Information on the Chicago Aircraft Inspections
There have been some questions on our blog and elsewhere about the Chicago aircraft inspections.Also, I've noticed some confusion out there, so please note that this involved a Transportation Security Inspector, (TSI) not a Transportation Security Officer. (TSO)
Here's what we posted on our website.
On August 19 a Transportation Security Inspector (TSI) was conducting a routine compliance inspection on aircraft parked on the airfield at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport (ORD). The TSI inspected nine American Eagle aircraft to look for and test, among other things, access vulnerabilities or areas were someone with ill intent could gain access to the aircraft.
Aircraft operators are required to secure each aircraft when left unattended. The TSIs are encouraged to look for and follow through on vulnerabilities. During the inspection process at ORD the Inspector used a Total Air Temperature (TAT) probe – a probe that protrudes from the side of the aircraft that is used to measure outside air temperature – to pull himself up while investigating possible access vulnerabilities with the unattended aircraft.
The Inspector was following through on regulatory inspection activity. The Inspector was able to gain access to the interior of seven of the nine aircraft inspected, which is an apparent violation of the airline’s security program. TSA is reviewing the inspection results and depending on the conclusion, could take action with the airline, up to and including levying of civil penalties.
While the inspection process is a vital layer of aviation security, it is not TSA’s intent to cause delays or potential damage to aircraft as a result of our inspections. TSA took immediate steps to re-enforce education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a plane.
Facts:
- TSA has 1,465 Transportation Security Inspectors at almost 150 airports that can cover all modes of transportation.
- 535 in air cargo (including 85 dedicated canine teams)
- 755 in aviation
- 175 in surface transportation modes)
TSIs undergo a 4-week basic training course that consists of security regulations overview, inspection procedures, and safety briefings. TSIs are also trained through a formal on-the-job training program and periodic formal recurrent training. Additionally, Inspectors receive local safety training at each airport when they receive their airport identification.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
4:53 PM
Subscribe in a reader
217 Comments:
Thanks for the update.
Perhaps add to the training of TSI's so they don't repeat this type of "test".
August 20, 2008 5:46 PM
Bob, what aircraft specific training do TSI's get.
Are they aware that commercial aircraft do not have locks?
Are they aware that all hatches are designed to be opened from the outside in case of an emergency?
This TSI apparently knows so little about aircraft that he/she did not know what a TAT probe is and used it for a handle.
You people can't even screen people and stop the prohibited materials, now you have some unqualified yahoo running around on the ramp putting peoples lives at risk of death.
Thats a step in the right direction.
August 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Were it not for our comrades in the TSA, nobody would have any idea how vulnerable airplanes are to damage by sneaky terrorists who climb around on the outside of the plane. Bravo for identifying this mode by which terrorists could wreak havoc on aviation!
There's only one way to prevent this: Make the planes too slippery to climb on. Maybe pour shampoo on the TAT probes. Just make sure it's less than 3.5 oz of shampoo, or a terrorist might make a bomb out of it.
August 20, 2008 6:28 PM
The fact that commercial aircraft don't have door and window locks (for obvious safety reasons), and are therefore easily accessible to anyone who has made it past airport security is merely one reason WHY airport security needs to be there and work.
The fact that aircraft have many external structures that can be easily damaged with with bare hands is merely one reason WHY airport security needs to be there and work.
It is also a reason to keep people with insufficient training, knowledge, and intelligence AWAY from aircraft, including some TSI's...
Perhaps TSIs should be inspecting perimeter security, and the ability of the airport's security plans and personnel to keep the "bad guys" away from the easily damaged aircraft, instead of themselves damaging aircraft?
Bob, I'm ex-USAF, and volunteer to follow TSIs around to keep them from causing damage - just provide me with an ID and a working Taser. :oD
Thanks for responding to the many requests for information on this news item, Bob, it was needed.
I still cringe at the thought of what other hidden damage such an inept TSI could have already caused.
Tom (One of the 5-6 regulars.)
August 20, 2008 6:40 PM
Well, on the one hand I definitely feel TSA should apologize publicly to the aircraft owners, and compensate them for any damages. On the other hand, these guys should have secured their aircraft, and I wonder if some of their outrage isn't a distraction from their own failure... I see a comment above says this is not possible to secure the aircraft for safety reasons. Can the blog team confirm or deny that? I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to secure a several hundred thousand dollar piece of equipment. This slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2127976/
says it is possible to lock an aircraft. So which is it?
August 20, 2008 6:46 PM
Does a "routine inspection" include climbing up/onto an aircraft? I bet not...
August 20, 2008 6:48 PM
I don't care if you call them TSOs, TSIs, or whatever. The tarmac is not a playground. There are zero excuses for TSA employees to be touching and/or climbing on aircraft. It's dangerous--plain and simple. What you should post is how you plan to compensate American Eagle; instead you have the NERVE to threaten them with fines for damage YOU caused. I WILL be writing my congressman about this, and I hope to see Kip on C-SPAN testifying in front of congress soon; heads need to roll.
August 20, 2008 7:12 PM
Just curious: isn't actually getting into the plane considering breaking and entering? After all, the plane is privately owned, and I doubt TSA had permission to be in the planes.
That is, unless it got "consent" from the company in the form of "Do you want to fly today" as "let us inspect or you don't operate." Makes you wonder.
2 blog entries in one day ... seems like you guys are in damage control mode ... again.
August 20, 2008 7:16 PM
I can't believe you are even trying to defend this person. His ineptitude and ignorance caused many people to be delayed, could have affected the safety of passengers, and caused losses and damage to American Eagle. You think you should fine them? I think they should sue the TSA for damages and losses, which could be significant.
How about an apology, or are you even capable of admitting fault?
August 20, 2008 7:37 PM
One of the tenets of computer security I know is that all bets are off when the attacker has physical access to the machine. I think this is a reasonable analogy to this sort of test.
Once the attacker gets to the airplane, it's simply too late. Are we going to start screening airplanes as they push back from the gate now? I know you guys (TSA/TSI) are trying to prevent 100% of future attacks, but that's just not possible.
I'd also love to hear what airlines are supposed to do about somebody with physical access to the aircraft. What's stopping somebody from opening a maintenance panel and installing something or sabotaging systems?
This is truly security theater. The agencies involved are playing directly to the populace's fear, when in reality there is no greater risk of attack now than there was on 9/10/01, so why the 20x increase in security appearance, 100x increase in passenger discomfort, and probably only maybe 1-2x increase in actual security?
In addition, why is drunk driving not getting commensurate attention, when it causes many times more deaths each year than probably all the incidences of airline terrorism combined? NOT suggesting this, but why are there not breath checking checkpoints at all freeway entrances, or ignition interlocks on all new cars sold?
August 20, 2008 7:43 PM
So, damaging private property (aircraft are owned by a company) in an effort to further security theater is okay? So if the TSI caused hidden damage to other aircraft leading to an aircraft crashing would TSA attempt to blame the crash on terrorists or would TSA take full responsibility for killing innocent people because of poor training for the TSI? I suspect that terrorists would get the blame.
Disgusting behavior by people who should know better. So who will pay for the repairs for the aircraft? Perhaps one fewer party and several hundred fewer new costumes purchased so as to compensate the airlines? I would hope that the airlines begins to put rabid attack dogs on aircraft to prevent TSI terrorist from succeeding.
August 20, 2008 7:51 PM
This is an outrage and this issue should be made more public. As a fellow pilot I know that the saftey of the passengers and crew is #1. But this fiasco is just going too far. Whos job is it to make sure unauthorized personell do not make it onto the ramp? THE TSA's! If they were doing their job this kind of circus act would not be necescary. These planes do not have locks, they are in a "secure" area. This type of behaviour should not be tollerated and this inspector and his supperiors should be punished. AMR has every right to persue punititve damages and I hope they do.
Who does the TSA think they are to try and fine somone for their screw up. Stay away from our aircraft your agents have neither the tranning nor qualifications to be involved in aircraft operations. The best thing the agency could do now is revamp their screening procedures to make them more efficient and more accurate.
August 20, 2008 8:16 PM
I posted this comment in the previous entry, but since you have created a post for the so-called "Chicago Aircraft Inspections" I'll repost it here with some additional content.
We are all well aware of how lax your flighline security is, especially after an air-hobo climbed in a parked airplane and fell asleep at Lambert Airport (STL) in May. If "aircraft operators are required to secure each aircraft when left unattended," perhaps they should hire private security guards to keep the TSIs away. Your inspector caused costly damage to aircraft and delayed flights. He did the terrorists' job for them. Then you have the gall to claim the inspector was "following through on regulatory inspection activity" and threaten the airline with "civil penalties."
Rather than being punished for damaging aircrat, which would probably be little more than a slap on the wrist. I bet the TSA will reward the inspector for discovering that TATs can be used to climb in to Embraer aircraft.
What should have been done? Was the inspector undercover or wearing a "TSA Inspector" windbreaker like the one seen in the picture? When undercover TSA agents were caught and detained by the Chicago Department of Aviation at O'Hare Airport (ORD) in July, you threatened to fine them $10,000. If someone from American Eagle challenged the inspector, you'd probably threaten to fine American Eagle and the employee for interfereing with a TSA inspector. Perhaps your inspector was allowed near the aircraft because people were under the erroneous assumption that the TSA was supposed to protect aircraft.
You really should consider changing you name to the Transportation Damage Administration. Y'know, something that reflects your true "mission."
August 20, 2008 8:25 PM
Who's side are you guys on?
And American Eagle should bring charges against that particular TSI.
The repair costs should come out of HIS paycheck.
If TSA compensates American Eagle, it will be MY tax dollars being used. Why should I pay for his incompetence ?
August 20, 2008 9:22 PM
Is it coincidence or a vendetta: Two incidents in as many months receiving national media attention involving Transportation Security Inspectors at Chicago O’Hare Airport?
August 20, 2008 9:24 PM
NOT suggesting this, but why are there not breath checking checkpoints at all freeway entrances
...because the courts have ruled such checkpoints illegal and unconstitutional, otherwise you can bet they would exist. Given enough time for airport security theater to work it's way through the courts, most of it will be shot down too.
August 20, 2008 9:57 PM
It is really unacceptable that the TSA does not apologize for the delay and hassle caused to the travelers.
A TSA agent made a big mistake and caused significant disruption to travelers. It doesn't matter how important his job is to our safety, or that the TSA intends to continue those checks. This was a mistake, it caused problems, and it should be admitted as such.
August 20, 2008 9:57 PM
Reposting this from one of the other stories which got buried with these new updates!
I am sitting in Richmond airport (RIC) having just gone through security. Two things happened that are new to me (and I'm an experienced traveler). First, as I gave my boarding pass and ID to the document checker, word spread through the TSOs that they were on "stand down". Noone was allowed to enter or leave the secure area. I asked why this happened and the TSO didn't know. What causes something like this?
Second, after I went through the metal detector, I was instructed to push "the red button" on a new machine. No explanation was given. After I pushed it, the screen flashed green and said "Standard Screening". I am guessing this is some kind of system that randomly chooses people for secondary screening? Why are these things rolled out with no warning or explanation? My first thought was that I was having to give my fingerprint to get through security. It's not hard to imagine that being next...
August 20, 2008 10:12 PM
Guys, that's pretty lame. Did the guy break the plane or not? If he screwed up, say so; if he didn't, say that. What I hear in this explanation is 'hey, we were just doing our job', but thats not the point of this little farrago. Point is, while doing the job, he APPEARS to have screwed up and broken part of the plane. Did he?
August 20, 2008 10:16 PM
::sigh:: I would expect nothing less. When your security puts the passengers you are 'protecting' at risk you hav failed in your mission. This is not a reasonable security test as the briefest of walkarounds all pilots preform prior to any flight would note the obvious destruction of the external probe. If it didn't the airline would have bigger problems with the FAA than you or your 4 week trained TSIs could comprehened. Not to mention that all of the airlines (and cargo carriers and private charters) use tamperproof seals on all doors as a matter of nearly unyielding practice. I also highly doubt that your inspector managed to climb all over this many airplanes on a ramp (or possibly a hangar) without attracting attention enough to be forced to identify themselves. All you inspector did was damage nine planes and delay hundreds of passengers. You owe them and AA an apology not a fine. Don't pass the buck this was not a reasonable security inspection in the least bit. The correct response in these situations has been and always will be to dismiss these renegade subhumans as opposed to defending them at all costs.
I am amazed almost weekly at the ever new and surprising ways in which the TSA manages to become more inept.
August 20, 2008 10:32 PM
I was so shocked to read this, that all I could think of was "WOW". How can anyone be so reckless and criminally negligent to try these kinds of tactics on a parked plane. Until the TSI could actually start, taxi and take off in that plane, it poses no threat.
Here is a new idea for the up and coming TSIs - get type rated for one of the RJs and show 'em how vulnerable these planes really are !!!!!!
I have been shaking my head in amazement all day !!!!
August 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Outrageous and unacceptable. Endangering passenger safety is an extreme issue, and I am shocked that the TSA is attempting to downplay this.
To ensure passenger safety, representatives of the operators should be present during all aircraft inspections.
August 20, 2008 11:48 PM
(Off-topic, but I saw a question I could answer~)
Holy crap, something I can respond to in this thread! Lord knows I don't have anything at all to say about the incident itself (I know we have TSIs at Huntsville, and I know what their names are. That's the extent of my knowledge of TSIs).
Ahem.
Anonymous wrote:
....First, as I gave my boarding pass and ID to the document checker, word spread through the TSOs that they were on "stand down". Noone was allowed to enter or leave the secure area. I asked why this happened and the TSO didn't know. What causes something like this?
Sounds either like a breach, or a breach drill. This is otherwise known as "The TSA Freeze." That's the only thing that pops off the top of my head as being why no-one is allowed in or out of the sterile area. Screening functions effectively just... stop... until the situation is resolved, and hopefully they won't have to dump out the concourse and all the planes and re-screen everyone.
Anonymous wrote:
Second, after I went through the metal detector, I was instructed to push "the red button" on a new machine. No explanation was given. After I pushed it, the screen flashed green and said "Standard Screening". I am guessing this is some kind of system that randomly chooses people for secondary screening? Why are these things rolled out with no warning or explanation? My first thought was that I was having to give my fingerprint to get through security. It's not hard to imagine that being next...
You guessed right, in that it randomly chooses people for secondary screening. I've heard about them. The deal with those, from what I understand, is that they're not being "rolled out" in any kind of official context. Most likely the case, Richmond just probably happened to have had that particular device prior to TSA's take-over of the security checkpoint, and they've just been using it. Alternatively, RIC could have just purchased it out of their own alloted funds the same way we'd purchase chairs and office equipment here.
To my knowledge, there's not going to be any nationwide roll-out of these particular machines. If there is, I hadn't heard a whisper about it.
It would make it a lot simpler, though. Instead of people wanting to always call us racist or discriminatory or whatever when we send anyone over for secondary screening, we could just point at the screen and say, "Hey, you pushed the button, dude, it's out of our hands." :D
August 20, 2008 11:56 PM
I think I should follow up on this a little more. The way these suckers are mouted on planes there are two possible situations at play. Neither one is really an acceptable method for this happening.
1)you can't reach it from the ground. This would be the case on larger jet aircraft, such as the type you board from a jetway. Then it would seem he was planning to stand on it to gain access to the aircraft. I doubt this was the case. WHY you ask?? Well, beyond the spiderman theatrics required to even reach the TAT probe, there is no way that sucker would support this persons weight. If he has been attempting this, then he would probably be dead or injured...I'm guessing that would be AA's fault to.
2)There are smaller aircraft where this probe is reachable from the ground. However in this case (regional jet) he would also be able to reach the outter door handle from the ground next to the aircraft. If that was the case, the only reason for using the TAT probe, would be to physically pull himself into the aircraft after having opened the door. Why he would actually need to access the interior of the aircraft after having proved the ability to access it and open the door is beyond me.
I have been racking my brain here trying to come up with any reason to do this. The outside of these aricraft is rounded in such a way and these probes are located in such a way that the story makes no sense. I challenge someone to provide photo documentation of an aircraft exterior configuration that would enable the use of any air data probe to provide access the the interior of the aircraft.
Furthermore, if he had done it once and shown that a vulnerability DID exist, where is the need for taking 8 other aircraft out of service. Not to mention, the TSA controls access to the tarmac don't they? Given that the 'vulnerability' you claim to have found is actually an FAA regulation wouldn't your issue be with them?
August 21, 2008 12:09 AM
Number One, thank you for running this blog....
Number Two, please don't play with the shiny things on the outside of the aircraft. I would have hoped that after he broke/bent the first probe, he would have stopped.
There are so many things wrong with the TSA, and I understand you have a job to do. But we are the ones who pay our taxes which fund your paychecks. And unfortunately that funding will probably never end since Congress is afraid to kill any federal job. The TSA is going to end up killing the short haul business due to the vast amount of roadblocks it constantly puts in the way of the traveling public. I will now easily choose to drive six/seven hours to a customer meeting instead of flying due to the headaches mostly caused by the TSA.
August 21, 2008 12:39 AM
It's just too easy for the TSA to downplay criticism by claiming "Yea, we know we're an agency just like the IRS who will be hated by the American public no matter how well or poorly we do our jobs. But big brother knows best so just trust us."
Well, the IRS sits in cubicles, and they don't have our safety in their hands like you do. You can't just start turning airports into jungle gyms like you own the place. Your inspector damaged private property that he was treaspassing upon, and I hope he's held accountable. My congresswoman, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, will be hearing about this, and I hope you're looking forward to testifying in front of her about it.
Clearly, your agency continues to seek out more and more power, while your competence fails to keep pace with this power grab. You can't keep substituting security in place of safety; it doesn't make sense and sooner or later people are going to get hurt.
August 21, 2008 1:02 AM
Planes have crashed killing everyone onboard from these instruments being damaged. Aeroperu Flight 603 and Birgenair Flight 301 are examples. It makes me sick to see the spin on this. TSA has no business at any level putting their hands on an aircraft. Fortunately no one was killed or injured. If they had been the NTSB report would no doubt have a lengthy list of organizational failures listed for all to see. You guys at TSA are really playing with fire justifying this in any way shape or form.
We already had an airplane crash a few years ago killing everyone onboard due to the mandate to secure the cockpit. Helios Airways Flight 522 from Larnaca to Athens. Oxygen masks dropped in the cabin but the pilots did not realize the plane was not pressurizing and passed out. When a flight attendent using portable oxygen attempted to enter the cockpit he was unable to without the correct code. No doubt for security reasons he wasn't allowed to know the code. Only when the plane began to run out of fuel and systems began failing did the cockpit door release. By this time it was to late to save the plane.
August 21, 2008 6:34 AM
"now you have some unqualified yahoo running around on the ramp putting peoples lives at risk of death."
Comrade, if it were not for the efforts of these brave, sworn, highly trained, badge wearing government agents who risk their lives climbing over aircraft the terrorists would be the ones sabotaging the planes.
August 21, 2008 7:10 AM
I’ve heard stories of this program and glad that it is a success.
August 21, 2008 7:13 AM
While a fan of the blog and therefore generally accepting of your obvious (and necessary?) bias, I have to say that this one is a step too far.
The TSA endangered the lives of American citizens.
That is a mission failure of the highest degree. To me, it's grounds for Congress to consider dissolving the agency.
August 21, 2008 8:26 AM
thepedant: "It is really unacceptable that the TSA does not apologize for the delay and hassle caused to the travelers."
The TSA never, ever, ever apologizes. Ever. They never make mistakes, they never cost people money, they never cost people time, they never do wrong. Ever. Just ask them.
August 21, 2008 8:44 AM
OK miller, If Aircraft Companies are privately owned then why do they come crying to the Gov't when they run into financial trouble? And this was before TSA so whats your excuse? thank you.
August 21, 2008 8:46 AM
I don't blame the TSI in this case, but the TSA.
If airlines are required to keep their aircraft secure, but planes are not capable of being locked up, then there is a serious communication gap between the TSA and the airlines. It sounds like the TSA is requiring the impossible.
If it were possible to lock planes, and if airlines were required to do so, then it does seem a reasonable test of airline security to see if a TSI could break into a plane.
However, this does not appear to be the case.
August 21, 2008 9:43 AM
http://tinyurl.com/5udz9b
Just how many times have TSA employees placed the flying public and aircraft crews in danger. According the this article apparently many times.
Seems that we have only scratched the surface on this one.
Anyone not checked out an each type aircraft at an airport has no business getting anywhere near the airplanes unless escorted by a pilot, mechanic or groundcrew who is qualified to access that model of aircraft.
TSA is a bigger danger than all of the terrorist put together.
Legal action must be taken against this TSI, their supervisors and the head of the TSI branch of TSA.
Someone needs to go to jail for a long, long time.
August 21, 2008 10:07 AM
Gaining access to private property without permission and causing damage to said property could be considered sabotage. I think the FAA might have some rules of their own about this kind of behavior.
The airlines and airport authorities should hire armed security guards with orders to shoot on-sight any person caught attempting to gain access to the flight line or aircraft without permission.
August 21, 2008 10:44 AM
How do we know this is incompetance and not terrorism? Perhaps this TSI is an agent of a terrorist organization who infiltrated the TSA. He damaged nine commuter planes in a way that could have caused serious accidents and death had the mechanics not noticed. The "I thought it was a handhold" excuse could have been his cover.
Yeah, it's crazy paranoid, but the TSA seems to respond to movie-plot threats. I'd expect the TSA to respond by firing, investigating, and placing this individual on the no-fly list.
August 21, 2008 10:48 AM
I'm curious, what aircraft type training do the inspectors get?
The FAA requires that to work on an aircraft the person be licensed or be supervised by someone who is licensed.
So now TSA is back peddling and saying it's the airlines fault. I read that and believe that TSA is just covering it's 6 o'clock and not addressing the real issue. Four weeks of training is inadequate. Perhaps, the inspectors should be supervised by a representative from the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO).
Now if a inspector tries to remove a prop-lock on my plane and creates stress fractures in the propeller. Damage that may not be noticed on pre-flight inspection, but the propeller fails in flight. What happens, someone says "It's regrettable, a pilot and his passangers died, but we are safe from terrorist."
August 21, 2008 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...
OK miller, If Aircraft Companies are privately owned then why do they come crying to the Gov't when they run into financial trouble? And this was before TSA so whats your excuse? thank you.
August 21, 2008 8:46 AM
..........................
Like the auto maker Chrysler did some years ago?
Next!
August 21, 2008 11:28 AM
Here we go again with the PR drivel:
1) The link in your blog post is broken. It currently points to http://tinyurl.com/6rbxqg Try http://tinyurl.com/5j5sp4
2) Your little press release left out the most important facts; that the TSA damaged 14 aircraft and impacted many times that more flights. You mention that the TSI used the TAT probe as a hand-hold, but avoid mentioning the damage. Instead of pulling out BS touting your training and program, why not just fess up?
3) Commercial aircraft don't have locks, and for darn good reason. Maybe you and your TSIs would like to be locked in a burning aircraft while firefighters try to break in, but I wouldn't. :( That's why the tarmac is supposed to be secure. Why don't you focus on that instead of poking around aircraft? Oh, right, it's not as sexy. :(
4) How dare you threaten to fine AA/AE for this? AA/AE should fine TSA and your oh-so-well-trained TSIs for the damage they caused.
5) As others have said, a tarmac is not a playground. There's a lot of ways poorly trained people can damage an aircraft, not all of which would be detected by pre-flight checks. Will it take TSA/TSIs causing a plane crash to get that through your heads? How will you positively spin it when the crash you cause results in dozens of deaths?
Your agency is out of control and beyond repair. This is yet more evidence that TSA needs to be disbanded and replaced with a much leaner organization with much tighter oversight.
August 21, 2008 11:29 AM
DHS/TSA exhibit all the signs of an individual with Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
* Believing that you're better than others
* Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
* Exaggerating your achievements or talents
* Expecting constant praise and admiration
* Believing that you're special
* Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
* Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
* Taking advantage of others
* Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
* Being jealous of others
* Believing that others are jealous of you
* Trouble keeping healthy relationships
* Setting unrealistic goals
* Being easily hurt and rejected
* Having a fragile self-esteem
* Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
I wonder if you'll publish this or if it will go into the trash bag.
August 21, 2008 11:34 AM
Has this TSI (name unknown) been arrested and charged for vandalizing private property?
Or does TSA exempt themseleves from the rule of law?
August 21, 2008 12:31 PM
Speaking as a security professional and a pilot, the only thing more appalling than this dangerous behavior is the "yeah, well, they were vulnerable though" official response from TSA.
There have been cases where maintenance workers have left things like tape on static ports after washing aircraft and been charged with criminal negligence after avionics failures resulted in accidents. I can just imagine how this would go over after some TSI (for the record, we don't care what you call yourselves even if it's good for your esprit de corps) inadvertently damages some critical system: "We're sorry, the details of our inspection procedures are SSI (sensitive security information), so we don't think this case should go to court. "
The official response is unconscionable and reeks of misdirection, except for the little one sentence "we don't mean to break things" comment.
How about explaining what a TSI does and to what end, and the degree of aircraft systems training they receive? That would be a start.
I swear.. this is one more motivation to fly general aviation, though I can just imagine these people tampering with propeller locks on GA planes as well and setting up stress riser fractures in a prop.
When you become a hazard to your own constituency, it's time for you and Congress to reevaluate your premises.
August 21, 2008 12:45 PM
From a TSA memo:
"TSA's inspector was able to pull himself inside of an unattended aircraft by using a tube that was protruding from the side of the plane. TSA encourages its inspectors to look for and exploit vulnerabilities of this type."
The agent AND the person who wrote that memo really, really need to be fired.
Before they kill people with their stupidity.
August 21, 2008 12:46 PM
How did the TSI get anywhere near the aircraft? Did the TSI use his TSA authority to gain access to the area; or, did he have to sneak into the area? If he was authorized to be in the area, then there was no breach of security because a terrorist couldn't replicate the feat.
August 21, 2008 12:53 PM
You should understand what you are inspecting before you inspect it.
The brilliance of this story is that he managed to inconvenience hundreds of people all at once. This is the most efficiency I have seen out of the TSA in a long time.
August 21, 2008 1:04 PM
This is another example of the poor training that the TSA offers its employees. The fact that TSA employees are "trained" does not mean they are "trained well;" I would suggest that TSI's be accompanied by a qualified mechanic holding an FAA A&P license to help ensure that that TSI doesn't do anything mechanically stupid.
August 21, 2008 1:04 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2127976/
says it is possible to lock an aircraft. So which is it?
August 20, 2008 6:46 PM
........................
I attempted to respond to your post yesterday but the censors at TSA apparently are blocking post that comply with their posting rules again.
In short, General Aviation aircraft have locks on the doors and ignition. These are basic locks and can be compromised quickly.
Commercial type aircraft do not generally have locks. All doors and hatches are designed to be opened from outside of the aircraft in emergency situations. There are many areas that can be damaged by unknowing people even causing harm or death to the actor.
August 21, 2008 1:20 PM
Reposting, since my first attempt got lost...
It's a violation of Federal law to break into, tamper with, damage, or destroy an aircraft. The TSI involved needs to be fired and prosecuted, not shielded. As an aircraft owner and pilot, I'm livid, and if this were to happen to my airplane, I wouldn't stop until someone lost their job.
Of course, this will never happen, since the TSA is above the law...
August 21, 2008 1:45 PM
Thanks for letting us know what happened!
I didn't really understand why this is important until I read the comments and discovered that using a TAT probe as a handhold might damage the aircraft.
Quick question: do the people who clean the aircraft before each flight receive the same amount of screening as the pilots and passengers?
A second quick question while we have your attention: did the TSA really put Gulf War veteran and commercial pilot Erich Scherfen on a "terrorist watch list"? Were his flight privileges really revoked in April 2008? Is his employer, Colgan Air, really firing him because of TSA action? Were his flight privileges revoked because, although an American citizen, he converted to Islam; or because he married a woman from Pakistan; or something else entirely? (I'm just looking at the article at http://tinyurl.com/5vk74j which may of course omit some important facts from the TSA's side.)
Thanks!
August 21, 2008 2:13 PM
As someone who regularly flies, I'm outraged that the TSA encourages their TSI's to take actions that could damage aircraft. The TSA's encouragement of that behavior puts my life and the life of every other passenger at risk. Right now, I assess my risk of death from the bumbling TSA higher than my risk of death from terrorists.
August 21, 2008 2:23 PM
Bob -
Let's put some out some additional "facts".
TS0's, TSI's, TSwhatevers all work for TSA, DHS and ultimately the AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
As such the DHS / TSA organization screwed up big time.
The DHS / TSA organization failed to take responsibility for its screwup.
In fact the DHS / TSA organization is now trying to cover themselves by blaming the victim of this crime on property.
How much training is irrelevant (I work for the govt too - I've been "trained" !) What is relevant is the quality of said training and the leadership followup - both of which are now even more suspect.
Now a question:
This is the second incident this year at ORD involving TSA stupidity - when will you and your organziation stop blaming others and accept responsibility for your own incompetence?
Bob - you are starting to sound more and more like your namesake "Baghdad Bob" People expect more then this. If you personally want to maintain any credibility, don't regurgitate the nonsense coming from the press office. If you don't care - then keep dong what you're doing.
Up until this, TSA was a medium size irritation to me. A political organization designed to make folks think that "something" was being done. A huge waste of money and effort, but not much more. Now it seems they are potentially putting lives at risk by damaging privately owned aircraft that I utilize. This is serious.
August 21, 2008 2:31 PM
You press release has made your side very clear. Please shut this blog down. Nothing good has come from it.
August 21, 2008 2:43 PM
Oh man! You guys will NEVER admit when you are wrong.
Hey, you did what you guys do best, you screwed up people's travel plans, act all imperious and self-righteous about it, and just repeat "terrorists and evil-doers" whenever anyone questions your incompetence.
You incompetence (which exists from the top to the bottom) would be laughable if it didn't cause so many problems. Man, you are FOOLS.
August 21, 2008 2:48 PM
TSA: When you muck around with planes, YOU become the immediate danger, not terrorists. Apparently, we now have to worry about equipment failure and plane crashes because of your ineptitude.
August 21, 2008 3:23 PM
I agree with kathy.
It is not really the TSI's fault. I too feel that the TSA is to blame.
August 21, 2008 3:24 PM
"TSA is reviewing the inspection results and depending on the conclusion, could take action with the airline, up to and including levying of civil penalties."
What gall. This entire post is a slap in the face of every tax paying citizen. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
August 21, 2008 3:27 PM
OK miller, If Aircraft Companies are privately owned then why do they come crying to the Gov't when they run into financial trouble? And this was before TSA so whats your excuse? thank you..
Good question. When Chrysler was bailed out by the government it was done because Chrysler was deemed to be a critical business and should not be allowed to go under. The airlines, since deregulation have absorbed other airlines (anyone remember TWA) that went under. This is part of the natural business cycle. Since airlines in the US don't have a government subsidy, the government, on a case by case basis decides on if the demise of an airline would significantly harm the economy. If it harms the economy badly enough, the government steps in to prop up the airlines until the airlines recovers. One other aspect of this is that in the advent of all out war, the airlines can, if needed, be used to transport military.
Farmers also get propped up when commodity prices drop. When it benefits the government the government does bail outs.
August 21, 2008 3:49 PM
@How do we know this is incompetance and not terrorism? Perhaps this TSI is an agent of a terrorist organization who infiltrated the TSA. He damaged nine commuter planes in a way that could have caused serious accidents and death had the mechanics not noticed. The "I thought it was a handhold" excuse could have been his cover.
Yeah, it's crazy paranoid, but the TSA seems to respond to movie-plot threats. I'd expect the TSA to respond by firing, investigating, and placing this individual on the no-fly list.
Heh.
It is no more crazy paranoid than any of the rest of TSA's activities. If they think there's 1000s of times more terrorists trying to get through their checkpoints than actually are, they should consider the odds that any TSA person who "makes a mistake" is actually a terrorist mole. What better cover job for a potential terrorist could there be than being one of the TSA?
No wonder there seem to be so many "bad apples" who were "only following [the anti-SOP]" in TSA.
August 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Fact: One or more TSI's endangered the lives of hundreds or thousands of passengers through ignorance.
Fact: The TSA is so concerned about fake terrorists that it is willing to sacrifice actual physical safety of airline passengers.
Opinion: The potential damage this TSI caused during the course of inspection could have had far worse emergencies than not inspecting the plane at all.
Opinion: TSI's should not be allowed near any plane. Ever. Some cheesy 4 week course does not qualify one to walk all over an airplane. As a traveler myself, the TSI put my life in jeopardy.
August 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Well the Delete-O-meter should be taking a big jump with all of the censorship going on.
Why do you not post remarks that do not violate your posting standards?
August 21, 2008 5:49 PM
Shades of the Vietnam War... "We had to damage the aircraft in order to prevent terrorists from damaging it." It would appear that the TSA inspector violated FAA regulations, particularly 14 CFR 121 about no inspections unless the personnel are "appropriately certificated, properly trained, qualified, and authorized to do so". Hanging on a TAT sensor is endangering the safety of the aircraft, period. "Inspectors" who hang on TAT sensors are incompetent, period.
August 21, 2008 6:13 PM
Thank you for answering my question, other anonymous guy. With that clarified, any sympathy I might have had for the inspector and TSA has evaporated.
August 21, 2008 6:21 PM
I wonder what an airline maintenance crew would do if the crew came to work one morning to the sight of a TSI hanging off of a wing by his foot because the TSI stepped through the wing during an attempt to gain entry to the aircraft.
Suspect that there would be lots of cell phone pictures of the incident before calls to the FAA, the local police department, and paramedics. Sometimes a dose of public humiliation works wonders and there aren't any rules against laughing at either DHS or any of its minions.
August 21, 2008 6:26 PM
Let me start by saying that I am an A&P licensed mechanic, a pilot and an aircraft owner.
Let me say also that I am disappointed in this inspector, he only got into 7 of 9? If I am allowed past security and to damage what I want to get into I can break into anything!
I would like to see the FBI launch an investigation into this incident. My aircraft has a warning on it stating that "Theft from, or vandalism of this aircraft is a federal offense punishable by fines, imprisonment, or death if such theft or vandalism causes an accident resulting in loss of life. the FBI will be notified."
If you really must continue with these pointless aircraft inspections, please hire licensed mechanics to complete them. Training is useless if it is not complete. FAA license holders are also required to read write and speak the English language, and therefore will likely not miss "NO STEP" placards prominently placed many places on aircraft.
August 21, 2008 7:09 PM
You have to admit you guys really screwed up this time. Not even the usual cast of characters are standing up to defend TSA on this one.
August 21, 2008 8:26 PM
A point must be made that any aircraft that was on the ground at this airport on any day while this TSI was on duty or while any other TSI's carried out the same type of procedures compromises the safety of all of those aircraft. They should all be grounded in place until inspected by qualified personnel.
The full actions of the TSA and its TSI's is really unknown at this time and no one is safe if boarding any airplane that could have been damaged at anytime in Chicago.
I call on the FAA to require an immediate inspection of all aircraft that could have been tampered with by the TSA at any time, especially those that overnighted at Chicago.
Spin that Blogdad Bob!
August 21, 2008 8:39 PM
Obviously your inspectors are not recieving enough proper training. There is absolutely no excuse for the TSI's actions. And you mean to tell me that you expect the American public - much less professional pilots - to believe it was all within "protocol." Sorry but need to throw the yellow BS flag here.
I spent three intense months learning my aircraft and you expect me to believe that 4 weeks is enough training to cover all the major types that ORD recieves? Give us a break! If you ask me you did several million in damages because your training is flawed if you think this is acceptable as has been reported. I would like you to explain why an "administration" created to "protect" me from threats has not in turn proven themselves to be one? Enough is enough.
August 21, 2008 9:01 PM
the amount of spin in this blog entry is making my head hurt :|
August 21, 2008 9:17 PM
What is going on with you guys? The new link to the "Chicago Aircraft Inspections" statement in your post is dead/error 404. The statement has vanished from the TSA's News & Happenings page.
A link to a second statement called "What Happens Next With the Inspection Issue at Chicago's O'Hare?" has also vanished. When I clicked on the link, it was also dead/error 404. I didn't get a chance to read it, and can't get to a cached page. According to the Google search result, it read "TSA has repeatedly identified aircraft not being properly secured by American Eagle at O'Hare between July 2005 and March 2008. The most recent incidents..." It sounds like another condemnation of American Eagle.
The only statement that remains is on the News & Happenings page is called "Joint Statement by TSA and American Eagle" which reads,
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration and American Eagle share the same security goals. The airline is a valued partner and has an excellent overall record for security practices. TSA and American Eagle are working together to achieve the right security results and resolve any security gaps that have occurred.
Kip Hawley,
Administrator
Peter Bowler,
CEO American Eagle
It looks like you're going to try and rewrite history...again. It's one thing to change the title of a statement from "TSA Response to Aug. 13 USA Today Article" to "Not on a List If You Forget Your ID" without changing the content of the statement. It is, however, a completely different thing to delete public statements from a government agency on a government website. How dare you! What's next? Are you going to try and unring a bell? Are you going to put the toothpaste back in the tube?
You owe us, the flying public you're supposed to serve, an explination.
August 21, 2008 9:26 PM
Yah, this is just the ongoing problem with this agency. The mission parameters are way too big. The TSA is either being given way too much athourity or taking it, upon themselves. Aren't there many measures in place to keep unauthorized people away from aircraft? I agree now it should include undertrained TSA agents. There are Airport police, FAA inspectors, and other secuity guards for this job. It would have been enough of a "test" just to see if they could even gain acess to the AOA close enough to touch an aircraft, without using their IDs. Now will the airlines have to add "car" alarms too? A beter Idea would be to run security backround checks on everybody who works at the airport, anyone who could get acess to the runways. Is that "undocumented worker" for McD's, or baggage, etc., who has to go out to go through to their work station, garbage dump etc., cleared for a sensitive security area? You would think so wouldn't you. Look out the window at the tarmac next time you are inline to fly and wonder how many of the worker's out there have criminal records. Feel safer yet? Tell the TSA to concentrate on passenger screening, and let the profesionals guard the planes. The airlines might want to hire some of their own, cheaper than replacing damaged instruments.
August 21, 2008 9:38 PM
So is this an example of another government agency operating above the law? Does the TSA answer to anybody? Is the Patriot Act really destroying the boundries of law to suposedly give the impression of saftey? Would you be willing to give up all liberty to feel safe? Maybe people should boycott flying until these questions are answered. QUESTION AUTHORITY!
August 21, 2008 10:08 PM
Another perfect example of the 'high' quality people that were hired by the TSA. So is the TSA going to compensate the owners of the aircraft for the damage to their property? TAT probes and other similar sensors aren't exactly robust, and if you recall the B-2 accident in Guam a few weeks ago, can cause serious problems if not properly cared for.
I wonder what will happen when a clueless TSI damaged an aircraft in such a way to cause an accident?
Test your people. Train the ones that fail. Fire the ones that can't be trained. Rinse. Repeat.
August 21, 2008 10:46 PM
Dear TSA,
It's really pretty simple. If you want the respect of the flying public you serve, when you make a mistake, have enough integrity to admit it and take responsibility for it. Don't make excuses and don't make threats (e.g., fining American Eagle).
August 22, 2008 12:34 AM
Someone asked
Has this TSI (name unknown) been arrested and charged for vandalizing private property?
Vandalism is the malicious distruction or defacement of public or private property.
The TSI wasn't being malicious. If he damaged the property it was a mistake. We don't put people in jail for mistakes if we did all of those Doctors who's insurance companies pay the minimum amount for malpractice suits for their mistakes that cause death should be in jail. But wheres the outrage over that?
August 22, 2008 12:51 AM
I am just speechless. The TSA is a joke, and a waste of Tax payer money. I would feel better if they got rid of the TSA, and put the national guard in charge of airport security.
August 22, 2008 2:25 AM
About 10 years ago there were a couple of plane crashes back to back caused by these instruments being damaged. The crashes killed everyone onboard. It makes me sick to see the spin on this. TSA has no business at any level putting their hands on an aircraft. Fortunately no one was killed or injured. If they had been the NTSB report would no doubt have a lengthy list of organizational failures listed for all to see. You guys at TSA are really playing with fire justifying this in any way shape or form.
We already had an airplane crash a few years ago in Greece killing everyone onboard due to the mandate to secure the cockpit. Oxygen masks dropped in the cabin but the pilots did not realize the plane was not pressurizing and passed out. When a flight attendant using portable oxygen attempted to enter the cockpit he was unable to without the correct code. No doubt for security reasons he wasn't allowed to know it. Only when the plane began to run out of fuel and systems began failing did the cockpit door release. By this time it was to late to save the plane.
August 22, 2008 4:46 AM
"The TSA never, ever, ever apologizes. Ever."
Let us give the devil their due.
Ellen Howe (TSA Assistant Administrator for Strategic Communications/Public Affairs) apologized for a really stupid piece of TSA propaganda.
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/scot_peele.shtm
Now if we could just get that type of mea culpa out of this crowd for some of the outrageous untruths they have tried to get us to swallow.
August 22, 2008 7:47 AM
This blog item was edited after it was posted. There is no indication that this was done. What is the EoS policy on editing posts?
August 22, 2008 8:54 AM
If you really must continue with these pointless aircraft inspections, please hire licensed mechanics to complete them. Training is useless if it is not complete. FAA license holders are also required to read write and speak the English language, and therefore will likely not miss "NO STEP" placards prominently placed many places on aircraft.
Licensed airframe mechanics make more money that TSIs do and having one work with a TSI might make the TSI jealous. Also DHS is above all rules and regulations and may step anywhere they want to with absolutely no repercussions. When DHS hirelings discover that the laws of physics, chemistry, mechanics do apply to them, then they might figure out that doing certain things around aircraft might be hazardous to their health.
Wings have NO STEP signs painted on them for a reason. If a TSI type punched a hole in a wing and became trapped, who would pay for the repairs? Would the TSI face charges from the FAA and the police department? Who has the authority to call for paramedics to extricate the TSI from the aircraft? Would the paramedics have to pass through a TSA checkpoint prior to extracting the TSI from the wing? Would the paramedics be limited to the 100ml limits? Are flight line workers limited to the 100ml limits?
August 22, 2008 9:32 AM
I fail to understand why your censors are blocking my post with a serious concern regarding the Chicago incident. I have in no way violated your posting standards. Be sure a copy of this post will be sent to FAA and the Chairwoman of the Transportation Security Sub-Committee. Also these concerns will be forwarded to all media outlets that have reported this story.
My concern is as follows.
One known TSI damaged aircraft parked overnight at Chicago. Were other TSI's engage in similar activities on this particular day or any other day? Was this a policy that was broadcast to all TSI activities and like inspections were carried out at other airports?
Even without the information asked for above, every aircraft that was parked overnight at Chicago on any day that this particular TSI was on duty may have been compromised and should be removed from service until a complete safety of flight inspection is completed. If these inspections were carried out by other TSI's at this airport or other airports all aircraft that transited those airports are also compromised and must be grounded and inspected.
The bottom line is that the public’s safety is on the line and attempting to cover up the scope of this issue would be a criminal act.
Now if you Blog Operators wish to take that on your backs go ahead.
August 22, 2008 9:50 AM
Vandalism is the malicious distruction or defacement of public or private property.
vandalism
Main Entry:
van·dal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of vandalism
Pronunciation:
\ˈvan-də-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date: 1798
willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property
Seems pretty willful by climbing on something that was fragile. Many years ago I discovered that you don't mess with things that either aren't yours or you don't know anything about.
The TSI wasn't being malicious.
Try willful.
If he damaged the property it was a mistake.
The guy damaged aircraft before. Doesn't sound like a 'mistake' to me. Also if you back into your neighbor's car, damaging it, are you liable for damages? If one of your children ran their bicycle into your neighbor's car, damaging the car would you be liable for repairs?
We don't put people in jail for mistakes if we did all of those Doctors who's insurance companies pay the minimum amount for malpractice suits for their mistakes that cause death should be in jail.
We do jail/fine people who make mistakes. Exxon Valdeez(sp?) is a good example. Accidentally disposing of oil/toxic chemicals can result in both fines and imprisonment.
But wheres the outrage over that?
Google oil spills. Google environmental enforcement. Do your homework please.
August 22, 2008 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...
"The TSI wasn't being malicious. If he damaged the property it was a mistake."
We do not know if this was a mistake.
What if the TSI had a "grudge" against American Eagle?
Oh, but wait, the TSA forbids retaliatory measures.
What if he is a terrorist plant?
Oh, that can't be, because the TSA is the "good guys", and ONLY the flying public are the "bad guys".
But come on, anyone in the TSA organization making a "mistake"?
Isn't that a bit far fetched? You know that they are trained, professional, and dedicated to keep America safe.
August 22, 2008 10:05 AM
The TSI wasn't being malicious. If he damaged the property it was a mistake.
...............................
I don't think that has been determined. Doctors get sued for malpractice. What do TSI's get? A pat on the back!
This person placed in jeapordy any and all people who boarded those aircraft, plain and simple. He/She is responsible for their actions. If this person was not qualified to access those aircraft and did no know the safety precautions to use around the aircraft then that is an act of negligence and should result in punitive actions.
As it stands right now I think TSA is a bigger threat to my safety than the terrorist.
August 22, 2008 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...
You press release has made your side very clear. Please shut this blog down. Nothing good has come from it.
August 21, 2008 2:43 PM
Your absolutely right. This blog was created so there could be a dialouge bewteen the TSA and the American public. Instead we get non-answers, spin, and defensive TSA employees who post anonymously.
One of the 5 or 6 who post all the time
August 22, 2008 10:21 AM
Thank you TSA! For pointing out how fragile airplanes are and how easy it would be for a filthy terrorist to cause damage and delay to a beleagurd airplane industry!! I'm certain that locking the doors on commercial airplanes will save more lives than it kills, so go ahead an levy some penalties on the airlines!!!
You go TSA!!!! Rah!Rah!
August 22, 2008 10:32 AM
Miller wrote:
Would the paramedics have to pass through a TSA checkpoint prior to extracting the TSI from the wing? Would the paramedics be limited to the 100ml limits? Are flight line workers limited to the 100ml limits?
Oh, hey, pick me, I know this one!
1. No. Emergency personnel responding to an active call beyond the security checkpoint are exempt from screening, though I do believe they need to have an escort sent along with them unless they're the local airport public saftey (here at HSV, our airport police are certified/licensed paramedics and firefighters, too.)
2. No.
3. Yes. If airport personnel enter the sterile area via the checkpoint, they're limited to the 100ml liquids limitation as well for their own personal use.
August 22, 2008 10:59 AM
This is a quote from ABC News a few days ago:
"The TSA has been conducting such overnight spot checks at airports around the country."
see http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5613502&page=1
Was any other damage done? Will we ever know?
August 22, 2008 11:09 AM
The main TSA site has a joint statement from TSA and American Eagle regarding the incident:
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration and American Eagle share the same security goals. The airline is a valued partner and has an excellent overall record for security practices. TSA and American Eagle are working together to achieve the right security results and resolve any security gaps that have occurred.
Kip Hawley,
Administrator
Peter Bowler,
CEO American Eagle
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
August 22, 2008 11:27 AM
Since there doesn't seem to be a place to ask random questions, I'll go off-topic here and ask this to someone on the blog team ...
I was just looking at the TSA homepage, and down at the bottom, there's a section labeled "TSA Week at a Glance (August 1, 2008 - August 17, 2008)".
Um. Are your weeks 17 days long? Or is this a typo?
August 22, 2008 11:29 AM
Safety Report filed with FAA.
More to follow!
August 22, 2008 11:40 AM
Interestingly enough, I recently read that a PILOT is in danger of losing his job because he's been placed on the watchlist that nobody maintains. He's filed suit against the TSA to get his name removed from the list that nobody maintains.
Associated Press Article
August 22, 2008 12:30 PM
The TSI wasn't being malicious. If he damaged the property it was a mistake. We don't put people in jail for mistakes if we did all of those Doctors who's insurance companies pay the minimum amount for malpractice suits for their mistakes that cause death should be in jail. But wheres the outrage over that?
August 22, 2008 12:51 AM
Trying again since the TSA CENSORS are hard at work.
We do not know that this was an accident. If the TSI was not checked out on aircraft ground safey issues then they have no reason to be near an aircraft.
However we do know that this TSI and possilby others have placed the public at great risk.
His/her actions were wilful, that is very clear.
I think jail time is the most reasonable outcome.
August 22, 2008 12:32 PM
Another security pearl:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html
August 22, 2008 1:21 PM
@"The TSA never, ever, ever apologizes. Ever."
Let us give the devil their due.
Ellen Howe (TSA Assistant Administrator for Strategic Communications/Public Affairs) apologized for a really stupid piece of TSA propaganda.
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/scot_peele.shtm
Now if we could just get that type of mea culpa out of this crowd for some of the outrageous untruths they have tried to get us to swallow.
Nah, that is one of those non-apologies like "I'm sorry that my bragging on facebook about sleeping with your best friend makes you feel bad." They aren't saying they made a mistake by taking the battery, they are just sorry that we feel bad about the way they tooted their own horn.
August 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
The main TSA site has a joint statement from TSA and American Eagle regarding the incident:
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration and American Eagle share the same security goals. The airline is a valued partner and has an excellent overall record for security practices. TSA and American Eagle are working together to achieve the right security results and resolve any security gaps that have occurred.
Kip Hawley,
Administrator
Peter Bowler,
CEO American Eagle
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
I think this is about as close to an apology as the TSA is willing to make. I understand this to mean that American Eagle was frankly pissed at the TSA and raised a big stink about the threat of fines after the TSA caused so much damage. To smooth things over, the TSA agreed to make a statement saying that AE is not a bad guy after all. It's a definite backpedal from the TSA's earlier message. Probably doesn't go as far as AE wanted, but it's a good as they are likely to get.
August 22, 2008 2:12 PM
In light of the monkey bar antics referenced, I would like to suggest a new motto for TSA & all who work for it, w/all due credit to the original writer(s) of the Hippocratic Oath-
'First do no harm'.
Make these your new words to live by, please.
August 22, 2008 2:40 PM
Wow, the TSA thinks it can go anywhere at any time and do anything. This TSAgent should be fired (if not prosecuted) and the TSA should repay American Eagle. Additionally they should apologize! Thank God the pilots do their inspections before the flight and noticed this and prevented countless deaths.
August 22, 2008 2:52 PM
2. No.
3. Yes. If airport personnel enter the sterile area via the checkpoint, they're limited to the 100ml liquids limitation as well for their own personal use.
August 22, 2008 10:59 AM
................................
What if they enter the airport by a gate allowing access to the tarmac? Are they checked each and every time they enter for prohibited items?
Bet you can reuse your answer for #2.
August 22, 2008 4:06 PM
The following statement has been removed from the TSA website and many others about this same incident have been removed or edited.
The blog post that started THIS "discussion" on EoS has also been edited with no indication that was. :o(
I have captured some of the originals using their Google Caché, but unless others thought to copy some of these TSA official statements no longer in the caché, before TSA changed or removed them, they are likely lost.
TSA and DHS are busily re-writing history right before our eyes.
Here is one of the original TSA statements:
On Aug. 19 a TSA transportation security inspector conducted routine compliance inspections on nine American Eagle aircraft parked on the airfield at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. The inspector looked for and tested, among other things, vulnerabilities associated with unauthorized access to unattended aircraft.
Aircraft operators are required to secure each unattended aircraft to make sure that people with bad intent cannot gain access to the planes. But during the inspection, TSA's inspector was able to pull himself inside of an unattended aircraft by using a tube that was protruding from the side of the plane. TSA encourages its inspectors to look for and exploit vulnerabilities of this type.
The inspector was following through on regulatory inspection activity and was able to gain access to the interior of seven of the nine aircraft he inspected. This was an apparent violation of the airline's security program. TSA is reviewing the inspection results and, depending on the conclusion, could take action against the airline, up to and including levying civil penalties.
While the inspection process is a vital layer of aviation security, it is not TSA's intent to cause delays or potential damage to aircraft as a result of our inspections. TSA took immediate steps to re-enforce education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a plane."
TSA also adds that "All TSA inspectors undergo a four-week basic training course that consists of a security regulations overview, inspection procedures and safety briefings. The inspectors received both on-the-job and periodic recurrent training. Additionally, inspectors receive local safety training at each airport for which they receive airport identification credentials.
I will be putting screen captures of as many of these original statements as I am able onto my personal blog.
August 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Jim Huggins said...
The main TSA site has a joint statement from TSA and American Eagle regarding the incident:
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration and American Eagle share the same security goals. The airline is a valued partner and has an excellent overall record for security practices. TSA and American Eagle are working together to achieve the right security results and resolve any security gaps that have occurred.
Kip Hawley,
Administrator
Peter Bowler,
CEO American Eagle
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
Hey Jim,
I’ll take a shot at the translation:
Mr. Bowler: All airlines are responsible for preventing unauthorized access to our aircraft - it’s a rule. One of our guards should have seen the TSA yahoo and said, “Hey you, get away from that aircraft”. Then called the airport police to nab him.
Mr. Hawley: Our guy shouldn’t have been so zealous in accessing the unguarded aircraft. He should have just written his report and sent the “violation” to American Eagle.
Blondie
August 22, 2008 4:56 PM
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
August 22, 2008 11:27 AM
I have posted two answers to your question, however it seems TSA CENSORS are hard at work blocking acceptable post.
Suffice it to say that someone (CEO) has someone else in an uncomfortable position and this is a way of de-escalting events.
I suspect the legal staff of AE are chomping at the bit on this one!
August 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Apparently while using the TAT probe on the aircraft as a stirrup to climb up into the jetway the aircraft was parked at, the TSI was seen by maintenance employees who challenged him and reported the incident.
Since the aircraft was parked at a jetway, and the jetway seals were in contact with the aircraft, the aircraft doors were open as employees went in and out of the aircraft.
The TSI was able to force aside the jetway "bellows" and enter the aircraft.
From: Aero-News Network
"This was not the first time that this same TSA agent had done this. After one of our ORD mechanics caught him doing this he explained that he could damage the TAT sensor. The agent then admitted that he used the sensors many times in the past doing the same thing. The AMR spokesperson states that no TAT sensors were damaged, but she was speaking about the particular aircraft inspected on the 19th. There were no damage found on the morning of the 19th, but another aircraft did have a damaged #1 TAT sensor that was discovered on the morning of the 16th at ORD that the mechanics suspect was caused by the same agent."
Folks, we need a through investigation AND a drastic change in the way TSA conducts itself.
Currently, TSA is as much or more of a danger to the flying public as the terrorists it pretends to see behind every bush.
August 22, 2008 5:24 PM
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
We both walk away and don't take legal action against each other.
August 22, 2008 5:28 PM
What is going on with you guys? Why hasn't my comment been posted? Is it because I referred to two statements that have been deleted from the TSA website's News & Happenings page?
The new link to the "Chicago Aircraft Inspections" statement in your post is dead/error 404. The statement has vanished from the TSA's News & Happenings page.
A link to a second statement called "What Happens Next With the Inspection Issue at Chicago's O'Hare?" has also vanished. When I clicked on the link, it was also dead/error 404. However, CNN's website cites the statement in an article called, "TSA investigating possible violations by American Eagle." In addition, this statement has be quoted by posters on FlyerTalk's forums.
According to the now deleted statement:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is opening a civil penalty inquiry regarding American Eagle's multiple security violations at Chicago's O'Hare Airport.
TSA has repeatedly identified aircraft not being properly secured by American Eagle at O'Hare between July 2005 and March 2008. The most recent incidents involving seven aircraft inspected on Aug. 19 could result in fines of up to $175,000 or a maximum of $25,000 per aircraft Three previous violations resulted in warning notices being issued to the airline, and fines are pending on others.
Despite generally good security performance by airlines across the country in securing aircraft, TSA has consistently found problems in this location.
The security inspection referred to in the media this week was a follow-up to earlier inspections in which the same vulnerability existed.
The inspector involved should not have used the airframe part in establishing the viability of the vulnerability he identified. The inspector was, however, seeking to close a real danger to the traveling public, not looking for a technical violation. TSA stands behind the inspector and that effort.
The only statement that remains is on the News & Happenings page is called "Joint Statement by TSA and American Eagle" which reads,
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration and American Eagle share the same security goals. The airline is a valued partner and has an excellent overall record for security practices. TSA and American Eagle are working together to achieve the right security results and resolve any security gaps that have occurred.
Kip Hawley,
Administrator
Peter Bowler,
CEO American Eagle
It looks like you're going to try and rewrite history...again. It's one thing to change the title of a statement from "TSA Response to Aug. 13 USA Today Article" to "Not on a List If You Forget Your ID" without changing the content of the statement. It is, however, a completely different thing to delete public statements from a government agency on a government website. How dare you! What's next? Are you going to try and unring a bell? Are you going to put the toothpaste back in the tube?
You owe us, the flying public you're supposed to serve, an explination.
August 22, 2008 5:32 PM
Anonymous wrote:
Bet you can reuse your answer for #2.
Cute. My answer for #2 was considerably different than what the bloggers gave, you may remember. I do believe it was "Nothing," and that answer was based upon the most-recent directives of TDC procedure released as of 30 June 2008. :P
What if they enter the airport by a gate allowing access to the tarmac? Are they checked each and every time they enter for prohibited items?
You already know the answer to that question, but I'll answer it anyway: No, they're not. TSA doesn't have the manpower nor the funding to get the manpower to ensure 100% screening compliance at every entrance to the SIDA area. That kind of stuff is still taken on a random basis (and a lot of it, but not 100%; it's called ADASP - Aviation Direct Access Screening Protocols). The ADASP
(PDF warning; this discovered on the first page a simple Google search) has caught more than a few things - I think the most notable was where some dude was caught with a firearm in his vehicle going into the secure area.
And, last I heard, TSA is still looking at what would be required to get 100% airport personnel screened.
August 22, 2008 8:53 PM
I'm actually starting to feel bad for Bob these days. When this blog first came on line Bob made every effort to answer questions. But in the last few months you can see the TSA management is trying to spin everything and blame everyone except themselves. Getting actual answers has become a joke.
Now Bob is the last of the EOS blogger team to make any effort to communicate. Its to bad that the TSA has Bob sign his name to posts like this. He's just the messenger.
One of the 5 or 6 who post here
August 22, 2008 8:55 PM
I'm noticing something...
Ive posted a few times trying to put all these ANTI-TSA people in check and my posts aren't making it...
I'm using no profanity or disparaging accusations against anyone in particular but I'm not seeing my posts in SUPPORT of the TSA appearing...
Any idea why?
August 22, 2008 9:02 PM
When the TSA said the inspector's actions were encouraged, they were talking about the inspectors looking for airplanes that are not secured. I hardly believe TSA encourages using temperature probes or other aircraft equipment as jungle gyms. If the TSIs actions had been deliberate to cause deadly consequences, we'd have seen some of those consequences by now. Compare the number of intoxicated pilots reporting for work with the number of inspectors damaging planes - how come we don't point fingers at all pilots as a bunch of drunks? Had the inspector been a true bad guy, or just a whacked out nut job, he'd have had opportunity to sabotage all of those planes, or hide something on board, be it drugs or explosives. And yet nobody is asking why the airline left those plans in that condition. Get a little perspective here. Neither the TSA nor the airline came out of this incident smelling like a rose.
August 22, 2008 9:15 PM
Previous Question:
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
It means American Eagle is screaming loud and pointing fingers at TSA for their inspector's actions. I think a big reason TSA went on the offensive with the comments about potential fines on Eagle were a response to the poor manner in which Eagle's PR department handled the situation. If you get pulled over for speeding, do you scream at the police officer for the powdered sugar from a doughnut on his shirt?
August 22, 2008 9:21 PM
For those of you who keep trying to dream up a way to prosecute this TSI for trespass on private property, see this from the regs:
49 CFR § 1544.3 TSA inspection authority.
(a) Each aircraft operator must allow TSA, at any time or place, to make any inspections or tests, including copying records, to determine compliance of an airport operator, aircraft operator, foreign air carrier, indirect air carrier, or other airport tenants with—
(1) This subchapter and any security program under this subchapter, and part 1520 of this chapter; and
(2) 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, as amended.
(b) At the request of TSA, each aircraft operator must provide evidence of compliance with this part and its security program, including copies of records.
(c) TSA may enter and be present within secured areas, AOAs, SIDAs, and other areas where security measures required by TSA are carried out, without access media or identification media issued or approved by an airport operator or aircraft operator, in order to inspect or test compliance, or perform other such duties as TSA may direct.
(d) At the request of TSA and the completion of SIDA training as required in a security program, each aircraft operator must promptly issue to TSA personnel access and identification media to provide TSA personnel with unescorted access to, and movement within, areas controlled by the aircraft operator under an exclusive area agreement.
[67 FR 8364, Feb. 22, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 30510, May 26, 2006]
August 22, 2008 10:25 PM
Are TSI's really this incompetent? I know they are when the least I can do to try to carry on a conversation with them.
Why didn't he simply open the door!
I guess this is not part of his training?
Bob or any moderator of this blog...
How about please telling us what discipline the TSI will receive. However, as many us suggest, he will get an award of excellence in his duties.
Bob, why did you give us a speech about the training a TSI receives? You make it appear there is justification for a TSI to damage, possibly knowingly, an aircraft.
Now I have to laugh again because a FFDO is on the "no-fly" list.
Why doesn't the TSA simply admit, it is a failure? In the meantime, just maybe when the current administration is complete, there will be a more competent leader at the helm.
August 23, 2008 1:35 AM
We do jail/fine people who make mistakes. Exxon Valdeez(sp?) is a good example. Accidentally disposing of oil/toxic chemicals can result in both fines and imprisonment.
But wheres the outrage over that?
Google oil spills. Google environmental enforcement. Do your homework ple
Do your homework, there was a criminal act that led to the oil spill. That makes it criminal not a mistake!
I never said he shouldn't be liable. And if he followed rules that caused him to make the mistake the people who gave him the directions should also be liable.
August 23, 2008 2:15 AM
Posted here since no better place exist.
It has come to my attention that TSO's are mandated to refer a person who has large sums of cash on their person to LEO.
Why?
There is no violation of law when a person carries $10K are more within the United States or even when flying in to or out of the United States as long as the proper customs declarations and forms are completed.
Why is TSA engage in a pattern of civil rights violations?
By what right does TSA have to question me about my finances?
Perhaps your Chief Counsel will address this.
August 23, 2008 10:01 AM
Why does the TSA website say:
"While not a sinister item, it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 cash."
when it is NOT illegal to do so?
and from FlyerTalk:
"It's a requirement for us to report it (large sums of cash) and a requirement for someone else to investigate"
Why does an activity that is NOT illegal need to be reported and investigated?
August 23, 2008 10:05 AM
Posted by TSO Dean...Cute. My answer for #2 was considerably different than what the bloggers gave, you may remember. I do believe it was "Nothing," and that answer was based upon the most-recent directives of TDC procedure released as of 30 June 2008. :P
.........................
What if they enter the airport by a gate allowing access to the tarmac? Are they checked each and every time they enter for prohibited items?
.........................
You already know the answer to that question, but I'll answer it anyway: No, they're not.
...................
Dean I did not know the answer for certain but did suspect the answer. Your answer for question #2 was No and is the correct answer for my folow-up question.
So the fact of the matter is that the secure area is in fact not secure by any reasonable definition.
Liquids, explosives and incendaries could easily be brought directly to any aircraft, perhaps on one of the food and beverage service trucks.
This is the whole point of what TSA does.
Theater!
Unless your willing to secure the whole airport then all of the other actions taken together mean nothing. If security is really important then cost is just a side issue.
So does TSA want Security or an impression of Security?
TSA is squandering the taxpayers monies and wasting your time.
It's time to pull the plug on this failed experiment!
August 23, 2008 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...
For those of you who keep trying to dream up a way to prosecute this TSI for trespass on private property, see this from the regs:
......................
Cutting the rest of your post but nowhere in your references does it say any TSA can gain access to the aircraft themselves.
This statues are more on the order of record keeping and procedures.
By you claim the TSA could destroy an aircraft for any reason and not be held accountable.
In a worse case situation thats exactly what this TSI could have accomplished along with the crew and passengers.
If your ok with that then we have bigger problems.
August 23, 2008 10:26 AM
Posted by TSO Dean.
Cute. My answer for #2 was considerably different than what the bloggers gave, you may remember. I do believe it was "Nothing,"
...........................
Dean are you saying that the Blog Ops are editing your post?
Sound that way to me.
If they are should not some indications be made that your words have been changed?
August 23, 2008 10:34 AM
Anonymous wrote:
Bet you can reuse your answer for #2.
I wrote, in response:
Cute. My answer for #2 was considerably different than what the bloggers gave, you may remember. I do believe it was "Nothing," and that answer was based upon the most-recent directives of TDC procedure released as of 30 June 2008.
I misunderstood your snark as being snark directed at something else entirely. I do apologize.
And then, now with a better interpretation of what you wrote - yes. :D The rest of what I wrote still stands, though.
August 23, 2008 11:07 AM
For those of you who keep trying to dream up a way to prosecute this TSI for trespass on private property, see this from the regs:
Ok, they've got unfettered access to the aircraft. Those rules don't address damage done to the aircraft by out of control TSIs.
So if the TSI had damaged an aircraft to the point that the aircraft crashed then would the TSI be absolved from any legal action because he acted in an 'official capacity' during his shift? I suspect not.
I've been on active flight lines before and know enough to keep my hands off of equipment that doesn't concern me because my innocent touching of that equipment, may cause damage to that equipment. That isn't a complicated thought process.
How about getting some TSIs with some basic flight line training? At a minimum the flight line training should be the same as what they give to baggage handlers.
August 23, 2008 11:15 AM
Bob or any moderator of this blog...
How about please telling us what discipline the TSI will receive. However, as many us suggest, he will get an award of excellence in his duties.
He was following orders and as such that makes him exempt from any repercussions.
Bob, why did you give us a speech about the training a TSI receives? You make it appear there is justification for a TSI to damage, possibly knowingly, an aircraft.
Well, explaining how well the TSI was trained was an attempt (albeit feeble) to impress us with the TSI's level of training. By doing that we should have reached the logical conclusion that the TSI could never have done what he's being accused of having done. A reach for sure when we have witnesses to the TSI's actions.
I was following orders didn't work after 1945 and it doesn't work today. Using an aircraft as a jungle gym sure isn't safe for either the TSI or the aircraft. I wonder if the TSI worked alone (very unsafe at night on a poorly lit flight line) or if he was with someone else?
August 23, 2008 11:40 AM
Blogger DoogieSD said...
I'm noticing something...
Ive posted a few times trying to put all these ANTI-TSA people in check and my posts aren't making it...
I'm using no profanity or disparaging accusations against anyone in particular but I'm not seeing my posts in SUPPORT of the TSA appearing...
Any idea why?
Probably do. Blogger Bob has enough to do without a flame war getting started. His work load would go up 10X with a good flame war and he viewed your comments as being the opening shots in that war.
August 23, 2008 11:59 AM
HVTSO Said:
TSA doesn't have the manpower nor the funding to get the manpower to ensure 100% screening compliance at every entrance to the SIDA area. That kind of stuff is still taken on a random basis (and a lot of it, but not 100%; it's called ADASP - Aviation Direct Access Screening Protocols). The ADASP
(PDF warning; this discovered on the first page a simple Google search) has caught more than a few things - I think the most notable was where some dude was caught with a firearm in his vehicle going into the secure area.
And, last I heard, TSA is still looking at what would be required to get 100% airport personnel screened.
I appreciate you HV TSO. You are one of the few TSA people who, even unofficially, try to tell it like it is. You have given us in 2 paragraphs what I have been saying over and over since around March: if the TSA can't or does not screen every person who enters the secure areas of the airport each and every time the person enters, their goal of keeping the sterile area sterile is a failure. While the TSA treats the Constitutional rights of each and every member of the traveling public like so much Charmin it completely fails in its mission to keep aviation safe by leaving these easily exploited security holes.
The situation at hand just adds fuel to the already brightly burning lantern of incompetence for which the TSA is the pediment. We do need a certain measure of airport security; however, the TSA is not providing it. The TSA needs to be disbanded and replaced.
August 23, 2008 1:01 PM
Anonymous
Previous Question:
Can anyone parse this for me? I've read a lot of corporate PR-speak statements ... but frankly, I can't make sense out of this one. What are they trying to say, in plain English?
It means American Eagle is screaming loud and pointing fingers at TSA for their inspector's actions. I think a big reason TSA went on the offensive with the comments about potential fines on Eagle were a response to the poor manner in which Eagle's PR department handled the situation. If you get pulled over for speeding, do you scream at the police officer for the powdered sugar from a doughnut on his shirt?
No I don’t, but when the officer takes his baton out, breaks my tail, and then cites me for having an unsafe vehicle I do.
"This was not the first time that this same TSA agent had done this. After one of our ORD mechanics caught him doing this he explained that he could damage the TAT sensor. The agent then admitted that he used the sensors many times in the past doing the same thing.
This is why American Eagle was screaming and the reason the TSA had to back off on their threats of fines and legal action. The agent involved was warned by mechanics not to do that, he admitted he has done in it the past, and then continued doing it. In the process damaging seven aircraft, delaying passengers, the airline had to deal with the costs of repairs and flight delays. Worse yet the TSA agent placed passengers at risk in the past and continued to do so, ignoring warnings from experienced aircraft mechanics. The liability issues that the TSA faces because of this have serious and potential long-term repercussions.
Once again the TSA tries to blame others, only to find they are the ones to blame.
One of the 5 or 6 who post here.
August 23, 2008 4:01 PM
This is one brilliant TSA employee. He had to destroy a portion of the aircraft in order to ATTEMPT to gain access? Of course you'll have a vulnerable aircraft if you try hard enough to find a way. Next we'll see TSA employees walking all over the wings trying to gain access to the emergency access doors, causing unknown damage while cjust limbing on to the wing.
August 23, 2008 4:53 PM
"Instead we get non-answers, spin, and defensive TSA employees who post anonymously."
Of course we post anonymously. We'd get in trouble even for defending TSA if we said anything that management preferred we didn't. So we get it from both the public and from management. Why wouldn't we feel defensive?
But no worries TSA critics, this blog will probably not last beyond the Hawley administration, since many (perhaps most) TSA personnel dislike having a blog anyway.
Now, I have to say one thing (not about the inspector, that was a huge screw up) but about that pilot who is suing us. He says he is on a watchlist because the company trying to fire him said so. Has it ever occurred to you that the company might, just might be stretching the truth to fire the guy? But of course, companies never lie, so it must be the big bad TSA at fault.
August 23, 2008 5:08 PM
As an aircraft mechanic I find this disturbing. I wonder how many of the probes I have changed recently due to damage are attributed to actions like this.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
First wrong, the actions of the inspector.
Second wrong, supporting these type of actions.
August 23, 2008 5:40 PM
What is going on with you guys? Why hasn't my comment been posted? Is it because I referred to two statements that have been deleted from the TSA website's News & Happenings page? That is not grounds for deletion according to your very own guidelines.
The new link to the "Chicago Aircraft Inspections" statement in your post is dead/error 404. The statement has vanished from the TSA's News & Happenings page.
A link to a second statement called "What Happens Next With the Inspection Issue at Chicago's O'Hare?" has also vanished. When I clicked on the link, it was also dead/error 404. However, CNN's website and the Chicago Tribune's website cites the statement in an articles. In addition, this statement has be quoted by posters on FlyerTalk's forums.
According to the now deleted statement:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is opening a civil penalty inquiry regarding American Eagle's multiple security violations at Chicago's O'Hare Airport.
TSA has repeatedly identified aircraft not being properly secured by American Eagle at O'Hare between July 2005 and March 2008. The most recent incidents involving seven aircraft inspected on Aug. 19 could result in fines of up to $175,000 or a maximum of $25,000 per aircraft Three previous violations resulted in warning notices being issued to the airline, and fines are pending on others.
Despite generally good security performance by airlines across the country in securing aircraft, TSA has consistently found problems in this location.
The security inspection referred to in the media this week was a follow-up to earlier inspections in which the same vulnerability existed.
The inspector involved should not have used the airframe part in establishing the viability of the vulnerability he identified. The inspector was, however, seeking to close a real danger to the traveling public, not looking for a technical violation. TSA stands behind the inspector and that effort.
The only statement that remains is on the News & Happenings page is called "Joint Statement by TSA and American Eagle" which reads,
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration and American Eagle share the same security goals. The airline is a valued partner and has an excellent overall record for security practices. TSA and American Eagle are working together to achieve the right security results and resolve any security gaps that have occurred.
Kip Hawley,
Administrator
Peter Bowler,
CEO American Eagle
It looks like you're going to try and rewrite history...again. It's one thing to change the title of a statement from "TSA Response to Aug. 13 USA Today Article" to "Not on a List If You Forget Your ID" without changing the content of the statement. It is, however, a completely different thing to delete public statements from a government agency on a government website.
If this post is deleted again, I would like you to replace it with an explination as to why.
August 23, 2008 7:24 PM
Anonymous said...
OK miller, If Aircraft Companies are privately owned then why do they come crying to the Gov't when they run into financial trouble? And this was before TSA so whats your excuse? thank you.
There you go again, changing the subject when all else fails. Let me try, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you don't have to take your shoes in Europe. An answer other than this isn't Europe or because I said so.
One of the 5 or 6 who post here
August 23, 2008 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...
For those of you who keep trying to dream up a way to prosecute this TSI for trespass on private property, see this from the regs:
49 CFR § 1544.3 TSA inspection authority.
All this does is ensure that TSA personnel get unrestricted access to aircraft. This does not protect TSA employees who deliberately damage aircraft in the course of the inspection. The TSA employee used TAT probes as a handhold/foothold in the past, when he was caught doing it he was warned by airline mechanics not do it, and then did it multiple times after the warning. Damaging several aircraft and putting passengers at risk.
That is what everyone is referring to.
One of the 5 or 6 who post here.
August 23, 2008 8:52 PM
In re-reading parts of this incedent I see that I made a critical mistake.
I thought the TSA's TSI gained access to all 9 aircraft.
Apparently this TSI was only able gain access to only 7 of the 9 aircraft.
Of course since no locks are on these aircraft that means that TSA's highly trained TSI's are incapable of opening unlocked doors in all cases.
August 24, 2008 12:31 PM
Facts:
* TSA has 1,465 Transportation Security Inspectors at almost 150 airports that can cover all modes of transportation.
o 535 in air cargo (including 85 dedicated canine teams)
o 755 in aviation
o 175 in surface transportation modes)
One inspector who damages multiple aircraft, who is warned not to, delays hundreds of passengers and costs the airlines millions in repairs and other costs....
Priceless.
August 24, 2008 3:50 PM
TSA says
Facts:
TSIs undergo a 4-week basic training course that consists of security regulations overview, inspection procedures, and safety briefings. TSIs are also trained through a formal on-the-job training program and periodic formal recurrent training. Additionally, Inspectors receive local safety training at each airport when they receive their airport identification.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
NOT SO FAST TSA - I know others have corrected this and know their posts have not made it to the blog. It will come out, so better to do it sooner rather than later and simply prove their point that you are covering.
FACT: 1. TSA has only initiated the "formal OJT" for the newer cargo inspectors. So yes, it exists but not for very long and no generalist have gone through it.
FACT:2. TSA only has periodic formal training in place for their cargo inspectors. Again, no generalist which make up the bulk of the inspectors.
FACT: 3. Everyone working on the SIDA of an airport receives SIDA training but to my knowledge there is nothing about climbing on an AC in an effort to inspect.
FACT: 4. Your TSI generalist receive no such training as you describe other than the 4-week basic and SIDA training.
SPECULATION: The Aircraft Operators Standard Security Plan (AOSSP) clearly defines what meets the "secure" requirement for an AC. If your inspector found violations or suspected violations they could have very easily summoned a Ground Security Coordinator (GSC), escorted them to the line of planes and said "count them - 9 violations, you will receive a letter in the mail."
That would have been it but your guy decided to play 007 and prove a point.
Because this was a non-cargo inspection please clarify your training. There are fools among us all but you are better to cull them than to protect. Your motto should be TSA - DENY EVERYTHING, ADMIT TO NOTHING AND LAUNCH COUNTER ACCUSATIONS"
August 24, 2008 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...
The TSI wasn't being malicious. If he damaged the property it was a mistake.
A mistake occurs when you do something and you are unaware that it is wrong. In this case the TSI was warned by airline mechanics not to stand on the TAT probe. He stood on a probe on nine different aircraft following that warning. His action were not malicious, but they can not be considered a mistake.
One of the 5 or 5 who post here.
August 24, 2008 10:51 PM
guys don't feel bad when the TSA doesn't respond on here...they don't even respond to Congress.
And when they do, they play the standard TSA legal magic game. http://hsc.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20080731121758-75682.pdf
Unfortunately, being reprimanded by a Congressman isn't TSA news...only endangering passengers meets the standard.
August 24, 2008 11:05 PM
Wow. Y'all on stand down or somethin'?
August 25, 2008 9:43 AM
TSA still in denial?
No new post since 8/23.
Good job TSA!
August 25, 2008 10:14 AM
Yawn....
Stretch....
Ok, Now I'm awake from a long summer weekend nap. I'm ready to continue the stimulating and educational discussion on the Evilution...Evolution of Security.
Any chance the Blog team can come out to play today?
August 25, 2008 10:18 AM
I notice on this past weeks TSA score card that an item;
11 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
21 firearms found at checkpoints
0 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
16 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach
A TSA TSI jeapordized the lives of an untold number of flyers by using sensitive aircraft insturmentation probes as handholds and steps while climbing on 9 aircraft.
If your gonna brag then tell the whole story!
August 25, 2008 11:33 AM
Hey TSA:
Why does your website at http://tinyurl.com/5bh8y4 claim it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 in cash when in fact it is not? It is only illegal to transport more than $10,000 in cash/equivalents internationally (i.e., in or out of the USA) without filing the appropriate forms. With the forms, even that is legal.
There are numerous incidents of TSA harassing domestic travelers exercising their legal right to carry large amounts of cash. Is this blatantly false claim that carrying cash is illegal part of TSA's official policy?
You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your agency needs to be disbanded, the leadership fired and barred from public service for life, and the workers subjected to strict retraining on customer service and Constitutional rights before being allowed to do any security work.
August 25, 2008 11:41 AM
TSA is showing some nerve here. Let's recap, shall we?
- TSA has never saved a life, averted a terrorist plot or otherwise really improved anyone's safety
- TSA has caused millions (billions?) of people to waste billions of hours jumping through soap opera-like hoops. Limiting shampoo quantities, aggressive shoe screening, etc... Really?
- Now TSA is in the business of damaging aircraft due to blatant ineptitude.
- In addition to this, TSA has the nerve to find fault and fine American airlines in this incident where they could very well have caused death and destruction.
- Finally, the TSA is now trying to insert itself into screening of private aircraft operating under part 135 or part 91 on smaller airports. It's lovely that TSA will be able to ensure growth in its organization - more funding, more employees, more guaranteed paychecks. But let's be clear that all this will cause is greater tax burden, considerable hassle for the innocent people using these airplanes and airports and ZERO increase in security for the public. A GA aircraft is one of the worst possible tools for terrorism. On the other hand, a U-Haul truck full of fertilizer is a great tool for terrorism. But guess which one the TSA has in its crosshairs?
August 25, 2008 11:45 AM
There are numerous incidents of TSA harassing domestic travelers exercising their legal right to carry large amounts of cash.
please site your sources... or this claim is pretty hard to swallow.
one of the two of three people who post
August 25, 2008 12:11 PM
Hey TSA:
Why does your website at http://tinyurl.com/5bh8y4 claim it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 in cash when in fact it is not? It is only illegal to transport more than $10,000 in cash/equivalents internationally (i.e., in or out of the USA) without filing the appropriate forms. With the forms, even that is legal.
There are numerous incidents of TSA harassing domestic travelers exercising their legal right to carry large amounts of cash. Is this blatantly false claim that carrying cash is illegal part of TSA's official policy?
You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your agency needs to be disbanded, the leadership fired and barred from public service for life, and the workers subjected to strict retraining on customer service and Constitutional rights before being allowed to do any security work.
___________________________________
Your right, good job.
TSA is quite aware that it is international. All we do is check to see if the person is flying international, I would hardly call it harassing.
"Your agency needs to be disbanded, the leadership fired and barred from public service for life"
Wow, angry are we.
August 25, 2008 1:25 PM
"There you go again, changing the subject when all else fails. Let me try, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you don't have to take your shoes in Europe. An answer other than this isn't Europe or because I said so."
___________________________________
Hows about, who cares!
August 25, 2008 1:29 PM
And, last I heard, TSA is still looking at what would be required to get 100% airport personnel screened.
August 22, 2008 8:53 PM
...............................
TSO Dean and the rest of the TSO's here: I
f your agency concentrated its efforts on screening people, baggage and cargo for explosives, weapons and incendaries perhaps they would have the manpower to do the job that was tasked by congress.
By not doing so there is no point in doing the other things TSA does so poorly. If you don't think the bad guys don't know how to get something to an airplane then your only fooling yourself.
Any good terrorist organization will have already infiltrated your workforce, know your SOP's and have reported back to their controls. They already know the drill!
Instead we have people climbing around on airplanes as if they are on some kind of playground. We have TSO's looking for things that in no way threaten the aircraft or people on the aircraft. We have TSO's looking at ID's that have absolutely no impact on safety. We have other TSA people wandering around harassing people because they are a bit tense before getting on an airplane that may have been already been damaged by other TSA people.
It seems to me that the budget that congress has allotted for TSA is being squandered on activites that do not improve the safety of anyone.
Oh, and less not forget about the party that taxpayers monies was used for you guys. Yeah, that help aviation safety for sure.
So any statement that there is not enough manpower or money to screen airport workers or all cargo is nothing but BS!
TSA is a total failure!
August 25, 2008 2:12 PM
Routine Inspections involve trying to get on an aircraft, there is specific guidance; and common sense plays a role. TSI's get very little "aircraft training", but, as a TSI I thought it was pretty self-explanatory that you don't climb on any part of the aircraft but the stairs due to the fact that they are expensive to fix. I guess that is just some of us.
August 25, 2008 2:21 PM
When was TSA given the responsibility to regulate the amount of currency one can have in their possession?
One of your web pages state that it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 dollars.
Please reference the law that makes this act a crime.
Thank you.
August 25, 2008 2:30 PM
A mistake occurs when you do something and you are unaware that it is wrong.
.............................
Like when Congress created the TSA!
August 25, 2008 2:32 PM
What if they enter the airport by a gate allowing access to the tarmac? Are they checked each and every time they enter for prohibited items?
You already know the answer to that question, but I'll answer it anyway: No, they're not. TSA doesn't have the manpower nor the funding to get the manpower to ensure 100% screening compliance at every entrance to the SIDA area.
.................................
Dean, thanks for the honest answer. Honesty seems to be in short supply at TSA.
My question back to you, when you leave your home do you normally only lock the front door but not the rear?
What kind of security does that result in?
Your bosses seem to think that kind of ploicy results in real security.
Any 5 year old could tear a whole in that plan.
August 25, 2008 3:00 PM
A GA aircraft is one of the worst possible tools for terrorism. On the other hand, a U-Haul truck full of fertilizer is a great tool for terrorism. But guess which one the TSA has in its crosshairs?
You want TSA to screen U-Hauls? Do you not want TSA around or not? Your argument was sound (except for the aggressive shoe screenings). You damage your argument when you add mute conflict to a good point.
August 25, 2008 3:11 PM
Anonymous said... Now, I have to say one thing (not about the inspector, that was a huge screw up) but about that pilot who is suing us. He says he is on a watchlist because the company trying to fire him said so. Has it ever occurred to you that the company might, just might be stretching the truth to fire the guy? But of course, companies never lie, so it must be the big bad TSA at fault.
Its impossible to find out if your on a watchclist when you can't even confirm your on it. There was a post to an article in this thread and this quote sums it all up.
The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, "for both national security and personal privacy reasons," does not confirm or deny the existence of any name on the watch lists that it maintains.
August 25, 2008 3:43 PM
Your right, good job.
TSA is quite aware that it is international. All we do is check to see if the person is flying international, I would hardly call it harassing.
"Your agency needs to be disbanded, the leadership fired and barred from public service for life"
Wow, angry are we.
August 25, 2008 1:25 PM
...............................
Why is TSA checking anyones cash?
Checking for anything that is none of your business is harassment.
TSA is not responsible for an individuals filing of Customs documents either. Cash has nothing to do with the safety of an airplane.
Having over $10K is not illegal. Plain and simple. Get your noses out of my private business!
TSA cannot do its core job well according to GAO. How can you justify doing other things that do not support aviation safety?
August 25, 2008 5:14 PM
@anaoymous - and others who have asked -
When was TSA given the responsibility to regulate the amount of currency one can have in their possession?
One of your web pages state that it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 dollars.
Please reference the law that makes this act a crime.
Thank you.
Thanks to you and others who pointed out this mistake on our website. This was corrested on the homepage but unfortunately another version existed that wasn't corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
As some commenters have noted, it is not illegal to carry large amounts of currency domestically. It is illegal to carry over $10,000in US currency over the border without declaring it.
The photo with the money in the shoes was posted to show how shoes have been altered to put things in them - the passenger with the money found in his shoes was not arrested.
August 25, 2008 7:17 PM
Quick follow-up to my previous comment about TSA removing or re-writing their previously published information...
Here is a link to some screen-shots of some of the earlier TSA statements that no longer exist, some matching reportage from other sources, and an excellent picture of the front of one of the AE planes clearly showing the "handholds" the TSA TSI used to climb the fuselage (it also clearly shows an unlockable panel in the side of the plane just below those sensors, and the cabin door with it's lower edge and non-lockable red release handle easily within reach of a person on the ground)...
(Thanks for finally letting my comment through, even if it did take several days!)
Tom (1 of 5-6...)
August 25, 2008 8:35 PM
wow bloggers besides bob do exist!!! ...either that or the bigfoot guys had the wrong hoax.
Thank you Lynn for commenting on the softball off topic series of comments. Any word on that apology that AA deserves, or why this inspector was allowed to continue his job after the first incident of this type?
August 25, 2008 9:09 PM
Lynn said...
@anaoymous - and others who have asked -
When was TSA given the responsibility to regulate the amount of currency one can have in their possession?
One of your web pages state that it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 dollars.
Please reference the law that makes this act a crime.
Thank you.
Thanks to you and others who pointed out this mistake on our website. This was corrested on the homepage but unfortunately another version existed that wasn't corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
As some commenters have noted, it is not illegal to carry large amounts of currency domestically. It is illegal to carry over $10,000in US currency over the border without declaring it.
The photo with the money in the shoes was posted to show how shoes have been altered to put things in them - the passenger with the money found in his shoes was not arrested.
August 25, 2008 7:17 PM
..........................
Only part of the story.
Have TSO's been directed to refer anyone with large sums of money to anyone for additional questioning?
If so by what right does TSA have to interfere with a person who has done nothing to justify this referral?
This is time for some TSA truth! Ignoring the question or a false answer is not acceptable.
August 25, 2008 9:49 PM
Lynn of the EOS Blog Team wrote:
"Thanks to you and others who pointed out this mistake on our website. This was corrested on the homepage but unfortunately another version existed that wasn't corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
"As some commenters have noted, it is not illegal to carry large amounts of currency domestically. It is illegal to carry over $10,000in US currency over the border without declaring it."
Thanks, Lynn, for taking some action in an attempt to stop your colleagues from continuing to misinform their employers, the public.
You've said, in essence: "Oh, yeah, folks. Now that you mention it, we did indicate to you by way of our Web site (the one we repeatedly point to, both on our blog and at the airport, when you ask us what the rules are) that something that is completely legal for you to do while passing through our airport checkpoints (or anywhere else within the country) was in fact illegal. Oops -- sorry! Hope you didn't miss any flights over this! I sent a memo to our Web team to have them stop misinforming you real soon now." How do you expect us to feel about that? Does that seem like the actions of the government of the people, by the people, for the people, that you were taught to believe in?
Next time someone tells you that we don't trust what's on your Web site, you'll know why.
Lynn, where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
August 26, 2008 1:55 AM
Aviation security should never have left the jurisdiction of the FAA. Security is no more important than the other facets of aviation the FAA regulates (i.e. flight standards, airmen certification, aircraft maintenance, etc). At least the FAA has the sense and experience to prioritize the needs of the aviation sector (i.e. realizing it's not worth breaking aircraft to test security procedures); when you create a new bureaucracy such as the TSA, this becomes impossible.
August 26, 2008 2:40 AM
""There you go again, changing the subject when all else fails. Let me try, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you don't have to take your shoes in Europe. An answer other than this isn't Europe or because I said so."
___________________________________
Hows about, who cares!"
I care. If you knew what kinds of things fall on the floor of your local airport's TSA screening area, you'd care too. I certainly wouldn't be walking through that without my shoes by choice.
August 26, 2008 5:34 AM
This is getting frustrating beyond belief. Posts are being added way out of order, so that many "new" ones are buried before ones written later but posted earlier.
I think they do this as the next best thing to deleting some posts. They bury them in the "government archives" so they are as good as lost....
August 26, 2008 10:50 AM
Along with keeping us safe from terrorists who use sensitive airplane parts as stepstools and who aren't able to get into unlocked planes 100% of the time, I'm also glad to see you're keeping us safe from the terrible terrorist menace of underwire bras.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/25/BA2812HVK3.DTL&tsp=1
Way to go TSA!
August 26, 2008 12:44 PM
My Two Cents,
The TSI made mistakes.
American Eagle made mistakes.
TSA made mistakes.
This is a mess all the way around.
First off, this TSI should be fired. There is no excuse for the incompetence that was shown on his part by using the probe to gain access.
American Eagle failed to do what they were supposed to do in securing the aircraft. NO, the doors don't lock, but working for an airline, there are ways to secure a plane to prevent access from the ground. Is it full proof? No. Only oil company executive salaries are.
TSA failed to step up and admit that one of their people acted incorrectly and take the appropriate action. TSA then failed again by announcing the facts of this incident to the general public. This is a security issue that needs to be dealt with behind closed doors. Announcing that this has been an ongoing problem with American Eagle at O'hare was a mistake. This gives anyone with half a brain a target.
Remember people that TSA is still a child. It is only a couple of years old. It as an organization is going to make mistakes. But their job is to keep us safe. In this instance they endangered us on several fronts. I truely believe that as a whole the good that the TSA does far out weighs the mistakes they have made. And as with all companies there are going to be some bad eggs. I sure we all work with that one guy or gal that just doesn't get it.
I'm not a fan of big brother oversight but there are just too many scrambled eggs in this world that i'm thankful for anyone that looks out for my wellbeing.
my 2 cents
August 26, 2008 1:05 PM
@Anonymous: "TSA is quite aware that it is international. All we do is check to see if the person is flying international, I would hardly call it harassing."
It's harassment if it's not your job to enforce. Since when did TSA take on customs duties? I thought DHS had a customs department to handle stuff like this. Let THEM handle it.
The mission creep of TSA scares me. You guys are way out of control.
August 26, 2008 2:36 PM
The TSA Week at a Glance item that states, "16 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach" seems a bit misleading.
Would a sterile area breach not include anyone who did not pass through a WTMD or other direct search procedure?
How can TSA claim that the sterile area is sterile if you do not check all people and things (cargo)entering the operations area of the airport?
August 26, 2008 3:14 PM
The Blog has ground to a halt.
Is this censorship gone to an extreme or a shortage of moderators?
Inquiring minds want to know!
August 26, 2008 4:09 PM
Why is TSA checking anyones cash?
Checking for anything that is none of your business is harassment.
___________________________________
We are not checking for this. If we come across this then we are required to simply check. It is not our daily priority. Just like looking for drugs is not part of our job, but if we come across them we have to say something.
Thanks though for being so concerned!
August 26, 2008 4:56 PM
Hows about, who cares!"
I care. If you knew what kinds of things fall on the floor of your local airport's TSA screening area, you'd care too. I certainly wouldn't be walking through that without my shoes by choice
___________________________________
So the floors are gross. I have walked barefoot on them. Not a big deal.
Do you go to public pools?
August 26, 2008 4:59 PM
Here we go again...
Delayed by her bra, air passenger is indignant
August 26, 2008 8:21 PM
The photo with the money in the shoes was posted to show how shoes have been altered to put things in them - the passenger with the money found in his shoes was not arrested.
Right -- Now, tell us the passenger wasn't interrogated by the police, detained, and his name and other personal information recorded somewhere. Tell us his money wasn't confiscated and that he had to hire a lawyer to get a fraction of it back.
You people are pathetic.
August 26, 2008 8:59 PM
Hello TSA Blog Team,
I noticed you finally posted my comments that refer to the two deleted statements. The earliest comment was submitted on the evening of Thursday, August 21st. I submitted the comment two additional times. They have finally been posted today. Of course, they are now buried within the mountain of criticism.
I also noticed that you finally changed the link in your blog post from the "Chicago Aircraft Inspections" statement to the "Joint Statement by TSA and American Eagle." This is kind of dumb when you consider that the text of the blog post comes directly from the first "Chicago Aircraft Inspection" statement, a statement that has been removed from the News & Happenings page of the TSA's website.
Speaking of the News and Happenings page of the TSA website, I read your statement about the TSA using backscatter scanners on car using a North Carolina ferry. This reminded me of a question I asked as a comment to the "Calling All Lurkers" post.
The question was:
Another thing I'd like to know about is VIPR Teams. There are some comments on this blog like, "If you don't like it, go Greyhound." Yet, I read that the TSA sends agents in "TSA Inspector" windbreakers to Greyhound and Amtrak stations. Not only that, they are at stations for buses, ferries, and light rail routes that don't travel across state lines.
As far as I know, VIPR Teams haven't been where I live, so I haven't seen them first-hand. If they have, I'm sure it would have been posted in the News & Happenings section of the TSA's website.
My question is: What is the point of these teams? What do they do? They can't enforce the 3-1-1 rule or make people take off their shoes, like in airports. Is it just to saturate the line with a visible presence? Is it little more than a performance of security theater? Under what authority do they do whatever it is that they do (have a lawyer answer this if necessary)? Do they need to be invited by the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction of the transit system? Is it a condition of receiving federal funds?
I haven't traveled by air since the Summer of 2004, so I haven't seen the way things work at airports these days. However, these VIPR Teams on other forms of transportation are something I'm more likely to encounter. I would really like to know more about what they do, and what my rights are if I encounter a VIPR Team.
Perhaps you should dedicate a post or two to TSA programs outside of aviation. After what happened at O'Hare, I'm don't think I'd want a TSA inspector anywhere near my car.
August 26, 2008 10:19 PM
It is NOT ILLEGAL to carry $10,000 INTERNATIONALLY. If one does, they mearly have to file the proper paperwork.
August 27, 2008 12:19 AM
Your "Meet the Bloggers" page list 4 moderators yet it seems that TSA is unable (unwilling) to post updates, answer serious questions or keep the blog moving.
Could anyone at TSA explain why so little importance is given to the blog?
My opinion is that it's more of a "TSA Head in the Sand" approach to public relations.
Regardless of the reason it reinforces that TSA is incompetent and unable to do even simple things well.
August 27, 2008 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...
Why is TSA checking anyones cash?
Checking for anything that is none of your business is harassment.
___________________________________
We are not checking for this. If we come across this then we are required to simply check. It is not our daily priority. Just like looking for drugs is not part of our job, but if we come across them we have to say something.
Thanks though for being so concerned!
August 26, 2008 4:56 PM
...........................
Why do you have to say something if you come across someone with a large amount of cash? How do you determine it's a large enough amount to be concerned about? Do you count it? By what right? How does cash impact the safe conduct of a flight? What part of the law gives you authority to question or refer to a questioner someone about how much cash they have?
Is cash condidered an explosive, incendiary or a weapon by TSA?
August 27, 2008 3:25 PM
More puppies please!!!
August 27, 2008 4:30 PM
"So the floors are gross. I have walked barefoot on them. Not a big deal.
Do you go to public pools?"
If you are going to be rude to people, at least have the guts to post your name.
I too have walked barefoot on our floors, and that is why I clean the mats with alcohol when I can... and it's also why I have been asking to get booties at every checkpoint.
August 27, 2008 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...
The Blog has ground to a halt.
Is this censorship gone to an extreme or a shortage of moderators?
Inquiring minds want to know!
According to the "Meet the Bloggers" page, Mr. and Mrs. Blogger Bob are the proud parents of a brand new baby girl.
My guess is Blogger Bob is taking a few days to help around the house.
Unfortunately when ever Blogger Bob takes a day off this blog suffers.
To Blogger Bob and family:
Congratulations on your new addition, we will patiently wait for Blogger Bob’s return.
August 27, 2008 7:20 PM
If it's not too snarky, When are you going to close this blog?
August 27, 2008 10:34 PM
"Hows about, who cares!"
I care. If you knew what kinds of things fall on the floor of your local airport's TSA screening area, you'd care too. I certainly wouldn't be walking through that without my shoes by choice
___________________________________
So the floors are gross. I have walked barefoot on them. Not a big deal.
Do you go to public pools?"
Nope. Don't live near one. And if you think walking through that is "not a big deal"...
August 28, 2008 8:02 AM
Thanks for the update! That came handy
August 28, 2008 3:58 PM
I get a chuckle reading these posts sometimes. I never have a problem when I fly. There are regulations in place, I comply. If I don't like it, I should buy my own aircraft and crew.
It's amazing how our society is babied and wants everything handed to them on a silver platter. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I've seen too much whining on here.
Don't worry, I'm sure that nations that suppress their people and where genocide occurs, their problems pale in comparison to what we don't like about our government.
Keep up the good whining!
August 28, 2008 4:15 PM
Anonymous said "Whos job is it to make sure unauthorized personell do not make it onto the ramp? THE TSA's! " Actually it is a combination of efforts to control access to the "ramp" area. TSA does not control all of the access gates. Security within the ramp area usually falls on the local LEO, NOT TSA! TSA challenges personnel not wearing proper identification and doing things that they are not supposed to be doing and contacting - the local LEO! Wow, nice comment, it shows the total lack of understanding on the way the security systems operate at most of the airports. LEO or a contracted security company perform the patrolling of the ramp area, not the TSA.
August 29, 2008 2:33 PM
On 8/20/08, HSVTSO Dean wrote:
To my knowledge, there's not going to be any nationwide roll-out of these particular machines. If there is, I hadn't heard a whisper about it.
Update: That whisper came out on 8/28/08.
"As part of the 30-day Unpredictable Screening Process pilot, when a passenger approaches the walk-through metal detector an officer asks that person to press a button that is connected to a computer, which randomly selects the type of screening the individual receives. A monitor display shows the random selection to the passenger and officers. The screening, such as a pat-down or bag check, would be performed in addition to any required alarm resolution."
So, woo, ta-da. Yeah, there's a pilot program at Richmond looking at implementing these things. If it goes well, it'd probably go along the lines of the MMW and AT-XRay devices in terms of a nationwide roll-out. The devices have been around for awhile, but I've only heard of a couple of airports that utilized them. Seems TSA is wanting to make it a more across-the-board procedure.
Other tidbits from the Office of Public Affairs concerning this device:
"Besides engaging passengers, the pilot demonstrates that screening is random and not based on national origin or any other physical characteristics. By making the random selection process transparent to the average passenger, TSA can improve public understanding of unpredictable screening. Increasing unpredictability at the checkpoint makes it harder to devise ways to defeat our screening procedures."
"'Most passengers said that they no longer felt they were being picked on and like that the machine is making the decision,' said TSO Tracey Kessler."
August 29, 2008 4:37 PM
Is it possible that the pilot left the plane unsecured knowing that there was an inspection scheduled? It was scheduled, wasn't it? Because otherwise, sending surprise inspections by government agents whom no one knows or dares question, well that is just creating an opportunity for a terrorist. Someone undoubtedly noticed the agent dangling from his TAT probe, and would have stopped them had they not been a TSI.
August 29, 2008 4:42 PM
How typical of the TSA...an ignorant TSA employee damages multiple planes and put hundreds of passengers at risk. Blame it on the airline because sensors that are PART OF TH E AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE enable the ignorant TSA employee to pull him/herself into the plane. Ridiculous. My tax dollars at work.
Maybe you should put chain link fences around every aircraft at every airport.
August 30, 2008 3:20 PM
HSVTSO Dean writes, quoting from the Office of Public Affairs:
"Besides engaging passengers, the pilot demonstrates that screening is random and not based on national origin or any other physical characteristics. By making the random selection process transparent to the average passenger, TSA can improve public understanding of unpredictable screening."
Actually, I'd argue that with the machine, the random process is actually far better. There's plenty of evidence that humans simply don't understand randomness very well at all, much less perform randomly. (This is why casinos make money; they understand randomness better than most of their clients.)
September 2, 2008 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...
"There you go again, changing the subject when all else fails. Let me try, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you don't have to take your shoes in Europe. An answer other than this isn't Europe or because I said so."
___________________________________
Hows about, who cares!
August 25, 2008 1:29 PM
How about answering the question? I'm sure a lot of people who fly would like to leave their shoes on. So why is it different in Europe, don't they have real problems with terrorism.
September 2, 2008 4:15 PM
I get a chuckle reading these posts sometimes. I never have a problem when I fly. There are regulations in place, I comply. If I don't like it, I should buy my own aircraft and crew.
It's amazing how our society is babied and wants everything handed to them on a silver platter. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I've seen too much whining on here.
Don't worry, I'm sure that nations that suppress their people and where genocide occurs, their problems pale in comparison to what we don't like about our government.
Keep up the good whining!
The reason that America does not face the problems of some of the countries you are thinking of is because we can voice our opinions (whine). We live in a country where if I want to stand out on the street that says The (insert politicians name or government agency) is a moron. Without the fear of being taken away by the police never to be seen again. We have the right to criticize our government and hold them accountable, something that can’t be done in other countries. You see it as whining, I see it as freedom of speech.
September 2, 2008 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Lynn said...
@anaoymous - and others who have asked -
When was TSA given the responsibility to regulate the amount of currency one can have in their possession?
One of your web pages state that it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 dollars.
Please reference the law that makes this act a crime.
Thank you.
Thanks to you and others who pointed out this mistake on our website. This was corrested on the homepage but unfortunately another version existed that wasn't corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
As some commenters have noted, it is not illegal to carry large amounts of currency domestically. It is illegal to carry over $10,000in US currency over the border without declaring it.
The photo with the money in the shoes was posted to show how shoes have been altered to put things in them - the passenger with the money found in his shoes was not arrested.
August 25, 2008 7:17 PM
..........................
Only part of the story.
Have TSO's been directed to refer anyone with large sums of money to anyone for additional questioning?
If so by what right does TSA have to interfere with a person who has done nothing to justify this referral?
This is time for some TSA truth! Ignoring the question or a false answer is not acceptable.
September 2, 2008 4:51 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "I get a chuckle reading these posts sometimes. I never have a problem when I fly. There are regulations in place, I comply. If I don't like it, I should buy my own aircraft and crew.
It's amazing how our society is babied and wants everything handed to them on a silver platter. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I've seen too much whining on here.
Don't worry, I'm sure that nations that suppress their people and where genocide occurs, their problems pale in comparison to what we don't like about our government.
Keep up the good whining!"
I always get a chuckle out of these posts. I mean, just because we don't have those problems in our own country means that we should ignore problems in our own simply because they're not "big" like those? That argument is intellectually bankrupt as it advocates only dealing with large problems and thinking small ones deserve no attention.
Whether the problems TSA causes are large or small is certainly debatable.
I mean really, many on here gave good reasons over the months for why things should be different. That's not whining. I hear enough whining from my 3 year old to know what whining is. That isn't it.
Your post is just as whiny as those who you're criticizing ... only you're whining about them whining. At least you are by your definition anyway.
If you support the rules, say why. Otherwise you're no better than the ones you're criticizing.
Robert
September 2, 2008 5:01 PM
And what happens, Dean, if you don't want to participate in the games and push the button? A retaliatory secondary?
September 2, 2008 6:51 PM
My buddy and pal Dean said...
"As part of the 30-day Unpredictable Screening Process pilot, when a passenger approaches the walk-through metal detector an officer asks that person to press a button that is connected to a computer, which randomly selects the type of screening the individual receives. A monitor display shows the random selection to the passenger and officers. The screening, such as a pat-down or bag check, would be performed in addition to any required alarm resolution."
I can see real possibilities with this, heck you could even theme it for the area.
Think about it in LA you could have a Plinko game or a Wheel of Fortune, in Vegas you could have a One-Armed Bandit. Pull the lever and see if you get all cherries.
I do wonder how much trouble you would get in if you started jumping up and down hollering "I won!.. I won!"
Wonder how many strap machines to secure the luggage the TSA could buy instead of the Russian Roulette machines?
I would pay a $100 dollars just to sit in on one of these brain storming sessions. WOW
September 3, 2008 1:44 AM
Sandra wrote:
And what happens, Dean, if you don't want to participate in the games and push the button? A retaliatory secondary?
Don't know. I'm not stationed in RIC to get the specialized training regarding the procedures for use with the unpredictable screening machine. If TSA decides to roll these out on a nationwide level, and if it's not SSI to say so, I'd be more than happy to let you know, though.
Presumably, and this is entirely and utterly speculation, refusal to push the button probably does involve secondary screening of some kind.
The Killer of Trolls, who has been kind of scarce lately, wrote:
I do wonder how much trouble you would get in if you started jumping up and down hollering "I won!.. I won!"
People do that now, TK :D We usually just chuckle and move on with life; it helps break the monotony of doing the same thing over and over every day all the time for years on end.
September 3, 2008 11:21 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"I never have a problem when I fly. There are regulations in place, [and] I comply [with them]."
Sir or madam, have you seen those regulations? If you have not seen them, how do you know that you are in compliance with them?
"If I don't like [the regulations that are in place], I should buy my own aircraft and crew."
I think you misunderstand the problem. We're not discussing the policies of airlines -- those in which we voluntarily participate -- but the policy of our government. Getting your own aircraft and crew will not change the situation.
When I am walking through an airport on the way to the gate where I need to be in order to be transported by the private entity with which I have contracted to transport me, and I am stopped by U.S. Government agents at their checkpoint, I have no legal option but to comply with those agents' rules and regulations. (Yes, of course I could simply turn away, but we could say the same of almost all rules and regulations -- stay at home in bed and we won't have to deal with them.)
However, TSA seems unwilling to show me the rules and regulations with which they require me to comply. They offer tips and hints about how to avoid having my right to travel restricted, then expect me to show up at the airport and throw myself at the mercy of some security guard, hoping that he or she knows the rules and will help me comply with them. I have no way of knowing whether that guard is knowledgeable of my rights and his agency's rules, and in fact, I have relatively good reason to suspect that he or she does not.
Where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply specifically at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
September 3, 2008 11:32 AM
Lynn of the EOS blog team wrote:
"The photo with the money in the shoes was posted to show how shoes have been altered to put things in them - the passenger with the money found in his shoes was not arrested."
Chris Boyce quoted Lynn then wrote:
"Now, tell us the passenger wasn't interrogated by the police, detained, and his name and other personal information recorded somewhere. Tell us his money wasn't confiscated and that he had to hire a lawyer to get a fraction of it back."
Lynn, can you tell us what happened to this person?
September 3, 2008 11:39 AM
HSVTSO Dean quoted information from the Office of Public Affairs about a "press the button to find out what kind of search we'll perform" program.
Sandra wrote:
"And what happens, Dean, if you don't want to participate in the games and push the button? A retaliatory secondary?"
HSVTSO Dean quoted Sandra then wrote:
"Don't know. I'm not stationed in RIC to get the specialized training regarding the procedures for use with the unpredictable screening machine. If TSA decides to roll these out on a nationwide level, and if it's not SSI to say so, I'd be more than happy to let you know, though.
"Presumably, and this is entirely and utterly speculation, refusal to push the button probably does involve secondary screening of some kind."
Dean, Sandra, and anyone else who might have an idea: Where do you suppose I can find a written description of what is required of me -- button-pressing and all -- when I'm passing through that checkpoint? Under other conditions, I'm not required by any law to push a button simply because it's there in front of me and someone in a security guard uniform tells me to press the button.
Where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply specifically at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
Not tips, guidelines, press releases, super-secret operating procedures, etc., just the rules I'm required to follow in order to avoid having my freedom of movement restricted by government agents at their airport checkpoint.
September 3, 2008 12:14 PM
Another anonymous person wrote:
"The reason that America does not face the problems of some of the countries you are thinking of is because we can voice our opinions (whine). The (insert politicians name or government agency) is a moron. Without the fear of being taken away by the police..."
Tell that to the people who have been illegally detained while protesting at the RNC.
September 3, 2008 12:34 PM
I assume that the airline will be entitled to "levy a civil penalty" on TSA in response to this damaging of sensitive airplane equipment?
September 3, 2008 1:09 PM
Your Unpredictable Screening Program machine could be replaced with a cheap set of dice. It looks like yet another example of some company selling TSA an expensive solution to a non-problem.
I've got a line of super-dooper 20-sided dice that identify 70% of terrorists if used properly. Who do I contact at TSA to get myself a fat government contract?
September 4, 2008 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...
Lynn said...
@anaoymous - and others who have asked -
When was TSA given the responsibility to regulate the amount of currency one can have in their possession?
One of your web pages state that it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 dollars.
Please reference the law that makes this act a crime.
Thank you.
Thanks to you and others who pointed out this mistake on our website. This was corrested on the homepage but unfortunately another version existed that wasn't corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
As some commenters have noted, it is not illegal to carry large amounts of currency domestically. It is illegal to carry over $10,000in US currency over the border without declaring it.
The photo with the money in the shoes was posted to show how shoes have been altered to put things in them - the passenger with the money found in his shoes was not arrested.
August 25, 2008 7:17 PM
..........................
Only part of the story.
Have TSO's been directed to refer anyone with large sums of money to anyone for additional questioning?
If so by what right does TSA have to interfere with a person who has done nothing to justify this referral?
This is time for some TSA truth! Ignoring the question or a false answer is not acceptable.
September 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Your Unpredictable Screening Program machine could be replaced with a cheap set of dice. It looks like yet another example of some company selling TSA an expensive solution to a non-problem.
Actually, I don't agree.
Suppose we replace these machines with d20s (20-sided dies, for those of you not in the gaming world). So, I approach a checkpoint, the TSO on duty rolls the d20, it comes up 15, and the TSO says "Sorry, you've been selected for secondary screening." How do I know that I wasn't selected for a retaliatory screening? Was 15 the number selected for today, or did it matter at all what number I rolled? (After all, I wasn't watching the TSO agent all day to confirm that 15 was the number being used for selectees.)
If I use a d20 to choose selectees, I'm going to select selectees in multiples of 5%. What if the best evidence out there suggests that I ought to be selecting 8% of passengers at random? I can't do that easily with a d20.
What happens when the agent rolls a d20 on their table, and it falls on the floor, but comes up 15. Does the 15 count, or should it be re-rolled?
What happens with the TSO rolls a d20 on the table, and it ends up resting against a cabinet, halfway between 15 and 16. Re-roll, or 15, or 16?
What happens when the TSO rolls a d20 on the table, and it comes up 15, but the passenger bumps the table afterwards and the die rolls over to a 16. Which value counts?
What happens when the TSO rolls a 16, but the agent bumps the table and it comes up 15? Is the TSO guilty of trying to create a retaliatory screening by bumping the table in order to turn the 16 into a 15?
Rolling dice ain't nearly as simple as it seems. That's why Vegas makes money on craps tables.
The magic machine has a simple interface; press the button, see the result. And the result is pretty obviously not under the control of the TSO running the machine, so accusations of retaliatory screenings can drop.
Many here have noted that something being secure and something looking secure are independent. Mainly, we talk about this because of "security theater": things that look secure but really aren't. It's also possible to have processes that look insecure but really are secure. There's nothing wrong with trying to create processes that both are secure and look secure, in order to (appropriately) increase confidence in secure systems.
September 4, 2008 4:59 PM
Sandra said
Another anonymous person wrote:
"The reason that America does not face the problems of some of the countries you are thinking of is because we can voice our opinions (whine). The (insert politicians name or government agency) is a moron. Without the fear of being taken away by the police..."
Tell that to the people who have been illegally detained while protesting at the RNC.
I'm sorry, but I saw the news footage. People breaking windows of private property and the windows of police cars are definately breaking the law. How do you figure thats illegally detained?
September 5, 2008 12:53 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home «Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»