TSA chief backs 'knife' decision; axes+machetes 2

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-hawley/?google_editors_picks=true

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.

I will allow this thread to continue as long as all of our regular rules are met. Any political commentary or TSA-bashing in this thread and I will feel obligated to lock it.

Discussion of what the new rules mean, and reasoned debate about whether its a good idea are fine.


chaosmagnet

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).

I was referring to the nested article in which air Marshalls (actually groups representing air Marshalls) were "outraged" saying the Marshalls are at greater risk because of these small knives. So, I was referring specifically to flights in which air Mashalls are on board.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-changes/index.html

Well, the Marshalls may be a greater risk of attack from someone yielding a SAK, but it's less risk of attack from someone whose preference is pepper spray or a plastic/liquid explosive because TSA can now concentrate their efforts on the latter.

After further thought, the former head has another good point (although maybe accidentally)...

The way the policy is now (restricting only certain knives), you actually put MORE burden on the TSA. Now, the TSA has to stop what they're doing and distinguish between 6 cm and 6.5 cm, or whatever the line of different is. Whereas before, all knives were banned and the method steps were simpler: (1) See a knife; (2) confiscate the knife.

Fine with me if they continued to ban all knives of any size. So many nutcases these days, I'd just as soon not worry about any of the passengers having any blade.

Since the 1990s, I've been accustomed to FedExing or UPSing all my luggage and gear to my destination ahead of my flight. That way my stuff is insured for its real value and it is less likely to disappear. That's domestic travel, not overseas.

Airline travel is so much more pleasant with just wallet, the clothes I'm wearing and a modest-sized carryon (shoulder bag) with toiletries, a couple clothing items, camera and my Kindle.

Not going to need a blade on the plane and surviving a commercial flight that crash lands in the wilderness is not so plausible that I'm going to worry about having a knife in my carryon.

Hmmm, I really don't have a dog in this fight since I no longer fly. However, when I did fly before 9-11 I carried a small locking blade in my backpack, not so much to survive after a crash but because that's where I always kept that small folder. The crazies were not a concern. The few times I traveled by air post 9-11 it was always for work, but those requirements are done.

This new TSA decision on knives will not change my attitude on flying in the least. If I can drive, I'll carry a Benchmade 710 as EDC with a .308 bolt gun cased in back. IMO driving is much more pleasant. If I can't drive, I'll reconsider whether I really need to travel at all.

I welcome this development. It means my Leatherman Squirt PS4, my normal EDC, can now come with me in the cabin on those increasingly rare occasions when I fly. Not exactly a machete, it is still quite useful in daily life.

how long are box cutter blades?

I personally think there is virtually nothing that can be done that will actually prevent another similar action.

It is just too easy to infiltrate the airports to sneak just about anything past. No serious terrorist is going to try and get past security again.

They will just get someone hired who can waltz right past. Or get a guy hired as a TSA screener. He could let a whole batch of them past.

I would not be at all surprised if AQ already has their moles in place.

Box cutters are still banned mostly for emotional reasons apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-changes/index.html

In the spirit of trying to do something productive and without taking a position one way or the other concerning the logic of the new rules and without any intent to encourage others to do so, can we discuss what knives are likely to comply under the new rules? It looks like my Leatherman Micra and Victorinox Classic SD would comply. I question whether the Victorinox Huntsman, Tinkerer, and Climber fit the bill. I was also thinking about the Case Peanut 3220 CV.

Qualifying knives were discussed for a bit at TSA to Allow Pocket Knives On Planes until the thread was closed.

That was kind of my point. We can have a useful discussion on this issue.

I find the actual topic of this thread to be useful. According to the original post, this thread is about the former TSA head's comments. Through this discussion, I've come to the conclusion that trying to bring a knife on a plane is not worth the risk. The terms of the TSA's rules are too onerous. Of course, you can bring a knife you don't care about losing. I personally never carry a knife I don't care about losing.

Anyway, what I usually do is start a new thread if I don't like a thread's topic.

I'm not going into politics, I respect Doug's rules and have no desire to annoy the mods. I'm just relaying for those who did not follow the news today that this thread is probably going to be moot shortly. The news today has a number of Senators saying they will introduce legislation to reverse the TSA's decision.

That's news, not political commentary.

Folks, talking about what the mods will or will not do increases the chance that your post will tick me off. While I try hard to enforce the rules evenly I am human and will make mistakes, especially when I feel goaded. Don't try to head off moderator action by discussing what we'll do.


chaosmagnet

I see that now and then on other forums. People being wanna-be mods and telling other what to do or not to do. I think that is highly unrespectfull to the mods.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/knife-in-ca...rport-1.1227001

Just to clarify: the US TSA is going to impliment these changes on April 25th. Canadian law has not changed - no knives.