Message In a Carry-On
As some of you might have seen on other blogs, Evan Roth is an artist who is designing personalized messages you can send to TSA security officers. He laser cuts the letters out of a sheet of stainless steel. The sheet is designed to be placed inside of a passenger’s bag so they can send personal messages to the officer. Have to give the guy credit, he’s creative. Even we got a laugh out of it.This may seem like a clever gag, but actually the joke is on whoever decides to use one of these plates. Based on the preliminary examples shown on Mr. Roth’s web page, the metal plate will get the passenger’s bag searched every time. And no, it’s not because of what the plate says, it’s because the metal plate acts as a shield and conceals items below it. If an officer can’t get a good look at what’s in the bag, it’s “bag check” time. Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches.
Mr. Roth goes on to explain that you can get your message across with his creation while also obscuring the contents you don’t want the TSA to see. After rubbing my goatee for a second, it was clear to me as to why Evan is an “artist” and not in the security business. Here’s the problem - many folks who might think it’s funny to “talk back” to TSA won’t be too happy when they find themselves spending extra time in the security line. Here’s the reality of what could happen:
1) You could be cited for interfering with the screening process by deliberately causing a distraction.
2) If there is a prohibited item concealed underneath the plate, you will be cited for artful concealment of a prohibited item.
3) If the message on the plate could be interpreted as a threat, you could be responsible for the closing of a checkpoint, not to mention the inconvenience you’ve just caused your fellow travelers.
4) Whoever is in line behind you will now have to wait even longer to get through the screening process.
So before you put your order in, please be aware of what could happen.
By the way, I thought this one was pretty funny.
Labels: Message In A Carry-On, mission
posted by Bob at
2:42 PM
Subscribe in a reader
195 Comments:
By the way, I thought this one was pretty funny.
I miss the humor on this one. Care to enlighten?
October 7, 2008 3:07 PM
Thought that interfering with the security process would be the start of a bad day for folks doing this.
Folks, when you go to the zoo you see signs telling you to not annoy the animals. Sort of the same thing here. Don't provoke TSA. They don't like it and will make your life miserable for as long as they can.
They answer to no one and wield considerable power.
October 7, 2008 3:07 PM
I have to say, that's pretty creative. I wonder when I'll see my first one; what'll it say?!! In all seriousness, as cute as this may be, be cautious to the consequences as they say, b/c that's all we need is another thing to stop you guys for and another thing to distract us from catching potentially more dangerous threats.
SDF TSO
October 7, 2008 3:16 PM
while I did get a chuckle out of it, I hope people realize that these can and will cause problems.
October 7, 2008 3:16 PM
OH! I cannot wait to see the first yahoo that puts one of these in his bag! It has "BAG CHECK!!!" written all over it.
I hope I am the TSO to do that bag check.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 3:33 PM
I think it's pretty funny myself, but then again I travel with a small metal card in my pocket that has the Bill of Rights printed on it (with the Fourth Amendment highlighted).
When I go through airport security, I put the card along with my keys and change in the dish to go through the X-Ray.
This literal "surrendering of my rights" amuses me, while flying far over the TSO's head.
October 7, 2008 3:34 PM
Saw this being mentioned on FlyerTalk Bob, I was thinking of printing it out at work and showing it to the supervisors.
I wasn't sure if you guys were gonna pay attention to this or not. And well, it appears you did!
Hurrah for us for keeping on this "threat."
I don't really consider this a threat, more of a nusinence for my job.
I mean come on, fridge magnets on nailed into a piece of plywood would be easier and much less obscuring.
I'd still call a check on it though.
October 7, 2008 3:37 PM
"Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches"
That seems strange and I would appreciate your further comment on that. Would there be something wrong taking the plate out and running the bag through the x-ray machine again? It seems like that would be an okay way to clear a bag without the additional time required for what you describe as "not one of our quicker searches".
October 7, 2008 3:43 PM
You know, this is going to bring "blame" to us and have a ton of people saying that we don't have a sense of humor. Hey, I like them too, but I am gonna check EVERY bag that has these in them just like any other bag that has obscured items. Still, pretty funny stuff!
October 7, 2008 3:46 PM
Boy, you just love threatening passengers with retaliation don't you?
Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches.
Common sense says the correct response to a pax putting the plate on top of his belongings in the bag would be: call a bag check, remove the metal plate, rerun the bag, clear the bag, let the pax go.
Anything else is punitive and retaliatory.
1) You could be cited for interfering with the screening process by deliberately causing a distraction.
Oh, come on!!!!! Now a non-prohibited item that does not resemble a weapon, explosive, or incendiary is a distraction? Get real. What's next, a pax with too many electronics in his bag is a distraction and guilty of interference? "Non-physical" interference with screening is an oxymoron and nothing but a tool for power-tripping TSOs.
And the only distraction is TSA's over-reaction. Blogger Bob, were you by chance the STSO in charge at MKE during the "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" fiasco? TSA created a distraction by flipping out, calling law enforcement, and detaining a passenger for writing a non-threatening comment on his freedom baggie. And TSA claimed the 1st Amendment doesn't apply at the checkpoint. Both of these seem to characterize your and TSA's pre-emptive reaction to these metal plates. And the respect for free speech on this blog has been steadily declining since the 9/11 post.
The one good thing about this blog was that you let the public actually express their viewpoints. Now you're actively discouraging protected speech at the airport as well as well as taking away that value in the blog. Way to go. :(
October 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Dear Mr. Roth,
Please send me the following customized luggage plates:
1 "I packed this bag all by myself"
1 "I love America and Jesus"
1 "This is not the bag you are looking for"
2 "Kip Hawley is an idiot"
Thank you,
Anonymous
October 7, 2008 3:51 PM
What about the old no-jokes rule?
I guess "many folks who might think it’s funny to “talk back” to TSA ... You could be cited for interfering with the screening process by deliberately causing a distraction" might be one answer to the old "what is non-physical interference" question.
Would a jokeless plain sheet of steel be not artful concealment? How about a metal hardcase?
Your new post sounds an awful lot like something out of the confiscation shakedown discussion in the last thread: "Nice bag you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to you."
October 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Ronnie said...
OH! I cannot wait to see the first yahoo that puts one of these in his bag! It has "BAG CHECK!!!" written all over it.
I hope I am the TSO to do that bag check.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 3:33 PM
Retaliation?
By a TSO?
October 7, 2008 4:21 PM
Dear Bob or other TSA folks reading this blog:
Why do I so often see TSA employees at the security checkpoints joking and laughing with each other while just standing around? It's ridiculously common to see one person watching the screen, one person watching the metal detector, and 2-3 others kind of standing around talking and joking behind them. Not only does it decrease your credibility in my eyes through lack of professionalism, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Please comment.
October 7, 2008 4:22 PM
wow the censorship on this one the first 7 comments out of the gate where all my TSOs hmmm are you violating the first amendment by limiting the freedom of speech and press?
So Bloggers why dont you reveal your FT handles, you know the people on FT would never retaliate against you
October 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Hmmm, 2nd post is mine and I am definitely not a TSO.
October 7, 2008 4:33 PM
What happened to the right of free speech?
On, I forgot, we don't have any constitutional rights at a checkpoint.
Somebody will challenge the TSA on this.
October 7, 2008 4:57 PM
Ari said...
"Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches"
That seems strange and I would appreciate your further comment on that. Would there be something wrong taking the plate out and running the bag through the x-ray machine again? It seems like that would be an okay way to clear a bag without the additional time required for what you describe as "not one of our quicker searches".
October 7, 2008 3:43 PM
..............................
Ari, you expect TSA to use common sense when dealing with problems. How silly of you!
October 7, 2008 5:04 PM
Wow, there is so much spinning going on in here, I feel like I just got off the Tilt-A-Whirl! And some of you accuse us of spinning things… I expected it though… How is this retaliation? It would trigger a bag search whether the steel plate had a message on it or not.
So let me get this straight. Evan creates a message plate and states on his web page that it can conceal things you don’t want the TSA to see. I warn folks that this can trigger a bag search as well as a number of other things and that’s retaliation? Wow…
Anonymous said... By the way, I thought this one was pretty funny. I miss the humor on this one. Care to enlighten? October 7, 2008 3:07 PM
Click Here I realize this would be the perfect opportunity for a Rickroll, but I’ll just give you the Wiki link.
This literal "surrendering of my rights" amuses me, while flying far over the TSO's head. October 7, 2008 3:34 PM
It must be nice to be sooo clever.
Ari said... "Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches" That seems strange and I would appreciate your further comment on that. Would there be something wrong taking the plate out and running the bag through the x-ray machine again? It seems like that would be an okay way to clear a bag without the additional time required for what you describe as "not one of our quicker searches". October 7, 2008 3:43 PM
Good question. Removing the plate a rerunning the bag through the X-ray eventually happens, but there are other procedures involved.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 7, 2008 5:04 PM
Bob, why does TSA permit TSOs to make anonymous threats against passengers on this blog?
October 7, 2008 5:14 PM
Is it me, or is there a highly retaliatory nature in this post???
Recap on a few examples:
"Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches."
"Here’s the problem - many folks who might think it’s funny to “talk back” to TSA won’t be too happy when they find themselves spending extra time in the security line."
October 7, 2008 5:14 PM
Blogger Bob said:
[quote]Good question. Removing the plate a rerunning the bag through the X-ray eventually happens, but there are other procedures involved.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 7, 2008 5:04 PM[/quote]
So, rather than do the QUICKEST THING YOU CAN DO to clear the bag, you'll deliberately choose to take more time, in a BLATANTLY-RETALIATORY punitive "search"?
Way to convince us that you guys are professionals, Bob.
October 7, 2008 5:19 PM
Blogger Bob said: [quote]Good question. Removing the plate a rerunning the bag through the X-ray eventually happens, but there are other procedures involved.
Bob EoS Blog Team October 7, 2008 5:04 PM[/quote]
So, rather than do the QUICKEST THING YOU CAN DO to clear the bag, you'll deliberately choose to take more time, in a BLATANTLY-RETALIATORY punitive "search"?
Way to convince us that you guys are professionals, Bob.
October 7, 2008 5:19 PM
Wow. See what I mean about spin?
Either you guys really don't get that not being able to see through something triggers a certain type of bag search prescribed by our SOP,(as it always has) or you are intentionally twisting my words.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 7, 2008 5:24 PM
I think its funny that "what can happen" sounds like we have threats coming out of TSA. Usually "Artful Concealment" involves actually hiding something in a way to disguise it, not doing something to deliberately attract attention to a portion of the bag. I think you're being kind of a jerk, Bob. I work for TSA and its jerks like you that want to erode rights and inconvenience everyone because you need to feel like you're in charge. I'll take those signs over a number of others items every day. CHECK BAG!
October 7, 2008 5:25 PM
So... plates of steel are prohibited now? (You clearly can't legally discriminate based on words on the steal)
Bob, you specifically say that you will retaliate beyond checking the bag beyond rerunning the bag. Please elaborate.
October 7, 2008 5:26 PM
bob
were twisting your words no more then you do ours, and the general public doesnt use smoke and mirrors either. Common sense and using reality would solve alot of TSAs problems
then how about releasing posts in the order they where put in, that or the delete-o-meter is broken
October 7, 2008 5:29 PM
Sorry Bob, but repeating your words back at you isn't "spin", it is repeating your words back at you.
The quickest way to clear a bag with this plate is to take the plate out and scan the bag. You specifically say that the screening of anyone with this plate will not be one of the quicker searches. The logical conclusion is that the procedure will not be to simply take the plate out and scan the bag.
A => B, B => C, therefore A => C. That's not spin.
Since you admitted you won't do the quickest method of screening, that means a decision has been made by the TSA administrators that anyone guilty of having one of these plates must get one of the slower methods of screening.
How would you describe it other than "retaliatory screening"? I early await your spin on that.
But go ahead and ignore this post like you do all the rest of mine.
October 7, 2008 5:42 PM
By the way, even though the new posts are sufficiently controversial to rile up the masses so that they don't look like distractions, I'm still waiting for the legal basis for using MMW on random people who aren't trying to enter the sterile areas of the airport.
October 7, 2008 5:47 PM
Bob said...
Wow, there is so much spinning going on in here, I feel like I just got off the Tilt-A-Whirl! And some of you accuse us of spinning things… I expected it though… How is this retaliation? It would trigger a bag search whether the steel plate had a message on it or not.
ANSWER
Ronnie said...
OH! I cannot wait to see the first yahoo that puts one of these in his bag! It has "BAG CHECK!!!" written all over it.
I hope I am the TSO to do that bag check.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 3:33 PM
Retaliation is implied by Ronnie in his post. We are also warned that the bag check will take longer than normal.
Given that faster simpler methods are available to clear the bag tells me that TSA is using a tactic of Intimidation and retaliation.
No other way to read what the various TSO's have posted.
The message is clear, do this and we will make you regret your action!
October 7, 2008 5:50 PM
You really are just traitors the American way of life aren't you? Threaten us all you want. Just remember that, at the end of the day, we're the one's who you have to deal with once you leave your oppressive little realm.
October 7, 2008 5:54 PM
I have never threatened anybody here on these posts. I have however had someone (I think he said his name was anonymous) threaten to steal my wallet, shoot me or burn down my house. Do those qualify as threats?
Ronnie TSA DEN
October 7, 2008 5:58 PM
No Bob, we get that using a plate like this requires a bag check. We don't get the punitive nature for going thru the extra steps. Maybe you're not communicating it effectively, but the fact that you refer to it as not being one of your quicker procedures, you can fine people for it, and putting blatant guilt trips indicates that your search goes over and beyond a normal bag search when something can't be seen.
So it can hide stuff ... duh. TSA itself has said metal things can obscure and hide stuff in a bag that it can require a bag check. We get that. I don't think anyone is arguing that such a plate could cause a bag check. It's the overreaction and threat of penalties that's over the talk. Add to that overzealous TSA's like Ronnie seem to be chomping at the bit to punish someone who comes thru with one of these (Can't say that surprises me coming from DEN though). And you're trying to tell us that TSA's reaction is anything BUT punitive?
And is there a particular reason why my first post didn't get posted?
And yes Bob, you are spinning it. You haven't denied that it isn't punitive. You're focusing on the bag check which no one is questioning ... just everything else that goes with it.
I like what a Flyertalker said about the "interference" statement: "Yes, apparently having your bag searched is a distraction for the screeners which diverts them from their task of searching your bag."
Gotta comment on your professionalism, Bob. Or lack thereof. I don't think I need say more on that.
Robert
October 7, 2008 6:17 PM
Kelly: "all we need is another thing to stop you guys for and another thing to distract us from catching potentially more dangerous threats"
You mean more distractions in addition to making millions of innocent people take off their shoes and watching over the exact volume of every component of our freedom baggies? I don't really think it can make much of a difference at this point. Remember your dismal rates when independently tested...
October 7, 2008 6:17 PM
Bob said, "It must be nice to be sooo clever. "
Oh it is, Bob. It is. You see, I cherish my rights. I really do. I love my country very, very much. And I particularly love the way it used to distinguish itself from so many other countries by minimizing government intrusion into my life. Alas, those days are gone. Worse, I'm not even allowed to call you on it, in person, lest I suffer punitive retaliation.
So the best I can do is surrender my rights, tossing them into the convenient plastic bin. And then, after you've sniffed my shoes, and pawed my bags, and possibly groped me, you return my rights to me.
You have your theater (security theater) and I have mine.
October 7, 2008 6:20 PM
I'd hate to see what would happen if someone put a 'personal area computing' equipped coat through the scanner.
Unfortunately, I must agree with the TSA on this.. Putting a STAINLESS STEEL sign in your carry-on baggage is a BAD idea. But I do agree with the 'stupid humor' value.
October 7, 2008 7:13 PM
Hey Bob
you might want to stop using the term EOS/Eos/EoS considering those are trademarks and copyrights of Canon (Japan/USA). considering how you all choose to use the term, it makes it willful infringement/violation
If canon did you choose to do so, it means TSA could face fine and penalties in to the 9+ figures range as copyright infringements are 150K each and trademarks are in the same range. so in this blog entry comments alone come to 300K.
just something to thing about
October 7, 2008 7:19 PM
Bob writes:
Either you guys really don't get that not being able to see through something triggers a certain type of bag search prescribed by our SOP,(as it always has) or you are intentionally twisting my words.
I think you and your opponents are talking past each other a little bit here. Let me try to bridge the gap a bit.
I fully understand that putting one of these panels inside a bag could conceal prohibited items, and that TSA needs to verify that no such items are present in the bag. But it seems to me that if the panel was removed from the bag, the bag was X-rayed again, and no prohibited items were revealed by the X-ray, there should be no need for further screening of that bag. I don't understand why any further screening procedures should be necessary at that point. Could you explain further?
October 7, 2008 7:27 PM
2) If there is a prohibited item concealed underneath the plate, you will be cited for artful concealment of a prohibited item.
Ha ha. "Artful." And it's art. Get it? Hee hee!
Yeah, when I first read this I thought it was cute, but stupid if anyone actually does it. I am sure some fledgling performance artists out there will try it though.
October 7, 2008 7:54 PM
Wow. See what I mean about spin?
Eh, Bob's kinda right. More or less, all I'd take said plate out and rerun the bag, treating the plate like it's an obscuring laptop.
It still takes up time though, having to lug said to table, take the plate out, inspect the plate to make sure there's nothing that would make it artful concealment and rerun the bag. That could take up to a minute, and time is money, especially at an airport.
Why not just place it in a bin, guys? I wouldn't care then... seriously, I have a sense of humor you know. ;)
Why do I so often see TSA employees at the security checkpoints joking and laughing with each other while just standing around? It's ridiculously common to see one person watching the screen, one person watching the metal detector, and 2-3 others kind of standing around talking and joking behind them. Not only does it decrease your credibility in my eyes through lack of professionalism, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Please comment.
Because our job is kinda boring. There's nothing to do really until we get bag check aside from picking up bins, besides, we're trying to keep ourselves happy in the face of overwhelming stressful days. Besides, it makes us seem more human. Do you want us to stand around like mindless robot drones and look all stern and ready to arrest the first person that comes through? Besides, you don't see police joking to each other? I mean I work at BOS, and no offense to them, (I highly respect the troopers), the State Police inside the terminals spend a lot of their times standing around talking to each other. Of course, they still patrol around and respond to situations, but they mull around. It's a normal human trait to socialize, we're very social animals.
Like I said, I have a sense of humor. ;)
October 7, 2008 8:06 PM
"Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches."
This seems to be the controversial line that everyone is jumping on.
Here's the thing... TSA has different protocol for this type of threat (if we can't see through something, it is automatically a threat).
If you choose to deliberately conceal your belongings, and you happen to have a threat or prohibited item in your bag (let's say you truly forgot your pocketknife was in the bag, yet purchased this sign as a joke...), you would be using "artful concealment". That could get you in big trouble.
I think the TSS bloggers are just trying to save some of you from getting in trouble. Some things that seem funny sure won't be funny anymore if the checkpoint has to be temporarily shut down, or if a passenger ends up being detained my airport police.
October 7, 2008 8:23 PM
"Good question. Removing the plate a rerunning the bag through the X-ray eventually happens, but there are other procedures involved."
The problem is that I (and many others on this blog as per their comments) are not convinced that the 'other procedures' serve a valid security purpose-- hence, the conclusion that they serve a punitive purpose instead.
"In all seriousness, as cute as this may be, be cautious to the consequences as they say, b/c that's all we need is another thing to stop you guys for and another thing to distract us from catching potentially more dangerous threats."
I would remove the "more" from that sentence.
October 7, 2008 9:08 PM
rachel
please name the laws broken by a traveler who is paying your salary that would require them to be detained, and making you actually do your job instead of wasting travelers time and money.
BTW making statements to a real LEO that are knowingly false could lead to you being arrested for making a false police report.
October 7, 2008 9:15 PM
Hi ronnie, I'm the anonymous poster you claimed threatened to shoot you and burn down your house. I did no such thing.
You said that nothing gets confiscated because there's always a choice (ie, surrender it or don't fly). I was pointing out that that really isn't a choice by saying it's like a mugger claiming he didn't rob you, he just gave you a choice between donating your wallet to him, or him shooting you.
And I offered that if you would be so kind as to give me your address, I'd come there and give you the choice of donating your valuables to me or me burning down your house. That's not a threat--not by your definition, because I was giving you a choice. Of course your house doesn't need to get burned down--you always have the choice to give me your stuff.
I don't see why you have a problem with that. I mean, you don't have a problem with giving me similar choices. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
October 7, 2008 9:18 PM
wow someone is really full of themselves and trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I guess the first amendment doesn't apply at the checkpoint? lets say to a similar incident ala MKE and the now famous KHIAI (see flyertalk for more details)
Then what your describing in using this plate would be retaliatory screening (which is supposedly against TSA rules) but all frequent travel know thats a outright lie and happens every day.
now would these citations you speak of be for a normal court hearing in a real court room with a real qualified judge with a JD and has a bar license or would it be in the TSA roo court that dishes out fines for fun when someone makes you all look real bad.
please explain how this is interfering with the screening process (please site case law and applicable statues that apply), say anymore then a photographer using a Lead lined bag to protect there film that one of your screeners has forced to go through x-ray even when the passenger has requested a hand check (per your own rules), and when challenged a screener made a terroristic threat(aka Assault) of DYWTFT.
Then what about alvin crabtree has he been thrown in jail yet for artfully concealing and knowingly bringing a loaded firearm through security, if not then no one should ever be charged for bring a weapon through a CP again. goes to leadership by example.
now which federal law is artful concealment listed under as i would like to see that one? anything like diligent packing of a suitcase so that nothing gets damaged or wrinkled then gets tossed by a screener and poorly repacked causing item to get damaged or wrinkled (this applies to both carry on and checked baggage) where you deny any responsibility for and blame the airline. How about the article that was released about the TSO stealing a camera worth nearly 50K and attempting to sell it on ebay?
a distraction you mean from a screener screening bags, ie doing there job. a bit of a reach.
a threat are you kidding me, getting a little desperate and grabbing for straws (see the MKE KHIAI flyertalk thread if you need a good example). If your going to enforce it then when your screeners threaten a traveler they need to be charged with making threats and terminated as well, again leadership by example.
oh yeah wouldnt want to slow down the line or make travel anymore stressful anymore then say the TDC who takes a minute plus per ID looking for something that could indicate some weird idea in there head. Or maybe the barker who yell at people for no reason and in a language they dont understand because there not from this country or are from this country. Even having to go through a WTMD multiple times even though you don't set it off, only to get a retaliatory secondary when you question why.
please do tell, but do so without the smoke and mirrors.
October 7, 2008 9:23 PM
Thank you anonymous. I would ask you to remember that 4 of the 5 options I gave you allowed you to keep your items without resulting in harm to your person or property. You were not so kind in the options you gave me. Guess thats why I am the trained professional and you are not.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 9:36 PM
Looks like someone's retaliating against this screener:
Newark Airport screener accused of stealing electronics from luggage
"Brown attracted the attention of one of his victims -- and eventually investigators -- when he tried to sell the equipment on eBay, the online auction site, authorities said."
Guess civilians can retaliate too! :D
Does TSA care to comment?
October 7, 2008 9:39 PM
Either you guys really don't get that not being able to see through something triggers a certain type of bag search prescribed by our SOP,(as it always has) or you are intentionally twisting my words.
Fair enough, Bob.
Now, speak plainly. If I have my bag separated from another bin that has a sign that said, "Eat my shorts, TSA!" will I be subject to secondary searches or a bag search?
If so, why? My sign was separate from my bag.
October 7, 2008 9:45 PM
Abelard said...Fair enough, Bob.Now, speak plainly. If I have my bag separated from another bin that has a sign that said, "Eat my shorts, TSA!" will I be subject to secondary searches or a bag search?
If so, why? My sign was separate from my bag.October 7, 2008 9:45 PM
Nope. In fact, I used to have a guy come through back when I was a TSO and he would always show me his zippo. It read "**** ***." I'd just laugh and that was that.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 7, 2008 10:06 PM
Firstly, Bob, I haven't been reading the blog in a few weeks, but a bit of a belated congratulations on the birth of your child. My wife is pregnant with our first; the pregnancy is nerve wracking enough, I don't even want to know how bad this is going to get when the baby is born.
Anyways, on to my thoughts here.
1. Just to start, someone needs to figure out who "Ronnie" is so he can be fired. I think his comments on this blog clearly show he shouldn't be a TSO.
2. What, exactly, is meant by "if the message on the plate could be interpreted as a threat....". Is that up to the discretion of the TSO? Will "Kip Hawley is an idiot" get me tackled by the nearest law enforcement officer?
3. Similarly, "you could be cited for interfering with the screening process...." How could this be interfering? Unless any time you have a secondary screening it's an interference with the screening process?
I would like to complement the poster who puts the bill of rights card through the x-ray. I carry one of those around myself. Seems like a good idea, even if it goes over their heads.
October 7, 2008 10:26 PM
Ronnie, do trained professionals proclaim that they will retaliate if they see something don't like?
4 of 5 choices or 1 of 2 choices ... it doesn't matter. The end result is the same. Splitting hairs.
October 7, 2008 10:36 PM
Guess thats why I am the trained professional and you are not.
Ronnie TSO DEN
Professional Ass!
October 7, 2008 11:30 PM
Ronnie, what's the name of your supervisor at Denver?
October 7, 2008 11:37 PM
How about:
PLEASE DON"T STEAL THIS AND SELL IT ON EBAY
October 8, 2008 12:39 AM
Nice job ignoring me again, Bob.
October 8, 2008 1:36 AM
"Folks, when you go to the zoo you see signs telling you to not annoy the animals. Sort of the same thing here. Don't provoke TSA."
I see what you did there... and I find the comparison quite apt.
And going by the TSOs' comments here I have a pretty good idea of which airports I will be avoiding in the future.
"I would ask you to remember that 4 of the 5 options I gave you allowed you to keep your items without resulting in harm to your person or property."
None of which I could invoke if I was a solo traveler without cash at the right moment (no one to hand it to, no car to take it back to, no money to pay for a checked bag, etc).
(-_-;;)p Not cool, and certainly doesn't make me look forward to returning to America.
October 8, 2008 4:39 AM
I would like someone to respond to this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/07/terrorism.behavior/index.html
October 8, 2008 5:57 AM
A_Real_Lawyer said...
Hey Bob
you might want to stop using the term EOS/Eos/EoS considering those are trademarks and copyrights of Canon (Japan/USA). considering how you all choose to use the term, it makes it willful infringement/violation
If canon did you choose to do so, it means TSA could face fine and penalties in to the 9+ figures range as copyright infringements are 150K each and trademarks are in the same range. so in this blog entry comments alone come to 300K.
just something to thing about
If you are a real lawyer do a favor and give an opinion on the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area in light of 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5.
BTW, the TSA is safe using the EoS initials in this context. A quick web search on EOS will reveal tons of companies using the EoS/EOS/Eos initials for products and services including but not limited to an airline, winery, automobile, satellite system, iPod speakers and restaurant.
Second you can not copyright a word that has been around for thousands of years.
Thanks for playing.
October 8, 2008 6:10 AM
Great ! A terrorist would certainly use such a way to get the TSA people focused on him. It definitely makes sense !
« Artful concealment » : what a nice expression. Poetry in motion.
You wrote : « Evan is an “artist” and not in the security business.» But if you have « [not quick] detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag », could you really consider you are « in the security business » ?
I just think you take your revenge where you can.
And remember : if you carve metal, the terrorists will win !
October 8, 2008 6:38 AM
Bob,
Because they are posted on an official TSA web site, I can only assume that your threats are official TSA policy and accurately reflect the views and policy of everyone in the organization.
Having said that, until you get your own house in order, don't go threatening the very citizens who pay your salaries. Here are just three examples where I suggest you might start:
http://tinyurl.com/TSA-Pot-Farm
http://tinyurl.com/TSA-Luggage-Thief
...and, it's obvious that both of these top performers can use an armed guard: the famous Denver screener, gun-toting Allen Crabtree.
Your threats and those of your fellow screeners who post here are pathetic.
October 8, 2008 6:39 AM
No, ronnie, you weren't paying attention. Those 4-of-5 options DIDN'T allow me to keep my property. They took property from me by requiring me to, for example, pay more money by giving my carry-on bag up to the airline as checked luggage, requiring me to drive to the airport and pay for parking, requiring me to bring an additional person (time and expense) with me to wait to see if I get through security, forcing me to pay for postage and packing.
All of those options place a financial burden on me, hence robbing me of property. And, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, I gain nothing from that financial burden--no additional safety or security is had, because your policies have been proven to be both pointless and unconstitutional.
Why can't you see that you're part of the problem? You are working for an organization that is accomplishing the terrorists' goals (spreading fear and discontent) for them. Your fascination with shoes and wet things does zero to enhance security, while serving only to keep the populace cowed through fear.
What you're doing is, quite simply, un-American.
October 8, 2008 8:22 AM
Gosh, you folks are truely dense! I never said I would retaliate. In fact, if I saw one of these signs I would probably bust up laughing right along with you. But the fact of the matter is that our SOP has procedures to deal with bags that are obscured. I will follow procedure and check the bag as required. And I really hope I dont find a prohibited item when I do search it (that could potentially be bad for you)
Yes, I may vent here in this forum, but I can promise you, at the checkpoint you will NEVER know when I am hurt or wounded by your comments.Because I AM a professional. I do my job with a smile and I do it well.
Kind of sad that those crying about free speech are now calling for my job for exercising my right to same speech.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 8, 2008 8:28 AM
I am an occasional flier. I have never had a really horrid experience w/ the tsa. They have generally been very polite and even on many occasions quite friendly and social w/ me while I went thru the (sometimes arduous) security line. Cut them some slack people. I have seen they are short staffed at many places and I believe they do the best they can. I for one am happy they are there.
I check the rules and bag up my stuff. (in the right sizes) I pack in layers (like the video says) I check my oversize bag and seldom carry anything to the x-ray machine but my purse and a book.
I take off my shoes and go thru the metal detector, pick up my stuff and I am on my way. I will be really ticked off if some clown puts one of these in his bag and the line gets tied up because there are only 1 or 2 tsas to check bags and one is tied op on a lengthy bag search because YOU the clown thought this would be a funny joke.
One time I was leaving denver and had my bag purse searched because I had forgotten I had bought two of those little souvenier pocket knifes with my kids name written on them. They were in a paper bag all the way at the bottom and I just plain forgot them. The nice lady who checked my bag explained they could not go past the chek point and showed me to the handy mailer to send them to myself. No big deal. So what if it cost me a few bucks, I made the mistake, so I paid (Ronnie mentioned personal responsibility on another post and he's right). All in all Denver was a very nice experience. If I had one of these signs covering up that knife, i can only imagine it would have not gone as easily.
I have heard some rude things said to the poor tsas, and they bear these insults with more calm than I would if people talked to me that way on my job.
Ronnie, Kellymae,gsolsto,patrick and all you others, please keep up the good work. I may be in the minority here, but I for one am greatful for what you do.
Thank you,
Olivia
October 8, 2008 9:06 AM
bob: "Either you guys really don't get that not being able to see through something triggers a certain type of bag search prescribed by our SOP,(as it always has) or you are intentionally twisting my words."
How are we supposed to know your SOP... oh wait you refuse to tell us! So it is no our fault for not knowing it even though you pretend that some secret classification "SSI" exists which allows you to have a shared secret among all 50,000 TSOs? Oh wait, they obviously are not told what the SOP is either as they don't follow the same procedure!
October 8, 2008 9:08 AM
At best these message plates were a minor blip on the radar. Something that the media was using for filler between stories. Now thanks to the TSA's over reacation and threats in the post they have only held themselves up for ridicule.
When you get the failure rate down when the TSA misses guns and bombs used in tests down. Then you can complain about stupid things like this.
October 8, 2008 9:38 AM
From Blogger Bob's post, "Message in a Carry-On"
Based on the preliminary examples shown on Mr. Roth’s web page, the metal plate will get the passenger’s bag searched every time. And no, it’s not because of what the plate says, it’s because the metal plate acts as a shield and conceals items below it. If an officer can’t get a good look at what’s in the bag, it’s “bag check” time. Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches.
...............................
Serious question Bob, if a TSO is inspecting a bag why would the contents of said bag impact on how long the inspection should take?
Would not the process be the same, making sure that no threats are in the bag?
The message clearly received by the public from you and some of the TSA responders clearly indicates that some effort will be expended to delay and cause the traveler to suffer in some manner during the process. That is in fact a retaliatory action and I thought against the secret TSA rules.
Bob, perhpas you would like to clear the air by rewording your comments or maybe it's once again time for TSA legal staff to clearly state what the law is regarding this topic!
It is plain to me that the message you intended to send was not received in a welcomed manner!
You accuse bloggers of Spin, that's not what happened in this case, retaliation was very cleary inferred by you and other TSO's who responded to this article!
I think it is time for this entire thread to be forwarded to your AIG for review and those TSO's that imply they would engage in retaliatory actions against travelers be located and disciplined.
October 8, 2008 9:43 AM
Bob, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/airport_screener_charged_with.html
Maybe you need to keep a closer eye on your own people first.
October 8, 2008 9:46 AM
Patrick (BOS TSO) said...
Because our job is kinda boring. There's nothing to do really until we get bag check aside from picking up bins, besides, we're trying to keep ourselves happy in the face of overwhelming stressful
days.
//////////////////////////////////
Patrick would you please share with us why you think your job is so stressful?
I really don't see it from the viewpoint of a traveler.
Your under no deadlines to produce a product. You are in control of screening process. You are under very little threat of anything bad happening. So wheres the stress?
Really, it seems to me that the biggest threat you might experience is the casual tossing of possible explosives in common trash bins. That would be because TSA see's no threat in doing so!
I'm sorry but I don't buy off on a TSA checkpoint being high stress for anyone other than the travelers who must navigate the TSA gauntlent without clear, concise rules while trying to figure out which TSO will not know their own procedure again!
October 8, 2008 10:16 AM
So at worst, 4 out of 5 options are inconvienient. Doable, but inconvienient. I grant you that. But if you would have paid attention to the note I made on "personal responsibility" all the hasle could be avoided. But I guess that would require personal responsibility on your part, and since you are unwilling to do so...well again, not TSA's problem is it?
I bet if you are caught speeding it's not your fault either. Probably the fault of the police officer who was on that stretch of road on that particular day. You think, he wasn't there yesterday so why is he there today? You speed, you get caught, you get a ticket. Personal responsibility.
Am I alone here in thinking the traveling public has some responsibility here? Help me out brother/sister TSO's!!!
Ronnie
October 8, 2008 10:19 AM
"Why can't you see that you're part of the problem? You are working for an organization that is accomplishing the terrorists' goals (spreading fear and discontent) for them. Your fascination with shoes and wet things does zero to enhance security, while serving only to keep the populace cowed through fear.
What you're doing is, quite simply, un-American."
Yep. TSA, Kip, Bob, Ronnie - each and every one of you is doing Osama bin Laden's work. Aren't you proud of yourselves?
October 8, 2008 10:28 AM
Trollkiller
according to my partner he thinks TSA "interpretation" is way off base, and not correct. He doesn't travel much but is surprised it hasn't been challenged yet, and been struck down. Then again he worked in DC for a while; you can get a politician to do anything if you give them enough money or BS real well.
October 8, 2008 10:43 AM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/airport_screener_charged_with.html
The reported story of a TSA screener stealing and selling items on Ebay concerns me.
The question has been asked many times just how secure our baggage is after it has been surrendered to the airlines and TSA for processing and being placed on the aircraft.
How can anyone TSO have the ability to remove (or placed) something from a travelers baggage without being observed by suitable security devices?
How can a TSO traverse the airport with items stolen from travelers?
The simple answer should be that TSO's must clear a security screen when entering a work area and when departing the work area each and every time.
What steps are being taken to secure travelers baggage and personal items from TSA screeners or any other person who has access to our property while not in the custody of the traveler? It is very apparent that the current efforts are not adequate to protect the travelers belongings.
Once again, if something can be removed from a bag then something (bad) can just as easily be placed in a bag.
October 8, 2008 10:55 AM
The idea that TSA would overreact to an etched steel plate shouldn't be that surprising. Remember, Homeland Security has been responsible for a sort of bizarre paranoia that has resulted in:
- Boston authorities mistaking light-up signs with cartoon characters on them as IEDs.
- Washington, DC authorities mistaking a sculpture of a polar bear rooting through a garbage can as a bomb.
- Logan airport authorities arresting a girl with flashing LEDs in a start pattern sewn onto her sweatshirt.
- TSA agents being surprised and upset by an Apple laptop.
This is what happens, folks, when you turn your security over to people who are apparently completely culturally retarded.
October 8, 2008 10:56 AM
Oh, and continuing my previous comment- how many of those options are possible in international transit? Especially if you have an airport like MCO where apparently you need to submit to TSA screening as you *leave* the airport from an international flight... This is time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere.
October 8, 2008 12:00 PM
Am I alone here in thinking the traveling public has some responsibility here? Help me out brother/sister TSO's!!!
Ronnie
Ronnie, you posted it so you deal with it.
The traveling public deals with TSOs who range from quite good (very rare) to those with 'issues' (much more common the the good TSOs). We've been lied to, had to 'voluntarily surrender' our property, gotten the 'do you want to fly today' threats, been threatened with arrest, and you ask why we can't follow some simple instructions?
Items not on the list of approved items fly unless prohibited by a TSO who will not give you a reason why those items are being taken from you.
Items on the list of approved items fly unless prohibited by a TSO who will not give you a reason why those items are being taken from you.
Items on the list of prohibited items are confiscated.
Pretty simple until you get into the realm of made up on the spot rules by TSOs who just feel mean and want to put the screws to travelers.
Ronnie, go away for a bit. Stop posting because your coworkers know you and laugh at you behind your back. Get some experience then come back in six months.
October 8, 2008 12:37 PM
"I bet if you are caught speeding it's not your fault either. "
Ronnie-of-the-bad-analogy strikes again.
Let's say that some--possibly even most, but not ALL--roads have their speed limits marked. And suppose you lived near a road with no signs on it, and you'd asked the police for the speed limit, but they refused to tell you saying it's a secret (secret speeding information, or SSI). Nevertheless, that road looked just like another one nearby with a 35-mph limit. And there you were, going 35 mph, and the police pulled you over and said that in fact it's 25 mph. And you started to protest, but the cop just said, "Do you want to drive today?"
Then, Ronnie, it would be like that.
Actually, if I get caught speeding, I take my lumps. It's a fair cop, doesn't violate my rights. HOWEVER, if at the end of the traffic stop, the cop said, "Say, do you mind if I search your vehicle," I'd reply, "Sure, as long as you have a warrant."
See the difference?
October 8, 2008 12:47 PM
Yangj: "Oh, and continuing my previous comment- how many of those options are possible in international transit?"
The TSA never considers the international traveler.
October 8, 2008 12:47 PM
Thank you Olivia.
Ronnie
October 8, 2008 12:58 PM
Ronnie, what is the name of your supervisor at Denver?
October 8, 2008 1:06 PM
Patrick (BOS TSO) wrote a long ways back, when asked why it seems like there's always a bunch of TSO's hanging around the X-ray screen doing nothing but joking around:
Because our job is kinda boring. There's nothing to do really until we get bag check aside from picking up bins ...
With all respect (and I'd invite any TSA employee to respond here) ... couldn't you find something useful to do? Like maybe assist passengers in collecting all of their bags in the recomposure area? Or helping passengers lift their luggage onto the conveyor belts? Or anything that might help to improve the flow of people through the checkpoint?
October 8, 2008 1:54 PM
A_Real_Lawyer said...
Trollkiller
according to my partner he thinks TSA "interpretation" is way off base, and not correct. He doesn't travel much but is surprised it hasn't been challenged yet, and been struck down. Then again he worked in DC for a while; you can get a politician to do anything if you give them enough money or BS real well.
The TSA's interpretation of 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 has been challenged on this blog and by a complaint to the DHS OIG.
Unfortunately I am not a lawyer nor am I rich enough to afford a lawyer. I have been hoping to find a lawyer that is outraged enough by this statutorily illegal and unconstitutional TSA policy to take on the case for free.
If you are such a lawyer feel free to contact me on my blog. Just drop a comment. I know there are good TSA employees that want to have security the right way.
October 8, 2008 2:10 PM
With all respect (and I'd invite any TSA employee to respond here) ... couldn't you find something useful to do? Like maybe assist passengers in collecting all of their bags in the recomposure area? Or helping passengers lift their luggage onto the conveyor belts? Or anything that might help to improve the flow of people through the checkpoint?
Jim, I know you mean well, but as a frequent traveler I don't want TSA touching either me or my luggage. I will get my luggage and deal with it by myself.
October 8, 2008 2:36 PM
There is way too much a traveler has to be aware of to fly a plane in the United States.
October 8, 2008 3:25 PM
"The TSA never considers the international traveler."
Yes, I've noticed that. Quite painful for me to see people think that going through CBP is the end of it only to have stuff confiscated later by TSA because they're moving to another flight (and in the case of some flights at MCO, even leaving the airport).
October 8, 2008 6:58 PM
Ronnie, you should quit before you dig yourself any deeper.
And you should also know that as long as you enforce any unconstitutional law or enforce any illegal rule, that puts you in the wrong. As they told me in the military, "I was only following orders" is no defense when the order is unlawful.
Quit being a traitor. On the other hand, just quit.
October 8, 2008 7:07 PM
I have not read through all the posts to see if anyone else comments on this, but the following statement caught my attention:
1) You could be cited for interfering with the screening process by deliberately causing a distraction.
2) If there is a prohibited item concealed underneath the plate, you will be cited for artful concealment of a prohibited item.
This is the first time I have ever heard "cited" used for anything other than uttering a threat, or concealment of prohibited items.
How many different "things" can you be cited for? Is there a list? Can you be cited for being too slow? Can you be cited for being in the Black lane when you should be in the Green lane? (While slight hyperbole, is that too much of a stretch.)
Please enlighten use on the infractions that could result in a TSA citation, or refferal to a LEO.
Thanks,
Frank
October 8, 2008 7:26 PM
Sandra said...
What happened to the right of free speech?
On, I forgot, we don't have any constitutional rights at a checkpoint.
Somebody will challenge the TSA on this.
October 7, 2008 4:57 PM
Maybe you will do something about this sandra.
Fact of the matter is if i go to your place of work and I turn in some paper work with black marker scribled all over, will you be able to complete your job? Maybe if im screaming at you telling you whats written down while youre trying to figure out what your looking at that should help as well. FREEDOM OF SPEECH WOOT!!!
October 8, 2008 9:46 PM
Oh, my god....
...Just... wow.
If the EoS Blog had the use of smileys in it like you have on web forums, I'd totally put up the one with the little blue pacman head smashing his head into the wall over and over and over again.
Bob wrote:
Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches.
That seems to be the real major point of contention. Bob... could have seriously, seriously worded it a little less ominously, but he's technically accurate - in terms of some searches that the TSA does that can take, at the most, five seconds... something like this would certainly qualify as "not one of our quicker searches."
That said, it's still not this whole big hootenanny that people seem to be making it out to be.
The only reason it would take longer to do it is because we have no way of seeing what is even potentially inside the bag. It runs on the same principle of looking inside of a bag's pocket before sticking your hand in there. To just whip it open willy-nilly without even making a modicum of effort to determine that it won't blow up in your face would be stupid.
That said, it's still not something that would take a half-hour to do, or... really, even several minutes.
Everything Bob said was true. It's just not quite as terrible as his particular wording made it out to be.
It'd be like saying "If you take one step outside of that door, you just might regret it." Well, while technically true, it doesn't state that you might regret it in the fact that it's raining outside and you're now going to be wet - it doesn't mean that the speaker is going to shoot you for walking out the door.
Jim Huggins wrote:
Like maybe assist passengers in collecting all of their bags in the recomposure area? Or helping passengers lift their luggage onto the conveyor belts?
Oh, we do that already here in HSV. Usually only when someone actually physically needs some assistance, though. We often step out in front of the WTMD to help women with infants fold their strollers up and place it onto the x-ray belts for them, or carry someone's items for them to the recomposing table in the back of the checkpoint. Why, we even assist passengers with taking their shoes off, or putting them back on, or giving a hand to help someone through the WTMD after they just their cane through the x-ray, or giving an arm or shoulder to a blind person and help them with getting all of their items back, or...
Well. You get the idea. We also do a healthy bit of standing around and joking, too, just not when we have something more productive to do.
October 8, 2008 11:20 PM
Your response to this demonstrates the depth of your disconnect from travellers. Your post talks about nothing but how it will slow you down going through the "security" checkpoint, so you should think twice before sending the TSA a message this way. Do you honestly believe that people care so little about regaining the rights you have illegally deprived them of that they are unwilling to spend an extra hour or two at the airport making sure you get the message? The fact that you believe that people should care more about a few minutes of their time than their freedoms shows just how fundamentally disconnected you are.
October 8, 2008 11:50 PM
I'm not sure how every other airport is but my checkpoint is pretty small and laid back. With our sense of humor we'd get a kick out of it but it'd definitely slow things down as everyone would want a chance to look at it right before we pull it out of the x-ray for the bag check.
However, we get a lot of regulars that come through and they know the period when we are slow. At times like that we're always up for a good laugh.
October 9, 2008 12:08 AM
Wow you guys really aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box are you? Look at this from a security perspective for a minute. Someone has, and mind you intentionally, hidden the contents of there bag from security. Now I know that here in America we have the good fortune not to have to live with things like bombings at security checkpoints but that dose not mean that you should do something stupid, and yes it is incredibly stupid, like “just opening up the bag and taking it out”. I do not work in security but even I can see that opening a bag like this could be the last thing you do. I fly a lot and have heard the good old “you have been selected” more than once. My guess is that they use the same type machine to check for explosives before opening the bag as they use when I or anyone else gets selected for “additional security”. My suggestion if you really insist on spending your money on something like this is to take it out of your bag and put it through the x-ray separately, duh….
October 9, 2008 6:47 AM
"Do you honestly believe that people care so little about regaining the rights you have illegally deprived them of that they are unwilling to spend an extra hour or two at the airport making sure you get the message?"
Are you willing to face the arbitrary and capricious actions of DHS minions?
Will you be putting one of these 'freedom' plates in your bags?
October 9, 2008 9:20 AM
"Fact of the matter is if i go to your place of work and I turn in some paper work with black marker scribled all over, will you be able to complete your job? Maybe if im screaming at you telling you whats written down while youre trying to figure out what your looking at that should help as well. FREEDOM OF SPEECH WOOT!!!"
Of course. In that case I'd go over your paper with a marker eraser and then file it (before you scream at me that such a thing isn't possible for you people, it is- it's called "opening the bag, taking out the plate, and running it through the X-ray again"). Oh, and screaming gets you no brownie points with me but won't make me mess with said hypothetical paperwork (unlike your equivalent, the supposedly non-existent retaliatory secondary).
(-_-;;)p to TSOs like you and Ronnie; way to promote a positive image of the organization.
October 9, 2008 11:24 AM
"would you please share with us why you think your job is so stressful?
I really don't see it from the viewpoint of a traveler.
Your under no deadlines to produce a product. You are in control of screening process. You are under very little threat of anything bad happening. So wheres the stress?"
Are you kidding me?
One of my coworkers was actually knocked down by a passenger who decided they didn't want to be wanded afterall (halfway through the wanding). I personally have had things thrown at me. I have had people yell in my face- and I have never once raised my voice to a passenger. Infact, I am normally recogized by the fact that I am always smiling, friendly and courteous to all the passengers that come through our airport. We are working in an environment that is defined by stress. Flying is stressful on so many levels. We are faced with that stress day after day.
While I have a pretty joyful and positive outlook on life, it still gets to me from time to time.
October 9, 2008 12:34 PM
tso rachel said...
"would you please share with us why you think your job is so stressful?
I really don't see it from the viewpoint of a traveler.
Your under no deadlines to produce a product. You are in control of screening process. You are under very little threat of anything bad happening. So wheres the stress?"
Are you kidding me?
One of my coworkers was actually knocked down by a passenger who decided they didn't want to be wanded afterall (halfway through the wanding). I personally have had things thrown at me. I have had people yell in my face- and I have never once raised my voice to a passenger. Infact, I am normally recogized by the fact that I am always smiling, friendly and courteous to all the passengers that come through our airport. We are working in an environment that is defined by stress. Flying is stressful on so many levels. We are faced with that stress day after day.
While I have a pretty joyful and positive outlook on life, it still gets to me from time to time.
October 9, 2008 12:34 PM
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Could the tension at "your" checkpoint perhaps be brought about by the actions of the TSA employees?
Why would an innocent traveler have any reason to be disruptive unless antagonized by one of your fellow TSO's?
I suspect the stress at "your" checkpoint might be self inflicted. Remember a traveler just wants to make it to their plane with their dignity and belongings intact.
Stop blaming the travelers, look at the process you force us to endure and try to understand why most people have issues with TSA.
We don't control the checkpoint or the process, YOU DO!
FIX IT!!!
October 9, 2008 12:59 PM
Why do I so often see TSA employees at the security checkpoints joking and laughing with each other while just standing around? It's ridiculously common to see one person watching the screen, one person watching the metal detector, and 2-3 others kind of standing around talking and joking behind them. Not only does it decrease your credibility in my eyes through lack of professionalism, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Please comment.
__________________________________
Everyone holds a position at every lane. If there are 2 or 3 people who are standing behind the person doing the walk through metal detector it is because they are in the hand wanding and pat down position. We don't pat down everyone. And if there are people talking behind the xray operator that is the bag checker. And again, we don't check every bag.
Simple! Thanks for your concern!
October 9, 2008 3:25 PM
"Why would an innocent traveler have any reason to be disruptive unless antagonized by one of your fellow TSO's?
I suspect the stress at "your" checkpoint might be self inflicted. Remember a traveler just wants to make it to their plane with their dignity and belongings intact."
Are you kidding me? Claiming that all travelers have pure intent is just as ignorant as stating that all TSOs have pure intentions. There are faults on BOTH sides. I am well aware that there are TSOs out there on a power trip who do rediculous things, but I am not one of them. I would even be so bold as to say that my entire airport does a phenomenal job... we get positive feedback constantly. I am proud to work here at ORF.
October 9, 2008 3:39 PM
Since you admitted you won't do the quickest method of screening, that means a decision has been made by the TSA administrators that anyone guilty of having one of these plates must get one of the slower methods of screening.
How would you describe it other than "retaliatory screening"? I early await your spin on that.
But go ahead and ignore this post like you do all the rest of mine.
___________________________________
Obviously any passenger who has this in their bag realizes that it will be blocking site in the rest of the bag. There for I believe that the bag should be tested, looked through and re-ran. You inconvenience TSA, they inconvenienc you. Now keep crying poor me, poor passengers.
If you are intentionally doing something that you shouldn't, why should that be okay?
This is not retaliation.
Act like an adult, not a child, trying to get a reaction out of someone by being bad.
October 9, 2008 3:43 PM
Why would an innocent traveler have any reason to be disruptive unless antagonized by one of your fellow TSO's?
___________________________________
Yeah right!!!!!
"Innocent travelers" are unreasonalby disruptive everyday! TSO's are antagonized by the "innocent traveler" all day long.
Are you kidding me. I don't know how many times this can be brought up. Many of the passengers walk into the checkpoint trying to get the point accross that they hate TSA, by being rude and mean immediatly.
But then everyone crys about how TSA is not nice.
October 9, 2008 4:01 PM
Sandra said...
What happened to the right of free speech?
On, I forgot, we don't have any constitutional rights at a checkpoint.
Somebody will challenge the TSA on this.
___________________________________
What does free speech have to do with anything. If you want to put a big metal plate in your bag and say something, go for it! The issue is it will be blocking the sight of your bag.
So many posts on here are so uneducated.
October 9, 2008 4:27 PM
tso rachel said...
"Why would an innocent traveler have any reason to be disruptive unless antagonized by one of your fellow TSO's?
I suspect the stress at "your" checkpoint might be self inflicted. Remember a traveler just wants to make it to their plane with their dignity and belongings intact."
Are you kidding me? Claiming that all travelers have pure intent is just as ignorant as stating that all TSOs have pure intentions. There are faults on BOTH sides. I am well aware that there are TSOs out there on a power trip who do rediculous things, but I am not one of them. I would even be so bold as to say that my entire airport does a phenomenal job... we get positive feedback constantly. I am proud to work here at ORF.
October 9, 2008 3:39 PM
So, TSO Rachel, are you saying my comments are ignorant? Nice way to talk to a traveler!
While I never stated all travelers are innocent I do feel from observation that most travelers submit to the demands and humiliation dispensed by TSO's. Most times without complaint. However, when treated like this some will surely respond in a manner that you perceive as negative.
Let's remember it is TSA that has very poor acceptance by the public. Most would rather avoid you people and many have stopped flying to do so.
Again, your process is broken. You own the process.
It is your job to fix it!
October 9, 2008 5:00 PM
Quote from TSO Rachel: "I would even be so bold as to say that my entire airport does a phenomenal job... we get positive feedback constantly. I am proud to work here at ORF."
Is that because TSA ignores negative feedback or "filters" complaints?
Quote from Anonymous: "What does free speech have to do with anything. If you want to put a big metal plate in your bag and say something, go for it! The issue is it will be blocking the sight of your bag.
So many posts on here are so uneducated."
And this is a prime example of such an uneducated post. No one here has disagreed that putting a plate in a bag warrants a bag check. What people have taken issue with are the veiled threats of being cited and delayed unnecessarily, the guilt trips for "delaying" people or dumping the checkpoint, and the general over the top reaction.
Check the bag, remove the plate, swab it if necessary and rerun the bag. If it's clean, send them on their way. It doesn't have to be a big deal - only if TSA wants it to be.
Robert
October 9, 2008 5:08 PM
"So, TSO Rachel, are you saying my comments are ignorant? Nice way to talk to a traveler!"
Your comments are awfully transparent.
"While I never stated all travelers are innocent I do feel from observation that most travelers submit to the demands and humiliation dispensed by TSO's. Most times without complaint. However, when treated like this some will surely respond in a manner that you perceive as negative."
When treated like what? I treat every passenger coming through my checkpoint with respect and kindness. I respect the fact that each passenger has paid a lot of money to travel, and that a lot of times it can be for a negative situation (for example, when I flew across the country to my grandmother's funeral shortly after TSA was created). There are bad employees in EVERY workplace, and that includes TSA. I am simply stating that there are many other TSOs like me who truly do care about the traveling public, and we try our hardest to do our job while making it as painless and accomodating as possible- all while maintaining a safe and secure environment.
"Let's remember it is TSA that has very poor acceptance by the public. Most would rather avoid you people and many have stopped flying to do so."
I undertand that. That is why I try to be as friendly and accomadating as my position allows me to be.
"Again, your process is broken. You own the process.
It is your job to fix it!"
I don't own anything. I am a TSO, at the bottom of the totem pole here. I do what I can, which as I have stated several times now, is to be kind and accomodating to the best of my abilities. That is obviously not good enough for you, but it is the best I can offer.
October 9, 2008 5:15 PM
"Quote from TSO Rachel: "I would even be so bold as to say that my entire airport does a phenomenal job... we get positive feedback constantly. I am proud to work here at ORF."
Robert Johnson said:"Is that because TSA ignores negative feedback or "filters" complaints?"
Actually, we get feedback on a local level. We have a form that has every single customer comment listed- even the negative ones. I am proud to say that the negative ones are few and far between, while we recieve positive feedback at least once a week.
October 9, 2008 5:19 PM
"Again, your process is broken. You own the process.
It is your job to fix it!"
I don't own anything. I am a TSO, at the bottom of the totem pole here. I do what I can, which as I have stated several times now, is to be kind and accomodating to the best of my abilities. That is obviously not good enough for you, but it is the best I can offer.
October 9, 2008 5:15 PM
Rachel, you may not be in the upper chain of command but you are still part of the system. You have your "Idea Factory" to make suggestions, you have supervisors to make suggestions and I am sure there are other ways. Regardless, you are part of the system, it is your system (TSA's) and it is up to TSA to fix the problems.
If you guys can't fix it who can?
October 9, 2008 5:47 PM
tso rachel said...
"So, TSO Rachel, are you saying my comments are ignorant? Nice way to talk to a traveler!"
Your comments are awfully transparent.
"While I never stated all travelers are innocent I do feel from observation that most travelers submit to the demands and humiliation dispensed by TSO's. Most times without complaint. However, when treated like this some will surely respond in a manner that you perceive as negative."
When treated like what? I treat every passenger coming through my checkpoint with respect and kindness. I respect the fact that each passenger has paid a lot of money to travel, and that a lot of times it can be for a negative situation (for example, when I flew across the country to my grandmother's funeral shortly after TSA was created). There are bad employees in EVERY workplace, and that includes TSA. I am simply stating that there are many other TSOs like me who truly do care about the traveling public, and we try our hardest to do our job while making it as painless and accomodating as possible- all while maintaining a safe and secure environment.
...................................
When treated like what?
"the demands and humiliation dispensed by TSO's. "
I treat every passenger coming through my checkpoint with respect and kindness.
"One rotten apple spoils the barrel"
Sorry, thats how it is and I, the traveler, cannot fix TSA.
October 9, 2008 5:56 PM
As quoted:
"Patrick (BOS TSO) said...
Because our job is kinda boring. There's nothing to do really until we get bag check aside from picking up bins, besides, we're trying to keep ourselves happy in the face of overwhelming stressful
days.
//////////////////////////////////
Patrick would you please share with us why you think your job is so stressful?
I really don't see it from the viewpoint of a traveler.
Your under no deadlines to produce a product. You are in control of screening process. You are under very little threat of anything bad happening. So wheres the stress?"
Uh, the stress is because unlike some of our passengers, we actually remember 9/11 and the majority of us realize that we are the one who could be responsible for preventing another one.... or not.
We are the ones who ARE REQUIRED to open a bag even after one of our machines has alarmed for an explosive - is there a real one in the bag or not? If I open it, will it explode and kill me and everyone around me?
We had a screener quit after a few days on the job when he was told that he had to go into a bag that just alarmed for explosive residue.
We have Police Bomb Squad members tell us all the time that we are insane to search a bag that we suspect (based on the ETD alarm) contains an explosive device. With bare hands. With no personal protection of any sort. Because we are "playing the odds" that the threat is not real.
We are the ones who could potentially miss an item on x-ray and have an entire plane EXPLODE IN MID AIR!!
We are the ones who have to search a bag for a perhaps explosive device while at the same time having a passenger jabber at us about being late for their flight while at the same time trying to decide if the passenger is just trying to distract us from finding a real explosive in their bag while hoping that there is nothing in the bag that will stick us or make us sick.
I treat every single bag I search as though it contained a real threat. I look at every image I see on x-ray as though there was an real IED hidden in the bag. I search trying to find these items but hoping I won't.
I search evry bag, look at every image, wand every passenger as though my wife & kids will be on that plane.
Oh, incidently, I was scheduled for a retail job interview with someone who was on the PA flight. I didn't even know it until the company called me several days after 9/11 to reschedule the interview. I worked for that company for about a year before quitting to join TSA.
In my mind at all times is the thought "Not on my watch...."
Think you could face those issues evry day and not be stressed?
I am a Transportation Security Officer. I am proud of my title.
October 9, 2008 6:01 PM
TSO Rachel
I don't own anything. I am a TSO, at the bottom of the totem pole here. I do what I can, which as I have stated several times now, is to be kind and accomodating to the best of my abilities. That is obviously not good enough for you, but it is the best I can offer.
Actually there is more you can do.
The TSA would be impotent without TSOs enforcing senseless rules. The TSA would be impotent without TSOs enforcing illegal rules.
The TSA would be impotent woutht TSOs enforcing unconstitutional rules.
As I learned in the military, "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.
When you encounter a rule that you know is wrong, don't use the Nuremberg defense. Which do you think is the greater authority, Kip Hawley or the Constitution?
October 9, 2008 6:53 PM
Hahahahahahahahahaha! This was HILARIOUS with a capital H! I hope I see one of these when I'm flying.
October 9, 2008 6:56 PM
All of you TSO's that are responding, STOP. Its not worth it. These people are totally ignorant to TSA's mission. Its not worth getting worked up and responding to their worthless comments. Most of their comments do not even make sense. You know that and I know that.
I used to read these and get mad about them. Its the same 10 people that post ALL of these comments. They are sad and have nothing better to do.
There is hardly ever an intelligent post on here with anything backing it up.
October 9, 2008 8:26 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Bob Said
Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches.
That seems to be the real major point of contention. Bob... could have seriously, seriously worded it a little less ominously,
That said, it's still not this whole big hootenanny that people seem to be making it out to be.
That said, it's still not something that would take a half-hour to do, or... really, even several minutes.
Everything Bob said was true. It's just not quite as terrible as his particular wording made it out to be.
----------
I think Dean needs to writing these posts, not Bob. This only became a hootenanny because Bob made it into one. Lets face Bob made the use of one of these plates sound like we were all in big trouble. There are better ways to say it.
Bob you may also want to take an art history class. Not only can art entertain and amuse it can also question and challenge beliefs.
October 9, 2008 10:19 PM
OK. Would you spray paint; 'I AM DRUNK AND HATE COPS!" on the back of your car before a road trip? Why not? It would attract unwanted attention from every police car you drove by? But you do have the freedom to do this if you want to. I am sorry that the TSA is still full of unqualifed jerks, but their numbers should be falling. The constitutional complaints are valid, BUT the TSO checking your bag DIDN'T write the procedure. He has to follow the rules or lose his job. Please don't waste your time complaining to people who can't do anything about it. Write to your REP's in Washington! The fact that this idot's "art" project is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, and partly by New York city. Maybe somebody (BOB?), should look into the leagle ramifications. The fact that you have something "sheilding" in your bag means we HAVE to check it. We know YOU have nothing dangerous, but how about the PAX in front of you? Ask yourself, seriously, do you want to be the one to let on the next highjacker,physco,nutjob with something to prove on a aircraft filled with people? This is the idea most of our good people have on their minds everyday as they are checking bags and being complained at by passengers. Yeah it's real, what are you going to say if another plane doesn't make it home? Why didn't the TSA search better? I am not here to have fun. I also hate the TSO's that don't do their job and make us all look bad. Please when you see this get comment card, or just note time, gate and terminal and report it on TSA site. You don't have to get names, we will know who was working when. Help us get rid of the jerks. Use this site to make a good difference. Things have already changed because of this site. Oh, and please rember even if you think we are all idots, we are still FEDERAL officers and offences are prosecuted at that level, so please think before you escalate something small into a life changer. The TSO does police it's self and has fired and prosecuted TSO's that broke the law. Again, I'm sorry for the 21'st century being so screwed up by security, but please believe the majority of us think we are trying to keep you flying safe. TSO Broke
October 9, 2008 11:34 PM
Rachel, We should take heart that the 'anonymous' here does not represent the bulk of the traveling public. I have seen one or two posts from people who seem to be ok with us but they are in the minority. (I wish some of the people we see every day who smile and thank us for helping them and make us feel like human beings would find this web site and post more comments). Like in any other encounter in life, if it is a good one, you don't say anything (or very little) If you have a negative experience, well, you are likely to go on and on and on and on about it. Lets face it, these people just want to gripe. Nothing we do will ever be good enough or make them happy.
Keep up the good work TSO's!
Ronnie
October 10, 2008 8:19 AM
I wonder if situations like this one have lead to some of the "no fly list" and "selectee list" entries we hear about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10fri3.html?th&emc=th
October 10, 2008 9:05 AM
Olivia pointed out:
"One time I was leaving denver and had my bag purse searched because I had forgotten I had bought two of those little souvenier pocket knifes with my kids name written on them. They were in a paper bag all the way at the bottom and I just plain forgot them. The nice lady who checked my bag explained they could not go past the chek point and showed me to the handy mailer to send them to myself. No big deal."
That's an interesting contrast to our treatment in Flint, MI over a tube of lipstick that wasn't in my girlfriend's ziploc. Instead of dealing with this with courtesy and professionalism, the screener engaged in a lot of unnecessary yelling.
If the screener had just shown a modicum of ordinary civility, we'd both have a different opinion of the experience. (I've described that experience in prior anonymous posts, and can repost if desired.)
October 10, 2008 9:28 AM
Dear stressed TSO,
I would like to point out that zero TSOs have died to date as a result of handing potentially deadly luggage. Fact is, you are in much more danger of dieing (or killing someone) driving on your way to and from your job than you are while at work.
October 10, 2008 9:57 AM
First Thanks Olivia! Nice to see someone appreciates the work we do!
Now - Anonymous said = "No, ronnie, you weren't paying attention. Those 4-of-5 options DIDN'T allow me to keep my property. They took property from me by requiring me to, for example, pay more money by giving my carry-on bag up to the airline as checked luggage, requiring me to drive to the airport and pay for parking, requiring me to bring an additional person (time and expense) with me to wait to see if I get through security, forcing me to pay for postage and packing.
All of those options place a financial burden on me, hence robbing me of property. And, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, I gain nothing from that financial burden--no additional safety or security is had, because your policies have been proven to be both pointless and unconstitutional.
Why can't you see that you're part of the problem? You are working for an organization that is accomplishing the terrorists' goals (spreading fear and discontent) for them. Your fascination with shoes and wet things does zero to enhance security, while serving only to keep the populace cowed through fear.
What you're doing is, quite simply, un-American,"
Uhh, just an observation here, 4 out of 5 options DO allow you to keep your property, the fifth allows you to VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER the property. If your specific situation dictates that 4 of 5 are not an option you wish to use, then that is up to you. Just because we don't give you the option to leave it and pick it up on the way back in, or just let you go through because you are "special", or give you an envelope and stamp to send it back to your house does not mean that we are retaliating or trying to keep the "public cowed in fear". We do not have the resources or time to inventory your items for you and store them until you come back. We don't have the resources to give you the envelope (and frankly, I wouldn't offer that to the public anyway because tons of people would abuse the system). YOU choose what happens when you bring a prohibited item into the checkpoint (except for the BAD items like guns and weapons, explosives, etc - we have detailed procedures to follow in those situations), just because YOU DON'T LIKE the procedures doesn't mean we are depriving you of your rights. you are given options and you make a choice. this is not depriving you of your rights, this is enforcing the SOP placed by DHS/TSA HQ. The fascination with shoes is VIABLE, I know, I have seen what explosives can do first hand. The liquids ban is VIABLE, I have seen what liquid explosives can do first hand. Anyone that argues to the contrary is not realistic. I could give you several reasosns for the bans being in place, but I would not want to be responsible for some stupid teenager trying to smuggle something in that they wouldn't normally think of. I guess this was just a really long way to say you are wrong.
October 10, 2008 10:10 AM
All of you TSO's that are responding, STOP. Its not worth it. These people are totally ignorant to TSA's mission.
TSA's mission (at least before the mission creep) was to keep weapons, explosives and incendiaries off of passenger aircraft. TSA routinely fails red tests (50% detection rate is a failure)so TSA is a failure. To make up for TSA being a failure it has engaged in mission creep (taking on more responsibility while still failing on its primary mission.
Its not worth getting worked up and responding to their worthless comments. Most of their comments do not even make sense. You know that and I know that.
Worthless comments? TSA baggage thievery, war on liquids and shoes, satellite surveillance systems launched and operational (military grade), mission creep into private aircraft over 12,000 lbs, quasi-legal searches outside of the secure area using mm-wave detectors capable of 1-2 mm resolution and you wonder why we distrust you?
I used to read these and get mad about them. Its the same 10 people that post ALL of these comments.
Yep, and the same people post the same stuff saying that TSA is the best thing since sliced bread and that all air travel would cease to exist if TSA behaved differently than it does today.
They are sad and have nothing better to do.
There is hardly ever an intelligent post on here with anything backing it up.
What difference does it make to you how I spend my spare time?
October 10, 2008 10:11 AM
Anonymous said = "I would like someone to respond to this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/07/terrorism"
Amazingly enough, that link is "not found". guess they took it down, care to elaborate on what was contained in that post?
October 10, 2008 10:15 AM
Uh, the stress is because unlike some of our passengers, we actually remember 9/11 and the majority of us realize that we are the one who could be responsible for preventing another one.... or not.
With your 50% detection rate I doubt you could prevent another 9/11. Poor security practices had little to do with 9/11. Poor airline SOPs for dealing with terrorists had much to do with 9/11. The airlines corrected their SOPs and that won't happen again.
We are the ones who ARE REQUIRED to open a bag even after one of our machines has alarmed for an explosive - is there a real one in the bag or not? If I open it, will it explode and kill me and everyone around me?
Sort of like when one of your coworkers told my son he couldn't fly that day since TSA detected explosive residue on his equipment. He was in full military uniform and traveling under orders and you were going to keep him from flying. A supervisor with some common sense waved him through.
We had a screener quit after a few days on the job when he was told that he had to go into a bag that just alarmed for explosive residue.
His decision
October 10, 2008 10:20 AM
Anon said = "Ronnie, go away for a bit. Stop posting because your coworkers know you and laugh at you behind your back. Get some experience then come back in six months."
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Anon, come on! How sad an existence you must live, one of the first signs that you are not a compelling point maker is to resort to personal attacks... Sad, sad, sad.
Ronnie, I have your back, there is a degree of personal responsibility for the passengers. If you pay attention, the vast majority of passengers come in and follow the rules, and go on to their plane in relative anonymity.
Then there are the infrequent fliers that don't know the rules that well and they have some items not allowed, but for the most part they come in we discuss their options and off they go a little wiser to the system.
Then you have the people like Anon here, they are unhappy people that are upset because they have to follow someone elses rules and undergo screening. As you can see, lots of times they resort to personal attacks because they WON'T accept that they have some personal responsibility for the travel process.
October 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Quote from TSO Rachel: "Actually, we get feedback on a local level. We have a form that has every single customer comment listed- even the negative ones. I am proud to say that the negative ones are few and far between, while we recieve positive feedback at least once a week."
A few things to consider.
1. Not all complaints come thru local feedback.
2. How many people were intimidated to prevent them filing a complaint? (i.e. Let me see your ID, etc).
3. How many complaint forms were provided when people said they wanted to file a compliment? Sadly, complaint forms have a habit of not being available which is why I always bring my own.
I don't doubt that some airports are better than others. I've generally had much more positive experiences at SLC than I have had elsewhere (sorry, never been to ORF). However, I remember reading a news article a couple years ago where DEN was claiming to only have received 12 complaints the whole year when I knew people who combined filed that many in one month.
So while it sounds like you work at one of the better stations, at the same time, I have to be skeptical of the amount of actual complaints received based on personal experience and those of friends.
Robert
October 10, 2008 11:28 AM
"All of you TSO's that are responding, STOP. Its not worth it. These people are totally ignorant to TSA's mission. Its not worth getting worked up and responding to their worthless comments. Most of their comments do not even make sense. You know that and I know that."
If TSA's mission is security, then it needs to start accomplishing its mission. All I see is mission creep in the form of checking ID's, immigration status, busting people for drugs, etc.
TSA has a dismal failure rate at detecting real threats.
And considering some of the TSO's posts on here, they definitely don't help the cause. In fact, a lot of it proves what people are saying on here.
There are some TSO's that are respected here and on FlyerTalk (Dean being one of them) if many don't agree with what they said. A lot of TSOs could learn from him.
"I used to read these and get mad about them. Its the same 10 people that post ALL of these comments. They are sad and have nothing better to do."
Prove it. Considering many people post anonymously on here, can you prove definitively that they're all the same? You can generally tell who the regulars are ... I see a lot of new anonymous posts.
I think it's sad that you think it's sad that people are actually demanding real security and trying to get you guys to do your jobs right.
What is better than trying to stand up for rights that TSA tramples on?
"There is hardly ever an intelligent post on here with anything backing it up."
Like the one you just posted? Hello, pot, meet the kettle.
Seriously, I have seen a LOT of intelligent posts on here, many of which with stuff to back them up. Most of the stuff I see coming from TSOs have nothing to back them up save their word only. While I don't necessarily think that they're lying, they often fall victim to the mentality that because things are a certain way at their airport that things can't and don't happen another way at another airport.
I appreciate real security. I appreciate no harassment in the process. I largely don't appreciate what TSA has done to this country.
October 10, 2008 11:43 AM
"Rachel, you may not be in the upper chain of command but you are still part of the system. You have your "Idea Factory" to make suggestions, you have supervisors to make suggestions and I am sure there are other ways. Regardless, you are part of the system, it is your system (TSA's) and it is up to TSA to fix the problems.
If you guys can't fix it who can?"
Oh trust me, I use the IdeaFactory as often as I can. :) I was even fortunate enough to be selected as a representative from my airport for a conference call with Mo McGowan (he does them once a month with TSOs around the country). I voice my opinion every time that I can. I am quite vocal, I assure you! But one lowly TSO can only do so much...
I put most of my effort in making sure I do my job effectively, while also being courteous to others. I have been told on this blog several times that one apple spoils the bunch for everyone- but if all the good apples gave up and left... well, then where would you be? wouldn't you rather I say in TSa and try to go above and beyond in the small way that I can?
If I didn't care about the passengers, I sure wouldn't be on this blog.
October 10, 2008 12:17 PM
"Yeah right!!!!!
"Innocent travelers" are unreasonalby disruptive everyday! TSO's are antagonized by the "innocent traveler" all day long.
Are you kidding me. I don't know how many times this can be brought up. Many of the passengers walk into the checkpoint trying to get the point accross that they hate TSA, by being rude and mean immediatly."
Unfortunately, their assumption is quite justified if your internet postings are anything to go by.
"But then everyone crys about how TSA is not nice."
Maybe because we have legitimate complaints? Maybe because we've been elsewhere and know that airport security should be better than this? I've been through many Asian airports and always found security to be helpful, professional, efficient, and *reasonable*. The only airport in the US where I've found 3 out of the 4 (though the loss of the fourth point is through no fault of the airport itself; the shoe and liquid carnival are certainly not there due to local rules) is Ithaca, NY. If there is one airport that should be held up as a model for the rest of the country this is it. They go above and beyond to be helpful. I have found none of those going through large US hub airports like ORD or DTW (again, I'd still have a DS Lite if screening procedures actually provided for protection of a passenger's belongings during screening)
October 10, 2008 12:34 PM
anonymous wrote:
The constitutional complaints are valid, BUT the TSO checking your bag DIDN'T write the procedure. He has to follow the rules or lose his job.
As they told me in the military, "I was only following orders" is not a valid defense. There is no excuse for those who enforce illegal rules or unconstitutional laws.
Please don't waste your time complaining to people who can't do anything about it.
They can do something about it - they are the ones enforcing the unconstitutional rules, and they can stop doing so. Saying an order is unlawful is a valid defense.
Oh, and please rember even if you think we are all idots, we are still FEDERAL officers and offences are prosecuted at that level, so please think before you escalate something small into a life changer.
So what do you recommend if some TSO decides that a perfectly legal item (such as a sterile feeding tube) cannot pass through security without being opened or a perfectly legal item (such as a gel pack for breast milk) cannot pass through security at all? You call it escalation of we say "Hey, that item is legal so you cannot prohibit it!" How are we supposed to stand up for our rights since you consider that to be escalation?
October 10, 2008 1:22 PM
"but if all the good apples gave up and left... well, then where would you be?"
If all the good and bad apples up and left I think we would be in a better position.
Aviation security would be just as good without you and with!
October 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Then you have the people like Anon here, they are unhappy people that are upset because they have to follow someone elses rules and undergo screening. As you can see, lots of times they resort to personal attacks because they WON'T accept that they have some personal responsibility for the travel process.
I comply with the rules and regulations at a checkpoint. I give TSOs no grief at a checkpoint. I don't want a ticket written out for interfering with a checkpoint. I complain here instead. I am responsible for my own behavior. TSA on the other hand answers to no one and is an out of control organization.
October 10, 2008 2:17 PM
I have seen a few posts complaining about Blogger Bob's choice of words.
I say God bless him.
Apparently it takes an "overt threat" to your First Amendment rights to get you guys fired up.
It makes me wonder if you guys are willing to argue this one because you think you can win it easily?
What about fighting for the destruction of your other Constitutional rights by the TSA?
What about fighting to eliminate gaping holes in security like the no screen policy for pilots and TSOs?
Is the ability to send snarky messages to TSOs enough?
We sit here and yell at Blogger Bob for informing us that we might be fined for interfering with the screening process but we are unwilling to be fined and fight it.
Face it most of the people here would not dare to put one of these in their bag. Heck most of you are unwilling to simply wear a shirt that expresses your feeling about the TSA.
Do something real, refuse to comply with the illegal forced ID verification, refuse to allow your carry-on out of your site, demand supervisors when wronged, file complaints at the local and national level, contact your representatives, and file law suits.
Put something on the line besides your words.
October 10, 2008 3:14 PM
Quote from Trollkiller: "Face it most of the people here would not dare to put one of these in their bag. Heck most of you are unwilling to simply wear a shirt that expresses your feeling about the TSA."
Troll, I have a "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" t-shirt I've been wearing every time I travel domestically since 2006.
I like what you say most of the time, but at the same time, you have no idea what folks are doing offline so I'd be careful not to slam based on that.
Robert
October 10, 2008 3:34 PM
"So what do you recommend if some TSO decides that a perfectly legal item (such as a sterile feeding tube) cannot pass through security without being opened or a perfectly legal item (such as a gel pack for breast milk) cannot pass through security at all? You call it escalation of we say "Hey, that item is legal so you cannot prohibit it!" How are we supposed to stand up for our rights since you consider that to be escalation?"
Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something... don't just complain on a blog.
October 10, 2008 4:47 PM
I'm replying to this blog entry more so that I can follow new additions to the comments than for any other reason - is there some way we can set a bit to get new comments without posting? Why not?
Anyway, I wouldn't put one of these panels in my carry-on, but I can appreciate the dry humor they represent. :o)
I suppose if I carried my old lead-lined camera case (used to use it to protect film from some of the lousy overseas x-ray machines) I'd be hassled because one of it's compartments was blocked from viewing by x-ray...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 10, 2008 5:20 PM
I would love to wear a "Kip Hawley is an idiot" T-shirt or something of the sort, but I seriously think it would put me in physical risk. I am already for reasons unknown on the SSSStupid list. I can see being locked up with no questions asked.
October 10, 2008 6:05 PM
@Rachel:
for god's sakes, Rachel, take some personal responsibility. I've worked more than once in disfunctional organisations that didn't treat customers the way I thought they should. I never passed up an opportunity to rattle the cages of those responsible in every meeting and at every possible opportunity. I more than once showed up in the CEO's office, told his PA to sit down and shut up when she tried to block my way, walked in and let him know why he was a failure. I never allowed anyone to tell me I was a nobody with no power -- I have always refused to accept incompetence and indifference and that's why I am no longer am at "the bottom of the totem pole". You don't get more say because you move up, you move up because you are someone who insists on having their say.
Bottom line -- if you care as much as you claim, refuse, resist, and envision victory. If you cannot, then get the **** out of the way.
Glory, glory, hallelujah, the truth is marching on!
October 10, 2008 6:15 PM
Quote from TSO Rachel: Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something... don't just complain on a blog."
That's the problem, Rachel. People do try to do something about it ... TSA largely doesn't care. Call a supervisor? Most of the time, they back the screener blindly. File a complaint? If it's even acknowledged, you get a boiler plate response. File a claim for something that's stolen or damaged? TSA usually denies the claim. Sue TSA? As a part of the government, TSA enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning it can only be sued if it consents to be sued.
See where I'm going with this? There isn't a whole that can be done. Congress largely doesn't care ... they're too chicken to take on TSA lest they look soft on terror.
Quote from Anonymous: I would love to wear a "Kip Hawley is an idiot" T-shirt or something of the sort, but I seriously think it would put me in physical risk. I am already for reasons unknown on the SSSStupid list. I can see being locked up with no questions asked.
I can say in 2 years of wearing it that I've never been SSSSed because of it. Most times the TSO's laugh about it. One 3 striper at IAD laughed so hard he asked to take a picture of it on his cell phone. You'd be surprised how many TSO's seem to agree. I've talked to a lot of people - crew, passengers, and TSO's - about it. Many ask who Kippie is. Many crew tell me they agree, etc.
Nothing to fear over it as long as you're not obnoxious about it. It doesn't "interfere" with screening.
I wouldn't recommend buying one right now simply because Kippie should be out of a job soon, but I'm sure one will pop up for his successor.
Robert
October 11, 2008 7:59 AM
Rachel:
Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something... don't just complain on a blog.
Rachel, perhaps they want to fly today. Perhaps they don't want to have a ticket written up for interfering with the inspection process. Perhaps they don't have the money to take TSA/DHS to court. Instead they fight back by telling the truth and showing the world just what a mismanaged organization TSA really is. You fight back anyway you can.
TSA/DHS management has to fix the root problems. Until then you're going to deal with upset passengers who distrust anyone wearing the TSA uniform.
October 11, 2008 9:47 AM
tso rachel wrote:
Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something... don't just complain on a blog.
That certainly helps at the time. My question isn't what to do later, my question is what to do at the time. Yes, people can meekly submit at the time, lose valuable legal items, and then later sue after the damage has been done. But any "hey that item is legal" is considered escalation. So what do you recommend people do at that time?
October 11, 2008 11:43 AM
Ayn R. Key said
TSO Rachel
I don't own anything. I am a TSO, at the bottom of the totem pole here. I do what I can, which as I have stated several times now, is to be kind and accomodating to the best of my abilities. That is obviously not good enough for you, but it is the best I can offer.
Actually there is more you can do.
The TSA would be impotent without TSOs enforcing senseless rules. The TSA would be impotent without TSOs enforcing illegal rules.
The TSA would be impotent woutht TSOs enforcing unconstitutional rules.
As I learned in the military, "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.
When you encounter a rule that you know is wrong, don't use the Nuremberg defense. Which do you think is the greater authority, Kip Hawley or the Constitution?
I was in the military also and heard the same. And I agree with you, if something is illeagle you don't have to follow it. But as much as I listen to all of the complaints about violating rights and illeagle rules, not one time has anyone proved that any court in this nation has heard the arguments and told TSA that they were doing things against the law. So until that happens myself and every TSO will follow the policies set down by our government. I seen someane write that TSO's were un-american for doing their jobs. It's unamerican to ignore your governments policies with out cause. If you all feel this is unconstitutional then get together and file a class action law suit. If the courts decide that you're right then I and the rest of TSA could say it's against the law and we won't do it. You all have political representatives, use them. But remember that most of TSA's rules are given to them by those same representatives. The lighter ban for example. Good luck and I await the results of the law suit.
October 11, 2008 12:58 PM
I agree with HSVTSO Dean that perhaps Blogger Bob's choice of words could be interpreted as a little more threatening then he likely intended. And as HSVTSO Dean explained, by using a steel plate that obscures portions of your bag, the type of search called for by SOP (without being specific) is more detailed than, for example, an item that is readily identified and unobscured. There is a specific procedure in place for opaque items and yes, it is more than just removing the culprit item and re-running the bag. This is why it is, as Bob said, "not one of our quicker searches". As far as the message on the plate being intepreted as a threat, something like "Nothing to see here" or "Kip Hawley is an idiot" might provoke a groan, or even a chuckle from the officer but it is not a threat. But something like, "Bomb in bag" could be interpreted as a threat and that's why you would want to be selective on the phrase you choose for the steel plate.
As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with having the steel plate in your bag as long as your prepared to go through the search process as a result of obscuring the remaining contents of your bag just like someone with a jumble of electronics might. But my advice would be to run the plate through in a separate bin - you still get your point across without delaying yourself or an officer whose time should be spent focusing on actual threats.
October 11, 2008 2:03 PM
If I have my bag separated from another bin that has a sign that said, "Eat my shorts, TSA!" will I be subject to secondary searches or a bag search?
No, but I may have to eat your shorts. Hopefully they are clean.
;) TSO-Joe
October 11, 2008 2:05 PM
Anon said:
I comply with the rules and regulations at a checkpoint. I give TSOs no grief at a checkpoint. I don't want a ticket written out for interfering with a checkpoint. I complain here instead. I am responsible for my own behavior. TSA on the other hand answers to no one and is an out of control organization.
October 10, 2008 2:17 PM
I'm glad you stated that you avoid confrontation at the checkpoint, but do you realize how many passengers DON'T wait until blogging time to complain? These are the passengers we deal with when we say we get yelled at simply b/c we are TSA. People get irate b/c they have to follow rules made by somebody else. Yeeeessss, it sucks but unfortunately, "post 9/11 America" is not in the best shape so things are not going to be peachy.
So since these rules are in place, and you know this before you hit security, why make things worse for you or anyone else? Are you just that hungry for conflict?
October 11, 2008 3:28 PM
"We do not have the resources or time to inventory your items for you and store them until you come back. We don't have the resources to give you the envelope (and frankly, I wouldn't offer that to the public anyway because tons of people would abuse the system)."
Or, for those who already have checked baggage (take Southwest, people, they still do free checked bags- or be related to an elite frequent flyer on one of the legacies like I am) you could do like the TSOs at ITH did when I was there and go to the baggage handling area, get my checked bag (you would know which it is, after all, seeing my stuff), put it in, and put it all back nicely for the upcoming flight.
As an aside, ITH is the only airport where I've had a positive TSA experience- this one.
October 12, 2008 8:46 AM
"We do not have the resources or time to inventory your items for you and store them until you come back. We don't have the resources to give you the envelope (and frankly, I wouldn't offer that to the public anyway because tons of people would abuse the system)."
Or for those with bags already checked (it's nice being related to an airline elite- for everyone else there's Southwest that still has the 2 bags free) you could do like the TSOs at ITH did for me and go the baggage area, get my bag, put the item in, and put it all back nicely. That's the only good TSA experience I've had in the 7 years since its formation, and I appreciate them for it.
October 12, 2008 8:51 AM
it's interesting to see how travelling the u.s. has changed in recent years. i dont know about the numbers, have they too?
.~.
October 12, 2008 1:49 PM
TSA has and will continue to do a lot of stupid things that will give them bad press. This is NOT one of them. I'm amused reading the rambling postings here about freed speech rights. For one that freedom was never completely absolute. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre was never protected, neither is making a threat to kill someone. There are laws about inciting violence with words that have gotten people in legal trouble since the beginning of our contry. I've seen a number of posts on here in the past that indicate people really had no idea for years before 9/11 you couldn't even joke about having a bomb or hijacking a flight. They seem to think this is a new infringement from TSA. Now this metal plate business might obviously isn't as serious as some of the jokes above but if I were a TSO I'd definately give the bag a detailed search. Is it because I personally couldn't take a joke or would retalite? No, not at all. It's because someone deliberately tried to hide items from inspection. Odds are low they're trying to hide something sinister but the fact remains they hid items from inspection. That is a huge red flag and you guys are naive to think this is all personal TSO vendetta. I've put bags through at airport checkpoints I was convinced would require hand searches and had them passed without comment. My last flight I had my late fathers coin collection in my carry on for example. I was convinced all those coins were going to add up to one pretty large metal shape but out it came at the other side without comment. Maybe they really did look ok but then again maybe they were busy and I seemed innocent enough. If I did something like that with that same bag suddenly I'm not all that sweet and innocent. Everything will be checked in detail because I deliberately tried to hide something. Simply removing the plate and passing the bag through again may seem to you guys like the proper response but some small mystery shapes that might have seemed innocent before are going to warrant much closer inspection now. The plate clearly isn't going to fool anyone and that's not really its intent. I get that and I'd probably laugh if I were a TSO who saw that. Shame on you for holding everyone else up though. Shame on me if I don't look closer to make sure it was only a joke.
October 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Whats with the nice blue shirts and BADGES? TSA Officers have no statutory authority to detain or arrest and do not carry guns. What a waste tax dollars on Badges? A little known fact that the Bureau of Prisons has approx. 30,000 Federal Law Enforcement Officers who have statutory arrest and detention authority and can carry weapons on duty (if issued) and off duty. They have not issued any of the 30,000 badges. Save our tax dollars next time.
October 12, 2008 10:12 PM
Robert Johnson said...
Troll, I have a "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" t-shirt I've been wearing every time I travel domestically since 2006.
I like what you say most of the time, but at the same time, you have no idea what folks are doing offline so I'd be careful not to slam based on that.
Robert
How often do you see others wearing a KHIAI shirt? Do you still get funny looks when you wear the shirt?
If there is a slam in what I wrote it is the slam of people complaining here but not anywhere else.
If enough people complain then things will change but we have to complain in the right places. This blog is a great place to start but then we have to complain to our representatives, we have to complain at the airport level, we have to complain at the district level and in the courts.
If people are doing things besides complain on this blog they need to share and encourage others to do the same.
October 13, 2008 9:19 AM
TSO Rachel said: "Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something... don't just complain on a blog."
Nothing is AGAINST TSA rules. Along with being irrational, the TSA rules are secret, mutable, situational, and as some TSOs are proud to say, the constitution does not apply. I guess you are advising that next time someone takes a bottle of "liquids, including water" to help with "Xerostomia" to do a little sit-in protest until some who likes doing body cavity searches hauls them off.
I did talk with the supervisor at the time he took my gel-pack, and later when I re-read the website, I filed a complaint with you "Got Feedback" placebo. What would you have me do? Sue TSA for my erroneous "voluntary" surrendering a $2 gel-pack?
The main problem with TSA is an impossible mission and the inept management that inevitably follows from an impossible mission. About that, I am doing what I can.
As for posting on this blog, I think the story of my experience in trying to follow "the rules" fits in anywhere a TSO spouts off about how the rules are just common sense and simple it is to follow the rules.
So, can I keep my water bottle to aid with dry-mouth? Or do you think I should sue?
October 13, 2008 1:45 PM
Happy Tuesday! After the long weekend I have a bunch of blog comments to moderate. I’m going to get cracking in a few minutes.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 14, 2008 11:27 AM
"That certainly helps at the time. My question isn't what to do later, my question is what to do at the time. Yes, people can meekly submit at the time, lose valuable legal items, and then later sue after the damage has been done. But any "hey that item is legal" is considered escalation. So what do you recommend people do at that time?"
Ask for a supervisor. If the supervisor is giving you the same trouble, record the supervisor's badge number and name (his/her last name will be on the silver nameplate on their right side, and their badge number is written on the bottom of their metal badge on the left side). Then report them.
I understand that it is hard to do anything at the moment when you are dealing with difficult people. I also understand that reporting them doesn't solve your immediate problem. I completely agree that there are TSOs and STSOs out there that abuse the system- but the only way to get rid of those people is to specifically pin them to these events.
FYi, I have never seen a supervisor at my airport take something that is allowed. I have seen TSOs get a supervisor to be sure, and the supervisors would clear it; some examples include juice for a diabetic passenger, and a passenger who had to keep his medication in a cooler with ice packs.
October 14, 2008 1:43 PM
"So, can I keep my water bottle to aid with dry-mouth? Or do you think I should sue?"
You can bring an empty bottle to fill up at the water fountain, you can purchase a bottle of water after you are through the checkpoint, or if you don't want to purchase water but want it filtered, I have seen passengers who bring water bottles that have a filter built right into it (I am actually purchasing one for my next trip).
October 14, 2008 1:46 PM
Jim Huggins said...
Bob writes:
Either you guys really don't get that not being able to see through something triggers a certain type of bag search prescribed by our SOP,(as it always has) or you are intentionally twisting my words.
I think you and your opponents are talking past each other a little bit here. Let me try to bridge the gap a bit.
I fully understand that putting one of these panels inside a bag could conceal prohibited items, and that TSA needs to verify that no such items are present in the bag. But it seems to me that if the panel was removed from the bag, the bag was X-rayed again, and no prohibited items were revealed by the X-ray, there should be no need for further screening of that bag. I don't understand why any further screening procedures should be necessary at that point. Could you explain further?
October 7, 2008 7:27 PM
Jim, you seem like a smart man. Try and picture this yourself. You got the first part right. If the bag is rerun and there are no prohibited items in the bag then the TSO will ask if you'd like to repack the bag or if you'd like them to do it. Then you get your bag and stupid sheet of metal back. You're making this harder than it needs to be.
October 14, 2008 2:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jim, you seem like a smart man. Try and picture this yourself. You got the first part right. If the bag is rerun and there are no prohibited items in the bag then the TSO will ask if you'd like to repack the bag or if you'd like them to do it. Then you get your bag and stupid sheet of metal back. You're making this harder than it needs to be.
Bob specifically said that "there are other procedures involved" with a re-screening, but didn't specify what those extra procedures were. Hence, my question regarding why any extra procedures were needed.
Other TSOs provided a much more satisfying answer ... namely, that such a plate could be used to obscure a dangerous item, and so the TSO has to proceed under the assumption that there is a hidden item in the bag. This would call for special handling beyond just a re-screening.
I was simply asking a question. Thankfully, other TSOs gave me a reasonable and satisfying answer.
October 14, 2008 4:24 PM
TS Rachel
Nice suggestion, unfortunately your theory doesn't meet reality that travelers face, so yet again TSA makes rules up on the fly and everyone has to suffer because the traveling public doesnt have any recourse for the multitude of wrongs done by TSA
you say i can bring a bottle through the CP but i cant count the number of times i have had a gatorade bottle STOLEN, because of a single small drop in it on the bottom, that wasnt even a CC in total volume(.0338 of a ounce)in the bottom.
Then when i challenged i got the DYWTFT threat. yet the Nalgene bottle i had that had the same amount of Dihydrogen Monoxide in it is fine. No rhyme, reason, common sense or logic.
Yet because of the inconsistencies I have to suffer on my flights and get dehydrated, because most airlines wont supply the level of water i consume in a day. those two (1qt)bottles i carry will only last me less then 2.5 hours, and i bring more bottles based on what duration of travel. I will consume even more then that if im working. Its not unheard of me to consume north of 2-3 gallons of fluid a day. I feel sorry for elderly travelers and those that dehydrate easily.
Bob
? 100ml, 3.4oz, 88ml or 3oz which is it, because the values dont match from what you post and screeners say. Then is the limit based on Fluid ounces, volume or weight, because there is a significant difference in size (BTW that standard 8oz(value listed on the tube) toothpaste tube is the weight of the contents, by volume wise its only 3oz) but and please educate screeners of how to convert imperial to metric because its something most should have learned in middle school. Its truely sad the screening force is lacking math skills majority of the population of the world understands before they turn 12.
October 14, 2008 6:45 PM
To Al Ames,
You wrote:
"I appreciate real security. I appreciate no harassment in the process. I largely don't appreciate what TSA has done to this country."
Would you care to elaborate on what this "real security" that you want looks like? You make the assertion that people here want "real security" and so they are complaining in order to get it, but I never see any actual constructive comments. I often see posts that focus on the aspects of security that annoy them (and it seems to naturally follow that any aspect of security that people find annoying is inherently ineffective.)
Let me give you an example, there are posts all over this website with varying shades of "TSA should stop the senseless war on liquids."
Now, since apparently this site is littered with security experts all posting under "Anon" I would be very interested to have one or two of them explain to me how we will prevent an incident similar to China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 after the liquid ban gets cancelled.
Then of course we have the "war on shoes" so I would love to hear from Anon what happens if, Kip comes out tomorrow and says "gee... that whole shoe thing... our bad never mind..." and the day after some distrubed soul (pun intended), channeling his inner Richard Reid creats a shoe bomb and heads to the airport, only instead of trying to light it in his seat as Mr Reid did, he has the good sense to take it to the bathroom so he can work undisturbed by his fellow passengers.
Its all well and good to say "security is ineffective..." but if you can't actually provide a more effective method to address the threat (and liquids and shoes are a viable threat if you want to claim they aren't inspite of 112 people being killed by liquids on an aircraft I am willing to listen) then you are just a self proclaimed expert blowing smoke.
Thanks, and have a great day.
October 14, 2008 6:58 PM
In as much as being a Federal Level of reponse, If you really want to use your first amendment "RIGHTS", to say ANYTHING. Try saying "I HAVE A BOMB", and see the response and prosecution. THAT is a federal offense and will be treated so. BUT, do this ONLY if you want to be arrested and put on the FBI list. The smart person knows not to make jokes about this, but you might be AMAZED how much this happens, that is why you were warned. This agency is headed by political appointment, your letters to Washinton CAN make a difference. Please be nice to the TSO until things approve. Have a nice flight.
October 14, 2008 7:42 PM
And after all that searching and detainment.... nobody would be protected. Guess thats business as usual for all you fighting the good fight against international boogeymen.
Isn't it nice of them to give you someone to go after. Since there isn't really anyone out there trying to do anything nasty on planes. Or at least, there is a statistically insignificant number.
Good thing your budget is statistically insignificant too right?
I just love that someone comes up with something to protest the absolute ridiculousness of all this pointless security theater, and you respond by telling them exactly how clueless the TSA really is.
Thanks, YOU made me laugh this time.
-Steve
October 15, 2008 10:19 AM
TSO Rachel @"You can bring an empty bottle to fill up at the water fountain, you can purchase a bottle of water after you are through the checkpoint, or if you don't want to purchase water but want it filtered, I have seen passengers who bring water bottles that have a filter built right into it (I am actually purchasing one for my next trip)."
In that case, what use is the "Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition" exception on prohibited items list ? Is it just public relations fluff to make TSA seem as if it is reasonable?
My question wasn't about if I should take water or not, it was what to do when TSA tries to take something that is clearly permitted under the "rules" in response to your own admonition: "Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something..."
October 15, 2008 11:40 AM
"My question wasn't about if I should take water or not, it was what to do when TSA tries to take something that is clearly permitted under the "rules" in response to your own admonition: "Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights? Denying either of those is AGAINST TSA rules. I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something...""
Bring a doctor's note. I am just trying to provide realistic solutions, here.
Look... if any of you come through my airport, I promise I will do my best. The problem here is that not every TSO cares like I do. I know you all keep telling me it's my responsibility to change that, but all I can do is control my own actions. If I witness a TSO abuse their power, I can assure you that I will step in and do something about it. But again, I work in a pretty friendly airport- I haven't ever witnessed something like that.
I also write and review/rate ideas on the IdeaFactory. I have written to my FSD about problems I think should be remedied or changed. I am doing everything I can.
October 16, 2008 3:17 PM
Travel-Medic Bob wrote...
100ml, 3.4oz, 88ml or 3oz which is it, because the values dont match from what you post and screeners say. Then is the limit based on Fluid ounces, volume or weight, because there is a significant difference in size (BTW that standard 8oz(value listed on the tube) toothpaste tube is the weight of the contents, by volume wise its only 3oz) but and please educate screeners of how to convert imperial to metric because its something most should have learned in middle school. Its truely sad the screening force is lacking math skills majority of the population of the world understands before they turn 12.
That is a very good AND VERY IMPORTANT comment he made, and I'm repeating and expanding on it because if that.
If the ban on liquids is based on liquid volume, then something like toothpaste, which is usually sold AND MARKED by weight, not volume, needs to be passed or not passed NOT by the WEIGHT marked on the container, but by the VOLUME of the product.
Read that again. Toothpaste is heavier than water, actually more than twice as heavy, and while 100 mL of water weighs about 100 grams, 100mL of toothpaste weighs considerable more, AND IS SOLD BY WEIGHT.
As to converting between metric and imperial, make it easy on your troops: Post simple charts that give the conversion between measuring systems so that it is right there in front of them and no difficult thinking is involved. (And fix your web page and signs! Train your people! It has been YEARS since the liquid measure limit per container was officially changed to 100mL / 3.4 ounces.)
Thanks!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 16, 2008 3:52 PM
Ryan:
Would you care to elaborate on what this "real security" that you want looks like? You make the assertion that people here want "real security" and so they are complaining in order to get it, but I never see any actual constructive comments. I often see posts that focus on the aspects of security that annoy them (and it seems to naturally follow that any aspect of security that people find annoying is inherently ineffective.)
Real security vs security theater? Target weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices. Do a much better detection rate than 50% on the red team tests. As to the war on liquids, you mentioned China Air flight brought down by liquid explosives. That was state sponsored terrorism with the N. Koreans. The bomb was built before it was hidden in a liquor bottle and brought on board. The explosives were not mixed on board the aircraft. Richard Ried, aka shoe bomber was lucky the explosives were contaminated and didn't go off on him while he was walking about. TATP is pretty sensitive to shock. Other countries have dealt with terrorism since the early 60's and do a much better job of providing security while treating the passengers & their belongings decently. I can't say the same of TSA. It is possible to have security while not engaging in discourteous behavior towards the passengers.
October 16, 2008 9:02 PM
I think I'll try it with a sheet of plastic instead of metal.
October 18, 2008 6:08 PM
Well, Anon you are wrong about Mr Reid, he was not in fact "lucky" it didn't go off. While you are correct that TATP is relatively sensitive to shock, the explosives were in the honeycomb of the shoe, so they never underwent any shock. But that point aside, the same plan using Semtex, C-4 or any of a dozen other insenstive explosives is still very viable. So I ask again, short of the shoe ban how do you stop this threat?
Further, I made no claims about a bomb being mixed aboard the aircraft. And China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 was brought down with gasoline, as any aviation expert will tell you, fires on aircraft are a bad thing. So, short of the liquid ban how do we stop that?
Lastly, you make vague assertions and attacks "How about better than 50%..." etc. This goes right to the heart of my point, its nothing but mindless criticism from self proclaimed experts. People who sit on the couch and yell at the football game because the coach/quarterback/ref is an idiot. How about some constructive criticism, what should TSA be doing to be more effective, not just screaming at the computer monitor that they aren't as effective as you like.
Lastly, I agree the process should be as courteous as possible. However many travellers should take a look in the mirror. I have stood in line at a check point many times and listened to a traveller berate a TSO for no real reason. I was in in DFW a few weeks ago and had the misfortune to be behind a woman who set off the walkthrough, the TSO politely sent her back, asked her if she had anything in her pockets that might be setting it off, she said "No" and tried again, alarmed again and was sent back. Then she remembered she had her keys in her pocket... so she put them in the bowl and walked through, and alarmed. Then she realized she had her cell phone in her in her pocket. She pulls it out, holds it up and says "its just this" and tries to walk past the TSO. When he politely said "Ma'am you need to step back through the walkthrough and place the phone in a bowl for the X-ray" she started to berate him about how this was all "Ridiculous" and how they were wasting her time, now she was going to miss her flight etc. All because she didn't have the good sense to take the stuff out of her pockets.
October 19, 2008 11:21 AM
Lastly, I agree the process should be as courteous as possible. However many travellers should take a look in the mirror. I have stood in line at a check point many times and listened to a traveller berate a TSO for no real reason.
Ryan, back when TSA did gate screens I was often screened two to three times in one day because of the SSSSS. I never left the secure area. I've had my crotch grabbed during some of those early searches and greatly resent it. I've had my property left unsecured by TSOs who didn't care if I had the tools to do my job with or not. I've had possessions damaged by TSOs who were either too ignorant or didn't care. I've had a TSO want to remove a translucent bandage covering a 12 in incision because the wand alarmed on the staples (which you could see under the tape). I've been questioned why I carry a bag of change by TSOs (none of their business). I've had my trousers pulled down by TSOs patting me down in public. I've had TSO's tell me to lose some weight. I've had TSO's come unglued/unhinged because I said "I want to keep my luggage in sight. I do not trust you." TSO tells other TSO that I called him a thief. Considerable difference between saying I don't trust you and saying you're a thief, isn't it?
I've got a reason to dislike every TSO I ever come across now or in the future because of the actions of those TSOs operating open loop, but do try to be civil, which is more than I can say for some TSOs.
The folks who travel once or twice a decade might believe the security theater works. I travel at least 2 flights a week, sometimes more for 49 weeks a year and get to see the seedier side of TSA. I've even seen the LEO swagger with the new uniforms and badges and don't like the look of it at all.
You might think that I give grief to every TSO I encounter, but like dealing with traffic jams it is part of the travel for a living experience and avoid talking with any TSO about anything. Trash my carry ons, though and I will make my displeasure known and ask/demand that you repack them the way you found them.
Its too late for apologies because the moment those TSOs decided to handle me the way that they did, forever colored my opinion of them and the TSA.
Ryan, you've got some fence mending to do with the public before you will regain the public's trust. You've got an incredible amount of bad press that you, as an organization have rightfully earned.
Get your collective act together and you might get the respect you so much desire. Keep doing what you've done in the past and that respect won't ever come your way.
October 21, 2008 1:03 AM
Quote from Ryan62: "Well, Anon you are wrong about Mr Reid, he was not in fact "lucky" it didn't go off. While you are correct that TATP is relatively sensitive to shock, the explosives were in the honeycomb of the shoe, so they never underwent any shock. But that point aside, the same plan using Semtex, C-4 or any of a dozen other insenstive explosives is still very viable. So I ask again, short of the shoe ban how do you stop this threat?"
Puffers and ETD. X-rays don't detect explosives. Puffers and ETD will. If both shoes are modified the same way, how could a TSO tell that there's anything out of the ordinary with a shoe? If the shoe doesn't trigger the walkthrough metal detector and doesn't set off a puffer, they're sufficiently screened. If either alarms, take a closer look. Pretty simple, really.
And Ryan, any shoe is subject to shock ... honeycomb or not. Part of the reason your feet get tired when you walk is because of the shock of repeatedly hitting the ground. The blows are cushioned ... sure. It's still receiving a shock. If you're so confident they're not receiving a shock, walk around with some TATP in your honey combed shoes and come back and talk. :)
TSA and FBI have even said in mid 2006 (posted the LA Times link before) that there hadn't even an attempt at a shoe bomb since Reid. One could argue that TSA's shoe carnival is a deterrent. However, many countries don't have the shoe carnival either and planes aren't falling out of the skies there either.
"Further, I made no claims about a bomb being mixed aboard the aircraft. And China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 was brought down with gasoline, as any aviation expert will tell you, fires on aircraft are a bad thing. So, short of the liquid ban how do we stop that?
Those items were always prohibited and somehow, planes weren't dropping out of the sky in the 40 some odd years we've been screening. How do we keep solid explosives off of planes? Do we do full body cavity searches? Fly naked? Or just adequately screen to mitigate the risk to an acceptable level. The risk will never be zero.
"Lastly, you make vague assertions and attacks "How about better than 50%..." etc. This goes right to the heart of my point, its nothing but mindless criticism from self proclaimed experts. People who sit on the couch and yell at the football game because the coach/quarterback/ref is an idiot. How about some constructive criticism, what should TSA be doing to be more effective, not just screaming at the computer monitor that they aren't as effective as you like."
Sometimes it's pretty clear the ref is an idiot and any idiot can see that. :)
I and a lot of others have offered a lot of constructive criticism here. Almost all of it's ignored. TSA really has to want to change and use this as a dialogue (and not just between TSO's and passengers ... there needs to be a REAL official presence).
"Lastly, I agree the process should be as courteous as possible. However many travellers should take a look in the mirror. I have stood in line at a check point many times and listened to a traveller berate a TSO for no real reason."
I know there are idiots out there that will go off unprovoked, but how many of the TSO's were completely innocent and did nothing to start the escalation?
"I was in in DFW a few weeks ago and had the misfortune to be behind a woman who set off the walkthrough, the TSO politely sent her back, asked her if she had anything in her pockets that might be setting it off, she said "No" and tried again, alarmed again and was sent back. Then she remembered she had her keys in her pocket... so she put them in the bowl and walked through, and alarmed. Then she realized she had her cell phone in her in her pocket. She pulls it out, holds it up and says "its just this" and tries to walk past the TSO. When he politely said "Ma'am you need to step back through the walkthrough and place the phone in a bowl for the X-ray" she started to berate him about how this was all "Ridiculous" and how they were wasting her time, now she was going to miss her flight etc. All because she didn't have the good sense to take the stuff out of her pockets."
Politeness at DFW?!?! Is that possible? :) Seriously, DFW has a pretty bad rep as far as TSA goes.
Anyway, yes, that was a particularly dumb passenger. I got nailed once with a few coins in my pocket and I just laughed that they had to go thru the x-ray ... what did they expect to find? I didn't make a big deal out of it (yeah, I know some of you are surprised) but there are some pretty ridiculous things that TSA asks of passengers.
Robert
October 21, 2008 2:14 AM
Robert Johnson said:
Anyway, yes, that was a particularly dumb passenger. I got nailed once with a few coins in my pocket and I just laughed that they had to go thru the x-ray ... what did they expect to find? I didn't make a big deal out of it (yeah, I know some of you are surprised) but there are some pretty ridiculous things that TSA asks of passengers.
On this, the reason for sending it through xray is for the simple fact that is meets you on the other side. EVERYTHING goes thru xray except those things that absolutely cant be xrayed (film, certain medicine) We dont have TSO's standing right there specifically to determine what goes thru xray and then carry it around for you when it doesnt. That can get lengthy and controversial wasting more of the passengers time, PLUS that would require yet another "unnecessary" staffing position that you "the taxpayer" would be paying for and then later complain about that your tax dollars pay for such a stupid position.
We do not send it through expecting to find something hidden in the change. I'm not trying to be rude when I say this but if thats what you really think, then you are the one with no common sense, not us.
SDF TSO
October 21, 2008 9:31 AM
Quote from Kellymae81: "On this, the reason for sending it through xray is for the simple fact that is meets you on the other side. EVERYTHING goes thru xray except those things that absolutely cant be xrayed (film, certain medicine) We dont have TSO's standing right there specifically to determine what goes thru xray and then carry it around for you when it doesnt. That can get lengthy and controversial wasting more of the passengers time, PLUS that would require yet another "unnecessary" staffing position that you "the taxpayer" would be paying for and then later complain about that your tax dollars pay for such a stupid position."
Tell me which is a bigger waste: looking at coins, saying ok, or sending them thru an x-ray? It took longer for me to send them thru the x-ray than for a TSO to simply look at them.
"We do not send it through expecting to find something hidden in the change. I'm not trying to be rude when I say this but if thats what you really think, then you are the one with no common sense, not us.
Then please tell me why they're x-rayed. The whole point of the x-ray is took for things hidden in items to determine they're not a threat. Common sense would say that you can't hide anything in coins ... we seem to agree on that. So again, tell me who's lacking common sense here.
Robert
October 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Robert, we can sit all day and go thru a list of things you think doesnt need to be x-rayed. The point is that just sending it thru avoids us constantly hand searching things, thus handling more of your stuff hence you accusing us of stealing. We would have to go out of sight even just momentarily to carry it around the x-ray operator and we dont have someone to always be available to stand there and take your things. It is much simpler to send it thru, going from point a to point b.
It doesn't mean we are looking for something hidden in the coins. So would you rather stand there after you divested your coins or whatever into the bowl and stand there and wait for a tso to come and check it? NO just send it thru!!!! And yes, it has to be checked and not by the metal detector tso. We have SOP procedures and all checks get done by the bag checker position. Walk thru metal detector controls the "metal detector" The x-ray operator sure can take his eyes off the x-ray to shout "COIN CHECK". So just imagine what kind of backups there would be if every passenger who forgot something in their pocket, stood around to wait for a checker to come and take it, check it, then walk it around to you (out of your sight) and give it to you.
You do realize you made a bigger issue of this than it needed to be, dont you? So technically, yes it is easier to hand check, but then we would have to take each case and say "yep, that goes in x-ray" or "no, it doesnt have to....'COIN CHECK'!!!!" With the few exceptions that there are, EVERYTHING gets x-rayed, PERIOD!!!!! Lord have mercy, Robert....move on.
October 21, 2008 2:19 PM
Quote from Kellymae81: "You do realize you made a bigger issue of this than it needed to be, dont you? So technically, yes it is easier to hand check, but then we would have to take each case and say "yep, that goes in x-ray" or "no, it doesnt have to....'COIN CHECK'!!!!" With the few exceptions that there are, EVERYTHING gets x-rayed, PERIOD!!!!! Lord have mercy, Robert....move on."
Kelly, I didn't make it an issue. I laughed about it and it was done. Your comment started this banter, not mine. You've wasted a lot more time on it than I have. Let it go.
Robert
October 21, 2008 4:21 PM
Kelly, I've had a TSO thumb through my wallet even though it didn't alarm. My first thought was WHAT IS HE DOING AND WHY IS HE DOING THAT? The second thought was I know how much was in there and what credit cards I carry and would immediately check the wallet for any loss. I got the wallet back and went through it. Talk about getting a look that could curdle milk at 10 paces that TSO was quite upset at my reaction to his actions.
Kelly, I don't trust any TSO to do the right thing (yes you too) because of issues I've had with TSA failing to accept responsibility for its own actions. When your organization finally becomes accountable my attitude towards it might change. Until then TSA is an out of control high school jock who answers to no one.
October 21, 2008 4:28 PM
Well, Anon all I can tell you is while I don't fly as often as you, I did fly 30-40 times a year until about 2005, when I slowed down a bit. I never had anything damaged by TSA, the airlines lost my bags a few times but thats another story. I was never treated rudely by a TSO. Of course, as a regular traveler I had the good sense to divest all my metal before, and thought about what I was putting in my bag. Altogether it wasn't too terribly hard.
Robert,
As to the "shock" issue as I mentioned that is just a distraction from the real issue, first Mr Reid proved rather convincingly it was possible, so arguing "he was lucky" etc doesn't really accomplish much. So far, to the best of our knowledge shoe bombers have an enviable 100% success rate not blowing their own feet off.
As for the "he could just rig both shoes" argument... well thats twice the chance to blow his feet off I suppose. But on a more serious note, even making the shoes look the same will leave an anomaly on an X-ray, in Mr Reid's case the time fuse would have been visibly and quite obvious not a part of a normal shoe. Thus driving the call to ETD and catching the bad guy.
If your solution is ETD, I don't have any heartburn with that, but people are still going to have to take their shoes off to ETD them, and running an ETD is going to take longer than a trip through the X-ray so you are slowing the process down even more.
Puffers are great, but there are issues with cross contamination and the like. I think the technology has a real future, but it has some kinks that need to be worked out first.
Also the "planes aren't falling out of the sky" argument isn't terribly effective. Do you go into your bank or credit union and demand to know why they are wasting all that money on security cameras and guards and the like because "banks aren't constantly getting robbed" not much of a case there really.
As for your change incident, let me ask you this. You stepped through the walk through, you go "oops, change..." and pull it out of your pocket what would you have the TSO do? Look at your change and let you keep going? I suspect you can see the obvious flaw with that plan. So, we can establish you have to put the change somewhere, and go back through the Walk Through, why not dump it in a bowl and toss it on the belt. Its really an elegantly simple solution.
As for the liquids vs solids issue. We keep the solids off via X-ray and ETD (yes I realize that the X-ray doesn't tell you its an explosive but it identifies things that are potentially an explosive and allows the ETD to follow up.)
Liquids present a different problem, first is the fact that someone can be playing the binary game and planning to mix on the other side. The components they have at the checkpoint won't alarm an ETD because, they aren't an explosive compound yet. You are asking the ETD to do things it wasn't designed to do, which is never a good idea. I suspect TSA doesn't like the liquids ban anymore than you or I, but until there is an effective method to quickly and efficiently ID liquids, this is the next best thing.
To go back to the "planes not falling out of the sky" argument. Threats evolve, people didn't use liquids before because they didn't have to. In the 60s you could get a gun on board fairly easily, that changed so the threat changed. They didn't use liquids before because at the time box cutters, which were simpler and easier, worked. We have changed our procedures and attitudes (locked cockpit doors, passengers that are likely not going to go quietly) so now the bad guys are going to have to use a different tactic.
October 21, 2008 5:03 PM
Quote from Ryan62:Robert,
As to the "shock" issue as I mentioned that is just a distraction from the real issue, first Mr Reid proved rather convincingly it was possible, so arguing "he was lucky" etc doesn't really accomplish much. So far, to the best of our knowledge shoe bombers have an enviable 100% success rate not blowing their own feet off."
The problem is Reid was the only one ever proven to even attempt a shoe bomb. TSA and the FBI have even admitted that. All we have is one nut who got "unlucky" and couldn't detonate his bombs. We have no proof that the threat even comes close to doing as much damage as the amount of resources we've wasted on this. As an army friend used to say "One person takes a [dump in their pants] and everyone has to wear diapers."
The shoe carnival as it was implemented was better before the liquid carnival began. For some reason, in conjunction with the liquid carnival, TSA all of the sudden deemed all shoes a threat. This had NOTHING to do with Reid and in fact was years after the fact. So if shoes were indeed such a threat, why was a mandatory shoe carnival not implemented immediately after Reid? You can't use Reid as an argument, "ignore the threat" and then change to everything off and claim it was always a threat.
Incidentally, the shoe carnival made much more sense if shoes had to come off than it does now. If anything, it was actually more of a risk management approach than the risk avoidance approach that we have now. While it sucked, it was better than what we have now. And planes still weren't being blown up.
"As for the "he could just rig both shoes" argument... well thats twice the chance to blow his feet off I suppose. But on a more serious note, even making the shoes look the same will leave an anomaly on an X-ray, in Mr Reid's case the time fuse would have been visibly and quite obvious not a part of a normal shoe. Thus driving the call to ETD and catching the bad guy."
Again, what's being done is relying on the terrorist being stupid. Kip just said that the terrorists are smart. Yet TSA is still focused on Reid.
"If your solution is ETD, I don't have any heartburn with that, but people are still going to have to take their shoes off to ETD them, and running an ETD is going to take longer than a trip through the X-ray so you are slowing the process down even more.
Puffers are great, but there are issues with cross contamination and the like. I think the technology has a real future, but it has some kinks that need to be worked out first."
I agree that puffers may need some tweaking to work out some issues. Shoes wouldn't need to come off for the puffers - TSA even admitted this before the mandatory shoe carnivals as I'd been thru airports where shoes could stay on if you went thru the puffer. It was easier for everyone involved and it took about the same time as the shoe carnival did anyway when you factor in shoe removal, examination, and putting them back on.
However, at the same time, TSA is trading a technology that works (even if it has issues) for one that doesn't (the x-ray). Let's think about this. If we could get rid of one security theater aspect and trade it for something like this, we'd all be better off. I could put up with a longer wait if something effective like this were in place rather than the theatrics.
"Also the "planes aren't falling out of the sky" argument isn't terribly effective. Do you go into your bank or credit union and demand to know why they are wasting all that money on security cameras and guards and the like because "banks aren't constantly getting robbed" not much of a case there really."
A couple things here. First alarms and cameras are there as a reactive element. They'll never stop anyone from robbing a bank. Make it harder to pull off, sure, but certainly anyone can still walk into a bank and attempt to rob it. Their purpose is to provide evidence to help apprehend and try those who attempt robbery.
Third, bank robberies happen often enough to justify their expense (which isn't much to begin with anyway) and they certainly aren't intrusive. I may be monitored while I'm there (not that the teller and other bank employees aren't watching me anyway) but I'll be forgotten about once I left and the video will be deleted. It's not being used to try to figure out my patterns and determine if I'm a terrorist.
But the whole point of my argument is that TSA is claiming that a lot of these measures are necessary to "keep us safe" and prevent planes from falling out of the sky. My point was that a lot of nations who have more "lax" security aren't experiencing the Armageddon TSA claims will happen.
"As for your change incident, let me ask you this. You stepped through the walk through, you go "oops, change..." and pull it out of your pocket what would you have the TSO do? Look at your change and let you keep going? I suspect you can see the obvious flaw with that plan. So, we can establish you have to put the change somewhere, and go back through the Walk Through, why not dump it in a bowl and toss it on the belt. Its really an elegantly simple solution."
I agree that they should be tossed aside. However, I can walk into highly secured government facilities, courthouses and the like, put my keys and change in a bowl, the guy at the WTMD looks at it briefly as I go thru it and hands it back to me. These all have the capability to do the same x-rays but don't. To me, the solution you propose if more of a solution looking for a problem than a solution to anything.
"As for the liquids vs solids issue. We keep the solids off via X-ray and ETD (yes I realize that the X-ray doesn't tell you its an explosive but it identifies things that are potentially an explosive and allows the ETD to follow up.)"
That's fine and that's the whole purpose of the x-ray is to look for items that may need an ETD swab. However, it's often not billed as that. Ask a TSO why shoes are x-rayed and they'll say we're looking for explosives. It'd be darn neaer impossible to get any explosives in some of the shoes out there.
"Liquids present a different problem, first is the fact that someone can be playing the binary game and planning to mix on the other side. The components they have at the checkpoint won't alarm an ETD because, they aren't an explosive compound yet."
A couple things here.
Kip even said that the combining the liquids on the other side wasn't feasible.
Scientists have debunked the binary "mixing airside or in a lav" scenario as making these explosives requires very controlled conditions that often can only be created in a lab.
"You are asking the ETD to do things it wasn't designed to do, which is never a good idea."
So I'm asking it not to do its job? I'm confused.
It should still detect some of the elements in the items, even if uncombined. If it can pick up the glycerins in hand lotion and nitrates in fertilizers even if there is no presence of explosives, why couldn't it pick this stuff up?
"I suspect TSA doesn't like the liquids ban anymore than you or I, but until there is an effective method to quickly and efficiently ID liquids, this is the next best thing."
It's also possible that TSA is overblowing the "threat" and seeing one where one doesn't really exist.
If it really wants to push the "technology" bit, methods of screening liquids have been used in Japan for years. However, TSA and DHS have a "not invented here" mentality and often ignore solutions to problems that exist.
"To go back to the "planes not falling out of the sky" argument. Threats evolve, people didn't use liquids before because they didn't have to. In the 60s you could get a gun on board fairly easily, that changed so the threat changed. They didn't use liquids before because at the time box cutters, which were simpler and easier, worked. We have changed our procedures and attitudes (locked cockpit doors, passengers that are likely not going to go quietly) so now the bad guys are going to have to use a different tactic."
I agree that they'll change and try new things. However, TSA keeps focusing on old methods. It keeps focusing on shoes. It focuses on box cutters (which doesn't make any sense considering knives and other point objects are available on planes). It focuses on the imaginary. I'm not saying old threats should be completely ignored, but at the same time, there has to be a really serious look at if the resources are being wisely used. Additionally, security should be as minimally invasive as possible and work within the laws. However, we see repeatedly poor allocation of finite resources, and more invasive searches (just look at Kip's post from today), while other larger holes are going unplugged (like cargo screening).
In the end, I think we both want the same thing. I just think TSA's going about it the wrong way (and has for some time) and seems to be unwilling to really evaluate security and listen to ideas to improve the status quo. Everytime I think of "enhanced" security, I think of the same kind of "enhancements" my employers makes to my benefits every year. Neither is good.
Thanks for a good discussion. :)
Robert
October 21, 2008 7:13 PM
Ryan 62 said in part......
"Also the "planes aren't falling out of the sky" argument isn't terribly effective. Do you go into your bank or credit union and demand to know why they are wasting all that money on security cameras and guards and the like because "banks aren't constantly getting robbed" not much of a case there really."
Perhaps you should be checking up on the security your financial institution uses.
Bank robberies peaked in 2001 with more than 10,000 heists recorded around the nation, according to FBI figures. Robberies declined after that, rising slightly in 2004, before increasing nearly 10% in 2006. National figures for 2007 are not complete.
Now if TSA had simular terrorist activity then perhaps they could justify a small part of their budget.
October 21, 2008 9:37 PM
Ya' know, I love all the "experts" out there who have all knowledge of what you can hide or take on an aircraft that won't cause trouble. Before 9/11, I thought it would be imposible to take over an aricraft full of americans and destroy a building with it. The realization that the "rough and ready, John Wayne" generation of rugged individualists, has been replaced by the "call 911, hide and wait" generation, sickens me. Then whats more, they want to tell everyone how to do their jobs and whine when security slows their VERY important life down. It has been SEVEN years and airplanes aren't faling out of the skys, so we must be doing something right. I have seen ridiculous arguments about what is a solid, liquid. or gas, NOT that all can be flammable, toxic or explosive. The idea of running everything through the X-ray, is just procedure, so you can walk back through through the WTMD again without anyone having to hold your stuff. I am probably the only one paranoid or knowledgeable enough to know hollow coins (Magic Shops) that could small electronics, batteries or other things for nefarious use. Couldn't be done? Sure and a roll of coins can't hold cocaine either. Some day we will all look back and laugh.
October 22, 2008 12:22 AM
"I think it's pretty funny myself, but then again I travel with a small metal card in my pocket that has the Bill of Rights printed on it (with the Fourth Amendment highlighted).
When I go through airport security, I put the card along with my keys and change in the dish to go through the X-Ray.
This literal "surrendering of my rights" amuses me, while flying far over the TSO's head."
How is it violating your rights when you submit yourself to screening and your property to an administrative search? Did someone force you to buy a plane ticket and walk through a metal detector? We know you weren't forced to submit your property because you just said you put it in the dish to go through x-ray. Perhaps your "joke" didn't go over the TSO's head. Maybe they were just keeping their mouth shut to avoid the obvious attempt at a confrontation.
October 22, 2008 11:47 AM
Ronnie said...
OH! I cannot wait to see the first yahoo that puts one of these in his bag! It has "BAG CHECK!!!" written all over it.
I hope I am the TSO to do that bag check.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 3:33 PM
Retaliation?
By a TSO?
That's not retaliation. It's simply amusing. Do you honestly think that's all those people have to do all day? If they are as dumb as you all think, wouldn't it be easier to get a better paying job that would make it easier to mess with people like at a fast food joint or waiting tables?
I doubt they all woke up one day and said, "hmmm... what can I do for $12 an hour where people treat me like crap all day, I can work bad hours and holidays, just so I can mess with people?"
October 22, 2008 11:52 AM
TSO Rachel @"Bring a doctor's note. I am just trying to provide realistic solutions, here."
First you asked us to stand up for our rights when they get infringed. Now you are offering "realistic solutions".
How much medical information are we required to share with TSA agents? TSA does not even require drugs to be labeled: We recommend, but do not require, that your medications be labeled... I guess I could waste my doctor's time and pay an extra co-pay to get a doctor to write a note saying "water is advised for drymouth", but there are plenty of stories that doctor's notes don't work(google).
Maybe the injured woman in this story didn't bring her doctor's note, and that is why they made her take off her brace: http://tinyurl.com/5d54uk
If TSA requires a doctor's note or prescription for All prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including KY jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes" you should post that requirement on the page where you make that exception.
How can I stand up for my rights when y'all say I have no rights with respect to your capricious enforcement of secret rules.
October 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...
Ronnie said...
OH! I cannot wait to see the first yahoo that puts one of these in his bag! It has "BAG CHECK!!!" written all over it.
I hope I am the TSO to do that bag check.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 3:33 PM
Retaliation?
By a TSO?
That's not retaliation. It's simply amusing. Do you honestly think that's all those people have to do all day? If they are as dumb as you all think, wouldn't it be easier to get a better paying job that would make it easier to mess with people like at a fast food joint or waiting tables?
I doubt they all woke up one day and said, "hmmm... what can I do for $12 an hour where people treat me like crap all day, I can work bad hours and holidays, just so I can mess with people?"
October 22, 2008 11:52 AM
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
It is nothing but retaliation.
If the typical TSO could get a better paying job then they have already done so!.
Check the employee turnover rate for TSA.
October 22, 2008 4:31 PM
The argument that no one besides Reid has attempted it doesn't fly (pun intended). The security measures were put in place as a deterrent. This is one of the issues that seems to get lost on many people who post here. If the bad guys look at whats going on, decide that shoe bombs aren't viable anymore thats a win for the good guys. Now, as the old saying goes, they don't write stories about the buildings that don't burn down, so no big headlines for that one. X-raying the shoes doesn't require the bomb maker to be stupid to get caught. I was using an extreme example with Mr Reid and his time fuse, but even a well made bomb in a shoe is going to show variations in density that should throw up a red flag for the TSO.
Puffers simply aren't proven technology, I think we have to agree to disagree on that one.
As for cameras and things at the banks. They are there as a deterrent as well. "Security theatre" if you will. The reason its cheaper and less obtrusive is because the potential loss is less. Even if we are to look at it purely economically and disregard the value of human life a boeing 737 starts at $50 million, robbing the bank is an economic loss for the bank of $50,000 (and thats probably a very generous assumption.) How instrusive is a bank before they let you near $50 million, and lets not even discuss that there is no practical difference between bringing down a $124 million 767 or $228 million 747.
As for the X-ray and TSO's stating they are "looking for explosives" that is largely a semantic argument. Yes, the TSO would be more correct to say "We are looking for anomalies that may indicate an explosive or weapon" but in the hustle and bustle of the check point I think you could concede saying "looking for explosives" conveys the same concept with an economy of words. As for shoes that couldn't hide explosives, I wouldn't argue that there are some shoes where hiding explosives or a weapon of some sort wouldn't be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. However, short of having someone triage shoes and deal with the accompanying torrent of arguing over why does she leave her shoes on and I take mine off... having them all go on the belt is a simpler solution.
The mission of TSA with regards to threats is twofold, yes, they have to look forward to new threats, but I think its unfair the way you discount past threats. It kind of falls into the "forgeting the past doomed to repeat" thing. You crticize TSA for focusing on shoes when "No one else has tried it" yet you want them to focus on things that haven't been tried. Wouldn't that set up the equally logical "why worry about that, no one has done it yet..."
Even going past a discussion on mixing, cooking etc... what stops a tactic as simple as China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 from happening again absent the liquid ban? (And to clarify for Anon's benefit I am NOT referring to Korean Air Flight 858 which was the North Korean sponsored terrorist attack.)
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the liquid screening tools in use in Japan have issues. It isn't a matter of "not made here" syndrome. Its a matter of making sure the technology can do what we ask of it. I think it falls into the same category as the puffer, its going to be great when all the kinks get worked out.
Lastly, I would disagree with the notion that they are unwilling to truely evaluate security. I think they are very willing to do that, the problem is I think they operate under a lot more constraints than most of the critics will accept. If they really had the power to "trample the Constitution" as so many claim I suspect we would all be getting on airplanes wearing hospital gowns with all our belongings in checked baggage.
Ultimately its not as easy as many of us would like.
October 22, 2008 6:37 PM
Anonymous: "It has been SEVEN years and airplanes aren't faling out of the skys, so we must be doing something right."
I don't think it's TSA. I think it's the terrorist repulsion field my magic rock emits that's keeping us safe. How do I know? Planes haven't falled out of the sky for seven years!!!
That argument doesn't hold water other nations don't have all the BS we do and planes aren't falling out of the sky there. That tends to show that terrorists just aren't going after planes or there aren't as many terrorists as TSA thinks.
"I am probably the only one paranoid or knowledgeable enough to know hollow coins (Magic Shops) that could small electronics, batteries or other things for nefarious use."
Anything onboard can be used for nefarious purposes. Should we just ban everything but seats and naked passengers?
"Couldn't be done? Sure and a roll of coins can't hold cocaine either."
Cocaine isn't a threat to aviation security. Cocaine falls under the DEA and other similar law enforcement agencies and shouldn't be looked for.
"Some day we will all look back and laugh."
I already am. I'm laughing at the paranoia that's rampant in this country and the Hollywood plots people (especially DHS) come up with. I'm also crying because this stupidity is taken so seriously and our country isn't the proud country it once was. The run to 911 mentality you're railing against is exactly what your post advocates.
Earl
October 22, 2008 7:47 PM
Ok all the passengers are right. Dissband the TSA. Stop all the sceening and security measures. Let the Airlines decide who flies and who doesn't. I beleive before all the unemployment forms from all the Evil, Anit-american TSOs are processed there will "events". These could be from the criminal sitting next to you, because no one checked their I.D.. It could because of the weapons brought on by the un-searched passenger on the other side of you. It could be because of the large amount of flammable chemicals in the checked baggage. It could be the passenger behind you who brought on their own big bottles of booze. It could be the disgruntled airport worker who got on because there was no check point to prevent it ( there are hundreds of people who work there evryday). It could be the drunk/high person three rows behind you who just wants to get out in the middle of the flight, or they might be one of the flight crew who wasn't checked. Not even taking into account any of the real Terrorists activity which will get on because any private security company will not have the resources to keep current with new threats. But at least you will be able to get on the doomed aircraft quicker without having to take off your shoes or coats. All that inconveinencing security will be gone. We can go back to the good old times of the 70's. Remember highjackings and airplanes exploding on the runway? Have a nice flight.....
October 22, 2008 8:13 PM
Anonymous wrote:
If the typical TSO could get a better paying job then they have already done so!
Incorrect.
Granted, I only personally know the TSOs and their backgrounds that work with me in here HSV, but of the... oh... sixty or so TSOs on the payroll here, only two of them wouldn't be able to get a better paying job if they were so inclined to do so.
I myself would certainly be able to. I simply choose not to.
October 22, 2008 8:59 PM
Ryan62 said... As for cameras and things at the banks. They are there as a deterrent as well. "Security theatre" if you will.
//////////////////////////////////////
Ryan, you really don't understand security at all.
In the case of a bank there are two basic types of video surveillance employed. Those that video customers moving about in and around premises and those that video the transactions and other activities of the employees.
No one is exempt from surveillance.
It's the later that we travelers hope TSA will install at all checkpoints and baggage inspection and storage areas.
To put it simply, we don't trust you guys. Plenty of reason exist to take that position.
If all TSO's had video files to refer back to in the case of a problem then everyone would be better off.
Something is missing from checked baggage, check the video. TSO who inspected said bag either acted properly or not but the evidence would be indisputable.
Screener at a checkpoint complains that a traveler abused them in some manner, pull up the video and verify what happened.
This is truly a Win Win for both TSO's and Travelers. It's hard to blame someone else when a passenger acts out or a TSO abuses or steals something. I think we can agree that all of us would be better off without either, bad passengers or bad TSO's.
To be quiet frank, I am very surprised that airport authorities and/or airlines do not have surveillance systems in all areas that theft from baggage or abuse of company equipment could occur. Plugging these security holes would make life easier for all.
October 23, 2008 12:11 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Anonymous wrote:
If the typical TSO could get a better paying job then they have already done so!
Incorrect.
Granted, I only personally know the TSOs and their backgrounds that work with me in here HSV, but of the... oh... sixty or so TSOs on the payroll here, only two of them wouldn't be able to get a better paying job if they were so inclined to do so.
I myself would certainly be able to. I simply choose not to.
My exposure to TSO's while limited to the time standing in que or interacting while being screened is limited to just a small sample of your ranks of 40,000 or so, but the TSO's I have seen and watched gives one pause to wonder where they dug up these specimens.
You guys need to take off the rainbow glasses and get a new perspective. I think your seeing what you want to see.
October 23, 2008 12:26 PM
anaon said in part....."It could be the disgruntled airport worker who got on because there was no check point to prevent it ( there are hundreds of people who work there evryday)."
Is this why TSA does not screen airport workers and TSO's for that matter each and every time they enter the airport ramp and operations areas?
Thought so, Good Plan TSA!
October 23, 2008 12:30 PM
"TSO Rachel @"Bring a doctor's note. I am just trying to provide realistic solutions, here."
First you asked us to stand up for our rights when they get infringed. Now you are offering "realistic solutions"."
If you bothered to read any of my previous posts, you will see suggestions on how to stand up for your rights. I am suggesting what I think will actually be realistic and something that can be accomplished. I am also trying to provide alternative ways to get what you need while flying.
October 23, 2008 12:52 PM
Here in the largest target/airport on the left coast, there are many cameras, that have been used to very good effect. Add on the TSA internal security force, along with some other FED's and it's pretty tight. The Airport workers coming through the check points do get screened, the Pilots were, and I think they still should be. The TSA also monitors security doors, I.D. points, and secure runway areas. The TSA has stopped Pilots unfit to fly, fired personel with expired I.D.s, and other people you just wouldn't want around your pane. Not screening the TSO's working the checkpoints is just to speed up the line. Once I had to take paperwork back and forth between points that went through the secure area. I had to be checked everytime I went through, six times in one day, in the same line as passengers. It is just a time saver. Hey EARL, we keep finding things we aren't looking for, and as far as drugs not being a threat, wait until you are at twenty thousand feet with a passenger(s) going wacko on drugs/alcahol. You won't hear about most of them, bad P.R. for Airlines. I am still waiting to hear positive ideas from you about what security SHOULD be. All you smug little complainers tell us how wrong we are. How about stepping up to say what YOU would do to increase security without disrupting the delicate sensabilitys of the traveling public? You tell us, should we allow the Brass nuckles, clubs,kubitons,shocking guns,tear gas,knives, and guns we find everyday to go through? We find these items and more with our "idiotic" procedures. More goes on in the average airport than your average wonderful passenger knows about. The ONLY things you hear about are the things big enough to bring in the news crews that are roving around. I am sorry for the trouble we caused you. But many times we do look back and laugh...We are still efectively reducing the threats getting on the planes, not perfect, but still working on it. What are YOU doing to help? HAVE A NICE FLIGHT
October 23, 2008 8:10 PM
TSO Rachel writes:
If you bothered to read any of my previous posts, you will see suggestions on how to stand up for your rights. I am suggesting what I think will actually be realistic and something that can be accomplished. I am also trying to provide alternative ways to get what you need while flying.
With all respect, Rachel (and I do respect you), this line of reasoning isn't likely to be productive.
Mr. Gel-Pack knew the rules. The TSO who screened him didn't know the rules. The supervisor called by Mr. Gel-Pack didn't know the rules either. Mr. Gel-Pack stood up for his rights, and lost.
We can talk all we want about how passengers can bring copies of TSA's publications, or notes from their doctors, or whatever documentation they want to justify the items they need to bring on board. The fact remains that, according to TSA's own literature, that
any TSO may "determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore
may not be brought through the security checkpoint."
In short: it doesn't matter what a passenger says, or what documentation a passenger brings. A TSO can declare that any item may not be brought through the checkpoint, for any reason. And the passenger has no recourse.
The only thing that fixes this problem is TSA training its employees better about its own policies and procedures.
October 24, 2008 9:53 AM
TSO Rachel: @"If you bothered to read any of my previous posts, you will see suggestions on how to stand up for your rights. I am suggesting what I think will actually be realistic and something that can be accomplished. I am also trying to provide alternative ways to get what you need while flying."
I read every one of your posts, and your suggestions about how to stand up for your rights are:
"I suggest fighting it. Those TSOs broke our own rules. Take it to court. Do something... don't just complain on a blog." and "Ask for a supervisor. If the supervisor is giving you the same trouble, record the supervisor's badge number and name (his/her last name will be on the silver nameplate on their right side, and their badge number is written on the bottom of their metal badge on the left side). Then report them."
I did talk to the supervisor, but didn't catch the badge number to use when I reported him to "Got Feedback". I doubt that that will make TSA unspoil 13 oz of my wife's breast milk.
Finding some "realistic" solution to the immediate problems, such as complying with your arbitrary "Doctors note required" rule isn't standing up for one's rights, it is acceptance.
Your solutions for standing up for our rights are not effective or "realistic".
With TSOs making up and enforcing secret rules (like your "doctor's note required",) how far could I get with a lawsuit before Kip uses the "no SOP keeps the terrorists off-balance" defense?
To answer your "Why AREN'T those people standing up for their rights?" question, the best way I can see to do this is to not be silent and to complain in several venues, including this blog.
October 24, 2008 1:12 PM
"With TSOs making up and enforcing secret rules (like your "doctor's note required",) how far could I get with a lawsuit before Kip uses the "no SOP keeps the terrorists off-balance" defense?"
Where did I say that a doctor's note was a requirement? I never said it was required. I just thought it would help to prove that you truly needed the water to go through security (especially considering all the water that is available beyond security).
Jim Huggins wrote:
"In short: it doesn't matter what a passenger says, or what documentation a passenger brings. A TSO can declare that any item may not be brought through the checkpoint, for any reason. And the passenger has no recourse.
The only thing that fixes this problem is TSA training its employees better about its own policies and procedures."
I think there are just some TSOs who, to be blunt, aren't cut out for the job. TSA seems to have a problem with letting these people go. TSA trains us CONSTANTLY- there are just still some people other there who don't 'get it', and they shouldn't be working for this organization.
October 24, 2008 2:59 PM
tso rachel said...
"With TSOs making up and enforcing secret rules (like your "doctor's note required",) how far could I get with a lawsuit before Kip uses the "no SOP keeps the terrorists off-balance" defense?"
snip
Jim Huggins wrote:
"In short: it doesn't matter what a passenger says, or what documentation a passenger brings. A TSO can declare that any item may not be brought through the checkpoint, for any reason. And the passenger has no recourse.
The only thing that fixes this problem is TSA training its employees better about its own policies and procedures."
It would very helpful if TSA would document and publish exactly what is expected (demanded) of a person who must pass thorugh a TSA checkpoint.
How else can TSA expect a smooth successful process?
Secret policies that I must comply with promise only one thing, failure!
I think there are just some TSOs who, to be blunt, aren't cut out for the job. TSA seems to have a problem with letting these people go. TSA trains us CONSTANTLY- there are just still some people other there who don't 'get it', and they shouldn't be working for this organization.
About 44,ooo by my count!
October 24, 2008 5:57 PM
Just a note here...I was laid off from a MUCH BETTER paying job back in January. I had more a lot more money in my pocket, but felt like I had no purpose. Now I have found a great deal of pride and job satisfaction in what I now do (despite the derogatory sniping from many of you here). I feel like I AM keeping you as safe as I possibly can given the tools I have to work with. I know new tools will constantly be developed to enable me to do my job even better, and I think that is exciting to see.
I have no desire to go back to my "old line of work". Little tho you appreciate it, I will stay at TSA and do my part to keep us all safe.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 26, 2008 11:27 AM
TSO Rachel @ "Where did I say that a doctor's note was a requirement? I never said it was required. I just thought it would help to prove that you truly needed the water to go through security (especially considering all the water that is available beyond security)."
#####################
Rachel, what right have you or other TSOs to be make judgements about true medical necessity? You are not doctors, and the idiocy of pretending you can make such determinations leads to errors such as this broken ankle. Heck, even a doctor would have problems absolutely 'proving' true need.
TSA's exception for "Liquids, including water...for passengers with a disability or medical condition" sounds like it's more public relations than actuality, just like the rest of TSA's security theatre.
October 26, 2008 10:56 PM
"Fair warning: there are detailed procedures on how to search this type of bag and it’s not one of our quicker searches."
Perhaps it is worth the my time. Is it worth yours?
"...many folks who might think it’s funny to “talk back” to TSA ..."
What makes you think that those who use it think it is funny? I think I'll strongly consider using one; I'll just show up early, no problem. I'll just call it a work creation program; we'll need that soon enough anyway.
October 27, 2008 2:21 PM
Look, these plates are funny... but if they are in a bag it WILL take a long time to search that bag because if we cannot see what else is in that bag we have to use extreme caution before we can open that bag because I can guarantee that not one TSO is interested in opening a bag that he/she cannot see if a threat is in that bag. You see that plate as a harmless joke... well what is to stop a terrorist from hiding a bomb under it that we cannot see? Would you still think it is funny if a TSO lost an arm or was killed because there was a bomb under that plate? Common sense... yes, you may not like TSA but at the end of the day it is YOUR butt sitting on thousands of pounds of ultra flammable jet fuel next to how many other passengers that you don't know from a hole in the wall and all of their luggage which you have no idea what is in it.
November 3, 2008 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...
Look, these plates are funny... but if they are in a bag it WILL take a long time to search that bag because if we cannot see what else is in that bag we have to use extreme caution before we can open that bag because I can guarantee that not one TSO is interested in opening a bag that he/she cannot see if a threat is in that bag. You see that plate as a harmless joke... well what is to stop a terrorist from hiding a bomb under it that we cannot see? Would you still think it is funny if a TSO lost an arm or was killed because there was a bomb under that plate? Common sense... yes, you may not like TSA but at the end of the day it is YOUR butt sitting on thousands of pounds of ultra flammable jet fuel next to how many other passengers that you don't know from a hole in the wall and all of their luggage which you have no idea what is in it.
November 3, 2008 8:39 AM
I agree that the metal sign plates are probably not a good idea. Now for the rest of your post,
Jet fuel is not ultra flammable. It is basically kerosene.
TSA's failure to pass inspection test indicates that baggage screening is ineffective.
TSA does not inspect all cargo.
TSA does not control inspected baggage and that baggage can be tampered with.
TSA does not clear each and every airport worker as they enter ramp and operational areas of the airport.
TSA's security screen leaks like a sieve.
So what harm would a message plate send?
November 3, 2008 3:53 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home