TSA inspectors damage 9 aircraft while conducting "security checks" | Hacker News Reader

TSA inspectors damage 9 aircraft while conducting "security checks"

aero-news.net

34 pointsdrewr23 comments

What are they doing touching airplanes?

I agree with the editor's note at the bottom, this sort of incompetence needs to be prosecuted in a court of law. It's downright dangerous, and any other individual perpetrating the same act would be sent to Cuba as a terror suspect.

I guess it's time to start driving to Vancouver B.C. before getting on a plane...

The modern TSA and/or the DHS is quite obviously an exercise in "we must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do it."

"'We think it's an unfortunate situation,' she told ABCNews.com."

Are weasel words really necessary here? They think it's unfortunate that 40 flights were delayed? They think correctly

40 flights? Very annoying if you're on one of 'em, but the TSA can't afford to freak out every time 40 flights out of the thousands-per-day that they're responsible are delayed, can they? Viewed from the TSA's perspective, this is a minor screwup.

Yes, and minor screwups are unfortunate, so "I think" isn't particularly necessary. My point was that "I think" and "unfortunate" are overkill, it makes the sentence essentially useless

this is a minor screwup.

<Cough!> As a pilot I can tell you that in many real cases, your very life depends on the proper functioning of these instruments. That's why we check them fanatically! If I wanted to crash a plane and kill those aboard, I wouldn't waste my time with bombs. I'd wait for a cloudy day and subtly damage the instruments on as many planes as I could.

There are heroes among us and they don't wear TSA badges. They check instruments and mechanical systems. Every day, for every flight, whether they feel like it or not, whether "its been working fine all day" or not. Air safety is a friggin miracle of eternal vigil. This fool is an "accidental terrorist" and should never be allowed near a plane again.

I guess a plane that is grounded is more secure than one that is not.

Unless that's what the terrorist were trying to accomplish in the first place.

Amusing thought: Violent Outlaws who try to make people safer in terrifying ways.

Examples: Damaging the transportation fuel infrastructure. Grounding planes. Rendering highways unusable. These would all tend to save lives if accomplished in a big way which could easily be terrifying.

To be fair, I've encountered far fewer arbitrary and rude TSA personnel who like gratifying themselves by throwing their weight around. But a few years ago, they were obnoxious.

One time, I was ordered to consolidate my luggage -- just before the point at which we take our laptops out and reshuffle items into the bins to put them through the X-Ray. WTF? The number of items you are going to take on the plane is not their business! It's the airline's. According to the procedures they make you follow, it's actually their business to make you take your luggage apart.

Perhaps it's coincidence, but I'm encountering fewer of these bullies. I wonder if enough people complained about them.

Oy, its a dilemma. This isn't really hacker news, but it is damn interesting. Looks like the Digg problem is leaking in.

I've been told that Hacker News is "Anything of interest to hackers." This is on the front page, therefore it must a posteriori be of interest to hackers, musn't it?

I guess some people here have a different bar for 'intellectual curiosity' than others.

...I think that's more a hope than a definition (though you're probably just being sarcastic.) Anyway, I don't see why this story is prompting the !HN rigmarole. Bumbling government screwing with technology they don't understand in the name of protecting us sounds like HN to me.

you're probably just being sarcastic

Why? If you consider yourself part of the HN community, and you find it interesting, then by definition it belongs here. Isn't that the case?

FWIW, I disqualify myself from judging whether things belong on HN or not. Many of the articles I used to think were not HN have been proven by popularity to belong here, leading me to the conclusion that I am not a hacker since I do not find them interesting when I am reading "Hacker News."

p.s. Now I will be sarcastic: ESR has stated that "Hackers do not place double quotation marks outside of punctuation."

Ah, but you're missing an important point:

You're (I'm not directing this entirely at raganwald, as it applies to many of the arguments made) assuming that only Hackers are capable of voting and posting.

I generally agree, and think this article should have made it. But the argument of 'Only articles interesting to hackers will make it to the front page' fails at the part where we assume that only people interested in Hacker News are doing the majority of voting (The Digg factor kind of forces me to think that when the Digg-ers show up, they'll reshape any news to fit their idea of "news" - see Reddit).

It's curious, but !HN is actually a subset of HN in your notation! (I presume !HN is the set of posts where people comment that it's not Hacker News!)

Maybe someone should set up the (HN - !HN) site?

Personally, I wish the criteria was more like "anything of interest to hackers in their capacity as hackers". I'm interested in politics, religion, lolcats, and baseball, but I'd prefer not to see these things overrun Hacker News.

So only hackers read HN, and only upvote links because they are of interest?

We hope so.

I think you have to acknowledge the distinction between things that are interesting to hackers as hackers and things that are interesting to hackers as members of larger sets (airline passengers, citizens, or bipedal meat robots).

Just because most hackers find candied bacon interesting does't mean they want to read about it on news.yc; they can subscribe to the bacon subreddit for that stuff...

-1 off topic

Hmm. This would be a great opportunity for the airlines to sue the TSA for the lost time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com