Today, TSA Pre✓™ starts operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA) and Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) airports. In addition, we have partnered with the Department of Defense to allow active duty service members in the U.S. Armed Forces to be eligible to receive the same expedited screening benefits when flying out of DCA. 
*Please note: Participants must be U.S. Citizens traveling on domestic flights only.
Since the start of TSA Pre✓™ in October of last year, more than 540,000 passengers have taken part in the expedited screening program. The TSA Pre✓™ program boosts aviation security by helping us to focus on passengers the agency knows less about and those who are considered high-risk, while providing expedited screening for travelers who volunteer information about themselves prior to flying. Basically, it allows us to shift away from a one-size-fits all approach and lead us in the direction of intelligence driven, risk-based, security measures.
We recognize active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces pose very little risk to aviation security and that is why our partnership the Department of Defense is a win-win solution. This further streamlines screening for active duty service members. At DCA, active duty service members and active drilling reservists members can present their Common Access Card (CAC) to a TSA Officer in front of the TSA Pre✓™ lane, where it will be scanned to see if they qualify for expedited screening. Eligible service members do not need to be in uniform to be considered for TSA Pre✓™ benefits. It is just that simple!
TSA Pre✓™ screening benefits include being able to leave on your shoes, lightweight jackets, and allows you to keep your laptop in its case AND 3-1-1 compliant liquids/gels bag in a carry-on.
Read more about TSA Pre✓™ to get information on how you can become eligible and what airports and airlines are participating.
Martha
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
31 comments:
I have a Global Entry membership. Am I able to go through Terminal 3, Checkpoint 8 in O'Hare using a United Airlines boarding pass? Would I be able to go through with that boarding pass and my Global Entry Trusted Traveler Pass ID Identification Card?
thanks!
It all comes down to the fact that we as Americans will have to PAY if we don't want to be harassed at the airports.
Hmm....in other circumstances, this would be considered a shake down and be illegal.
Martha? Who is Martha? Is Martha really the name of a TSA automated blogging program? Government speak 3.0. Did Bob finally get canned?
Go to the meet the bloggers section. Martha is one of the blog staff that normally does the behind the scenes stuff. It only took my a second to look that up.
Not convinced that Pre-Check adds any value to security, especially in light of a military member having a live 40mm grenade and another military member who traveled with over two pounds of C4 plastic explosives, that TSA missed during screening at one airport.
Why not have reasonable screening for everyone instead of the excessive process people are being abused with today by TSA?
Lets see, TSA only screens some people fully and others get less screening, not a security model based on any kind of intelligence.
Why isn't everyone screened in this fashion? Shoes, liquids, and jackets are no threat to anyone. You people are strange and disturbed.
Shoes and liquids are no threat? Since when? Last time I checked both were ways that could have exploded on planes. Strange you forgot that.
Aren't many of the finds TSA brags about on this blog each Friday, like the live and dummy grenade, actually prohibited items carried by active duty military? Why are people who have been trained in military tactics, strategy, operations, and weapons considered less of a threat than the general population?
"Why are people who have been trained in military tactics, strategy, operations, and weapons considered less of a threat than the general population?"
Because TSA is run by stupid people.
It seems every week service members get nabbed for carrying contraband. Service members make headlines everyday for issues due to stress of endless war.
But, it's ok for them to present a CAC card to breeze through what passes as security while US senators get harassed.
Anyone feel safe with that?
Anonymous said...
Shoes and liquids are no threat? Since when? Last time I checked both were ways that could have exploded on planes. Strange you forgot that.
----
Key words: could have.
Did they? No. They failed horribly. Anything and everything is something that "could" explode. This is exactly why concentrating on keeping things off planes and not people off planes is flawed.
Anonymous said...
Shoes and liquids are no threat? Since when? Last time I checked both were ways that could have exploded on planes. Strange you forgot that.
March 21, 2012 11:29 AM
-----------------------------
The shoe bomb failed miserably. Now senior citizen, children, and the precheck people can keep their shoes on. I'm not sure why my shoes are more dangerous than those groups of people.
Was the liquid plot even viable? I heard the people involved didn't have plane tickets. Also, I've read that the liquid explosives are either so unstable that they wouldn't make it to the airport, or they require lengthy prep times in lab conditions that wouldn't be available on a plane or in an airport.
The biggest joke about the liquid ban is what happens when somebody tries to bring liquids through security. The offending liquid is simply thrown in a trash can next to the checkpoint. If it's potentially dangerous, then why is it simply thrown away? Also, why is four 3 oz containers ok, but not one 12 oz container? It's the same amount of liquid.
I love the bit about how unrisky active-duty members of the military may be.
Of course, I am, personally, a ZERO RISK to airline safety, as are millions of people who are scanned, frisked, groped and searched every day. Repeatedly.
And this is the thing. I resent being considered a risk to airline safety; I am no such thing. And I certainly resent being TREATED as a risk to airline safety. Oh, I know--the answer is to just shut your yap, acquiesce with a smile to the searches and groping, and comply, comply, comply. All with a smile, or else you will be designated by TSA as having a 'bad attitude'.
Well, I may have a bad attitude every time I walk into an airport
"Shoes and liquids are no threat? Since when?"
Since always. There was one botched and easily thwarted attempt to put explosives in shoes, on a flight that originated outside the US, over a DECADE ago. For half that time, TSA did not require all passengers to remove their shoes and all was well. For that entire time, no other nation has implemented a TSA-style shoe carnival and no planes have fallen from the sky as a result.
As for liquids, the so-called "liquid explosive" plot was purely aspirational; the plotters possessed no liquid explosives and TSA has yet to produce any independent, peer-reviewed research to support the idea that one could bring down a plane with liquids one can carry onto an airplane.
And, note that TSA will not actually be screening shoes and liquids of those elected to participate in its special treatment program.
Okay, so while TSA keeps posting firearms found at checkpoints, and has finally admitted that nearly all of those firearms were carried by passengers with no ill intent but simply forgot the firearm was in their bag, then why would they expidite screening for military personnel with no ill intent but have proven to make the very same "forgot" mistake except that instead of firearms turning up in their bags, high explosive rounds and demolition are turning up?
The TSA is completely out of whack with acheiving it's goal of air safety. It is completely security theater created to make us only FEEL safe. However, after years of dealing with their goat rodeos, Americans have finally seen the OZ behind the curtain and that theater no longer works to convince us. Disband the TSA now!!
I wonder...... Once active duty personnel are given expedited screening, will the TSA blog intentionally stop posting all the explosives found on service personnel while contining to post every firearm and reptile found on civilians each week? And if they don't post those explosives because it was never found, you can bet the real reason is because every one of those explosives made it onto flights by service personnel who had no ill intent but simply forgot.
Anonymous said...
"Shoes and liquids are no threat? Since when? Last time I checked both were ways that could have exploded on planes. Strange you forgot that."
And of course it's assumed that there is no other possible place to put an explosive other than in a shoe.
It's also assumed that the xray machine can also tell the difference between an explosive material and a plastic shoe sole.
Good luck with that.
"As for liquids, the so-called "liquid explosive" plot was purely aspirational; the plotters possessed no liquid explosives and TSA has yet to produce any independent, peer-reviewed research to support the idea that one could bring down a plane with liquids one can carry onto an airplane"
Totally accurate. I, for one, am shocked that the TSA allows very large quantities of a liquid explosive that HAS been used in IEDs, namely kerosene. As astute readers may know, kerosene is a major ingredient in "fertilizer" bombs such as the one used to attack the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, yet aircraft parked RIGHT NEXT TO THE STERILE AREA frequently have thousands of pounds of kerosene on board. How can the TSA allow this outrage?
Philippine Air flight 434 involved not only liquid explosives, but bomb material hidden in shoes! It killed a man and by sheer coincidence of seating rearrangement it didn't blow the entire fuel tank and kill 293 people.
Whomever it was that said liquids and/or shoes were never a threat I just proved you wrong.
I believe everyone agrees the underwear, shoe, and liquid bombers were idiots, but that does not mean someone smart could not repeat successful attacks using liquids and hidden bomb making material (such as in shoes or watches or belts) and bring down a plane like what almost (should have but for luck) brought down Philipines 434.
I know it happened in the past and I am glad the TSA has measures in place now to prevent it again.
Jeff said...
"I believe everyone agrees the underwear, shoe, and liquid bombers were idiots, but that does not mean someone smart could not repeat successful attacks using liquids and hidden bomb making material (such as in shoes or watches or belts) and bring down a plane like what almost (should have but for luck) brought down Philipines 434."
Someone smart will find new ways to get stuff past security, they won't copy what someone else already did.
"I know it happened in the past and I am glad the TSA has measures in place now to prevent it again."
Don't bet on it. If someone wants it enough they will get past the TSA. The TSA does not, and can never, stop everything.
Jeff said...
Philippine Air flight 434 involved not only liquid explosives, but bomb material hidden in shoes! It killed a man and by sheer coincidence of seating rearrangement it didn't blow the entire fuel tank and kill 293 people.
.................
Documentation please.
Also, what screening was in place for that flight at its origination.
Why are some people given priority to access TSA Security?
Why does TSA allow this practice?
Flight 434 was over 10 years before the liquid ban went into effect. Why were we able to carry liquids through security for so long after that? Here are the questions that I've never seen the TSA answer:
What is stopping a gorup of terrorists from combining their liquids after security?
I can get about six 3.4 oz containers (20.4 oz total) in a quart bag. Why can't I carry one 20 oz bottle of water or 12 oz soda instead? I'll even put it in a quart bag.
If these liquids are so dangerous, why are they simply thrown in a garbage can next to the checkpoint?
Jeff said...
Philippine Air flight 434
...
Whomever it was that said liquids and/or shoes were never a threat I just proved you wrong.
It also took place in 1994, well before the TSA.
It also involved the man changing seats several times, which would certainly be noted as suspicious these days.
It also involved "liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid", which would sail right past the TSA, as long as it was in 3.4 oz bottles. (As a rough comparison, 3.4oz of nitro = 3 sticks of dynamite.) Heck, being a 'medical liquid', the 3.4oz rule doesn't even apply to it.
So, to sum up, the TSA wouldn't have stopped the plot you refer to anyway.
The very first comment is an honest question from a member of the public.
The TSA has ignored this person's question.
Proving, once again, the TSA simply doesn't care.
Please provide scientific evidence that military members pose less of a risk than the general population. Examples of evidence may include lower rates of violent mental illness or post-traumatic stress.
Thats nice that you are giving it to DOD CAC holders. I'm a federal civilian and have the exact same card (HSPD-12 compliant PIV), infact so do the TSOs.
If my credential is accepted by the whitehouse, why isn't it accepted at the airport?
"We recognize active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces pose very little risk to aviation security and that is why our partnership the Department of Defense is a win-win solution."
-------------------------------------------
You know who else poses very little risk to aviation security? Me.
But seriously, what leads you to this conclusion?
About Charlie's question, he's Global Entry and wants to know if he can go through TSA Pre with a United boarding pass. Answer: No. You have to fly American Airlines in Chicago. This could change but that's the way it is for now. Similarly, you have to fly Delta at Washington National, not the other airlines.
Again, the purpose of reporting what TSA finds is to let people know they will be caught if they try to bring something dangerous on a plane. No the members of the armed forces who got caught doing so were not a threat. Most people caught with guns aren't a threat. Thats why they are no arrested. TSA is letting the actual threats know they will get caught.
Thats why its ok to let service people, as well as those who have already passed a background check go through a shorter screening process.
Perhaps a blog entry discussing why people have to prove they are not a threat at all would lead to a healthy discussion.
Fishstick said...
"Thats why its ok to let service people, as well as those who have already passed a background check go through a shorter screening process."
Have you been reading the news lately at all?
Does the name Staff Sgt. Robert Bales sound familiar? Being in the service does not guarantee that someone is not a threat.
Actually, I find it an interesting coincidence that the TSA would announce this policy just as a huge news story about a soldier killing innocent people hit. Shows once again how TSA policies have no basis in reality.
To make the public places especially airports more safe it is ensure that only highly trained and well related staff is required to handle any terrible and sudden situation with extra advance utilities and security systems.So in case of selection it is a perfect strategy that right man for right option who is able to cover the circumstances safely.
Post a Comment