http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2004-01-06/local/369997.shtml

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

I always feel so much safer knowing the TSA is on the job.....

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2004-01-06/local/369997.shtml
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message news:psAKb.764670$Fm2.731784@attbi_s04...
> I always feel so much safer knowing the TSA is on the job.....
>
Yes, safe from the fear that Al Quada would throw holy water at you.

Or the 90 year old lady "terrorist" in front of me that the TSA
thankfully pulled aside for further "screening". I had my eye on
her also....I'm glad the TSA was on top of things.... ; ^ )

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:psAKb.764670$Fm2.731784@attbi_s04...
> > I always feel so much safer knowing the TSA is on the job.....
> >
> Yes, safe from the fear that Al Quada would throw holy water at you.
>

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2004-01-06/local/369997.shtml
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>


According to your link the TSA saw an X-ray of a device looked like a pipe
bomb and the person carrying it wouldn't or couldn't tell them what it was.
Sounds about right to me.

Next time we could have them call you and I'm sure you'd be willing to go
open the package.

Look, I'm not in love with the TSA or anything, but it does rather sound
like they did what they are supposed to do, and what I would want them to
do. If something looks like a pipe bomb, and the person carrying it admits
that (1) he has no idea what it is, and (2) somebody else gave it to him to
carry onto the aircraft, what would you have the TSA do? Ignore it?

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Look, I'm not in love with the TSA or anything, but it does rather sound
> like they did what they are supposed to do, and what I would want them to
> do. If something looks like a pipe bomb, and the person carrying it
admits
> that (1) he has no idea what it is, and (2) somebody else gave it to him
to
> carry onto the aircraft, what would you have the TSA do? Ignore it?
>
>

Have him open it, while standing back.

This, unfortunately, doesnt sound like an over-reaction.

Things to remember: the person carrying it didnt know what it was/what
was in there.

Kinda reminds me about something Jay Honeck was complaining about a few
days ago.. again.. strange object that the passenger didnt pack..

If you fly commercial.. you need to have some common sense.. because we
are PAYING the TSA to assume the worst, prepare for the worst, and act
for the worst case scenario... not to assume/say.. its ok.. its JUST
a.... (fill in the blank)
Good job.
Dave


Gig Giacona wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2004-01-06/local/369997.shtml
>>
>>--
>>Christopher J. Campbell
>>World Famous Flight Instructor
>>Port Orchard, WA
>>
>>
>>If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> According to your link the TSA saw an X-ray of a device looked like a pipe
> bomb and the person carrying it wouldn't or couldn't tell them what it was.
> Sounds about right to me.
>
> Next time we could have them call you and I'm sure you'd be willing to go
> open the package.
>
>

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Have him open it, while standing back.

Not me. If it really *is* a bomb, I want him still alive. He'll be able to talk
a little better that way.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> This, unfortunately, doesnt sound like an over-reaction.
>
The passenger broke the golden rule, having something given to him which he
did not know what it was.

To get as far as the security screeners he must have lied at check -in.

In the UK the first question are you carrying anything given to you by
someone else.

If the answer is yes then you are hauled off for examination. A mark is also
made on the boarding card and you are monitored right up to boarding.

If you answer no and you are then found to be carrying something like this
guy, you are denied boarding, checked luggage is identified and deplaned and
then you go to jail. You also find it difficult to buy more airline tickets.

So no over reaction

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Dave S" > wrote in message
| ink.net...
| > This, unfortunately, doesnt sound like an over-reaction.
| >
| The passenger broke the golden rule, having something given to him which
he
| did not know what it was.
|
| To get as far as the security screeners he must have lied at check -in.
|
| In the UK the first question are you carrying anything given to you by
| someone else.
|

First of all, this occurred in the United States. Secondly, no one asks
those questions in the United States. The passenger did not lie to security
screeners. You may climb down off your high horse now.

A pipe bomb would have set off the nitrate sniffers. There are plenty of
objects that might look like pipe bombs otherwise, including panty hose
containers, vials of oil used for religious purposes, the baptism devices
involved here, etc.

Frankly, I think it is a waste of time and resources to devote so much time
and attention to an innocent device carried by a devout Roman Catholic. Who
knows what real terrorists might have gotten past security during the
distraction and confusion?

Armies in war generally find it more effective to concentrate their efforts
on the known enemy. Shooting at everybody indiscriminately just creates more
enemies. You Brits of all people should know that. If incidents like this
continue there will eventually be a severe political, if not violent,
backlash against transportation security. It is possible that people will
stop traveling on airlines entirely.

>First of all, this occurred in the United States. Secondly, no one asks
>those questions in the United States. The passenger did not lie to security
>screeners. You may climb down off your high horse now.

Better double check on that. I have been asked exactly that question by the
ticket agent at check in every time I have flown for the last several years.
Even before 9/11. This has been standard procedure in the US for a long time.

> Better double check on that. I have been asked exactly that question by
the
> ticket agent at check in every time I have flown for the last several
years.
> Even before 9/11. This has been standard procedure in the US for a long
time.

It was standard procedure for a long time, before 9/11 and for about 18
months after it. But then the TSA rescinded the requirement entirely. I
imagine that if you are catching a British Airways (or other foreign
carrier) flight, they may still ask this question. Some of the US airlines
may also still be asking, either from force of habit or for some other
reason. But it is no longer mandated that they do so. US Airways, for
example, has deleted these questions from their check-in kiosks.

"CSA722" > wrote in message
...
| >First of all, this occurred in the United States. Secondly, no one asks
| >those questions in the United States. The passenger did not lie to
security
| >screeners. You may climb down off your high horse now.
|
| Better double check on that. I have been asked exactly that question by
the
| ticket agent at check in every time I have flown for the last several
years.
| Even before 9/11. This has been standard procedure in the US for a long
time.

The requirement to ask questions about who packed your baggage and whether
you have been asked to carry things for anyone else was rescinded on August
29, 2002.

"CSA722" > wrote in message
...
| >First of all, this occurred in the United States. Secondly, no one asks
| >those questions in the United States. The passenger did not lie to
security
| >screeners. You may climb down off your high horse now.
|
| Better double check on that. I have been asked exactly that question by
the
| ticket agent at check in every time I have flown for the last several
years.
| Even before 9/11. This has been standard procedure in the US for a long
time.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-28-baggage-questions.htm

I was a baggage searcher back in January, 1973, when the U.S.A. first
started searching baggage at MIA. At that time we were searching for
weapons to avert hi-jackings. It was incredible the stuff people were
trying to carry on and they weren't trying to hijack a plane. In the couple
of months I was there, we found 12 inch knives, all kinds of guns mostly
from women, gallons of flammable liquids, tear gas, cans of spray paint,
and a lot of stuff I can't remember. I don't mind the searches. Even
without terrorists, there is a significant threat from nuts and little old
ladies with handguns.

Jim

>>
Frankly, I think it is a waste of time and resources to devote so much time
and attention to an innocent device carried by a devout Roman Catholic.
<<

But we should pay attention to an innocent device carried by a devout Muslim?
Roman Catholics don't have a good record in the violence department.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

>>
I was a baggage searcher back in January, 1973, when the U.S.A. first
started searching baggage at MIA. At that time we were searching for
weapons to avert hi-jackings. It was incredible the stuff people were
trying to carry on and they weren't trying to hijack a plane. In the couple
of months I was there, we found 12 inch knives, all kinds of guns mostly
from women, gallons of flammable liquids, tear gas, cans of spray paint,
and a lot of stuff I can't remember.
<<

You think it's possible that these things might have been carried for innocent
reasons? Not everyone with spray paint and knives is out to hijack a plane.
That was your observation too.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> Frankly, I think it is a waste of time and resources to devote so much
time
> and attention to an innocent device carried by a devout Roman Catholic.
> <<
>
> But we should pay attention to an innocent device carried by a devout
Muslim?
> Roman Catholics don't have a good record in the violence department.

Lot of devout roman Catholics are terrorists too you know, Columbia, Ireland
and partial to wanton murder.

"CSA722" > wrote in message
...
> >First of all, this occurred in the United States. Secondly, no one asks
> >those questions in the United States. The passenger did not lie to
security
> >screeners. You may climb down off your high horse now.
>

It is about time they started asking the questions again - I'm not getting
on a high horse, just pointing out the differences in security practice.

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
|
| "CSA722" > wrote in message
| ...
| > >First of all, this occurred in the United States. Secondly, no one asks
| > >those questions in the United States. The passenger did not lie to
| security
| > >screeners. You may climb down off your high horse now.
| >
|
| It is about time they started asking the questions again - I'm not getting
| on a high horse, just pointing out the differences in security practice.

Even Loy did not think asking those questions accomplished anything.

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
| >>
| Frankly, I think it is a waste of time and resources to devote so much
time
| and attention to an innocent device carried by a devout Roman Catholic.
| <<
|
| But we should pay attention to an innocent device carried by a devout
Muslim?
| Roman Catholics don't have a good record in the violence department.
|

Did I say that? No, I didn't think so.

Believe it or not, there are all kinds of reasons to carry guns and knives
in your baggage. Knives don't even have to be declared at the check-in
counter. Frankly, if you have been taking this stuff, you should be
prosecuted for theft.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Believe it or not, there are all kinds of reasons to carry guns and knives
> in your baggage. Knives don't even have to be declared at the check-in
> counter. Frankly, if you have been taking this stuff, you should be
> prosecuted for theft.

Good reason to ask the questions at check -in. If someone forgot he had them
then he could remove them before the TSa removed them and give him a
criminal record.
If he lies at checkin then the TSAshould through the book at him.
another worthy of extinction

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Believe it or not, there are all kinds of reasons to carry guns and
knives
| > in your baggage. Knives don't even have to be declared at the check-in
| > counter. Frankly, if you have been taking this stuff, you should be
| > prosecuted for theft.
|
| Good reason to ask the questions at check -in. If someone forgot he had
them
| then he could remove them before the TSa removed them and give him a
| criminal record.
| If he lies at checkin then the TSAshould through the book at him.
| another worthy of extinction

No reason at all. People should be allowed to carry their guns and knives
onto the airplane with them. If we trust them with guns and knives on the
ground, people are no less trustworthy in the air. Disarming the public does
nothing in the fight against terrorism. In fact, it is easier to terrorize
the helpless than it is to terrorize those capable of defending themselves.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jim Divoky wrote:
> >
> > Even
> > without terrorists, there is a significant threat from nuts and little old
> > ladies with handguns.
>
One of the local cops here has a sign in her office that says:
Yes, I have PMS and I have a gun. Any questions?

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > Believe it or not, there are all kinds of reasons to carry guns and
> knives
> | > in your baggage. Knives don't even have to be declared at the check-in
> | > counter. Frankly, if you have been taking this stuff, you should be
> | > prosecuted for theft.
> |
> | Good reason to ask the questions at check -in. If someone forgot he had
> them
> | then he could remove them before the TSa removed them and give him a
> | criminal record.
> | If he lies at checkin then the TSAshould through the book at him.
> | another worthy of extinction
>
> No reason at all. People should be allowed to carry their guns and knives
> onto the airplane with them. If we trust them with guns and knives on the
> ground, people are no less trustworthy in the air. Disarming the public
does
> nothing in the fight against terrorism. In fact, it is easier to terrorize
> the helpless than it is to terrorize those capable of defending
themselves.

You miss the point again, lets take it for read that pax carrying guns and
knifes onto planes is not allowed. Where is the best place to verify that
people are not carrying things that are either not allowed or have been
given to them to carry on board.

My point was that it was better to ask at the checkin. If the pax lies, you
know he is not law abiding and so its easy to know what to do with him when
the TSA stop him. Go to jail do not collect $200.

If the pax owns up, then he removes his contraband but can continue before
he is guilty of an offence.

ah well another for the kill file

Jim Divoky wrote:
>
> Even
> without terrorists, there is a significant threat from nuts and little old
> ladies with handguns.

Well, the fact that you were finding all this stuff and didn't have a clue that
it was there is pretty solid evidence that there's no threat associated with
letting people carry it on board.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Dave" > wrote in message |
| ah well another for the kill file

Indeed, another idiot who can't stand to have people disagree with him. If
you cannot respect my opinion I certainly am not going to listen to yours.

Make that two for the kill file.