With all respect, a seemingly inflammatory title and a link without a bit of context is not helpful at all.

There may be something here that this community may find worthy of discussion. We're all grown-ups and can give and take.

But if I were a moderator, I would be inclined to lock it down right here and now. Because it seems like nothing more than an invitation to punch heads.

YMMV

-Doug the Grouch

The title is not inflammatory. The former head of transportation security actually said he was not using hyperbole when he said we should allow these items on planes, and he gave an explanation.

I was learning quite a bit from the other similar thread that got locked. That irritated me. I don't learn much from the threads around here that talk squarely about problems I can solve with a 10 second Google search. I'd rather the moderators lock those threads honestly.

Think I'll simply read things like this and not attempt to respond. It would ruin my day to be banned for 48 hours. (Ignore the math, please)

I think we should all read between the lines with the new rules. Read the former head of Tranportation Security's comments, pause, and think. Undestand he is very limited in what he can say, yet he has seen it all. He is not some random guy on the Internet blogging.

Do you think TSA is allowing these small knives to be cool? No, my take on all this that there are real, serious threats that TSA is trying to stop. TSA has come to the realization that their resources are limited. So, TSA analyzed the threat possibilities, worked the numbers, and decided they could substantially increase security if forces on the ground (at the gate) do not have to waste valuable resources dealing with the many tiny knives, when the next guy in line could have plastic explosives intricately packed.

The air Marshalls can protest and moan, but seriously if an air Marshall can't handle a guy trying to take over a plane with a SAK, then that air Marshall needs to be fired. I'm not even a trained air Marshall and SAK's on the plane do not scare me. Plus, as far as I know, air Marshalls do not have all the information that TSA heads have.

We all have complained about what we see about TSA, but what we see are the ground forces. I'm certain at the higher levels, there are some brilliant people doing the best they can with the limited resources they have.

I didn't post the link or word the subject line to stir controversy. The computer will allow only so many characters on the subject line. I don't know more than the article, so I can't really offer contextualization. I'm just glad the former TSA head now has a more realistic assessment of what should be allowed on planes -- perhaps one day we won't be deprived of our kits. So this article ought to give us hope.

TSA is engaged in risk mitigation - the real risk is cockpit takeover and downing the jet, it isn't a person armed with a sharp or a bludgeon, its a person armed with an incendiary device, an explosive maybe, or an aerosol can filled with a toxin that can spread through the plane and kill or incapacitate the air crew. Because for quite a while they've taken good advice and hardened the cockpit from breaching with items that are commonly available on an airplane. AFAIK though, cockpits aren't hermetically sealed, so the next avenue of risk mitigation is, do we put in a positive air barrier between the passenger area and the cockpit? The most obvious method would be to make the cockpit a slightly more pressurized area than the passenger area, making infiltration of noxious or toxic fumes far less likely. I reckon Boeing and Airbus should be working on mitigating this avenue of attack.

Personally I'm bummed for the flight attendants who have to deal with belligerent passengers, who can now come armed with pool cues, knives and such. these aren't air terrorists or al Qaeda, they're the random ad execs who are returning from a long weekend in Vegas, hand carrying their favorite $500 5 iron onboard, who gets in a drunken argument with the guy from Oracle sitting in the next seat. TSA may allow all this stuff through screening, but I wouldn't blame airlines a single bit if they continued to restrict some of the allowed items to proceed to the passenger area. Much like the prohibition on carrying firearms, why can't an airline concerned for the safety of crew and passengers require folks to check some of these items into baggage?

Please note, I don't have a beef about knife rights as all, I EDC myself. But I have no need to hand carry my knife onto a passenger jet.

I think that's a reasonable way to read this, and if you're correct it means that TSA is trying to do the right thing.



Not all flights have Air Marshals on board. They don't have the manpower. Also, it's easier to take a hostage with a blade, even a small one. That's not to say I disagree with the decision.

While that is true, doing so doesn't endanger the plane as a whole. This is Hawley's basic point.

"They ought to let everything on that is sharp and pointy. Battle axes, machetes ... bring anything you want that is pointy and sharp because while you may be able to commit an act of violence, you will not be able to take over the plane. It is as simple as that,"

...

"The air marshals and the flight attendants have legitimate concerns, certainly, for their own safety, but the threat of taking over a plane with a small, sharp instrument is zero," Hawley said. "You cannot necessarily prevent violence on an airplane, but that is not the TSA's mission. TSA's mission is to prevent a successful, catastrophic terrorist attack, and you cannot get a successful, catastrophic terrorist attack with a small knife or a Wiffle ball bat."

I think it makes sense for airport security to focus exclusively on things that could result in a "successful, catastrophic terrorist attack" ... let the airlines create more restrictive rules if they believe they are necessary to safeguard their staff (e.g., the battle axe scenario).