jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (8 posts)

TSA failure

  1. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    On the radio the other day the new announcer indicated that the TSA has released the previously closely guarded information the in the past 78% of the test cases used (knives, guns, explosives etc) were failures.  The weapons got on board the plane.

    Some airports had a 0% success rate.

    My question to the community is this; do these figures change any attitudes that the new scanners and/or searches are vastly intrusive and not to be tolerated?  Those figures are pretty scary.

    1. thisisoli profile image73
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think everyone walking on to a plane should be given a handgun, which they have to return when disembarking.  That should speed things up a little and even out the odds.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, if you change that to a sleepy dart gun, I might even agree. 

        Fuselage holes do not sound like a good thing, nor does a deadly weapon in the hands of panicked people not knowing how to use one.

        The idea has merit, though!

    2. 60
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If after a while the TSA employees got "bored" with looking at normal x-ray machines, who's to say they won't get "bored" with back scatter and pat downs? The problem is NOT technology. The problem is with personnel.

      Casino's had a similar problem. Their solution? Hire more people. They no longer allow workers to spend long hours on a job that requires 100% attention to detail 100% of the time. So, they hire more people, work them for 2hrs and give them a 30 minute break. I'ts probably the better solution.

  2. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago

    I think they should get rid of the TSA and hand out that responsibility to private contractors.  They'll probably do a better job.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure I'm happy with the prospect of a private police force.  Particularly "protecting" our air space - bribery and corruption is too common.

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A lot of airports already use contractors, you have to abide by TSA rules, but you don't need to use TSA empoyees. Either way the jobs are demanding and low pauid, so it is hard to keep people in them.

  3. Rabid Puma profile image61
    Rabid Pumaposted 5 years ago

    I'm fond of this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4069785.stm

    They tested security with a small amount of explosive, which they caught and then subsequently lost and shipped somewhere.

    I don't have a problem with the new security measures. I'd be interested to see how these statistics change in places that have the new technology/protocols.

    Of course, most of the value of the TSA is psychological and it's more difficult to evaluate it. A slightly unbalanced person who might take a weapon on a plane won't because he's afraid of getting caught going through security. A terrorist cell is less likely to try something because there's a chance that one of their agents will be compromised and their operation will be shot.

    If security is so poor, why haven't we had more incidents? I'm reasonably sure it's not because we're running short on people who are interested in doing us harm.