Aviation Update

It's nice to see that American Airlines has given up blaming its loose passenger seats on spilled cola and has returned to blaming their maintenance, soon to be about 450 people lighter. Geez, what a clusterfark.

----

This story is rather sensational:

A Boston man was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport wearing body armor and carrying a significant cache of weapons.

It goes on to describe the weapons, mainly a smoke grenade, an axe and some knives "in his luggage". But it doesn't say 'carry on' luggage. So in essence this man boarded a plane in Japan with all of the above in his checked luggage, in the cargo hold, unreachable during flight.  He was arrested in Los Angeles on the way for having what the Japanese allowed (unless they missed it).

So OK, maybe he was nuts or about to go there.  Or maybe he was wearing body armor and flame-retardant pants because he was afraid some crazy Muslim might try to take over the plane and wanted to be ready.  Is it illegal to wear those items as in-flight attire?

MORE  10/9/12

The LA Times is reporting that the prohibited items were actually in the man's 'carry on' luggage.  A bio-suit, body bags, respirator, smoke grenade and assorted knives?  That's some neat packing based on the one bag restrictions they have on many airlines now.  Maybe that's how he got it through Japanese security.   Or maybe it was this!

MORE  10/10/12

Not to belabor this story, which sounds like a less-than-brilliant 20-something who is either paranoid or was planning one helluva Halloween party, but this NBC story says the items were indeed in his 'checked' luggage.  It's sad when our intrepid media can't get a small but very important fact such as this correct. 

OMG, not Snow Globes!

They've truly thought of everything:

"Additionally, TSA does not permit snow globes through the security checkpoint because they contain an undetermined amount of liquid," the agency adds.

Bastards! What next, banning Dobosh Tortes or fruit cakes?!! On second thought, they can ban fruit cakes.

Security Junk

While there's no doubt some hyperbole, exaggeration and press foaming is in play with all these stories about security (this is the same press that reported a missile launch off the coast of California without verification), the TSA response to the "don't touch my junk" guy and various other opt-outers seems to reveal a secondary problem--a dysfunctional public relations department.

Really, is throwing Janet Napolitano out to explain how a digital strip search is for our own good (and must be done to thwart foreign underwear bombers entering from abroad) really smart PR or as Maguire says, shall we be looking for the clown car? Maybe Joe Biden will come out soon and say it's our patriotic duty.

Then there's this bit:

Images from the scans cannot be saved or printed, according to the agency. Facial features are blurred. And agents who directly interact with passengers do not see the scans.

Yet somehow images of these scans made Drudge . In other words, as improbable as it sounds that nothing can be saved or exported what's to stop an agent--sitting in a dark little secure booth--from simply using their own cell phone camera or digital camera to take pictures of something interesting they see on the screen? Oh well, onward we rush into the enlightened 21st century.

Say it Ain't So

To keep the hysteria going over TSA's new X-rated security gauntlet Drudge links to a CNN story that contains this gem:

Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued its own travel advisory over pat-downs many "describe as invasive and humiliating."

Muslim women who wear a hijab and are selected for secondary screening because of a head scarf should remind TSA officers "that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They should not subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down," the group said.

Wait, surely certain women are not being exempted from full-body pat downs due to their religious garb. Here's what TSA's website says:

You are permitted to wear loose fitting or religious garments during the screening process. You may be directed to additional screening if your clothing (religious or otherwise) is loose fitting or large enough to hide prohibited items. If you are directed by the security officer to proceed to additional screening, then you will undergo a combination of hand-wand screening and/or pat-down inspections that could include any portion of the body and head area that requires further examination.

Is that clear? Well then it's not supposed to be--the nature of security is keeping the bad guys guessing, so telling everyone exactly what to expect would be counter-productive. This was illustrated in TSA's October 28 announcement about enhanced pat-downs. The one thing they seem unequivocal on is profiling for enhanced screening--never. The question now is whether they are profiling in reverse to keep certain people from enhanced screening.

It was only a matter of time before CAIR and other Muslim rights groups protested vigorously given the option of being seen virtually naked or having someone pass their hands over sensitive body areas--these are folks who largely blush when women go sleeveless. And while many are developing sympathies with the "opt out" folks, acceding to CAIR's demands would pretty much instantly prove all this new screening as meaningless kabuki. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if terrorists realize that certain groups dressed a certain way are given easier treatment in accessing aircraft then that's the way they'll go. Again, repeating from the CAIR press release:

Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

But that doesn't sound like TSA policy, it sounds like CAIR's fatwa. One has to wonder how a TSA agent is supposed to know if someone is actually a Muslim (or Catholic nun, or anything) at screening? Does the system that generates an "ssss" on the boarding pass tell them? If so, how does it know? Secondly, if they don't, and can't profile, what are the odds women appearing to be Muslim will be 'randomly' pulled out of line for extra scanning? And if Muslim women wearing the hijab start getting their privates tickled how long will it be til some nut blows up a security checkpoint? We await the explanations.