Airport Screening Abuse Growing

[cjjtulsa]

If someone starts shooting randomly in a mall eventually bullets will hit those pesky things like children and women - no-one wants to be around flying bullets let it be house, car or restaurant.

Most of the times having a gun preemptively stops a situation from escalating, but when the **** hits the fan - I want to be one slinging, not hiding by the fan.

Big difference between a mall and a passenger jet. I don't have any problems with armed citizens in a mall. But not in a passenger aircraft.

 

[Dave70968]

I didn't like it when they wouldn't let me carry my own pistol on board, then my knives, now it doesn't seem so unusual. The same will hold true with the scanners.

You say that like it's a good thing.

 

[dak]

Yep - but how many times has it actually been tried in a real world situation (not a lab facsimile)? You willing to volunteer to punch a few .40 caliber holes through the fuselage at 32,000 feet? They're probably right (and maybe it's been done), but I don't want to bet my life on it.

According to this, as long as you don't hit a window you're fine:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/gun-on-plane.htm

Then there's always those pesky things such as avionics, hydraulics, etc. I don't want any bullets flying around any airplane I'm in, thanks.

In 2008 a pilot actually had a negligent discharge while on approach to landing, the plane would have been still pressurized. No telling why he was fiddling with the gun while on approach but he still popped a round off through the fuselage.

Armed civilians on a plane? No thanks.

 

[cjjtulsa]

In 2008 a pilot actually had a negligent discharge while on approach to landing, the plane would have been still pressurized. No telling why he was fiddling with the gun while on approach but he still popped a round off through the fuselage.

Armed civilians on a plane? No thanks.

That's interesting info - I didn't know that.

And yes - no armed civilians on the plane.

 

[vvvvvvv]

In 2008 a pilot actually had a negligent discharge while on approach to landing, the plane would have been still pressurized. No telling why he was fiddling with the gun while on approach but he still popped a round off through the fuselage.

Armed civilians on a plane? No thanks.

There's a lot more to the story than that.

The holster design and procedure was found to be the problem.

The pilot was required to thread a padlock through the holster and trigger guard.

http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/semiannlrpts/OIG_SAR_Apr08_Sep08.pdf
pp. 28-29

We conducted an investigation that the design of TSA-issued locking holsters used by the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program increases the likelihood of an accidental discharge of a weapon in an aircraft cockpit. We examined the holster and observed that its design renders the weapon vulnerable to accidental discharges if improperly handled. In a darkened cockpit, under the stress of meeting the operational needs of the aircraft, a pilot could inadvertently discharge the weapon by failing to ensure it is properly seated in the holster, securing the trigger lock, and then pushing the weapon inward to secure the holster snap. Furthermore, our investigation observed that it was possible to accidentally discharge the weapon while inserting the hasp into the holster of an incorrectly seated weapon. Using a scale, we determined that only 6–7 pounds of lateral pressure on the padlock was suicient to induce a discharge.

We recommended that given the distracting environ*ment and potential low light of an aircraft cockpit, the FFDOs’ weapon locking system should be simple and forgiving and that TSA should discontinue the use of the locking holster and consider other methods for FFDO to secure their weapons.​

 

[RidgeHunter]

....but whatever.

On phone, excuse brevity.

Felt the need to include it because I don't understand why courthouse searches are acceptable to you but "nekkid scanners" at the courthouse would not be.

Ok, back to a computer.

The point I was trying (poorly, I'm fairly inarticulate) to make through all this by pointing out your contradictions, is that for several pages you used the argument "you aren't forced to fly" while knowing and admitting that you would (and do, such as DUI checkpoints) object to such restrictions on everyday activities you are "not forced to do".

The "not being forced" argument isn't valid unless you would support restrictions without justification on all kinds of things, such as the restaurant scenario. It's not the fact that they are not forcing the searches that makes it OK to you, it's the reasoning behind the searches. You support airport screenings because you see it as a justified exception in the name of public safety, just like how some people see DUI checkpoints. Just like you told me, people are free to disagree. That's fine, it's the "not being forced" thing I took issue with.

I wasn't trying to be an ass any more than you were to the people you were arguing with. That argument just struck me as not being sound, and I wanted to see if it was just me or if you had more reasoning for it.

To paraphrase Dr. Lexus, I wasn't tryin' to sound like a d*ck or nuthin'.

And I still don't understand why you would object to the scanners at a courthouse, but a metal detector/subsequent pat down and your belongings being searched is different, but that doesn't really matter.

Have a good weekend u guise, and wrap yer goobers in tin foil when necessary!

 

[orangecrush1007]

In the past few weeks there have been 2 diff airline have a blowout of the fuselage just a bit smaller than an acft window.
Massive depressurization, foggy cabin, O2 masks drop,
no one died, no crash. Even Southwest had one a few months
Ago where the skin blew out about the size of a acft window.
Same thing, everyone landed safely.

 

[Dale00]

Muslims are refusing new scans and full body searches at airports. Stay tuned for further developments. Who knows what will happen next?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s "enhanced pat down" policy that went into effect in late October.

CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.

In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”

It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/muslim-group-advises-women-wearing-hijab

 

[USN-SCW-Ret]

TSA gets to 2nd base, during airport screening.

[Broken External Image]