 yo business men who fly 2-4 times per week, every week (ME) that are the threat.

The threat could be anyone. There are terrorists who recruit disabled and mentally ill children to carry bombs. Picking Waldo out in the photograph is not as easy as you would like to make it sound.

5 - Train the security personnel to read body language, threat, etc. Remove these people red flagged from line for additional screening. Don't believe this works? Read about how the men at the ticket counters that checked in two of the 9/11 BGs that had a gut feeling something was wrong. If they had been security men who had been trained to give additional screening to people that threw up red flags, maybe 9/11 would have been different.

Maybe, but some people call the behavior detection program now utilized by TSA, profiling and there are many people around the country who will point out the limitations of such a program. It takes years of experience to read people and even then no one is perfect.

6 - Require more from the security people. TSA personnel make nothing. We pay the people "protecting" our security like $30k per year and only require a GED. The vast majority of these people are DUMB. Very DUMB. This only happens in government. At DIA I have been through the bridge security at night with 10 other passengers in visual distance and there has been 50+ TSA there. 5-to-1. Not just one time, but this is true every time I fly after 8 or 9 pm. The government thinks they need far too many people (most likely because the employees are dumb) and so they pay less $$ to get more bodies. And less pay means less quality employee and less quality employee means more to do the job. Classic government. Private security would pay more, hire less, hire smart and train smart.

The assumption that private security pays more is just wrong. If you look at the private screeners in San Francisco vs the TSA screeners in Oakland, right across the bay, the private screeners make about the same and in some cases less money than the government screeners. They are about the same when it comes to their effectiveness. Both are hired from the same local population and they have similar attrition rates. Also, I would dispute that employees who get paid more are better employees. That is true some times, but we can all think of people who aren't worth what they make. Congressmen come to mind for me.

While I appreciate your suggestions, I would like to point out that some of your statements are wrong.

Here is some information about the shoe bomber and underwear bomber. Neither individual began their travels in the USA and so they were not screened by TSA.

On December 21, 2001, Reid attempted to board a flight from Paris, France to Miami, Florida, but his boarding was delayed because his disheveled physical appearance aroused the suspicions of the airline passenger screeners. Reid also did not answer all of their questions, and had not checked any luggage for the transatlantic flight. Additional screening by the French National Police resulted in Reid's being re-issued a ticket for a flight on the following day.[13] He returned to the Paris airport on December 22, 2001, and he boarded American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami, wearing his special shoes packed with plastic explosives in their hollowed-out bottoms.

On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab traveled from Ghana to Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16.[117] Eyewitnesses Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell told the Detroit News that prior to boarding the plane they witnessed a "smartly dressed Indian man" helping Abdulmutallab onto the plane.[118] They also testify that the ticket agent refused to allow Abdulmutallab on the plane because he did not have his own passport.[119] These circumstances underlie some of the passengers' speculations that the U.S. government supplied a defective device to the perpetrator and a man in a tan suit with an American accent intervened, the matter was referred to a manager, and Abdulmutallab was then able to board the plane, presumably still without a passport

[Irving]

What, specifically, should have the airlines done to prevent 9/11?

[cstone]

What, specifically, should have the airlines done to prevent 9/11?

Good question, but that is a "what if" game. Examining past attacks can be useful, however current intelligence tends to me more useful in setting strategy.

IMO, the single most effective post 9/11 change has been the reinforced flight deck doors. It was a simple and relatively cost effective way of stopping a repeat of the 9/11 type of attack.

I also believe that prior to 9/11 there was no one really advocating for reinforced flight deck doors or better protection of that door when it is opened. 9/11 was a very costly way of learning that lesson.

How hard would it be to have another Lockerbie type bombing of a domestic aircraft? For that matter, how many Lockerbie style bombings of domestic aircraft would have to take place before aviation as we know it in the USA would cease to function?

9/11 required 19 men who trained for months. How many people would it take to put 5 bombs on 5 domestic aircraft leaving from 5 different airports on the same day? How many would be caught by TSA and how many would not be caught? What would be the consequences of those bombs going off in mid-flight over US cities? I wish I knew how I could prevent that from happening. Do you (this is to anyone who reads this, no one specifically)?