TSA on the watch

[Roger Long]

I see on CNN that Tiger Woods 498 ton yacht slipped through security
surveillance. When the Coast Guard realized that something so big was in
port unexpectedly, they gave him the TFR busting treatment.

It went on to say that they don't worry about vessels under 300 tons. A ton
in this case is a volume measurement of 100 cubic feet so we are talking
about 30,000 cubic feet, 4286 square feet of 7 foot headroom. That's enough
to hide some usable quantities of nasty stuff or evil people.

Why is it that the TSA seems more concerned about the threat posed by my 172
(Lighter than the dinghy for many 200 ton vessels) than vehicles comparable
in size to a 747 that can tie up at any waterfront in the nation without
anyone saying "boo"?

Do you feel safer knowing that most of the people who could be watching our
coastlines are over in Iraq?

--

Roger Long

[OtisWinslow]

I don't know that the TSA is particularly worried about 172s. As much of a
pain that TFRs are .. I think the issue is really keeping the area sanitary
so
that they can spot something easier instead of having to pick it out of 100s
of planes flying in an area.


"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
>I see on CNN that Tiger Woods 498 ton yacht slipped through security
>surveillance. When the Coast Guard realized that something so big was in
>port unexpectedly, they gave him the TFR busting treatment.
>
> It went on to say that they don't worry about vessels under 300 tons. A
> ton in this case is a volume measurement of 100 cubic feet so we are
> talking about 30,000 cubic feet, 4286 square feet of 7 foot headroom.
> That's enough to hide some usable quantities of nasty stuff or evil
> people.
>
> Why is it that the TSA seems more concerned about the threat posed by my
> 172 (Lighter than the dinghy for many 200 ton vessels) than vehicles
> comparable in size to a 747 that can tie up at any waterfront in the
> nation without anyone saying "boo"?
>
> Do you feel safer knowing that most of the people who could be watching
> our coastlines are over in Iraq?
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Roger Long" wrote:
> Why is it that the TSA seems more concerned about the threat posed by my 172
> (Lighter than the dinghy for many 200 ton vessels) than vehicles comparable
> in size to a 747 that can tie up at any waterfront in the nation without
> anyone saying "boo"?

Interesting. Our airspace was virtually shut down from Tues-Thurs this
week for the Kerry/Bush visit. My house is between three fairly busy
Class-D airports all within the TFR's 30-nm radius. Twice, two F-16s
went SCREAMING overhead to escort "little white Cessnas" down to the
nearest runway. I'm not complaining, of course it's good they're so
diligent, and I know it's very serious stuff ... but ... watching, you
have to know those guys in the F-16s are loving their job! I mean I
doubt the response to: "Yo -- you guys have to go force down another
Cessna" is: "Awww...do we HAVE to?"

[[email protected]]

"OtisWinslow" wrote:

> I don't know that the TSA is particularly worried about 172s. As much of a
> pain that TFRs are .. I think the issue is really keeping the area sanitary
> so that they can spot something easier instead of having to pick it out of
> 100s of planes flying in an area.

Good point, but they're obviously worried enough to send the big guys up
to force them down *immediately* rather than having any dialogue about
their intentions.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> I mean I
> doubt the response to: "Yo -- you guys have to go force down another
> Cessna" is: "Awww...do we HAVE to?"

That is exactly their response. Margy spent some time at a conference
at Andrews summer before last and hung out with the DCANG whose assigment
is to chase down people with their F-16's.

We seriously gave thought to painting the 113th logo on the tail of the
Navion when we had it repainted :-)

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you feel safer knowing that most of the people who could be watching
our
> coastlines are over in Iraq?

Most of the Coast Guard is in Iraq?

[Roger Long]

No, but if it really is a war, there must be something useful the other
services could be doing. If there are too many boats to worry about
anything under a couple hundred feet long sailing up the edge of Manhattan,
why are they worrying about airplanes?

--

Roger Long



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Do you feel safer knowing that most of the people who could be watching
> our
>> coastlines are over in Iraq?
>
> Most of the Coast Guard is in Iraq?
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> No, but if it really is a war, there must be something useful the other
> services could be doing. If there are too many boats to worry about
> anything under a couple hundred feet long sailing up the edge of
Manhattan,
> why are they worrying about airplanes?

Our military is much too small to effectively patrol these areas, even if we
devoted our entire resources to it. The war on drugs has proven that we
cannot make our borders impenetrable.

Like it or not, ordinary citizens such as longshoremen and even pilots are
an important part of national security. We just have to be on the watch for
anything out of the ordinary.

That does not mean we should condone waste of the resources we have.
Harassing Cessnas and investigating Tiger Woods as a terrorist is
unconscionable.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> wrote:
> > I mean I
> > doubt the response to: "Yo -- you guys have to go force down another
> > Cessna" is: "Awww...do we HAVE to?"
>
> That is exactly their response. Margy spent some time at a conference
> at Andrews summer before last and hung out with the DCANG whose assigment
> is to chase down people with their F-16's.
>
> We seriously gave thought to painting the 113th logo on the tail of the
> Navion when we had it repainted :-)

I don't know how you resisted a temptation like that.

[Roger Long]

You are absolutely right. It's a huge problem. Faced with such a huge
problem, does it make sense to have most of our military resources busy
creating new thousands of new terrorists in Iraq?

Don't get me wrong. Sadam had to go. I admire the hell out of the people
that are doing it. Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.

--

Roger Long



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No, but if it really is a war, there must be something useful the other
>> services could be doing. If there are too many boats to worry about
>> anything under a couple hundred feet long sailing up the edge of
> Manhattan,
>> why are they worrying about airplanes?
>
> Our military is much too small to effectively patrol these areas, even if
> we
> devoted our entire resources to it. The war on drugs has proven that we
> cannot make our borders impenetrable.
>
> Like it or not, ordinary citizens such as longshoremen and even pilots are
> an important part of national security. We just have to be on the watch
> for
> anything out of the ordinary.
>
> That does not mean we should condone waste of the resources we have.
> Harassing Cessnas and investigating Tiger Woods as a terrorist is
> unconscionable.
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

By picking a fight in Iraq we've guaranteed that the #1 jihad vacation
destination in the world is on the right side of the Atlantic ocean--THEIR
SIDE. I'd much rather have these wack jobs throwing themselves at our
infantry divisions over there than trying to sneak through the borders over
here.

-cwk.

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
> You are absolutely right. It's a huge problem. Faced with such a huge
> problem, does it make sense to have most of our military resources busy
> creating new thousands of new terrorists in Iraq?
>
> Don't get me wrong. Sadam had to go. I admire the hell out of the people
> that are doing it. Doing it the way we did it though was tragically
stupid.
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:23:41 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.

So is the TSA. They just got caught by the IG giving 76% of their
employees bonuses, the most of any department in federal government
whose next highest was 46%. Only 2% of line workers got bonuses.
They also got caught throwing lavish parties at taxpayers expense.
Through the bums out!

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:23:41 GMT, "Roger Long" >
> wrote in >::
>
>
>>Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.
>

This...
>
> So is the TSA. They just got caught by the IG giving 76% of their
> employees bonuses,

Then this...


Only 2% of line workers got bonuses.

These two cannot be reconciled. The vast majority of the TSA is the
baggage screeners.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:24:25 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:23:41 GMT, "Roger Long" >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>
>>>Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.
>>
>
>This...
>>
>> So is the TSA. They just got caught by the IG giving 76% of their
>> employees bonuses,
>
>Then this...
>
>
>Only 2% of line workers got bonuses.
>
>These two cannot be reconciled. The vast majority of the TSA is the
>baggage screeners.
>

You're correct. This is what was said:

The inspector general also expressed concern that the TSA was more
generous than most other federal agencies in awarding bonuses to
executives. Federal agencies on average gave cash awards to 49
percent of their executives in 2002, while 76 percent of TSA
executives received them in 2003.


Here's a source:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=TSA+Pricey+Party
Thursday, October 14, 2004 · Last updated 9:00 a.m. PT

AP: Report finds lavish spending at TSA

By LESLIE MILLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The government agency in charge of airport security
spent nearly a half-million dollars on an awards ceremony at a lavish
hotel, including $81,000 for plaques and $500 for cheese displays,
according to an internal report obtained by The Associated Press.

Awards were presented to 543 Transportation Security Administration
employees and 30 organizations, including a "lifetime achievement
award" for one worker with the 2-year-old agency. Almost $200,000 was
spent on travel and lodging for attendees.

The investigation by the Homeland Security Department's inspector
general, Clark Kent Ervin, also found the TSA gave its senior
executives bonuses averaging $16,000, higher than at any other federal
government agency, and failed to provide adequate justification in
more than a third of the 88 cases examined.

The report said lower-level employees were shortchanged, with a far
lower percentage receiving bonuses.

"A substantial inequity exists in TSA's performance recognition
program between executive and non-executive employees," the report
said.



TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter said the agency believes the bonuses
and party were justified "given the hours and productivity of the work
force during this critical period."

This year, said von Walter, the TSA will conduct awards ceremonies at
individual airports, as well as a much smaller and less expensive
event at its headquarters in November.

Congressional skeptics have criticized the TSA's hiring and spending
practices during its short existence. Republicans say the agency has
grown far larger than they envisioned when it was created following
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Ervin also is investigating why the agency's private recruiters worked
out of lush resort hotels with golf courses, pools and spas.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said that he had not seen the full report
but that it indicated "a colossal waste of money."

"There's something terribly wrong with that agency," Dorgan said. "Of
all the agencies, that's the one that's supposed to be working
full-time against terrorist attacks."

The awards banquet, which cost $461,745, was held at the Grand Hyatt,
which bills itself as "one of the most magnificent" hotels in the
nation's capital. According to the report, the agency chose that site
because it was the only hotel available on Nov. 19, 2003, the agency's
second anniversary. It also was one of the few places that could
accommodate about 600 honorees and as many guests.

While the inspector general noted the agency sought competitive bids
for the party planner and chose the company with the lowest estimate,
it found the "costs of the ceremony and reception were higher than
necessary."

The event planning company, MarCom Group Inc. of Fairfax, Va., was
paid $85,552 for its work and given an additional $81,767 for plaques,
$5,196 for official photographs, $1,486 for three balloon arches and
$1,509 for signs.

The reception included finger food, coffee and cake that averaged $33
per person. Seven cakes cost a total of $1,850; three cheese displays,
$1,500.

In a written response, the TSA said the costs "were neither
extraordinary nor incurred without careful consideration of the
amount, the reasonableness of the cost, and value the activities would
have to the employees."

The inspector general also expressed concern that the TSA was more
generous than most other federal agencies in awarding bonuses to
executives. Federal agencies on average gave cash awards to 49 percent
of their executives in 2002, while 76 percent of TSA executives
received them in 2003.

The inspector general reviewed 88 employees' files and found that 38
percent "had no individual recommendation and justification for the
performance award."

"The legitimacy of such large awards is called into question by the
lack of an appropriate selection process and the reliance on
boilerplate justifications that could be applicable to anyone," the
report said.

The report also noted that fewer than 3 percent of nonexecutive
employees received bonuses in 2003.

In its response, the TSA said that executives who got a bonus didn't
get a pay increase and weren't eligible for a presidential awards
program that can amount to as much as 35 percent of their base pay.
The agency agreed, however, that more could be done to equalize
treatment of top executives and lower-level employees.

---

[Peter MacPherson]

When the TSA was questioned on this, did they say they weren't
allowed to comment due to this being "a matter of National Security"?
; - )


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:24:25 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:23:41 GMT, "Roger Long" >
>>> wrote in >::
>>>
>>>
>>>>Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.
>>>
>>
>>This...
>>>
>>> So is the TSA. They just got caught by the IG giving 76% of their
>>> employees bonuses,
>>
>>Then this...
>>
>>
>>Only 2% of line workers got bonuses.
>>
>>These two cannot be reconciled. The vast majority of the TSA is the
>>baggage screeners.
>>
>
> You're correct. This is what was said:
>
> The inspector general also expressed concern that the TSA was more
> generous than most other federal agencies in awarding bonuses to
> executives. Federal agencies on average gave cash awards to 49
> percent of their executives in 2002, while 76 percent of TSA
> executives received them in 2003.
>
>
> Here's a source:
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=TSA+Pricey+Party
> Thursday, October 14, 2004 · Last updated 9:00 a.m. PT
>
> AP: Report finds lavish spending at TSA
>
> By LESLIE MILLER
> ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
>
> WASHINGTON -- The government agency in charge of airport security
> spent nearly a half-million dollars on an awards ceremony at a lavish
> hotel, including $81,000 for plaques and $500 for cheese displays,
> according to an internal report obtained by The Associated Press.
>
> Awards were presented to 543 Transportation Security Administration
> employees and 30 organizations, including a "lifetime achievement
> award" for one worker with the 2-year-old agency. Almost $200,000 was
> spent on travel and lodging for attendees.
>
> The investigation by the Homeland Security Department's inspector
> general, Clark Kent Ervin, also found the TSA gave its senior
> executives bonuses averaging $16,000, higher than at any other federal
> government agency, and failed to provide adequate justification in
> more than a third of the 88 cases examined.
>
> The report said lower-level employees were shortchanged, with a far
> lower percentage receiving bonuses.
>
> "A substantial inequity exists in TSA's performance recognition
> program between executive and non-executive employees," the report
> said.
>
>
>
> TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter said the agency believes the bonuses
> and party were justified "given the hours and productivity of the work
> force during this critical period."
>
> This year, said von Walter, the TSA will conduct awards ceremonies at
> individual airports, as well as a much smaller and less expensive
> event at its headquarters in November.
>
> Congressional skeptics have criticized the TSA's hiring and spending
> practices during its short existence. Republicans say the agency has
> grown far larger than they envisioned when it was created following
> the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
>
> Ervin also is investigating why the agency's private recruiters worked
> out of lush resort hotels with golf courses, pools and spas.
>
> Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said that he had not seen the full report
> but that it indicated "a colossal waste of money."
>
> "There's something terribly wrong with that agency," Dorgan said. "Of
> all the agencies, that's the one that's supposed to be working
> full-time against terrorist attacks."
>
> The awards banquet, which cost $461,745, was held at the Grand Hyatt,
> which bills itself as "one of the most magnificent" hotels in the
> nation's capital. According to the report, the agency chose that site
> because it was the only hotel available on Nov. 19, 2003, the agency's
> second anniversary. It also was one of the few places that could
> accommodate about 600 honorees and as many guests.
>
> While the inspector general noted the agency sought competitive bids
> for the party planner and chose the company with the lowest estimate,
> it found the "costs of the ceremony and reception were higher than
> necessary."
>
> The event planning company, MarCom Group Inc. of Fairfax, Va., was
> paid $85,552 for its work and given an additional $81,767 for plaques,
> $5,196 for official photographs, $1,486 for three balloon arches and
> $1,509 for signs.
>
> The reception included finger food, coffee and cake that averaged $33
> per person. Seven cakes cost a total of $1,850; three cheese displays,
> $1,500.
>
> In a written response, the TSA said the costs "were neither
> extraordinary nor incurred without careful consideration of the
> amount, the reasonableness of the cost, and value the activities would
> have to the employees."
>
> The inspector general also expressed concern that the TSA was more
> generous than most other federal agencies in awarding bonuses to
> executives. Federal agencies on average gave cash awards to 49 percent
> of their executives in 2002, while 76 percent of TSA executives
> received them in 2003.
>
> The inspector general reviewed 88 employees' files and found that 38
> percent "had no individual recommendation and justification for the
> performance award."
>
> "The legitimacy of such large awards is called into question by the
> lack of an appropriate selection process and the reliance on
> boilerplate justifications that could be applicable to anyone," the
> report said.
>
> The report also noted that fewer than 3 percent of nonexecutive
> employees received bonuses in 2003.
>
> In its response, the TSA said that executives who got a bonus didn't
> get a pay increase and weren't eligible for a presidential awards
> program that can amount to as much as 35 percent of their base pay.
> The agency agreed, however, that more could be done to equalize
> treatment of top executives and lower-level employees.
>
> ---
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:23:41 GMT, "Roger Long" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.
>
> So is the TSA. They just got caught by the IG giving 76% of their
> employees bonuses, the most of any department in federal government
> whose next highest was 46%. Only 2% of line workers got bonuses.
> They also got caught throwing lavish parties at taxpayers expense.
> Through the bums out!

And one of them got a Life Time Achievement award even though the TSA has
only been in existence for two years. The party was $500,000 if I remember
correctly.

[Morgans]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> By picking a fight in Iraq we've guaranteed that the #1 jihad vacation
> destination in the world is on the right side of the Atlantic ocean--THEIR
> SIDE. I'd much rather have these wack jobs throwing themselves at our
> infantry divisions over there than trying to sneak through the borders
over
> here.
>
> -cwk.

Ab-so-LUT-LY
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004

[Ash Wyllie]

Newps opined

>Larry Dighera wrote:

>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:23:41 GMT, "Roger Long" >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>
>>>Doing it the way we did it though was tragically stupid.
>>

>This...
>>
>> So is the TSA. They just got caught by the IG giving 76% of their
>> employees bonuses,

>Then this...


>Only 2% of line workers got bonuses.

>These two cannot be reconciled. The vast majority of the TSA is the
>baggage screeners.

One hopes that most of the TSA employees are screeners, but ine suspects that
there are a large number of supervisors.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dave Stadt" wrote in message >
> And one of them got a Life Time Achievement award even though the TSA >has
only been in existence for two years.

While they are partying and back-slapping with taxpayer's money, I spent
this morning filling out an incident report about TSA inspectors who missed
an oxygen generator that ended up in the baggage compartment of my MD-80.

D.

[Morgans]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dave Stadt" wrote in message >
> > And one of them got a Life Time Achievement award even though the TSA
>has
> only been in existence for two years.
>
> While they are partying and back-slapping with taxpayer's money, I spent
> this morning filling out an incident report about TSA inspectors who
missed
> an oxygen generator that ended up in the baggage compartment of my MD-80.
>
> D.
+++++++++++++++++
Good catch. Were there a case of them, or just one?

Are MD-80's equipped with fire detection in the baggage compartment now, or
did that proposal fall through?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/13/2004

[Roger Long]

Did you see Cal Thomas' syndicated column this morning about the watch list?
Worse than Keystone cops. If they keep it up, you won't need to worry about
O2 generators because you won't have any passengers.

Sure, you can say they are being super careful to hold up people like Ted
Kennedy and Cal Thomas but the smoke and confusion of that many false
positives is going to make it way easier for real bad guys to slip through.
Of course, nobody's really watching. They're all sitting there dreaming
about the next big taxpayer funded party.

--

Roger Long



"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dave Stadt" wrote in message >
>> And one of them got a Life Time Achievement award even though the TSA
>> >has
> only been in existence for two years.
>
> While they are partying and back-slapping with taxpayer's money, I spent
> this morning filling out an incident report about TSA inspectors who
> missed
> an oxygen generator that ended up in the baggage compartment of my MD-80.
>
> D.
>
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Morgans" wrote in message > Were there a case of them, or just >one?

Just one, and it was contained in a medical device labeled 'Oxygen
Concentrator, Class 2'. Most people would have missed it. I know about it
because I teach hazmat. The device was hot to the touch on the side
indicating it had activated. Speaking with some TSA inspectors later in the
day revealed that their hazmat training is *somewhat* deficient.

> Are MD-80's equipped with fire detection in the baggage compartment now,
>or did that proposal fall through?

All passenger MD-80s have a fire detection and fire suppression system
installed in the cargo holds, as required by regs. The ones I fly are based
on Halon. Additionally, the cargo holds were modified to the next higher
class of containment.

D.

[Morgans]

> >"Morgans" wrote
> > Were there a case of them, or just one?

Doug wrote

> Just one, and it was contained in a medical device labeled 'Oxygen
> Concentrator, Class 2'. Most people would have missed it. I know about it
> because I teach hazmat. The device was hot to the touch on the side
> indicating it had activated. Speaking with some TSA inspectors later in
the
> day revealed that their hazmat training is *somewhat* deficient.


Should have been safe, if missed, no? Not a plethera to cook off together,
in an uncontained manner?


> > Are MD-80's equipped with fire detection in the baggage >>compartment
now, or did that proposal fall through?


> All passenger MD-80s have a fire detection and fire suppression system
> installed in the cargo holds, as required by regs. The ones I fly are
based
> on Halon. Additionally, the cargo holds were modified to the next higher
> class of containment.


Are all U.S. carriers now up to these regs?

Thanks for your alertness. Keep up the good work, and may everyone else out
there do their part.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[Capt.Doug]

>"Morgans" wrote in message >
> Should have been safe, if missed, no? Not a plethera to cook off
together,
> in an uncontained manner?

It likely would have been safe. In fact, my 135 certificate allows for
carriage of oxygen generators on passenger planes if they are in an approved
medical device like the one I found. However, most airlines don't allow it.
If the airline did allow it, the PIC should have been notified of the hazmat
and it should have been labeled, packaged, and secured as such. TSA didn't
flag it. They let it get thrown in with the rest of the baggage.

Last week, I had another hazmat problem albeit not TSA's fault. The baggage
handlers put an electric wheelchair in the forward cargo compartment. It
wasn't a problem until they laid it on it's side without securing the
lead-acid batteries. The batteries fell out. There was a leak-proof battery
box with a diamond shaped hazmat sticker provided by the airline next to the
wheelchair. It contained a battery charger. I just shook my head and cursed
the stupidity of the world.

> Are all U.S. carriers now up to these regs?

For passengers, yes. The cargo guys have detection, but I'm not sure where
they stand with suppression..

D.