TSA’s Work Abroad
With more than 245 daily inbound flights to the U.S. from all over the world, TSA has put a major focus on collaborating with foreign aviation authorities and sharing best practices, intelligence, technological innovations and expertise so that flights coming into the United States have the same level of security as those departing the U.S.
In collaboration with DHS and Department of State, TSA coordinates transportation security bilaterally with individual countries and multilaterally through major international aviation-related organizations including the Group of Eight (G8), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the Asia –Pacific Economic Conference (APEC). Twenty-two TSA Representatives (TSARs) are deployed worldwide to serve as DHS’s “boots on the ground”; interfacing with international partners, coordinating the DHS response to transportation-related terrorist threats and incidents, and facilitating the security assessments conducted by TSA’s security specialists at more than 300 airports in more than 100 different countries. TSA’s international teams have successfully vetted 100% of airports with direct flights into the United States.
Here’s a brief overview of some of TSA’s international activities:
On August 1, 2008, TSA JFK Inspections and Screening coordinated security measures with Emirates Airlines to ensure the successful arrival of the first commercial A380 ‘superjumbo’ jet direct from Dubai.
For the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games, TSA coordinated security efforts with the People’s Republic of China. This partnership began in the summer of 2007 when U.S. Federal Air Marshals hosted a training exchange with members of the Chinese Air Marshal Program at our facility in Atlantic City. From July 19 until August 24, TSA successfully coordinated security operations at China’s Joint Operation’s Center with teams deployed at airports in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong.
When thousands of anti-government protesters took over Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi International Airport (BKK) on November 25 of this year, TSA responded by sending a team to assess the risk associated with flights departing for the United States. The team was able to ensure the security of direct flights to the United States by December 6, allowing Americans to return home safely.
In a brand new 2009 initiative, TSA plans to deploy special teams of veteran security experts to various international locations to assist host nations with enhancing and sustaining local aviation security. St. Lucia will be the first nation to participate in this initiative, and TSA’s assessment team will work with the St. Lucian Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation to assess training needs, equipment, and aviation security legislation.
For additional information on TSA’s international efforts, please visit http://www.tsa.gov/approach/harmonization.shtm
Labels: innovation
posted by Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team at
3:52 PM
Subscribe in a reader
26 Comments:
Where have you been Paul? Getting some training for posting incorrect information to the public in the past?
Are you still compiling an extensive list of dos and donts through airport checkpoints?
January 8, 2009 4:35 PM
Please remember, we can learn from those overseas as well as teach them. In other words, don't spend too much time forcing the world to conform to our policies and practices.
Step one would be the liquid analyzer that is used in Japan. Perhaps we could effectively end the war an fluids here in the US.
January 8, 2009 5:41 PM
"TSA has put a major focus on collaborating with foreign aviation authorities and sharing best practices, intelligence, technological innovations and expertise"
otherwise known as strong arming.
If your "best practices" and "expertise" are so great, why do not foreign airlines follow them in their home countries?
How many other countries require passengers to remove their shoes and forbid liquids for their in-country or even intercontinental, but not US bound, flights?
January 8, 2009 6:08 PM
So pretty much, there are TSA representatives teaching other nations how to reduce security and respond irrationally to threats while mandating that they meet TSA's standards or else they won't be able to fly into the US.
Sounds like a wonderful program, Bob.
Security is a comparative treat in other nations when not on US bound flights. No shoe carnival, liquid harassment, barking and rude security, and so forth. Screeners are polite and efficient. I don't have hour waits even at busy international hubs like Seoul Incheon and Tokyo/Narita. Can always tell when you're heading back to the US as that's when the harassment at the airport begins.
Security doesn't have to be a hassle, overly burdonsome, or downright ludicrous, but it's what TSA's trying to export across the world.
Considering the poor record TSA has, I always find it amusing to read reports where TSA says airport XYZ's security isn't up to snuff.
Robert
January 8, 2009 6:50 PM
On August 1, 2008, TSA JFK Inspections and Screening coordinated security measures with Emirates Airlines to ensure the successful arrival of the first commercial A380 ‘superjumbo’ jet direct from Dubai.
So what exactly did TSA do? If the plane came from the UAE, wouldn't the passengers have been checked by Customs first? How was this flight different than any other international flight? It was just a bigger plane filled with more people.
When thousands of anti-government protesters took over Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi International Airport (BKK) on November 25 of this year, TSA responded by sending a team to assess the risk associated with flights departing for the United States. The team was able to ensure the security of direct flights to the United States by December 6, allowing Americans to return home safely.
So what did the TSA do? The airport was closed while the protesters were there. By December 6th, the protesters had been gone for a couple of days.
Why don't you tell us what the TSA did in plain English? The post is full bureaucratic babble like, we "assessed" this and "coordinated" that. It was just cut and pasted from press releases. As far as we know, you tried to tell foreign governments what to do, and they said,
"Okay, whatever."
The TSA should be held as an example of what not to do. An example of security theater instead of real security.
January 8, 2009 8:54 PM
I'm a former Army Warrant Officer and I spent several tours in then-West Germany during the Cold War. I remember that we had numerous agreements with the Germans such as Status of Forces Agreements signed by both goverments. The SOFAs contained details about the interactions between, in this case, the militaries of both countries, including rights and privileges of dependents and foreign nationals working on US posts.
Having read your post, I'm hoping you might post some details about the various agreements you have with all the foreign countries where you have TSA people. Do they agree to screen passengers and cargo according to US standards? Do you inspect them like you do your own operations? Do we pay countries money to come up to our standards? What happens if a country refuses your help? Do we have the political clout to tell them they can't fly to the US? How does the State Department get involved?
As you can probably tell, I managed this type of work at several bases during my career.
Thanks in advance.
January 9, 2009 9:11 AM
Why didn't the Coast Guard just extract Americans from BKK instead of leaving them there for an undetermined amount of time in a hostile area? Way to go DHS.
January 9, 2009 12:14 PM
Even if you don't post this I hope the blog staff will take a look.
Blogging a la Air Force:
http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/12/30/the-air-forces-rules-of-engagement-for-blogging/
January 9, 2009 2:29 PM
I despise TSA searches done at the door of US-bound flights in my country. They openly state they do not trust local security. All they look for are liquids. They never test for anything that could be actually dangerous, like traces of explosives. They also never look at shoes, which do not have to be removed for local security. Of course, we all know that there is nothing dangerous about shoes, but it makes no sense to re-check only for liquids.
January 9, 2009 5:06 PM
"Of course, we all know that there is nothing dangerous about shoes, but it makes no sense to re-check only for liquids."
It also makes no sense to check liquids in the first place, as we all (including TSA and its apologists) know!
January 9, 2009 6:00 PM
I'm amazed about people here complaining about removing their shoes. I think the old and disabled get extra screeening if they can't remove theirs. Everyone else whining is really hopeless and just looking to complain. Amazing.
That goes for people complaining about liquids also. If there was a plot to use liquid explosives, just suck it up and bring a smaller bottle of shampoo. TSA has measures to work with those who NEED it.
Hey, I guess I'm a TSA apologist, aka, a normal "adult."
January 9, 2009 7:19 PM
NoClu wrote:
Step one would be the liquid analyzer that is used in Japan. Perhaps we could effectively end the war an fluids here in the US.
Perhaps if the liquid analyzer could be set up to detect explosives instead of just combustibles, that'd be an awesome idea.
January 9, 2009 10:18 PM
"I'm amazed about people here complaining about removing their shoes."
Why? Shoes pose no threat to air travel, and mandatory show removal wastes time and is unsanitary. If someone's shoes don't set of the metal detector there should be no reason for that person to take off their shoes. This is a simple suggestion that would make screenings much faster, and do nothing to reduce air safety.
"That goes for people complaining about liquids also. If there was a plot to use liquid explosives, just suck it up and bring a smaller bottle of shampoo."
TSA has yet to provide any independent, peer-reviewed evidence that so-called "liquid explosives" could possibly harm an aircraft. The 3.4-1-1 policy has no basis in scientific fact, and is just another choke point in screenings that does nothing to enhance security. Ergo TSA must revoke this pointless policy to conform with its mission.
January 10, 2009 12:09 AM
Would it be too much to ask for the TSA to learn abroad as well?
January 10, 2009 9:48 AM
Yea sorry the technology is just now out there. Nothing the Japanese use would work in the USA for the liquids explosives.
January 10, 2009 9:50 AM
Quote from one anonymous: "Would it be too much to ask for the TSA to learn abroad as well?"
DHS has a very strong "not invented here" mentality. Thus if they didn't come up with it, it can't be good and useful.
Quote from a different Anonymous: "Yea sorry the technology is just now out there. Nothing the Japanese use would work in the USA for the liquids explosives."
And yet the Japanese still don't have planes falling out of the sky like TSA claims would happen without the technology.
Of course, nothing TSA is doing now with its liquids explosives is working here either. The Japanese are at least doing something REAL to address the threat. It's just a real a threat to them as it is to us. The Japanese probably did some real risk analysis to determine that their machines mitigated the risk to an acceptable level.
I'd be curious to see what TSA's acceptable risk level is. I'm guessing it's probably somewhere to mitigating to .000000000000000000001% chance of occuring for CYA purposes.
Just another of the things TSA does that make you go Hmmm.
January 10, 2009 2:20 PM
does everyone realize that tsa is not just looking for metal in shoes how about paper detonators or C4 these things wouldnt alarm the metal detector.
January 10, 2009 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...
Yea sorry the technology is just now out there. Nothing the Japanese use would work in the USA for the liquids explosives.
January 10, 2009 9:50 AM
........................
One has to wonder just why the Japanese do not consider "Liquid Exlosives" to be a significant threat.
I have to believe that a country of people as well educated as the peoples of Japan considered the risk from liquid explosives and decidied the risk was nil.
Or is the state of matter just different in the TSA controlled USA?
January 10, 2009 6:08 PM
"Why? Shoes pose no threat to air travel, and mandatory show removal wastes time and is unsanitary."
If Richard Reid had a lighter that would have worked. He walked through a metal detector or had it packed in a bag, I assume, so that wasn't enough.
Some shoes have shanks and will alarm. That, IF ANYTHING, slows down the process because those people have to walk through twice now. Take off your stupid shoes. I was in France and a guy's shoe's alarmed. So the screener there patted down the top of his shoes and let him go. What did that tell him? I'd rather everyone take theirs off. Some shoes have lights and rollers. They could hold anything.
"If someone's shoes don't set of the metal detector there should be no reason for that person to take off their shoes. This is a simple suggestion that would make screenings much faster, and do nothing to reduce air safety."
No reason, just explosives and detonators. You, obviously are no kind of expert if I know more than you. Just comply, please, and get out of my way so I can make my flight. Thanks.
January 10, 2009 7:49 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "No reason, just explosives and detonators. You, obviously are no kind of expert if I know more than you. Just comply, please, and get out of my way so I can make my flight. Thanks."
And just how many shoe bombs have been found? And how many planes have fallen out of the sky from shoe bombs in places don't have a shoe carnival?
If shoe bombs are the number one threat to aviation security as TSA claims in its "Why?" video series, then surely, it would have found many more shoe bombs thanks to the shoe carnival.
If Richard Reid would have succeeded, we would have had no idea that he was using a shoe bomb.
I don't know that you are any more an expert than who you're arguing with sir/madam.
Don't you think we all have flights to make too, or are you just myopic in thinking you're the only one with a flight to make? As TSA would say, if you're in a crunch for time, get to the airport earlier.
Quote from another Anonymous: "does everyone realize that tsa is not just looking for metal in shoes how about paper detonators or C4 these things wouldnt alarm the metal detector."
Paper detonators? If that's the case, virtually any paper could be made into a detonator. Is paper going to be next on the prohibited items list?
Interestingly enough, C4 wouldn't alarm the metal detector, but the puffers and ETD swabs would pick them up. Interestingly enough, in airports where puffers are still used, shoes come off before going thru the puffer, thus bypassing an instrument that WOULD detect them for something that won't (TSO and x-ray).
So arguably, we are less safe because of the way TSA handles shoe explosives.
Robert
January 10, 2009 10:41 PM
Shoes must be worn or carried into the "puffer". At least thats the way it works @ DEN. I wouldn't think it would be different in other places.
January 11, 2009 7:29 AM
Robert Johnson said
Don't you think we all have flights to make too, or are you just myopic in thinking you're the only one with a flight to make? As TSA would say, if you're in a crunch for time, get to the airport earlier.
Do you think your the only one with a flight to make. There is a large majority of us that happen to agree with the shoe carnival as you call it. I listen to these TSO and intelligence info. If there is any chance in the world that an explosive could be hidden in a shoe, then it needs to be x-ray'd. There are other machines that could detect explosives, but I don't know if you noticed but not all airports have the same equipment. There was an article a long time ago (I don't remember when) that stated that the puffers weren't 100% so thats why accessable property still needs to be sent through the x-ray. Metal detector only detect metal.
DON'T PLAY GAMES WITH MY SAFETY!
January 11, 2009 9:06 AM
Paper detonators? If that's the case, virtually any paper could be made into a detonator. Is paper going to be next on the prohibited items list?
A paper detonator is an improvised detonator that uses little or no metal. Most will go undetected by a metal detector.
January 12, 2009 9:56 AM
And just how many shoe bombs have been found? And how many planes have fallen out of the sky from shoe bombs in places don't have a shoe carnival?
Could it be that the TSA searches all shoes is what keeps them from finding them? Why would someone try to hide explosives in shoes if the TSA looks... Bad people are not that dumb.
January 12, 2009 9:58 AM
Robert Johnson wrote:
"And just how many shoe bombs have been found? And how many planes have fallen out of the sky from shoe bombs in places don't have a shoe carnival?
"If shoe bombs are the number one threat to aviation security as TSA claims in its `Why?' video series, then surely, it would have found many more shoe bombs thanks to the shoe carnival."
Someone anonymously responded:
"Could it be that the TSA searches all shoes is what keeps them from finding them?"
I would hope that their shoe searches would allow them to find any shoe bomb that someone attempts to take aboard a commercial flight. Maybe this person meant to suggest that it is TSA's shoe search policy which stops people from hiding things in their shoes for TSA to find. That's logical. But as Robert wrote, shoe bombs do not seem to be a problem in any of the places where airline passengers' shoes are not searched.
"Why would someone try to hide explosives in shoes if the TSA looks... Bad people are not that dumb."
A better question is why TSA bothers searching shoes when anything that can be hidden in the sole of a shoe can be hidden -- by people who "are not that dumb" -- in places TSA does not and very likely will never search.
We have had this discussion here already. In TSA's July, 2008, "Leave your shoes on?" post, I wrote:
"I maintain that best TSA can possibly hope for with this policy of searching the shoes of every commercial airline passenger is to foil the plans of a person who intended to carry contraband through the checkpoint hidden in his shoe but cannot think of any alternative place to smuggle it -- like in his rectum, under his arm, under his waistband, or in his pocket.
"The odds of that `if I can't hide it in my shoe because TSA searches shoes I'll just give up and not try to bomb the plane' plan happening are miniscule, and the cost of avoiding it is enormous. Doing so via this ridiculous shoe search policy is a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. It is security theater. We're being forced to pay for it. This misinformed person is defending it."
Again, I ask: What would U.S. Government checkpoints in airports be like today if Richard Reid had carried his explosive under his arm, taped to the small of his back, tucked in his crotch, in his mouth, or in another body cavity?
Are we to assume that TSA never considered the possibility of someone smuggling an explosive in his shoe until Richard Reid did? Did this one man's action increase the risk of not searching passengers' shoes? Of course not. Would we be searching shoes if instead of finding Richard reid with an explosive in his shoe, someone had simply written a high-profile fictional story about someone doing so? Would we begin submitting to body strip- or body cavity searches if someone wrote such a story about a criminal smuggling a bit of explosive tucked under his belt, taped to his back, or in his rectum? Would we do so if one man was actually caught doing so? Would TSA apologists tell us to remember the buttocks bomber?
Is the risk of small amounts of explosive being smuggled onto an airplane in one of the many places where someone could easily do so really any less now than the risk of it would be after we caught one person doing so? Why on Earth are we searching shoes via x-ray when we allow mouths, armpits, rectums, and every other area of the body where something sized similarly to that which will fit in the sole of a shoe through airport checkpoints with nothing but a walk through the magnetometer?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 12, 2009 12:07 PM
This was quite an interesting post to read. So much whining about all of the safety measures being taken and the inconvenience of having to "take off your shoes"...how about just being thankful that our commercial aircrafts have been safe and not hi-jacked by any terrorists since 9/11...
Sure, it's an inconvenience when you are in a hurry to catch your flight...but it is all done for a reason.
January 13, 2009 3:21 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home