Starting this week, officers will be asking passengers to put their shoes directly on the X-ray belt instead of in a bin at the checkpoint.This will help to declutter bins and give officers a better view of shoes coming through, as well as everything else. Our officers are seeing some pretty packed bins with shoes, electronics, wallets and other items, and when they can’t get a good look, a cluttered bin is more likely to get pulled aside for additional screening. Nobody likes that.
If you don’t hear the directions or put your shoes in the bin by accident, fear not - you won’t be sent back to the end of the line for a do-over.
Safe travels!
Lynn
Lynn
EOS Blog Team
194 comments:
So when the laces get wrapped around the rollers and the machine stops, will TSA reimburse passengers for damaged shoes? Your equipment, your rules, my shoes, your responsibility for damaging my property.
Lynn, why does TSA persist in lying to us by falsely claiming that shoes prevent some sort of a threat to aviation? No other country in the world mandates shoe removal at airport screening with no ill effects.
Since you say that citizens will only be "asked" to place shoes on the belt, I take it that those of us who choose to ignore this policy will not face any sort of punitive secondary screenings as a result?
I have a medical condition which prevents me from removing my shoes at airport checkpoints. Please describe what sort of screening I can expect from your employees to accommodate my medical condition.
Lynn,
Is TSA going to remove the picture from this page which shows shoes in a bin?
Sorry, Lynn, but having been thru both LAX & ORD (all of 15 minutes ago, btw-I'm writing this from the Admiral's Club in T3), there is no 'asking' going on from your screeners. What we get is 'Shoes CANNOT go in the bins.' 'Shoes MUST be flat on the belt.' 'Take your shoes out of the bins'.
Once again, complete disconnect between what you say & what happens in the real world.
As far as 'decluttering' goes, then please explain why the other pair of shoes in my rollaboard, which is jammed enough cables to run a small country, a jacket, a stack of paperwork, & assorted other junk, didn't have to come out???
Finally, what will the TSA's policy be when someone's shoes are damaged after getting caught in the rollers while going thru? I guarantee you it's going to happen. Since the TSA is the one mandating this policy, how will you shift the blame onto the passenger this time?
This seems like a great way for shoes to get tangled up in the strips at the front and back of the unit, caught on stuff inside the machine, and possibly even lost or mangled. I forsee a lot more delays related to stopping of the belt and operators having to reach inside and fish stuff out. Have any tests of this been done with a random assortment of shoes, from light-weight flip flops and strappy heels to big heavy workboots with long laces, all interspersed (and not) with bins and larger luggage?
For God's sake when can we stop taking our shoes off at the security checkpoint? This is my LEAST favorite aspect of the TSA checkpoints - yes, even more so than the stupid 3-1-1 liquids rule (though that's a close second). As another commenter noted, nowhere else in the world is this required. What's the deal?
You people must wear glass slippers like Cinderella to be that concerned about damage to your shoes. Your shoes are many times more likely to get damaged by walking then going through an Xray machine. Seriously you would have a hell of a time proving that the damage occured by the rollers and not normal everyday wear and tear that you never noticed
Six comments, and six sarcastic, ill mannered, critical questions, that you want a civil reply to? Why is it that when you want to know something that it has to come with a big slice of anger and disdain. The post was trying to be informational. Lynn does not make policy. She is simply stating a fact. Lynn cannot change policy. She can simply try to answer your questions.
Somewhere TSA thought that this would be a good idea to get two differing sides engaging in a dialog to try to get help in understanding how the public sees what happens in TSA. Instead, it's the same 10-12 people that have nothing better to do than insult and rant. I came on here thinking I could give good insight to another aspect of the DHS perspective. I am an Inspector/Investigator, I was obviously mistaken and see why my colleagues stay away from this part of the intra-net.
In response to:
Is TSA going to remove the picture from this page which shows shoes in a bin?Yes - already done. Thanks Jim.
In reply to Anonymous:
I have a medical condition which prevents me from removing my shoes at airport checkpoints. Please describe what sort of screening I can expect from your employees to accommodate my medical condition.Thanks for the question - here's your answer:
There is an exception for passengers with disabilities, medical conditions, and prosthetic devices. These passengers do not have to remove their shoes, however, security officers will give them additional screening. This includes a visual and physical inspection as well as explosives trace detection sampling of the footwear while it remains on the passenger’s feet.
Lynn
EOS Blog Team
Sorry, txrus, there ALWAYS seems to be a 'disconnect' between the words from the castle and the actions on the line.
I think we've actually gotten to expect that, at least I have.
I've learned to only expect/believe what I see in front of me.
Take care,
Tom (1 of 5-6)
Why are you only answering some questions and not others? Why are you afraid?
'
How does TSA plan to reimburse citizens whose property is destroyed or damaged when laces get caught in the works of the X-rays?
Why does TSA alone in the world insist on mandatory shoe removal?
How does this new "Shoe Policy" improve safety of commercial aircraft?
Are shoes no longer permitted in bins?
Are shoes permitted in carry-on bags?
Has TSA started screening everyone entering the secure area each time they enter?
Has TSA complied with the Congressional mandate to screen 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial passenger aircraft?
Has TSA developed a method to keep checked baggage secure after it has been inspected by the TSA?
Chris said:
omewhere TSA thought that this would be a good idea to get two differing sides engaging in a dialog to try to get help in understanding how the public sees what happens in TSA. Instead, it's the same 10-12 people that have nothing better to do than insult and rant. I came on here thinking I could give good insight to another aspect of the DHS perspective. I am an Inspector/Investigator, I was obviously mistaken and see why my colleagues stay away from this part of the intra-net.Chris, we've tried polite. We've tried being serious only to find that TSA isn't interested in a two way communication. Serious questions remain unanswered by TSA. Perhaps when TSA answers the questions the comments might self regulate.
Just went through San Jose Security -- they made every person with shoes in the bin re-run the bag with the shoes on the conveyer belt. Kind of dumb because I had three paid of shoes in the carry on roller bag. And they made the line take twice as long because they were literally re-running EVERY bin and EVERY shoe that originally went through in a bib. Dumb.
Chris,
It's because TSA treats the general public with disdain and as the enemy.
If you want the public to respect TSA, then I suggest that TSA starts respecting the public and not like 3 year olds.
Are we upset? Darn right. We're tired of nonanswer answers and "just trust us" when we wask something. If these things are such threats, then surely the same threats exist elsewhere in the world. The US is not alone in being terror targets. Ask yourself this: if TSA is the only place in the world where some measures are conducted (like the shoe carnival), then can you explain why planes aren't falling out of the sky in countries where such practices aren't occurring?
TSA has done more to destroy aviation in this country than OBL ever could. He's laughing in a cave right now.
I can understand why a lot of TSA people avoid this blog: it shows that things aren't as rosy as TSA would like you to believe.
Earl
Anonymous said...
You people must wear glass slippers like Cinderella to be that concerned about damage to your shoes. Your shoes are many times more likely to get damaged by walking then going through an Xray machine. Seriously you would have a hell of a time proving that the damage occured by the rollers and not normal everyday wear and tear that you never noticed
May 14, 2009 4:00 PMI work around conveyors and have a healthy respect for them as one of my coworkers lost part of his thumb to one.
Chris TSI-C writes:
Six comments, and six sarcastic, ill mannered, critical questions, that you want a civil reply to?As one of those first six comments, I'm a bit offended. I wasn't being sarcastic; I simply pointed out a problem with the TSA website that was inconsistent with the new announcement. (An inconsistency, by the way, that Lynn agreed was a problem.)
Why is it that when you want to know something that it has to come with a big slice of anger and disdain. The post was trying to be informational. Lynn does not make policy. She is simply stating a fact. Lynn cannot change policy. She can simply try to answer your questions.Except that Lynn managed to get the website photo changed, in very short order. That doesn't sound ineffective to me.
Somewhere TSA thought that this would be a good idea to get two differing sides engaging in a dialog to try to get help in understanding how the public sees what happens in TSA. Instead, it's the same 10-12 people that have nothing better to do than insult and rant.You can't have a dialog if one party doesn't want to respond.
What tends to happen here is that a TSA official posts a topic, and then lots of members of the public respond and ask questions. Many of those questions go unanswered ... in fact most go unacknowledged. And so people think that they're being ignored, and ask the question again, and the question is unacknowledged. Repeat this cycle a few times, and you can understand why people might get cranky.
I came on here thinking I could give good insight to another aspect of the DHS perspective. I am an Inspector/Investigator, I was obviously mistaken and see why my colleagues stay away from this part of the intra-net.First of all, this isn't part of anyone's private intra-net; it's part of the public Internet.
Second, personally, I'd love to hear your perspective on the issues being discussed here. Some of your TSO colleagues here have been extremely helpful in furthering the dialog; the more help, the better.
Lynn, what steps is TSA taking to ensure that screeners in San Jose know that it is not a requirement to place shoes on the belt, since citizens are only being "asked" to do so?
"How does TSA plan to reimburse citizens whose property is destroyed or damaged when laces get caught in the works of the X-rays?"
Been doing this for 6+ years. Hasn't happened yet. If it does, I'll let you know. TSO-Joe
"Has TSA complied with the Congressional mandate to screen 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial passenger aircraft?"
Excellent question. Sadly, the Cargo blog is filled with questions like this that have no bearing on the topic at hand. Thanks for clogging another post.
Anonymous wrote:
"Lynn, why does TSA persist in lying to us by falsely claiming that shoes prevent some sort of a threat to aviation? No other country in the world mandates shoe removal at airport screening with no ill effects."
___________________________
That is simply not true. I flew in Amsterdam and Paris, France - both places I had to remove my shoes (and bulky clothing, like jackets, sweaters). In fact, I had to do everything there that I have to do here (the United States), such as remove my computer, liquids, etc...
Anonymous wrote:
I have a medical condition which prevents me from removing my shoes at airport checkpoints. Please describe what sort of screening I can expect from your employees to accommodate my medical condition.
___________________________
I have worked for TSA for about 3 years, and have screened many people with medical condition that requires they do not remove their shoe. What you should expect is to undergo a hand held medical detector if your medical condition allows it, and if not a full body pat-down. If you are screened using a HHMD that is followed by a more limited pat-down. All of which is followed by an ETD run on your hands and shoes while they remain on your feet.
I can tell you this, though. I can not tell by usually looking at someone if they have a medical condition, just as you most likely can't determine what medical condition I have by looking at me, usually. I have found the quickest way to get through is not to just simply say "I'm not going to remove my shoes", let the person at the walk-through metal detector know that you have a "medical condition". You do not need to tell them the nature of the condition; just stating that you have one and it prevents you from removing yours shoes should be enough.
TSO John
Anon sez - "Lynn, why does TSA persist in lying to us by falsely claiming that shoes prevent some sort of a threat to aviation? No other country in the world mandates shoe removal at airport screening with no ill effects."
Because shoes present a viable threat to aviation security - this has been addressed several times. Richard Reid is the biggest example, but there is other research and possibilities involved as well.
West
EOS Blog Team
Anon sez - "Since you say that citizens will only be "asked" to place shoes on the belt, I take it that those of us who choose to ignore this policy will not face any sort of punitive secondary screenings as a result?"
No punitive screening, but you may be delayed a bit while they are re-run through the xray.
West
EOS Blog Team
Anon sez - "I have a medical condition which prevents me from removing my shoes at airport checkpoints. Please describe what sort of screening I can expect from your employees to accommodate my medical condition."
If you are unable to remove your shoes due to medical reasons, we will have you process through like normal, and do some additional screening on the shoes and you. It should be fairly painless especially if the shoes have no metal in them. If you will talk to the TSO at the walk through or at the lane before coming through, they should be able to accomodate you without much problem at all. Please be more patient at the larger airports as they have a higher passenger volume, and the staffing will not allow for as much speed as you can expect at a smaller airport like here at GSO.
West
EOS Blog Team
If laces are going to be a problem in the X-ray I suggest the TSA steals some food trays from the food court for people to put their shoes in. Low profile, should be no problem with the image.
That will be $5 please.
Miller Said… Chris, we've tried polite. We've tried being serious only to find that TSA isn't interested in a two way communication. Serious questions remain unanswered by TSA. Perhaps when TSA answers the questions the comments might self regulate.
Earl Pitts said… If these things are such threats, then surely the same threats exist elsewhere in the world. The US is not alone in being terror targets. Ask yourself this: if TSA is the only place in the world where some measures are conducted (like the shoe carnival), then can you explain why planes aren't falling out of the sky in countries where such practices aren't occurring?
Most of the posts I have read on this blog are sent in by people who are only angry with TSA because security is stricter than it was before September 11, 2001. The reality of life in the 21st century is that the United States government has exactly two choices, 1) To make it citizens safer by increasing security (regardless of skeptical whining this is what TSA has done) or 2) To allow its citizens to die at the hands of radicals.
The choice is ours. Risk is a part of life and if we as Americans fully accept this fact then TSA can ease off their security measures. As I recall, in the days and weeks following 9-11 the American people rose up and demanded that the government protect them. This is why TSA was created. If you really want to get rid of TSA then you need to convince your fellow Americans that they should be willing to risk their lives so that you can wear your shoes through the checkpoint.
I have been working at an airport since August of 2001. I have never seen shoes, or parts of shoes, get damaged or get caught in the machine.
Other countries are quite willing to have armed soldiers in their airports ready to shot passengers who fail to comply with their commands. They have fewer civil liberties to worry about violating.
Some of these constant questions have been answered in previous posts. You didn't like the answers, so you continue to repost it. Others have absolutly nothing to do with the current topic and are ignored. A few aren't answered because TSA doesn't want to tell people what we are looking for because, if you know, you might try to circumvent security just to prove you can.
Most of the posters seem to be the same people with the same complaints asking the same questions and then complaining because the didn't like the answer. If the moderators here won't answer your questions or you are convinced that they are lying to you, WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING BACK? You all seem like gluttons for punishment.
7 year TSO(almost 8)
Alan here are some answers to the questions you asked.
How does this new "Shoe Policy" improve safety of commercial aircraft?While there isn't a big change in the policy to increase security advantage, it does infact help security move faster. Shoes by their lonesome will help keep all your other items/bins cleaner and less cluttered and will help speed up the process. The more you pack into a bin the longer it takes to clear an item on the screen because it takes longer to distinguish what is what on the xray image. Let me also suggest that you put your shoes directly on the belt first and when you are waiting on the other side for the rest of your property you will be able to have your shoes back on your feet!
Are shoes no longer permitted in bins?The new policy is more of an advisement. Passengers want more uniformity and you are getting it by having a set way to place your shoes into the xray! If you place your shoes in a bin with nothing on top of them or underneath then the officer will be able to clear the shoes still. But why waste time grabbing a bin just for your shoes?
Are shoes permitted in carry-on bags?Shoes that are in carry-on bags can stay there. Nothing has changed but depending on how they look on xray in the carry-on could cause the officer to want to have another look at your bag.
Has TSA started screening everyone entering the secure area each time they enter?TSA screens every passenger entering the secure area. If by this you mean other employees then they are screened on a random basis. The direct access point screening has been piloted to 100% screening at various airports.
Has TSA complied with the Congressional mandate to screen 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial passenger aircraft?I am fairly certain this mandate is not in effect yet. I believe last I read it was mandated for 2010 and may of changed since then.
Has TSA developed a method to keep checked baggage secure after it has been inspected by the TSA?A lot of what people want with this secure checked baggage is operationally impossible. People complain that about the use of their tax dollars now and then you want to pour more tax dollars into something. I don't get it. When will people be happy? I already know people are going to say when TSA is not around but face the new age... TSA is around. The thing with secure checked baggage is not just relied on to TSA but also everyone else that has contact with the bags.
It's internet, Chris, not intra-net.
The TSA folks who run this blog seem to take particular offense when someone points out an obvious flaw or inconsistency in their system that the Security Geniuses at Headquarters seem to have missed when they designed it. One of them relates to this new policy, requiring the shoes on our feet to be placed separately on the conveyor belt while (presumably) allowing any shoes in our carry-ons to remain there. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but then a lot of things the TSA does don't make sense to me.
Their preferred way of dealing with people who point out obvious flaws is to just ignore them, in the hope that everyone else will ignore it as well and whoever posted it will just go away. Security is always more effective when you ignore the flaws. We can only hope that the terrorists ignore them too.
Or maybe the idea is to make stupid rules meant to catch stupid terrorists who stumble into the checkpoints. The smart terrorists will be intercepted by the BDOs well before the get to the checkpoints, as long as they're also carrying drugs.
How about shoes on our feet, where they belong, and where civilized countries allow us to leave them when we travel?
Three posts in the first half of a month don't make this an interesting blog. Please pick up the pace.
One of the 5-6 or 10-12. I'm kinda confused.
In response to Anonymous:
So when the laces get wrapped around the rollers and the machine stops, will TSA reimburse passengers for damaged shoes?
First, I would say that if you have shoes with laces, tuck them in before you put them on the belt to be safe. Of course there are no guarantees. We advise people to wear slip on shoes to speed their way through security, and that would help as well.
To answer your question, just as you could file a claim if your laptop were damaged on the belt, you could file a claim if your shoes were damaged.
@txrus:
I've passed on your comment to our security operations office for their awareness. They confirmed that passengers are advised that they can put shoes directly on the belt, but they are not required to.
Thanks for letting us know about your experience.
Lynn
EOS Blog Team
This is ridiculous. Shoes present no threat to aircraft. We know it, you know it, and every time the TSA brain trust invents another pointless change in policy relating to shoes, you are lying to us.
So I'm done. I now have a medical condition that prevents me from taking off my shoes, too: I'm allergic to stupidity. And if I have to waste TSA's time so they can screen my shoes, which are as harmless as every other shoe that TSA gets the vapors over, good.
@txrus - wanted to make sure you saw that I responded previously to an anonymous commenter's question about being comensated if a shoe or shoes get damaged on the belt. If that happens, you can file a claim just as you would if any other of your items were damaged during security.
Lynn, first of all thank you for answering the question. I am one of TSAs harshest critics and greatly appreciate your speedy answer.
Now one other question, you make a comment about slip on shoes speeding the security process. The shoe removal process was one I encountered before 9/11 (steel toed shoes) and as such is only a minor inconvenience. Red Wing doesn't, to the best of my knowledge make a pair of steel toed loafers/sandals so laces are a given. When will TSA drop the shoe screening since nowhere else in the world are shoes given the attention they are given here in the US. We also don't see aircraft dropping from the sky due to shoe bombs.
Lynn, are shoes more or less likely to get damaged in a bin or on a belt? Since shoes pose no risk to anyone, why does TSA want us to do something that could damage our shoes?
What will TSA do if a citizen's only pair of shoes is damaged irreparably by one of your machines?
Why is TSA obsessed with shoes people wear to the airport, but not shoes in carryon bags?
"They confirmed that passengers are advised that they can put shoes directly on the belt, but they are not required to."
What steps are you taking to make sure the airport breaking your policy stops doing so, then?
Lynn said...
In response to Anonymous:
So when the laces get wrapped around the rollers and the machine stops, will TSA reimburse passengers for damaged shoes?
First, I would say that if you have shoes with laces, tuck them in before you put them on the belt to be safe. Of course there are no guarantees. We advise people to wear slip on shoes to speed their way through security, and that would help as well.
To answer your question, just as you could file a claim if your laptop were damaged on the belt, you could file a claim if your shoes were damaged.
May 15, 2009 3:53 PM
.....................
If shoes stayed on feet where they belong then all of this discussion would be for naught.
How many cases of exploding shoes has TSA uncovered?
If somewhere around 2 million people fly per day then that would be something just under 4 million shoes per day that are potential threats.
So what percentage of shoes presented for screening have been declared threats to the aircraft?
How many zeros after the decimal?
Great, another "suggestion" which will be rammed down our throats by power-tripping TSOs.
I regularly put my shoes and freedom-baggie in a bin, sometimes with my coat. I regularly stuff my cell phone and my watch into the shoes to make sure I don't forget them at the checkpoint. No way I'll put those small items in shoes that aren't in a bin. Other than a power-tripping TSO at HNL who wouldn't let my shoes into the x-ray with my phone in them, my shoes have never needed to be re-run or have secondary screening. Neither has the other pair of shoes in my rollaboard that usually has an electric razor, spare batteries, and sometimes an umbrella stuffed into the shoes.
TSA should be forced to compensate travelers who have their shoes damaged by this policy and compensate travelers who miss their flights due to delays caused by x-ray jams that occur due to this policy.
@ Alan: here's some answers for you:
How does this new "Shoe Policy" improve safety of commercial aircraft? It gives officers a more clear view of shoes to ensure they haven't been tampered with. We've seen some cases where a family of four puts all their shoes in one bin, along with other items. Other times, people throw their jacket over their shoes. Officers need a clear view of them to clear them.
Are shoes no longer permitted in bins? No. We would rather have them directly on the belt, but it is not mandatory. I have seen the comments on the blog of people reporting being told they must take shoes out of the bin, and we've shared that info with our security operations office so they're aware.
Are shoes permitted in carry-on bags? Yes.
Has TSA started screening everyone entering the secure area each time they enter?No. We do continuous random employee screening at various times and various locations of the airport to inspect workers, their property and vehicles. These screening measures include ensuring workers follow proper access procedures when entering secure areas, display the appropriate credentials, and do not possess items unrelated to their work that may pose a security threat.
Airport employees receive a security threat assessment prior to receiving credentials and access privileges. Security threat assessments consist of a criminal history records check and vetting against terrorist watch lists, and are required for not only airport personnel but also individuals with access to public areas that possess airport credentials. This includes taxi drivers, parking lot attendants, vendors and shuttle bus drivers who have identification issued by the airport. It's not a one-time thing - they're perpetually vetted against watch lists.
Has TSA complied with the Congressional mandate to screen 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial passenger aircraft?The 9/11 Act includes requirements to screen 100% of cargo on passenger aircraft (50% by February 2009; 100% by August 2010). TSA met the February 2009 deadline. In addition, last October, TSA mandated screening of all cargo on narrow-body (one aisle) aircraft. These planes make up more than 95% of all U.S. flights – covering more than 85% of all U.S. passengers each day.
Has TSA developed a method to keep checked baggage secure after it has been inspected by the TSA?
I'll have to research that one and get back to you.
Thanks for your questions.
"It gives officers a more clear view of shoes to ensure they haven't been tampered with. We've seen some cases where a family of four puts all their shoes in one bin, along with other items. Other times, people throw their jacket over their shoes. Officers need a clear view of them to clear them. "
But shoes pose no threat to anyone, so why does TSA insist that citizens remove them in the first place?
A note regarding "required" vs. "recommended":
We were first notified that shoes were going to be "required" to be run completely separately, and that was what we started enforcing. The word came down a day or two later that it was not "required" but "recommended". So that probably accounts for the disconnect there.
The reasoning being that the X-Ray operator needs to be able to clearly see the shoe in order to clear it successfully. Shoes are a known threat vector, as evidenced by Richard Reid and numerous drug smugglers. It's far from the only threat vector, but when we know that people want to smuggle things in shoes, and have in fact done so in the past, it makes no sense to allow someone to bring shoes into the sterile area without having them X-Ray screened. Of course, we could ETD every pair of shoes and let you leave them on your feet, but that would take at least 10 times as long as removing them and running them through the X-Ray, so I don't see that as being a viable alternative.
When the shoes are run in a tray with other items, *especially* when there are numerous items shoved inside the shoe (coins, keys, cell phones [p.s. Who wants to put their cell phone back to their head after they stuck it in their shoe? Really?], etc.) it becomes very difficult to tell if the shoes have been altered. We all know how badly TSA does on Red Team tests, a portion of that is because they hide things in shoes and them cover them up. The TSO doesn't spend the time to adequately check the shoes, and a threat is missed. However when shoes were run by themselves without any obstructions, the TSOs had a much higher success rate. It makes sense to make a small alteration to the policy to drastically increase the likelihood that a threat can be caught.
It is more important to get better security, than worrying about damage to a pair of shoes. Shoes can be replaced. But life can not be replaced once it is lost. It is very important to cooperate with airport authorities, who are protecting us from terrorists.
Thank you, Lynn, for your answers to some of our questions. You are the first person to do so in a polite and concise manner. We don't have to agree with your answers, i.e., not screening everyone every time they enter a "sterile" area, but I think I speak for many when I say I appreciate your answers.
About the shoes in the bins...I remember in training that we were told to place the shoes directly on the belt. I think this 'new' policy is just a reiteration of what we were first taught. Perhaps there in new intel that has brought this back to the forefront. Or it could be that we as TSOs have slacked off a bit and are being steered back on course. We all need to be reminded from time to time of simple things.
When I am divesting, I make it a habbit to remove shoes from the bins, make sure they are empty and put them on the belt. This gives the x-ray operator an unobstructed view of the shoe as well as the other items that are still in the bin. But there is another advantage as well...Now I know this isn't a big deal to most of you folks, but when we put the shoes directly on the belt, often time that saves an extra bin, meaning the bins at the end last longer. The TSOs are not constantly having to run them out while you are waiting for additional screening in the little box. With a better view of the rest of the items in the tub, hopefully we have less bag checks to do (freeing us up to more quickly get to the box to screen you). And lastly, the belt on the end doesn't back up as quickly because the shoes take up much less room than the bins do. If you've flown much at all, you know that the space at the other end of the x-ray is often very short.
There is also a cleanliness issue. I have had countless people ask me if we could NOT put shoes in the bins because items like baby food, toys, pillows etc. must go in them, and it's just plain gross to think of someones shoes having just been in the same bin.
These are just a few reasons why it makes sense. Hope this helps.
Ronnie TSO DEN
It's quite obvious that the people who make these decision's don't work at a check-point. When shoes hit the lead curtains they have a way of doing all kinds of things and come on the screen at different angles and flip and roll. Shoe's be in a bin sole down the way the our SOP was meant. To many busy bodies that have no clue.
Please tell us why shoes REALLY can't go in a bin - the screeners have ALWAYS complained about having to run used bins back to the front of the checkpoint. That's all this "new policy" is about - limiting the use of bins. And just wait to see all the crazy rules that come up if (when?) the screeners go UNION. Just wait until the dirt, muck, and mud from shoe treads gets all over the x-ray belts and then gets smeared on peoples' coats and bags. Save bins? Nope - I'm maxing bins out for my bags, my coat, my toiletries, etc. And as far as manually hauling bins back to the front of the checkpoint, how about joining Europe in the new millenium and install automated bin returners?
Lynn- FYI, I flew out of Will Rogers Worldport in OKC on Wed May 13th. A passenger placed his shoes in a bin right in front of the x-ray belt. A TSO right there YELLED at the top of her lungs, "DON'T PUT YOUR SHOES IN THE BINS! SHOES CAN ONLY GO DIRECTLY ON THE XRAY BELT, FOLKS!" Aside from the decidedly unprofessional manner in which the TSO conducted herself (she can't take care of the passenger one on one and then make a polite announcement?), she defintely said shoes on the belt was MANDATORY.
Lynn said...
@ Alan: here's some answers for you:
How does this new "Shoe Policy" improve safety of commercial aircraft?
It gives officers a more clear view of shoes to ensure they haven't been tampered with. We've seen some cases where a family of four puts all their shoes in one bin, along with other items. Other times, people throw their jacket over their shoes. Officers need a clear view of them to clear them.
Are shoes no longer permitted in bins? No. We would rather have them directly on the belt, but it is not mandatory. I have seen the comments on the blog of people reporting being told they must take shoes out of the bin, and we've shared that info with our security operations office so they're aware.
Are shoes permitted in carry-on bags? Yes.
Has TSA started screening everyone entering the secure area each time they enter?No. We do continuous random employee screening at various times and various locations of the airport to inspect workers, their property and vehicles. These screening measures include ensuring workers follow proper access procedures when entering secure areas, display the appropriate credentials, and do not possess items unrelated to their work that may pose a security threat.
Airport employees receive a security threat assessment prior to receiving credentials and access privileges. Security threat assessments consist of a criminal history records check and vetting against terrorist watch lists, and are required for not only airport personnel but also individuals with access to public areas that possess airport credentials. This includes taxi drivers, parking lot attendants, vendors and shuttle bus drivers who have identification issued by the airport. It's not a one-time thing - they're perpetually vetted against watch lists.
Has TSA complied with the Congressional mandate to screen 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial passenger aircraft?The 9/11 Act includes requirements to screen 100% of cargo on passenger aircraft (50% by February 2009; 100% by August 2010). TSA met the February 2009 deadline. In addition, last October, TSA mandated screening of all cargo on narrow-body (one aisle) aircraft. These planes make up more than 95% of all U.S. flights – covering more than 85% of all U.S. passengers each day.
Has TSA developed a method to keep checked baggage secure after it has been inspected by the TSA?
I'll have to research that one and get back to you.
Thanks for your questions.
May 15, 2009 5:30 PM
........................
Many of the questions above were submitted in one of my post submissions along with other questions.
Why did TSA an agency of the United States using a taxpayer paid venue to communicate with the citizens of this country violate my rights of free speech protected under the United States Constitution?
I thought TSA employees took an oath to defend the constitution. Right?
Seems whoever restricted my right of free speech has violated their oath and could be in jeapordy of a crimminal complaint.
Lynn would that be you who violated my protected rights?
To be clear for readers of this blog, should this item get posted, I did not violate the stated posting standards.
Now to deal with the response provided by Lynn.
Seems congress does not think TSA will be able to inspect cargo as mandated.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/031909cdam1.htm
"The 9/11 bill also required TSA to ensure that 50 percent of cargo being shipped on passenger planes is screened beginning on Feb. 3. To meet that mandate, TSA now requires air carriers in the United States to screen cargo put on narrow-body airplanes -- those with only one aisle.
But TSA's ability to meet even that deadline is under dispute. The agency has not been able to produce data to verify the claim, said Stephen Lord, the Government Accountability Office's director of homeland security and justice issues."
In another answer you say that shoes can be in a carry-on but not covered by a suit jacket because a clear image of the shoes is not possible.
Care to try again Lynn? Are the xray machines so poor that they cannot image through a suit jacket but can through a typical carry-on bag? I'm trying not to laugh!
Let us deal with the "They have clearances" bit. Did the TSO who made a nice living with stolen goods sold on Ebay have a clearance? Did the suspected TSO Orlando drug dealer have a clearance?
With the number of reports of items stolen from checked luggage by someone it is clear that "Security Clearances" do not guarentee a persons conduct. If something can be removed from checked baggage by persons unknown then something can be inserted by the same unknown persons. What kind of security is that?
Your answers here demonstrate beyond doubt that TSA provides little real security.
TSA in its current form is just a big waste of taxpayers monies.
TSA should be abolished.
A Frequent Flier said...
"Just went through San Jose Security -- they made every person with shoes in the bin re-run the bag with the shoes on the conveyer belt. ..... And they made the line take twice as long because they were literally re-running EVERY bin and EVERY shoe that originally went through in a bin."
West . . . .
Are you reading this thread?
Not even one week old, and the new optional shoe policy is already being misused and abused by TSOs.
If TSA can't even assure its TSOs receive appropriate training to implement something this simple (1, shoes are preferred out of the bins, on the belt; 2, this is optional for the passenger), how in the world am I supposed to just have faith and trust that TSOs are appropriately trained and competent to make more complex decisions?
Irish
p.s. It's a rhetorical question, West. This must be very embarrassing for you.
Does someone up there need a ClueStick(tm)?
The TSA has spent nigh mind-boggling time and resources training the flying public to put everything into the bins. Everything. Including shoes.
So now, the TSA wants everyone to put everything excluding their shoes in bins, and put their shoes on the conveyor. Maybe.
Sheer brilliance. Let's inject another level of confusion on the traveling public by creating another layer of 'random difference between checkpoint' enforcement that does nothing but annoys the flying public.
Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust that training to include "put your shoes in their own bin"?
I fly >30K miles a year, with approx. 10K miles in the last 2 months. I've seen lots of stupid decisions by the TSA, but this one takes the cake. I must applaud the TSA at making flying even harder for the non-terrorist.
I have flown fly 3 - 6 times per month and have never placed my shoes in a bin, nor have I placed the laces inside them, and have never had a problem. At LAX T3 this past Friday the TSO "required" the passenger in front of me to put her shoes on the belt. At that point in the screening process there is very little time to discuss with the TSO what is mandatory and what is not.
Typically the TSO to advise the procedures to follow is the one manning the metal detector. Which requires he or she to issue directions in a loud voice (which would bring us back to some really old blogs), to remove electronics, to remove coats, etc, etc.
And speaking of consistencies why do some checkpoints require you to show your boarding pass and others do not. And then if you left your boarding pass is in the bin some checkpoints
. allow you to pass throught the metal detector,
. retireive the boarding pass and,
. show the TSO,
and other checkpoints
. have a TSO bring the bin back to the beginning of the tunnel,
. retrieve your boarding pass,
. put the bin through X-Ray again, and
. you then show your boarding pass.
Does the Security Operations Office establish processes and procedures that each checkpoint must follow? or does each checkpoint have latitude in establishing their own?
Frank-BOS
It's all going through motions to give an appearance that something is being done. It is not done with individual intelligence or instruction, rather a overreaching general list. Recognize drinking water vs. kerosene? Nope. 3 oz. of anything is fine. As long as the dangerous liquids are divided into 4 three-oz bottles it is good to go.
As for our absurd fear of shoes, since the other countries are not doing it, foreign terrorists (as most would presumably be) merely need to board a plane ENTERING the US with their magic Nikes. (oh, crap, now we will have our shoes searched at immigration too...)
And from the TSA side of things, let me say that there is a boatload of space cadets out there either time-traveling from the 20th century, boarding a plane for the first time in their lives, or completely unable to read signs/hear announcements, who still get all the way up to the line and have their liquids buried all over inside their luggage or had NO idea that laptops come out. Seriously??? Saw two right in front of me yesterday, can't imagine the number throughout the day.
One more thing: standardize the security zone to include a long table before the rollers. How on earth can we expect a person to take off a belt, shoes, take out the laptop, a bag of liquids, while holding a bag and personal item with no place to set it all down? Give people room, and then the option of going around with just a handbag while the guy with all of the above struggles to arrange it into 2-3 bins. Some airports have this already.
"Because shoes present a viable threat to aviation security - this has been addressed several times."
No. This has been claimed by TSA and its apologists, but it is not true. No other country requires mandatory shoe removal, and shoe bombs are not causing planes to fall from the sky in those counties. TSA did not require mandatory shoe removal prior to August of 2006, and planes were not falling from the sky then. TSA's claims that shoes present an ongoing, viable threat to aviation are, simply, lies.
"Richard Reid is the biggest example, but there is other research and possibilities involved as well."
Reid was over a half-decade ago. No one has tried to use shoes as a delivery mechanism for harming an airplane since then. TSA's policy is a hysterical overreaction to a threat so unlikely as to be effectively nonexistent.
"The reality of life in the 21st century is that the United States government has exactly two choices, 1) To make it citizens safer by increasing security (regardless of skeptical whining this is what TSA has done) or 2) To allow its citizens to die at the hands of radicals."
This is a nonsensical false dichotomy. The bulk of TSA's policies do nothing to make anyone safer: Shoes present no threat to aviation, nor do liquids. TSA's lies do not make it so just because they fall from TSA's bloated gullet.
OK. I have a serious question and I am in no way being disrespectful or sarcastic in asking it...
If and when an airport offers the full-body scan thing (I'm sorry I can't remember what it's called), would that negate the need to remove one's shoes?
"No punitive screening, but you may be delayed a bit while they are re-run through the xray."
Why would TSA need to do this, aside from pettiness? I note that TSA has provided no evidence of any sort to indicate that this is anything but a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Guess there will be lots of screeners changing their gloves every time they try to touch my shoes...
Last time I flew there were still no signs asking people to remove their shoes - we were apparently suppose dot know on our own. Neither airport had a place to sit down to take the shoes off, and only 1 airport had seats where we had to put them back on...
For God's sake, please end the War on Shoes.
This one thing would go such a long way in removing the annoyance I feel towards the airports, TSA, and flying.
We all know this is Security Theater anyway.
PDX Officer wrote:
"Shoes are a known threat vector, as evidenced by Richard Reid and numerous drug smugglers."Sir or madam, could you please explain what kind of officer you are?
What threat to aviation security do drug smugglers present?
I maintain that best TSA can possibly hope for with this policy of searching the shoes of every commercial airline passenger is to foil the plans of a person who intended to carry contraband through the checkpoint hidden in his shoe but cannot think of any alternative place to smuggle it -- like in his rectum, under his arm, under his waistband, or in his pocket.
The odds of that "if I can't hide it in my shoe because TSA searches shoes I'll just give up and not try to bomb the plane" plan happening are miniscule, and the cost of avoiding it is enormous. Doing so via this ridiculous shoe search policy is a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. It is security theater.
What would U.S. Government checkpoints in airports be like today if Richard Reid had carried his explosive under his arm, taped to the small of his back, tucked in his crotch, in his mouth, or in another body cavity?Are we to assume that TSA never considered the possibility of someone smuggling an explosive in his shoe until Richard Reid did? Did this one man's action increase the risk of not searching passengers' shoes? Of course not. Would we be searching shoes if instead of finding Richard reid with an explosive in his shoe, someone had simply written a high-profile fictional story about someone doing so? It certainly would have brought the possibility to light. Would we begin submitting to body strip- or body cavity searches if someone wrote such a story about a criminal smuggling a bit of explosive tucked under his belt, taped to his back, or in his rectum? Would we do so if one man was actually caught doing so? Would TSA apologists tell us to remember the buttocks bomber?
Is the risk of small amounts of explosive being smuggled onto an airplane in one of the many places where someone could easily do so really any less now than the risk of it would be after we caught one person doing so? Why on Earth are we searching shoes via x-ray when we allow mouths, armpits, rectums, and every other area of the body where something sized similarly to that which will fit in the sole of a shoe through airport checkpoints with nothing but a walk through the magnetometer?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
PDX Officer writes:
We were first notified that shoes were going to be "required" to be run completely separately, and that was what we started enforcing. The word came down a day or two later that it was not "required" but "recommended". So that probably accounts for the disconnect there.Lynn ... can you comment on how this sort of thing happened? Was there ambiguity in how this new policy was conveyed to front-line TSOs? This wouldn't be the first time that TSOs were told something different than passengers regarding what procedures to follow at the checkpoint.
Of course, if the list of procedures that all passengers needed to follow was publicly available ... (paging Phil ...)
Ronnie said: "There is also a cleanliness issue. I have had countless people ask me if we could NOT put shoes in the bins because items like baby food, toys, pillows etc. must go in them, and it's just plain gross to think of someones shoes having just been in the same bin."
Ronnie, that's an interesting take on it and I agree to a point. Another commenter mentions that if you put shoes on the belt itself, then the belt and rollers are going to get dirty with the detritus from those shoes, and that dirt and "stuff" will then get on people's bags, coats, and other stuff that has to go on the belt. I agree with that person also.
See, the problem here is SCREENING SHOES AT ALL. Shoes belong on feet, not in bins or on belts. Making us take our shoes off is an abusive policy and it needs to stop. When are we going to see some sanity in these policies?
As for why people are angry when the post here, well...if you've been through any of these security checkpoints recently you wouldn't wonder why people are angry. I wish all the personnel at checkpoints were as polite, well-mannered, and intelligent as the bloggers here are, but they are NOT. They're mostly rude, loud, abrasive, and abusive! And that's why people are angry.
GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "Lynn, why does TSA persist in lying to us by falsely claiming that shoes prevent some sort of a threat to aviation? No other country in the world mandates shoe removal at airport screening with no ill effects."
Because shoes present a viable threat to aviation security - this has been addressed several times. Richard Reid is the biggest example, but there is other research and possibilities involved as well.
West
EOS Blog Team
********
No other country in the world requires passengers to remove their shoes, unless they are flying to the United States. Richard Reid is nothing more than the TSA's boogey man to justify a poorly designed policy for something that happened over eight years ago. If they are a threat please provide a recent example of an actual terrorist trying to smuggle a weapon or bomb onto a plane in their shoe.
@ John Mc:
Last time I flew there were still no signs asking people to remove their shoes - we were apparently suppose dot know on our own. Neither airport had a place to sit down to take the shoes off, and only 1 airport had seats where we had to put them back on...There's no plan to post signs. Officers will advise passengers that they can put their shoes directly on the belt. I feel your pain on not having a place to take shoes off and put them on - I'd like to see more of them myself. I'll ask around and see what I find out.
Lynn
EOS Blog Team
Lynn at TSA wrote:
Officers will advise passengers that they can put their shoes directly on the belt."Since this was already the case, and likely what people assume anyway, don't you suppose it's a waste of staff time to announce it?
Also, when you write "officers" you mean TSA luggage inspectors, not law enforcement officers, right?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
@ Sandra:
Thanks for the kind words.
Lynn
EOS Blog Team
Anonymous said...
So when the laces get wrapped around the rollers and the machine stops, will TSA reimburse passengers for damaged shoes?
How do you suppose that will happen? Tuck your laces into your shoes then. Its a wonder anyone gets any sleep in this country with the things they worry about constantly...
PDX Officer said...
A note regarding "required" vs. "recommended":
We were first notified that shoes were going to be "required" to be run completely separately, and that was what we started enforcing. The word came down a day or two later that it was not "required" but "recommended". So that probably accounts for the disconnect there.
The reasoning being that the X-Ray operator needs to be able to clearly see the shoe in order to clear it successfully.
....................
Would you mind explaining to simple me why shoes in a bin are not screenable but they are when in a carry-on bag?
The shoes on the belt was intended to solve a TSA problem. TSO's don't like carting the bins back and forth.
Since shoes on the belt is an optional thing I suggest 1 shoe, 1 bin plus enough additional bins to place a persons items so they are jammed together. I figure 5 or 6 bins per person.
Since TSA has so much extra staff that they can do unneeded gate screenings I suggest we up the work load as much as possible.
ON DFW NBC affiliate, TSA wants shoes on the belt.
If you put them in a bin they may need to be rescreened or you make get extra screening.
Well TSA, kinda hard to put the Jeannie back in the bottle, eh?
And the TSA leadership created this policy for what reason?
So tell me again, how can shoes in a bin be harder to screen than shoes in a carry-on bag?
So Bob, tell us about this latest great idea that TSA has come up with, you know the shoes not in the bin thing.
Are shoes not permitted in bins?
Are shoes permitted in carry-on bags?
Can I place a bin over my shoes to keep them from getting shuffled by other objects?
Can my shoes be in a plastic bag? If so does the bag need to be transparent or can it be opaque?
Do shoes go on the belt toe first, heel first, left side first or right side first. Right side up or upside down? Shoe laces tied in a bow, tied together or not tied at all? Shoe inserts removed or not?
If I place my shoes on the xray feed belt then a bin is later placed on the same spot my shoes laid the bottom of that bin will pick up any soil from my shoes. That bin will get placed in another pin carrying that soil to the inside of the bin it is nested in.
There have been reports of TSO's screaming at passengers to stack the bins up after exit from the xray. Is this in fact new policy?
So Bob, please provide a link or copy of this new "Shoe Policy" so travelers will be able to review these new requirements and know what is required of them.
How does this new "Shoe Policy" improve safety of commercial aircraft?
Has TSA started screening everyone entering the secure area each time they enter?
Has TSA developed a method to keep checked baggage secure after it has been pilfered by TSA inspectors?
Has TSA complied with the Congressional mandate to screen 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial passenger aircraft?
Oh, by the way, is this just another effort by some TSA Mensa to make you guys look even more inept?
@ RB:
Since I wrote the post, I'll answer your questions. If you look at previous comments, you'll see I've already answered some of them. I'll cover the others here.
Can I place a bin over my shoes to keep them from getting shuffled by other objects? No.
Can my shoes be in a plastic bag? If so does the bag need to be transparent or can it be opaque? If you want to put them in a clear plastic bag, go ahead. Shoes have to be sole down, side by side.
Do shoes go on the belt toe first, heel first, left side first or right side first. Right side up or upside down? Shoe laces tied in a bow, tied together or not tied at all? Shoe inserts removed or not? Put your shoes soles down, side by side on the belt. That gives officers the best view.
If I place my shoes on the xray feed belt then a bin is later placed on the same spot my shoes laid the bottom of that bin will pick up any soil from my shoes. That bin will get placed in another pin carrying that soil to the inside of the bin it is nested in. How is that different than if you put your shoes in a bin with soil on them and got soil in the bin?
There have been reports of TSO's screaming at passengers to stack the bins up after exit from the xray. Is this in fact new policy? No, it is not.
So Bob, please provide a link or copy of this new "Shoe Policy" so travelers will be able to review these new requirements and know what is required of them. There is no link. This is an advisement that officers will give to passengers as they're divesting at the checkpoint. At about 12 airports around the country, including Dulles and MCO in Florida, they've been telling passengers they could put shoes on the belt for years. Passengers who are looking for information to help them get through the security checkpoint can go to the Travelers page on our website: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm.
Oh, by the way, is this just another effort by some TSA Mensa to make you guys look even more inept? No. It's to give officers a better view of shoes.
Anonymous wrote...
"Richard Reid is nothing more than the TSA's boogey man to justify a poorly designed policy for something that happened over eight years ago. If they are a threat please provide a recent example of an actual terrorist trying to smuggle a weapon or bomb onto a plane in their shoe."
The idea of a "recent example", in my opinion, is nothing short of an incredible amount of stupidity on your part. A recent example. Really? The ONLY reason he failed to blow up that plane and kill all those people was because he planned badly, slept and then sweated into his shoes, and was unable to light the fuse because it was wet. A recent example? Do you mean you will accept this policy only when people are killed, or are you so certain the next “example” will be a failure like Reed? Reed failed to kill anyone, but I guess by your use of logic – since you use the word “recent” – this policy was ok, because it was soon after the incident. I can accept other arguments against this policy, maybe, but to write that was simply stupid.
"No. It's to give officers a better view of shoes."
They don't need any view of shoes, since shoes provide no threat to aviation.
Lynn, since this is an advisement and not a mandatory requirement, please inform us what steps TSA is taking to correct airports that are falsely telling citizens that this is mandatory. Also, describe what disciplinary actions you are taking against TSOs who are needlessly putting shoes whose owners preferred to put them in bins through a second, punitive round of screening.
Anonymous said...
"So I'm done. I now have a medical condition that prevents me from taking off my shoes, too: I'm allergic to stupidity. And if I have to waste TSA's time so they can screen my shoes, which are as harmless as every other shoe that TSA gets the vapors over, good."
_______________________________
You don't seem to get it. Your not wasting anyone's time at TSA. It's your time. And you do what you feel what you have to do. Whether I screen someone with a medical condition that takes a bit longer or passengers without one, it really makes no difference to me. Whether I work a 4 or 5 hour shift, or up to 12 hours in a day, I'm there to screen people and their property. I will try my best to screen people as quickly and efficiently as possible.
However, what I have seen from time to time is people have to wait to be screen, simply because it is busy. If you claim you have a medical conditon it might take longer to get through (just to let you know, at the airport I work at screening people with medical conditions is a priority). And if you happen to be the fifth person with a medical condition waiting to be screen, the time I spend at the checkpoint each day is the same, no matter how fast I work. The time you spend there might change. Again, its not mine or anyone elses time at TSA your spending, but your own.
So when you say "if I have to waste TSA's time" I seriously hope you and everyone else understand, your not.
Not to say I don't care how long it takes to get through. I actually do.
Lynn said...
Since I wrote the post, I'll answer your questions. If you look at previous comments, you'll see I've already answered some of them. I'll cover the others here.
--------------
Thank you for the answers.
But the one question that you haven't answered (at least I haven't found it) is "Why are shoes in carry on bags treated differently than shoes worn to the airport?"
Groovymarlin said...
OK. I have a serious question and I am in no way being disrespectful or sarcastic in asking it...
If and when an airport offers the full-body scan thing (I'm sorry I can't remember what it's called), would that negate the need to remove one's shoes?
May 18, 2009 11:45 AM
---------
From another thread, it was stated that you still must remove your shoes. Something to the affect that the maches doesn't scan the feet clearly.
Oh, by the way, is this just another effort by some TSA Mensa to make you guys look even more inept? No. It's to give officers a better view of shoes.
May 19, 2009 10:17 AM
Lynn, if your "officers" cannot clearly see shoes in a bin then how on earth can they see these same shoes in a carry-on bag?
No other country in the world requires passengers to remove their shoes, unless they are flying to the United States. Richard Reid is nothing more than the TSA's boogey man to justify a poorly designed policy for something that happened over eight years ago. If they are a threat please provide a recent example of an actual terrorist trying to smuggle a weapon or bomb onto a plane in their shoe.
___________________________________
There is not an example. Why, because people have to take their shoes off. There for are not trying to conceal anything in their shoes. As long as TSA is observing shoes on the x-ray people are going to be less likely to hide something in them. That is a good thing. So just because nothing has been found doesn't mean that the policy is not working.
Please tell us why shoes REALLY can't go in a bin - the screeners have ALWAYS complained about having to run used bins back to the front of the checkpoint. That's all this "new policy" is about - limiting the use of bins.
___________________________________
Thats funny. You think that TSA flies TSO's to Washington where the TSO's make changes to the rules. HA! There is someone who gets paid the big bucks to sit around and figure these things out. And trust me they could care less how many bins a TSO has to carry.
Groovymarlin asked:
"OK. I have a serious question and I am in no way being disrespectful or sarcastic in asking it...
If and when an airport offers the full-body scan thing (I'm sorry I can't remember what it's called), would that negate the need to remove one's shoes?"
Yes, your shoes still need to come off and you need to "divest" yourself of EVERYTHING in your pockets, even items that would make it through the WTMD undetected.
Lynn said...
In reply to Anonymous:
I have a medical condition which prevents me from removing my shoes at airport checkpoints. Please describe what sort of screening I can expect from your employees to accommodate my medical condition.Thanks for the question - here's your answer:
There is an exception for passengers with disabilities, medical conditions, and prosthetic devices. These passengers do not have to remove their shoes, however, security officers will give them additional screening. This includes a visual and physical inspection as well as explosives trace detection sampling of the footwear while it remains on the passenger’s feet.
Lynn
EOS Blog Team
May 14, 2009 5:48 PM
Sadly, Team SFO was unaware of this at the checkpoint to Term 1 Domestic at approximately 11:15 am on 5/18.
Both the screener and the supervisor I requested told me, "If you do not remove your shoes you can't come through the checkpoint." Fortunately TEAM SFO's reputation preceded them and I had the print out from your website that details the procedure.
Even so, the supervisor persisted in inquiring as to why I could not walk shoeless. He was not happy that I would not answer his questions about my medical condition.
Maybe you can arrange to get the screeners at SFO updated on TSA policy.
I have worked for TSA for about 3 years, and have screened many people with medical condition that requires they do not remove their shoe. What you should expect is to undergo a hand held medical detector if your medical condition allows it, and if not a full body pat-down. If you are screened using a HHMD that is followed by a more limited pat-down. All of which is followed by an ETD run on your hands and shoes while they remain on your feet.
I can tell you this, though. I can not tell by usually looking at someone if they have a medical condition, just as you most likely can't determine what medical condition I have by looking at me, usually. I have found the quickest way to get through is not to just simply say "I'm not going to remove my shoes", let the person at the walk-through metal detector know that you have a "medical condition". You do not need to tell them the nature of the condition; just stating that you have one and it prevents you from removing yours shoes should be enough.
TSO John
May 14, 2009 10:22 PM
Thanks for the post John . . .
But, the handheld metal detector is only to be used if the WTMD alarms . . .
You will note in my post quoting Lynn that not all screeners know that shoes do not need to be removed. based on only my experiences, perhaps a third of the screeners persist in telling me that my shoes must be removed.
I am concerned that my shoes will rollover when they go through those lead curtains and that my orthotic heel lifts will fall out and get lost. Is it OK for me to carry the heel lifts through the metal detector thing?
Lynn answered ...
"'If I place my shoes on the xray feed belt then a bin is later placed on the same spot my shoes laid the bottom of that bin will pick up any soil from my shoes. That bin will get placed in another pin carrying that soil to the inside of the bin it is nested in.'
How is that different than if you put your shoes in a bin with soil on them and got soil in the bin?"
Bingo! Give that gal a Kewpee doll.
Irish
Randy, please use http://www.tsa.gov/gotfeedback and contact a customer support manager. I'm going to cut and pasted your comment and send it to them, but if you would like follow up, I suggest you contact them.
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
"There is not an example. Why, because people have to take their shoes off. There for are not trying to conceal anything in their shoes."
Try to understand the simple fact that TSA's shoe carnival is limited to the United States. Other countries that do not have the shoe carnival have not experienced any wave of shoe-delivered explosives taking down aircraft. Nor did anyone try to do so between Reid's flight and TSA's absurd decision to make the shoe carnival mandatory in August of 2006.
"As long as TSA is observing shoes on the x-ray people are going to be less likely to hide something in them. That is a good thing. So just because nothing has been found doesn't mean that the policy is not working."
The preponderance of the evidence is that no one, anywhere, is trying to use shoes to harm aircraft, and TSA's policy is thus exposed as a hysterical overreaction.
TSA's policy is thus exposed as a hysterical overreaction.
..........................
Yes, this the the core model of TSA's Screening Methodology.
Henceforth know as TSA Theater.
Bob said...
Randy, please use http://www.tsa.gov/gotfeedback and contact a customer support manager. I'm going to cut and pasted your comment and send it to them, but if you would like follow up, I suggest you contact them.
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
May 20, 2009 2:07 PM
Bob . . .
I would except that I do not have the screener or supervisor names. I was delayed just enough that I was more concerned with keeping an eye on my unattended bags than with eyeballing the name tags of the men involved.
Randy writes:
I would except that I do not have the screener or supervisor names. I was delayed just enough that I was more concerned with keeping an eye on my unattended bags than with eyeballing the name tags of the men involved.If you give the airport name, which checkpoint, and the approximate time of the incident, they should be able to figure out the rest ...
Lynn, I am more than a little confused. Are passengers required to put there shoes on the belt or is it optional and can we still use the bins? If it is optional where can I find a copy of the policy so I can make TSO's aware of this when I travel?
Randy said....
"Thanks for the post John . . .
But, the handheld metal detector is only to be used if the WTMD alarms . . ."
Randy this is not true. Many people who do not alarm the WTMD have the HHMD used on them. It does depend on the layout of the airport, and at the airport I work at people in wheelchairs are not brought up through the checkpoint, but through the exit, and brought around to the checkpoint where they are then screened. At this point it is up to the passenger to decide if they feel like walking through the checkpoint to the walk-through and being screened that way. And no, we do not force them to stand and walk. That is entirely up to the passengers. I would like to point out that to some people its a matter of pride that they can stand. I guess no one likes to lose mobility. IF a person has difficulity, I actually suggest they remain sitting, as it is possible to screen them in the wheelchair.
Many passengers, however, chose to stand. They can do so, but not walk far, so if they have no medical conditions that prohibit the use of a hand-held, they are screened with that. Thus, they did not alarm the walk-through, but were screened with the hand-held.
Just though you would like to know, Randy.
Wow, where to start with this one.
First the inecessant "Whats the point when I can still have shoes in my bag?" Question, I think if you will take a moment to read what has been posted they aren't claiming that shoes CAN'T be screened if they are in a bin etc, simply that its faster and more efficient if its not. If you have a pair of shoes in a bag the officer is going to look at them (along with everything else in the bag) but its going to take a bit longer than examining a pair of shoes all alone on the belt. Now, its probably only a difference of a few seconds, but multiplies by all those pairs of shoes in front of me in the security line its probably enough to get me through a minute or two faster. Frankly, I think thats a good idea. As several people have observed it will slow down the usage of tubs as well, which means officers will spend less time moving carts of tubs and more time doing bag checks, something that will also help speed things along. I like the sound of that too.
So, for all the complaining, what precisely is the downside here?
Sure, shoes might get damaged, but as people have pointed out tuck your laces in and I suspect you will be fine.
Lastly, for anon who stated "the preponderance of evidence" is that shoes pose no threat, could you please provide that evidence? Preferably something peer reviewed since that seems to be the prefered standard to hold TSA to, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander they tell me.
Wow, if you people get so upset about this, I don't want to be here when the new 'sock policy' is announced.
I've grown accustomed to the screening. I do whatever is asked of my like a lemming and normally I get through the line with relative ease. Regardless of a real threat or not with the shoes, I could care less. Launching an attack over the shoe threat in a blog comment space will hardly change national policy.
PS-Kidding about the sock policy thing. Though it sounds like a logical step as terrorists learn the concealment uses of socks.
RE Anonymous comment on May 16, 2009 8:22 AM A TSO right there YELLED at the top of her lungs, "DON'T PUT YOUR SHOES IN THE BINS! SHOES CAN ONLY GO DIRECTLY ON THE XRAY BELT, FOLKS!"Various posters have called for the TSA to STOP THE YELLING. (Oops, excuse me, stop the yelling.) Though the TSA claims to be working on "calming the checkpoint", this particular screener apparently didn't get the memo.
I have a problem with this on several levels:
1. THE YELLING WAS NOT NECESSARY. (Oops, excuse me. The yelling was not necessary.) Instructions can be given calmly and in a civil tone, even to groups.
2. This is a brand new rule that hasn't had time to get out to the flying public. There is no excuse for yelling at the flying public when there is no reasonable expectation that they would be aware of the new "optional" procedure at this point.
3. Even the TSA hadn't fully updated its own web site. Get your own house in order before you start yelling at the passengers.
These sorts of situations continue to undermine the credibility of the TSA.
Mark
RE Jim Huggins May 20, 2009 6:11 PM post If you give the airport name, which checkpoint, and the approximate time of the incident, they should be able to figure out the rest ...Randy's original May 20, 2009 3:29 AM post made it quite clear. Sadly, Team SFO was unaware of this at the checkpoint to Term 1 Domestic at approximately 11:15 am on 5/18.How much more detail does the TSA need than the date, time, and which checkpoint?
I've said this a zillion times on this blog -- the TSA needs to hold its people accountable for knowing its own procedures, do this proactively, and not wait for complaints.
Mark
EWR and DTW airports think this "shoes out of bins" issue is mandatory. I had a nasty experience in EWR this week where a TSA agent behaved unprofessionally when I asked "Why?" about the "new rule", and after I pointed out that TSA's own website says it's a suggestion, nor a requirement. The agent should be fired for his behavior when I asked a simple question. I submitted a formal complaint on http://www.tsa.gov/gotfeedback today.
Lynn-did you see this little gem in today's USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-05-21-tsa-changes_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
(Sorry, I don't know how to convert the link into one of those spiffy tinyurl things).
Then take a stroll over to the thread dedicated to this topic on Flytertalk & you will find reports of yet another one of your spokespeople appearing on morning news in LA saying shoes MUST be on the belt, coupled w/reports from LAX this morning of screeners not only insisting on that, but also insisting on shoes in the carryons being removed.
Oh, did I mention the screener @ ORD last week who had a hissy fit because my suit jacket was laying on top of my Kippie bag? Said he couldn't see thru the jacket.
Honest to God Lynn, if this guy seriously can't see thru a thin, silk lined suit jacket, then you've either got bad machinery or bad screeners or some combination of both, but to say this is getting out hand is an understatement. Especially when one considers that the UPS driver who was in front of me last week @ ORD, w/nearly a dozen boxes bound for one of the stores in the terminal, didn't have to either take off his boots or unpack any of those boxes before going thru the exact same WTMD I did. If your screeners can see thru all those boxes, they can see thru my suit jacket to the Kippie bag underneath, the shoes in the bin, & shoes in my rollaboard.
Which is it???
Well it seems TSA truly screwed the pooch on this Shoe on the Belt thing.
Now, depending on which airport shoes on the belt is mandatory or perhaps ok in the bins. Some airports are requiring shoes to be removed from carry-on bags.
Plus suddenly the yelling is back at the checkpoints.
How can TSA get something like this so fouled up in just a few days?
Is this a demonstration of TSA's Chain of Command?
Is one little policy really that hard for TSA to carry out?
AMAZING!!!!!!!
@txrus:
I certainly did. USA Today has it right - security officers will be advising pasengers to put their shoes on the belt.
When I saw a blurb in our clips from Texas - pointed out to me on the blog here in the comments by RB, I think - I immediately contacted the spokesperson about it. In that case, she said her response was taken out of context by the reporter.
I hadn't see the LA one, but I'll check out the story and see what's going on. Thanks for letting me know. I'll also pass on the other info.
On the jacket on top of the bag with your liquids issue: We tell passengers to take their 3-1-1 baggie and put it in the bin so it's out of their carry-on and the security officer can get a good look at it. When you put your jacket on top of it, it does reduce the officer's ability to get a clear look at the baggie and differentiate what's in the baggie from what's in the jacket.
The reason we ask people to take laptops out of their carrying case is so the officer can clearly see if the laptop has been tinkered with, and if everything is where it's supposed to be. When the laptop is in the bag, the officer can't get the good look because often there's pens, wires, papers and other things that clutter the image. To give you an example, one of our officers found gun parts hidden in the inside of a laptop in a variety of places.
I'm sure one of our officers can explain this better than me, but what I tell family and friends is that when you think about an X-ray of a suitcase, it's not like an X-ray of an arm or a leg. An X-ray of a bag is more like trying to take an x-ray of a bunch of football players who just sacked the quarterback, and trying to figure out which one has the broken arm. The more layers in a bin or bag, the less clear an image. And when the view isn't clear, the officer might have to stop the belt to get a better view, or pull the bag for a hand search.
I can't speak for the boxes, but I'd guess that if the boxes included stuff sold in stores, like bags of snacks or boxes of candy or even souvenir decks of cards, the boxes are packed uniformly, making any odd thing in it stand out. That's why they can be screened quickly.
Hope this helps. Have a great Memorial Day weekend.
When I saw a blurb in our clips from Texas - pointed out to me on the blog here in the comments by RB, I think - I immediately contacted the spokesperson about it. In that case, she said her response was taken out of context by the reporter.
..................
Lynn, spokesperson who I think was a TSA or airport employee said that shoes were required to be on the belt.
There was no one filtering what this person said.
Anonymous Ryan62 said...
Lastly, for anon who stated "the preponderance of evidence" is that shoes pose no threat, could you please provide that evidence? Preferably something peer reviewed since that seems to be the prefered standard to hold TSA to, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander they tell me.
********
Its real simple Richard Reid happened in 2002. With the exception of America no other country requires passengers to remove their shoes. And yet not a single airplane from another country has fallen from the skies due to a shoe bomb.
Since the TSA can't be bothered to use peer reviewed studies to back up policies why should I.
It amazes me that your Xray machines can detect "bad stuff in liquids" that vendors can sell air-side, but can't do it for us passengers.
That is a big giant farce. Not surprising from the most hated and least respected government agency though.
I just flew out of RDU and the TSA there didn't say 'please' or 'you have the option to' nope they said "All shoes MUST be placed on the belt NOT in the bins" after the attitude the document checker was giving everyone and they fact I just wanted to be home I didn't bother to ask why the disconnect between the 'published' 'official(????)' comments are contradicting the actions on the ground.....
I am glad to know the reason for the new policy. I asked the screeners last week in both ATL and JAX, and was not provided an answer. I had flown the same route the week before(same flights even) and had NOT been required to put my shoes directly on the conveyor. I do not have to understand or agree with the rules, but as a frequent flyer going through the "expert traveler" line, I would appreciate KNOWING what the rules are. With all the stimulous money, can't we help out the printing businesses with some new posters?
I fly three weeks out of four and try to pack and plan to minimize my time at the Security Checkpoints and give no trouble to the TSA. They have been helpful before in telling me how to best pack my laptop back to eliminate the need for re-screening (my USB drives looked like cigarette lighters under XRay - they are now in a separate container I pull out with my laptop). Most of us really want to comply - but we have to know with what we are complying !
MarkVII said...
RE Jim Huggins May 20, 2009 6:11 PM post If you give the airport name, which checkpoint, and the approximate time of the incident, they should be able to figure out the rest ...Randy's original May 20, 2009 3:29 AM post made it quite clear. Sadly, Team SFO was unaware of this at the checkpoint to Term 1 Domestic at approximately 11:15 am on 5/18.How much more detail does the TSA need than the date, time, and which checkpoint?
I've said this a zillion times on this blog -- the TSA needs to hold its people accountable for knowing its own procedures, do this proactively, and not wait for complaints.
Mark
Thanks for that Mark . . . it's good to see someone can read!
It's so frustrating . . . I routinely tell the screener "orthopedic shoes" when they tell me to take them off. How is it that I know the SOP better than the "pros?"
No alarm on the WTMD, should be a quick swab and clearance. The Deputy at PHL has corfirmed this understanding in e-mails and a phone conversation. May TPTB here need to track the alleged screeners that have differant opinions.
This was the experience of a friend going thru LGA Friday afternoon, 5/22:
The only thing I heard was that to put your shoes in a bin if you did not have anything else to put into it was the waste of a bin. I did not hear anyone tell someone to take their shoes out of a bin.
So, apparently the 'rule' in LGA is that putting your shoes in a bin is ok IF you have something else to put in there w/them.
This, then, it would seem, would result in the 'bin clutter' you stated was the reason for 'advising/asking' passengers to NOT put their shoes in the bins & instead put them on the belt.
You, Lynn, then went on to say, 'The more layers in a bin or bag, the less clear an image.' However, it was the TSA itself that 'advised/suggested' we pack in layers to make it easier for you to screen our bags. (I won't mention that the whole 'Simplify' thing was plagerized from the SLC airport to begin with...)
So, after a week of furious spinning which has left everyone dizzy, what has been accomplished by this latest TSA brainstorm?
FWIW, I don't 'feel' one bit safer. What I do 'feel' is dread at my next trip thru the airport in 2 weeks & encounters with your screeners.
Irish sez - "West . . . .
Are you reading this thread?
Not even one week old, and the new optional shoe policy is already being misused and abused by TSOs.
If TSA can't even assure its TSOs receive appropriate training to implement something this simple (1, shoes are preferred out of the bins, on the belt; 2, this is optional for the passenger), how in the world am I supposed to just have faith and trust that TSOs are appropriately trained and competent to make more complex decisions?
Irish
p.s. It's a rhetorical question, West. This must be very embarrassing for you."
Not embarassing for me at all, we have been lucky with the integration of the new policy here. We recommend, and help if we have the personnel available. We had good dissemination of information here and the entier workforce seems to be just about on the same sheet of music. I wish it would happen nationwide, but there seems to be a bit of miscommunication at some places. It will probably even out after a week or two. That being said, I hate that people are having bad experiences with it.
West
EOS Blog Team
Hi Lynn --
Interesting point about difficulty x-raying a 3-1-1 bag through a jacket, but here's what I think is a critical point in txrus' post.
Oh, did I mention the screener @ ORD last week who had a hissy fit [my emphasis] because my suit jacket was laying on top of my Kippie bag? There's a common complaint that the checkpoint personnel get their noses out of joint because some passenger doesn't know the infinite diversity of checkpoint procedures and the infinite combinations of individual screener interpretations.
If the screener wants the 3-1-1 bag to have nothing atop it, all that takes is a simple request in a civil tone of voice -- no hissy fit required.
FWIW,
Mark
To give some advise to anyone wearing high heals through a check point.
Being a TSO I would place them in a bin, assuming there was nothing obstructing the view for the X-Ray operator, to prevent the damage of the heal while going through the X-Ray tunnel/down the rollers.
If you run into the stubborn TSO who demands every shoe goes on the belt, (which from reading this many of you have) take one of the bowls/dog dishes and place the heal in the bowl and the toe onto the conveyor belt.
The bowl will help guide the heels through the X-ray and onto the rollers and minimize the chance of any damage. This has been something we here in Milwaukee have started doing since the change. Hopefully some of the other TSOs, LTSOs and STSOs who read this will inform their workforce about this.
@West: "I wish it would happen nationwide, but there seems to be a bit of miscommunication at some places. It will probably even out after a week or two. That being said, I hate that people are having bad experiences with it."
This is only more evidence that the TSA has a systemic failure in communicating and training TSOs in the current rules and procedures. The inevitable result is inconsistency that causes needless frustration for passengers and can only undermine the effectiveness of screening. And the "bad experiences" only increase public animosity toward the TSA.
Note that this is not the "intentional inconsistency" that's supposed to be an effective tool against evil-doers. This is a failure, pure and simple. And it's certainly not a new failure, or a rare one. This sort of failure that leads to frustrating (unintentional) inconsistency has been a hallmark of the TSA since its inception. I can only conclude that the TSA's leadership is either incapable of correcting the failure or is uninterested in it. The secrecy of the SOPs surely creates an environment that lets them get away with it. Whatever the reason for the failure, it can't be good for security.
"Lastly, for anon who stated "the preponderance of evidence" is that shoes pose no threat, could you please provide that evidence?"
As has already been pointed out ad nauseum, Richard Reid failed in 2002. No one has since used a shoe as a delivery mechanism for something that could harm an aircraft since. No one did so during the blissful period when the shoe carnival was not mandatory before August 2006, when TSA well and goodly lost its mind. No one has done so in any of the other countries in the world that do not have a mandatory shoe carnival like TSA's. The facts thus clearly demonstrate that TSA's policy is a hysterical overreaction to an insignificant threat.
Anon sez - "No other country in the world requires passengers to remove their shoes, unless they are flying to the United States. Richard Reid is nothing more than the TSA's boogey man to justify a poorly designed policy for something that happened over eight years ago. If they are a threat please provide a recent example of an actual terrorist trying to smuggle a weapon or bomb onto a plane in their shoe."
Only a thoughtless person fails to consider a serious threat because someone else does not. Sorry, was channeling my inner Confucius there. Just because some other group does not consider a viable threat something that they want to address does nto mean it is not a viable threat. I have posted on here several times about the fact that the shoe threat is viable. The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives.
West
EOS Blog Team
Richard Reid certainly failed, but he didn't fail to get an explosive device past an airport checkpoint in his shoes. His failure was the result of operator error, not a failure of the technique.
Philippines Airlines Flight 434 was bombed using components smuggled in a shoe way back in 1994. Then they took a break from the shoe tactic for a few years until Richard Reid, but in spite of that I suppose we are expected to apply the logic of "well it hasn't happened in a few years so it has magically become ineffective" and pretend it couldn't happen again.
The argument that "other countries don't do X ergo we shouldn't" is a straw man at best. They also do things that we don't in other countries. Can TSA start treating passengers like they do in Israel and profiling like crazy? If the standard is "what other countries do" that should be on the table right?
I have always put my shoes directly on the belt. They used to demand it
What I would like to see is one lane for premier customers and one lane for Clear customers and several lanes for the "Po Folks"
That would speed things up
If one more clear person tries to cut in front of me right before the metal detector I may send them through on the belt :-)
GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "No other country in the world requires passengers to remove their shoes, unless they are flying to the United States. Richard Reid is nothing more than the TSA's boogey man to justify a poorly designed policy for something that happened over eight years ago. If they are a threat please provide a recent example of an actual terrorist trying to smuggle a weapon or bomb onto a plane in their shoe."
Only a thoughtless person fails to consider a serious threat because someone else does not. Sorry, was channeling my inner Confucius there. Just because some other group does not consider a viable threat something that they want to address does nto mean it is not a viable threat. I have posted on here several times about the fact that the shoe threat is viable. The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 27, 2009 9:21 AM
*********
And only a fool continues to proclaim, “the sky is falling”. If shoes were such a threat why have their been no incidents since 2002 outside of the United States where there is no shoe carnival? Its not “some groups” that don’t consider it a viable threat, it is governments like England, France, Spain, and Germany all of whom have been subjected to attacks by terrorists, foreign and domestic, since the 1970’s. As we have seen from the high failure rate of the red team tests you don’t have to hide anything in your shoes since guns and bombs easily get past TSO’s.
I am more concerned about unsecured checked luggage, because if something can be taken out, something can be put in. Especially since airport employees are not screened like passengers.
If this truly is a viable threat please post a peer reviewed study that backs up your claim.
"Just because some other group does not consider a viable threat something that they want to address does nto mean it is not a viable threat."
It's not other countries' and TSA's own pre-August 2006 considerations that show shoes are not a viable threat, it is the complete and utter absence of anyone using shoes as a delivery mechanism to harm aviation in those countries and in the US prior to August 2006 that demonstrates shoes are not a viable threat, and that TSA's obsession with them is an hysterical overreaction to a single, unsuccessful incident.
"I have posted on here several times about the fact that the shoe threat is viable."
There is no such fact because there is no viable shoe threat. So you're wrong here.
"The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives."
No one is saying shoes should not be screened. They should simply be screened while on their wearers' feet unless they provide some reason for their removal, as they are elsewhere and as they were in the US prior to August 2006.
And when TSA claims that shoes are somehow uniquely dangerous, it is lying. THAT remains an incontrovertible fact, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
HELLO ALL,
I AM A FORMER TSA OFFICER AND UNDERSTANDING YOUR FRUSTRATIONS AND CONCERNS, YOU GUYS HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLY REASON THESE RULES EXIST IS DUE TO SOME "IDIOT" TRYING TO INITIATE A TERRORISTIC ATTACK. I KNOW IT MAY SEEM BIAS FOR ME TO SAY "JUST FOLLOW THE RULES" BECAUSE I WORK HERE, HOWEVER I AM A FREQUENT TRAVELER AS WELL AND FUTHERMORE I AM NOT A FAN OF REMOVING MY FOOTWEAR EITHER! WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT MAKES FOR SUCH A HAPPIER SCREENING EXPERIENCE FOR EVERYONE, EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS TRAVELERS WHEN EVERYONE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WE "TSA OFFICERS" DO NOT CREATE, WE JUST ENFORCE. EVERYONE THAT HAS A JOB HAS A RESPONSIBILITY OR OTHERWISE THEIR JOB WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY...RIGHT? IN THE PERFECT WORLD WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE OUR ENTIRE FAMILY EXCORT US ALL THE WAY TO THE PLANE AND WAIT UNTIL WE TAKE OFF, OR WE WOULDNT HAVE TO TAKE OUR SHOES OFF, OR...WE WOULDNT HAVE TO TRAVEL WITH LIQUID LIMITATIONS,...OR...WE WOULDNT HAVE TO UNDERGO ADDITIONAL SCREENING BECAUSE OF MEDICAL IMPLANTS....OR...WE WOULDNT HAVE TO TAKE OFF OUTERGARMENTS, BULKY ATTIRE THATS NOT FORM FITTING (DUE TO "IDIOTS" ATTEMPTING TO SMUGGLE PROHIBITED ITEMS THROUGH A SECURE AREAS ( CHECK OUT THE GUY THAT JUST GOT CAUGHT WITH 4LBS OF COCAINE UNDER HIS TRACK PANTS JUST LAST WEEK)...IF WE DID NOT "GIVE HIM A LIMITED PAT DOWN", THAT GUY WOULD HAVE SOLD ALL $60,000 WORTH OF HIS PRODUCT (IF NOT USING IT HIMSELF) TO SOMEONE'S LOVED ONES, ETC....IM NOT IN ANYWAY DOWNPLAYING HOW FRUSTRATING SECURITY IS , I JUST WOULD LIKE YOU GUYS TO REALIZE THAT AT THE END OF OUR SHIFT WE ARE HUMANS ALSO AND WE TRAVEL JUST LIKE THE REST OF YOU. THERE ARE THINGS IN LIFE YOU JUST DONT LIKE BUT WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?
West: "Only a thoughtless person fails to consider a serious threat because someone else does not. Sorry, was channeling my inner Confucius there. Just because some other group does not consider a viable threat something that they want to address does nto mean it is not a viable threat. I have posted on here several times about the fact that the shoe threat is viable. The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives."
Conversely, just because one country thinks something a threat doesn't make it so either.
In a similar matter, when TSA ignores a viable threat and says it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that the threat doesn't exist. You know, insider access?
Funny how before the liquid lunacy started, the shoe carnival was optional. Did shoes somehow become a heightened threat that didn't exist for 4 years, despite the fact that Reid had attempted to bring a shoe bomb on board?
It's pretty simple logic, West. TSA claims shoes are a threat. 99% of the civilized world disagrees and only enforces it for US bound flights and/or US flag carriers. If shoes were such a threat, as TSA claims, then it would be child's play to bring a shoe bomb on board and detonate it. Yet planes aren't falling out of the sky.
Of course, TSA will make the claim that America's unique in being a terrorist target. Of course, that's just bunk. Every country has terrorist groups they have problems with. Europe's had to deal with AQ. China has many groups. There are problems in India with Pakistani groups.
Al Qaida bombed the metro in Madrid, so that's a viable threat. By TSA's logic, everyone would have to be screened before boarding a metro. Did the Spaniards do that? Nope. Have they had another bombing? The Spaniards (and the Brits, too) did something we didn't: they went back to business as usual and didn't let the terrorists accomplish their aims. America, on the other hand, as allowed itself to be terrorized - the aim of terrorism. You don't get harassed in London or Madrid when getting on the Metro.
Bombings, etc aren't terrorism but a tactic.
Ryan62, Philippine Airlines 434 had one component in the shoe: wire. Why it was chosen to conceal it in the shoe I don't know - it could have been put in a bag and gotten thru too. People stash stuff in shoes all the time (anyone remember the Kangaroo shoes in the 80's?). It's pretty bad to focus on that part while ignoring the rest of the issue: stabilized TNT.
Earl
GSOLTSO said...
" . . . there seems to be a bit of miscommunication at some places. It will probably even out after a week or two."
Well, it's been two weeks. I watched the shoe circus at BWI just last night. Every single flyer's blog I read continues to report shoe hassles daily, and many report being required to remove shoes from carry-on. Is this a New Rule, or just more of the circus?
There are serious problems with training and communication here. I've provided training to hundreds of healthcare professionals with regard to the occupational transmission of pathogens for years. If I had demonstrated the level of competence and expertise I see in the "professionals" at TSA, I'd not have lasted through the first week. Moreover (before I start hearing about the size of the TSA workforce and the complexity of delivering information here in the 21st century), if the all of the healthcare professionals in this country made mistakes at the same rate TSA employees make mistakes - the population of this country would be decimated.
I can believe TSA or I can believe my lying eyes. It's a pretty simple directive. Shoes do not have to come out of the bag. Based on what my lying eyes tell me, at least a very large minority of TSO's cannot figure out or appropriately apply this very simple rule. This just reinforces my belief that the at least a very large minority (if not a majority) of TSOs are neither appropriately trained nor competent to make more complex decisions.
I suppose the bottom line here is: I don't believe the TSA, I don't trust the TSA, and I don't feel one whit safer. To the contrary, I feel much, much less safe than I did before TSA. We're running up against Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action. Heaven help us -- 'cause the TSA sure ain't.
Irish
Anon, I am curious why we need a "peer reviewed study" to prove that a tactic that has been used twice in the past is a viable threat. Would you like a "peer reviewed study" proving that bullets can kill people? It’s equally absurd. Terrorists have smuggled IED components through a checkpoint on at least two occasions (that we know of) with a time gap between the attacks of 8 years. It’s ludicrous to argue that "they haven't done it in X amount of time ergo the tactic no longer works so we don't need to bother."
Can you post me a peer reviewed study showing that in spite of two prior attacks shoes are NOT a viable threat? Of course you can't, the only reason you claim shoes aren't a threat is because you consider yourself horribly inconvenienced by it all. I suppose that it’s just an interesting coincidence that the people here who complain the most always point out that the “real threat” is something that they have nothing to do with. Can you please show us a peer reviewed study proving your concerns about unsecured baggage are valid?
Earl -
Why did he choose to put it in his shoes? Because he knew the shoe wouldn't be screened and he could get it through. Pretty simple. There is no proof to back up the "he could have just done X instead" that logic rules out any kind of security at all because you can always "what if" something to death.
Also, he didn't just have a wire in his shoe, he had batteries as well. And there was no "stabilized TNT" TNT is an extremely stable explosive as is, hence its use in things like artillery shells that are subject to tremendous forces on their way to the target. He had a nitroglycerin based explosive in a contact lens solution bottle. All the "liquids aren't a threat" people should chew on that.
Also your reference to Kangaroos is proof of why shoes should be a concern. There are several companies that make sandals for beach goes that have pockets built into the sole to hold keys and such. What stops someone from putting a blasting cap in that same space? Nothing. So why SHOULDN'T we screen shoes?
Also to "Anon" who makes the claims about "TSA claiming shoes are uniquely dangerous" please show me where the TSA claims shoes are "uniquely dangerous." Its a rather cheap shot to lie about what someone said and then use your own fabrication as proof the other guys is lying. I can find no reference to TSA claiming that shoes are especially dangerous, simply that they need to be screened at currently the best way to do that is through the X-ray.
"Can you post me a peer reviewed study showing that in spite of two prior attacks shoes are NOT a viable threat? Of course you can't, the only reason you claim shoes aren't a threat is because you consider yourself horribly inconvenienced by it all."
Ryan, please acquaint yourself with the facts. The fact is, no one since Reid has tried to use shoes as a delivery mechanism to harm an aircraft. The fact is that no planes were harmed by anyone using shoes as a delivery mechanism before August 2006, when TSA decided to make the shoe carnival mandatory. The fact is that no planes are being harmed by anyone using shoes as a delivery mechanism in any of the countries that do not have TSA's mandatory shoe carnival. These are facts, and they are incontrovertible facts, and to the extent you are incapable of honestly addressing them, your statements will be discounted by thinking people. And all of these incontrovertible facts demonstrate that no one is trying to use their shoes to ham aviation. The issue is not solely one of inconvenience, but of pointless inconvenience that does nothing to make anyone safer from a vanishingly unlikely threat.
"I suppose that it’s just an interesting coincidence that the people here who complain the most always point out that the “real threat” is something that they have nothing to do with."
Since I've never tried to harm an aircraft, I can honestly say that whatever threats there are to aviation are things I have nothing to do with. But even so, I have no problem with sensible, non-intrusive screening like metal detectors or x-raying baggage. The problem arises when TSA imposes pointless measures to protect us from nonexistent threats: The shoe carnival, the liquid nonsense, the virtual strip searches.
I'm surprised I have to explain this.
"Can you please show us a peer reviewed study proving your concerns about unsecured baggage are valid?"
Simple logic suffices: TSA does not screen its employees or airport employees who have access to luggage. TSA's policies make luggage more vulnerable to tampering and threats. Ergo someone wanting to bring down a plain is more likely to stick a bomb in a suitcase than to use 3.5 ounces of magic liquid explosives in their flip-flop to do so.
I feel your pain about those 'Clear' PAX being butted up in front of you. Many of us TSOs hate it too. Often times they get to the front of the line and THEN begin to divest and continue to hold up the line for you very patient folks who have been waiting 20 minutes or more.
Just be aware that when the nice clear person comes to butt in front of you they are supposed to ASK you if it would be ok to "insert a priveledged traveler" infront of you. You can always tell them NO! I have advised people of this after watching them roll their eyes and check their watches... I have also actually seen someone tell them politely "no, I have been waiting for 15 minutes and it is my turn".
Now you dont have to throw them into our belts. Just say "NO"
RE wearetravellers2 WHEN EVERYONE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WE "TSA OFFICERS" DO NOT CREATE, WE JUST ENFORCE. First off -- POSTING IN ALL CAPS IS THE INTERNET EQUIVALENT OF YELLING. (Oops, excuse me -- posting in all caps is the internet equivalent of yelling.) Use mixed case, lest you be considered a "newbie".
Secondly, I beg to differ that screeners don't create the rules, but only enforce them. Read this blog, and you'll see numerous examples of suggestions becoming requirements (such as shoes on the belt vs. in a bin). You'll also see various "rules" that don't appear on the TSA web site, and also serve no useful security purpose, but do create a lot of needless hassle.
Let's start with the TSA's 3-1-1 rules 3.4 ounce bottle or less (by volume) ; 1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag; 1 bag per passenger placed in screening bin. One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring. 3.4 oz. container size is a security measure.Here are some examples of "rules" that I've seen on this blog. I challenge anyone to find them on the TSA web site and post the link.
3-1-1 bottles have to have a factory label.Labeled with what? Trade name of the contents? Chemical formula of the contents? Capacity?
What purpose does a factory label serve? I can refill a bottle with anything that doesn't destroy the bottle.
Is some screener going to take it on faith that the label matches the contents? Consequently, if I fill a factory labeled bottle with a different product, am I breaking some other rule? Is this going to lead to some screener checking that my shampoo bottle actually has shampoo in it?
3-1-1 bottles have to be "translucent, so the screener can eyeball the contents."What purpose does this serve? Are TSA personnel trained to identify substances by looking through the sides of a translucent bottle? I took three semesters of college chemistry and don't claim I can do this.
Also, this is mutually exclusive with the "rule" above. How does one find a factory labeled, translucent bottle? Most factory labeled bottles are opaque.
3-1-1 bag has to be "zip top", but can't have an actual zipper.Again, what purpose does this serve? What is the security risk posed by a bag with a zipper top? Millions of people fly every day with zippers in pants, jackets, purses, briefcases, etc.
Foot powder has to be in the 3-1-1 bagApparently some screeners regard a powdered solid as a liquid, because it can be poured.
I could cite more examples, but I believe I've made my point. If the screener can't show me the requirement on the TSA web site, as far as I'm concerned, they're making up rules.
Mark
Anonymous said "This is ridiculous. Shoes present no threat to aircraft. We know it, you know it, and every time the TSA brain trust invents another pointless change in policy relating to shoes, you are lying to us."
Sorry this responce is a little bit delayed but whoever made that comment Google "Richard Reid" and that should answer your questions as to why shoes pose a threat to aircrafts.
Anon sez - "And only a fool continues to proclaim, “the sky is falling”. If shoes were such a threat why have their been no incidents since 2002 outside of the United States where there is no shoe carnival? Its not “some groups” that don’t consider it a viable threat, it is governments like England, France, Spain, and Germany all of whom have been subjected to attacks by terrorists, foreign and domestic, since the 1970’s."
Well, the fact that it has not been used can be used as an indicator of effectiveness of screening. Yousef used shoes and liquids to place a bomb in a plane. Using that one event indicates that there was a weakness in the system, and steps have been taken to correct it. We screen all shoes because they CAN be used to house explosives, other items that are used in an IED - we screen liquids and limit the amount taken on board as a direct result of the possibility of using liquids as a part of an IED. One incident moved the possibility of using these methods to the limelight. Philippine Airlines Flight 434 Check here for more info. Then we had everyones favorite Richard Reid. He was what a lot of security experts like to call a "dumb" terrorist. He was still able to smuggle an IED onto a plane in (gasp) a SHOE! The only reason he failed in his attempt was the fact that he was ignorant of the technical details that needed to be intact for the IED to operate (i.e. the fuse couldn't be wet from sweat or it wouldn't function correctly) - weirdly enough it was a case of liquid working against the would be terrorist, speak of irony! To fail to consider shoes a viable threat would be criminal, failure of other groups, countries or organizations to consider them a threat is not something I can change(when they develop a better way to screen them effectively it interests me so I can get said tech evaluated for use here). I understand the fact that taking shoes off is inconvenient, but to not check them for concealed items is asking for trouble. Liquids are a viable threat as well, but I personally disagree with the current format (I favor the all or none format - or the better technology so we can look at it and determine with a high degree of certainty that what is in the container is not a threat). You can post here repeatedly that there is no threat, and I will continue to post here that there is a threat because I have facts and history on my side.
West
EOS Blog Team
Anon sez - "It's not other countries' and TSA's own pre-August 2006 considerations that show shoes are not a viable threat, it is the complete and utter absence of anyone using shoes as a delivery mechanism to harm aviation in those countries and in the US prior to August 2006 that demonstrates shoes are not a viable threat, and that TSA's obsession with them is an hysterical overreaction to a single, unsuccessful incident."
See above comment, this is incorrect.
And - "There is no such fact because there is no viable shoe threat. So you're wrong here."
Ummm, nah, once again see above comment - you are the one that is wrong, just because it is unlikely to be used in the same manner does not mean that shoes are not a threat.
And - "No one is saying shoes should not be screened. They should simply be screened while on their wearers' feet unless they provide some reason for their removal, as they are elsewhere and as they were in the US prior to August 2006."
Previous screening methods would not necessarily be effective. The fact that the shoe can be used to smuggle something that we would be unable to test for that can later be used as a part of an IED leads us to the current screening process, if you have another options that accomplishes the same objective and can clear the shoe completely I would love to hear of it and see the specs on it.
And FiNALLY - "And when TSA claims that shoes are somehow uniquely dangerous, it is lying. THAT remains an incontrovertible fact, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding."
This is incorrect, shoes pose a similiar threat to several other items that people are permitted to bring with them. they are not uniquely dangerous, just a viable threat and should be screened completely - that is not a lie, merely a fact.
West
EOS Blog Team
Earl sez - "Of course, TSA will make the claim that America's unique in being a terrorist target. Of course, that's just bunk. Every country has terrorist groups they have problems with. Europe's had to deal with AQ. China has many groups. There are problems in India with Pakistani groups."
Wrong, TSA presents a USA-centric view because - we are the USA. We view us as a special threat case because we are ....well, us it is personal when we get hit. There are several other countries that are under threat from terror attacks, as a matter of fact - just about ANY country in the world is subject to terror attacks. The fact that we focus on threats to the US more closely is self preservation. We pass on intel and threat matrices and all that data and number cruncher stuff to other countries world wide, but we place it into effect here first and foremeost, as we SHOULD. I am a citizen of this planet, but an American first, therefore I will protect my own first then help others. If that is selfish - I don't care, it is the way I am.
And - "Funny how before the liquid lunacy started, the shoe carnival was optional. Did shoes somehow become a heightened threat that didn't exist for 4 years, despite the fact that Reid had attempted to bring a shoe bomb on board?"
I can't comment on why these rules were not implemented earlier, that is way above my pay grade.
West
EOS Blog Team
Irish I don't know what to tell you about the groups having shoes taken out fo the carryon bags, it is not what the change indicated and it is not supposed to be done. I will not defend by using the size of the organization, we have had ample time to adjust to the new system and have corrections sent down through proper channels. I will dispute the training aspect, we are trained more as an organization than 90% of the working populace out there. This is training mandated by Congress and it is constant and quite honestly sometimes it is downright annoying! The training gets the workforce into a habit of reinforced procedure of the basics, because we do it over and over and over and over until most of the things we do become second nature. When you do a Handwand you do it this way, same with a pat down, and the xray. I will admit that there are communications problems, but that is inherent with any organization this big. I think the communications have gotten much better with the implementing of Coordination contacts nationwide, the addition of some Coordination centers adn this establishes a primary chain of communication for normal info dissemination as well as any emergency communiques that need to be distributed. I hope that we continue to improve as more systems come online and integrate.
West
EOS Blog Team
The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives.
West
EOS Blog Team
............................
The US said Iraq had WMD.
How did that work out, West?
West,
There are risks to life in general. Our freedom based society has risks.
Nowhere else in our lives do we allow such personal intrusions as what TSA has done here.
What keeps 25 pounds of C4 out of a shopping mall, grocery store, elementary school, homecoming float, or church service? Why don't we put MMW machines there, too?
Other than "it happened once, on 9/11", why does the TSA continue to single out aviation and not other forms of transportation -- especially private automobiles?
No bureaucrat in the TSA wants an “event” to happen on their watch and taint their careers. They have a nearly unlimited budget, and they have little accountability for the cost and effectiveness of what they do.
"The TSA bought 207 "puffer" machines for $30 million from General Electric and Smiths Detection in 2004 but halted deployment of the detectors in mid-2006 because they were too slow, unreliable and expensive to operate. The devices got clogged by dust and confused by humidity or jet fuel fumes".
Only 94 were deployed, and 113 more are still in wrapped in cellophane in a government warehouse somewhere. Didn't anyone think of launching pilot trial of a dozen or so units before they bought 207 machines?
If any of us tried to run a business this way, we'd get run out on a rail.
We could save many more lives by dropping the national speed limit to 15mph, but we wouldn’t tolerate that.
At what cost (in $$, privacy, and liberty) do we expect our TSA friends to protect us, because of a "potential risk"?
West:
1. Do you believe that shoes pose any more of a threat to air travel safety than do pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, and rectums?
2. Do you believe that the threat of shoes increased when Richard Reid tried to light his on fire?
3. Do you believe that TSA had not considered such risk until he did so?
4. What do you suppose your procedures would be like now if Reid had smuggled his explosive material in any of the places that any one can smuggle such material now?
5. Do you suppose you would be X-raying shoes if Reid had not actually attempted this, but simply publicized the fact that it was possible to hide things in shoes?
6. Will TSA amend its policies now that it is aware that small amounts of explosives (such as the amount that would fit in the sole of a shoe) can be smuggled tucked into armpits and crotches, or in pockets, mouths, and rectums, or will you wait until someone actually attempts to harm people by doing so before you take action?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
GSOLTSO said... You can post here repeatedly that there is no threat, and I will continue to post here that there is a threat because I have facts and history on my side.
West
EOS Blog Team
********
What you have on your side is two isolated incidents and no facts. If shoe bombs were such an effective tactic why aren’t airplanes falling out of the sky all over the world? If liquids are such a threat why aren’t planes falling out of the sky from binary explosives? Neither of these alleged threats to aviation is limited to the United States. Richard Reid’s flight originated in Europe and the liquid explosive plot was planned in London. And yet no government in Europe considers this a valid enough threat to limit liquids and x-ray shoes. Europe has been dealing with real terrorist incidents since the 1970’s, they have actual experience in these matters and don’t consider shoes and liquids a threat .
If you have facts on your side then lets see them, something other than two isolated incidents 8 years apart and nothing since then. Show me a link to recent studies/reports issued by the United States Government that prove that shoes are an actual threat aviation security.
We screen all shoes because they CAN be used to house explosives, other items that are used in an IED - we screen liquids and limit the amount taken on board as a direct result of the possibility of using liquids as a part of an IED.Given the high failure rate Red Team tests and TSO’s inability to identify something that is clearly a gun or bomb a terrorist doesn’t need to hide anything in their shoes. One Red Team member hid an IED in a back brace and told the TSO his back hurt. The TSO let him keep it on and the IED got into the sterile area. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/28/tsa.bombtest/index.html The fact that the Red Team failure rates are so high is no surprise, the TSA could not even implement the most recent change in the shoe policy without significant confusion on the part of TSO’s as to how the policy actually worked.
RB sez - "The US said Iraq had WMD.
How did that work out, West?"
Nice change of venue there RB, I was unaware of the effect that WMD's in Iraq had on TSA screening protocols.
West
EOS Blog Team
FNT airport today (6/2/2009)... I put my shoes, and only my shoes, in a bin. Nothing else in the bin except my shoes. A TSA agent standing right at the Xray machine physically stopped me from putting the bin into the Xray machine (she put her hand on the Xray side of the bin and pushed back against me), took my shoes out of the bin, and put them on the conveyor belt. When I said, "I prefer that my shoes stay in the bin," her answer was "We usually do them separately" and did not put them back in the bin. So much for voluntary actions, so much for the reason being "visibility" of the shoes, etc. What is the next reason for this lunacy?
GSOLTSO said...
RB sez - "The US said Iraq had WMD.
How did that work out, West?"
Nice change of venue there RB, I was unaware of the effect that WMD's in Iraq had on TSA screening protocols.
West
EOS Blog Team
June 2, 2009 8:05 PM
............................
I changed nothing.
You tried using US Intelligence assessments as justification for screening shoes.
I just pointed out that intelligence information is not perfect and is in fact wrong on occasion.
Your statement;
"The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives."
is a very weak argument given the failures of the United States Intelligence community.
After years of this policy TSA decides it's a "clutter" issue and the bins are getting too full? It is not an issue for the screeners ability to view items. That notion is total nonsense as Ken Snell's experience proves. It is a health issue that they'll never admit. The bins are never cleaned, reused thousands of times, and shoes are filthy. The average shoe carries 421,000 units of bacteria, even E. Coli and then you put your cell phone in a bin where thousands of shoes have been, a recent visit to the restroom for instance. A company called Kangopack has blown this overlooked issue out of the water. There is a new travel pack that converts to an antimicrobial bin liner with a separate divider for shoes. Everything is organized, protected from the dirty bin, the shoes are separated and clearly visable. After screening you just clip the sides, grab the handles, and carry everything away. Immediately getting you out of line to collect yourself without bins piling up behind you. Total peace of mind from germs, lost/forgotten belongings, or a rush to gather your stuff. Helps TSA screeners, Lost and Found Department, keeps travelers organized, and protects there health and belongins.
"Immediately getting you out of line to collect yourself without bins piling up behind you"
Ah, but I make a point of putting myself and my bags right there at the conveyor belt to slow things down as much as possible.
West, you've repeatedly engaged others in discussion of the merits of shoe searches. I posed six questions, all very relevant, all very simple (four of them warrant yes/no answers, and one an "A" or "B" answer). It would be useful to the dicussion if you were able to find the time to answer and do so. Thanks in advance.
For your convenience, those questions were:
1. Do you believe that shoes pose any more of a threat to air travel safety than do pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, and rectums?
2. Do you believe that the threat of shoes increased when Richard Reid tried to light his on fire?
3. Do you believe that TSA had not considered such risk until he did so?
4. What do you suppose your procedures would be like now if Reid had smuggled his explosive material in any of the places that any one can smuggle such material now?
5. Do you suppose you would be X-raying shoes if Reid had not actually attempted this, but simply publicized the fact that it was possible to hide things in shoes?
6. Will TSA amend its policies now that it is aware that small amounts of explosives (such as the amount that would fit in the sole of a shoe) can be smuggled tucked into armpits and crotches, or in pockets, mouths, and rectums, or will you wait until someone actually attempts to harm people by doing so before you take action?
RB sez - "You tried using US Intelligence assessments as justification for screening shoes.
I just pointed out that intelligence information is not perfect and is in fact wrong on occasion.
Your statement;
"The US considers the shoe a possible source of threat and will continue to screen them as is until a better way to screen them arrives."
is a very weak argument given the failures of the United States Intelligence community."
Well, the coalition forces fouond several different types of bio weapons, that are technically WMD's - Not the Nukes or large scale weaponry that they originally gleaned from intel sources. Intel is not perfect, but there are usually good reasons for keeping the warnings or info in play. Shoes are a viable threat because you can stuff explosives and other components for IEDs in them. This is a fact, not a rumour or "Freddie Terrorist sez he is gonna use a pair of Nikes to get a bomb on an airplane". This was an assessment performed and determined to be a viable threat. I know for a fact that you can use shoes to IEDs on a plane. If you look online I am sure you can find all kinds of textbook examples of hiding things in shoes. I will not list them here (for fairly obvious reasons), but you can find them. At this time, the shoes are a viable threat and will be screened according to the regulations we have. There is no arguing that shoes are a viable threat (regardless of what the people here will post and try to get you to believe), and until we discover a better way of accomplishing the same clearance we now get, this is the procedure we have available. I hope that was a bit more clear.
West
TSA Blog Team
Phil sez - "1. Do you believe that shoes pose any more of a threat to air travel safety than do pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, and rectums?
2. Do you believe that the threat of shoes increased when Richard Reid tried to light his on fire?
3. Do you believe that TSA had not considered such risk until he did so?
4. What do you suppose your procedures would be like now if Reid had smuggled his explosive material in any of the places that any one can smuggle such material now?
5. Do you suppose you would be X-raying shoes if Reid had not actually attempted this, but simply publicized the fact that it was possible to hide things in shoes?
6. Will TSA amend its policies now that it is aware that small amounts of explosives (such as the amount that would fit in the sole of a shoe) can be smuggled tucked into armpits and crotches, or in pockets, mouths, and rectums, or will you wait until someone actually attempts to harm people by doing so before you take action?"
Ok Phil, here we go =
1) No.
2) No, I think that awareness was raised, but No.
3) No. I think that the level of awareness and research was not as up to date as it is now, but No.
4) I have no idea, crystal ball is coming up fuzzy at the moment.
5) Maybe, you are talking about an alternate reality, if you do that, Joe Terror could have done the same thing two weeks later after hearing it and we would be at the same point, so maybe.
6) Anything is possible. If they have new research and testing, who knows what changes can be made to policy in the future. I would not, however, look for a change on shoes in the near future.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon-
I must say your ad hominem attacks are amusing. You probably should consider checking the facts yourself. While it is certainly true that no one has attempted utilizing shoes since Richard Reid you might want to consider that perhaps the "shoe carnival" as you like to call it is the reason why. Terrorists used the tactic on at least 2 occasions, killing a passenger and endangering a plane in the first attack (and planning to do far worse had their plan not been disrupted) and only failing in the second case because of operator incompetence. These attacks were 8 years apart. TSA implemented a strategy to close the loophole and the tactic hasn’t been used again. Perhaps that has something to do with terrorists realizing that with shoes being screened it is no longer an effective tactic. Had Yousef or Reid placed his shoes on the belt they wouldn’t have gotten through the checkpoint.
If we were to apply your logic, no one has attacked the pope in quite some time; I guess he should get rid of the Pope-mobile and all that security. When is the last time someone tried to rob Ft Knox? I guess they should stop wasting money on securing it; it’s obvious no one wants to rob the place. Or perhaps we should consider the idea that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Since peer reviewed studies aren't necessary and simple logic suffices, lets try some simple logic. Terrorists have attempted to attack aircraft with a given tactic on multiple occasions in the past. Ergo it is logically a viable threat and needs to be addressed. So shoes need to be screened right now with the available technology the best way to screen them means take them off and put them through the X-ray.
Now, to apply your logic, no one has attacked an aircraft by having an employee place the device in checked baggage in significantly greater time than has passed since Richard Reid. Ergo, based on your logic it is no longer a viable threat and TSA doesn't need to worry about it.
Your claims about "thinking people" are laughable when any thinking person can see the logical inconsistencies in your argument. One avenue isn't a worry anymore because a certain amount of time has passed rendering it magically ineffective, while another avenue, that has never been used is "the real threat”; and of course its pure coincidence that the "real threat" doesn't require any action that might inconvenience you.
Thinking people can see right through your nonsense. I am really surprised that I need to explain this but arguing that one shouldn’t implement one security measure because of a perceived flaw elsewhere in the system is foolish at best. The fact that security for checked baggage should be improved doesn’t disprove the need for security elsewhere. To apply your logic, we stop screening shoes and crack down on the employee doors and in a few months people will be able to make the argument that “why bother with all that security theatre on those doors to the baggage area when someone could just put a bomb in their shoe and walk right through…” Oh, wait, they won’t say that because this is not really about security, it’s about the utter indignity of having to remove our shoes.
I don't mind taking off my shoes (although, not something I've had to do coming through Amsterdam 4 times in the last year) all I ask is some place to SIT DOWN when I go to put them back on?
I reaslise the TSA is not in the business of making anyone "comfortable", but a chair or two would be fabulous.
Some of us who are slightly north of the half century mark have some "issues" when it comes to getting dressed standing up, at least when it comes to putting shoes back on.
What are the chances?
Bob.
PLEASE stop this X RAY of shoes. It does not make me feel ANY safer. No other country requires this and there has never been another shoe incident ANYWHERE to my knowledge. Amazing how our TSA can over react to ONE incident.
TSA should be focusing on things like training and standards of regional pilots; that would make a difference in safety and would make me feel safer.
I can appreciate how difficult it must be to be a TSA officer dealing with the public directly and the TSA management makes it infinitely more difficult for their officers by making senseless rules that cause the public to be even more disgruntled than they already are; the public of course takes their frustrations out on the officers on the front line, it is not their fault that the powers that be make bad decisions.
(part 1 of 2, split because of new 4096-character comment limit)
Following are several questions I asked and West at TSA answered, along with follow-up questions I hope he'll find the time to answer:
Q 1: Do you believe that shoes pose any more of a threat to air travel safety than do pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, and rectums?
A: No.
Q 2: Do you believe that the threat of shoes increased when Richard Reid tried to light his on fire?
A: No, I think that awareness was raised, but No.
You've said that you think TSA did not consider the risk of people smuggling dangerous items onto airplanes in their shoes until Richard Reid was caught trying to light his shoe on fire. That doesn't speak very highly of your associates at TSA.
Q 3: Do you believe that TSA had not considered such risk until he did so?
A: No. I think that the level of awareness and research was not as up to date as it is now, but No.
Q 4: What do you suppose your procedures would be like now if Reid had smuggled his explosive material in any of the places that any one can smuggle such material now?
A: I have no idea, crystal ball is coming up fuzzy at the moment.
I didn't ask for you to look into the future; I asked for your supposition; I'm requesting a guess.
Q 5: Do you suppose you would be X-raying shoes if Reid had not actually attempted this, but simply publicized the fact that it was possible to hide things in shoes?
A: Maybe, you are talking about an alternate reality, if you do that, Joe Terror could have done the same thing two weeks later after hearing it and we would be at the same point, so maybe.
I'm not talking about alternate reality, I'm describing a hypothetical (but very realistic) situation in order to make a point. You believe that the risk of dangerous items being smuggled onto airplanes was only realized by TSA when Richard Reid tried to light his shoe on fire. It's reasonable to assume that simply pointing out that this is possible would bring the fact to the attention of someone who had not previously considered it.
Q 6: Will TSA amend its policies now that it is aware that small amounts of explosives (such as the amount that would fit in the sole of a shoe) can be smuggled tucked into armpits and crotches, or in pockets, mouths, and rectums, or will you wait until someone actually attempts to harm people by doing so before you take action?"
A: Anything is possible. If they have new research and testing, who knows what changes can be made to policy in the future. I would not, however, look for a change on shoes in the near future.
New questions for West at TSA:
7. You believe shoes pose no more threat to air travel safety than pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, and rectums do, so why do you support a special X-ray search of shoes while these equally-effective hiding spots are subject only to search via a walk-through metal detector (which cannot detect explosives)?
8. Do you agree that your agency's very public policy of X-raying shoes will only prevent smuggling of small amounts of explosives by people who 1) would otherwise smuggle those explosives in their shoes, and 2) would not -- with the understanding that such a plot would be foiled -- consider smuggling explosives in their pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, or rectums?
9. You believe the threat of shoes did not increase when Richard Reid tried to light his shoe on fire, so why do you support the change in policy regarding shoes that is frequently justified by Reid's action and also the use of that incident as justification for the change in policy?
(continued)
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
(part 2 of 2, split because of new 4096-character comment limit)
10. What do you guess your procedures would be like now if Reid had smuggled his explosive material in any of the other places that anyone could then and can now smuggle such material instead of in his shoe?
11. Do you think that implementation of TSA's shoe-search-via-X-ray policy was A) a reaction to a newly-discovered threat or B) a public relations move triggered by the high-profile demonstration of a threat that most anyone would have thought of given a few moments thought but that TSA had not (as you've said you believe) previously considered?
12. Why do you at TSA choose to ignore the very real threat of someone smuggling small amounts of explosives (such as the amount that would fit in the sole of a shoe) aboard airplanes tucked into armpits and crotches, or in pockets, mouths, and rectums?
13. Why will you wait until someone actually attempts to harm people by smuggling explosives aboard an airplane in his armpit, crotch, pocket, mouth, or rectum, before you take action?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Phil sez - "Q 2: Do you believe that the threat of shoes increased when Richard Reid tried to light his on fire?
A: No, I think that awareness was raised, but No.
You've said that you think TSA did not consider the risk of people smuggling dangerous items onto airplanes in their shoes until Richard Reid was caught trying to light his shoe on fire. That doesn't speak very highly of your associates at TSA."
This is not an indication that the threat had not been considered. It is an indication that the overall awareness of the tactic came to the public. The increase of awareness, brough the newer screening into consideration (at least that is MHO!). I know that the security research gurus have thought of much more creative ways to get things through. I actually kinda misspoke in my answer though, because shoes DID become a bigger threat with the publicity simply because more looneys saw this, and thought....hmmmm...
And - "I didn't ask for you to look into the future; I asked for your supposition; I'm requesting a guess."
You are asking me to make a guess about something that I can't give you research and facts on. I have no information that I can glean a position from at this time. Which is essentially the same as consulting my handy dandy crystal ball.
And - "Q 5: Do you suppose you would be X-raying shoes if Reid had not actually attempted this, but simply publicized the fact that it was possible to hide things in shoes?
A: Maybe, you are talking about an alternate reality, if you do that, Joe Terror could have done the same thing two weeks later after hearing it and we would be at the same point, so maybe.
I'm not talking about alternate reality, I'm describing a hypothetical (but very realistic) situation in order to make a point. You believe that the risk of dangerous items being smuggled onto airplanes was only realized by TSA when Richard Reid tried to light his shoe on fire. It's reasonable to assume that simply pointing out that this is possible would bring the fact to the attention of someone who had not previously considered it."
Maybe.
And - "7. You believe shoes pose no more threat to air travel safety than pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, and rectums do, so why do you support a special X-ray search of shoes while these equally-effective hiding spots are subject only to search via a walk-through metal detector (which cannot detect explosives)?"
For one simple fact - It insures that shoes are cleared as best as they can be.
And - "8. Do you agree that your agency's very public policy of X-raying shoes will only prevent smuggling of small amounts of explosives by people who 1) would otherwise smuggle those explosives in their shoes, and 2) would not -- with the understanding that such a plot would be foiled -- consider smuggling explosives in their pockets, crotches, armpits, mouths, or rectums?"
I agree that the well publicized process will deter many would-be smugglers of illegal or dangerous items. I think that the shoe policy is another tool (used in conjunction with several other tools/layers) to prevent the transport of dangerous items. This would be a really good time to point out that you are making a really good case for the use of WBI for me. The WBI would eliminate the opportunity to smuggle in many of the locations you have mentioned.
And - "9. You believe the threat of shoes did not increase when Richard Reid tried to light his shoe on fire, so why do you support the change in policy regarding shoes that is frequently justified by Reid's action and also the use of that incident as justification for the change in policy?"
I addressed that earlier, it DID actually make the shoe threat more of a possibility by giving the publicity to the method. I think the policy is justified absed on the viable threat, not based simply on one persons actions.
West
TSA Blog Team
Continued in next post...
Questions from Phil continued...
10. What do you guess your procedures would be like now if Reid had smuggled his explosive material in any of the other places that anyone could then and can now smuggle such material instead of in his shoe?
I do not know. I am a frontline grunt and am not used to making decision on that grand a scale. I would think that the head shed of the organization would examine procedures to counter specific threats and put together a group of individuals that are taksed with coming up with ways of deterring the threat. That could be more in depth pat downs, more tech research dedicated to the areas listed, and prehaps even more investment in the WBI system as that can eliminate several of the listed locations quickly and with less physical interaction with the passengers.
11. Do you think that implementation of TSA's shoe-search-via-X-ray policy was A) a reaction to a newly-discovered threat or B) a public relations move triggered by the high-profile demonstration of a threat that most anyone would have thought of given a few moments thought but that TSA had not (as you've said you believe) previously considered?
I have a confession to make, I spoke out of turn on the consideration question before. I am certain that the organization had considered shoes as a threat, but not something that was a serious consideration like several other types of methods that are possible but not widely known as a source of threat. The increased attention brought by a high profile event brought the consideration back to the front burner and demanded some sort of an adjustment to screening, simply because it made the method more widely known. Seriously, who in their right mind (emphasis on right mind) would consider putting boom in their shoes, their contact lens solution bottle, a gel-pac or an aerosol can? Or Play doh cans? Yet, all of these are things that now are routinely checked because they have been used before. (some are not as publicized as others)
12. Why do you at TSA choose to ignore the very real threat of someone smuggling small amounts of explosives (such as the amount that would fit in the sole of a shoe) aboard airplanes tucked into armpits and crotches, or in pockets, mouths, and rectums?
I don't think we ignore anything, with the addition of various layers of security, increased presence of FAMs, the FFDO program, the BDO program, the BAO program which helps with assesments and training, along with the training we recieve, we are not ignoring anything. We are currently using the WBI which eliminates several of the areas you are mentioning, we are using the BDOs effectively and soem of the other security initiatives that are being rolled out will increase the difficulty level of any kind of dangerous events.
13. Why will you wait until someone actually attempts to harm people by smuggling explosives aboard an airplane in his armpit, crotch, pocket, mouth, or rectum, before you take action?
As I have said, we have the layered approach to security, there are several things working against you if you have ill intent. There are several other porgrams being researched right now and I think that the WBI is a step in the right direction, as it gives you better screening and removes some of the need for physical interaction (read patdowns) with the passengers. I hope that some day we can have that cool imagery from Total Recall , until then, well we have the equipment we are using and developing now.
West
TSA Blog Team
Shoes on the X-ray belt, or in a bin???
That is a really good question because today apparently no one in TSA knows just what the rules and procedures are!
Reports of conflicting procedures are being received from across the country. At some airports the policy seems to be delegated to the checkpoint supervisor. Barkers are raising their voices to force compliance with another stupid TSA rule.
Why would TSA do something so inane as to make transitting a TSA Checkpoint even more confusing and frustrating?
What benefit does TSA derive from this mess?
Is it just the ability to show who is in charge? That travelers have no rights at TSA Drag Net/Strip Search Checkpoints?
I certainly see no other reason.
TSA again fails the PR game.
I think its time the people got rid TSA and homeland security. It does make feel any safer, and the original hijackers would not be stopped by todays inspections. Its just jobs for the sake of jobs.
I wanted to report that this request to place shoes on belt is being enforced as a Mandatory Policy at Love Field. I requested that my shoes stay in bin to prevent damage, or that TSA be liable if they were damanged and was told no on both accounts by Ms. Williams. I did not agree to her terms did get my shoes secondarily screened, but was subjected to the longest pat down of my life and was asked to partially undress in public.
Please send a note to the Love Field TSA that this is not a mandatory policy.
This policy was posted over a month ago. Why are screeners still harassing passengers and forcing them to place their shoes on the belt?
Bob, if this simple communication cannot get through from HQ to the field, why should we trust that anything IMPORTANT would get communicated correctly? Foolishness like this is why I have no confidence in the TSA to keep me safe from anything.
Fine, so the new policy is "shoes off, and thru the x-ray on the belt" So has the cleaning staff started shampooing the walking areas every 2 hours? I am suprised the health department has not gotten involved here. The shoe debate on the belt or in a bin is screwy. The x-ray machine does its job. It's usually the operator error anyway. Maybe you can lay down some white linen sheets from the x-ray belt area, and through the metal detector, and to the pick-up area. They can be changed out every few hours for sanitary reasons. Besides, thet should stay clean if all are barefoot(socks ect... just no shoes). Maybe some chairs to put shoes back on too.
Anon sez - "Fine, so the new policy is "shoes off, and thru the x-ray on the belt" So has the cleaning staff started shampooing the walking areas every 2 hours? I am suprised the health department has not gotten involved here. The shoe debate on the belt or in a bin is screwy. The x-ray machine does its job. It's usually the operator error anyway. Maybe you can lay down some white linen sheets from the x-ray belt area, and through the metal detector, and to the pick-up area. They can be changed out every few hours for sanitary reasons. Besides, thet should stay clean if all are barefoot(socks ect... just no shoes). Maybe some chairs to put shoes back on too."
I believe this was designed to de-clutter shoes for the xray operator. If we make the effort to take the shoes out of the bin and place them on the belt, the temptation to put things inside the shoes is lessened. How many times have you seena passenger come up, place their shoes in the bin and then load said shoes with any combination of the following - wallet, watch, cell phone, coins, ipod, headphones, money clips, gum packs, medicine blister packs, and any other item carried in pockets on a regular basis. By removing the shoes from the bin and decluttering we give the xray operator a clearer picture, and remove some temptation to load the shoes away. That being said, it is not required that you remove the shoes from the bin, it is merely suggested. A lot of times here at GSO we have someone assisting the passengers and will just remove shoes if they are in a cluttered bin and place them on the belt.
West
TSA Blog Team
lot of times here at GSO we have someone assisting the passengers and will just remove shoes if they are in a cluttered bin and place them on the belt.
West
TSA Blog Team
July 1, 2009 2:00 PM
......................
If TSA has people removing shoes from bins or telling people to place shoes directly on the xray belt then that seems pretty clear is is an order.
This whole mess is TSA created and apparetnly no one at TSA HQ has sent out a memo correcting the improperly released Shoes on the Belt policy.
As others have said, if TSA can't get something as simple as this communicated properly then why would anyone hold out hope for complicated information to be communicated properly?
TSA continues to meet my expectations!
Rb sez - "If TSA has people removing shoes from bins or telling people to place shoes directly on the xray belt then that seems pretty clear is is an order.
This whole mess is TSA created and apparetnly no one at TSA HQ has sent out a memo correcting the improperly released Shoes on the Belt policy.
As others have said, if TSA can't get something as simple as this communicated properly then why would anyone hold out hope for complicated information to be communicated properly?
TSA continues to meet my expectations!"
It is not an order unless it is phrased that way - for example "Take your shoes out of the bin and place them on the belt alone" is a specific order and would probably be taken as such because of the phrasing. On the other hand "Could you please remove your shoes from the bin with those other items and place them on the belt" (which is usually how I phrase it) is actually a request, again based on the phrasing. If the shoes are not removed then the xray operator can call for a rerun, the tray will be taken back up front and the shoes removed and resubmitted for xray again separately. The rule is that we request them to be submitted separately, not demand. I can't speak for the other TSOs nationwide, but that is what has been distributed to us, it is what has been posted here, and it is what the emails/publications from HQ have said. I will admit, that not all people have the same cheery disposition and level of friendliness I have, but the message from HQ was pretty clear on this from the get go. I am glad we are meeting your expectations RB, we strive for excellent security and world class customer service!
West
TSA Blog Team
There appears to be an assumption that the only times shoes are removed from bins are when the bins are "cluttered." Not so.
Barkers screaming "Shoes directly on the belt, not in the bins" can be perceived as an order by pax that don't know it isn't a rule.
GSOLTSO said...
It is not an order unless it is phrased that way - for example "Take your shoes out of the bin and place them on the belt alone" is a specific order and would probably be taken as such because of the phrasing. On the other hand "Could you please remove your shoes from the bin with those other items and place them on the belt" (which is usually how I phrase it) is actually a request, again based on the phrasing.
.....................
Both phrasings would be construed as an order. You guys are wearing uniforms and have positional authority.
After several years of screening shoes in bins TSA has determined that xrays cannot see through the plastic of a bin.
Does this mean that all of the shoe screenings over the last several years have been faulty?
Has TSA changed the Xray equipment to an inferior model that cannot see through plastic?
Regardless of the reasons it should be a policy to place shoes on the belt or in the bin.
There is no reason to make the checkpoint any more difficult for the public than it already is.
People who travel just see this as another check mark in the incompetence box on the TSA evaluation form.
I am glad we are meeting your expectations RB, we strive for excellent security and world class customer service!
West
TSA Blog Team
July 1, 2009 5:35 PM
.................................
My expectations for TSA are not high.
I expect a disfunctional agency and that is what you and your fellow TSA employees provide.
Now if you want to brag about that you go right ahead, West.
As was posted previously...
It is not an order unless it is phrased that way - for example "Take your shoes out of the bin and place them on the belt alone" is a specific order and would probably be taken as such because of the phrasing. On the other hand "Could you please remove your shoes from the bin with those other items and place them on the belt" (which is usually how I phrase it) is actually a request, again based on the phrasing. If the shoes are not removed then the xray operator can call for a rerun, the tray will be taken back up front and the shoes removed and resubmitted for xray again separately. The rule is that we request them to be submitted separately, not demand. I can't speak for the other TSOs nationwide, but that is what has been distributed to us, it is what has been posted here, and it is what the emails/publications from HQ have said. I will admit, that not all people have the same cheery disposition and level of friendliness I have, but the message from HQ was pretty clear on this from the get go. I am glad we are meeting your expectations RB, we strive for excellent security and world class customer service!
No Offense but it sounds like an order. Also I have experienced no difference between a request and a command from the tin plated badge holders at TSO security lines. The security people I meet in other countries seem to be more polite, except those in Heathrow Terminal 5, and more well educated.
This is what we get for no unions and a minimum high school diploma.
I mean I get paid 20+ dollars an hour to do stuff similar to moving trays from one side of a line to another and mindless repetition is part of the job. BTW, this is one aspect of the job that the TSA is doing well. I don't think we want to go to the bin recycling system that they use in the UK as I am not impressed. It is more annoying and keeps trying to steal my stuff by disappearing into the machine.
I don't mean to cause alarm but if there is a problem with shoes then what if the "bad guy" tries to conceal the explosives in soft bags/pockets/insoles in their socks? I mean no one ever searches socks just shoes. Doesn't really make us safer. Just makes our socks dirtier.
Sorry but every time I travel I figure out these sort of cheats and bypasses. If I can do it then there is no reason that eventually someone who is "naughty" will sort it out in their own minds as well.
All professional security experts tell you that randomness or absolute consistency is the only way to truly secure anything. The fact that there is so much confusion in the TSA ranks as to what constitutes policy is indication enough that we are no safer than pre 9/11. Excepting the vigilance of our fellow passengers.
Don't mean to be mean but this is not just my opinion but that of others.
We are being taught to obey without question, not made safer.
Keep trying to do the good work. I wish you all luck. Lots of it.
Brian said...
I mean I get paid 20+ dollars an hour to do stuff similar to moving trays from one side of a line to another and mindless repetition is part of the job.
..................
Solution, cut your pay by half, then the wage will better fit the skill for the job you are doing.
RB sez - "Both phrasings would be construed as an order. You guys are wearing uniforms and have positional authority.
After several years of screening shoes in bins TSA has determined that xrays cannot see through the plastic of a bin.
Does this mean that all of the shoe screenings over the last several years have been faulty?
Has TSA changed the Xray equipment to an inferior model that cannot see through plastic?
Regardless of the reasons it should be a policy to place shoes on the belt or in the bin.
There is no reason to make the checkpoint any more difficult for the public than it already is.
People who travel just see this as another check mark in the incompetence box on the TSA evaluation form."
Actually you are incorrect with that RB, both phrasings COULD be interpreted as an order, but there is a distinct difference in asking someone to remove them and telling someone to remove them. We are in a position of authority, but we are not "Gods of the checkpoint", we are there to help direct people, assist people, screen the persons and baggage and get them on their way.
Again, wrong on the bin thing, TSA did not determine that the xray can't see through the bin, they determined that this is a step to help reduce the cluttering of shoes and the bins.
No.
This is actually a move to help cut down on reruns of the bins and shoes. I have noticed that since we have begun to run the shoes less cluttered the rerun count has almost halved.
West
TSA Blog Team
RB sez - "My expectations for TSA are not high.
I expect a disfunctional agency and that is what you and your fellow TSA employees provide.
Now if you want to brag about that you go right ahead, West."
I am sorry that your expectations are not high, they should be - TSA screens millions of people a year and stop at the least hundreds of thousands of prohibited items from getting on planes. This keeps you and all other flying passengers, crew members and pilots safer whether you realize or acknowledge that fact or not.
Every agency is disfunctional on several levels, it comes with having 45k employees and 45k different attitudes and interpretations of what is supposed to happen. There is a common focus and direction, but still 45k interpretations and thought processes. Sorry to disappoint you, but every company that gets above 1 employee will have differences and any company that gets above 100 people will be disfunctional in some way shape or form.
I will brag about the fact that I come to work everyday and do my best to do the job. I work with every person that comes in (good attitude, bad attitude - doesn't matter) and screen them and their items. I do my best to make sure that all those around me do their jobs as well. I will also brag about the fact that we catch stuff everyday that is prohibited, thus doing the job. Say what you want, I am proud of the organization (even though I disagree with some of the things we do, some of the regs we have and some of the people that work here), I am proud of the job I do and I am proud of this blog because it allows dissent, as a matter of fact it celebrates dissent.
(step down off soap box)
Were there any other questions you had RB? Be advised, the next couple of weeks I have BDO school and won't be on nearly as much as usual, so please be patient with me looking for responses.
West
TSA Blog Team
GSOLTSO: I will also brag about the fact that we catch stuff everyday that is prohibited, thus doing the job. Most of the 'prohibited stuff' shouldn't be prohibited. i.e. "no one slipped a bottle of fiji water on a plane this week"
Earl Pitts: TSA has done more to destroy aviation in this country than OBL ever could. He's laughing in a cave right now. I agree with this statement 100%. The whole purpose of 9/11 wasn't to kill 3,000 people it was the change the daily habits, restrict the freedoms, and terrorize millions. I think they couldn't have cared less how many people died, 3000, 1000, or 0 as long as they could change our lives and restrict our freedoms, which is exactly what DHS and TSA have made sure happened.
Jannis: As I recall, in the days and weeks following 9-11 the American people rose up and demanded that the government protect them. This is why TSA was created. I never recall demanding the government protect me, in fact i have been critical of the DHS & TSA since inception, the boogy man is not hiding behind every corner, nor in my shampoo bottle, or under my gellin inserts. Further I recall no national vote, referendum, or constitutional amendment, approved by 3/4's of the states demanding that the government take over airport security.
Someone said something to the effect of TSA isn't going away. It is my sincere hope that one day this country will wake up and dismantle the DHS starting with TSA.
As far as the "required" or "optional" shoes on belt, I have been in 4 airports so far this week (7/7/09) and it was "required" at all of them, including KCI with the rent-a-cops. (I won't even get into the fact that billions of tax payer dollars were spent to start TSA, "because the country could never be safe as long as rent-a-cops were handling airport security" for TSA to just go back to rent-a-cops some ~8 years later) How long does it take for everyone to get the message that i can still put my shoes in a bin if i want to?
I am amazed by the vitriol and venom being spewed by the people posting here. What a short attention span some people have. "Richard Reid was over a half decade ago." OK, well I guess no one can try to use shoes to blow up a plane ever again. That one's too old. What a horrible inconvenience it is to have to wear loafers to the airport. What a terribly restriction of my constitutional rights it is to have to send my laptop through a conveyor belt. That's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I guess if I didn't have a life, like most of these idioit posters who have to elevate themselves by denigrating people trying to do their jobs, I would be angry at losing those 15 minutes too. What a bunch of cry babies. Suck it up you bunch of terrorism "experts."
Regarding shoes, I always find 2 things interesting at the screening areas; First, people who wear shoes which are complex and difficult to remove and put back on. They slow the line both before the x-ray and insist on trying to put their shoes back on in the line right after.(instead of using the chairs away from the x-ray).
Second, people who go through the area barefoot. With the number of people that pass the checkpoint, I wonder about the risk of fungus or worse if their foot is cut.
Simply put if you know you are going to fly, be considerate and wear slip on shoes and some form of foot covering in the screening area.
Anon sez - "GSOLTSO: I will also brag about the fact that we catch stuff everyday that is prohibited, thus doing the job. Most of the 'prohibited stuff' shouldn't be prohibited. i.e. "no one slipped a bottle of fiji water on a plane this week"
There are valid security reasons for items to be on the prohib lists. I can give you several links to independent sources on liquid explosives (I have actually done so on SEVERAL blog topics on this forum), that indicate it is a viable threat to any security location (aviation, mass transit, courts, any location with security requirements).
West
TSA Blog Team
Hi Lynn,
Just wanted to share that the agents at DFW did provide allow the placement of shoes in the bin as an option. The agent that was monitoring the metal detector yelled at an old man to the point that he almost fell over trying to reach the bin that was halfway in the x ray to take his shoes out. I fly almost every week and find that the discrepancies in the enforcement of the rules between airports to be extremely frustrating. I know that the officers deal with a great number of people, but a little respect, and a nice tone would go a long way.
Hi,
I think we shouldn't compromise anything for security. So, why not shoes. Thanks for sharing this information.
Why are we (U.S.) NOT using the shoe x-ray technology that Israel and some european countries are using. The person stand on a x-ray device with their shoes on and after 1 or 2 second you get either a green or red light. I think the name of the device was MagShoe. If Israel with one on the most secure airports in the country us something like this why can't we, plus I really hate taking my shoes off...
Good morning Lynn,
Greetings from PHX T3 AA concourse. I passed thru the checkpoint @ approximately 7 am this morning, 10/4, & both moat dragons were making announcements that shoes MUST go on the belt & that this 'will soon be a requirement at every airport'.
Given the penchant of screeners nationwide to make things up, would you care to comment on this alleged 'requirement' or would you simply address this internally w/the screening mgr @ PHX?
It's this kind of thing that makes the traveling public continue to loathe the TSA...
I have not spent a great deal of time reading through the TSA blogs here, but have stopped by twice for answers to questions. I have to admit, I am a little baffled by the hostility in the comments, and the number of them with theoretical concerns. Although some of the TSA employees I’ve dealt with are a bit tense, I have never had the sort of conflict that the people commenting here seem to have had. Admittedly, I probably only pass through security at an airport a dozen or so times a year.
There seems to be a much bigger issue here, and one that the TSA should really pay attention to. I do spend a fair amount of time on blogs and forums, and have not run into the consistent, hostile response to any other person, agency, or company (who was not intentionally trying to incite conflict for entertainment.) Maybe I just have not lurked on enough government blogs, but it looks to me like the TSA has a long way to go in customer relations. Any private company would be reeling and doing extreme damage control, rather than accepting this as the standard for existence.
Eva,
Thanks for your comment. I assure you that we do take customer service seriously. We have this blog for example. Many at TSA including over 150 Customer Support Managers nationwide monitor this blog as well as our Got Feedback program. They use information from this blog to find opportunities for improvement. You can actually speak with a real person w/ Got Feedback at the airport you traveled through and get a real response as opposed to a boilerplate response. We put our entire workforce (45,000 +) through Engage training which has a segment on customer service. Some come to this blog for dialogue and others come here solely to vent and leave. And others come here to vent on a regular basis. Please check out these links: Got Feedback --> http://bit.ly/12Xl3g Engage --> http://bit.ly/1BR0iR
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Hi Bob,
Are you or Lynn ever going to follow up on this topic and address any of the reports that some TSOs are saying "shoes on the belt is mandatory" ? There have been quite a few since this was first posted.
I know you're out there, I can see your recent reply to Eva.
Thanks, Bob, for your response. I visited the sites you gave the addresses to, and the comments/ complaints site looks like a good venue for travelers to voice their concerns. it's what I would look for, if I even had an issue.
As for the shoes on the belt, what this post is about, myself, I wear loafers when I fly. If I forget and wear something else, I chide myself as I am putting them back on after, not curse the person standing at the belt or metal detector.
Just seems like a lot of rancor over shoelaces.
Lynn said, "If you don’t hear the directions or put your shoes in the bin by accident, fear not - you won’t be sent back to the end of the line for a do-over. Safe travels!"
Wow, Lynn, you make the airport checkpoint sound so warm and fuzzy and friendly. The reality on the ground is a lot different. I've experienced TSA "hospitality" at a number of airports, but TSA at LAX is the _worst_. When I flew out of LAX last month, the TSOs created an "us versus them" mentality - as one TSO shouted directions, another egged him on - "You tell 'em!" The young woman right in front of me was very worried she was going to miss her flight, and the TSOs did nothing to try to expedite her. In fact, they seemed to go out of their way to hinder her further. The last straw was when she reached in the metal grate to grab her bag after the x-ray check, because the conveyer belt was moving slowly. The TSO made her and her bag go through the entire process as punishment, because the bag hadn't been "properly screened". Is it any wonder that there's no love for TSA and TSOs?
Sad that these "TSO" people don't understand that people are not potential terrorists regardless of what their trainers tell them and people don't have bombs in their shoes. That whole incident is just so ridiculous, but even more ridiculous is to believe that people are in any danger from "shoe bombs".
Hi Lynn & greetings from DFW Terminal D.
Question for you-why are there signs @ the checkpoints, directly in front of the WTMD's, that say 'Shoes must be flat on the belt...New TSA policy effective 5/13/09' (complete w/pictures, btw)? So how is it word has not filtered to the screening staff here that it is NOT in fact TSA policy that shoes must be on the belt, it was merely a suggestion & how long will it take for HQ to re-train staff & mgmt there re: this, as well as take down those false statements?
So today I bought some shoes that have a tag that says "Airport Friendly." Does this really mean anything to me? Can I magically walk through the screener without taking my shoes off?
has the shoe policy changed? My wife was recently told to put her shoes back on at the checkpoint and when she asked why she was told in a rather unprofessional way to put them back on. I find this a little upsetting.
this black and white color collaboration shoes is has good sense of style...actually if i will asked right now i want to buy that kind of shoes...
THE TSA PULLED A $1200 PAIR of Santoni shoes out of the bin I placed them in and put them ON THE BELT without ASKING ME.
THEY GOT SCRATCHED.
I am an AMERICAN, TAXPAYING CITIZEN. Why do I not have the right to keep my shoes in good order?
Lynn, as an FYI, my good friend Diem flew out of DFW this morning for Seattle and one of her shoes, while in a basket, was shredded while in the X-ray machine! The TSA security personnel told her they'd never seen anything like it, and had no explanation... I told her to submit a claim to TSA for the damage. She was nearly in tears since it was her favorite pair of shoes... We are both amazed to know that this can happen... J.Jasper
Last time I went through airport security screening I put them directly on the belt and they got caught in the rollers and held up the screening after me before an employee wrenched my shoes out of the rollers.
The one thing that bothers me about shoes in the bins has been that it's just dirty! I'm putting my coat, wallet, laptop, etc into a bin where a thousand other people just had their dirty shoes on?
I have an idea
How about different, smaller bins just for shoes. This will resolve everyone's concern about shoe damage in the machines and my issue. Done.
Everyone stop whining about how annoyed you are with a simple task that may avoid your plane blowing up in the air and everyone dying. Somebody attempted to a blow up a plane with explosives in their shoes - remember??!!
Post a Comment