The Path Forward on Liquids
When it comes to liquids, everybody involved with checkpoint operations -- passengers, airlines, airports, and TSA employees -- agrees that there has to be a better way. Here’s my take on the path forward.For this discussion, I am using “liquids” as short-hand for liquids, aerosols, and gels and other novel types of explosives.
Intelligence shows that terrorists innovate in explosives formulas as well as the way they would bring them onboard an aircraft. That won’t change any time soon. If liquid restrictions are eased eventually it will be because of improved process and technology, not diminished threat.
Technology
TSA uses several technologies that are effective against liquid and other novel explosives.
Standard X-Ray is deployed everywhere and can effectively identify the presence of liquids and their containers. It is not reliable in differentiating all threat liquids from non-threat liquids. It is effective in the 3-1-1 environment by identifying whether there are liquids hidden in a bag – thus it is useful as a compliance tool.
Advanced Technology “AT” X-Ray is the next generation of X-ray equipment that has technology to examine the dimensions and density of objects within a carry-on bag. 500-600 (out of a total of about 2,000 lanes) will be deployed by the end of 2008. TSA will come close to doubling that number in 2009. AT X-Ray has two major advantages over standard X-Ray:
1) Better image resolution from the hardware side – it uses multiple view points; and
2) Smarter software. The image resolution benefit is immediate; the software will be improved over time.
More than 6,500 Trace Detection “ETD” units are deployed at both checkpoints and checked baggage areas to detect minute particles of explosives residue through the collection of trace samples. TSA has several hundred handheld ETD’s that are capable of detecting explosives particles as well as vapor.
Computed Tomography (CT) Scanners are checkpoint-sized versions of the large checked baggage scanners that have MRI-like capability that will detect anything – solids and liquids. They are large and expensive so TSA does not have many of them. We will be deploying them in smaller airports to screen both carry-on and checked baggage.
Several hundred bottle scanners - handheld or bench-top devices –are deployed throughout the country to provide TSA with the capability to differentiate liquid explosives from common, benign liquids. We use them to test exception liquids (medical needs above 3.4 ounces) and for spot checking passengers and bags.
Spectrometers, very advanced handheld units that can resolve any threat regardless of the chemistry involved, have been issued to TSA Bomb Appraisal Officers at major airports.
Hundreds of dropper-based or test strip-based chemical analyzers kits are deployed at smaller airports to resolve any concerns about individual exempt liquids larger than 3-1-1 in carry-ons.
About 40 Whole Body Imagers are deployed to larger airports around the country to date, and about 80 more will be deployed by spring-time. These are the walk-in portals that scan the body and can detect concealed items, including liquids.
And while they’re not actually a technology, it is important to note that about 2,000 TSA officers have been specially trained in Behavior Detection.
In addition, every officer in the country is receiving two days of specialized training – going on right now – to get at evolving threats, including liquids. To keep current, TSA runs IED drills every shift across the country, every day.
K-9 Teams (over 500) are another effective explosives detection capability and we use them in passenger areas, around the airport, and have several hundred additional teams just for air cargo.
Path Forward
We are deploying the best technology and training as fast as we can get it. The goal is to remove all the restrictions on liquids when we have automated systems that can accurately separate threat from non-threat liquids. Here’s the plan:
Now: We are pretty close to having a network of AT-X-Ray deployed so that nearly 70% of daily passengers will be using major airports with AT. TSA is getting the hardware installed so that when the software is ready in the next year or so, all we have to do is a software upgrade. We will be testing software versions in the coming months.
Fall-2009: Size restriction removed, but all liquids will have to be placed in a separate bin. AT X-Ray software will be advanced enough to tell the difference between threat and non-threat but not yet proven to tell the difference when it is hidden in a bag.
End of 2010: No restrictions. AT X-Ray will have upgraded software that is proven to detect threat liquids in any configuration and is deployed in enough places so that TSA can change the rules to meet one uniform standard for the country.
Next Steps
TSA is working with our partners around the world to share technology both ways and this has resulted in a faster development process and will mean that there could be common design standards with major partners like Canada, the EU, and Australia.
It is also likely that when the U.S. takes steps on liquid restrictions, we will do so in harmony with others, as we did with the 3-1-1 (three ounce container/one quart bag/one bag per person) liquids rule. It is fair to say that we and our global partners see the threat in the same way and know that a common, high level of security encompassing a large part of the world is in everybody’s best interests.
Right now at home, we’re looking at some short term options based on passenger feedback and input from airports and airlines. We think there is an opportunity to build on the Diamond Self-Select lanes systems that we have tried in 2008.
The Diamond Self-Select lanes system, where expert travelers and families choose the lane best suited for them, has worked well. The expert lanes are fast and the Family lanes are hassle-free and they are at 45 airports today. TSA, airports, and airlines can further develop that concept, and we’re looking at something along the following lines.
- Limit the Black Diamond (Expert) lanes more formally beyond self-select.
- By number or size of carry-ons?
- By 3-1-1 only, no exception liquids?
- Focus liquid detection technology at the Family/Special Needs lanes and ask those with exception liquids to go there – speeding up the other lanes in the process?
Liquids restrictions are with us for the better part of the next year but we all realize that a simple, hassle-free security process is good for passengers and security too. Thank you for coming to TSA.gov and I am looking forward to your feedback.
Kip Hawley
***Update 10/27/08***
3 oz or 3.4 oz? What gives???
OK, here’s the scoop. If the U.S. would have switched to the metrics system in the 70s, this wouldn’t be an issue.
When the TSA lifted the total liquid ban and implemented the 3-1-1 program, the permissible amount of liquids, aerosols and gels was 3oz. Press releases went out, WebPages were updated, and signs were printed and shipped out nationwide to 457 airports. A lot of work went into the 3-1-1 campaign.
When the TSA rolled this out, the European Union was not on board yet. When the EU decided to allow liquids to travel, the amount permitted was 100ml. Well, as we all know, 100ml = 3.4oz. not 3 oz.
In order to align with the EU, we decided to allow liquids in containers up to 3.4oz, but we decided to keep our signage the same. The 3-1-1 program was so successful, that it would have been a shame to change it to 3.4-1-1. J
TSOs nationwide should be allowing liquids up to 3.4oz. If they are not, you can ask for a supervisor or you can use our Got Feedback program.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
posted by Bob at
11:23 PM
Subscribe in a reader
157 Comments:
Kip: Standard X-Ray is deployed everywhere and can effectively identify the presence of liquids and their containers. It is not reliable in differentiating all threat liquids from non-threat liquids.
I recently was kept waiting at an uncrowded TSA checkpoint while I watched someone pass about a dozen cases of bottled water through the x-ray machine. After I survived my own screening, I went to the concessionaire and confirmed my suspicion. The bottles were the same brand as the ones I saw going through the x-ray machine.
Given that standard x-ray is "not reliable in differentiating all threat liquids from non-threat liquids," I have real difficulty understanding what I observed. Is the x-ray just part of the security theater, done as mindless routine because "everything that enters the sterile area shall be x-rayed?" Or does the TSA actually believe that the x-ray is sufficient to assure the safety of water bottles sold by airport concessionaires at inflated prices, while an identical bottle of water bought elsewhere at a normal price is forbidden because a normal x-ray can't distinguish its contents from explosives?
I know that you want us to ignore the inexplicable and absurd things we observe at TSA checkpoints, and maintain uncritical "patriotic" faith in your continual assertions that it's all sensible and necessary based on intelligence that must necessarily remain unknown to us. But any passenger who is even minimally aware and minimally intelligent will quickly lose any respect and credibility toward the TSA after they've endured the screening process a few times. There's too often a disconnect between what the TSA says and what we observe at checkpoints. The frequently-discussed implementation of the War On Liquids particularly invites skepticism and distrust toward the TSA and all its procedures. Given your admission that "there has to be a better way," I think it's appropriate to ask whether the supposed benefits of the War on Liquids outweigh the damage it does the TSA's effectiveness by undermining the credibility of everything it does.
It's good to see you go on record stating that "there has to be a better way," and that you have a plan and timetable for addressing this "pain point." But somehow I suspect that for every step forward there will be two or three steps back, since that has been the history of the TSA.
Your successor will have the unenviable task of building confidence in an agency that is so widely criticized, distrusted, and even reviled. I would hope that he or she understands that the TSA will only be effective in its mission when passengers respect it, have confidence in it, and want to cooperate with its employees in realizing the common goal we all share, of keeping aviation safe from the terrorist threat. One way to start building that confidence is to reduce (or preferably eliminate) what is visibly absurd and ridiculous, and by treating passengers as partners in the security process rather than as enemies or threats.
October 25, 2008 2:42 AM
Kip wrote...
When it comes to liquids, everybody involved with checkpoint operations -- passengers, airlines, airports, and TSA employees -- agrees that there has to be a better way. Here’s my take on the path forward.
For this discussion, I am using “liquids” as short-hand for liquids, aerosols, and gels and other novel types of explosives.
That brings me to my first question, Kip.
Currently TSOs at the government checkpoints do not apparently understand the difference between "liquid ounce" measurement and "net weight" measurement and are automatically rejecting toothpaste that weighs more than 3.4 ounces, but is LESS than 3.4 ounces liquid measure. Toothpaste is sold by weight, not volume, and is so marked.
Will you please train your TSOs to understand the difference between liquid (volume) and weight measure?
Right now at home, we’re looking at some short term options based on passenger feedback and input from airports and airlines. We think there is an opportunity to build on the Diamond Self-Select lanes systems that we have tried in 2008.
The Diamond Self-Select lanes system, where expert travelers and families choose the lane best suited for them, has worked well. The expert lanes are fast and the Family lanes are hassle-free and they are at 45 airports today. TSA, airports, and airlines can further develop that concept, and we’re looking at something along the following lines.
- Limit the Black Diamond (Expert) lanes more formally beyond self-select.
* By number or size of carry-ons?
* By 3-1-1 only, no exception liquids?
- Focus liquid detection technology at the Family/Special Needs lanes and ask those with exception liquids to go there – speeding up the other lanes in the process?
And that brings me to my next question...
As a handicapped individual I need reasonable accommodations from the TSA at checkpoints. I'm mobility impaired, but have fought my way OUT of a wheelchair after using one for three years. In part, my limitations are distance I can walk and length of time I can remain standing.
I may not be the person you want in your "Black Diamond" lanes, and finding something as simple as a lane marked with the accepted international handicapped symbol (wheelchair in blue and white), where I will be assured of as short a path as practical, a place to sit to remove my shoes, a place to sit to put my shoes on, and as short a time standing in line as practical, does not seem to be something TSA has figured out.
May I have your personal assurance that your people will work WITH the handicapped rather than against us in getting through these chokepoints quickly and with the accommodations we require?
The requirement to provide needed accommodations is settled law, and shuffling me off to the longest, slowest, least accommodating line possible because I cannot move rapidly is NOT an acceptable response.
Thank you for coming to TSA.gov and I am looking forward to your feedback. -- Kip
And thank you in advance for your answers...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 25, 2008 3:52 AM
Am I the only one who did a dance when I read this.
October 25, 2008 3:53 AM
Well, it'll have taken what? Three years for the TSA to finally understand that a policy that believes six ounces of shampoo in one bottle can blow up a plane, while two three-ounce bottles can't is silly.
Maybe, in another three years, the TSA will also figure out that what brought down the airplanes on 9/11 wasn't boxcutters but a bad CONOPS (cooperate with hijackers) and unsecured cockpit doors, and allow pocket knives again.
But I'm not holding my breath.
October 25, 2008 8:33 AM
Kip is it 3 oz or 3.4 oz?
Can TSA decide on just one standard?
October 25, 2008 9:33 AM
There is no threat from liquids, full stop. You could save all of this time and money by eliminating your nonsensical restrictions NOW. Shame on you.
October 25, 2008 9:53 AM
You people are terrorists:
The elderly mother of a Las Vegas woman said that she was moved from her wheelchair, spread-eagled and physically searched by the Transportation Security Administration in Albuquerque. She says it’s not the first time and that officers searched her dog, too.
October 25, 2008 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...
Kip is it 3 oz or 3.4 oz?
Can TSA decide on just one standard?
October 25, 2008 9:33 AM
***********************************
It is 3.4 ounces why is this still a question?
October 25, 2008 11:27 AM
"It is 3.4 ounces why is this still a question?"
Because TSOs at some airports are still taking "3-1-1" literally. 0.4 ounces doesn't seem like much, but I'd like to be able to not have to dump my 100ml bottles because someone still thinks that the limit is 3 ounces exactly.
October 25, 2008 12:04 PM
Attention TSA. Liquid explosives are not novel!! Nitroglycerin was one of the first (if not the first) high explosives, way back in the 1800s.
Nor are peroxide-based explosives or other nitrate-based liquid explosives novel. Both have been around for a while.
In spite of that commercial aviation worked just fine without a war-on-water for many decades, with the exception of one unfortunate incident involving nitroglycerin, which only killed one person. (an outcome which could be achieved by a deranged pax strangling another with a belt; I'm sure you want to ban our clothes next, out of an "abundance of caution." :( ) In the pre-TSA era, that incident was seen as an unfortunate anomaly, but the world managed to go on without a paranoid overreaction.
I suspect one of the reasons aviation worked so well without a war on water is that the bad guys knew solid explosives were and are the best option for their plans and that solid explosives are still fairly easy to get by screening. And the pre-TSA security infrastructure knew that it should focus on the probable threats, not the improbable pie in the sky threats.
Nothing at all changed in 8/06, except that TSA felt it needed a publicity stunt and excessive risk-avoidance. TSA knew about the London plot for months prior to 8/06 but did nothing. Only after public exposure of the alleged-plot did TSA step up the security theater. Even if you felt there was a "new" threat from liquid explosives, having pax take their (un-restricted) liquids out of their carry-ons and implementing stepped up random ETD swabs would have mitigated that concern.
But instead you banned an entire state of matter in a classic paranoid knee-jerk reaction. :(
Meanwhile, your detection rate for guns and solid explosives is still dreadful. Your TSOs waste their time looking for and confiscating toothpaste and water bottles.
I hope you do fix this problem next year, if not sooner. I also hope you quit harassing innocent Americans with a secret blacklist that has no due process and no effective means of redress, and quit you plans to develop a Stasi-like travel-dossier on Americans that will be used to grant permission for the "privilege " of travel. :(
October 25, 2008 12:54 PM
at least their moving forward in the right direction, give them credit for that
October 25, 2008 1:55 PM
Thank you for coming to TSA.gov and I am looking forward to your feedback. -- Kip
No you are not looking forward to our feed back Kip because much of it remains quite negative over perceived foot dragging by DHS, Hollywood terrorist scenarios, bizarre SOP, out of control TSOs who routinely abuse the elderly and disabled.
October 25, 2008 2:50 PM
http://www.lcni5.com/cgi-bin/storyviewx.cgi?080+News.20081024-3239-080-080030.Lead+News
Woman told she's on TSA list
By Lee Einer
The elderly mother of a Las Vegas woman said that she was moved from her wheelchair, spread-eagled and physically searched by the Transportation Security Administration in Albuquerque. She says it’s not the first time and that officers searched her dog, too.
Patricia Anderson, 85, of Everett, Wash., visits her daughter, Cordia Sammeth, every year in Las Vegas. Sammeth drives her mother down to Las Vegas from Washington; Anderson returns home by plane.
Last Friday, Anderson was headed home; she was in a wheelchair when she came to the security checkpoint at the Albuquerque airport. Anderson said TSA personnel made her get up out of her wheelchair, stand spread-eagled and submit to a body search.
“I have difficulty with my mobility,” Anderson said. “But I had to stand up and spread my arms and legs out. It was very difficult. I’m 85 years old, and my balance isn’t that great anyway.”
This year, they had Anderson hold her traveling companion, a toy poodle named Sammy, while they searched the dog’s carrier. Anderson said that last year, in Seattle, the TSA didn’t just search the carrier, they took her little dog into a back room and body-searched it as well.
Patricia Anderson doesn’t know why the officers would think she’s a terrorist. A retired nurse, she describes herself as conservative and said she is quiet about her political opinions.
“I have not been one who participated in demonstrations or anything like that,” Anderson said. “ I have never been an activist or taken a strong public stand on anything.”
Anderson said that when she asked why she had been singled out to be searched, the TSA personnel said first it was because her name was in its database. Then, she said, they gave her another reason. “They said, ‘The terrorists didn’t buy one-way tickets.’”
Anderson believes the TSA should be more aware of people’s physical limitations. “They should know that if someone’s in a wheelchair they have physical difficulties,” Anderson said. “I’m not unpatriotic. It’s just that I think they carry some things a little to the extreme. “
TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said she could not comment on this incident because she could not confirm it. She was able to say that Anderson may have a similar name to someone on a watch list, but added that the TSA does not release information about names in the database.
McCauley said TSA policy is to wheel chair-bound passengers around the scanner and wand them in their chairs if they cannot walk through the scanner.
“We do not put people in an uncomfortable position,” McCauley said. McCauley also said dogs passing through the checkpoint get patted down and wanded.
October 25, 2008 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...
You people are terrorists:
The elderly mother of a Las Vegas woman said that she was moved from her wheelchair, spread-eagled and physically searched by the Transportation Security Administration in Albuquerque. She says it’s not the first time and that officers searched her dog, too.
October 25, 2008 9:54 AM
Any Photos or Video proof?
would like to have evidance of TSA debachery
October 25, 2008 3:50 PM
The TSA is proving more and more that it's just "security theater":
85-year old woman in wheelchair was told she's on TSA's list: http://www.lcni5.com/cgi-bin/storyviewx.cgi?080+News.20081024-3239-080-080030.Lead+News
October 25, 2008 4:08 PM
The story below illustrates that the TSA will always be "security theater."
Synopsis: 85-year-old woman in a wheelchair told she's on TSA's list: http://tiny.cc/wHQ1R
October 25, 2008 4:18 PM
I think that you should not exclude people with exception liquids from the Black Diamond lanes. While you may *legally* be able to do it, I think it is wrong to exclude someone simply because they have to take medicine that is an exception liquid. The other exception, from what I remember of the liquid rules is is people with baby formula for an infant. So, you're going to be prohibiting people who need medicine and parents with infants from the express line. My experience going through the security line (and claiming an exception) has not led to a delay for other passengers, as far as I can tell, since they just looked at my medicine and let me go on.
October 25, 2008 6:37 PM
Let me second what George said above, except in my case, it was a stack of cases of glass beer bottles heading for one of the bars on the AA said of Terminal B @ BOS & the delivery person cut in front of those of waiting in the elite line; made it a bit hard to miss. Went thru the exact same x-ray machine I put my belongings in &, BTW, the screeners use to put their jumbo cups of coffee they get from the Dunkin Donuts right outside the checkpoint thru (they also cut in front of the passengers).
As many, many others have reported, both here & on other Forums, the TSA's 'War on Water' doesn't happen outside the US unless one is boarding a flight to the US, so I would question your claim to 'help' bring the int'l community up to the TSA's speed; seems to me, they're miles & miles ahead of you, Kip, & it's the TSA that needs to do the catching up!
October 25, 2008 7:04 PM
TSO Tom said...
Anonymous said...
Kip is it 3 oz or 3.4 oz?
Can TSA decide on just one standard?
October 25, 2008 9:33 AM
***********************************
It is 3.4 ounces why is this still a question?
October 25, 2008 11:27 AM
////////////////////////
Because Kip referenced both 3-1-1 and 3.4oz. It cannot be both and your boss still seems confused on this issue.
October 25, 2008 8:20 PM
Anonoymous: "Any Photos or Video proof?
would like to have evidance of TSA debachery"
Evidence conveniently disappears ... err is recorded over as part of the normal cycle when it's something that embarasses TSA. If it's something like the sippy cup lady at DCA, well, it'll be out in a jiffy complete with a mythbuster's posting to debunk the "myth" / discredit the accuser.
Earl
October 26, 2008 1:32 AM
Yangj,
I have had similar experience as you. Toothpaste is sold in weight, not volume. That, plus the total lack of understanding of the metric system by TSOs, has lead to many a discussion regarding my 90 g tube. These people also don't seem to understand that international air travel is not acceptable without toothpaste. They also seem to think that putting the international traveler, who is already exhausted from his/her trip, through repeated scans and haraSSSSment is OK. It is not.
Get rid of the war on liquids now! Remember most countries in the world allow liquids unless, of course, you are going to the US-TSA-land.
October 26, 2008 5:11 AM
Kip,
Please explain why you are investing in full body scanners. They are invasive, and as a result, you have to give the option of opting out. Since a person can opt out, it necessarily does not work, because the one in a billion with something to hide will know which option works best. Worse, they cannot detect things in body cavities, which makes them completely useless if someone really wants to take something on their body. Trace chemical scanners and puffers can detect chemicals no matter where they are and without the privacy concerns. Why are you not investing heavily in those?
Answer: security theater. Puffers are a lot less coll than virtual strip searches.
October 26, 2008 5:20 AM
Posted by D:
I think that you should not exclude people with exception liquids from the Black Diamond lanes.
Agree, and in fact I'm against TSA messing with the "self-select" of the express lanes at all over any criteria--liquids, # of bags, bag size, etc.
I go through with a max-sized rollaboard and a very large laptop case. But I know the drill, and can do the shoe-carnival dance, 3.4-1-1 dance, coat dance, laptop-out dance, etc. quick enough that my stuff never holds up the x-ray conveyor belt. And my items only get called for a bag check maybe once a year for totally random reasons beyond my control. (e.g., a screener at CID last month spent 10 minutes pawing through my bag looking for my nail clippers which had never interested them before, even just after 9/11).
Forcing me into the "family"/slow lane because I would choose to carry a bottle of wine would be a bad idea for both me and the "families." Even TSA admits that one of the best things that has come out of the self-select program is that the families/slow people don't feel pressured by all the speedy frequent fliers. Shoving a bunch of us into the slow lane is just going to irritate us and put pressure on the slow-lane to speed up, which then will irritate the family/slow-lane people who were just trying to do the right thing themselves.
Oh, and TSA: abolish the no-fly list. Secret blacklist + no due process and no effective means of redress + having to request permission from the government for domestic travel == East German Stasi and un-American. Read the Constitution.
October 26, 2008 6:55 AM
You can't even get your screeners to stop yelling at people and carnival barking. You won't be able to get them to do this.
October 26, 2008 8:31 AM
Is there any TSO on this forum that does not KNOW the limit is 3.4 oz?
October 26, 2008 10:05 AM
Yes, we have greavances, when we have been kept waiting at security at an airport etc, however I think it's worth it in the end, as it would be our loved ones who would be complaining if something horrific happened onboard with liquids.
Just look at the operation in the UK, when they caught 5 people who were planning to down 5 transatlantic flights in the same day!
I think it's a case of give and take.
October 26, 2008 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
You people are terrorists:
The elderly mother of a Las Vegas woman said that she was moved from her wheelchair, spread-eagled and physically searched by the Transportation Security Administration in Albuquerque. She says it’s not the first time and that officers searched her dog, too.
October 25, 2008 9:54 AM
Any Photos or Video proof?
would like to have evidance of TSA debachery
October 25, 2008 3:50
\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////
If TSA utilized video surveillence at all points that it's agents interactred with people or peoples property then the evidence would be readily available.
Now you know why TSA has not implemented video surveillance at all of it's checkpoints.
Deniability!
October 26, 2008 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...
Kip,
Please explain why you are investing in full body scanners. They are invasive, and as a result, you have to give the option of opting out.
........................
Do you even think for a moment that TSA will not modify the rules and require MMW scanning?
The requirment for providing ID or not was optional until a few months ago. A court case was settled by TSA saying that a person did not have to provide ID. TSA lied!
The more recent policy of having to provide name, address and date of birth was suppose to be optional, but not now. Again TSA lied!
Why should anyone have any faith that TSA policies won't be changed to be more restrictive when they have repeatably said one thing then turn around and do something else.
TSA is corrupt, it's senior employees are corrupt and they seem to have little problem being untruthful when stating policy to the public.
October 26, 2008 12:45 PM
Liquids! My favorite subject!
Let's start with definitions: What on Earth does the TSA consider a liquid? For example, why is tooth powder a liquid but not liquid fillings within chocolates or grapes, or glass?
Second, the central problem: Liquids are essential. You can't deny toothpaste, deodorant, eye drops or chapstick to the average traveler. You really can't deny insulin for the diabetic traveler, or milk for babies. That means that either you accept anything, or you have the technology to test specific exemptions. Nothing else makes sense, otherwise we can all start bringing our favorite drinks inside contact lens solition.
Third, the relevance: There is nothing liquid and explosive that can't be transformed into a solid explosive. Therefore, limiting liquids makes no sense.
The war on liquids should end now. You have kept the goat in the house long enough. Let us breathe a bit.
October 26, 2008 2:04 PM
I am very ecxited about the size restrictions on liquids being removed. If I read the info correctly about the new technology coming down the pipe, I have a really big concern for those of us @ the checkpoint. Let me explain...
Understanding that the new technology will hopefully be able to differentiate "good" from "bad" liquids is something we can all agree will be fantastic. The problem comes in with the stipulation that they ALL must put in the bin since a threat on non-threat cannot be determined if it is still in the passengers luggage.
(Heck, we can't get the passengers to take them out now as it is) But now we will have even MORE trouble getting passengers to comply because they now believe we have new and improved magic machines. And with fewer PAX removing the liquids, the lines will move slower because we will have to check even more bags than we do now. Heck, we still can't get the people to take their computers out of the bags! I surely can't be the only TSO who has thought about this...
Even before I became a TSO, I was aware of the liquid ban. Heck, I remember having to surrender my lighter and nail clippers at one point early on. No big deal. When I traveled I just got my provisions on the "other side" of my trip. When I stayed at a motel, there were little toiletries for me to use. I used my parents shampoo, or my friends toothpaste. I do not see why others can't do this. And while at the checkpoint, I don't see why you need to bring a 16oz. tube of lotion! Get it on the other side! And if you must have it, put it in your checked luggage. Or ship it to yourself.
Yeah, I know...you don't want to either 1)pay to check your bag or 2) wait in the baggage claim area once you get to the other end. Because God knows you can't be put out in any way shape or form because you are just too important/busy/special/priveledged or otherwise different from everybody else.
I know how it is. I used to have that very same mindset myself. I was in a hurry at the checkpoint. I didn't get all my stuff out. I didn't want to wait in baggage, I had places to go...Now that I am on the other side of the x-ray I see I just caused myself and TSO's more agrevation than I needed to. I appologize for that.
Just my humble opinion, (mine and no one elses lest some of you attribute my comments to all TSOs)
I think ALL liquids should be banned. You or I can get what we need on the other side. I have read articles on types of liquid explosive mixtures that can do great harm in quantities of much less that 3 oz. Two or three people taking an ounce or two thru several different lanes can cook up a bomb in the concourse area and that would be a very bad thing.
Am I the only one that worries about this?
I would appreciate comstructive comments from passengers and TSOs alike. Please don't belittle me for my opinions or fears. I really do want to do my best to keep us all safe.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 26, 2008 2:28 PM
It'll be great when liquids are allowed again. Especially since airlines have started to charge for even one checked bag. Also, it'd be nice to be able to take a real lunch again instead of just dried granola, etc.
October 26, 2008 2:42 PM
Okay, since no TSO on this forum has claimed NOT to know what the limit is, lets assume that all TSO's SHOULD know what the limit is. Now lets talk about 3-1-1:
311 was designed as a guideline for TSO's and passengers alike, at a time when the limit WAS 3.0 oz. It wasn't very long after 311 was thought up, that the limit was RAISED to 3.4 oz. However, the signage was never changed. What would we call it? 3.4-1-1? doesn't make much sense does it? The 1 quart zip lock bag is still in effect, and its still one bag per passenger. At our airport, we changed the 3.0 to 3.4 manually, and every TSO KNOWS what the real limit is. So, when I asked why this is still a question, it was to figure out why its still an issue, not only in this forum, but at the checkpoints as well. In this forum, it has been esteablished repeatedly that the limit is 3.4 oz. And while some claim that ALL liquids/gels etc are BANNED but there are exceptions, I dispute that analogy, because if ALL LAG's were indeed BANNED as stated in a prior thread, there would be NO EXCEPTIONS. Does this make sense guys? So I ask again, if every TSO knows what the limit is, and its been established in a previous thread that the limit is indeed 3.4 (nevermind that some claim a total ban), then there should be NO QUESTION. So when we speak of 311, we're not speaking of 3.0 oz, we're speaking of the general guideline that was established to show passengers how to package their LAGs. Capesh? ;-)
October 26, 2008 3:11 PM
Another pearl from Ronnie: "I think ALL liquids should be banned. You or I can get what we need on the other side."
As always, TSOs do not think about the international traveler. Did you know, Ronnie, that I often am in airspace (airplanes + airports), separated from my checked luggage, for more than 24 hours? Do you really think taking toothpaste and deodorant with me on board is an unnecessary luxury? Do you really think it is worth the inconvenience to millions of honest travelers to ban liquids based on an unproven, scientifically unsound threat?
October 26, 2008 3:47 PM
TSO Tom writes:
311 was designed as a guideline for TSO's and passengers alike, at a time when the limit WAS 3.0 oz. It wasn't very long after 311 was thought up, that the limit was RAISED to 3.4 oz. However, the signage was never changed. What would we call it? 3.4-1-1? doesn't make much sense does it?
With all due respect ... why does TSA have to call it anything at all? Not everything in life has to have a catchy slogan. After all, TSA doesn't have a slogan for how long your scissors blades can be, or to remind passengers to take off their shoes, or any of the other dozens of rules that must be followed.
So I ask again, if every TSO knows what the limit is, and its been established in a previous thread that the limit is indeed 3.4 (nevermind that some claim a total ban), then there should be NO QUESTION.
Except for two problems:
1) It's been made quite clear here that many TSOs don't know their own rules. I think there are over 2000 TSOs; I seriously doubt all of them are reading this.
2) Even if all TSOs know the rules, you now have a problem where the "printed rule" (the one on the signs and in the brochures) and the "real rule" (the one the TSOs know) are different. If TSA is going to keep asking passengers to help out by knowing the rules, it should at least make sure that the rules it publishes are accurate.
(Of course, it'd be nice if passengers had a list of all the rules they had to follow, but TSA has indicated that they're not going to provide that.)
October 26, 2008 4:25 PM
I used my parents shampoo, or my friends toothpaste. I do not see why others can't do this. And while at the checkpoint, I don't see why you need to bring a 16oz. tube of lotion! Get it on the other side! And if you must have it, put it in your checked luggage. Or ship it to yourself.
Cool, if you stay at either your parents house or a friends house. The issue becomes one where you travel into a new city/country on business. Granted you could go to a store if one were open and purchase what you need. Seen the exchange rate for Euros lately? You might spend $9.00 for a tube of toothpaste, if you spoke the language you might even find it. You don't travel for a living (49 weeks out of the year for me)and what you suggest is pretty funny and expensive.
Pack it in luggage? Yep, already do that and have had every container in my toiletries opened up by someone (probably a TSO) on around four flights. Makes for a good mess at the end of the trip. Means I've got to find a laundry if I want clean clothing.
Sitting in a laundromat on the evening of my arrival isn't a whole lot of fun. Oh, and if you say 'air pressure differential' opened up those containers some of the containers had screw on lids on them. Nice try though.
October 26, 2008 4:30 PM
TSO Tom said...
Okay, since no TSO on this forum has claimed NOT to know what the limit is, lets assume that all TSO's SHOULD know what the limit is. Now lets talk about 3-1-1:
For TSO Tom:
http://www.tsa.gov/311
/index.shtm
Well 3.0oz is specifically stated on the "Official TSA.GOV webpage at the link I pasted above.
There are plenty of reasons to not trust all TSO's to know the standard whatever it may be.
TSO NY for example. Remeber him?
TSA is nonfunctional. Period!
October 26, 2008 4:36 PM
I won't advocate a total ban on liquids/gels etc. Nor will I advocate a total lifting of the current limit. I will say that as shown by the posters in this thread alone, 311 has outlived its usefullness. So once again, lets say that 3.4 (or 100 ml) is the rule, and that all items under that limit must be packaged in a 1 quart sized, sealed, zip lock bag. With that in mind, there are additional exceptions, such as medication and baby formula/milk, etc. With that in mind, TSO's have additional leeway with items that are under the limit but may not be in a bag. Discretion if you will. How a TSO applies said discretion may vary...but it is there. At this point, Kip I'd have to say it is getting quite confusing, even for a seasoned TSO to follow, and I do feel for passengers who voice their concerns in this forum, because it has to be a total loss for them to follow.
October 26, 2008 5:45 PM
Jim Huggins said
(Of course, it'd be nice if passengers had a list of all the rules they had to follow, but TSA has indicated that they're not going to provide that.)
***********************************
Yes Jim, I agree with you that it would be nice if the rules were made available to the public, and I have suggested some type of publication to provide said rules, but haven't seen it yet.
October 26, 2008 5:50 PM
Like I said, ban ALL liquids. Then that 3/3.4 ounce stuff would be a moot point. The only exceptions should be medical supplies and baby/toddler milk or foods. The rest we can all do without for 24 hrs., or get on the 'other side'.
This would include the 'other side' of the checkpoint BEFORE you fly out. Don't most airports have numerous gift shops down on the concourses? Don't want to spend the money? Afraid of $9.00 toothpaste in Europe? Buy it for $3.00 in the gift shop past the checkpoint. Then you would have it to carry on if you can't do without. This is not meant to be flip or mean, it is only a helpful suggestion. And one I really do believe would speed things up across the board. Yeah, it may be at worst inconvenient. But simply taking care of your liquid needs after you go thru the security checkpoint is really not a big deal. I do it myself. We all could. Think of how much faster you could get thru security. I bet the "NO Liquid" line would be the fastest at every airport.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 26, 2008 7:00 PM
Quote from Graham Gallagher: "Yes, we have greavances, when we have been kept waiting at security at an airport etc, however I think it's worth it in the end, as it would be our loved ones who would be complaining if something horrific happened onboard with liquids."
These liquids have been around for years beforehand. What made them ok for years beforehand (or an acceptable risk at least) that suddenly they became an issue?
"Just look at the operation in the UK, when they caught 5 people who were planning to down 5 transatlantic flights in the same day!
And they also caught someone who wanted to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. Just because someone WANTS to do something doesn't mean they CAN or it's even feasible or possible to do so.
None of those people were convicted on terrorism or exploding with a liquid bomb. 3 were convicted on conspiracy to murder charges. One was found not guilty and no verdict could be reached on the other 4.
In other words, the prosecution didn't have the evidence it claimed it did to get a conviction on terrorism charges.
"I think it's a case of give and take.
TSA keeps taking from us. What does it give? Surely not security.
Robert
October 26, 2008 8:49 PM
So Ronnie, why should I have to rebuy all my toiletries when I have perfectly acceptable ones that can be taken and should be permitted on a plane? Administrative convenience isn't a valid excuse, and we have yet to see any real evidence out of TSA/DHS outside one fancy video and an "expert" who sells bomb detection equipment.
October 26, 2008 9:01 PM
The only path forward on the liquid issue is to remove it as its has been proven many times that its not viable outside of tightly controlled lab conditions. If you think 3 oz is "a deadly threat" then I can post a number of multi-drug cocktails that would dispatch someone in less then 50CC or 1.7 fluid oz.
Tom - you have contradicted your self yet again. which is it 3 oz or 100 ml
Bob, Kip, Nico, etc please either educate your screeners or set your hiring standards higher as your screeners dont seem to know the rules or how to convert imperial to metric and vice versa. Then when challenged on the issue seem to power trip and issue that oh so familiar terroristic threat of DYWTFT.
So please explain the restriction on liquids and are the limits volume, weight, or displacement because there is a massive difference, because different items are sold differently, IE that 8oz tube of toothpaste is only 3 fluid oz, but weighs 8oz, and that's how it is marked. Then there is the medicine issue that pops up repeatedly that never gets asked and has been posted here again without being answered.
Then also is it a ziploc bag or a zip top bag because i have seen screeners toss peoples baggies because they were not ziploc brand bags. Then what about the 1 ltr bags that are sold in other countries and in the US, are those banned to? Can screener's tell the minute difference between a 1 qt and 1 ltr baggie without the bag being marked as such?
Then it is sad that your screeners cant seem to do basic math that the rest of the world learns before there teenage years. 3oz does not equal 100ml. 3oz is 88ml, 3.4 oz is 100ml.
Then finally since where discussing screening standards and procedures any of the TSA bloggers care to explain why screeners total blatent disregard CDC guidelines for the use of Body Substance Isolation (BSI) in reguards to the use of gloves in the screening process. Then are they Nitrile, vinyl, or latex (i hope its not the last due the populations sensitivity to latex).
In my last trip i have seen so many gross things its not even funny. Literally makes me sick because of how there used is now being used as a method to transfer bacteria. IE the screener that i witnessed go into the bathroom with there gloves on go to the bathroom then exit and go back to screening without changing gloves. If that was done in a restaurant that would be a health code violation, and the restaurant would be fined or shut down. Urine maybe sterile in the body but once outside it is no longer sterile and can transmit disease and infection. Then there is the TDC that was checking IDs who must have had a cold or something because they kept wiping there nose and face, but never changed gloves. I nearly lost my breakfast, and got a whats wrong with you look when i used my fingernails to take my license (since my city issued Ambulance permit wasn't acceptable). I wish i had a sterile 4x4 or culture kit as I wonder what would have grown. thank goodness for packaged single PDI wipes and gloves so i could clean my license. This and always wearing socks so my skin isnt directly on the floor so as to limit what i come in contact with when i travel. Im not a germaphobe but I come in contact with enough nasty bugs at work i dont need to add to my exposure risk when traveling.
Exam gloves were designed for ONE time use and then to be thrown away. NOT to be used for a extended period of times touching multiple items from different people. you dont use gloves for a extended period of time because all of the movement of your hand causes the glove to breakdown and to tear, in addition to everything your touching and putting on the gloves surface and then transmitting it to the next object. This is one of the biggest gripes i have with the screening process as it poses a true health hazard to the general public and to screeners as well.
In the field I use gloves for one patient and one patient only, and for a limited period of time normally less then 15 minutes. This is because they either get contaminated with a bodily fluid or because my hands get hot and start to float in the glove due to sweat. I will change gloves every time i do a procedure (finger stick to check blood sugar, IV start, medication administration, etc)
Then if i have two patients i change gloves when im done with one patient before going to do anything on the second patient so not to risk cross contamination or transmission. Good example is when i was on hurricane deployment one of my runs from a gulf coast hospital to a inland one i have three patients, and during our 7 hour transport i changed gloves so many times that i went through 2 boxes of gloves (qty 150 each) when it was all said and done. This wasnt a out of place either because another ambulance in our convoy had a patient on a ventilator that wasnt all that stable that they had to work on for the whole trip and that medic went through more gloves then me and this medic only this patient to deal with.
So why cant screeners change between people? gloves are dirt (pardon the pun) cheap so the cost component/factor wont fly. Also then why is it so hard for screeners to comply with requests to change gloves. I have had so many screeners look at me like i smacked there grandmother when i make that request its not even funny.
Traveling_Paramedic
In vegas heading home after two back-to-back trade shows.
October 27, 2008 2:26 AM
Kip, is part of your great "path forward" going to include basic training, such as would avoid TSA supervisors confiscating things like a gel-pack used to keep breast milk from spoiling? If your personnel can't even keep the rules straight, improved equipment won't make their inspections more effective.
I would think an important part of any sane way forward would be to figure out what the rules are, communicate them to your staff, and, in any "free" society, communicate the rules with the public.
As long as you try to enforce arbitrary and secret rules on the public, TSA will continue to have problems. As long as your management structure lets agents create and enforce non-rules, you are guaranteed to have an arbitrary and capricious system.
October 27, 2008 2:46 AM
Ronnie,
You live in a different reality. Most gift shops in airports do not sell toothpaste and deodorant. I could not find any within the Miami and Chicago international airports (which are quite large) during the horrid days of total liquid bans. I actually refused to go to the US on two occasions during those months. Try it: Go around your airport and find those two items in the "sterile area". You'll see it is not easy.
Outside the US, many airports are much smaller and do not have more than a few snack and book stores. Besides, liquids are checked for at the gate in these countries, because they are limited only on flights to the US.
And, of course, we international travelers are re-checked when we get in the US, often more than once. That means that even if we could find a "sterile" toothpaste in our boarding airport and hang on to it during the long overnight flight in, we would not be able to take it with us on our internal connections.
Limiting liquids is inhumane and unacceptable. Even Kip understands that!
October 27, 2008 4:12 AM
When Congress is away the Kip will play. You should hang out here more often, this group has to be nicer than those pompous politicians.
So would a novel type of explosive be a book bomb? *rim shot*
Well Kip I just read your whole post and found NOTHING to argue with you about.
I am not going to nit pick about liquids being a threat or not being a threat. Obviously the TSA sees liquid as a threat and assuming that the time line you stated is followed, I can live with that.
I know the TSA can not be fixed overnight so I will take any honest effort as a good sign.
October 27, 2008 4:14 AM
Afraid of $9.00 toothpaste in Europe?
Typical government employee playing fast and loose with my money. Another poster made a comment about there not being toothpaste and deodorant available at the concourse and I agree that I've never seen any either. Ronny, you should apply for Kip's position once he leaves since you appear to have all of the answers and would make a bad situation even worse.
October 27, 2008 7:51 AM
ronnie said: "Like I said, ban ALL liquids. Then that 3/3.4 ounce stuff would be a moot point. The only exceptions should be medical supplies and baby/toddler milk or foods."
So you want to ban "all" liquids (for perfect safety), but still make exceptions.
So, ronnie, what's to prevent one of these Evildoers from secretly replacing their medication or baby milk with Magical 3-oz Explosive Liquid?
The answer, of course, is nothing. All your plan would do is massively inconvenience everybody while providing zero added security.
Also, if you're really scared of 3 ounces of liquid, you should know that that amount can be easily secreted in a body cavity, undetectably by your milimeter scan technology. So unless you also want the TSA to go into business poking around inside people with those gloves you hate changing, you're never going to get perfect security. Might as well let the liquids on. Especially since there's an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more solid things that go boom than liquid things.
Give up. You're not going to win this one.
October 27, 2008 9:17 AM
@ronnie- Fine- I'm sorry, but you're coming off as flip in most senses of the word. Quite a few things you can't find at the sterile area, and you may not have heard of gate screenings- there goes the liquids bought in the "sterile" area. And, of course, when dumping liquids means "going without" for the duration of the stay (international destinations don't quite have the same products the US does), not to mention the possibility of Customs on the other side confiscating the stuff.
No thoughts for the international traveler, as always.
And I also echo traveling_paramedic's concerns.
Oh, and on the topic of the liquids plot- "conspiracy to murder" convictions can be made even if scientific facts or reality would have prevented the plot from actually happening. So for example, even if the liquid explosives they planned to use would have been too volatile to handle outside of "tightly controlled lab conditions" they could still be convicted. So don't think that means it was possible.
October 27, 2008 9:43 AM
The Japanese have been using a 'put the bottle here' LED-reflective system for screening water bottles for at least a year and a half. It is so reassuring to see it taking the TSA such a long time to consider using proven technologies and techniques that other nations have been using for years (and in some cases decades).
October 27, 2008 10:35 AM
I have good news and bad news.
First, the good news. I'm glad to see a plan coming from the TSA with some milestone dates on it. This makes the planned changes much more concrete and more credible. As anyone with a project management background will tell you, the main difference between a plan and a wish list is the presence of specific deliverables and the implementation dates.
Now the bad news. As I've pointed out in prior posts, the TSA puts a lot of PR effort into introducing new hardware. Improved hardware is fine, but what about the people aspect of the TSA's operations? I know that the TSA has made some mention of improved people skills training in the Checkpoint Evolution thread, but this comment was almost made "in passing".
I would like to see the same sort of a specific plan relative to screener's people skills, and timelines for its personnel to complete appropriate training. Here's my suggested curriculum:
-- Dealing with the mobility-challenged, the handicapped, the elderly, etc. in a respectful and courteous way
-- Conflict de-escalation -- ways to defuse a tense situation instead of inflaming it. Using the minimum effective response to a situation.
-- Vocal technique -- how to be project your voice without sounding angry. Differentiating between when to rely on projection vs. other methods of working with crowds.
-- Command presence -- having an authoritative presence without appearing condescending or threatening
-- Threat analysis -- differentiating between a legitimate security threat and a technicality, such as bracelet charm that looks like a gun
-- How to admit when your wrong -- 'nuff said
I'd also like to see specifically how the TSA is going to train and re-train its personnel to the common problem areas with TSA personnel not knowing the TSA's own rules (medical items as they apply to 3-1-1, for example).
One a seeming tangent (and as strange as it may seem), the TSA needs to borrow a page out of the Coast Guard's book from the early days of the "war on drugs".
[background] The CG was given a mandate to stem the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Never mind that the vast majority of the drugs were hidden in commercial freight, the CG spent a lot of time boarding and searching recreational vessels without probable cause. (Another one of these "administrative" exceptions to the 4th Amendment, and a major effort for little return.) Some of their boarding parties handled their new role like a bunch of hoodlums, holding boat occupants at gunpoint while the rest ransacked the boat. (What a way to treat people during a search without probable cause.) Unnecessary property damage often resulted, and normally no drugs were found. The CG ended up with a horrible reputation among recreational boaters, especially in Florida. Many people wrote their Congressmen and Senators about this. The Commandant of the Coast Guard was called to testify as to what was going on. [/background]
The Commandant's subsequent memo to his people contains a lesson for the TSA -- remember that the vast majority of the people you will come into contact with are law abiding citizens, and to treat them and their possessions with respect.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
October 27, 2008 12:25 PM
FYI - I just updated Kip's post and answered your 3oz/3.4oz questions.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 27, 2008 12:34 PM
Kip -- Put your money where your mouth is. (Virtual strip search machines aside for a minute.)
As soon as possible, task your congressional liaison and/or budget staff to post links to your as-appropriated FY09 budget and to your future year budget requests. Show us that this stuff is actually approved and funded before we believe you.
October 27, 2008 12:42 PM
"TSOs nationwide should be allowing liquids up to 3.4oz. If they are not, you can ask for a supervisor or you can use our Got Feedback program."
And if the supervisor refuses to allow the 3.4 oz container, the citizen has no recourse but to surrender his property.
October 27, 2008 1:07 PM
"TSOs nationwide should be allowing liquids up to 3.4oz. If they are not, you can ask for a supervisor or you can use our Got Feedback program."
Instead of putting the responsibility for knowing and applying the rules onto the shoulders of the flying public, why not put the responsibility where it belongs -- onto the shoulders of the personnel at the checkpoint? If checkpoint personnel were held accountable for knowing the rules, this wouldn't be such an issue.
Unfortunately, the pain and consequences of a screener's mistakes are borne by the passenger, not by the TSA. If the TSA had to make amends for its mistakes (thus bearing the pain and consequences), this would create an incentive for the agency to ensure that its own rules are known and followed.
Having Mr. Hawley send Mr. Gel Pack a personal letter of apology for what he and his wife got put through would be a good place to start.
October 27, 2008 1:47 PM
Bob, regarding the update and information on 3.4-1-1 what I hear you saying is that the Slogan and Signage are more important than putting out the correct information so both travelers and TSO's know whats going on.
Is that right?
October 27, 2008 1:48 PM
Well, I sure am glad that we're moving toward no more liquids restrictions. I don't buy the reasoning at all, and I don't believe there was ever much of a threat (see TSA's refusal to answer the repeatedly asked "How is it okay to line up next to a trash can full of potential liquid bombs" question) but it's good at least that a few years of screaming our throats raw at the TSA has finally gotten some results.
Hopefully Kip's replacement doesn't have anything against shoes, nipple rings, circuit boards, the elderly, handicapped, or people who aren't scared to proclaim what they think of the TSA.
Let's also hope that in the next few years passengers get some clearly defined rights at the checkpoint. I'm tired of being afraid that my rights are going to be violated with no recourse. Kip, even you have to see that the whole "these are the rules, except when we feel like it" thing really doesn't hold any water.
October 27, 2008 2:09 PM
I would assume that the TSA.GOV website would be the offical position when looking for guidance on liquids or any other question.
From TSA.GOV
"Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1
3-1-1 for carry-ons = 3 ounce bottle or less (by volume) ; 1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag; 1 bag per passenger placed in screening bin. One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring. 3 oz. container size is a security measure."
Get your stories straight then get back to us Bob!
October 27, 2008 2:21 PM
Bob writes in the update:
In order to align with the EU, we decided to allow liquids in containers up to 3.4oz, but we decided to keep our signage the same. The 3-1-1 program was so successful, that it would have been a shame to change it to 3.4-1-1.
Ok, I might be willing to concede that one shouldn't spend the money to redesign all the signs. But, honestly, would it be that hard to change all text references on the TSA website to 3.4 ounces instead of 3 ounces? And to change the text of TSA's own publications (in the next printing, of course) to refer to the correct limit of 3.4 ounces?
Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying "the sign is wrong, but we're just going to keep propagating the wrong information".
October 27, 2008 2:42 PM
see TSA's refusal to answer the repeatedly asked "How is it okay to line up next to a trash can full of potential liquid bombs" question
A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger.
the answer
We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.
That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items.
Nico
Source:TSA Blog
October 27, 2008 2:51 PM
Anon has accused me of living in an 'different reality'. I suppose it would be better to say I 'have lived in a different reality'. That would be past tense. Many years ago, through no fault of my own, I was briefly homeless. That is about as different a reality as you can get. I learned very quickly just what I can live without. Having lived w/o a roof over my head or food in my belly for days or weeks on end taught me quite a bit. Specifically to this post, just what I (or anyone) can live w/o for a little while. Shampoo, lotion, toothpaste and water included.
Anon said "limiting liquids is inhumane and unacceptable". I would argue that it is merely inconvenient. Save words like inhumane and unacceptable for things that really are. I can't really take you seriously when you use such hyperbole. I truely hope you never have to find out the hard way through any real hardship. Maybe if you stop to think about it, you will realize you CAN do w/o those things for a few hours.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 27, 2008 2:53 PM
Ronnie, what is the name of your supervisor at DEN? I wish to file a complaint regarding your attitude toward your job and the citizens you are supposed to be serving.
As for your statements that "I can't really take you seriously when you use such hyperbole."
Oddly, I cannot take TSA seriously when it tells me 3.5 ounces of shampoo can take down a jetliner. TSA is lying, you know it and we know it, and that is why we citizens reject your absurd and pointless reasoning.
"Maybe if you stop to think about it, you will realize you CAN do w/o those things for a few hours."
As has been noted in this very thread, many flights are far longer than a few hours. And since the items in question are completely harmless, TSA has no grounds beyond its delusions of grandeur to justify its indefensible policies regarding liquids.
October 27, 2008 3:55 PM
Traveling_Paramedic said...
In my last trip i have seen so many gross things its not even funny. Literally makes me sick because of how there used is now being used as a method to transfer bacteria. IE the screener that i witnessed go into the bathroom with there gloves on go to the bathroom then exit and go back to screening without changing gloves. If that was done in a restaurant that would be a health code violation, and the restaurant would be fined or shut down. Urine maybe sterile in the body but once outside it is no longer sterile and can transmit disease and infection. Then there is the TDC that was checking IDs who must have had a cold or something because they kept wiping there nose and face, but never changed gloves. I nearly lost my breakfast, and got a whats wrong with you look when i used my fingernails to take my license (since my city issued Ambulance permit wasn't acceptable). I wish i had a sterile 4x4 or culture kit as I wonder what would have grown. thank goodness for packaged single PDI wipes and gloves so i could clean my license. This and always wearing socks so my skin isnt directly on the floor so as to limit what i come in contact with when i travel. Im not a germaphobe but I come in contact with enough nasty bugs at work i dont need to add to my exposure risk when traveling.
Okay Mr. Traveling_Paramedic, you want to talk about gross?&
nbsp;
Let's talk gross.......
First of all the gloves are not worn for the passengers they are worn for
OUR safety.
I wear 2 pairs of gloves (and sometimes 3) at all
times........Why?
Because I'm freaked out about catching something from the filthy, smelly
people who pass threw the checkpoint.
Because of the smell and sometimes bugs that come crawling out of passenger
bags.
Second, I have NEVER worn or seen any TSO
wear gloves to the restroom. Our checkpoints have many hand sanitizer
stations for the TSO and are filled daily.
But I have seen many times passengers in the restroom with their luggage in
the stall with them and leave without washing their hands.
I have seen passengers picking their nose, scratching their private places
ect. and never once cleaned their hands afterwards.
Third, If passengers are so grossed out by
their feet touching the floor then can you please explain why they are not
grossed out letting their children roll around on it, or their children dropping
their toys, bottles, binkies and such and then giving them back to them and
watching them put them in their mouths.
Or why passengers complain about their feet touching the floor, but will drop
their boarding pass, pick it up and hold it in their mouth.
And are not grossed out putting food in the luggage that has been on the
floor and most of the time has shoes that have touch some floor.
And the good one......putting cell phones, watches, gum. jewelry, ect inside
of the shoes they are going to or have worn after walking on the gross floor of
the checkpoints, and the minute that cell phone rings will grab it and put it
right up to their face and mouth.
I could go on and on.......
Proud to be a TSO
October 27, 2008 4:03 PM
Ronnie TSO DEN --
By no means am I trivializing your experience with homelessness here, but I think you've comparing apples to oranges.
I think a traveler in modern society has a reasonable expectation of the things that go with modern society, including basic physical and biological needs, as well as maintaining personal hygiene.
Where I have an issue with the buy your personal items downstream of security answer, is that this simplistic approach can be anything from impractical to impossible for many travelers. I for one, would not want to buy my contact lens solutions at the far end of an international flight, for example.
Where a lot of us have problems with 3-1-1 is that the rules have been poorly defined, then enforced in an unnecessarily heavy handed manner that sometimes doesn't even follow the TSA's own rules. Adding insult to injury, the flying public has been told to educate itself on the rules, yet the TSA web site has historically been inconsistent in its statements regarding the rules.
Is it any wonder that this is such a source of acrimony? Most people don't like rules that appear capricious and arbitrary. It doesn't help that a lot folks aren't convinced that the liquids threat is real.
FWIW...
October 27, 2008 4:29 PM
Ronnie said...
Anon has accused me of living in an 'different reality'. I suppose it would be better to say I 'have lived in a different reality'. That would be past tense. Many years ago, through no fault of my own, I was briefly homeless. That is about as different a reality as you can get. I learned very quickly just what I can live without. Having lived w/o a roof over my head or food in my belly for days or weeks on end taught me quite a bit. Specifically to this post, just what I (or anyone) can live w/o for a little while. Shampoo, lotion, toothpaste and water included.
.............................
We should take ourselves down to the level of the homeless in order to fly on a commercial aircraft?
Do I really understand you correctly?
I don't think so, and will not accept that!
TSA cannot articulate a single solid reason why a quart bag with several 3.4oz items is any different than one 10oz item yet the 10oz item is excluded.
The technology is available today to screen liquids but TSA thinks Uniforms and Toy Cop badges are more important and spent a significant part of the TSA budget on those items that were not needed.
And to Nico, if you have a trash can full of various possibly volatile liquids then you stand there, I choose not to. That logic is so flawed that it is simply ridiculous yet seems par for the course at TSA!
I wonder how EPA would feel about you guys throwing that stuff in a non-hazardous waste stream? My bet is that the FSO's at each airport would be in line for some personal fines for not disposing of HazMat properly. I'll drop a line to EPA and ask for an opinion.
Thanks!
October 27, 2008 4:32 PM
"Quote from Anonymous: "We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.
That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items."
That also assumes that the items can be mixed together outside of a controlled laboratory enviornment which doesn't exist in an airport or on a plane.
It also doesn't take into consideration the shock of throwing a bottle in the trash could be enough to detonate an item.
It also assumes that the items aren't "gettable" airside, such as in some cleaners.
Many items exist that are just "one item" short of being something deadly. Carrying a cellphone and headphone wires are just an explosive short of having a bomb. Booze and lighter (both of which are permitted on board and are buyable past security or permitted) can cause a nice fire and a big ruckus. By this logic, why isn't everything confiscated because many things that are brought thru can cause damage to a plane or the people inside it? Where do you draw the line?
Conceivably, someone could throw a bunch of these items separately into a trash can, then throw in something else in the garbage that can detonate the rest of the stuff? Possible? Maybe, maybe not. It would be in Hollywood, so I thought maybe TSA would take that seriously. :D
If liquids are dangerous, combined or not, they need to be treated as such. Treat them as hazmat. How TSA treats them shows that they don't take the threat seriously despite what Nico and other spinners say. If the items aren't dangerous enough to treat them as such, they're not dangerous enough to be banned.
Robert
October 27, 2008 4:43 PM
Ronnie, I'm sorry for your circumstances but it still doesn't justify the liquid ban nor does it justify you placing your experiences and needs above others'.
As you were homeless, you should appreciate money being a scarce resource. Why don't you care about people wasting their money to have to rebuy the same items over and over again?
I don't think you really understand nor do you care ... it doesn't affect you.
Earl
October 27, 2008 4:45 PM
Ronnie,
Are you suggesting we all be subjected to indignities while flying just because you were unfortunate at a point in time and survived?
Besides, you know nothing about us. I for example have extensive experience in the medical profession in underdeveloped countries. I have seen things you could never imagine, and I still think is is unacceptable to force a person to travel without toothpaste based on an unproven, minuscule and scientifically unsound threat.
October 27, 2008 5:35 PM
Traveling paramedic said:
Tom - you have contradicted your self yet again. which is it 3 oz or 100 ml
***********************************This is the standard by which we were trained.
October 27, 2008 7:09 PM
Ronnie said...
Like I said, ban ALL liquids. Then that 3/3.4 ounce stuff would be a moot point. The only exceptions should be medical supplies and baby/toddler milk or foods. The rest we can all do without for 24 hrs., or get on the 'other side'.
This would include the 'other side' of the checkpoint BEFORE you fly out. Don't most airports have numerous gift shops down on the concourses? Don't want to spend the money? Afraid of $9.00 toothpaste in Europe? Buy it for $3.00 in the gift shop past the checkpoint. Then you would have it to carry on if you can't do without. This is not meant to be flip or mean, it is only a helpful suggestion. And one I really do believe would speed things up across the board. Yeah, it may be at worst inconvenient. But simply taking care of your liquid needs after you go thru the security checkpoint is really not a big deal. I do it myself. We all could. Think of how much faster you could get thru security. I bet the "NO Liquid" line would be the fastest at every airport.
Ronnie TSO DEN
***********************************
Ronnie;
there was a time when I would have agreed with you, but this thing has outlived its usefulness, with the technology that TSA is rolling out, like FIDOS etc, this thing should be history much sooner than TSA has predicted. I'm sorry, but I don't advocate a total ban...its like saying ban all firearms because one person shot someone. Makes no sense at all Ronnie.
October 27, 2008 7:16 PM
Bob said:
When the TSA rolled this out, the European Union was not on board yet. When the EU decided to allow liquids to travel, the amount permitted was 100ml. Well, as we all know, 100ml = 3.4oz. not 3 oz.
***********************************
I hope this answer an earlier posters question "is it 3.4 oz or 100ml"
October 27, 2008 7:23 PM
@Anonymous glove wearer:
The gloves are there for both parties' protection. Yes there are some gross people out there and you shouldn't have to be infected. By the same token, if you expect not to get bad stuff from people, I expect not to get bad stuff for you or from them by proxy because you couldn't be bothered to change your gloves.
I can't speak for gross people in the world, but to assume that because some people do that stuff that others shouldn't object is fallacious reasoning at best (a hallmark of TSA though). You want us to give TSA the benefit of the doubt that there that not all TSO's are McDonald's rejects and that there are good TSO's yet you want to paint the public as all gross? Works both ways, pal.
And just because you haven't seen someone take a leak with their gloves on and start inspecting them without changing them doesn't mean it doesn't happen. TSO's are notorious for saying either "that can't happen because it doesn't happen at my airport" or "XYZ does it wrong ... we do it right."
Bottom line: yes there are gross people out there, but that doesn't give you an excuse to not be sanitary for other people's sakes just because some people are gross. If you want us to treat you with respect and forget about a few bad apples, you need to do the same.
Al
October 27, 2008 7:30 PM
Anonymous TSO (proud can be questionable since you failed put your name (or the airport you work at), and decided to skip a major chunk of my comments, especially the health hazards
Point one - Wrong go look up why gloves are used, its for both parties safety. They are not designed to be a second skin, but as a protective barrier.
triple gloving... wow and i have been called a germaphobe on this blog and other boards for wearing/switching gloves, but this is a new level of paranoia.
how are you able to maintain bloodflow to your hand if there all the same size glove. Only problem is that adding gloves adds no more protection to you, and hinders your tactile touch and sensation. The only reason you see medical personal using more then one set of gloves is with certain medications like cardiac drugs or chemotherapy where they will go through the glove.
If you are that afraid of germs then i would suggest you not leave a clean room, or do any reading on the level of germs in the environment and even more so at a airport. if you want to be grossed out do some research on MRSA, VRE, MRDO, Acinetobacter. then think about getting a level 4 suit with scba.
If a bug or smell bothers you then maybe you should seek a different carrier path because I know i have smelled much worse smells then dirty laundry, and week old uncleaned scuba gear left on the hot tarmac at a tropical airport. gas gangrene comes to mind off hand as one I will never be able to forget or get out of my uniform.
Point two - just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and there are a load of examples of that against TSA that would take this topic way OT. you also conveniently passed over the screener with a cold/flu like symptoms which is easily passed by hand to hand contact (which is why public health departments. Then remember when you point a finger at someone you have four pointing at you, so that nulls the examples you have mentioned, because how do you not know if they used a hand sanitizer, soap & water, or other compound?
As for using hand sanitizer, you should be careful with that stuff because the stuff sold to the general public has a habit of removing the helpful bacteria and other oils in the skin that can lead to you getting a infection.
point three - good landmine. Remember people are stupid a person is smart. When you start to lump everyone together you join the people group and move out of the person group. What some people do or allow there offspring to do is there business, but you wont catch me doing that. I wear disposable socks through the check point then get rid of them(these are the socks i get from the airlines when i fly, and i have a ton of them so i wont run out anytime soon. then if the paper booties are available. as for the rest of those items i dont do any of that as my carry-on backpack has slots of all of that so i dont have to put them in my shoes.
as for hand to mouth, well your body is used to the bacteria and germs on your skin, its the foreign (IE the screener with cold/flu like symptoms) germs and bacteria that can get you sick.
counter point - its not peoples feet on the floor that bothers me its the sanitary or lack of at checkpoints that makes me sick. what is the santization procedure at your checkpoint for cleaning the floor(if its carpet how often is it deep steam cleaned), WTMD, x-ray, bins, TDC podium, and other surfaces at the CP. What chemicals are used, how are they applied, and what is the frequency of cleaning.
please go on, as I and the rest of the traveling public would like to hear.
Traveling_Paramedic
October 27, 2008 8:48 PM
I don't care what you INTEND for the gloves to be used for! The paramedic makes a good point! Whether or not you use the gloves for your protection or ours (inside the security theatre of course) the fact remains is that you still touch other people, then touch other people with the same glove pair. If a person has a gun does it matter what the intent was if the outcome is the same? If someone buys a gun to constitutionally defend themselves, and still murders someone, does it matter the intent? What's the difference if they had bought it to rob a bank?
Check this scenario:
Passenger A has HIV/AIDS and your glove comes into contact with some of their spit on their shirt sleeve. Passenger B has a small cut on their leg. The unchanged gloves carrying the virus come into contact with B's blood spreading HIV/AIDS to them. Someone locally got charged with attempted murder for biting someone else knowing they had HIV/AIDS. Your agents knowingly don't change gloves and thus knowingly expose others to various diseases. Sounds like bio-warfare to me...aren't you looney tunes supposed to be a defense against that and not a cause?
October 27, 2008 8:52 PM
@ Proud to be a TSO
October 27, 2008 4:03 PM
lol. You hit the nail on the head my friend. I particularly enjoyed the cell phone in the shoe piece :). I see that ALL the times. Its gross people, quit doing it! I will say that im sure some of Mr. Traveling_ Paramedic's claims are true. But you have to realize that TSO's interact with far more passengers a day then passengers deal with TSO's. Lets just all shower and wash our clothes and practice good hygene and everything will be fine. :)
- a good hygened TSO
October 27, 2008 8:55 PM
Wow! Where do I start???
Al-not 're-buy'. Just get your stuff once, on the other end.
Anon- who wants to make a complaint against me. Why? You want to lodge a complaint against me for voicing my opinions? Or just for voicing an opinion contrary to yours?
markvii- I think we of a modern society are basically spoiled. Myself included here. We are a society built on instant gratification. Heaven forbid we be inconvienienced. I still say getting our liquids on the others side is just an inconvienience. And I agree, it is a very simplistic approach. I am trying to come up with solutions that are simple. Most of us can do w/o a few toiletries for a little while. We just want it our way and we want it our way now. And we throw a temper tantrum if we cant.
Anon said: 'We should take ourselves down to the level of the homeless in order to fly on a commercial aircraft? Do I really understand you correctly?'
Evidently you don't.
Earl, I was merely explaining why I don't think a liquid ban is such a big deal from my own personal prespevtive. I've done w/o a lot more for a lot longer so I really do have a hard time seeing how being w/o such trivial items as lotion or toothpaste can cause grown people to weep. And believe me I have seen people literally CRY over hair product.
Anon said: 'Are you suggesting we all be subjected to indignities while flying just because you were unfortunate...' Not at all. Please read above. I dont think doing w/o something is an indignity. It may be a pain in the but, but it is NOT an indignity.
Hope that clears things up.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 27, 2008 9:09 PM
I would like to know why yesterday I witnessed a TSO at SEA's southern checkpoint permit a glass 700ml bottle of 12 year old Glennfiddich Scotch in the carry-on bag that he was searching?
So can I get my bottle of 12 year old Glen Ord back from ORD, or has someone drunk it already?
October 27, 2008 9:37 PM
If liquids are dangerous, combined or not, they need to be treated as such. Treat them as hazmat. How TSA treats them shows that they don't take the threat seriously despite what Nico and other spinners say. If the items aren't dangerous enough to treat them as such, they're not dangerous enough to be banned.
Robert
October 27, 2008 4:43 PM
Might i suggest another solution? Quit bringing your oversized liquids through the CP's and you'll never have to worry about your Hollywood threats :D.
October 28, 2008 1:13 AM
Anonymous wrote...
I would like to know why yesterday I witnessed a TSO at SEA's southern checkpoint permit a glass 700ml bottle of 12 year old Glennfiddich Scotch in the carry-on bag that he was searching?
Medical Liquid? :o)
(Think I can get my Laphroaig past the checkpoint?)
October 28, 2008 2:26 AM
First in a lighter note, I am trying to imagine the clash of hygiene if Ronnie the people don't need to brush their teeth TSO met the paramedic.
Second, to the TSO who uses gloves on top of each other: Don't. Wearing more than one increases the changes of ripping, and provides no further protection.
Third: I have to correct the person who thinks wearing the same gloves is an AIDS risk. You can't get AIDS from spreading spit on a wound. There are other viruses that can be transmitted in this kind of scenario, but not AIDS.
Finally, Ronnie, I would like you to seriously consider leaving the TSA. It is attitudes like yours that, when encountered by travelers like us, create a highly unpleasant experience. I sincerely think the TSA is trying to improve this experience (while still not addressing a whole bunch of other important problems). By leaving the TSA, Ronnie, you could contribute very positively toward the work of this organization.
October 28, 2008 3:43 AM
The TSA needs a big overhaul. Bring in whoever's doing Japanese airport security because they have it down pat. Buy my ticket online, print the reciept (or not), scan it at the checkpoint (or wave my frequent-flyer card or cellphone), print my boarding pass (no need for verification- it's printed right there), walk through with all my liquids because they can scan them(except for certain flights, thank you TSA and please push the schedule forward so this will end sooner than 2010), and get on the plane. Ta-da!
@Ronnie- You're in DEN. You don't have TPAC travelers who have to go without for a whole day. Too indulgent? Maybe we're being proactive; you'll probably say something about "not being prepared" if we complain about stepping off the plane and not being able to get the liquids we need (remember, transit in other countries may also require one to dump liquids- for example, int'l->US transit requires this because the CBP area isn't considered "sterile"- I have a whole rant about this but I'll save it for some other time).
and in response to "And believe me I have seen people literally CRY over hair product"- I wouldn't cry, but I would not be happy. I have medicated stuff that I can't get in the US, and transit at ORD requires me to dump it (or it would if the airline I use didn't have a 2 free checked bag allowance for int'l flights). Medicated but no prescription. In such an event I wouldn't be above having a bout of itchiness right there.
October 28, 2008 9:44 AM
Tomas:
(Think I can get my Laphroaig past the checkpoint?)
Probably not, especially not at Newark. Someone might put it on Ebay.
October 28, 2008 10:19 AM
In the past few years, it was suggested to people who have disagreed with various TSA policies (liquids/IDs etc) to take alternate transportation. Given recent events in DC, I am curious how one can reasonable do so.
The timeline
Federal employees start screening for weapons/liquids/ID for air travel, and everyone is told to use alternate transit.
TSA instructs Amtrak to start random bag checks/ID checks.
NYC/DC start screening subway passengers.
DC starts checkpoints for car travel.
That only leaves travel by foot if you live in DC. Slowly but surely, more intrusion into one's personal life, and it becomes more acceptable. How long will it be until one can be randomly inspected on the street, if it is considered acceptable on all other forms of motorized transportation?
October 28, 2008 10:52 AM
Ronnie, please post the name of your supervisor at DEN so we can file complaints regarding your lack of professionalism.
October 28, 2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...
I would like to know why yesterday I witnessed a TSO at SEA's southern checkpoint permit a glass 700ml bottle of 12 year old Glennfiddich Scotch in the carry-on bag that he was searching?
So can I get my bottle of 12 year old Glen Ord back from ORD, or has someone drunk it already?
October 27, 2008 9:37 PM
Seems to be about the right amount of sedation to endure TSA and Air Travel for a few hours.
Must be medicine!
October 28, 2008 1:57 PM
Standard X-Ray is deployed everywhere and can effectively identify the presence of liquids and their containers.
..............................
I'm not an expert on xray but have to wonder why an image would be returned from a liquid while being xrayed.
Seems that the xrays would pass clean through a liquid and not return anything. The container would probably show but the liquid?
October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
Posed by Ronnie:
I truely hope you never have to find out the hard way through any real hardship. Maybe if you stop to think about it, you will realize you CAN do w/o those things for a few hours.
Ronnie TSO DEN
Ronnie,
Traveling domestically in your own country should not be a hardship, minor or otherwise. People in prison stay alive without a lot of conveniences the rest of us enjoy; that doesn't mean we should treat travelers like prisoners.
Your argument for banning all liquids out of an abundance of caution ("have read articles on types of liquid explosive mixtures that can do great harm in quantities of much less that 3 oz. Two or three people taking an ounce or two thru several different lanes can cook up a bomb in the concourse area and that would be a very bad thing. Am I the only one that worries about this?") could be use to ban all carry-ons, make passengers fly in hospital gowns, chain them to their seats on the airplane, and sedate them.
Hopefully such arguments will never hold up in a supposedly free country. We cannot eliminate all risk; we cannot afford to even attempt to eliminate all risk, and the government should not be subjecting non-criminal American citizens to hardship, harassment, and humiliation in the name of irrational security concerns, particularly when the methods used are nothing more than security theater.
October 28, 2008 2:06 PM
@Ronnie: If I have good items at home and I can't take them with me, I'm rebuying the items. If I'm traveling to multiple destinations before I get home, I have to buy them at each location. If I have to do that repeatedly, it's expensive, and an undue expense I shouldn't have to bear.
See, TSA just thinks of the traveler going from point A to point B and back home. It doesn't consider that people may go from place to place to place before going home. Nor does it consider the fact that long haul international travel can suck without toiletries. Simple things like brushing your teeth or having deodorant on a 14-15 hour flight is important.
And of course, try buying some of that stuff in a lesser developed country or in a place where you don't know the language. You just might end up buying diaper rash or hemrhoid cream if you can't tell the stuff apart. Do you really want to brush with any of those?
Al
October 28, 2008 3:05 PM
To the anon that keeps asking for Ronnie's Sup.
What is your job and sup's name? I would like to file a complaint for your lack of professionalism as well.
October 28, 2008 3:06 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Might i suggest another solution? Quit bringing your oversized liquids through the CP's and you'll never have to worry about your Hollywood threats :D."
Aye, that'll work. But if it's just a Hollywood threat, why shouldn't I just be able to keep my liquids? Maybe they need to be from Planet Hollywood? :D
October 28, 2008 4:31 PM
Kip, Bob, Nico, etc
nice idea on the timeline , but I for one dont believe it at all. This is because every govt timeline takes much longer then presented to the public. The only problem is that all of this could have been stopped the day after the whole liquid fetish started because the technology has been around since before the liquid fetish started (Japan uses it and doesnt have a liquid fetish) so whats the excuse for not using the technology? with all of the time and money that has been wasted all the BS could have stopped a long time ago.
So until you hold up your end of the bargain and accomplish your original commissioned job without fail or violation of the constitution. Then stop all of the yelling, screaming, harassment (SSSS or strip searching a wheelchair grandmother), and theft you wont get any respect from anyone. remember you earn respect, not get or demand. Theres going to have to be a lot of goodwill gestures on DHS/TSA part to even get back to a even line because of all of the negative points so far to date.
-a good hygened TSO -- hygiene is misspelled
So which of my claims are not true, and please do site specifics. Based on my interactions based on my travels and work that has me at the airport i can do the math. The cost equation versus the threat to the publics health is dirt cheap
Also as for good hygiene im not going to disagree with you on the shower and hand washing (even though the frequency needs to come up big time on average for each person) but what I take major issue with is your/TSAs lack of hygiene is that your level (lack of) changing gloves, because right now there used as a second skin and worn for 100+ times longer then they were designed for.
If you want your skin to crawl, go to a local hospital that does wound treatment, and see the level of BSI they use, and tell me that there isnt a threat or that there over reacting. if not go back to a previous post and look up those organisms and it will still make your skin crawl.
you want a good real world example, the division i work in does 40,000+ calls a year where the average truck(we run 16 everyday) does 7 calls a day (some more some less because we have shifts ranging from 8-24 hours). each call requires min of 2 pairs of gloves, but the average is 5 pair or in a average year we go through 2667+ boxes of gloves or about $25,000 in gloves. This is a low estimate because this year alone we have already done 50K calls this year, and there are two months left in the year
considering the security fees that travellers pay that pay your salary , etc and based on the travel volume in the US there is plenty of money coming in to cover this level of glove change between screenings.
Anonymous - Thank you for the backing of my point. HIV not aids can be transmitted in that manner. aids is the disease HIV mutates into over time if a person isnt treated aggressively enough to combat the symptoms. There are other diseases and organisms that transmit in the glove to wound fashion very easily.
Anonymous2 - I think ronnie wouldn't want to meet me, and know whats on my mind. having been on a few TPAC flights i can tell you that there wasnt enough toothpaste in the amenity kit to get the fuss off my teeth, and i needed alot more then 3 oz of mouth wash to kill the halitosis that would make paint peel. again the technology has been in place for years but hasnt been used at all, because TSA prefers to harass and use questionable science to back up restrictions. I second your second(so very true) and third points.
October 28, 2008 5:03 PM
Yes but what if it is liquid Antimatter?
October 28, 2008 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...
Ronnie, please post the name of your supervisor at DEN so we can file complaints regarding your lack of professionalism.
October 28, 2008 12:06 PM
***********************************
Anon;
in what regard has Ronnie been unprofessional? I believe he is simply expressing a point of view, which seems to be the whole purpose of this forum anyway, right? Because you or I may disagree with his point of view does not make a reason for filing a complaint with his supervisor. Besides, what would the sup do? Posting on this blog is not a disciplinary offense. Sorry anon.
October 28, 2008 6:31 PM
What I don't quite understand is that if indeed the liquid explosive scenario is true, it had to be true long before the "London Bombers" threat. Why was there zero concern about liquids before that plot was exposed? There was exactly the same probability of some terrorist using liquids to do harm before you started your ban, as now.
So logic tells us that if it wasn't considered a threat then, why now?
I do not buy into the theory that threats are ever changing. Its like your wishy-washy ban on lighters, nail clippers, etc. Either they are a threat or not, and if you once considered them a threat, what has changed that now they are not?
October 28, 2008 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...
To the anon that keeps asking for Ronnie's Sup.
What is your job and sup's name? I would like to file a complaint for your lack of professionalism as well.
October 28, 2008 3:06 PM
The other anon doesn't represent himself as an employee of anyone. Ronnie, on the other hand represents herself as being a TSO. Nice try though.
October 28, 2008 6:56 PM
If you want your skin to crawl, go to a local hospital that does wound treatment, and see the level of BSI they use, and tell me that there isnt a threat or that there over reacting. if not go back to a previous post and look up those organisms and it will still make your skin crawl.
MRSA and VSE the stuff that makes your nose fall off.
October 28, 2008 6:58 PM
"To the anon that keeps asking for Ronnie's Sup.
What is your job and sup's name? I would like to file a complaint for your lack of professionalism as well."
Unless that poster is a government employee who is threatening citizens with retaliatory screenings and displaying a general contempt for the citizens she's supposed to be serving, the poster really can't be compared to Ronnie.
October 28, 2008 7:36 PM
@TSO Tom: "Anon;
in what regard has Ronnie been unprofessional? I believe he is simply expressing a point of view, which seems to be the whole purpose of this forum anyway, right? Because you or I may disagree with his point of view does not make a reason for filing a complaint with his supervisor. Besides, what would the sup do? Posting on this blog is not a disciplinary offense. Sorry anon."
It isn't necessarily this post, but the rather unprofessional manner of the posts since the metal plate one. Pretty much a culmination of multiple posts.
I think what the other posters are getting at based on the condescending, power trippish, and similar posts that it makes him/her look like a poster child for what's wrong with TSA.
Ronnie may very well be a nice person in real life. However, based Ronnie's posts, it doesn't make me want to go thru a DEN checkpoint anytime soon, especially if Ronnie's working.
Al
October 28, 2008 10:40 PM
To Ronnie & the other folks who think liquids/creams/etc, can easily be replaced - I have severe eczema over about 90% of my body. Do you really want to be sitting next to me on a 6 hour flight as I itch & scratch because I don't have my specialty creams? It's bad enough that several of them come in a 4oz tube so I have to repackage it because that extra .6 oz could cause an international incident ...
ALso, re: the lady in the wheelchair - I had the misfortune of breaking my leg the day before a scheduled business trip, so my colleague whisked me through the airport in a wheelchair so I wouldn't have to stump it the whole way. By the time the screener got done with me, I joked with her that we should exchange Christmas cards at least after having gotten that "close" during the process. She wasn't amused.
On a positive note, I have to give kudos when due - and the screeners at Las Vegas are in general very helpful and professional in their dealings with the public. We have some horrible lines sometimes, but they keep the process moving very well.
October 29, 2008 2:00 AM
Thank you tso tom.
To anon, exactly what have I done to make you think I am unprofessional? I make every attempt to do my job to the best of my ability. And I do it with a smile and kind word to the passengers. I try to make the checkpoint experience as painless as I possibly can.
Perhaps I should post as Anon. Would that make you happy?
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 29, 2008 6:40 AM
Flying back from Narita to O'Hare, I simply put my 20 oz. water bottle in a separate scanner. It rotated the bottle around for 2 seconds, then I was allowed to take it on the plane to the U.S. Why I can't do that on a flight originating in the U.S. is beyond me.
Also, I've noticed may people simply don't bother to declare liquids anymore. I've done this several times and have always managed to sneak in a 20 oz. bottle of water. I also keep my toiletries in my regular bag, along with an empty Ziploc bag just in case, but do not take them out of my carry-on. Works every time. I believe that the dozen or so business travelers ahead of me in the black diamond lane all have some sort of liquid or gel on them (no checked luggage -- where's the toothpaste?), and they are doing the same thing as me.
Also, one of my toiletries comes in a metal 100 ml sized container. I have gotten this through the X-Ray machine several times. I wonder how the new machines will detect that liquid through a metal container?
October 29, 2008 11:08 AM
Bob, I'm sure you guys are looking for interesting topics to post each week so how about this one:
Why TSA's Kip and Friends cannot provide accurate information for travelers on the Official TSA Website or at the nations airports.
I feel that this is a topic that needs discussion.
Often posters are told that all we need to know is provided on the Website or that if we would read the signs at the airport we would know what to do.
Both claims would be false.
Surely TSA has someone who has the skills to update the Website with correct information. And just how hard is it to post correct signage at the nations airports. I could care less about the expense since TSA saw fit to spend no telling how much money on unneeded metal badges.
October 29, 2008 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...
"To the anon that keeps asking for Ronnie's Sup.
What is your job and sup's name? I would like to file a complaint for your lack of professionalism as well."
Unless that poster is a government employee who is threatening citizens with retaliatory screenings and displaying a general contempt for the citizens she's supposed to be serving, the poster really can't be compared to Ronnie.
October 28, 2008 7:36 PM
***********************************
What threats of retaliatory screening have been posted? I've seen none....please explain. What I have seen is a TSO giving his/her point of view regarding a current albeit controversial procedure. What I have seen is a TSO expressing that he/she feels that a minor inconvenience is secondary to the security of the flying public. What I have seen is a citizen of the United States expressing an opinion regarding his/her job as a Federal Employee. I've seen NO UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT whatsoever. So what is the basis for any would be complaint?
October 29, 2008 1:35 PM
I think TSA is doing a great job. Adding new equipment and attempting to make the process easier takes time and MONEY. Some people will complain no matter what you do.
October 30, 2008 3:16 PM
Anonymous wrote:
I'm not an expert on xray but have to wonder why an image would be returned from a liquid while being xrayed.
Seems that the xrays would pass clean through a liquid and not return anything. The container would probably show but the liquid?
October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
**********************************
The liquid will show.
October 30, 2008 4:05 PM
traveling_paramedic wrote:
-a good hygened TSO -- hygiene is misspelled
*********************************
Cut them a little bit of slack if we were to go through all of the errors in grammar in here, we would be here forever. For example:
**********************************
traveling_paramedic wrote:
Then it is sad that your screeners cant seem to do basic math that the rest of the world learns before there teenage years. 3oz does not equal 100ml.
********************************** Their teenage years is correct.
October 30, 2008 4:15 PM
Huh? Nothing for two days. Think of the Children!!!
October 30, 2008 5:18 PM
Hello? tap...tap...tap... Can anyone hear me? tap...tap...tap... (Is this thing on?) Hello? Hello?
(No new comments on any posts since 28OCT2008.)
October 30, 2008 6:38 PM
Last post 10/28, is now late 10/30.
With only 5 blog team members (per Meet our Bloggers) I can understand how some gaps in coverage are possible.
However, how much effort would it take to place a post saying that postings will not happen for a couple of days? Really, would it be so hard to let the participants of this blog know what is going on?
Just my 2 cents!
October 30, 2008 10:26 PM
Hey folks... I'm going to moderate all of the comments in a few minutes. Sorry for the delay. It's been a busy week at HQ.
Thanks for your patience and usual warm and fuzzy snarky remarks. :)
Also, stay tuned for a special announcement.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 31, 2008 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...
I've done this several times and have always managed to sneak in a 20 oz. bottle of water.
And this is why if a bad guy wants to get his liquid explosives through the checkpoint all he has to do is try. If he fails, the bottle just goes in the trash, but if he succeeds, which is a high probability, he then has thwarted all the nonsense of the liquid ban.
Come on TSA, how many bottles of liquids are making it through the checkpoint. When the match/lighter ban was in effect, my daughter's purse was inspected, and she had so many lighters and matches in there, the poor TSO couldn't find them all, and ultimately missed a few.
So much for banning something, when we all know that the banned items are making it through many times each day.
October 31, 2008 2:23 PM
Unfortunately, no matter what TSA does, passengers are going to find something to complain about b/c they don't want to do anything that constitutes and effort on their part. I'm so sorry that you can't understand that our country is, um, well lets see how I can put it.....AT WAR!!! Yea, thats it. So liquids and many other things may have been allowed pre-TSA, but things are different now.
Of course it's still possible for prohibited items to get on a plane, but with all the layers we do have, it is a lot less likely for them to. With the every day apparent rules plus layered and unpredicted random screenings, the chances of something getting through are less likely than if there was no security at all.
If there is little or no security at all, its like we give the terrorists permission to bring anything through whenever they want. Yes, it would be great if TSA was 100% effective, but we do not live in a perfect world.
I am on x-ray everyday or I am doing x-ray training required to stay certified. I have gotten a 100% on my x-ray tutors maybe 5-10 times in my two years with TSA. It is difficult to spot some threats and with the minds of the terrorists, the creativity of how they could disguise a threat, it could be quite difficult to spot a real threat. So it IS possible for something to get through, yes, but the risk of getting caught is high with all the tests we do. So we may not catch every little thing, but we are here as a deterent as well as securing what does come thru.
Even before I was with TSA, I believed security was necessary. I am proud to be a TSO and to be on the frontline for the war on terrorism.
SDF TSO
October 31, 2008 3:12 PM
Anon said:
Let's start with definitions: What on Earth does the TSA consider a liquid? For example, why is tooth powder a liquid but not liquid fillings within chocolates or grapes, or glass?
We have explained this before but I'll try again. A liquid is basically anything that does not hold its shape outside of its container AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.
Tooth powder is not a liquid. If this was taken away, they were wrong, I'm sorry on their behalf.
As for grapes, yes, they contain water, but so do humans. Don't take things so literally.
As for glass and things like chocolate, they are not a liquid AT ROOM TEMPERATURE!!!!
So, your toiletries like shave cream, tooth paste, hairspray, mouthwash, etc...they are part of the liquid, gels, aerosols and paste restrictions
Not too long ago, you weren't able to take ANY liquids, so be thankful that you can take SOME liquids with you on board now.
SDF TSO
October 31, 2008 3:28 PM
Not too long ago, you weren't able to take ANY liquids, so be thankful that you can take SOME liquids with you on board now.
SDF TSO
October 31, 2008 3:28 PM
We should be thankful why?
No other country in the world still has a war on liquids. Why? Is it because they realized that other, much more significant threats exist and instead of wasting resources on the war on liquids, focus instead on real threats?
Suggestion. Stop watching action adventure movies. Stop using scenarios from those movies as valid threats. Most often those movies have the science all wrong anyhow. A 0.5" in a fuselage won't suck a person out of the plane through that hole.
I propose that a terrorist could walk through your checkpoint with enough weapons to hijack dozens of aircraft and you wouldn't be able to detect those same weapons because you're fighting the war on liquids.
October 31, 2008 4:40 PM
Kellymae81 writes:
I'm so sorry that you can't understand that our country is, um, well lets see how I can put it.....AT WAR!!! Yea, thats it. So liquids and many other things may have been allowed pre-TSA, but things are different now.
Kelly, that misses the point. There are numerous atrocities that have been committed by well-meaning U.S. government employees under the guise of "we're at war". The first one that comes to mind is the internment of Japanese Americans on U.S. soil during World War II, because of irrational fears that those Americans might be terrorists.
Ok, we're at war. Does that mean that every proposed security restriction is justified? Of course not. Does that mean we should conduct business as usual? Of course not. The question then becomes: which restrictions are useful, and which are not?
We (collectively) may disagree as to the details on particular procedures. But I think we can all agree that the discussion is an important one.
Even before I was with TSA, I believed security was necessary. I am proud to be a TSO and to be on the frontline for the war on terrorism.
Your two statements don't necessarily follow from each other. Most people here agree that some form of security is necessary. The question is: is TSA doing the right things? That's a more much interesting question. But criticizing a TSA policy doesn't mean that all policies should be removed.
October 31, 2008 4:42 PM
Kelly Mae,
Let me enlighten you with a little Science: as surprising as it may seem, glass is a liquid at room temperature. This has to do with the kind of interactions between its molecules. The difference with most other liquids is that it settles very slowly. If you ever go to an old church (I mean really old - probably best in Europe), look at original glasswork, and you will see a bulge on the bottom due to the liquid glass slowly being pulled down by gravity. It is actually pretty cool!
Now for the nudge - no liquids were declared for a few horrible months, but that does not make the liquid restrictions currently in place OK, or reasonable.
October 31, 2008 5:33 PM
Even before I was with TSA, I believed security was necessary. I am proud to be a TSO and to be on the frontline for the war on terrorism.
SDF TSO
October 31, 2008 3:12 PM
The Front Lines are about 4,000 miles ----> that way. A weapon will be issued when reporting!
October 31, 2008 5:37 PM
kellymae81 said...
Unfortunately, no matter what TSA does, passengers are going to find something to complain about b/c they don't want to do anything that constitutes and effort on their part. I'm so sorry that you can't understand that our country is, um, well lets see how I can put it.....AT WAR!!! Yea, thats it. So liquids and many other things may have been allowed pre-TSA, but things are different now.
If we are at WAR then we should treat the airports as an asset to be protected.
As long as you have luggage that is so insecure a TSO can walk off with $200,000 of stolen goods you are NOT on a war footing.
As long as you give a pass to TSOs and Pilots to grant them access without screening, you are NOT on a war footing.
As long as you are not screening 100% of cargo, you are NOT on a war footing.
As long as you are wasting money on faux police uniforms instead of spending that money on things that WILL increase security, you are NOT on a war footing.
Just saying it does not make it so.
October 31, 2008 5:57 PM
Posted by kellymae81:
Not too long ago, you weren't able to take ANY liquids, so be thankful that you can take SOME liquids with you on board now.
SDF TSO
Should we also be thankful that TSA hasn't banned all carry-ons, made us fly in hospital gowns, and (not yet at least) made us explicitly request permission and provide a valid reason for travel?
I'm not thankful that TSA took a completely moronic policy of banning an entire state of matter and replaced it with an only slightly less moronic policy.
Giving up our freedoms and convenience for ineffective security theater against threats of questionable credibility (liquid explosives) doesn't make sense, especially when the effort TSA wastes on toothpaste and water makes them less effective at detecting credible threats like solid explosives and guns.
Look, I'm all in favor of real security. Let's get rid of the ID charade with the blacklights and loupes, get rid of the shoe carnival, get rid of the war-on-water, quit looking for cash and drugs, and redirect all of the effort that goes to those on making sure at least 50% of passengers have an ETD swab on either their person or their belongings.
TSA should be forbidden from banning anything that is not an actual threat just because they are too inept to detect whatever threat Kippie dreamed up this week. Maybe TSA should get a one-month grace period (i.e., they can ban all liquids for a month, but after then they must come up with a sane policy that does not restrict passengers), but that's all.
Your agency is completely unaccountable and out of control with its power-tripping, police-state tactics, and paranoia.
October 31, 2008 7:44 PM
Who are you and what did you do with my Trollkiller? Holy crap we must be doing SOMETHING right to get a comment like that from you! I agree with you, this is not something we can fix overnight. My personal opinion on LAG was all or nothing. If you limit them, take them all away, if you permit them, let them all go and find the technology to detect anomolies and put it into the system now.... That being said, the federal government is a bureacracy (at least there is a large rollout contingent to new tech...) and it takes time. At least now we are moving towards a resolution on the LAG issue. I look forward to being able to let LAG go without having to dig through a passengers bag and take up their time. Nice to see ya on again troll, I have not caught up on my blogging (bad TSO, bad) this month, but will make a dent tonite!
October 31, 2008 9:33 PM
@Marsha-"I think TSA is doing a great job. Adding new equipment and attempting to make the process easier takes time and MONEY. Some people will complain no matter what you do."
We're complaining because it shouldn't have taken this long. Japan has had liquids scanners for a long time now and it would be much appreciated if the TSA would at the very least try to keep up. We shouldn't have to wait until 2009 or later to get what Japan's already had for a year or more.
and I love how people pointedly ignore my comments when doing blanket responses.
October 31, 2008 9:54 PM
Quote from TSO Tom: "What threats of retaliatory screening have been posted? I've seen none....please explain."
I think you need to go back and read some of Ronnie's posts. In particular the one with the steel plate, where he hoped that was one the one that got to screen the yahoo that brought them thru ... clearly intimating that the ensuing secondary would be painful and that he'd enjoy it.
Read them all ... you'll see the picture that's painted and it's not pretty.
Robert
October 31, 2008 10:14 PM
Bob said...
Hey folks... I'm going to moderate all of the comments in a few minutes. Sorry for the delay. It's been a busy week at HQ.
Thanks for your patience and usual warm and fuzzy snarky remarks. :)
Also, stay tuned for a special announcement.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Is the special announcement the fact you joined the Tie of the Month Club?
;-) Sorry I had not gotten in a warm fuzzy snarky comment lately.
October 31, 2008 11:19 PM
why are we still at level orange 2+ years later?
leaving it high unnecessarily causes a cry wolf effect that reduces the effectiveness.
so either theres no threat(most likely), or there is, but its being used as a scaremongering tactic.
SO bob whats going on?
November 1, 2008 12:05 AM
Kellymae81 writes:
We have explained this before but I'll try again. A liquid is basically anything that does not hold its shape outside of its container AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.
Can anyone provide a reference to a public TSA document or webpage which confirms TSA's use of this particular definition? My brief search of the TSA website did not find anything.
Kelly, I'm not doubting your word. But, y'know, if TSA had made this definition publicly prominent, it might've made things a lot easier. And, as a side benefit, if this had been made public to all, it might've made a different in some of these notorious arguments that happen between TSOs and passengers at checkpoints about whether this or that qualifies as a liquid.
See, if there was a public list of the rules that passengers were expected to follow ...
(Yeah, I know. Ain't gonna happen.)
November 1, 2008 8:57 AM
I don't understand the liquid definition. Once I had mini snow globes apprehended, even though they were very small (under the 3 oz limit) and I offered to put them in the baggie. According to the uptight TSO no snow globes are allowed, no exceptions!
Why are snow globes not OK, no matter what size, while chocolates filled with liquor are?
November 1, 2008 9:38 AM
@kellymae81- "Not too long ago, you weren't able to take ANY liquids, so be thankful that you can take SOME liquids with you on board now." is exactly not the attitude that will help us move on from these unnecessary restrictions.
In many other countries you can bring ALL your liquids on most flights (except US-bound flights- thank you).
November 1, 2008 10:07 AM
"So liquids and many other things may have been allowed pre-TSA, but things are different now."
You know what's not different? The fact that liquids cannot present a threat to an airliner. Explosive liquids are too unstable to make it onto a plane. Binary liquid explosives cannot be mixed on an airplane. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM LIQUIDS. You know it, I know it, TSA knows it, and yet you persist in wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on scanners to detect a threat that does not exist.
TSA's pointless and groundless rules do more to terrorize the American public than al Qaeda does these days. If you wear a TSA uniform, you are doing bin Laden's work for him. Yeah, you're on the front lines -- for the wrong side.
November 1, 2008 11:08 AM
The subject about germ contamination is stupid. You can not escape that stuff anywhere. Anywhere! Change your gloves and touch something and it's back again. People please think outside of the box and stop trying to prove who is right or wrong when there is no right or wrong on this subject. Passengers in line contaminate things just like TSA does. Everyone is the blame.
November 1, 2008 12:01 PM
Marsha wrote:
"I think TSA is doing a great job. Adding new equipment and attempting to make the process easier takes time and MONEY. Some people will complain no matter what you do."
Marsha, do you have any idea in the world of how much of U. S. taxpayer's money the TSA has WASTED without any return on investment.
There are some out there who will say we are safer because of the money the TSA has spent. However, most security experts, those who are not working for DHS/TSA, will tell you that things at the checkpoint are no better than they were on 9/10/01 and that the only action that has made flying "safer" is the hardening of cockpit doors and procedure changes whereby pilots are not to respond to highjackers' demands.
Otherwise, most of the money spent by DHS/TSA is money down the toilet, money that could have been far better used for health care, education, improving our infrastructure, etc.
November 1, 2008 1:49 PM
I took a look at the Whole Body Imaging page this post links to.
If the images created during Whole Body Imaging are viewed "remotely" as is explained on the WBI page, then why does that page claim that "Images will not be [...] transmitted"? There has to be a connection between the scanner and the viewing terminal, and images travelling across that connection would surely qualify as images being "transmitted", wouldn't they?
Is the rest of the explanations on the WBI page equally flawed?
November 1, 2008 2:57 PM
Geez..you have to be a scientist to figure out what you can and cannot take on a flight.
November 2, 2008 12:37 PM
"Not too long ago, you weren't able to take ANY liquids, so be thankful that you can take SOME liquids with you on board now."
This is like saying that one should be thankful that a person who had been punching one in the face AND groin is now only punching one in the groin.
NONE of TSA's liquid restrictions have any basis in fact. Thus there is no reason any citizen should be "grateful" to have to comply with unreasonable and unjustifiable security theatre.
November 2, 2008 1:10 PM
Um... so the TSA is getting better technology. Why do people think that the government can spend all the money at once on some technology upgrades. There is a budget. So it takes time to roll that stuff out to the nation's airports. The 3-1-1 is simply in effect because of the lack of current technology in airports.
November 2, 2008 3:08 PM
Bob said...
Hey folks... I'm going to moderate all of the comments in a few minutes. Sorry for the delay. It's been a busy week at HQ.
Thanks for your patience and usual warm and fuzzy snarky remarks. :)
Also, stay tuned for a special announcement.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 31, 2008 12:07 PM
Well the announcement be before I have to change to a digital tuner?
Just wondering!
November 2, 2008 3:11 PM
TSO's need to stop feeding the trolls.
Anyways... glad to here what you guys are doing. Thanks
November 2, 2008 10:22 PM
So what you have told me...is..... that there is a huge threat that liquids will be used and the threat will never go away, and yet, we still let liquids go on a plan....and we wont have complete security from liquids until 2010.
I know this in that not all airports have x-ray explosive trace detection systems of liquids. Per your own words the software is not yet there.
Not all liquids get ETD if there under the size limit.
And yet we pray that no one adds their quart size bags with another person to make an even bigger bomb. Yes, ok, I got it, a quart size bag is not big enough to blow up a plan, but what about terrorist B adding his liquids to terrorist A's to make one big bomb. THis is such basic common thought that even Saturday Night Live made a comedy skit on our ignorance regarding this issue, and yet we still allow liquids to go through.
Maybe its not ignorance, but just political pandering to a public that is unaware of the issue of security. I would rather be Damed for doing then damned for not providing security. In reference to (Kip stated in a newspaper article TSA is "Damned if we do, Damned if we don't)
I performed a pledge of office before my God and peers to protect my country. I take pledges very serious because I am making a promise before God to complete that promise. I am doing my very best but I am not supported by my own agency. We are allowing an obvious threat to be present so that the public will be happy with us. Well my first goal......protect people so they can make it home alive.
The more I study 9/11 attack from books, magazine articles and attend Terrorism and Violence class at my local university I see our agency repeating the same mistakes that led up to 9/11....I do not want the blood of other peoples life's on my hands.
TSA advisors have let us down. It is obvious they have pandered to the political force of the public and are afraid to give their superiors the truth.
November 2, 2008 10:30 PM
Bob,
I hope your special announcement is not that virtual strip searches are now no longer optional.
I hope you special announcement is something like this:
We have decided to make a fresh start. From tomorrow on, we no longer will limit liquids ore require shoes to be removed unless they trigger metal or trace scanning sensors. We will screen luggage and cargo safely, and respect the person who´s belongings we are screening. We will treat all persons and materials in the "sterile area" as equals, and submit them to the same screening procedures. We will eliminate the haraSSSSment list and mandatory identification.
We will, above all, be reasonable.
November 3, 2008 4:51 AM
"Also, stay tuned for a special announcement."
The outcome of the election and the upcoming change in TSA management?
November 3, 2008 8:46 AM
Bob @ "Also, stay tuned for a special announcement."
What's it going to be? The results of the election?
If you are watching this space, my special announcement is that TSA is managed by incompetents, that TSA can't keep their secret rules consistent with thier documentation, that TSA can't keep their training consistent with their rules, and that the result of all that is TSA is wasteful security theater. The terrorists are winning the game: 2,800,000 wasted person-hours every day.
But that isn't news to anyone not being paid by TSA.
November 3, 2008 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...
"You know what's not different? The fact that liquids cannot present a threat to an airliner. Explosive liquids are too unstable to make it onto a plane. Binary liquid explosives cannot be mixed on an airplane. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM LIQUIDS. You know it, I know it, TSA knows it, and yet you persist in wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on scanners to detect a threat that does not exist."
Hi but I would believe TSA is doing something for a reason and not just for a hassal and a waste of time. It is kind of stupid to think that a policy is in place for no reason. I could care less about mixing of bottle and liquids on an airplane. What about the liquids that were already mixed into an explosive before security!? Take away the liquids policy and liquid explosives, already mixed, would be permitted through the checkpoint. In like 1995 there was an explosion on an airplane from liquid explosives. Obviously they are not too unstable to make it on the plane. And on that incident which was the Bojinka bomb it did not cause too much damage. But the explosion doesn't have to. All a terrorist has to do is prove they can detonate a device on board the plane to cause fear and disruption to air travel. Hi my name is James and I pay attention!
November 3, 2008 11:31 AM
"The 3-1-1 is simply in effect because of the lack of current technology in airports."
No. 3.4-1-1 is in place because Kip Hawley is lying to American citzens about a nonexistent threat.
November 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...
I don't understand the liquid definition. Once I had mini snow globes apprehended, even though they were very small (under the 3 oz limit) and I offered to put them in the baggie. According to the uptight TSO no snow globes are allowed, no exceptions!
Why are snow globes not OK, no matter what size, while chocolates filled with liquor are?
Because even Kip knows you don't take a woman's chocolate AND liquor away unless you want a beat down. That exception has saved many a TSO without them even knowing.
November 3, 2008 12:30 PM
Bob, you implied that there would be greater censorship on the comments because comments were "off topic" now that we have many threads on many topics, while "off topic" comments were allowed in the past because of a low supply of thread diversity.
You also implied that if topical comments were posted to old threads, they would be answered. That's a major reversal from "we only repond to comments in the most recent post" and I thought it a major step in the right direction.
So in the last post in August, acting about MMW, I recently posted a comment in the hopes that what you implied would be realized and that we could have discussion on that topic.
One week later, and I'm disappointed that there doesn't appear to be any effort to communicate the older topics in the older entries. I can see the comment itself was approved, so ignorance of the existance of the comments is not an excuse. Did I misread the "we will respond in older entries" part, or is this new program not yet implemented?
Anyway, here's my comment: what is the legal and constitutional basis for the MMW scans of people not attempting to access the sterile or secure areas of the airports, as per the last entry in August or the first entry in September?
November 3, 2008 12:59 PM
GSOLTSO said...
Who are you and what did you do with my Trollkiller? Holy crap we must be doing SOMETHING right to get a comment like that from you! I agree with you, this is not something we can fix overnight.
I try to be fair in my assessments and comments. I also understand that Kip may be at the head of the TSA but he still has people over him calling the shots.
Kip is not an idiot, he knows that forced ID verification is worthless for security. It is in place be cause the powers that be at DHS and above demanded it.
Kip is middle management so the best he can do is look like he is implementing what has been demanded of him without messing up any real security measures already in place.
With Kip on his way out I expect to see a flood of plans, like the liquid time line, that will lock the next guy into fixing the problems. Think about it, if the next guy tries to roll back that time line the press and us will be all over it.
Same with the forced ID verification. Kip knows ID is worthless security and he knows the forced ID verification is illegal.
It was implemented late in the game because the powers that be demanded it and Kip could not hold it back any longer. Kip knows it will take one court case to kill the forced ID verification and that will come after Kip is long gone.
Kip has had a tough row to hoe, a lot of people hate him. And yet he still had the guts to start this blog, something else that will be hard for the next guy to kill.
If you knew people were selling shirts calling you an idiot, that websites were devoted to vilifying you and Congressmen loved to unfairly rake you over the coals so it looks like they are really concerned about safety, would you start a blog so even more people could spew nastiness at you?
Watch Kip being grilled by Congress and really listen to the questions being asked. Most of the questions are just plain stupid and designed for an "aw damn, he got slapped" reaction.
I recall some Congresswoman asking Kip about some stupid helicopter shuttle service that was canceled by a local authorities. The TSA had nothing to do with it. Kip told her he had no knowledge of it because it was not a TSA decision.
She took an attitude and questioned why Kip was not up to speed on decisions made by local authorities. She was going for the "aw damn, he got slapped" moment.
Sometimes Congress asks the important questions and for that I am grateful but most of the time it is just noise.
I will miss Kip, even though I don't always agree with how he handles things.
November 3, 2008 2:05 PM
Robert, I think you need to go back and read ALL of my posts. I never once said anything about any type of 'retaliatory' actions. I only stated that I would follow proper SOP. Since when does that constitute retaliation?
I even apologized if I came off flip. I got a nice response from Anon (Oct.10, 2008 1:41PM) and he/she seemed to understand I was not trying to be a wise acre. He/she merely cautioned me to be a little more careful in chosing my words.
I did once refer to the traveling public (myself included) as Don Tin Convenienceme, and I did caution the public not to get 'your panties in a bunch' because we TSO's talk amongst ourselves. Perhaps that's what is so 'unprofessional' about me?
I have also agreed w/ some here, like handing out business cards. I have even tried to offer helpful suggestions like checking L&F for lost items.
Perhaps I would be more accepted here if I were as rude and hatefull as all you Anons seem to be. Guess THAT will be considered unprofessional to say as well. *sigh*
Ronnie TSO DEN
November 3, 2008 2:25 PM
Trollkiller says: Because even Kip knows you don't take a woman's chocolate AND liquor away unless you want a beat down. That exception has saved many a TSO without them even knowing.
Why do think I'm a woman? Can guys buy snow globes for their beautiful little girls?
November 3, 2008 3:36 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Hi but I would believe TSA is doing something for a reason and not just for a hassal and a waste of time. It is kind of stupid to think that a policy is in place for no reason. I could care less about mixing of bottle and liquids on an airplane. What about the liquids that were already mixed into an explosive before security!? Take away the liquids policy and liquid explosives, already mixed, would be permitted through the checkpoint. In like 1995 there was an explosion on an airplane from liquid explosives. Obviously they are not too unstable to make it on the plane. And on that incident which was the Bojinka bomb it did not cause too much damage. But the explosion doesn't have to. All a terrorist has to do is prove they can detonate a device on board the plane to cause fear and disruption to air travel. Hi my name is James and I pay attention!"
Bojinka was liquid TNT stabilized by cotton balls, and thus more a solid than a liquid at that point.
Besides, ETD and puffers would have detected the TNT. TSA's liquid carnival would not.
Please check your facts.
Robert
November 3, 2008 4:29 PM
Quote from Trollkiller: "Kip is middle management so the best he can do is look like he is implementing what has been demanded of him without messing up any real security measures already in place."
I hardly consider an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security to be middle management, TK. Do you?
Robert
November 3, 2008 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller says: Because even Kip knows you don't take a woman's chocolate AND liquor away unless you want a beat down. That exception has saved many a TSO without them even knowing.
Why do think I'm a woman? Can guys buy snow globes for their beautiful little girls?
Snow globes can be manly but how often do you buy liqueur filled chocolates for your self?
November 3, 2008 6:22 PM
Robert Johnson said...
Quote from Trollkiller: "Kip is middle management so the best he can do is look like he is implementing what has been demanded of him without messing up any real security measures already in place."
I hardly consider an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security to be middle management, TK. Do you?
Robert
If I am reading this chart of the hierarchy correctly, yes middle management.
November 3, 2008 6:30 PM
Seeing as the last two posts were written by Kip himself, (9 and 20 days ago) maybe Bob's impending announcement on this PR machine will be a new post by Kip explaining the effects of the election results on TSA airline security.
Look for something informative like "Bottom line, TSA matters. We think it just does."
November 3, 2008 10:13 PM
I just look forward to the day that I can take the Pepsi I brought from home through security and onto the plane...I'm about to go broke buying soft drinks in the airport and on the plane, but I've got to have that caffeine. --Patrick Stoy
November 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Bob said on October 31, 2008...
Also, stay tuned for a special announcement.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
***********************************
A sibling for Blogger Baby already? :-)
November 4, 2008 2:04 PM
Patrick said went directly to the heart of the TSA's 'War on Water' when he said, on November 4, 2008 11:02 AM...
I just look forward to the day that I can take the Pepsi I brought from home through security and onto the plane...I'm about to go broke buying soft drinks in the airport and on the plane, but I've got to have that caffeine. --Patrick Stoy
*******************************
First off, Patrick, let me offer congrats on your excellent taste in beverages!
I agree completely, though in my case, I just want to be able to enjoy my beverage of choice upon arrival @ my destination w/o having to go out & forage for it, especially if I end up in a 'Coke' hotel (the utter horror of it!!!)
November 4, 2008 2:10 PM
Trollkiller said: Snow globes can be manly but how often do you buy liqueur filled chocolates for your self?
Never, although I may get them as gifts. The point about the chocolates is that they are allowed, and my snow globes were not, and I want an explanation. If liquids were really a threat, those chocolates would have to be a no-no too. But of course we know there is nothing more threatening with liquids than with solids...
November 4, 2008 3:22 PM
Quote from Trollkiller: "If I am reading this chart of the hierarchy correctly, yes middle management."
Don't think you are TK. If you take a look at the diagram, you'll see that all those people report directly to Chertoff. While there appear to be different levels, you'll notice that none of those people report to another box above them ala Chief of Staff at the top of the graphic. Follow the line back from Kip (or any other box) and it will only lead back to one person: Chertoff.
In the federal government, your typical middle management would be a division chief, and maybe a branch chief. Below branch chiefs, you'll usually have team leads and other supervisors. At least in the agency I worked for, organizations had a designator and each character was a level, such as X12345. The closer to the "left" you were, the more organizations you had under you and the higher up you were in the food chain.
Middle management would follow such a scheme (or similar) at the HQ level. I'd even venture to say that an FSD is a middle manager.
Robert
November 4, 2008 4:24 PM
" Anonymous said...
The point about the chocolates is that they are allowed, and my snow globes were not, and I want an explanation. If liquids were really a threat, those chocolates would have to be a no-no too. But of course we know there is nothing more threatening with liquids than with solids...
November 4, 2008 3:22 PM"
Explanation is... Snow Globes are not allowed. Period. Chocolates - someone exercised discretion and let them go. So you are complaining that they weren't taken away, but if they were, you would still complain....
November 5, 2008 4:33 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home