It is convincing evidence to support my contention that I shall not fly until a Uniformed Federal Screening Force is in place in the USA.

I have edited it some to save space, but the content is unchanged.

7 Screeners at Dulles Fail Test
Man Gets Past Security Checkpoint With Pocketknife

By Don Phillips and Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 17, 2001; Page A14

Seven security screeners at Dulles International Airport failed a pop quiz on their skills last weekend, and a man smuggled a knife past screeners before being caught beyond a security checkpoint by a federal investigator, officials announced yesterday.

Investigators for the Transportation Department inspector general and the Federal Aviation Administration went to 14 airports starting Friday to test whether the private contractor Argenbright Security Inc. had improved its background checks and training for security-checkpoint screeners. They found several problems.

Argenbright, which also provides security at Reagan National Airport but not at Baltimore-Washington International, had no comment.
......... counsel to the Aviation Security Association, a consortium of private companies that handle security screening, said Argenbright's problems show a need for greater federal oversight but not a need to end private contracting of security in favor of making screeners federal employees.
[My comment HAH!]

"The problems that Argenbright is encountering just underscore the need for rigorous federal oversight and enforcement," Quinn said. "That doesn't translate into a nationalization of the workforce."
[Hah--again!!]

At Dulles, from which one of the planes involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks took off, agents for the inspector general spoke with 20 baggage screeners and then asked them to take a written skills test on the spot. Seven failed, Barnes said. The screeners are supposed to pass such a test after completing the 12 hours of training that are a condition of employment, and then be retested every year.

Barnes had no details on why the seven failed, other than that "they were unable to supply the answers." The seven employees were removed from their screening positions.

On a related check at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport the same day, seven screeners were arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service when they were found to be working illegally in the United States.

The Transportation Department said an unspecified number of screeners at some airports were found to have criminal records that should have disqualified them from their jobs. A news release gave one example: a screener at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport who was removed from his post and lost his security badge after investigators learned that he had been convicted as a felon in possession of a handgun.

During the check at Dulles on Saturday, agents from the Transportation Department inspector general's office arrested a man who they said walked through a security checkpoint with a concealed pocketknife. The man, who was not identified, was charged with attempting to board an aircraft with a concealed weapon -- a felony.

The man had initially set off a metal detector by passing through with the pocketknife, and security workers told him to either throw away the knife or put it in his car.

After he was allowed to walk away, one of the inspector general's agents watched the man go into a restroom, emerge a few moments later and return to the checkpoint, said David Barnes, a spokesman for the inspector general. The man then walked through without setting off the metal detector or raising the suspicion of the security workers, Barnes said, but an agent approached and asked the man what he had done with the knife.

The agent wasn't satisfied with his answer and made him walk through another metal detector. That one -- which might have been adjusted to a more sensitive level, Barnes said -- went off, and the man was found to have hidden the knife in the lining of his shoe.

Cambodge speaking again:

If the above story does not make a case for a uniformed federal presence at the baggage screening nothing would!

But the administration and a small percent of Republican "anti big gummint" members of the House of Representatives oppose "the creation of more federal jobs."

The Senate passed a "federalization" of the bagage-screening function, 100-0.

You can see where their priorities are!

Fly to a cruise port? You must be kidding!
© 2001 The Washington Post Company

*USA Fatalities over the past year*
Car Accidents: (USA) 45k (Approx)
Hi Jacked Aircraft: 350(?) poor souls
Anthrax: 1 (at present)
Cruise Ship Terrorism: 0

Does the name "Achille Lauro" resonate with you?

How about "Queen Frederika?"

How quickly they forget!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by DAMBROSI:
If I were running a cruise line, Transatlantic travel would definitly start up again. I would'nt wait and I would make it reasonable for those who don't want to be cramped and inconvienced by so little room to walk. And I myself don't mind 6 or 7 days at sea. It would be far more relaxing.

---

I'm with you - and I'd love to do it both ways!

Never mind little room to walk - unless you can afford Business Class, there's little room to even sit comfortably on most planes.

P.S. For we Eastern Canadians, sailings from/to Montreal or Quebec would be ideal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thulewx:
Surely a few will be fundamentalist - and they're in charge of your water and food for a week

---

Terrorism may be a fairly new concept on American soil, but it's not a new concept globally. Much of the globe has lived with terrorism for decades.

In London, over the years, we've had bombs in litter bins, department stores (including Harrods), train stations, car parks, pubs and sent through the post. Inoccent people have been blown to bits. However, you cannot predict where and when they may strinke again.

Thulewx although I see your point about a cruise ship, we could extend the argument infinitely. What happens if the guy who drives your train, or the mechanic that services your car, or the guys that provide your drinking water, or someone who works in a supermarket, are terrorists?

thulewx,

quote:

---

Originally posted by casin:
<<I hesitated mentioning the warning from my friend for quite a while, fearing causing unnecessary panic... but I trust my source implicitly - take it with whatever size grain of salt one wishes...>>

thulewx,

What does your friend suggest we do? Crawl into a hole? Stay home? Get guns? Not talk with anyone who looks or thinks differently than we do? Whoever this person is, if she is talking to a nut like you about "classified stuff" she definetly should be locked up!! And you need to realize that there is diversity in this world and that it is good!! Those working in ships are no different from those in your hometown. As a matter of fact I'm not sure I would want to work with somebody like you!!

---

What is your problem with Thulwx?!? I appreciate hearing whatever people have heard, and will give it the appropriate weight i think it deserves (or doesn't) in making any decisions for myself or my family.

I have also read recently about the large number of UBL sympathizers in the Philippines and in Indonesia. I would also be more concerned with the implications this might have regarding the crew on a cruise ship than for its implications regarding the owners of a convenience store or a car mechanic. The latter two might lose a customer or two (or their business entirely), if they chose to do something ridiculous; however, a radical UBL- sympathizer crew member sabotaging a cruise ship (perhaps in port or passing under a large well known bridge) would have more serious consequences and a greater impact on innocent people's lives (as they did with airliners).

Then again, I just say Stuff to it. I went to Miami at that time, I visit the US about 3 or so times a year. I only live once and will make the most of it. One man is laughing, but he isn't going to laugh at me.

A cruise ship is no more a target than anywhere else. More people pack a sports stadium, fill your local mall, or work in a large building, than there are on any cruise ship.

No amount of 'security' is going to stop a determined terrorist either, they can infiltrate anywhere. So live with it, and do what you want to do, bar visiting Kabul of course

Since my September posting, for those who do not read the local US papers and TV news; there have been incidents over and over again when weapons and such have been missed by civilian contract screeners, and have been smuggled onto aircraft; there have been drills instigated by the Captain on how the passengers should react to an incipient hijack move; and there have been numerous incidents of flights being diverted or landing because of passenger actions.

Flying is not a fun thing under such circumstances, and vacations are supposed to be fun.

Meanwhile, back at Congress, a bunch of Republican yahoos [not all Republicans by a long shot!] want to keep the current incompetent and underpaid civilian screening force,(who have failed in such a spectacular manner in the past), as an alternative to a (gasp!)trained, uniformed Federal screening force, with the powers of arrest, search and such. This would mean "big government," and "big government is an evil thing!."

As a former Federal employee, I resent the fact that the Civil Service is deemed incompetent to protect lives.

Perhaps they would like to contract out the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard to the lowest bidders as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
So, again, no flying for my wife...

---

This topic is going to run and run!

It does not matter how many metal detectors, x-ray machines and sniffer-dogs you have at Airports, humans and systems are fallible. Unfortunately, determined terrorists will succeed from time to time.

Anyway, passengers often carry so many electronic gadgets with them on flights these days, I'm not convinced that any machine or human search can tell a weapon from a gadget. A while back my hand-luggage contained a mobile phone, hairdryer, electric razor, walkman, mini-speakers, SLR Camera and a mini jug Kettle. Other passengers were carrying Video Camera's, Gameboys and Laptops etc. These gadgets could be concealing weapons or explosives inside them?

Terrorist could even make use of equipment onboard the Aeroplane, as weapons. How about breaking a bottle of liquor and using the shattered glass as a knives? Some Airlines were using metal knives and forks!

Ancillary staff at Airports, such as low paid luggage handlers, could be bribed to smuggled bombs aboard the hold. How good are the employers security checks, I wonder?

So Cambodge, it looks like you had best never board a plane ever again!

So Cambodge, don't fly, don't drive your car, and Please don't go opening any brown envelopes.

Paranoia Reigns.......

But you missed another.

quote:

---

Ancillary staff at Airports, such as low paid luggage handlers, could be bribed to smuggled bombs aboard the hold. How good are the employers security checks, I wonder?

---

I said I would not fly until better on-ground security is in place. This means removing the "low-paid baggage handlers" from the system and replacing them with Government professionals.

And amid the chaos of Monday, another aircraft was diverted because of suspect passenger behavior.

And today, an additional flood of flight-cancellations is taking place while the opponents of the Federal Airline Security Bill continued to posture in favor of "free enterprise!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
This means removing the "low-paid baggage handlers" from the system and replacing them with Government professionals.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

---

99% of the public just want to get about their everyday business in the quickest simplest way. The tiny minority with warped and brain washed minds, would still manage to sabotage whatever they feel like regardless of who is carrying out security searches. Security checks will never catch the determined, just those stupid or thoughtless enough to forget that gun in their bag or not realise something is explosive etc.

quote:

---

[B]Where are all the 'Government professionals' going to come from? The same workforce[B[

---

Not on (literally) your life!

"The same workforce" includes many non-citizens; too many convicted criminals; and a vast gaggle of non-english speakers. These are not my thoughts, it is a matter of record.

The "same workforce" as hired by the "lowest bidder" securiry contractors has a demonstrated record of incomptence, not only emphasized by the events of 9/11, but also in many incidents since.

The Federal workforce would come from the same sources which supply other elements of the official government presence at our airports, such as career customs officers, immigration officers, agricultural inspection officers, marshalls, and other law-enforcement people.

The Federal workforce would have an annual salary rather than miserly and minimal per-hour rates. They would have medical and insurance benefits, leave and vacation allowances and other attractive features of a career civil-service status.

Attractive sources from which they could be recruited are: retired police and law-enforcement officers; men and women leaving the armed forces; and many throughout the USA wishing to acquire or change a career. There would be opportunities for upward mobility toward supervisory functions.

Of course it would be signiificantly more costly than use of the current workforce of lowest-bidder, minimum-wage contractors. But airlines, currently recipients of monumental government subsidies, should be wiling to pay for it.

It is a fact that bomb-, and drug-sniffing security dogs at Washington's Dulles International Airport are more highly paid than the contractor-supplied baggage inspectors

And there would not be a 400% turnover in positions, as is current the situation. New hires watch a 45-minute video to learn the job. So much for "trained inspectors!"

I rest my case - temporarily at least!

By the way folks, some of the same points Cambodge made were also coming from another group of people - airline pilots and stewards and stewardesses. There are very credible reports stating these facts.

I am certainly not putting my life on hold, although I am driving rather than flying to see my family in another state. Time wize, the hassle envolved with flying just was not worth it. I could get a rental car for 1/4 the price and spend the same amount of time traveling without the hassle.

So I will join Cambodge and I will not not fly until the following happen:
1. see tighter security (give airports time to work the bugs out of the system and get it to where it will be smoother and quicker). I am planning to fly in the spring and the summer.