TSA is enhancing its ability to test powder at checkpoints across the nation. We haven’t received any specific threats that led us to this new procedure but certain types of powders can be used in improvised explosive devices (IED) so it just makes sense.Q: How will you test my powder?
A: Our officers will be using explosives detection tools including X-ray machines and mobile test kits.
Q: How much powder can I bring?
A: As much as you like as long as it’s not one of the prohibited powders such as black powder or other hazmat.
Q: Is this new procedure going to slow down the screening process?
A: No. Based on the frequency of the inspections during the pilot phase, you stand a very small chance of having your powder inspected. However, some items will alarm which TSA may not be able to clear.
Q: What should passengers do if they are carrying powders?
A: Nothing different. Just be aware that some powders may require further screening. The majority of most commonly carried powders such as baby formula and makeup are unlikely to require any additional screening.
Q: Will my powdered baby formula need to be inspected?
A: Probably not. During the pilot phase, we found that powdered baby formula did not cause any problems, but there is always the chance that it could happen.
Q: Is this new?
A: No. We’ve been looking at various ways to screen powders since late 2008 at several airports: LAX, JFK, DCA, DTW. Also, we’ve been screening powders all along, but now we have a new tool we can use when we need to take a closer look.
Q: Does this timing of this have anything to do with 9-11?
A: No. We’re starting this procedure now because the kits we tested in 2008 are ready to be deployed nationally. What we’ve learned from 9-11 and the UK liquids plot is that those who wish to do us harm are looking to use items that aren’t prohibited, and in the case of August 2006, items that seem harmless, to do damage to planes. This kit allows powders to come through checkpoints without inconveniencing the vast majority of passengers.
Q: Is this an effort to find narcotics?
A: No.
Q: What types of powders can be used as explosives?
A: Certain types of explosives, mixtures of fuels and oxidizers, can come in a powdered form and could be used as components of an improvised explosive device.
Q: Will TSA require passengers to open urns with human remains to test the contents?
A: No. We have procedures in place to screen urns in a very respectful manner without opening them. But there might be a need for an officer to swab the exterior of the urn and run a test using this same kit.
Q: What will officers do if they find a threatening powder?
A: They will follow the same procedures that are in place now. Bomb Appraisal Officers will be summoned to the checkpoint, and possibly law enforcement officers if necessary.
Key Takeaways:
On the lighter side of things…
Q: Am I allowed to powder my nose?
A: Yes.
Q: Can I wear a powdered wig through the checkpoint?
A: Only if you’re a barrister or a member of the UK Parliament.
Q: Have you seen the movie “Powder?”
A: Yes and it really creeped me out.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
84 comments:
So is this your way for skirting the ruling in Fofana so you can continue to look for drugs?
Al
Anonymous said...
"So is this your way for skirting the ruling in Fofana so you can continue to look for drugs?
Al"
Nope, the test does not look for drugs, and wouldn't even determine a substance was a drug if it were conducted on such a substance.
I can see the headline:
TSA takes a Powder.
the mobile kits we have do not have the capability to detect drugs or narcotics. they detect explosive materials
Mind boggling beyond belief.
However, it does explain why gate checks have been increasing: the screeners at checkpoints are not capable of looking for all the threats that the TSA believes exist, so they have to institute gate checks.
A tacit admission of failure.
Q: Will this new policy be in writing and available to passengers so we can be sure a TSO is following the proper procedure?
A: All of our policies and procedures are SSI so TSO's not fully aware of the policy can invent rules to cover their ineptness.
Bob, lets remember what happened with the "shoes on the belt" policy. Because the policy was not explained properly we still have TSO's who think that having your shoes on the belt instead of the bin is mandatory, not suggested.
So since cocaine, while illegal, is not a dangerous (to the plane) powder you won't be confiscating it if I transit the checkpoint with it? :-)
Not looking drugs in powders. I'm sorry but I don't trust or believe you tsa( and there is a long list of incidents) you have a habit of violating the limits of a administrative search and the 4th amendment based on what you were chartered to do, not the violations/ mission creep you keep doing ad neasuem.
I agree with the first post this a way to skirt fofana, which is nothing new because tsa has obeyed a court decision agianst it yet.
Thanks for the post Bob. I'm glad I can still powder my nose. :)
Bob et al,
This post raised one HUGE question in my mind:
When will (or why won't) the TSA implement the exact same policy for LIQUIDS?
Are there really more people who'd want to bring powders on planes than liquids, to make this policy a priority over dealing with the liquids ban?
This policy on powders seems sensible. But I personally don't really care as it will likely never affect me, nor many others. If you had the exact same policy with regard to liquids, it would positively affect nearly every traveler.
When TSA blocks all people who want to travel by air will be the day that TSA can say they are successful in preventing any possible air piracy event.
It does seem that TSA's goal is to put the airlines out of business.
Anon Sept 8, 9:16PM said:
"When will (or why won't) the TSA implement the exact same policy for LIQUIDS?"
These kits will only be used on certain powders that have certain characteristics on the xray screen, not every powder.
TSA is currently deploying Advanced Technology xray systems that will be able to detect dangerous liquids. Until then there is no easy way to tell the difference between threat and non-threat liquids so the restrictions must stay in place.
In short, the number of powders that come through the checkpoint that would need testing are very small compared to the number of liquids that would need testing.
Hope this helps!
Anon: "Nope, the test does not look for drugs, and wouldn't even determine a substance was a drug if it were conducted on such a substance."
I didn't say that the test would determine that it's a drug. What I was getting at was that TSA will now be searching for powders, perhaps concealed. You know, like in the contraband that was found in Fofana that wasn't a WEI? TSA couldn't search for powders unless it was in plain sight, hence putting powders in things like envelopes would have exempted it from the search.
TSA now declares powders something that should be investigated for explosives and now has a carte blanche to look at all powders and go looking for them wherever they may be. Well, if one of them happens to not look right despite not testing, can you tell me with a straight face that it WON'T be referred to an LEO?
TSA finds drugs, it makes a Big Catch® and jutsifies the program as a success even if no powdered explosives are found.
Yet TSA will still be looking for
terrorists ...
BTW - first post was mine but I misclicked and didn't get to type my name in before submitting.
Al
"When will (or why won't) the TSA implement the exact same policy for LIQUIDS?"
TSA has invested far too much time, effort, and money into its fraudulent claims that liquids pose some sort of a special threat to aviation to back off and implement a sensible screening procedure now. Ironic, since the liquids nonsense is the precise moment at which the entirety of the traveling public realized that TSA is a pathetic joke worthy only of scorn and ridicule.
"During the pilot phase, we found that powdered baby formula did not cause any problems"
Wow. Brilliant. Baby formula is not dangerous to commercial aviation!!
Since powdered coffee creamer can burn, will that be banned?
Since flour can burn explosively, will that be banned?
Since corn dust can burn, will that be banned?
If I compress my powder into a solid cake or block, will that be allowed?
Can you tip us off to some "allowed" powders that might cause a search? I'd like to avoid your silliness, and if leaving my legal powder at home saves me from dealing with you I'd do it.
Oh great.
All over America, your screeners are inconsistent about the liquid rules. Is it 3 or 3.4 ounces? (Yes, I know you said it's 3.4 but your website, all your signs and too many of your screeners say 3.0). Are medical liquids allowed in sizes larger than 3.4 ounces? Some of your screeners say no. Are gel-packs allowed for breast milk? At least one airport said no. And so on.
Now you introduce a war on powders. Why should we expect that your inconsistent, poorly trained workforce will be any better with powders than with liquids? (Yeah, I know: you say they'll all be trained. But that's what you said about liquids.) By the end of the month, I have no doubt there will be reports of screeners barking "all powders must be removed from the bag", of screeners requiring powders in a freedom baggie, of medical powders and baby food which "probably" won't require testing being tested (and contaminated) anyway, of screeners confiscating powders in containers larger than 3.4 ounces and more.
And as usual, when these are reported, you and your colleagues will just say, "Oh well, that wasn't supposed to happen" and go on as before.
Big thumbs down on this one.
I am just curious as to why so many posts/persons here are SO offended or upset that TSA might catch them doing something illegal as in possibly transporting an illegal drug? I understand that TSA is NOT the DEA, but they are a human beings with a right to report something illegal right??? Or is the right/privledge taken from them when the put the blue uniform with the badge on?? Just curious....
"since the liquids nonsense is the precise moment at which the entirety of the traveling public realized that TSA is a pathetic joke worthy only of scorn and ridicule."
You do realize that the liquid explosive "plot" was going to have the bombers originate from Heathrow. Which would have meant NO TSA INVOLVEMENT. (Hint: TSA is in the US, not UK)
For those who are now worried that TSA may take their cocaine, there is a very easy explanation for it. Just like a TSO finding drugs during a pat-down: if you have it on you, you are going to be talking to the LEOs. If a TSO goes into a bag and discovers drugs, they are obligated to make notifications. If you don't want TSA to take your drugs, don't bring illegal materials into a federal checkpoint. If you are that stupid, you have probably done enough drugs, and consider TSA's involvement your intervention.
----
Because 99.8% of the public is ignorant to what type of threats exist, let me break it down.
Explosives can come in practically any form. Plastic explosives, liquid explosives, powder based explosive materials, crystalline powders, gelatinized explosives, etc.
Can TSA stop every type of explosive material out there? No. Not even the biggest team of the world's best explosive detection canines and scientists could find every explosive material.
----
As far as weapons are concerned, just because TSA doesn't mail every finding to USA Today doesn't mean they do not average 2-4 guns found at checkpoints everyday. Not to mention knives, brass knuckles, stun guns, razor blades, etc.
----
Please realize, our nations intelligence community is working more and more at being 1 team, in 1 fight. That way, nothing is missed, and proper information is dissemenated to all agencies. Sometimes, you have to change policy to correlate to changes in this arena we call "security".
I assume most of the posters here are McDonald's employees (former or present), so let me put it into an analogy that relates to burgers and fries. You have been ordering hamburger buns from one baker for 5 years. Then, you hear some information from your buddies at Burger King that the baker you buy from has been doing lazy business and is not providing the same quality product he did 5 years ago. So, you change the way you do business and you buy from somebody else. You essentially change tactics, to ensure the customer gets the best product possible.
That is how business works, and it applies to all sectors of every industry.
If you don't like TSA, stay out of the airport. I heard Greyhound has some awesome deals. Nice long bus ride to sit and read Alex Jones or Scott Schneier blogs.
-J
Of course, one should note that all powders are potentially explosive.
See: Dust Explosion (Wikipedia)
So,
Liquids can be explosives. The TSA decides to limit all liquids in a complicated set of incomprehensible rules.
Solids can be explosives. The TSA does not limit solids.
Powders (also solids, but I digress) ca be explosives. The TSA decides to occasionally, unpredictably, test them.
Why such differences for the different states of matter?
Stop limiting all liquids. It makes no sense. Test for explosives, so you find the dangerous stuff no matter what state of matter it is.
From your article: "Will my powdered baby formula need to be inspected?
A: Probably not. "
That's really great news, but a followup question. Similac makes these little 4 oz packets of formula. When I fly with my baby, I put a bunch of those in my purse so a) I don't have to deal with a liquid, and b) I don't have to deal with loose powder in a baggie or bottle. If formula were to start being inspected, how would I be able to fly with those without having to open them up?
What I see here is not the worry or concern for safety. I see here is the worry or concern if you got caught with an illegal drug. First of all if you have possesion of illegal drugs why should the constitution protect you? If I was dumb enough to carry it on me while traveling and knowing that I am subject to additional screening procedures, which everyone should know by now, I would have to be an adult and accept the fact that I got busted.
Yes definitely a shame that some people feel it is invasion of privacy and a discomfort if they get busted. There are different modes of transportation you can take. Bus, boat, train,your on POV.
Quit whining and grow up...
Q: Will my powdered baby formula need to be inspected?
A: Probably not. During the pilot phase, we found that powdered baby formula did not cause any problems, but there is always the chance that it could happen.
Thanks for this tidbit. My family and I will be traveling soon and with my name, I don't want anymore hassle than necessary.
What about my sterile-packed medically necessary powders? To test these powders, you would have to open the sterile packaging, rendering them medically useless. This would leave me without my physician-prescribed medication.
As Anonymous reminded us on September 8, 2009 7:47 PM..
Bob, lets remember what happened with the "shoes on the belt" policy. Because the policy was not explained properly we still have TSO's who think that having your shoes on the belt instead of the bin is mandatory, not suggested.
**********************************
This would be bad enough, but it is further compounded by a report made by a traveler on Flyertalk the same day that, "ATL-This morning had a sign at each machine telling everyone to place their shoes directly on belts only."
So, let me get this straight. Someone, presumably pretty high up in the TSA food chain @ ATL, decided to use station budget dollars to have signage made up that directly contradicts nat'l TSA policy, which was merely a 'suggestion' to begin with, & turned it into a requirement.
If the TSA senior mgmt in one of, if not the, biggest airports in the country can't get something like 'we SUGGEST shoes be put on the belt' right, there is absolutely no way the low level screener will understand this new policy is not giving him/her carte blanche to search every passenger for drugs.
I would love it if the TSA could prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath for it to happen. What I do see happening, unfortunately not for a couple of years probably, is a case similar to Fofana happening & the court finally putting an end to this.
Anonymous said...
So since cocaine, while illegal, is not a dangerous (to the plane) powder you won't be confiscating it if I transit the checkpoint with it? :-)
Anonymous said...
Thanks for the post Bob. I'm glad I can still powder my nose. :)
-------------------------------
This explains a lot! I knew that no one in their right mind would write these comments.
No specific threats of powder explosive but TSA feels the need to increase its control over the populace.
I know one thing, if TSA has a role to play in anything you can bet it will be/get fouled up straight away.
When are these magical x-ray machines than can determine the chemical structures of liquids coming on-line? Or do they just 'alert' based on density for additional screening?
Anonymous said...
I am just curious as to why so many posts/persons here are SO offended or upset that TSA might catch them doing something illegal as in possibly transporting an illegal drug? I understand that TSA is NOT the DEA, but they are a human beings with a right to report something illegal right??? Or is the right/privledge taken from them when the put the blue uniform with the badge on?? Just curious....
September 9, 2009 9:42 AM
----------------------
To get an understanding read the following article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html
"Congress charged TSA with protecting passengers and property on an aircraft “against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy” and prohibited individuals from carrying a “weapon, explosive or incendiary” onto an airplane. Without search warrants, courts have held that airport security checks are considered reasonable if the search is “no more extensive or intensive than necessary” to detect weapons or explosives."
Basically, most people are concerned not because they are drug mules, but rather that the TSA is working outside the scope of its mission (for example large amounts of cash). For example in the recent Fofana case, the TSO had been instructed to “be alert for anything that might be unlawful for him to possess, such as credit cards belonging to other people, illegal drugs or counterfeit money.”
I don't believe most people like being screened to begin with (if there was, you could run down to your local strip mall and find a shop where you pay to be screened for fun), but see it as some sort of necessary evil to ward off the "casual" i.e. not highly trained/motivated/supported terrorist. If the TSO happens to find something illegal in the course of the search, I have no problem with them reporting it. If however they are instructed to look specifically for illegal materials (and receive training on how to recognize them), then most would consider that problematic as it is outside their mission. This would be particularly worrying given the results of various in house testing that we see reported in the news where weapons and explosives are able to pass undetected.
The supreme court has already ruled numerous times regarding checkpoints, that they should not be used for general law enforcement.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZS.html
J said:
"I assume most of the posters here are McDonald's employees"
Really? I never would have suspected that. Explains a lot, doesn't it. All the sugar, fat, salt and grease. What other observations do you have in store for us? I can hardly wait.
"As far as weapons are concerned, just because TSA doesn't mail every finding to USA Today doesn't mean they do not average 2-4 guns found at checkpoints everyday."
It does defy logic, doesn't it? What are they planning to do, force the FA to give them free drinks and a first class seat?
"That is how business works, and it applies to all sectors of every industry."
Somehow being nice to the "customer" escapes TSA. That is usually part of a business, making sure the end user is happy. Otherwise, it is just another ripoff.
Anonymous @ 9/9 10:12 AM said...
What I see here is not the worry or concern for safety. I see here is the worry or concern if you got caught with an illegal drug. First of all if you have possesion of illegal drugs why should the constitution protect you? If I was dumb enough to carry it on me while traveling and knowing that I am subject to additional screening procedures, which everyone should know by now, I would have to be an adult and accept the fact that I got busted.
--
To paraphrase Sir Thomas More from "A Man for All Seasons", a funny thing happens when you're willing to ignore the law to catch the devil. You're going to find yourself in a barren field, without the laws to protect you. So what do you do when the government then turns around on you?
The fourth amendment doesn't have an "unless they did something bad, then this doesn't apply" clause. It applies to "bad people" just as much as it applies to "law abiding" people. If you don't like it I'm sure there are Middle Eastern countries that would welcome you and have a law more to your liking. Or go ahead and write your congressman to get a new constitutional amendment passed to overturn the 4th. I'll wait to hear your results.
"J" said:
I assume most of the posters here are McDonald's employees (former or present), so let me put it into an analogy that relates to burgers and fries. You have been ordering hamburger buns from one baker for 5 years. Then, you hear some information from your buddies at Burger King that the baker you buy from has been doing lazy business and is not providing the same quality product he did 5 years ago. So, you change the way you do business and you buy from somebody else. You essentially change tactics, to ensure the customer gets the best product possible.
That is how business works, and it applies to all sectors of every industry.
So, you take the word of your competitor rather than checking the product yourself or listening to customer feedback? I guess you work for TSA.
If that's the way "business works", no wonder the US economy is such a mess.
This is a perfect example of TSA "changing tactics" with no substantial reason. Even this blog post stated: "We haven’t received any specific threats" but you're doing it anyway.
Oh, and world class scientists don't work at McD's. Thanks for playing, though.
TSA is not testing for drugs, in fact if these tests alarm we call the BAO not the LEO who handles drugs. We are testing for powder explosives that currently have no screening procedures in place to cover. You should all be happy we are filling in a gap you people were just complaining about us not covering. Now you are all complaining because we found the solution, and we aren't even restricting the powders. We aren't even going to search every powder that comes through. There are very strick detailed requirements to register a powder for being searched by this test. I will be suprised if I come across a bottle of powder for myself to test at least once every two months.
As for the age old argument over TSO's looking for drugs. If a TSO goes into a bag and finds drugs, he finds drugs. I don't understand why there has to be a complaint about it. He just stopped who knows how much narcotics from being sold on the streets and you want to punish him just because he didn't follow the rules exactly to catch the bad guy? Who cares if the government has the ability to take advantage of stopping bad guys, would it really hurt you or anyone else if TSA started testing or looking for drugs? Or would the advantage of searching for these items on one of the easiest ways to transport them be advantageous to the war on drugs? I am going to go with answer B and I will applaud any person, no matter what their occupation is, that turns in drug trafficers however they possibly can.
So since cocaine, while illegal, is not a dangerous (to the plane) powder you won't be confiscating it if I transit the checkpoint with it? :-)
TSOWilliamReed said...
You should all be happy we are filling in a gap you people were just complaining about us not covering.
***********
What complaints would that be? I haven't seen any articles in the news decrying this massive security gap. The gap I would like to see filled is to have TSO's and baggage handlers screened when they leave work at the end of their shift to reduce theft. As well as them being screened when they arrive. If you can take something out of someone's luggage you can also put something, like a bomb, into it.
SOWilliamReed said...
"As for the age old argument over TSO's looking for drugs. If a TSO goes into a bag and finds drugs, he finds drugs. I don't understand why there has to be a complaint about it. He just stopped who knows how much narcotics from being sold on the streets and you want to punish him just because he didn't follow the rules exactly to catch the bad guy? Who cares if the government has the ability to take advantage of stopping bad guys, would it really hurt you or anyone else if TSA started testing or looking for drugs? Or would the advantage of searching for these items on one of the easiest ways to transport them be advantageous to the war on drugs? I am going to go with answer B and I will applaud any person, no matter what their occupation is, that turns in drug trafficers however they possibly can."
And if a few thousand people get wrongly accused of drug trafficking because TSOs are not trained in drug identification, what's the big deal? A few lives ruined in the process, well, collateral damage is just unavoidable, right? Arrest them all, and let somebody else deal with the resulting mess.
TSOWilliamReed said...
As for the age old argument over TSO's looking for drugs. If a TSO goes into a bag and finds drugs, he finds drugs. I don't understand why there has to be a complaint about it. He just stopped who knows how much narcotics from being sold on the streets and you want to punish him just because he didn't follow the rules exactly to catch the bad guy? Who cares if the government has the ability to take advantage of stopping bad guys, would it really hurt you or anyone else if TSA started testing or looking for drugs? Or would the advantage of searching for these items on one of the easiest ways to transport them be advantageous to the war on drugs? I am going to go with answer B and I will applaud any person, no matter what their occupation is, that turns in drug trafficers however they possibly can.
September 9, 2009 6:00 PM
......................
You display a severe lack of training about the difference between a limited Administrative Search and a violation of a persons constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizures.
Isaac Newton said...
This is a perfect example of TSA "changing tactics" with no substantial reason. Even this blog post stated: "We haven’t received any specific threats" but you're doing it anyway.
Oh, and world class scientists don't work at McD's. Thanks for playing, though.
----------------
There is a very substantial reason for this added measure. Explosives come in powders, home made explosives especially. If you would prefer we could wait for some soldiers or a plane to be blown up with a home made powder IED. But I think alot of people would rather us take the initiative and make sure that doesn't happen to a plane.
Bubbaloop sez - "Solids can be explosives. The TSA does not limit solids.
Powders (also solids, but I digress) ca be explosives. The TSA decides to occasionally, unpredictably, test them.
Why such differences for the different states of matter?
Stop limiting all liquids. It makes no sense. Test for explosives, so you find the dangerous stuff no matter what state of matter it is."
Solids are fairly simple and cheap to test for. They are also easier to determine on the xray. Powders are more difficult to clear on xray, and therefore need more scrutiny. Liquids are much harder to clear on xray, they cost quite a bit to test at this point. As the organization moves forward with better tech for the xrays and the training that goes with it, the liquids will be able to be cleared more efficiently.
West
TSA Blog Team
Quoted;
" Dunstan said...
And if a few thousand people get wrongly accused of drug trafficking because TSOs are not trained in drug identification, what's the big deal? A few lives ruined in the process, well, collateral damage is just unavoidable, right? Arrest them all, and let somebody else deal with the resulting mess.
September 10, 2009 8:03 AM"
Wow! Way to overdramtatize! No one is getting arrested, certainly not "thousands"! If something seems to be drugs, the LEOs are notified. They make the determination on the spot (ever hear of narcotics test kits?), THEN, they determine if an arrest is warranted.
Don't know about you but if someone is just plain STUPID enough to come through a Checkpoint with drugs - they deserve to be not only arrested but dummy smacked just for being stupid!
Anonymous said...
What about my sterile-packed medically necessary powders? To test these powders, you would have to open the sterile packaging, rendering them medically useless. This would leave me without my physician-prescribed medication.
There are procedures specifically in place for powder items that are deemed necessary for testing but can not be opened or factory sealed items, which will not require the opening of the item. Therefore, your medical items can be tested if need be without rendering them unsterile.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
What about my sterile-packed medically necessary powders? To test these powders, you would have to open the sterile packaging, rendering them medically useless. This would leave me without my physician-prescribed medication.
There are procedures specifically in place for powder items that are deemed necessary for testing but can not be opened or factory sealed items, which will not require the opening of the item. Therefore, your medical items can be tested if need be without rendering them unsterile.
September 10, 2009 2:30 PM
*******
What are those procedures and will they be made publicly available? Lets face it if TSO's can't even get the policy about shoes on the belt be suggested and not mandatory. To you honestly expect us to trust them to not open sterile medical supplies.
TSM, Been here... said..
not worth repeating...
Can't tell the difference between sarcasm and drama?
What is the TSA doing to protect its screeners and the flying public from what we read on TS/S is a very potent testing process?
Has the public been warned through ADEQUATE signage that exposure to the testing chemicals might be injurious to anyone with lung disease?
I know many of you are still worried about some TSO arresting you when you try to carry your cocaine onto the aircraft. Let me put your mind at ease, TSOs will NOT arrest you or confiscate your drugs. However, we will inform the local police department that you are carrying something that looks like drugs and those police officers might decide to arrest you and confiscate your cocaine. I hope that clears up your confusion.
If you are planning on carrying any sterile powders that you don’t want opened the easiest thing you can do (to make yourself feel more comfortable) is ask to speak to a supervisor when you are told your powders will need to undergo extra screening. Although every TSO in the country will be able to screen your sterile powders without contaminating them, the supervisor will be happy to take the extra time to explain the whole procedure so that your mind will be put at ease.
RB said… “No specific threats of powder explosive but TSA feels the need to increase its control over the populace.”
Actually our soldiers in the Middle East have been injured and killed by powdered explosives. I suppose you believe that the bad guys won’t jump on an airplane, come to the states, and try to do the same thing to our civilians. This is why TSA is in charge of security and you are not.
Dunstan said… “Somehow being nice to the "customer" escapes TSA. That is usually part of a business, making sure the end user is happy."
TSA is totally focused on making the passengers happy. We truly believe that you are happier being alive then being killed by a terrorist.
TSOWilliamReed incredulously said...
As for the age old argument over TSO's looking for drugs. If a TSO goes into a bag and finds drugs, he finds drugs. I don't understand why there has to be a complaint about it. He just stopped who knows how much narcotics from being sold on the streets and you want to punish him just because he didn't follow the rules exactly to catch the bad guy? Who cares if the government has the ability to take advantage of stopping bad guys, would it really hurt you or anyone else if TSA started testing or looking for drugs? Or would the advantage of searching for these items on one of the easiest ways to transport them be advantageous to the war on drugs? I am going to go with answer B and I will applaud any person, no matter what their occupation is, that turns in drug trafficers however they possibly can.
Yes, William. That's exactly what I want to do. How would you like it if some over-zealous drug warrior fellow screener (or maybe yourself) didn't follow rules of our own Constitution and normal LE rules of evidence gathering and custody(Like it or not, you are part of in the war on drugs.)? You could cause the evidence to get thrown out of court. That's exactly what the Fofana case is all about, although it was about the War on Money as well as general illegal search and detention.
How would you like it if an overzealous screener detained someone from drugs and unwittingly broke up a gigantic multi-state sting operation involving transporting drugs by commercial air and/or blown the cover of an undercover narc? The FBI actually does this from time to time, you know.
But, I understand your point. If I were you, I would be tempted to all a bag check for nearly every powder I saw on the x-ray because I would now have the justification to "discover" drugs while clearing the powder.
TSO Jacob said...
If you are planning on carrying any sterile powders that you don’t want opened the easiest thing you can do (to make yourself feel more comfortable) is ask to speak to a supervisor when you are told your powders will need to undergo extra screening. Although every TSO in the country will be able to screen your sterile powders without contaminating them, the supervisor will be happy to take the extra time to explain the whole procedure so that your mind will be put at ease.
September 11, 2009 10:43 AM
I’m confused so why don’t you explain it to me. Sterile medical supplies are kept sterile by being placed in a sealed container, in order for you to test a powder you would need to remove a sample of the powder and in the process making the rest of the contents no longer sterile. So how is the TSA going to test sterile packaged powders without contaminating all of the powder?
Screener Jacob wrote:
"If you are planning on carrying any sterile powders that you don’t want opened the easiest thing you can do (to make yourself feel more comfortable) is ask to speak to a supervisor when you are told your powders will need to undergo extra screening. Although every TSO in the country will be able to screen your sterile powders without contaminating them, the supervisor will be happy to take the extra time to explain the whole procedure so that your mind will be put at ease."
You do know don't you, Jacob, that the testing procedure requires a sample of the powder
And you do know that once a sterile package has been opened it is no longer sterile?
So, tell us again how the TSA is going to test sterile powders without contaminating them.
I thought it was the colour on the AT X-Ray. I hope this works better, how many ETD’s have alarms and no explosives are found? How many test strips for peroxide, oh, I remember, none can be found at the checkpoints.
Good luck, I hope you have continued recertification on the X-ray to keep us safe.
"Although every TSO in the country will be able to screen your sterile powders without contaminating them, the supervisor will be happy to take the extra time to explain the whole procedure so that your mind will be put at ease."
Why don't you go ahead and explain it HERE?
If you want to carry a sterile container of powder onto the aircraft you will have to submit it to screening. If that container is chosen for additional screening TSA will require a sample. That sample can be taken by performing a couple of different tests on the outside of the container, thus we never have to contaminate your sterile powder. Once again, the supervisor on duty will explain this to you if you still feel apprehensive about having you sterile powder tested.
Amen to "J"
Anonymous said...
"Although every TSO in the country will be able to screen your sterile powders without contaminating them, the supervisor will be happy to take the extra time to explain the whole procedure so that your mind will be put at ease."
Why don't you go ahead and explain it HERE?
September 11, 2009 5:59 PM
.........................
Agree!
Isn't this the place where TSA communicates with the public?
For the 1 percent of the traveling public who carries powders that can’t be opened listen up. If you are chosen for extra screening on a sterile powder that cannot be opened then the TSO will perform a couple of additional tests on the outside of the package and possibly on your person, like a limited pat-down. We actually have the ability to pick up minute residue off the outside of your package in order to determine if you are carrying an explosive. For the 99 percent of the traveling public who does not carry sterile powders please don’t try to lie to us and claim what you are carrying is sterile. TSOs are not stupid and when you lie to us we automatically think you are trying to hide something dangerous, since we all know that terrorists are liars. As always just ask to speak to a supervisor and they will explain this process step by step.
TSO Jacob said...
RB said… “No specific threats of powder explosive but TSA feels the need to increase its control over the populace.”
Actually our soldiers in the Middle East have been injured and killed by powdered explosives. I suppose you believe that the bad guys won’t jump on an airplane, come to the states, and try to do the same thing to our civilians. This is why TSA is in charge of security and you are not.
...................
TSO Jacob, the words that no specific threat of a powder explosive were those of TSA, not mine.
Read the original post that Bob put up about this next TSA infringement on freedom.
TSOs are not stupid and when you lie to us we automatically think you are trying to hide something dangerous, since we all know that terrorists are liars.
...................
Your doing a fine job of disproving your "TSO's are not stupid" comment.
RB,that's "you're", not "your."
Who were you calling stupid again?
Like a bad rash, you just won't go away.
Anonymous said...
RB,that's "you're", not "your."
Who were you calling stupid again?
Like a bad rash, you just won't go away.
September 12, 2009 3:23 PM
You are correct on both counts!
"As always just ask to speak to a supervisor and they will explain this process step by step."
Why can't TSA explain the process here? What is TSA afraid of?
RB said...
TSO Jacob said...
RB said… “No specific threats of powder explosive but TSA feels the need to increase its control over the populace.”
Actually our soldiers in the Middle East have been injured and killed by powdered explosives. I suppose you believe that the bad guys won’t jump on an airplane, come to the states, and try to do the same thing to our civilians. This is why TSA is in charge of security and you are not.
...................
TSO Jacob, the words that no specific threat of a powder explosive were those of TSA, not mine.
Read the original post that Bob put up about this next TSA infringement on freedom.
September 12, 2009 1:36 PM
--------------------
Bob Said....
TSA is enhancing its ability to test powder at checkpoints across the nation. We haven’t received any specific threats that led us to this new procedure but certain types of powders can be used in improvised explosive devices (IED) so it just makes sense.
As you can see Bob said, "Any SPECIFIC threat." Our soldiers being blown up by home made powder explosives is a non-specific threat to the airlines. A specific threat would be if someone at any airport in the world found a bag with powder explosives inside. Also TSA has never taken anyone’s freedom away. The airline asks TSA to screen its passengers; some airports in the US do NOT have TSA however the contracted screeners still follow a similar set of rules for screening. The airline is a privately owned business; you have no right to fly on their plane if they don’t want you to. Since the airline asks TSA to do its screening, if you don’t follow procedures then the airline does not want you on their airplane. You do not have to submit yourself or any of your property for screening ever, however the airline, FAA regulations, and the government require you to complete screening in order to fly on an airplane. People have the right to freely travel about the country; however the ability to fly on a privately owned airline is a privilege not a right. Unless the government takes over the privately owned market of airline travel (which would be bad) then no one has the right to travel on an airplane, only the privilege. Your right to privacy is never hurt either because you can ask for a private screening at any time through security.
RB said...
TSOs are not stupid and when you lie to us we automatically think you are trying to hide something dangerous, since we all know that terrorists are liars.
...................
You’re doing a fine job of disproving your "TSO's are not stupid" comment.
September 12, 2009 2:03 PM
--------------
Try telling a lie to a police officer next time he pulls you over for something. You will notice him place his hand on his gun and ask you to please exit the vehicle. The truth is people that lie have something to hide. We are looking for explosives knives guns and other dangerous things. If you lie to us then you have something to hide. Simply thinking you are hiding toothpaste or something that will just slow your trip through security down is not safe or wise. Thinking you could be hiding something that I and you know that I am supposed to be looking for is a much more intelligent way of approaching the situation. Police Officers are taught this idea and follow it to the letter. They however are just looking for illegal activity of any kind, we are looking for BOMBS. Excuse us for being safe when for all we know you actually could have a stick of dynamite strapped to your leg. When I personally pat people down I worry that I am going to find a gun. Why would I worry that you ask? Because if I find it the guy I am searching is going to know that I have found it and he is going to jail, but if he was here to hurt someone what is stopping him from pulling it out and shooting the poor TSO that is on his hands and knees wondering if that actually was a gun he felt.
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
TSO Jacob said...
RB said… “No specific threats of powder explosive but TSA feels the need to increase its control over the populace.”
Actually our soldiers in the Middle East have been injured and killed by powdered explosives. I suppose you believe that the bad guys won’t jump on an airplane, come to the states, and try to do the same thing to our civilians. This is why TSA is in charge of security and you are not.
...................
TSO Jacob, the words that no specific threat of a powder explosive were those of TSA, not mine.
Read the original post that Bob put up about this next TSA infringement on freedom.
September 12, 2009 1:36 PM
--------------------
Bob Said....
TSA is enhancing its ability to test powder at checkpoints across the nation. We haven’t received any specific threats that led us to this new procedure but certain types of powders can be used in improvised explosive devices (IED) so it just makes sense.
.........................
Which means TSA is not aware of any threats targeted to air travel.
You can attempt to protect against every conceivable threat but I suggest the attempt would fail because focus on the most likely threats would be lost.
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
TSOs are not stupid and when you lie to us we automatically think you are trying to hide something dangerous, since we all know that terrorists are liars.
...................
You’re doing a fine job of disproving your "TSO's are not stupid" comment.
September 12, 2009 2:03 PM
--------------
Try telling a lie to a police officer next time he pulls you over for something. You will notice him place his hand on his gun and ask you to please exit the vehicle.
................
Actually I did get stopped for speeding about a year ago. First time ever since I first started driving in the late 60's.
Oh, I was doing like 40 in a 35 on a rural road.
The officer did not put his hand on his weapon nor did he ask me to exit the vehicle. In the end I didn't even get a moving violation, just a warning.
Seems you know as much about law enforcement as you do about threats to aviation.
http://wcbstv.com/local/fbi.raid.queens.2.1183160.html
FBI, NYPD On The Hunt For Al-Qaida In NYC
...................
Does the story referenced above have any bearing on the sudden interest in powders by TSA?
RB said...
"TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
TSOs are not stupid and when you lie to us we automatically think you are trying to hide something dangerous, since we all know that terrorists are liars.
...................
You’re doing a fine job of disproving your "TSO's are not stupid" comment.
September 12, 2009 2:03 PM
--------------
Try telling a lie to a police officer next time he pulls you over for something. You will notice him place his hand on his gun and ask you to please exit the vehicle.
................
Actually I did get stopped for speeding about a year ago. First time ever since I first started driving in the late 60's.
Oh, I was doing like 40 in a 35 on a rural road.
The officer did not put his hand on his weapon nor did he ask me to exit the vehicle. In the end I didn't even get a moving violation, just a warning.
Seems you know as much about law enforcement as you do about threats to aviation."
--------------------------
Once again RB has not read what someone has written, but went ahead and responded anyways...
I think the person who wrote this said "lie" to a police officer when you get pulled over (with the assumptin that the officer figures out you were lying) and see what happens.
Are you saying you lied to the police officer, that officer figured it out, and didn't pull you out of the car or put their hand on the gun, when you were pulled over the other year? Yeah, right.
RB PLEASE start to read what others post before you respond. PLEASE!!!
Once again RB has not read what someone has written, but went ahead and responded anyways...
I think the person who wrote this said "lie" to a police officer when you get pulled over (with the assumptin that the officer figures out you were lying) and see what happens.
Are you saying you lied to the police officer, that officer figured it out, and didn't pull you out of the car or put their hand on the gun, when you were pulled over the other year? Yeah, right.
RB PLEASE start to read what others post before you respond. PLEASE!!!
September 15, 2009 9:44 AM
.................
Anon, I did read what was posted.
I decided to ignore the part about telling a lie since I always tell the truth as I know it and doubt that most TSA employees could tell the difference between truth and fiction.
A LEO going for his weapon onjust the basis of a lie seems like a big stretch.
Do TSO's get training in how to decide if a person is being truthful or not?
Or is it just their gut opinion?
TSOWilliamReed said...
If you lie to us then you have something to hide.
How will you know we are lying? Lets face it your human lie detectors, BDO’s, have an abysmal failure rate and they are supposed to be trained to do that job. Given the fact that many TSO’s can’t even remember that shoes on the belt is optional not mandatory, I would hardly trust any TSO to determine who is lying.
Something about this whole powder thing seems to defy logic - surprise!
TSA has a way to clear most packaged powders so that it will only have to test a very small percentage. Yet after all the time they have been prohibiting packaged liquids, they have been unable to come up with a method that will allow them to pass liquids without testing most liquids and then clear others with a test.
It just is unbelievable. Frankly it looks like TSA is manufacturing a "reason" to test ppowders when the urge strikes.
RB said...
"Once again RB has not read what someone has written, but went ahead and responded anyways...
I think the person who wrote this said "lie" to a police officer when you get pulled over (with the assumptin that the officer figures out you were lying) and see what happens.
Are you saying you lied to the police officer, that officer figured it out, and didn't pull you out of the car or put their hand on the gun, when you were pulled over the other year? Yeah, right.
RB PLEASE start to read what others post before you respond. PLEASE!!!
September 15, 2009 9:44 AM
.................
Anon, I did read what was posted.
I decided to ignore the part about telling a lie since I always tell the truth as I know it and doubt that most TSA employees could tell the difference between truth and fiction.
A LEO going for his weapon onjust the basis of a lie seems like a big stretch.
Do TSO's get training in how to decide if a person is being truthful or not?
Or is it just their gut opinion?"
---------------------
I don't believe you RB.
You said you were pulled over and nothing like what the other poster said would happen happened, so you finished by stating:
"Seems you know as much about law enforcement as you do about threats to aviation."
Now you said you decided to change what you responded to without telling anyone, and then post a critical statement to that poster because what he/she said would happen didn't happen. Right?
Let me get this right:
He said if A happened (lie to a cop) then B would happen (taken out of the car, etc.)
You said, I'm gong to change A to C (not lie to a cop).
So since your C (not lying to a cop) didn't result in his B (taken out of the car), then end result B is wrong and he doesn't know what hes talking about.
How is that honest?
Maybe you should respond to what he said, NOT to what you changed it to.
Cause I can't find where that poster described the situation you decided to answer to. And to top if off, you basically tell him he doesn't know what hes talking about because...?
Hi there!
It would be ever so helpful if you were to spell out the policy for carrying powders on board - like you do with liquids. For example: If I want to bring my powdered blush and an eyeshadow, do they need to be in the 1-quart bag? Or, can I just put them in my carry-on and hope they pass screening?
Today, Sept. 18, we had approximately 2000 passengers come through one of our two terminals on just the morning shift. We checked a whopping half dozen powders with this new test.
Oh yeah, we're looking hard for drugs...
Anonymous said... Hi there!
It would be ever so helpful if you were to spell out the policy for carrying powders on board - like you do with liquids. For example: If I want to bring my powdered blush and an eyeshadow, do they need to be in the 1-quart bag? Or, can I just put them in my carry-on and hope they pass screening?September 18, 2009 2:29 AM
---------------------------
Hi! There is no baggie procedure to go along with this. The chances are slim that we will check your powder. Even if we do check it, as long as it's not the kind of powder that goes BOOM, you've got nothing to worry about.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob writes:
As long as it's not the kind of powder that goes BOOM, you've got nothing to worry about.
Boom? You mean like this? (As a resident of Detroit, I can tell you how dangerous this man is ...)
Bubbaloop said...
So,
Liquids can be explosives. The TSA decides to limit all liquids in a complicated set of incomprehensible rules.
Solids can be explosives. The TSA does not limit solids.
Powders (also solids, but I digress) ca be explosives. The TSA decides to occasionally, unpredictably, test them.
Why such differences for the different states of matter?
Stop limiting all liquids. It makes no sense. Test for explosives, so you find the dangerous stuff no matter what state of matter it is.
......................................................................
OK sooo complicated set of incomprehensible rules...??
umm how is the statement "no liquid, gel, or areosol over 3.4 oz. or 100 ML" "all items under the size limit need to be in a one quart size zip lock baggie one per person flying"
complicated or confusing by any means???? there are a few exceptions like with medical suppies but those are even spelled out in plain english everywhere in the airport. i know last time i flew i counted and the rules were clearly stated in at least 5 different places before i even got close to the checkpoint
Solids get swiped by the ETD machine....
and powders are not going to be unpredictably tested that would take to long powderws are only going to be tested if their over a certin size like 12oz and if they contain certin characteristics on the x-ray image not just any random powders are going to be tested
and lastly heres a better idea... instead of letting all liquids go how about the airlines ban all carry on luggage because i know more than a few airline employees and TSO's who would most definately agree with me on that one
Anonymous said...
TSOWilliamReed said...
If you lie to us then you have something to hide.
How will you know we are lying? Lets face it your human lie detectors, BDOs, have an abysmal failure rate and they are supposed to be trained to do that job. Given the fact that many TSO’s can’t even remember that shoes on the belt is optional not mandatory, I would hardly trust any TSO to determine who is lying.
------------------------
Firstly, BDOs do not have an abysmal failure rate; they have a false positive rate. What could that possibly translate to? It means the person they pulled over for lying to them didn't have a prohibited item on them that they were trying to sneak through. However they still pulled this person over for displaying suspicious behaviors and for flat out lying to the officer, people do this all the time. How man times have I been told by a 20 year old man that he is under 18 and I don't have to see his ID, more than I can count. Is that suspicious behavior that is going to get that guy extra attention, yes sir it is. Finally am I a BDO trained in detecting suspicious behavior and lie detection, no but even I can tell when I am being lied to. Also that shoe on the belt thing you can never blame TSO's for doing that. Trust me when I say TSOs working the front line do what they are told by their bosses. If my boss says all shoes MUST be placed on the conveyor belt then heck yeah all those shoes are going on the conveyor belt. If that’s not what headquarters wanted that’s not my problem because I am following my chain of command. For instance here in Ketchikan we have always required passengers to place their shoes on the conveyor belt even before headquarters caught on. The reason is because we live in a place that gets around 200 inches of rain a year. Shoes are wet muddy and nasty and as a courtesy to our passengers we would tell them to place their shoes on the conveyor belt in order to keep the bins and their property clean. Plus as a side bonus, we also received nice clear pictures of every pair of shoes which makes for less pairs of shoes being re-ran because they were obstructed by a cell phone or set of keys.
Anonymous writes:
and lastly heres a better idea... instead of letting all liquids go how about the airlines ban all carry on luggage because i know more than a few airline employees and TSO's who would most definately agree with me on that one
Well, that would certainly create a much more secure flight environment. It would also completely shut down commercial air travel. No business person is going to fly if that means they have to check their expensive laptops as checked luggage, where anybody and their uncle can steal them. And without business travel, you can't have a commercial airline industry.
To see the discontent of soo many people on here is concerning. I think people really need to look at the situation as a whole and the reality of the situation is that there are threats made against our country everday. Truth-home made explosive are made of liquid and powders of certain types and only small quantities can have dramatic effects! Fact Yes solids can be explosives but are to easily found and terrorists are ever evolving. These people are intellegent and well funded. Their time is spent finding ways to make smaller IED's that are harder to detect with everyday items that have the maximum amount of damage. These processes though not 100% (which never will be, because we live in the US) are put in place to help deter and keep us safe. Procedures and policies for certain things can not be made public knowledge because it has some security sensitive material and can not be discuss. Being someone who travels, works for the government, clearance to information that others do not have and do not understand why test and do certain things. Also being someone who has fought for the freedom of others in this country it saddens me to watch people get so upset over something that has been put into place to help keep us safe. We are HUMAN. Police don't catch every speeder, theif, etc. But their presence deters people from speeding or doing something illegal. If anyone on this blog has a better way of testing explosives (all kinds) and screening passengers to ensure safety for all instead of bashing TSA write to your congressman and forward your idea. Maybe you know more than the people in the defense dept.
TSO Jason asked passengers not to lie and claim their medication needs to be kept sterile when it doesn't. TSOs need to know that there are versions of medications that do need to be kept sterile even if that same medication usually doesn't.
For example, I am allergic to the preservatives used in most versions of my medication. The preservatives in most versions kill any microbes that get in, so those, the usual versions, do not need to be kept sterile. But I have to use a special preservative-free version. Since it has no preservatives, any microbes that get in are free to multiply, so the preservative-free version does have to be kept sterile. It has to be kept in sealed one-dose containers which have to be discarded after opening.
If there's powder residue on the outside of factory sealed containers, there's powder residue on the outside of all powder containers. If someone says their item has to be kept sterile, testing the outside of the container will still work regardless of whether they're lying. If you think they're lying, give them additional screening as well. But don't force them to open a container they say has to be kept sterile. Maybe they're lying -- or maybe it's just something you haven't seen before.
When using a wood urn the thickness of the wood is 3/4" or thicker, is there any issues scanning the urn?
We are looking at buying a cremation urn at http://www.urnsnw.com/ and we were told that there shouldn't be any issues.
Thanks for what you do.
However, please keep officers informed. I had to end up checking my carry-on due to a small jar of protein powder in it.
Will my babies new and sealed formula containers be x-rayed? what is the policy?
Post a Comment