Welcome New Blog Team Members
Many of our officers have participated on this blog and spent their own time helping to answer your questions. They’ve been a huge help. It’s great to have some folks on the blog who are actually out there working at our checkpoints.
With that said, it’s with great pleasure that I announce to you the three newest members of the TSA Blog Team. Our regular readers will know them well as Kelly-Mae, (Kelly, TSO at Louisville International Airport) Happy 2 Help, (Tim, TSO at Sacramento International Airport) and GSOLTSO. (West, LTSO at Piedmont Triad International Airport)
They will not serve as moderators, so please don’t beat them up for what does or doesn’t get posted. They’ll continue what they’ve been doing, (responding to comments) and on occasion will write a blog post here and there.
Here are their bios. I have also posted them on the “Meet Our Bloggers” page.
Tim
Hi, I'm Tim and I joined TSA in mid 2007. I'm currently a Transportation Security Officer at Sacramento International Airport (SMF) and take great pride in the support I receive.
I come from a US Army military intelligence background and am a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO), I specialized in Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) and junior level analysis.
On September 11, I was one of the many US Army soldiers patrolling Fort Huachuca checking military IDs. Holding my M16-A2, I knew the United States was going to change and I would do everything in my power to make sure it changed for the good. Public service has been a great honor for me.
In my free time, I am a proud family man, hobbyist programmer, like to collaborate on open source software, and am currently finishing up my degree in software engineering.
West
Hi, my name is West, and I started with TSA in February of 2005. I work at GSO (Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, NC) and truly enjoy working at my airport. I was hired on as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) and have since been promoted to Lead Transportation Security Officer (LTSO). I have worked as an On the Job Training (OJT) Monitor, and have been training new TSO’s since my first year with TSA.
I live in Greensboro, NC with my significantly better half Charlene, Jacob and Esau (the two cats that actually own the house), and Montana and Darwin (the dogs that are a pair of walking comedy reels).
Prior to working with the TSA, I put in 8 years with the US Army as a Military Police Officer. I also put in 8 years as a Silversmith Apprentice and am now a Journeyman Silversmith. My hobbies include sitting on a pier/boat with a fishing pole and being able to fix broken metal things.
Kelly
Hey ya’ll (yep, I’m from KY).… My name is Kelly (KellyMae) and I have been with TSA at Louisville International Airport since Dec 2006. In my two years, I have enjoyed working with the public and have helped to train other TSOs. I work part-time and half of my time is spent on the checkpoint and the other half screening checked bags.
Before TSA, I worked mostly in restaurants. Until TSA, that is pretty much all I knew and I enjoyed it very much. Working with the public since I was 15 has helped me to develop great customer service skills that I apply to my job every day and try to utilize when helping out on this blog as well.
I have always enjoyed working with people, but outside of work, my true passion is animals. My boyfriend and I have an Australian Shepherd and a cat, who don't get along of course. I also love taking pictures and have been thinking about ways to combine my passions. Until then, I will be here and hope to be more helpful in answering your questions and giving feedback.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
posted by Bob at
1:29 PM
Subscribe in a reader
107 Comments:
Is anyone working on publishing the rules? Like Paul once said?
If the web- and blog-published interpretations of the rules differs from the on-the-scene TSA interpretation, which one is right?
April 8, 2009 1:47 PM
Bob, I'm all for new offical participants but when they make statements that are clearly false shouldn't correcting information be posted?
April 8, 2009 1:52 PM
Bob, when Kelly, Tim, and West post comments here now, will they be speaking on behalf of TSA?
Also, before you move on, could you tell us whether people are prohibited by law from photographing computer monitors at your airport search stations? First you told us that it was discouraged, then you told us that it was prohibited, but you have not responded to multiple requests for the source of your information.
Kelly, would you prefer that people address you as Kelly, Kelly Mae, or Kelly-Mae? In the comments for the "Incident at St. Louis International post, you wrote:
"If while in a bag check for our primary focus items (i.e. liquids/weapons etc) and we find things such as drugs, it IS our "procedure" to inform supervisors and Law Enforcement.
"No matter how big or small, illegal is illegal and we can't just overlook it, sorry. We can't just hand back your kilo b/c it's not a "threat"."
In response, I noted that barring the result of specialized training that I suspect you have not received, you could not in that situation identify "drugs" by sight any more than you could identify unvaccinated pets, information on digital music players that came from unauthorized copying, or people who are not in the country legally.
I asked, "In each of the above scenarios, do you feel that it is congruent with the United States Constitution to stop someone who is carrying something that might indicate wrongdoing, question that person, then "if all is kosher" let that person go on his way?"
You never answered. Could you please do so?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
April 8, 2009 2:10 PM
Kelly-Mae, what steps has TSA taken to correct your incorrect assertion that it is illegal to travel with more than $10,000 in cash?
Since recent postings have established that many TSOs are unaware of the law in this matter, what steps has TSA taken to ensure that its TSOs are familiar with the actual law of the United States?
April 8, 2009 2:14 PM
Listen folks, Kelly has corrected herself several times, yet for some reason you feel that I need to come on here and correct her. Why? She's already done it.
Are you really not seeing the corrections she has posted or are you playing the usual "let's take something the TSA has done wrong and repeat it over and over again" card?
Bob
EoS Blog Team
April 8, 2009 2:29 PM
Bob, no one past posted a question correcting Kelly Mae. There have been questions asking about TSA's response to her and other TSO's incorrect statements about the laws regarding the transport of cash. If these questions have been answered elsewhere on the blog, please post a link to those answers. If they have not been answered, there is no reason for you to complain about them being asked in this forum.
April 8, 2009 2:35 PM
Bob said:
Are you really not seeing the corrections she has posted or are you playing the usual "let's take something the TSA has done wrong and repeat it over and over again" card?
Bob
EoS Blog Team
April 8, 2009 2:29 PM
Well, Bob, other than asking for several dozen times:
"What do I have to do to ensure my luggage arrives at my destination secure? TSA approved locks appear wanting on either design or construction and often fail during baggage handling."
To date no TSA representative has been able to provide any suggestions other than using TSA approved locks of which I've had several cut off and taped to the HI, TSA INSPECTED THIS BAG card.
Provide some real answers and some, not all of us will go away.
Currency is listed as contraband in one of TSA's documents and since contraband no matter how small is contraband what is the threshold for currency? $100? $500?
You can look at us as being a pack of ravenous wolves or you can use the complaints to improve your operation (which doesn't look like it is happening).
April 8, 2009 2:45 PM
Bob said...
Listen folks, Kelly has corrected herself several times, yet for some reason you feel that I need to come on here and correct her. Why? She's already done it.
Are you really not seeing the corrections she has posted or are you playing the usual "let's take something the TSA has done wrong and repeat it over and over again" card?
Bob
EoS Blog Team
April 8, 2009 2:29 PM
...........................
The point is not that Kelly corrected herself but that TSA allowed her remarks to go without correction by management.
Should a remark by a TSA employee be allowed if it contains incorrect information?
If the remark is allowed the correction should have been made immediately not a couple of days after the fact.
April 8, 2009 3:23 PM
Bob and Kelly, don't feed the trolls. There are plenty of legitimate problems with TSA, but this blog isn't one of them. Keep up the good work.
April 8, 2009 3:36 PM
Bob, when Kelly, Tim, and West post comments here now, will they be speaking on behalf of TSA?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
April 8, 2009 3:43 PM
The point is not that Kelly corrected herself but that TSA allowed her remarks to go without correction by management.
Should a remark by a TSA employee be allowed if it contains incorrect information?
If the remark is allowed the correction should have been made immediately not a couple of days after the fact.
You are assuming that the remarks by Kelly et al are (or hould be) vetted by everybody and their brother in TSA management first. If they did that, it wouldn't be a blog anymore, it would just be a press release. If you just want a press release, go to TSA.gov and read them there. If you want a blog, especially a blog where contributors are the equivilant to junior enlisted, you are going to have some slip ups. As long as she corrected herself or acknowledged the correction by another, the problem here is minimal.
April 8, 2009 3:44 PM
"As long as she corrected herself or acknowledged the correction by another, the problem here is minimal."
Given that her ignorance of the law is apparently shared by many of the TSOs who also post on this blog,
it should be no problem at all for the blog team to explain what steps TSA has taken to ensure its employees have a proper understanding of the law. At most, the problem here is minimal.
April 8, 2009 4:01 PM
Miller said...
To date no TSA representative has been able to provide any suggestions other than using TSA approved locks of which I've had several cut off and taped to the HI, TSA INSPECTED THIS BAG card.
Luggage forwarding
“Luggage forwarding, also known as luggage shipping or luggage logistics, is a type of specialty shipping service that has been available for approximately 10 years and has grown in demand, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The purpose of luggage forwarding is to reduce the hassles of baggage handling commonly experienced by airline passengers at airports. Travelers have the option to call a company to pick up bags at their home or office, then have them delivered to any destination of choice. The process is usually repeated for round-trip traveling.”
Posed this question to a friend of mine who travels a lot. This is his recommendation. I have never tried it. I don't endorse this but this information maybe helpful to you.
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
April 8, 2009 4:04 PM
You are assuming that the remarks by Kelly et al are (or hould be) vetted by everybody and their brother in TSA management first.
..............................
I don't think I said that at all.
I suggested that if a TSA employees post is reviewed then incorrect information should not be posted.
If the post is allowed and does contain incorrect information I think the Blog Ops have a responsibility to post correcting information.
It seems it would be in TSA's best interest to make sure the public is provided correct information.
There is no problem not knowing something but allowing incorrect information to stand is not acceptable.
April 8, 2009 4:21 PM
I don't think the point is that Kelly, or Tom or whoever else gave false information and then correctd themselves. The issue is that this could just be a symptom of the much bigger problem of TSOs and others not knowing the laws and randomly enforcing either a wrong or nonexistent law differently at each checkpoint.
Kelly admitted her mistake and for that I'm grateful. Thanks for finally clearing that up.
If the TSA is wrong, I'll say so if "We the People" are wrong, I'll also say so. And I'm saying it's wrong to keep harping on one person misunderstanding the law when the person admitted their mistake
However, the TSA should make a point to reeducate its people so these misunderstanding don't happen. If different TSO's enforce the laws differently, then how can you expect cooperation on the part of the passengers?
April 8, 2009 4:52 PM
uQote by Anonymous: "You are assuming that the remarks by Kelly et al are (or hould be) vetted by everybody and their brother in TSA management first. If they did that, it wouldn't be a blog anymore, it would just be a press release. If you just want a press release, go to TSA.gov and read them there. If you want a blog, especially a blog where contributors are the equivilant to junior enlisted, you are going to have some slip ups. As long as she corrected herself or acknowledged the correction by another, the problem here is minimal."
The problem here is that all of the posters have given conflicting information at times. What they've said personally may be consistent, but each of these people in my time here have all answered the same question differently with conflicting information.
Now that they're "official" bloggers, are we to expect more conflicting information?
If they're "official" bloggers, one can only assume that they are speaking for TSA. As a screener posting in their free time, they're held to a lower standard. Now that they're brought on board, we can only expect that they ARE speaking for TSA and what they're saying is gospel. If it's not, and it's not supported by management, then why the heck are they official bloggers then?
It doesn't make sense.
As to "it would just be a press release", that's largely what we have already. Bob or someone else writes a propaganda ... err ... press release. We just have the ability to comment back and have the feedback ignored.
Quote from Bob: "Are you really not seeing the corrections she has posted or are you playing the usual "let's take something the TSA has done wrong and repeat it over and over again" card?"
Why not? TSA does it all the time. Richard Reid! 9/11! Osama Bin Laden! Abundance of Caution®! Or does this only good when used for propaganda purposes?
As one person aptly put it, one person goes in their pants so everyone has to wear diapers. TSA takes a lot of things, exaggerates the threat, and then points back to one isolated "cause" and points to that. If you don't like it when we bring stuff up that you think is a "one off" event, why is it not ok for us?
Robert
April 8, 2009 5:12 PM
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
April 8, 2009 5:55 PM
Welcome Kelly, Tim and West. I enjoy reading your posts. I also have a great deal of respect for you since you are down in the trenches. I look forward to reading more of your offerings here.
To the rest of you, I would like you to understand that as TSO's, we see things that make us scratch our head from time to time, (just like it does you). But we must follow our SOP. Believe it or not, sometimes we even agree with you. Please try not to fight with the TSOs when they are on your side. That really is a waste of time. These officers take time out of their day to answer your questions...and just because you don't like what they tell you does not make them wrong.
Also bear in mind that sometimes our opinions slip in (hey we're human too). Lord knows the opinions from the general public fly hard and fast thru here. Let's just try to remember that our opinions are formed from our individual experiences and they are all different. And your bad experience with a TSO, or our interaction with a cranky passenger is not truely representative of the population in general.
I wish you luck fellow TSOs!
Ronnie TSO DEN
April 8, 2009 8:23 PM
Baggage forwarding? That might be good if I knew for sure where I was going but, since I might get a phone call sending me to a different customer site that would leave me without any luggage. That scenario happens often enough that baggage forwarding isn't feasible for field service engineers.
I appreciate the effort but the question still remains of what must I do to travel with my luggage secured from start of trip to destination?
April 8, 2009 8:37 PM
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a big effort to put as many puppy dog posts out as possible? Is the blog team trying to get the STL event off the front page in an attempt to make it go away?
April 8, 2009 9:48 PM
Anon said:Kelly-Mae, what steps has TSA taken to correct your incorrect assertion that it is illegal to travel with more than $10,000 in cash?
I have already posted my apologies twice in the original post topic. I will do so here also b/c I want to clear things up. I fully understand the law stating that taking over $10,000 out of country is only illegal if not declared. Not adding this detail of "if not declared" was an oversight on my part. I will apologize again for my misleading statements that were not intentional. It was left out by accident and I hope this is the last time I have to state this. Thankyou Bob for backing me up. Lets hope this is the end of this rediculous repetitivness.
Moving on....Miller said:"What do I have to do to ensure my luggage arrives at my destination secure? TSA approved locks appear wanting on either design or construction and often fail during baggage handling."
Miller, I understand that in a perfect world, you would be able to padlock your suitcase 10 times if you wanted to, but unfortunately, if your bag alarms we are going in, cheap TSA locks or not. And I hate to burst your bubble, but working in the baggage room alot myself, there are tricks to get into bags, even if they have a good lock on them. This is what we resort to if you've been paged back to the ticket counter to give your combination/key and you do not show. We DO, contrary to what you think, try to get your bag on your plane with you without having to cut your lock. But if no key/combination and the tricks dont work, we will cut your lock, sorry. I'm guessing you'll spare the cost in order to have that slamming outfit for your vacation!!! (or whatever the case) :)
Oh, and thanks for welcoming us newcomers to blog!!! (sarcasm off)
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 8, 2009 10:27 PM
Thankyou TSO Ronnie for the "welcome". I appreciate your support and have enjoyed your input as well. Keep it up!!
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 8, 2009 10:32 PM
From Kelly:
Miller, I understand that in a perfect world, you would be able to padlock your suitcase 10 times if you wanted to, but unfortunately, if your bag alarms we are going in, cheap TSA locks or not. And I hate to burst your bubble, but working in the baggage room alot myself, there are tricks to get into bags, even if they have a good lock on them. This is what we resort to if you've been paged back to the ticket counter to give your combination/key and you do not show. We DO, contrary to what you think, try to get your bag on your plane with you without having to cut your lock. But if no key/combination and the tricks dont work, we will cut your lock, sorry. I'm guessing you'll spare the cost in order to have that slamming outfit for your vacation!!! (or whatever the case) :)
Kelly, you provided no assistance whatsoever. I travel with a tool chest that I need to keep locked so as to keep sticky fingered people like Pythias Brown (one of your former and hopefully soon to go to jail ex-coworkers)out of my tool chest. I present my tool chest to TSA unlocked and expect TSA to properly secure that tool chest with the locks provided by me. I discovered recently that TSA is under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to resecure any locks except for TSA approved locks which fail all too often for me to rely on.
I've stood at a xray machine watching my tool chest exit said machine, seen the locks relocked and the tool chest sent on its way only to discover that at the end of the trip that someone in TSA cut off my locks. I got to talk to the lady at the airport (TSA) for several hours in a feeble attempt to find out how I can travel with my luggage secure. I've talked to the folks at MPLS about the same issues and NOTHING in TSA allows for a bag to be properly secured after inspection. SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW I CAN TRAVEL WITH MY LUGGAGE SECURE GIVEN THAT TSA APPROVED LOCKS DON'T STAND UP TO BAGGAGE HANDLING. THIS WASN'T A PROBLEM BEFORE TSA "APPROVED" LOCKS WERE MANDATED. AS TO BEING PAGED, IT OFTEN DOESN'T HAPPEN SO PLEASE TELL ME WHAT TO DO SINCE I OBVIOUSLY MISSED SOMETHING IN THE MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH DIFFERENT TSA MANAGERS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. I find your attitude all too familiar and disgusting as well. FYI my tools (approx $2,000) are how I make my living and right now if the flight is less than 500 miles, drive so as to avoid having to deal with TSA at all.
Take care of this issue and I most likely will go away.
April 8, 2009 11:33 PM
It seems that each airport has their own procedures for airport security.
April 9, 2009 3:19 AM
Thanks for the welcome Ronnie. It is nice to be on here and fun to discuss the issues.
April 9, 2009 4:55 AM
Phil, if we find something in the bag that has the appearance f being illegal, the procdure is to contact the STSO. The STSO contacts the LEO if they believe that the substance could be illegal.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 4:58 AM
Kelly Mae, you didn't answer the questions you were asked: How did TSA let you know of your error, which is widespread amongst TSOs as postings here indicate? Second, what steps is TSA taking to make sure TSOs know the proper procedure?
April 9, 2009 7:38 AM
"Please try not to fight with the TSOs when they are on your side."
Ronnie, how are TSOs "on [our] side" when they make up rules on the spot in contravention of published policies and are ignorant of the law, for instance, as regards the transportation of cash?
April 9, 2009 7:38 AM
Anonymous wrote:
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a big effort to put as many puppy dog posts out as possible? Is the blog team trying to get the STL event off the front page in an attempt to make it go away?
YUP!!!!!
April 9, 2009 10:11 AM
No love for me. :(
April 9, 2009 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a big effort to put as many puppy dog posts out as possible? Is the blog team trying to get the STL event off the front page in an attempt to make it go away?
April 8, 2009 9:48 PM
St. Louis, Logan, Philly just in the last couple of weeks.
If TSA would take care of the internal issues I bet the tone on this blog would change drastically.
Instead they are more interested in violating peoples rights, spreading disease and stealing from people who fly.
But remember TSA is all about our safety.
April 9, 2009 10:30 AM
Quote:
" RB said...
You are assuming that the remarks by Kelly et al are (or hould be) vetted by everybody and their brother in TSA management first.
..............................
I don't think I said that at all.
I suggested that if a TSA employees post is reviewed then incorrect information should not be posted.
If the post is allowed and does contain incorrect information I think the Blog Ops have a responsibility to post correcting information.
It seems it would be in TSA's best interest to make sure the public is provided correct information.
There is no problem not knowing something but allowing incorrect information to stand is not acceptable.
April 8, 2009 4:21 PM"
------------------------------
Of course, you are actually supposing that anyone actually reads this blog. All I've seen are a handful of the same posters over and over again. Recently we took an informal poll at my airport and less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all the public we surveyed even knew a blog existed. We could find NOT ONE PERSON (over 6300 surveyed) who had ever visited it yet MANY said they had gone to the TSA website itself.
Also, now that we have some "informal" posters, just how did they get the job? Are they recieving any compensation for it? Was the job posted on the job site?
April 9, 2009 10:39 AM
Miller: Put a gun in your toolbox and use a real lock. For some wrong-headed TSA reason, that will make things safer.
April 9, 2009 10:41 AM
Anon said:Kelly Mae, you didn't answer the questions you were asked: How did TSA let you know of your error, which is widespread amongst TSOs as postings here indicate? Second, what steps is TSA taking to make sure TSOs know the proper procedure?
1st of all, I knew my own error and corrected myself numerous times. 2nd, it is not as "widespread" as you make it out to be. One other TSO on here made the same mistake of mis-quoting. The incident that happened at St. Louis was not that the TSOs didn't know, but took advantage of his authority. In all reality, the percentage of actually coming across someone's money is low. In the two and 1/2 years I've been with TSA, I have come across a stash once and it ended up being ones, he was going to vegas or something. It didnt even go further than that. So just b/c one bad incident was published does not mean that rogue TSOs are harassing people about their money every day.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 10:52 AM
West, what is TSA's standard for an object "appearing to be illegal"? What training do TSA employees receive to help them distinguish harmless objects (like talcum powder) from illegal objects similar in appearance (like cocaine)?
April 9, 2009 11:05 AM
West, white powder or a roll of cash don't "have the appearance of being illegal" any more than a digital music player, a pet, or someone with brown skin do.
Why, then, do you call the police when white powder or $4700 are found?
Kelly, you never answered the question. In the comments for the "Incident at St. Louis International post, you wrote:
"If while in a bag check for our primary focus items (i.e. liquids/weapons etc) and we find things such as drugs, it IS our "procedure" to inform supervisors and Law Enforcement.
"No matter how big or small, illegal is illegal and we can't just overlook it, sorry. We can't just hand back your kilo b/c it's not a "threat"."
In response, I noted that barring the result of specialized training that I suspect you have not received, you could not in that situation identify "drugs" by sight any more than you could identify unvaccinated pets, information on digital music players that came from unauthorized copying, or people who are not in the country legally.
I asked, "In each of the above scenarios, do you feel that it is congruent with the United States Constitution to stop someone who is carrying something that might indicate wrongdoing, question that person, then "if all is kosher" let that person go on his way?"
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
April 9, 2009 11:23 AM
Kelly at TSA wrote:
"In the two and 1/2 years I've been with TSA, I have come across a stash once and it ended up being ones, he was going to vegas or something. It didnt even go further than that."
How did you know the money was in singles unless you looked through it? Why did you go through this person's money? How did you find out that "he was going to Vegas or something?"
Other people's money is absolutely none of your business. You have zero need to examine it.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
April 9, 2009 11:33 AM
Of course, you are actually supposing that anyone actually reads this blog.
.....................
Anon, each and every post is approved by one of the TSA Blog Ops.
They should be held accountable for allowing incorrect information to be posted by TSA employees or at the least making a statement correcting wrong information.
What benefit does TSA get from allowing its employees to post incorrect information?
April 9, 2009 11:38 AM
KellyMae, TSA's abuse of an innocent citizen in St. Louis has received national coverage and sparked entirely justified outrage toward your agency. Why are you unwilling to tell us whether and how TSA has taken steps to ensure its employees know what the law really is in order to prevent further cases like this?
April 9, 2009 11:41 AM
From Mr. Gel-pack:
Mr. Gel-pack said...
Miller: Put a gun in your toolbox and use a real lock. For some wrong-headed TSA reason, that will make things safer.
April 9, 2009 10:41 AM
I asked several TSA upper level management types about that and every single one of them panicked. I got the "you've got to declared a firearm...." message from everyone of them. They then went on to say that even declaring a firearm is no guarantee of your luggage arriving intact. I expressed my dismay over the inability of both the airlines and TSA to keep firearms secured from theft.
Yes, several long discussions with no resolutions from TSA on luggage security. Like kellymae said "Miller, I understand that in a perfect world, you would be able to padlock your suitcase 10 times if you wanted to, but unfortunately, if your bag alarms we are going in, cheap TSA locks or not. And I hate to burst your bubble, but working in the baggage room alot myself, there are tricks to get into bags, even if they have a good lock on them."
She doesn't realize that my tool chest is a Pelican hard shell and if she has a way of bypassing the locks on a Pelican case that Pelican might want to talk with her.
TSA IMHO has a long way to go before considering itself anywhere near a professional organization.
April 9, 2009 11:47 AM
> On September 11, I was one of the many
> US Army soldiers patrolling Fort
> Huachuca checking military IDs. Holding
> my M16-A2, I knew the United States was
> going to change and I would do
> everything in my power to make sure it
> changed for the good. Public service
> has been a great honor for me.
Welcome. I woke up early that day, 5 am, for someone who hates mornings and could sleep until 9, it was strange. I finished reading my book (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) and walked to work on a beautiful autum day.
I too knew my country would change, but I also knew that fear and sensationalism and the hot heads that would follow such an event can never make change for the better.... and they didn't.
As a result, you will find me here, and you wont find someone who just gives it up easy. I think that the hot-heads who made so many changes have a lot to answer for.
I think fear is a bad policy, and the VAST MAJORITY of the response since 9/11 has been reactive, short-sighted, and negative to the well-being of my country. I hate to inform you of this, but that includes the very formation of the DHS and TSA.
I wish you luck in showing otherwise. I would love to think we are on the right track. Yet, I have yet to see much justification other than baseless fear following a sensational act of criminality. An act that had no followup, an act that was fundamentally the move of a weak actor.
I liken all of this security mindset to walking around day and night inside a suit of metal armor, for fear of being hit by lightning in an unexpected thunderstorm. Did I mention the suit is a rental?
-Steve
April 9, 2009 12:23 PM
Kelly:
It makes sense to me that "if the bag alarms we are going in". What concerns me, and what I see almost no real discussion of is actual measures of how effective ANY of this is.
Real security is about real risk management. So the bag sets off an alarm, you go in. What percentage of those alarms are actual credible threats to the plane? What is the average time spent on each one in terms of man hours?
You can spend infinite amounts of money, and infintie amounts of man hours looking for infinite numbers of threats.
We have half a century worth of data that says people don't attack planes. We have a few, minor, isolated incidents (I am sorry but 9/11 was a minor incident when you look at the grand scheme of things) where someone attacked a plane, or did something nasty with one.
A handfull of incidents, before all this security. The technology and knowhow to blow planes out of the sky has been in the hands of anyone who wants it pretty much since lending libraries were invented and books on the subject written...
yet the utter lack of planes going down, or being used nefariously outside of a small handful of times compared to the number that either land safely or even crash for mechanical reasons shows me one thing... one absolutely clear thing... there just is no credible risk.
I would love to think this money is spent wisely, I would love to see the actual data and figures that supports spending all this money on security.
However, when any one of the people in this world who has a few weeks of time on their hands and can come up with money for a plane ticket could have blown up any plane they desire for the past half a century, I have to ask why we, suddenly now, have a new situation?
I am really tired of all this "Wah wah 9/11 changed everything wah". It only changed everything because people let it. It was a weak act by a minor group of criminals. Nothing more, and doesn't deserve more consideration.
I see ample evidence that we pay far too much for the appearance of security when we had all we needed all along.
-Steve
April 9, 2009 12:39 PM
Miller said:I've stood at a xray machine watching my tool chest exit said machine, seen the locks relocked and the tool chest sent on its way only to discover that at the end of the trip that someone in TSA cut off my locks.
I may not be fully understanding your statement, but if you were at an airport where the machines that screen checked bags are still in the lobby in passengers view and you watched it go thru, then once that bag is put on the airline's belt, TSA has no other contact with that bag. So someone else was messing with your tool chest.
Now in the case you are at an airport that has the in-line L3 machines, they are not in the view of passengers so it is harder to determine if TSA relocked your bags. But you clearly stated the
1st scenario since you watched your bag get screened. If I'm correct on that, then you are incorrect to think that TSA cut your locks in that particular instance.
Phil said:How did you know the money was in singles unless you looked through it? Why did you go through this person's money? How did you find out that "he was going to Vegas or something?"
When you get called to do a bag check, you check what the x-ray operator points to. When I opened the bag to do my check, it was right there. I could clearly see it was just a bunch of ones. No supervisor was called and the passenger simply told me where he was going. I questioned nothing. I was just stating that this instance was as close as I ever got to a "stash" of money, thats it. There was no interrogation by me or anyone. It took under 30 seconds to do my bag check before he was on his way.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 1:07 PM
Anon said:KellyMae, TSA's abuse of an innocent citizen in St. Louis has received national coverage and sparked entirely justified outrage toward your agency. Why are you unwilling to tell us whether and how TSA has taken steps to ensure its employees know what the law really is in order to prevent further cases like this?
B/c I'm not the one who dictates that, thats why? I'm just a TSO. Not an FSD.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 1:09 PM
Miller said:She doesn't realize that my tool chest is a Pelican hard shell and if she has a way of bypassing the locks on a Pelican case that Pelican might want to talk with her.
I wasn't completely clear, so let me clarify. I said "suitcase" not tool chest. There are "some" tricks for "some" suitcases, generally with a zipper. Not all bags/suitcases/tool chests can be opened with "tricks".
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 1:32 PM
Phil said...
Kelly at TSA wrote:
"In the two and 1/2 years I've been with TSA, I have come across a stash once and it ended up being ones, he was going to vegas or something. It didnt even go further than that."
How did you know the money was in singles unless you looked through it? Why did you go through this person's money? How did you find out that "he was going to Vegas or something?"
Other people's money is absolutely none of your business. You have zero need to examine it.
--
Phil
___________________________________
Phil, why are you so repetative? Why are you so repetative? Why are you so repetative? Whether you like it or not, TSA will concern itself with things that you do not approve of. So quit bringing it up. Quit asking the same questions over and over and over. I do like to look over these posts, but when I get to yours, I usually skip it. Sometimes I don't, and this is what happens. I get aggrivated and I have to write. I am not going to give the explanation for why it is acceptable for TSA to question money, or drugs for that matter. Because I already have more than once. And you are like a broken record. Broken record. Broken record.
April 9, 2009 2:58 PM
Stephen said...
I too knew my country would change, but I also knew that fear and sensationalism and the hot heads that would follow such an event can never make change for the better.... and they didn't.
I think you will find many people on both sides of the spectrum with the same goals. This blog has the power to enact change. Many of the same reasons posters show up are shared by the commenter's who show up.
Thanks for contributing to the blog Stephen,
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 3:08 PM
Ronnie said...
Welcome Kelly, Tim and West. I enjoy reading your posts. I also have a great deal of respect for you since you are down in the trenches. I look forward to reading more of your offerings here.
Thanks for the welcome.
Thanks for contributing here on the blog Ron. Your straight forward responses help.
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 3:15 PM
"West, what is TSA's standard for an object "appearing to be illegal"? What training do TSA employees receive to help them distinguish harmless objects (like talcum powder) from illegal objects similar in appearance (like cocaine)?"
To give you the answer you want:
The Standard: if I suspect something is illegal beyond what I am tasked to look for (guns, knives, IED's, tasty beverages), I bring it up my chain of command and they may get the LEO's involved, as they are the only ones that can enforce the law.
As for training: None. That's why the ultimate descion is the LEO's. not mine.
April 9, 2009 3:42 PM
Anonymous @ "...I am not going to give the explanation for why it is acceptable for TSA to question money, or drugs for that matter. Because I already have more than once. And you are like a broken record. Broken record. Broken record."
TSA: Broken, Broken, Broken.
The explanations given for questioning the money was the broken-record customs and financial reporting limit of $10,000, (which is absolutely bogus for $4700 on a domestic flight), and that the metal box looked like a bomb or something on the x-ray, so the TSO wanted to open it. Leaving aside the discipline problem of investigating the STL TSO, is there anything TSA can tell us about travelling with money?
All we can infer from the STL incident thread, is that you need to obey TSA or "be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."
Phil--Keep it up. TSA overstates/oversteps its authority and needs to be called on it. Every time.
April 9, 2009 3:50 PM
"B/c I'm not the one who dictates that, thats why? I'm just a TSO. Not an FSD."
No one's saying that you dictate anything, Kelly Mae. But since you're now part of the public face of TSA as part of the blog team, it is perfectly legitimate for citizens to ask you questions about the agency you represent. If you really think simple questions about TSA policies are some sort of onerous, outrageous demand leveled at you personally, rather than because of your role on this blog, I have to wonder why you'd have wanted this job in the first place.
April 9, 2009 4:02 PM
I was quite excited when I saw the headline of Bob's post. Maybe the new blog team members were people who spent at least a little time in the Headquarters hidey-holes where the raw meat of Robust Intelligence is ground and seasoned into the SSI SOP Sausage that's served to customers at checkpoints (and to which TSOs add their own special garnish that too often leaves a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth). Actively involving such people on the blog team would be a welcome sign of change. It would be positive action to genuinely demonstrate that people connected with setting TSA policies and procedures actually were interested in quality improvement. It would show us that they were truly interested in listening to what we customers had to say.
But as always, my hopes were completely dashed when I read further and saw the biographies of the new team members. Sure they all look like nice friendly folks, and amply demonstrate that those people in the itchy uniforms who ask us if we want to fly today are humans just like us passengers. Unfortunately, they are rather low in the TSA hierarchy. They're people who follow policies and procedures rather than having anything to do with creating or improving them. Intending no offense to any of them, I really don't see what they can contribute to addressing our concerns (or to "evolving security").
Intentionally or otherwise, the selection of new blog team members sends the message that this blog is nothing more than a branch of the TSA's PR department, with a forum where "customers" can blow off steam that will safely dissipate long before it gets anywhere near someone who can actually address our concerns. More of the same mix of arrogance and indifference.
This is just another fluffy puppy post. Just don't pet the puppy, since it could have scabies.
April 9, 2009 4:06 PM
Phil said:
“West, white powder or a roll of cash don't "have the appearance of being illegal" any more than a digital music player, a pet, or someone with brown skin do.”
Sorry Phil, but you might want to do some research on the subject. Most powders do look nearly the same on the X-ray, and once removed and hand checked they can still look the same. And they can explode.
As for rolls of cash, well we have just about beat that horse to death, don’t you think? Below is some light reading about powdered explosives. Take your time, its an interesting subject.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4330346.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-list.htm
April 9, 2009 4:17 PM
Phil:
If an x-ray operator calls a TSO over to perform a bag check based on something he sees on the screen, and that particular item/shape is on top of, next to or near the cash that the person has in their bag, then the TSO absolutely has the right to inspect it. Since the TSO cannot tell exactly what is in the bag by simply looking at the x-ray image on the screen, an inspection of that particular section of the bag is necessary.
IN THE ABOVE CASE, it is absolutely their business, and they have every right to examine it, as per the Standard Operating Procedure and the language contained in Part 1540 of the CFR.
Your personal beliefs and opinions of the legitimacy of this CFR Part, as well as any other laws, is an entirely different matter than what IS the law.
Steve:
You're "I hate to tell you this" speech is nothing but personal opinion, and far from fact. Saying "I hate to tell you this" doesn't make your statements factual, and never will. Your opinion is valued, as is those of others who may hold the same opinion, but there are PLENTY of others out there who hold opinions far different from yours.
I completely disagree with your statement that the agency is nothing but armor being used to falsely shield us from some sort of truth, if that is what you meant in your statement. It isn't "armor", and it is anything but a rental.
The department will continue to adjust and change to meet the needs of incoming intelligence and the United States. New programs and initiatives will be tested and tried. Determinations will be made as to their effectiveness, and the appropriate action will be taken (continue with the program/initiative, or "back to the drawing board"). Please note that I mention "programs/initiatives", NOT "agencies/departments". The creation of agencies and departments is a far more complicated process; agencies will not be liquidated or eliminated without careful analysis and many, MANY considerations.
Dan
April 9, 2009 4:26 PM
I really don't see what they can contribute to addressing our concerns (or to "evolving security").
..........................
Concerns are not addressed here.
Just look back at all the unanswered questions that have been asked and ignored for months.
April 9, 2009 4:30 PM
Gelpak says
The explanations given for questioning the money was the broken-record customs and financial reporting limit of $10,000, (which is absolutely bogus for $4700 on a domestic flight), and that the metal box looked like a bomb or something on the x-ray, so the TSO wanted to open it. Leaving aside the discipline problem of investigating the STL TSO, is there anything TSA can tell us about travelling with money?
___________________________________
If TSA comes across something such as a large amount of money they have every right to ask the person first where they are traveling to. If it is not outside of the US then the conversation should be over. If it is then ask how much they have there. We are a government agency, that whether you like it or not works with other authorities. So get over it! The reason that the mans money box was checked was probably because they did not recognize something in the box, or they just couldn't get a good view of what was in the box (these are just guesses). I am sure that it was not because there was money in there. Its a good chance that the person on the xray did not even know that there was money in the box when he called a bag check. Now as soon as the BDO was told by the passenger that he was not traveling outside of the US, knowing that there was only $4700 in the box, he should have been let go right then. I am not going to say the BDO was not wrong. Because he was. And why is everyone that should not be concerned so concerned with TSO's being disciplined. TSA will handle things how they feel appropriate. And that is no one elses business!
What can TSA tell you about traveling with money. Well, if you are traveling within the US and you simply state that then you can have any amount of money you little heart desires. If any TSO give someone a problem for that then shame on them. If you are traveling outside of the US, then simply declare your money (if it is $10,000 or more). Its not hard.
It is only made hard because you passengers make everything more difficult than needed. And I am not saying that TSA is not to blame either. They need to do their jobs correctly.
TSA will deal with these things whether the public likes it or not. We will not just look the other way when something is not right.
April 9, 2009 5:00 PM
Happy 2 Help is an official blogger? Really???
I thought he was merely a cheerleader, given how informative his posts often are.
April 9, 2009 5:31 PM
TSO-Joe wrote:
As for training: None. That's why the ultimate descion is the LEO's. not mine.
So, Joe, what you are telling us is that two people can go through a checkpoint, each with a bag of flour, and one might be referred to a LEO and the other might not because it's left to the "judgment" of screeners as to what might be suspicious or not?
It just gets worse and worse every day.
April 9, 2009 5:49 PM
Are any of you ever going to let go of the $$$ thing? The question of policy has been asked and answered. Get over yourselves already. Like I said, just because you got an answer you did not like does NOT make it wrong.
Ronnie TSO DEN
April 9, 2009 6:07 PM
Anon said - West, what is TSA's standard for an object "appearing to be illegal"? What training do TSA employees receive to help them distinguish harmless objects (like talcum powder) from illegal objects similar in appearance (like cocaine)?
Well, I have a bit of an edge in that department due to my history, but when a TSO comes across something that fits the general description of marijuana, cocaine, or any number of other items, they contact the STSO. If the STSO decides that the item warrants further inspection or believes it to be illegal substances, they contact a LEO and they take over from there. I know of no special training that is given nationwide for illicit drugs, etc recognition, but that does not mean that some of the workforce does not know what illicit drugs,etc look like.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 7:41 PM
Phil said - West, white powder or a roll of cash don't "have the appearance of being illegal" any more than a digital music player, a pet, or someone with brown skin do.
Why, then, do you call the police when white powder or $4700 are found?
Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal. If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel. I don't write the rules, I follow them and that is what we are told to do. Now, if something has the appearance of being illegal (say a ounce bag of green leafy vegetable substance with rolling papers and two crystal pipes or a coke can with perforations, etc.) are found in a bag, the procedure is to contact that STSO, who will either concur with your suspicions or not concur. If the STSO believes that it is illegal, they contact the LEO end of story.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 7:47 PM
Kellymae said:
I may not be fully understanding your statement, but if you were at an airport where the machines that screen checked bags are still in the lobby in passengers view and you watched it go thru, then once that bag is put on the airline's belt, TSA has no other contact with that bag. So someone else was messing with your tool chest.
Now in the case you are at an airport that has the in-line L3 machines, they are not in the view of passengers so it is harder to determine if TSA relocked your bags. But you clearly stated the
1st scenario since you watched your bag get screened. If I'm correct on that, then you are incorrect to think that TSA cut your locks in that particular instance.
I had two of TSA's we've been in your bag cards and two inspection stickers on the luggage tag. This was discussed with a member of the airport's senior TSA staff (Ofelia R.). Regardless of what you say it did happen and I wasn't the least bit pleased about it.
So please tell me how I can travel with my luggage secure (remembering that TSA approved locks are not an option - so don't even go in that direction).
April 9, 2009 8:38 PM
"If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel."
Why is this any of TSA's concern, since it is the responsibility of Customs to deal with transfers of cash outside of the country?
April 10, 2009 12:39 PM
Quote from West: "Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal. If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel. I don't write the rules, I follow them and that is what we are told to do. Now, if something has the appearance of being illegal (say a ounce bag of green leafy vegetable substance with rolling papers and two crystal pipes or a coke can with perforations, etc.) are found in a bag, the procedure is to contact that STSO, who will either concur with your suspicions or not concur. If the STSO believes that it is illegal, they contact the LEO end of story."
Translation: the SOP is written with little regard for the law and assumes that legal items such as cash must be explained before being permitted, even when there is no law requiring that such be explained.
Just further proof you guys aren't about security and are just a dragnet. If innocent people get harassed for carrying cash or other permitted items, they're just collateral damage and should take one for the team for the protection of Amerika.
Robert
April 10, 2009 12:44 PM
West said:
Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal. If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel.
Again, for domestic travel how do you declare cash? Why should you declare any cash at all for domestic travel? Please cite the legal code requiring declaration for declaring cash on a domestic flight.
TSA, we need, no demand clarification on this issue of traveling with cash since some of your personnel seem to not either know the law or make up laws as they go. Please cite legal codes for both foreign and especially domestic registration of cash during travel.
April 10, 2009 12:52 PM
West Said"
"Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal. If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel. I don't write the rules, I follow them and that is what we are told to do. Now, if something has the appearance of being illegal (say a ounce bag of green leafy vegetable substance with rolling papers and two crystal pipes or a coke can with perforations, etc.) are found in a bag, the procedure is to contact that STSO, who will either concur with your suspicions or not concur. If the STSO believes that it is illegal, they contact the LEO end of story."
You guys really should stick to what you actually KNOW to be dangerous materials, and not just take a potentially inaccurate guess. You aren't above the law, after all.
April 10, 2009 2:11 PM
GSOLTSO said...
Phil said - West, white powder or a roll of cash don't "have the appearance of being illegal" any more than a digital music player, a pet, or someone with brown skin do.
Why, then, do you call the police when white powder or $4700 are found?
Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal. If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel. I don't write the rules, I follow them and that is what we are told to do. Now, if something has the appearance of being illegal (say a ounce bag of green leafy vegetable substance with rolling papers and two crystal pipes or a coke can with perforations, etc.) are found in a bag, the procedure is to contact that STSO, who will either concur with your suspicions or not concur. If the STSO believes that it is illegal, they contact the LEO end of story.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 9, 2009 7:47 PM
...........................
Since you folks at TSA seem more interested in looking for cash and drugs instead of weapons, explosives and incendiaries I think I will start packing a bag with white powder, some oregano, and a nice large stack of well used American currency.
I'm up for a little fun!
April 10, 2009 3:14 PM
If you don't like flying in the U.S., try flying out of any of the European Countries. Americans whine way too much. Seriously, don't you have something better to do? Why would you let an extra 2 minutes at a checkpoint or an article full of lies ruin your day, your week and for some it seems, your entire life? Invest in a sturdy bag for your tools (there are some great ones with lifetime warranties!) and a sturdy TSA lock (they are out there). TSO's are human, as we all are... everyone makes mistakes. I am certain that everyone who has ever entered this site has made a mistake. The actions of one are not the actions of all. To wish all of TSA to lose their jobs ("the end of TSA" comments etc.) is just stupid and childish. These TSO's do not come to your place of employment, belittle you, argue with you, set you up on recorders, defy and argue with the procedures just to provoke you and wish for you to lose your job - stop doing it to them!!! I know many MANY others who fly and have had only positive experiences with TSA. Where are those blogs? They get crushed by the angry mobs on here who insist on taking one thing and twisting it, blowing it out of proportion and making that bottle of shampoo a world tragedy. Get your private pilot’s certification and your own private plane if it's so bad for you. Lessons are available ranging from $75 - $175 an hour, you'll need about 25 - 30 hours and about $200,000 for a nice plane. Or, you can take off your shoes, pack you liquids properly or in checked baggage and cooperate for 5 minutes with TSA... your choice.
April 10, 2009 3:35 PM
Whatever:
If TSA has it's way, it'll get its paws into GA. It's already trying, so that really isn't going to work.
Many of us have flown out of European and Asian airports as well. In most cases, the stupidity we have to endure is brought on by US demands. I've flown intra-Asia and intra-Europe and the only time have been hassled was on a short trip from Seoul to Tokyo because I was flying United - even though I wasn't headed to the US that day. Other flag carriers didn't get the work over.
European screenings can be a bit "overly friendly" however, I think a lot of that comes from their interpretation of US security policies. If those countries want to fly into the US, the US demands that they enforce those rules on US bound flights.
While I'm in a foreign country, it's their country and their rules. I comply because I don't want trouble where I don't know what my rights as a guest are and what all the rules. In my own country, the US, you can darn well expect that I will ensure that my rights are protected and will actively work to change the system with whatever legal means I have at my disposal. And that includes griping about TSA on this site and being assertive at the checkpoint if a screener isn't following the rules.
Sorry if I'm not going to roll over and be a good little sheep and subject myself to the whims and made up rules of a screener. That would be a baaaad thing.
Al
April 10, 2009 3:58 PM
So, AL - you are saying to let the drug dealers get away? If a police officer pulled a car over with large amounts of cash or white powder, you better believe they are going to investigate it - and that's why TSA calls the police for these things. As for taking money out of the country over $10,000 - there is a law that requires it to be declared through customs. If TSA askes where someone is going and they are leaving the country, they have done them a favor. If they are reminded by TSA to declare the money before leaving the country, they get to keep it all if they do - if not, customs will confiscate it. Also, how do you think a lot of the cash terrorists use gets into the US. It doesn't all go through banks... So, would you rather people be quesetioned briefly (if there's nothing to hide, why not cooperate) or that a terrorist use our airports to transfer their finances? What about the sick people with the kiddie porn - okay to let them bring their money home in their wallet too - after selling their contraband. It may not be TSA's "job" to enforce these issues, but I personally think it's EVERYONE'S job to keep drugs, terroritst and kiddie porn off our streets (along with anything I left out) and to report it!!! It's really not that bad. Answer the questions, and then go on about your day and know that your 5 minutes of inconvenience could be the difference between getting another drug dealer, terrorist or kiddie porngrapher off the streets of this great counrty. Not too much to ask, is it really?
April 10, 2009 4:19 PM
what ever said...
If you don't like flying in the U.S., try flying out of any of the European Countries. Americans whine way too much. Seriously, don't you have something better to do? Why would you let an extra 2 minutes at a checkpoint or an article full of lies ruin your day, your week and for some it seems, your entire life? Invest in a sturdy bag for your tools (there are some great ones with lifetime warranties!) and a sturdy TSA lock (they are out there). TSO's are human, as we all are... everyone makes mistakes. I am certain that everyone who has ever entered this site has made a mistake. The actions of one are not the actions of all. To wish all of TSA to lose their jobs ("the end of TSA" comments etc.) is just stupid and childish. These TSO's do not come to your place of employment, belittle you, argue with you, set you up on recorders, defy and argue with the procedures just to provoke you and wish for you to lose your job - stop doing it to them!!! I know many MANY others who fly and have had only positive experiences with TSA. Where are those blogs? They get crushed by the angry mobs on here who insist on taking one thing and twisting it, blowing it out of proportion and making that bottle of shampoo a world tragedy. Get your private pilot’s certification and your own private plane if it's so bad for you. Lessons are available ranging from $75 - $175 an hour, you'll need about 25 - 30 hours and about $200,000 for a nice plane. Or, you can take off your shoes, pack you liquids properly or in checked baggage and cooperate for 5 minutes with TSA... your choice.
April 10, 2009 3:35 PM
........................
I avoid Europe as much as possible.
There are no Pro TSA blogs becasue there are not enough people with good things to say about TSA to make that kind of blog a go.
TSA in its current state should be done away with. Commercial Airlines should be responsible for who and what gets on its airplanes, not the government.
You grovel at the feet of TSA What Ever, I will not!
April 10, 2009 4:34 PM
Quote: "Since you folks at TSA seem more interested in looking for cash and drugs instead of weapons, explosives and incendiaries I think I will start packing a bag with white powder, some oregano, and a nice large stack of well used American currency.
I'm up for a little fun!
April 10, 2009 3:14 PM"
---------------------------
Just remember that when you are pulled aside for additional screening and miss your flight. And remember this when you come up with the obvious "I'll sue!" answer; the TSA has been here for over 7 years, screened MILLIONS of people (or the same person millions of times, based on what some of you naysayers say) and NOT ONCE has there been a succesful lawsuit by ANYONE for missing a flight due to extra screening.
Surely, in this litigious society, somebody, someplace would have tried this before! But, go ahead, be the first one. I'd follow that lawsuit!
April 10, 2009 5:58 PM
whatever said:
If you don't like flying in the U.S., try flying out of any of the European Countries.
Did it and it was rather enjoyable.
Why would you let an extra 2 minutes at a checkpoint or an article full of lies ruin your day, your week and for some it seems, your entire life?
I've been traveling and much of that traveling has been flying at least 2X a week since 2000. So I've known security both before and after 9/11 and much of it has gotten worse since 9/11.
Invest in a sturdy bag for your tools (there are some great ones with lifetime warranties!) and a sturdy TSA lock (they are out there).
Pelican case good enough for you? That's what I carry. In the course of 6 months I was out around $100 for broken/lost/damaged TSA approved locks. They just didn't hold up with a 70lb tool chest being banged around by baggage handlers.
I'm looking for some answers that TSA apparently either can't (most likely) or won't (possible) provide.
April 10, 2009 6:31 PM
TSM, the vast majority of the people only fly once or twice a year, if that often. The majority of the people complaining here are frequent fliers who know what flying was like before TSA and who also know how TSA made a tolerable situation into an intolerable situation.
April 10, 2009 7:03 PM
Miller:
I know someone with one of those cases, flies about twice a week and has never had a problem with a broken lock. And he carries tools as well. Probably works for the same company as you do - out of MSP (initials are TFS). Have his bags been lost - yes. That is an airline problem. On some flights the weight is watched very closely and depending onthe passenger load, heavy bags get left behind to go on a later less loaded flight. As for screening before TSA - how do you think terrorists brought their box cutters on board the airplanes? Through security! I can see where that was a lot safer!!! NOT!!! The answer you seek would be to ask for special screeening that can be done in front of you, your bag relocked as you watch - with a lock of your choice. You have to ask at the ticket counter when you check in. TSA is not the enemy. If you have these sort of special circumstances they will work with you. Keep an open mind, don't go into an airport thinking to yourself "I dare TSA to tell me I can't take this", and 99 out of 100 times it will not be such a horrible experience. Try what I siad the next time you fly... Let the airling know that you would like to have your bag screened while you are present due to the monetary value and importance of your tools, they will call TSA and they will check it and lock it in your presence.
April 10, 2009 9:45 PM
Surely, in this litigious society, somebody, someplace would have tried this before! But, go ahead, be the first one. I'd follow that lawsuit!
April 10, 2009 5:58 PM
..................
No law suit needed.
Fully refundable tickets and an event similar to St. Louis and awayyyy we goooo.
April 10, 2009 9:45 PM
Miller said - Again, for domestic travel how do you declare cash?
You are correct, if the passenger is flying domestically, there is no declaration requirement. I failed to clarify that in my previous post.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 11, 2009 7:46 AM
RB said - Since you folks at TSA seem more interested in looking for cash and drugs instead of weapons, explosives and incendiaries I think I will start packing a bag with white powder, some oregano, and a nice large stack of well used American currency.
You are welcome to do that, it is entirely within your right (but you may wind up with some quality time with the local LEOs). We are not focused on currency, or drugs, they are usually found incidental to the search for another item. I have NEVER had a bag search specifically for illicit drugs and the only time I had a bag search that pertained to currency was when the currency was so dense it obscured something else. The passenger was flying to a domestic location, so there was no followup on the currency other than to move it to the side and look at what was obscured. It seems that a lot of people seem to think we go into a bag with the intention of finding something illegal, and actually it is quite the opposite - we go into the bag to clear something that is an unknown or something that is clearly a violation of the SOP.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 11, 2009 7:52 AM
ihatestupidpeople said...
Miller:
I know someone with one of those cases, flies about twice a week and has never had a problem with a broken lock. And he carries tools as well. Probably works for the same company as you do - out of MSP (initials are TFS). Have his bags been lost - yes. That is an airline problem. On some flights the weight is watched very closely and depending onthe passenger load, heavy bags get left behind to go on a later less loaded flight. As for screening before TSA - how do you think terrorists brought their box cutters on board the airplanes?
.........................
With a name like your using I would be a little careful of making a stupid statement as you did here.
Before 9/11 there was no prohibition against box cutters.
Had TSA been the security that day these same people would have been cleared because they were in compliance with procedure at that time.
April 11, 2009 9:01 AM
"You are correct, if the passenger is flying domestically, there is no declaration requirement. I failed to clarify that in my previous post."
Since there is no need to declare cash for domestic travel, and since TSA has no jurisdiction over declarations of cash for international travel, what action are TSOs instructed to take if a citizen asked about cash refuses to answer any questions about it?
April 11, 2009 10:50 AM
Quote:
"Pelican case good enough for you? That's what I carry. In the course of 6 months I was out around $100 for broken/lost/damaged TSA approved locks. They just didn't hold up with a 70lb tool chest being banged around by baggage handlers."
-----------------------------
Actually, if you were such a knowledgeable traveler, you would be out $0! Any TSA approved luck is guaranteed to be replaced if it is broken or cut. Just bring it back to your place of purchase.
April 11, 2009 11:46 AM
Miller said:So please tell me how I can travel with my luggage secure (remembering that TSA approved locks are not an option - so don't even go in that direction).
If you do not like TSA locks, that is okay. If you want to secure your luggage better, like with a sturdy combo lock, that is okay too. But you have to be available to give us your combo or key if your bag alarms our machine and we need to go in. Thats about as simple as I can get it. So, basically, be available for us. If you are not, your luggage either wont get on the plane with you or it will with the locks cut.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 11, 2009 1:30 PM
RB said:With a name like your using I would be a little careful of making a stupid statement as you did here.
RB, he was simply stating the fact that this is how terrorists got the boxcutters on board; thru security. He didn't say they were prohibited. Basically, if security wasn't here, terrorists would be able to bring harmful things on board whenever they want. This is how I interpreted his statement, correct me if I'm wrong, ihatestupidpeople.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 11, 2009 1:59 PM
Kellymae said:
If you do not like TSA locks, that is okay. If you want to secure your luggage better, like with a sturdy combo lock, that is okay too. But you have to be available to give us your combo or key if your bag alarms our machine and we need to go in. Thats about as simple as I can get it. So, basically, be available for us. If you are not, your luggage either wont get on the plane with you or it will with the locks cut.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
Uh, kelly, some airports have the xray machines in areas passengers can't enter. TSA at those airports have neither the time nor the inclination to contact passengers for either the key or the combination and cut off the locks. I give my luggage over for examination with the locks unlocked and have had the locks cut off by TSA even after the luggage was inspected by another TSO previously (at check in).
Let me turn up the volume for you since you can't hear. I WANT MY LUGGAGE SECURE. PROCEDURES IN PLACE BY TSA PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING BECAUSE TSA IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO RE-LOCK NON TSA APPROVED LOCKS. I DISCOVERED THIS IN A CONVERSATION WITH UPPER LEVEL TSA MANAGEMENT AT A COUPLE OF THE LARGER AIRPORTS.
SO KELLY, HOW DO I TRAVEL WITH MY LUGGAGE SECURED AGAINST THEFTS FROM EITHER AIRPORT EMPLOYEES OR TSA EMPLOYEES? REPEATING THE SAME DRIVEL OVER AND OVER AGAIN ISN'T COMMUNICATION SINCE YOU'VE TOLD ME NOTHING NEW I FEEL THAT YOU'RE JUST REPEATING THE PARTY LINE.
April 12, 2009 9:57 AM
Actually, if you were such a knowledgeable traveler, you would be out $0! Any TSA approved luck is guaranteed to be replaced if it is broken or cut. Just bring it back to your place of purchase.
Hmmm, in the course of just under 6 months of traveling with TSA approved locks I had them fall apart, get lost, chopped off by TSA, etc.
I value my time and don't want to spend it at the customer service counter of any place trying to explain why I'm filing yet another claim for TSA approved locks. Once or twice usually isn't a problem, but when you keep coming back week after week with damaged/broken lock, they deny claims. Not a way I want to spend my time. FYI I spent nearly $100 in replacing locks over that 6 month period.
April 12, 2009 10:02 AM
ihatestupidpeople said:
Have his bags been lost - yes. That is an airline problem. On some flights the weight is watched very closely and depending onthe passenger load, heavy bags get left behind to go on a later less loaded flight. As for screening before TSA - how do you think terrorists brought their box cutters on board the airplanes?
Hmmm, lost bags? I've dealt with that on several flights, not a TSA problem. When I started traveling in 2000 my tool chest weighed in at around 95lbs. Since the weight restrictions lowered to 70lbs, contents of my tool chest were removed.
As to the way the terrorists brought box cutters on board the aircraft I suspect that they just carried them through security and didn't have the box cutters in their checked luggage.
Also I've asked TSA upper level management the same question and have received no answer to that question of how do I travel with my luggage secured against theft. The airlines points at TSA and TSA points at the airlines neither willing to reimburse a passenger whose luggage was pillaged for high value items.
The next way to go is letter writing to my congressional representatives so as to get an answer since it sure isn't coming from TSA who parrots poorly written SSI SOPs.
April 12, 2009 10:14 AM
kellymae81 said...
RB said:With a name like your using I would be a little careful of making a stupid statement as you did here.
RB, he was simply stating the fact that this is how terrorists got the boxcutters on board; thru security. He didn't say they were prohibited. Basically, if security wasn't here, terrorists would be able to bring harmful things on board whenever they want. This is how I interpreted his statement, correct me if I'm wrong, ihatestupidpeople.
Kelly
EoS Blog Team
April 11, 2009 1:59 PM
.....................
Kelly, he was clearly implying that if TSA had been doing the screening on 9/11 that the box cutters would not have made it onboard.
Using procedures in place today private or government screening should have kept those items from getting on the airplane, however under the procedures in place on 9/11 the outcome would be the same regardless of who provided the security screening.
April 12, 2009 11:11 AM
KellyMae, you are correct in reading my response. I should have made that more clear. The box cutters were allowed through security because no one perceived them as a threat.
April 12, 2009 4:59 PM
I wrote:
"West, white powder or a roll of cash don't "have the appearance of being illegal" any more than a digital music player, a pet, or someone with brown skin do.
"Why, then, do you call the police when white powder or $4700 are found?
West at TSA responded:
"Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal."
I'm happy that you are aware of certain circumstances under which that is the case. What are those circumstances? I can only think of one, and that's when the powder is contained in something with a label indicating that its content is something very illegal.
Also, would you please address my assertion that white powder or a roll of cash don't "have the appearance of being illegal" any more than a digital music player, a pet, or someone with brown skin do? In each of those cases, there may be wrongdoing, or there may be a perfectly legal explanation for the item or person. I'm very curious how you determine which things that might indicate wrongdoing are worthy of stopping from doing your job of searching for dangerous things and initiating an investigation, and which things are not.
"If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel."
Have you received training on estimating the total amount of cash in a roll of bills simply by looking at the roll in the process of searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries?
Kelly, in the comments for the "Incident at St. Louis International post, you wrote:
"If while in a bag check for our primary focus items (i.e. liquids/weapons etc) and we find things such as drugs, it IS our "procedure" to inform supervisors and Law Enforcement.
"No matter how big or small, illegal is illegal and we can't just overlook it, sorry. We can't just hand back your kilo b/c it's not a "threat"."
In response, I noted that barring the result of specialized training that I suspect you have not received, you could not in that situation identify "drugs" by sight any more than you could identify unvaccinated pets, information on digital music players that came from unauthorized copying, or people who are not in the country legally.
I asked, "In each of the above scenarios, do you feel that it is congruent with the United States Constitution to stop someone who is carrying something that might indicate wrongdoing, question that person, then "if all is kosher" let that person go on his way?" Do you?
Bob, could you tell us whether people are prohibited by law from photographing computer monitors at your airport search stations? First you told us that it was discouraged, then you told us that it was prohibited, but you have not responded to multiple requests for the source of your information.
When your new partners Kelly, Tim, and West post comments here now, will they be speaking on behalf of TSA?
Why does TSA count people's money when they find it during a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries?
Are people required by law to answer questions from TSA staff about their money?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
April 12, 2009 11:25 PM
Whatever: "So, AL - you are saying to let the drug dealers get away? If a police officer pulled a car over with large amounts of cash or white powder, you better believe they are going to investigate it - and that's why TSA calls the police for these things."
There are conditions for what an LEO can and can't do in this situation.
If a cop looks in the car, in plain view, and sees a bag of white powder, he can search the car.
He can't look in the trunk without consent or a warrant. If I'm pulled over in a mall parking lot, he also can't ask the mall security guard to pop the trunk or frisk me.
TSA is essentially the mall security guard trying to play cop.
"As for taking money out of the country over $10,000 - there is a law that requires it to be declared through customs.
So let customs worry about it. It's not TSA's issue. Hassling somone about cash doesn't make the flight any safer.
"If TSA askes where someone is going and they are leaving the country, they have done them a favor."
We're not a nanny state. We don't need TSA doing us any "favors." TSA's done enough "favors" for us already.
"If they are reminded by TSA to declare the money before leaving the country, they get to keep it all if they do - if not, customs will confiscate it."
Again, that's their problem and Customs' problem. Not TSA's.
"Also, how do you think a lot of the cash terrorists use gets into the US. It doesn't all go through banks...
That's not TSA's concern. TSA's concern is securing aviation. The Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement are already tracking this stuff. You're naive to think that they're not watching this stuff and who's doing it.
Going to take this quote next and
"..." the next one.
"(if there's nothing to hide, why not cooperate)"
I may not have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean it's any of your business either.
If a policeman asked how many times you were intimate with your spouse, if you're cheating on your spouse, etc, are you going to tell them? If you have nothing to hide, then why not?
You really need to read. Prof. Daniel J. Solove's I've Got Nothing To Hide" and other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
"would you rather people be quesetioned briefly or that a terrorist use our airports to transfer their finances?"
False choice. I'd rather that people not be harassed and our constitution be preserved. Customs is more than capable of finding such cash and determining if it is properly declared. Destination nations are equally capable.
"What about the sick people with the kiddie porn"
It is sick, but I would ask a TSO what they were doing flipping thru someone's documents to begin with? I think you're seriously asking for evidence to be supressed and increasing the chances of such a sicko walking free.
"okay to let them bring their money home in their wallet too - after selling their contraband.
I'd really be curious as to where you make such a deterimination and by what authority you do.
"It may not be TSA's "job" to enforce these issues, but I personally think it's EVERYONE'S job to keep drugs, terroritst and kiddie porn off our streets (along with anything I left out) and to report it!!!
All of those things are bad, but it's not worth destroying the very freedoms this country was founded on to do it. I'm all for nailing the bad guys, but I'd rather it done within the framework of the Constitution so those people get what they deserve after a fair trial than trample on the rights of every other innocent American to get the occasional bad guy. Let's face it: there are many times more good guys out there than bad guys. Why is it ok to harass the 99.9999999% of good people to find that .0000001% bad?
"It's really not that bad. Answer the questions, and then go on about your day and know that your 5 minutes of inconvenience could be the difference between getting another drug dealer, terrorist or kiddie porngrapher off the streets of this great counrty. Not too much to ask, is it really?"
It is if you're asking that we shred the Constitution to do it. This country would be as bad as all those "bad" ones we decry. The Constitution of this great land and the ideals it enshrines are what set America apart from the rest of the world. To destroy those principles to get a few terrorist, child pornographers, or drug dealers off the streets make us just as bad as the people we're trying to apprehend.
The only difference is between "them" and "us" in that case is that "we're" wrapping ourselves in the flag and pretending to be patriotic while destroying the very freedoms we cherish.
Now answer me honestly: who is worse?
I'll end with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. I see this quote every day at work.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
If you want to contribute to that implosion with the positions you're advocating, go right ahead. Me? I'd rather have bad guys apprehended within the Constitution's framework, even if it meant an occasional scum bag slips thru the airport, than destroy the freedoms that make this country great.
YMMV.
Al
April 13, 2009 12:34 AM
Ihatestupidpeople,
For someone who's using that as a handle, I'd have really thought you would understand, before making this statement:
"As for screening before TSA - how do you think terrorists brought their box cutters on board the airplanes? Through security! I can see where that was a lot safer!!! NOT!!!"
that you would know that box cutters were NOT on the prohibited item list prior to 9/11. So of course box cutters got thru: they were PERMITTED items.
Blame those screeners all you want. It wasn't their fault. Cooperating with hijackers and allowing them access to the flight deck allowed 9/11 to happen. Interestingly enough, many of those same screeners from the pre-9/11 days you're bagging on were rehired as TSA screeners. Now they just got nicer uniforms, a fatter paycheck, and protection as federal employees.
But being a "smart" person, you knew that already, right?
Al
April 13, 2009 12:39 AM
TSM said: "Actually, if you were such a knowledgeable traveler, you would be out $0! Any TSA approved luck is guaranteed to be replaced if it is broken or cut. Just bring it back to your place of purchase
Actually, not all locks and sellers have that policy.
And you're aslo making the assumption that the lock will be in the bag. When mine were cut, they were gone. However, I did get a TSA love note in my bag.
One can file a claim with TSA, but that's generally as effective as urinating in the wind.
Al
April 13, 2009 12:42 AM
Kelly said: "RB, he was simply stating the fact that this is how terrorists got the boxcutters on board; thru security. He didn't say they were prohibited. Basically, if security wasn't here, terrorists would be able to bring harmful things on board whenever they want. This is how I interpreted his statement, correct me if I'm wrong, ihatestupidpeople."
I read it the same way as RB and I just typed a similar response. If he didn't intend it that way, he should be "smart" and think about being clear in his argument.
No security is a straw man argument anyway. No one here has said that we shouldn't have had security. Many questions have been brought up about the effectiveness of TSA and in some cases, have compared it to having no security, but I don't see anyone saying we shouldn't have any security.
It's a very old and tiring straw man argument.
Al
April 13, 2009 12:46 AM
Sandra said...
TSO-Joe wrote:
As for training: None. That's why the ultimate descion is the LEO's. not mine.
So, Joe, what you are telling us is that two people can go through a checkpoint, each with a bag of flour, and one might be referred to a LEO and the other might not because it's left to the "judgment" of screeners as to what might be suspicious or not?
It just gets worse and worse every day.
-----------------------
If you leave your bag of flour in a sack labeled "flour", one trained like TSA TSO NY would let it through, but a more Jack Bauer wannabe like the $4710 STL TSO wouldn't want to play your childish game.
April 13, 2009 10:17 AM
Miller said...
West said:
Under certain circumstances white powder has the appearance of being very illegal. If what appears to be $10k in a bag, the SOP states we are to contact the STSO to verify that it has been properly declared for travel.
Again, for domestic travel how do you declare cash? Why should you declare any cash at all for domestic travel? Please cite the legal code requiring declaration for declaring cash on a domestic flight.
___________________________________
You do not have to declare cash for domestic travel. Why do people have to repeatedly answer the same questions over and over??? We could accomplish so much more with this blog if it wasnt so repetative with garbage. Whether you like it or not TSA will work with other agencies with things. If a large amount of money is found the first question asked should be, where are you traveling to? If it is domestic, then the questions stop! Period. If they do not then the TSA employee is not doing their job correctly.
April 13, 2009 1:26 PM
Why were cops called when the guy only had $4700? What was the security threat? What does it say in your policy about this? What is being done internally to stop this nonsense from happening again?
April 14, 2009 12:45 AM
You do not have to declare cash for domestic travel. Why do people have to repeatedly answer the same questions over and over???
.......................
Because TSA is dishing out garbage when it involves itself in areas that do not have an impact on the safe conduct of an airplane.
April 14, 2009 4:58 PM
Anonymous says:
You do not have to declare cash for domestic travel. Why do people have to repeatedly answer the same questions over and over??? We could accomplish so much more with this blog if it wasnt so repetative with garbage.I ask the question over and over again because TSOs who should know better keep saying that the money needs to be declared. If you're going to write something and speak as an authority then you should be accurate in your writing.
April 14, 2009 5:06 PM
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
That whole post was remarkable, Al.
April 15, 2009 10:54 AM
RB said...
You do not have to declare cash for domestic travel. Why do people have to repeatedly answer the same questions over and over???
.......................
Because TSA is dishing out garbage when it involves itself in areas that do not have an impact on the safe conduct of an airplane.
___________________________________
How many times do you have to be told that TSA will work in accordance with other agencies. If you don't like it too bad.
April 15, 2009 4:55 PM
How many times do you have to be told that TSA will work in accordance with other agencies. If you don't like it too bad.
April 15, 2009 4:55 PM
...................
Yes, it's to bad that Executive Management at TSA doesn't understand just what hazards an airplane.
And these people actually went to college, go figure.
April 15, 2009 11:29 PM
@"How many times do you have to be told that TSA will work in accordance with other agencies. If you don't like it too bad."
If you just published the rules, you could just point to them, instead of repeatedly hacking up a bunch of hairball interpretations of some ill-understood SSI SOP.
April 16, 2009 3:46 PM
Phil said - I'm happy that you are aware of certain circumstances under which that is the case. What are those circumstances? I can only think of one, and that's when the powder is contained in something with a label indicating that its content is something very illegal.
I am resonably certain that I posted a couple of situations in which I would notify the STSO about suspected illegal items. (scroll, scroll) Yup, right there. I will tell you, that the situations are endless and possibly everchanging as to what would be a possible illegal item. The SOP states that we are to refer it and we do. As for your assertion that the only time something should be considered illegal is when it is in a container labelled that way is absurd.
West
EOS Blog Team
April 17, 2009 6:18 AM
Bob, you should invite TSORon from FlyerTalk to be an official blog spokesperson. I can't get enough of his posts.
April 17, 2009 6:33 PM
Alan said:
"Bob, you should invite TSORon from FlyerTalk to be an official blog spokesperson. I can't get enough of his posts."
Uhh, thanks Alan, but no thanks. Aside from being on the inside of this most excellent blog I would have issue with the constant whining about everything and anything.
April 20, 2009 6:51 AM
TSORon said...
Alan said:
"Bob, you should invite TSORon from FlyerTalk to be an official blog spokesperson. I can't get enough of his posts."
Uhh, thanks Alan, but no thanks. Aside from being on the inside of this most excellent blog I would have issue with the constant whining about everything and anything.
April 20, 2009 6:51 AM
................
He thinks that was a compliment Alan!
April 20, 2009 12:27 PM
Actually RB, I took it as an offer to step into quicksand. Not something I would do on a bet.
Get some Windex dude, your crystal ball needs cleaning.
April 20, 2009 2:59 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home