Dishing the Dirt
I’ve been reading some statements around the web about a recent incident at Piedmont Triad Airport (PTI) in North Carolina involving dirt and fossils being mistaken for a possible bomb.To the flying public, I fully understand that it has to seem ridiculous that dirt and fossils could be mistaken for a bomb. If I didn’t know anything about how x-ray images looked or what TSA was looking for, I’d probably be on the “you guys actually thought that was a bomb?” bandwagon.
I’m going to try to make this as simple as I can, saying what I am able to say.
1) Images of items on the x-ray monitor often look nothing like they normally do to the naked eye.
2)Dirt and fossils as well as many other normal day to day items can resemble what our officers are trained to look for on the x-ray monitor.
3) Bags often contain electronics and wires that overlap these items making them look even more suspicious.
As a former TSO I can think of a couple of times where by chance, everyday normal harmless items were laid out in a bag in such a way to look exactly like a textbook improvised explosive device. (IED)
As a former TSO I can think of a couple of times where by chance, everyday normal harmless items were laid out in a bag in such a way to look exactly like a textbook improvised explosive device. (IED)
In this particular case, a Bomb Appraisal Officer (BAO) was summoned and they eventually determined there was no threat. When you think there might be an explosive in a bag, you don’t just whip it out of the x-ray tunnel and dive into it. There are procedures that must be followed for the well-being of everybody involved. Of course, once the bag was opened, it was obvious what the items were and that they did not pose a threat.
I hope this clears things up a little bit in regards to items being mistaken for IEDs.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
I hope this clears things up a little bit in regards to items being mistaken for IEDs.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
11:37 AM
Subscribe in a reader
43 Comments:
"Of course, once the bag was opened, it was obvious what the items were and that they did not pose a threat."
You mean the TSA didn't detain the passenger and shout questions like "Where did you get that dirt?" or "If you don't have anything to hide, why can't you tell us how much dirt there is in there?"
April 27, 2009 1:14 PM
The article doesn't say if the dirt make it back on the plane. Was it, as in the homemade battery confiscation incident, a "realistic replica" of an IED component?
April 27, 2009 1:33 PM
Years ago, my then-wife was flying into Montreal to meet me. She is an artist, and had her drawing materials in a carry-on. When her bag went through the x-ray, the Canadian border folks suddenly appeared very serious and asked her to step aside... It turns out that the pencils in her bag looked like wires in the x-ray. Once they opened the bag and saw the art materials, the Canadians were very nice about it.
Of course, I think they were a bit on edge, because the guy in from of my ex-wife tried to get a switch blade on the airplane. "What's this?" "Oh, it's a tool". The inspector presses a button, and thwack! The blade flies out! Fortunately, no blood was spilled. (Imagine the penalty for that.) They hustled the guy off in a hurry.
April 27, 2009 3:36 PM
I am a volunteer at PHX Sky Harbor Airport in the Navigator program. As such, I spend 4 hours a week at the airport helping passengers and greeters work their way through the place. This brings me in contact with TSA at times and while some of those contacts are better than others, I see a level of sarcasm posted on this blog that is seldom if ever justified.
First and foremost, you are dealing with an arm of the Federal government. And whether it's the TSA, SSA, FDA, SEC, whatever...that defines an interface citizens are very much unused to coping with. Add to it that "security" is TSA's middle name and that takes it to a whole 'nother level.
So Step One is: Get over it.
Step Two: Understand that their prevailing mentality is "Not on my watch." They will do anything & everything to avoid making a mistake or allowing an incident to occur.
And some of it makes no sense...like the time I saw a passenger hand carry a drink in a large styrofoam cup all the way through the TSA checkpoint. Somehow the TSA folks missed it, until another passenger pointed it out. A TSA TSO chased the guy (who was proceeding towards his gate, drinking from the cup) down the concourse and took the cup away.
Another time I needed a Spanish speaker for a passenger requiring help inside security. TSA supplied the interpreter even though it had nothing to do with TSA business.
Step Three: Protests are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.
April 27, 2009 3:57 PM
“Step Three: Protests are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.”
================
Protests are useless, funny it worked for Martin Luther King and the civil rights movements and not listening to protests was one of the driving forces behind the founding of this country. Read your American History books again and start looking for references about “no taxation without representation.
April 27, 2009 4:43 PM
Even if TSA was disbanded tomorrow, you'd still have to go through almost all the same procedures and screening before getting on a plane. I wonder if they might even be more intrusive, since the Airlines and Airport Authorities would now be liable for any incidents that occurred.
April 27, 2009 5:18 PM
Thanks SteveAz! Hey anon, there was no yelling at the passenger! Mr Gelpack, the dirt made it's flight along with the passenger that was not yelled at.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 27, 2009 5:52 PM
@West: Hey anon, there was no yelling at the passenger! Mr Gelpack, the dirt made it's flight along with the passenger that was not yelled at.
If this is indeed the case, the TSA did its job properly. The TSO saw something suspicious, took appropriate action, and cleared the passenger and the item once the true nature was determined.
What then was the problem? What am I missing here?
April 27, 2009 6:02 PM
@SteveArizona: First and foremost, you are dealing with an arm of the Federal government. And whether it's the TSA, SSA, FDA, SEC, whatever...that defines an interface citizens are very much unused to coping with. ..... So Step One is: Get over it.
This would be appropriate advice if we had confidence that the government agency in question was doing its job competently, was following procedures that respected the rights of passengers and limited intrusions to their persons and effects to the minimum extent necessary, and was accountable for compliance with regulations known and accessible to the public. Under those circumstances, most of us would have little difficulty "coping" with this necessary "interface."
Unfortunately, the TSA meets none of those criteria. What we are "unused to coping with" is an agency that operates under secret rules and procedures, regularly punishes members of the public for violations they can't know about, and continues to tolerate "officers" who abuse and disrespect the public. That is not something we should just "get over."
Yes, the unfortuante reality is that we must "willingly consent" to "voluntarily abandoning" our rights if we want to fly today. But that does not mean that we should just quietly accept it and "get over it" when we're not at an airport.
Step Three: Protests are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.
That's probably true on this blog, which seems to be a "designated protest area" where we're allowed to speak with the assurance that we'll be heard (or more often ignored) only by low-level PR staff who have neither the interest nor the authority to address any our concerns. But other venues may be more productive. I just hope you don't mean you want us to give up our right to petition the government for redress of grievances in exchange for the "protection" the TSA claims to provide.
April 27, 2009 6:18 PM
I didn't realize my post would garner such comment but I'm glad it did.
Please understand that of all the considerations I listed in my steps, "Not on my watch." overwhelms everything else. There is no benefit of the doubt. There is a fear on the part of the TSO and the TSA in general that some slip-up or oversight will lead to a disaster traced back to a deficiency in a TSA person or group.
So yes, protests to the TSA are useless. The more you protest, the more suspicion you raise. And this includes Martin Luther King, Jr. if he were to go through a security checkpoint today.
April 28, 2009 2:40 PM
George said...
What then was the problem? What am I missing here?
April 27, 2009 6:02 PM
If you're asking about the purpose of the post, it's to explain that harmless items outside of an xray may look not-so-harmless inside the xray.
April 28, 2009 3:09 PM
The only cure to SteveArizona's accurately described "not on my watch" syndrome is to make the penalties for passenger civil rights violations extremely harsh.
E.g., strip search a passenger: offending TSO criminally charged with sexual assault and fired and bystander TSOs named publicly and fired. Confiscate/steal personal property that is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary and was not a threat to aviation (e.g., the homemade battery pack); TSO charged with abuse of authority, possibly charged with theft, and fired. Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed, or the TSO asking political affiliation as part of an id verification): TSO named publicly, criminally charged with abuse of authority, and fired.
And ensure that all TSOs fired under these circumstances lose all federal pension benefits and are barred from public-service jobs for life.
Implementing a few penalties like these would really bring the workforce into line and make them think about law-abiding passengers' right to travel unimpeded by government instead of dwelling on paranoid delusions that every 2-year-old and granny with a water bottle is the next Mohammed Atta.
I have nothing against screening all commercial airline passengers for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, using non invasive technologies like x-ray (on property, not people), metal detectors, and explosive-trace-detectors/portals, so long as the search is limited to the targeted items and not used to justify a fishing expedition for other items or for politically-incorrect opinions, employers, travel patterns, etc.
But TSA has gotten completely out of control on what I believe is more power trip than paranoia at this point. Even the bloggers here have effectively admitted that any TSO can declare any item to be prohibited on a whim, and the passenger has no recourse that will allow them to make their flight. Unlike law enforcement, which is restricted to acting on articulated probable cause or at least articulated reasonable suspicion, TSA gets away with things based on mere whim and never has to justify why they did what they did. As a result, they get away with ruining innocent passengers' days or even lives without a shred of accountability.
April 28, 2009 4:08 PM
Yep, all normal x-rays do is to show you a relative density-nothing more and nothing less.
April 28, 2009 5:27 PM
The TSA is, of course, paranoid. This is due to a perception that the USA is the only nation where terrorism is a threat. Which is complete and total nonsense, but there is very little we can do to convince them otherwise.
As to the professionalism issue, I firmly believe it is not the lack of training, but the lack of firing that causes it.
Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay.
Maybe it's just a cultural thing.
April 28, 2009 11:38 PM
"E.g., strip search a passenger: offending TSO criminally charged with sexual assault and fired and bystander TSOs named publicly and fired. Confiscate/steal personal property that is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary and was not a threat to aviation (e.g., the homemade battery pack); TSO charged with abuse of authority, possibly charged with theft, and fired. Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed, or the TSO asking political affiliation as part of an id verification): TSO named publicly, criminally charged with abuse of authority, and fired.
And ensure that all TSOs fired under these circumstances lose all federal pension benefits and are barred from public-service jobs for life.
Implementing a few penalties like these would really bring the workforce into line and make them think about law-abiding passengers' right to travel unimpeded by government instead of dwelling on paranoid delusions that every 2-year-old and granny with a water bottle is the next Mohammed Atta."
....seriously? Ok, first off you can't blame TSA for missing things in bags. There are two completely different groups of airport baggage handlers who are not monitored handling your luggage after TSA, most TSA baggage screening is automated. Secondly if I saw a TSO let the guy in front of me have his home made modified compact easy to hide power source for a bomb through the checkpoint without asking questions I would raise some complaints. Asking questions to people is a very simple way of figuring out if they are lieing to you and if they are lieing then they must be up to no good. And some ID's have political affiliation on them so its a way of verifiying that the ID is yours just like asking for any of the other information plainly printed on your ID for everyone to see. Oh and before you think screening grandma is a bad idea I want you to know, because I have seen it, that terrorists love straping grenades to grandmas wheelchair and rolling her into crowded areas why? because no one notices or pays attention to little old grandma. You people gotta remember that the hidden secret not heard about very often bad guys TSA is fighting are really REALLY sick individuals.
April 29, 2009 12:55 PM
Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay.
Maybe it's just a cultural thing.
___________________________________
That is nice, I am glad you had that experience. I see that kind of behavior everyday at my airport. (CLE)
April 29, 2009 2:06 PM
Anon, the problem with your theory that the "solution" is to arrest and charge everyone who does something you don't like with a crime is that it will simply cause the pendulum to swing the other way. People will default to a mentality that any decision can get them in trouble, arrested and fired so they simply do nothing. This risk avoidance mentality is what led to the failing of our intelligence apparatus prior to 9/11. If a person knows that a mistake or judgment call can get them arrested (and the notion that a private screening is sexual assault is laughable and disrespectful to real victims of sexual assault) they simply to default to letting anything and everything go.
The amusing thing about so many of these criticisms is that it takes things out of proportion. For several years after 9/11 I was flying at least once a week, I never had an issue going through a check point, never had to abandon (or have "confiscated") any of my property and basically had no issues. I can somewhat understand the concerns of occasional flyers, but if you are a frequent flyer and haven't figured things out then I suspect more of the problem is with you than TSA.
April 29, 2009 2:16 PM
Anonymous said... The TSA is, of course, paranoid. This is due to a perception that the USA is the only nation where terrorism is a threat. Which is complete and total nonsense, but there is very little we can do to convince them otherwise. As to the professionalism issue, I firmly believe it is not the lack of training, but the lack of firing that causes it. Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay. Maybe it's just a cultural thing.
April 28, 2009 11:38 PM
----------------------------
Anon,
I agree that if bad attitudes/performance can't be corrected through training/disciplinary measures, the officer should be terminated. If it’s not happening, that’s unfortunate. Many officers that do a great job have black eyes due to a few bad apples.
That's a nice story about your screening experience in Germany. I'm glad they helped you and treated you with respect.
I'm assuming you're sharing your story to show how nice they were compared to the TSA? Am I correct? If so, I can't tell you how many times I've seen our officers here at the TSA do the same exact thing.
I could go on and on with countless stories of courteous TSOs and professionalism. I knew an officer once who went out after their shift and bought some pizza with their own money for stranded passengers who's flights were cancelled due to weather. I've seen many officers on their lunches or breaks taking the time to show passengers the way to their gates or answer questions. Before I came to HQ, I observed an officer at CVG helping an international passenger make an international call. She took the time to listen to the woman and even talk to the operator for her. This is while she was on her lunch. It's common place for our officers to help folks along who need the extra help.
You know, the last time I traveled through Frankfurt, (I've been through that airport about 7 or 8 times) the security was rude to me. Do I think all German security officers behave this way? Of course not.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
April 29, 2009 2:24 PM
RE: ...seriously? Ok, first off you can't blame TSA for missing things in bags. There are two completely different groups of airport baggage handlers who are not monitored handling your luggage after TSA, most TSA baggage screening is automated. Secondly if I saw a TSO let the guy in front of me have his home made modified compact easy to hide power source for a bomb through the checkpoint without asking questions I would raise some complaints. Asking questions to people is a very simple way of figuring out if they are lieing to you and if they are lieing then they must be up to no good. And some ID's have political affiliation on them so its a way of verifiying that the ID is yours just like asking for any of the other information plainly printed on your ID for everyone to see. Oh and before you think screening grandma is a bad idea I want you to know, because I have seen it, that terrorists love straping grenades to grandmas wheelchair and rolling her into crowded areas why? because no one notices or pays attention to little old grandma. You people gotta remember that the hidden secret not heard about very often bad guys TSA is fighting are really REALLY sick individuals.
April 29, 2009 12:55 PM
..................
"Can't blame TSO for missing things in bags". What?
That is the primary job of TSA and it's TSO's.
"There are two completely different groups of airport baggage handlers who are not monitored handling your luggage after TSA, most TSA baggage screening is automated."
Exactly, and TSA has not taken steps to fix this known security problem. TSA is derelict in complying with the laws regulating the agency!
ID's have political party affiliation? Would you please tell us which ID's have this information.
The guy with the homemade battery, TSA did ask questions, they knew what it was, that it presented no danger yet confiscated the item anyhow. Then TSA put up a big announcement bragging about the confiscation until questions starting getting asked.
April 29, 2009 2:44 PM
@Bob: I agree that if bad attitudes/performance can't be corrected through training/disciplinary measures, the officer should be terminated. If it’s not happening, that’s unfortunate. Many officers that do a great job have black eyes due to a few bad apples.
It's not merely "unfortunate." It's inexcusable. And the fact that the "bad apples" aren't terminated but continue to give the TSA "black eyes" indicates that the TSA tolerates and condones such behavior. I would even suspect that the TSA leadership even encourages it as "effective security, based on their failure to stem it and on their practice of standing firmly behind "bad apples" when their conduct is egregious enough to require a CYA press release.
So Bob, I'm asking you the same question I ask any other TSA person who mentions the "bad apples" here: What are you doing about it? When you see the bad behavior, do you report it to your superiors? If not, is it because they or their superiors discourage doing so? You're admitting that there's a problem that is giving you a bad reputation and making your job more difficult.
All we can do about this problem is to complain to each other about it. We can write comments here that (as far as we can tell) by deliberate design never get anywhere near the officials at headquarters who could demand improvements. But you're inside the TSA, and should be able to do something. You have every incentive to do something, since it affects your own job. So what are you doing about it? What steps is the TSA taking to crack down on the "bad apples"? If the answer is "that's SSI," then why is it secret?
Showing us concrete evidence of measures to fix the "unfortunate" problem will do more to improve the reputation of the TSA than any amount of spin and puppy posts.
April 29, 2009 3:22 PM
Bob said:
I could go on and on with countless stories of courteous TSOs and professionalism. I knew an officer once who went out after their shift and bought some pizza with their own money for stranded passengers who's flights were cancelled due to weather. I've seen many officers on their lunches or breaks taking the time to show passengers the way to their gates or answer questions. Before I came to HQ, I observed an officer at CVG helping an international passenger make an international call. She took the time to listen to the woman and even talk to the operator for her. This is while she was on her lunch. It's common place for our officers to help folks along who need the extra help.Bob,
The last time I checked, being a screener does not place you and your fellow screeners into a special category of Good Samaritans. At IAD last saturday, I helped a woman get her bag down from the overhead bin and, just temn minutes later, I helped a family of foreign travelers with an ATM machine. You know what? It's not about me. It's about common courtesy and doing the right thing. There were dozens of senseless acts of kindness going on all around me committed by all races, colors, creeds, genders, and ages.
It's really pathetic that you feel compelled to post a laundry list of screener accomplishment.
April 29, 2009 4:56 PM
Blogger Bob,
The link to the number one item on the TSA Latest News list from the http://www.tsa.gov/ home page is more than seven weeks old (Man Tries to Board Plane with Cocaine Hidden on Legs (OCRegister.com)).
Just a hint for your partners maintaining that site -- it doesn't make y'all look good.
Surely there has to be something more up to date than that? It's going to be a dead link soon when the OCRegister pushes it into their archives.
April 29, 2009 5:12 PM
"If the answer is "that's SSI," then why is it secret? "
As a former employer, I can tell yu that much of what you want is not SSI, but PSI: Personal Sensitive Information. TSA cannot publicly announce that TSO X has been fired because of XYZ. That's defamation and actionable in court. As an ex-employer, I had/have to be careful about what information I give out about my former employees even now, although the business I owned was sold in 11/2001. Even if the employee was a "bad apple", if he/she comes to me for a refernce, it could come back against me, even if I was being honest.
TSA may have more leeway, being a public/government agency. I recall an incindent in St Paul where a few Sheriff Officers were found guilty of a charge, yet the Sheriff's office could not publicly comment on the officers even though it was public record (in the arrest) and in all the local news. Up to the conviction, the news had to use "allegedy" ever time they talked about the case. Even when these guys headed to prision, the Sherrif's office still would not/ could not comment publicly.
So although it would be helpful to all the TSA critics to know that the "rougue TSO" has been terminated or disciplined, it may not be possible for TSA to give you the pound of flesh you are seeking. TSO-Joe
April 29, 2009 6:48 PM
"Exactly, and TSA has not taken steps to fix this known security problem. TSA is derelict in complying with the laws regulating the agency!"
Sez you! I love how you constantly spin other answers to fit your view. It doesn’t matter what I said. It doesn’t matter what I even think I said. All that matters is what YOU think I said. You quote what I wrote but don’t read what I wrote. You give everything written the WORST possible spin imaginable, almost oppisite of TSA. even if they said what you want, you'd still disagree.
April 29, 2009 7:03 PM
Anyway, higher security always help for safe flying only, though it may cause some inconveniences for passengers!
April 30, 2009 3:19 AM
Your deletion policy is capricious.
April 30, 2009 1:15 PM
Bob said:
You know, the last time I traveled through Frankfurt, (I've been through that airport about 7 or 8 times) the security was rude to me. Do I think all German security officers behave this way? Of course not.They knew who you were and decided to give you a taste of your own medicine. Don't like it much, now do you?
April 30, 2009 3:20 PM
Another Anonymous poster said...
“The only cure to SteveArizona's accurately described "not on my watch" syndrome is to make the penalties for passenger civil rights violations extremely harsh.”
To that I could agree, as long as the individual making the complaint actually knows what those rights are. Unfortunately in this venue that is most often untrue.
Another Anonymous poster continues…
“E.g., strip search a passenger: offending TSO criminally charged with sexual assault and fired and bystander TSOs named publicly and fired.”
Passengers are not strip searched. If there is a question that we cannot resolve while the passenger is dressed, then we just don’t allow that passenger into the sterile area.
Now, as it happens, I have had several incidents where passengers have dropped their pants intentionally both in public and in the private screening room, without being asked. Some people just don’t have the phobia that most of us have about nudity in public. Should that TSO be fired, publicly humiliated, and denied their pensions?
Another Anonymous poster continues…
“Confiscate/steal personal property that is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary and was not a threat to aviation (e.g., the homemade battery pack); TSO charged with abuse of authority, possibly charged with theft, and fired.”
Does this include those items which on their own are not a weapon, explosive, or as is a threat to aviation? Baseball bats? Bullets? Loaded magazines? How about bottle’s of 50% hydrogen peroxide? None of these on their own are weapons, nothing a threat to aviation directly, but all are parts of things that could be extremely dangerous on an aircraft, should we allow them?
Another Anonymous poster continues…
“Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed, or the TSO asking political affiliation as part of an id verification): TSO named publicly, criminally charged with abuse of authority, and fired.”
Who gets to choose which questions are inappropriate? Or are you going to make a complete list of questions that we cannot ask?
Another Anonymous poster continues…
“Implementing a few penalties like these would really bring the workforce into line and make them think about law-abiding passengers' right to travel unimpeded by government instead of dwelling on paranoid delusions that every 2-year-old and granny with a water bottle is the next Mohammed Atta.”
Wow, around the world 2 year olds and 90 year old grannies are use by terrorists to transport WMD materials. Are we to ignore that inconvenient fact for the sake of grannies that honestly seem to enjoy the attention?
Another Anonymous poster continues…
“I have nothing against screening all commercial airline passengers for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, using non invasive technologies like x-ray (on property, not people), metal detectors, and explosive-trace-detectors/portals, so long as the search is limited to the targeted items and not used to justify a fishing expedition for other items or for politically-incorrect opinions, employers, travel patterns, etc.”
OK, so if we see kiddie porn we should leave it alone. I get you.
And finally Another Anonymous poster finishes with…
“But TSA has gotten completely out of control on what I believe is more power trip than paranoia at this point. Even the bloggers here have effectively admitted that any TSO can declare any item to be prohibited on a whim, and the passenger has no recourse that will allow them to make their flight. Unlike law enforcement, which is restricted to acting on articulated probable cause or at least articulated reasonable suspicion, TSA gets away with things based on mere whim and never has to justify why they did what they did. As a result, they get away with ruining innocent passengers' days or even lives without a shred of accountability.”
If I could get away with claiming cell phones are prohibited, believe me I would. Of all the things that get forgotten in pockets or on belts, that is number one.
As for the search, I refer you back to Trollkillers post about and “administrative search” and leave you to ponder.
April 30, 2009 3:25 PM
Bob thanks for clarifying things for the public. As a TSO, I often see items on the x-ray monitor that appear "suspicious" at first glance. There have been times when I've called for a supervisor for items that resembled completed ied's. Despite the testing that goes on at our checkpoints daily, we have to take these "suspicions" seriously until we know otherwise. As bob said, on the x-ray, dirt may appear to be consistent to an explosive material. When you factor in wires, etc, it appears even more so. We are often times looking at only a 2 dimensional image. This is why we have bomb appraisal officers, trained specifically in what to look for to determine if an image contains a threat or not. They are an extra set of eyes for us....in this case it turned out be fossils and dirt, in another case you never know what you may find. Thanks again Bob.
April 30, 2009 9:27 PM
Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay.
Maybe it's just a cultural thing.
***********************************
There are alot of reasons why TSA has rude employees, some of them I won't go into in this forum. But for the most part, I've noticed that the rude ones are usually rude to everyone, including fellow TSO's. Yes, some of them should be fired, others just have a gripe of some sort. What the public doesn't see is what often times causes someone to be rude...is this an excuse? NO! But it is a reality. I have had plenty of bad days at my airport...maybe my manager or supervisor yelled at me for something...right or wrong I don't like being yelled at. Maybe a passenger ticked me off...I don't like that either, but I have to deal with it. Whatever the reason, I repeat that there is NO REASON for rudeness.
My motto: Be "professional and courteous to everyone" because karma is a B. A tip to my fellow TSO's if something is bugging you and need a short break to get it together, by all means, go get a drink of water, or take a trip to the rest room to calm down. Its not worth getting fired or disciplined for rudeness.
April 30, 2009 9:40 PM
@TSO-Joe: So although it would be helpful to all the TSA critics to know that the "rougue TSO" has been terminated or disciplined, it may not be possible for TSA to give you the pound of flesh you are seeking.
I'm not seeking any flesh, nor suggesting that the TSA reveal details about specific disciplinary or termination actions. Rather, I'm asking about a general process for reporting and and taking action against TSOs who fail to meet the (supposed) professional standards of conduct in dealing with passengers. That can't possibly be PSI, but it's likely to be SSI because everything else about TSA operating procedure is SSI.
I suggest "declassifying" the process for holding TSOs accountable because the continued presence of "bad apples" and "bad screening experiences" indicates either that the TSA is choosing not to follow that process or (more likely) lacks any such process. That gets back to earlier comments about reporting "bad screening experiences." I suspect that very few people ever file such reports, mainly because they don't know how to do that or even that there is a way to do it. And those who know about it probably don't bother because they have no assurance that accomplishes anything, or that it won't put them on some sort of watch list.
As I and others have repeated far too often (though apparently not often enough to have any effect), the pervasive secrecy and complete lack of accountability are the root cause of why the public despise the TSA so much. Holding TSOs accountable for professional standards by publicizing the process for reporting "bad screening experiences" as well as the process for dispositioning those reports would go a long way toward improving the TSA's standing with the public.
That assumes, of course, that the TSA leadership actually wants to improve their agency's standing with the public. Sometimes I think they actually want the public to despise them because it equates with "effective security." I hope I'm wrong about that, but what I've seen suggests I could be right.
May 1, 2009 12:42 PM
Chris,
I think you miss the point Bob was making. He wasn't trying to point out that TSOs are the most super nice people in the world. He was simply pointing out that while people here constantly attack with "TSO so and so was mean to me" there is another side of the story. If all I did was read the posts from our herd of "anons" had never actually been to an airport and passed through security I would think I was about to marched into the gulag. Bob is simply pointing out that, like any other group of people, there are some really polite and considerate ones, some average ones and some who need some improvement with their manners.
May 1, 2009 12:46 PM
@Anonymous (TSO), April 30, 2009 9:40 PM: My motto: Be "professional and courteous to everyone" because karma is a B. A tip to my fellow TSO's if something is bugging you and need a short break to get it together, by all means, go get a drink of water, or take a trip to the rest room to calm down. Its not worth getting fired or disciplined for rudeness.
It's great that courtesy is part of your personal belief and work ethic. But I wonder whether that's also part of the TSA's requirements. Is your motto the TSA's motto as well? Does the TSA actually fire or discipline any TSO for rudeness?
Does the TSA define what "professional" means, or have some code of conduct for which TSOs are accountable? Is courtesy and respect for passengers part of the performance appraisal criteria for TSOs? Do TSOs have any real incentive to treat passengers with courtesy and respect? Do TSOs face any consequences for rudeness and bullying? If a passenger reports a "bad screening experience," would that ever result in effective corrective action?
These are important questions, to which I hope Bob or someone from the TSA will provide answers other than "that's SSI." If the questions are ignored, I can only assume that it's because the answers are all "no."
May 1, 2009 1:40 PM
"If I could get away with claiming cell phones are prohibited, believe me I would. Of all the things that get forgotten in pockets or on belts, that is number one."
Ah, the incisive security knowledge TSO "It is illegal to travel with $10K in cash" Ron is known for! Cell phones occasionally provide a minimal degree of inconvenience for you, therefore they should be declared a security threat.
No wonder America hates TSA.
May 1, 2009 2:29 PM
Wow, around the world 2 year olds and 90 year old grannies are use by terrorists to transport WMD materials. Are we to ignore that inconvenient fact for the sake of grannies that honestly seem to enjoy the attention?
..................
Since you know this to be true please provide some references to these acts.
Thanks.
May 1, 2009 2:44 PM
"Holding TSOs accountable for professional standards by publicizing the process for reporting "bad screening experiences" as well as the process for dispositioning those reports would go a long way toward improving the TSA's standing with the public."
I think I get what you are asking. I think you are asking two seperate but linked questions:
First, what is the process for complaining about a rude TSO or bad expereince? The passenger, has to tell someone about it. I know TSA has comment cards and this site: https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10 ,which is an on-line complaint form. Even a letter later on can alert TSA to a problem. The big drawback with all these is it falls upon the passenger to do it. When I worked for Sears, studies were shown that most people who had a bad experience just leave. At a checkpoint, I'd imagine that a passenger just wants to get to their flight. But the passenger can talk to a supervisor or manager. I have seen this done and the supervisor will talk to the TSO about the issue. And if it reoccurs, the STSO has a process to address the TSO behavior.
Which leads to the second question: what is the actaul process that the TSA uses to disciple an employee? Unless the blog team nixes it, I can post the process here as I do not believe it is SSI. What do you say, Bob? Give me the OK and I'll look it up.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are asking, George?
TSO-Joe
May 1, 2009 4:59 PM
RB,
I can't speak for carrying WMD material but Fatima Omar Mahmud al-Najar a grandmother of 40 according to some news sources blew herself up at an Israeli checkpoint. Thats just one example.
There have been cases for years of people utilizing children to smuggle drugs (although the baby corpse thing is an urban myth), because they understand the special difficulties involved in screening children. The prisons in the US, UK and Canada have all cited problems with people using their own children to smuggle drugs into prisons and they have a greater lattitude with their searched than TSA does, not to mention more time. And please spare me the "TSA isn't in the business of looking for drugs" I understand that but the same fundamental tactics apply regardless of what is being smuggled. The notion that terrorists won't adopt a tried and true tactic like that is laughable.
Ultimately though as soon as you put a certain group of people "off limits" from a screening standpoint all you have done is encourge people to utilize that avenue. TSA says "show your AARP card and skip screening" the bad guys will find some people in that demographic to take advantage of the loop hole.
May 1, 2009 8:28 PM
TSO-Joe said...
" ... TSA may have more leeway, being a public/government agency. I recall an incindent in St Paul where a few Sheriff Officers were found guilty of a charge, yet the Sheriff's office could not publicly comment on the officers even though it was public record (in the arrest) and in all the local news. ... Even when these guys headed to prision, the Sherrif's office still would not/could not comment publicly.
So although it would be helpful to all the TSA critics to know that the "rougue TSO" has been terminated or disciplined, it may not be possible for TSA to give you the pound of flesh you are seeking. TSO-Joe "
All of the actions by that local Sheriff's office were policy decisions.
The actions of TSA are policy decisions. Policy decisions can be changed -- and should be, in this context. The vastest majority of law enforcement offices around this country fall over themselves to get on the media to trumpet the status, by name, of any LEO who is even suspected of any sort of egregious conduct. The LEO might be "reassigned to desk duty" pending investigation, or might be "suspended with pay" pending investigation, or fired or exonerated after investigation. Every step of the way, the LEO is identified by name (usually accompanied by a photo) and his/her status is made clearly known.
Why? Because the strength of the "thin blue line" depends upon maintaining public trust. The INSTANT the public loses trust in one LEO every remaining LEO loses some of his/her effectiveness. For the "thin blue line" to remain intact, it is IMPERATIVE that departments demonstrate that the uniform will never, ever shield a maverick.
TSA, on the other hand, shields and protects maverick TSO's (and all the rest of the acronyms). Worse still, TSA has institutionalized schoolyard bully behavior. According to TSO's on this very blog (including you, Joe, IIRC), DYWTFT is still a standard part of the lexicon. Bob's post about the St Louis TSO who "used inappropriate language" simply sent the message (at least to the public, and probably to some segment of TSO's) that a TSO can pull a stunt like that and get away clean. Now maybe, just maybe, he didn't get away clean. Maybe he was disciplined. Maybe he was retrained. But you can't prove it by me, and so I don't believe anything at all happened to him beyond maybe the mildest slap on the wrist.
Truly lousy response by a TSA rep: "The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action."
Better: "The actions of the TSA employee were inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. The TSO involved faces disciplinary action, and TSA apologizes to the passenger."
Best: "The actions, tone and language used by TSO Joe Bfstplk were unacceptable. Because TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards and because TSO Bfstplk clearly acted outside those standards, TSO Bfstplk has been suspended for one day without pay. Upon his return, he will be required to undergo remedial training and will be reassigned to other duties. TSA has extended its deepest apologies to the passenger."
This isn't about extracting a pound of flesh, Joe. This is about building and maintaining public trust.
Irish
May 2, 2009 12:18 AM
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/4/Abuse%20and%20Exploitation%20of%20Minors%20to%20Carry%20out%20Terr
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/1/Participation+of+Children+and+Teenagers+in+Terrori.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aBeA9m8yIwAo&refer=europe
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/al-qaeda-trained-kids-for-human-bomb.html
Sorry, I am not savvy enough yet to know how to condense a link like a lot of the posters here can, but I have found several links about children being used in terror attacks. This search took me all of 2 minutes and if I really wanted to get down to researching, I could generate many more detailing the various schools of thought. This is a compelling reason for screening children the same as adults (albeit with more focus and sensitivity as children are usually more likely to be unsettled by their surroundings). I hope this gives you an idea as to what the basis for the screen all the same thought pattern comes from. It is reprehensible to use a child in this manner, but the vast majority of Americans do not understand just how prevalent this practice is in other countries (and to some extent even here). History is rife with the stories about children suffering at the hands of those appointed as their guardians, these are but the first few I found with a simple search. There is a similiar problem the elderly that can not fend for themselves or that suffer from any number of diseases like alzheimers, or dementia. See this link:
http://www.dnis.org/index-2.php?issue_id=15&volume_id=3
And this one:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019826.php
These are terrible things that many organizations and persons with ill intent will use to further their own twisted designs. When we stop screening because someone is in a wheelchair or in a baby carrier, we lose our much of our effectiveness because the "bad" people can learn and observe too. I agree that there should be more attention to the person coming through whether it is because they are a scared little child wondering what all this noise and motion is, or a person that has a disability of any kind that needs some assistance. I hope that this will address your previous post RB.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 2, 2009 5:28 PM
@Irish: This isn't about extracting a pound of flesh, Joe. This is about building and maintaining public trust.
Very interesting comment. What it can only suggest (based on a long history of observed TSA behavior) is that the TSA really doesn't care about maintaining public trust because they don't believe they need it.
They have special Wartime powers to fight the Enemy, which exempt them from the laws and standards that apply to everyone else. And the traveling public are the Enemy, assumed to be guilty until screening proves us innocent. They have no need for us to trust them, as long as have the "respect" instilled by fear.
So they continue to endorse the use of "Do you want to fly today?" as a valuable strategy for winning the small battles at checkpoints. They use Wartime secrecy as justification for arbitrary and capricious actions. And they continue to tolerate "unprofessional" TSOs who bully and abuse, since that's always an appropriate way to treat an Enemy. For all their sweet talk about "respect" and "quality," what it comes down to is that we're all presumed to be terrorists and criminals. There is thus no need to rely on the public trust for effectiveness. Indeed, the TSA leadership may even regard the disdain the public (i.e., the Enemy) has for their agency as proof of their effectiveness.
Viewing the TSA that way would explain much of what we see on this blog and at airport checkpoints.
May 4, 2009 1:10 PM
TSORon sez:
"...grannies that honestly seem to enjoy the attention?"
Stay classy, Ron. The contempt for people you display just continue to add luster to the image of TSA.
May 4, 2009 8:07 PM
The ultimate thing is 'passengers' safe' travel .. so stringent measures are required!
May 5, 2009 4:29 AM
These are terrible things that many organizations and persons with ill intent will use to further their own twisted designs. When we stop screening because someone is in a wheelchair or in a baby carrier, we lose our much of our effectiveness because the "bad" people can learn and observe too. I agree that there should be more attention to the person coming through whether it is because they are a scared little child wondering what all this noise and motion is, or a person that has a disability of any kind that needs some assistance. I hope that this will address your previous post RB.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 2, 2009 5:28 PM
.......................
No one is asking TSA to stop screening.
How about screening everyone!
If they enter the secure area they should be screened.
Oh, has anyone ever attempted to take control of an aircraft using grandma or a baby as a weapon?
May 6, 2009 5:08 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home