There have been some questions on our blog and elsewhere about the Chicago aircraft inspections.Also, I've noticed some confusion out there, so please note that this involved a Transportation Security Inspector, (TSI) not a Transportation Security Officer. (TSO)
Here's what we posted on our website.
On August 19 a Transportation Security Inspector (TSI) was conducting a routine compliance inspection on aircraft parked on the airfield at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport (ORD). The TSI inspected nine American Eagle aircraft to look for and test, among other things, access vulnerabilities or areas were someone with ill intent could gain access to the aircraft.
Aircraft operators are required to secure each aircraft when left unattended. The TSIs are encouraged to look for and follow through on vulnerabilities. During the inspection process at ORD the Inspector used a Total Air Temperature (TAT) probe – a probe that protrudes from the side of the aircraft that is used to measure outside air temperature – to pull himself up while investigating possible access vulnerabilities with the unattended aircraft.
The Inspector was following through on regulatory inspection activity. The Inspector was able to gain access to the interior of seven of the nine aircraft inspected, which is an apparent violation of the airline’s security program. TSA is reviewing the inspection results and depending on the conclusion, could take action with the airline, up to and including levying of civil penalties.
While the inspection process is a vital layer of aviation security, it is not TSA’s intent to cause delays or potential damage to aircraft as a result of our inspections. TSA took immediate steps to re-enforce education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a plane.
Facts:
- TSA has 1,465 Transportation Security Inspectors at almost 150 airports that can cover all modes of transportation.
- 535 in air cargo (including 85 dedicated canine teams)
- 755 in aviation
- 175 in surface transportation modes)
Bob
EoS Blog Team
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217Jim Huggins wrote...
The magic machine has a simple interface; press the button, see the result. And the result is pretty obviously not under the control of the TSO running the machine, so accusations of retaliatory screenings can drop.
Many here have noted that something being secure and something looking secure are independent. Mainly, we talk about this because of "security theater": things that look secure but really aren't. It's also possible to have processes that look insecure but really are secure. There's nothing wrong with trying to create processes that both are secure and look secure, in order to (appropriately) increase confidence in secure systems.
Please allow me to mention a device I had at work years ago when I was an engineering manager that was made from parts from a broken remote-control toy car. It was in two parts. One part was a small but impressive looking equipment box with labels, switches and a red LED on top, the other was the tiny remote control with two buttons that was kept in one's pocket or concealed in one's hand. It was purely for amusement.
The "story" that went with it is that it could detect fables, tall tales, lies, or BS.
To use it, one flipped a few of the switches on the mini-console, including the one switch that was actually connected to something and turned it on, and then waited. When the "go" button on the simple remote was pressed, the red LED would come on, when the "turn" button was pressed the red LED and a buzzer came on... The console was obviously not able to judge the veracity of what was being said, but it sure seemed to know! :o)
The reason I bring tis up is there is absolutely no reason why pressing the button on one of TSA's fancy machines couldn't have which lamp lit determined by a remote observer...
BTW, the random chance device - push a button, get one of two lights - could be built from $20 worth of parts from RadioShack, and if one wanted to make it a weighted chance device, one-in-a-hundred or whatever, it could probably be done for $50. Put it in a nice box and it will do the job. make it small and add battery, and it is even portable.
I suspect the one TSA has from whoever make theirs is MUCH more expensive...
Maybe a little game spinner similar to one from a board game would be even cheaper, more reliable, and have less chance of being "rigged."
====
The reason I bring any of this up is that the idea of having a random selection device is good, the TSA's way of doing it seems, however, to be overkill, and WAY too expensive. (And it is MY money they are spending.)
Tom (1 of 5-6)
Folks, to attempt to keep things TSA related, I'm not going to approve comments about the arrests at the RNC.
So, if you've prepared a comment, I've rejected it. I can see this quickly going way off topic. I know we get off topic as it is, but let's at least try to keep this about the TSA please. :)
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Bob, a discussion began about whether people are, in a very American way, exercising their right to voice their opinions (via dialog such as that which this blog purports to facilitate) or simply whining. Sandra pointed out that recently, near the 2008 RNC, police intimidation, abuse of power, and false arrest was used to silence dissent.
You allowed a comment that suggested all those who were arrested were doing bad things. Then when I followed up with multiple sources of information about all the innocent people -- including our press -- who were arrested, you cut off the discussion.
Why the bias?
No bias Phil, I just saw the discussion going way off topic.
When I approved the other posts, I thought they were just simple mentions that wouldn't derail the comments, but your posts as well as others I rejected were full on off topic.
If you want to chat about the arrests at the RNC, I'm sure there is a blog out there somewhere that will welcome your comments.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Bob wrote...
No bias Phil, I just saw the discussion going way off topic.
When I approved the other posts, I thought they were just simple mentions that wouldn't derail the comments, but your posts as well as others I rejected were full on off topic.
If you want to chat about the arrests at the RNC, I'm sure there is a blog out there somewhere that will welcome your comments.
Bob, may I just mention that some of the actions at and near the RNC should be proper subject of this blog, and the dialogue here?
Why do I say this?
TSA was involved with it by "assisting" other government agencies with the not-transportation-related security at the RNC.
Since those in charge felt that it was somehow a part of the TSA's mission to assist in the actions associated with the RNC, I put forth that it should be a part of this blog to discuss TSA's part in those actions.
Comments about other agencies actions probably do NOT belong here, Bob, but discussion of TSA's part does in my opinion.
====
How's the newborn? :o) Congratulations!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
First off, thanks to everybody for your nice comments about my lovely new daughter. I appreciate it. If she's anything like my first-born or my wife, I am going to have my hands FULL. But I'll still be happy. For a crazy man... :)
Tomas,
By all means, discuss the DNC & RNC as far as TSA's involvement. I have no problem with that. Even though it's off topic with this post, it's still related to the TSA. I fully understand that this blog is not the ideal setup for dialogue. Changes are coming in the future, but for now, I just usually accept the fact that things will slide off topic.
But...the TSA does not have the power to arrest and did not assist with the arrests at the RNC, so I consider any discussion about that to be off topic.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Jim Huggins wrote:
Actually, I don't agree.
Firstly, it's always nice to see a fellow gamer. :D
Secondly, I agree with you, and you bring up valid points in regard to the cheap set of dice.
I've said before that I would welcome such a device at HSV, and for the same reasoning that it's being produced - it makes secondary screening far more transparent and, let's face it, would go a long, long way to make retaliatory screening much more visible and apparent, and the TSOs responsible to be held accountable for it.
However--
I can't help but wonder how much the system, as it's being produced, costs. If it's anything like most government contracts, it's probably tens of millions of dollars.
And I could do the same thing using coding as simple as QBasic, or even (assuming it could be adapted for use outside of the game, and that Blizzard™ wouldn't have a problem with it!) the built-in trigger coding of the Warcraft III world editor.
To wit:
Trigger: "Unpredictable Secondary Screening"
Condition: Button is Pushed
Action: Create random integer between 1 and 3 AND Make Variable A equal to randomly created integer
Action: IF Variable A is Equal To 1, THEN Display text: "Bulk-Item Pat Down", ELSE do nothing.
Action: IF Variable A is Equal To 2, THEN Display text: "Hand-Wand Metal Detector Screening", ELSE do nothing.
Action: IF Variable A is Equal To 3, THEN Display text: ETD sampling of carry-on baggage, ELSE do nothing.
Action: Reset Variable A
Action: Reset Trigger Unpredictable Secondary Screening
And, obviously, more integers can be added to increase the numbers of unpredictable screening measures that the system can handle.
Ta-da! I'd like to put in my bid for the paltry amount of $5,000,000 now. ;)
HSVTSO Dean writes:
Firstly, it's always nice to see a fellow gamer. :D
Actually, I'm not really a gamer. I did play a lot of NetHack in my ill-begotten youth, which got me familiar with the terminology.
I can't help but wonder how much the system, as it's being produced, costs. If it's anything like most government contracts, it's probably tens of millions of dollars.
And I could do the same thing using coding as simple as QBasic, or even (assuming it could be adapted for use outside of the game, and that Blizzard™ wouldn't have a problem with it!) the built-in trigger coding of the Warcraft III world editor.
Ahh, but now you're in my area of expertise: computer science. (Which is how I developed my examples with the d20 ... finding ways to break a system is a skill that most computer scientists develop.)
As much as it sounds simple to write a program like this, the underlying technology is ... well, not.
First of all, it's really hard to build a good random number generator, and it's really easy to build a bad one. The random number generators in QBASIC or WoW aren't that good ... basically, because they don't have to be. Blizzard doesn't get sued by people claiming that WoW is racially biased against their characters (I hope...); their main priority is getting something that's both "random enough" and "damn fast". TSA's machine, on the other hand, better be above all reproach, but probably doesn't have to work any faster than twenty or thirty button pushes per minute.
Second, you want a system that's hyper-reliable. If this machine goes belly-up in the middle of the afternoon rush, you're toast. To be blunt, off-the-shelf operating systems (commercial or free), and off-the-shelf hardware, simply don't have that level of reliability. (To see a case in point, look at all the problems that electronic voting machines are having lately.)
Third, you want a system that's hyper-resistant to tampering. Heaven help you if your Magic Box gets a virus on it (like was rumored to have happened to a bunch of DHS VISIT machines awhile back). You also don't want to have a machine that could be influenced by someone at the checkpoint to ensure that a passenger [does | does not] get selected for secondary screening. And given that no-one likes secondary screenings, there's powerful incentive to try and find a way to influence the machines.
In short ... there's a big difference between a fun little program that I can write in 10 minutes, and a production-quality machine that millions of people will use a day. And that's where some of that money goes.
Boo! So much for my $5,000,000 contract bid. Thanks, Jim, for destroying my dreams! :(
And World of Warcraft is for noobs~ I meant WCIII and it's Frozen Throne expansion. I once — purely out of boredom and for recreational entertainment — recreated the entire first act of Diablo II in the WCIII engine, including character class selection and random weather events and day/night cycles and random gossip among the NPCs. It was a labor that took me almost two months of being bent over the keyboard figuring out the trigger control mechanisms, and in the end? It got caught up in a reformat, and I forgot to back it up.
So very sad.
You make great points all around for the system that TSA would have to have in place for the secondary device. I suppose it's not so simple as I (and others!) have really considered it to be.
Jim Huggins wrote:
And given that no-one likes secondary screenings...
Including us, by the way. Contrary to popular belief, we don't really love just screening people for the sheer joy of it, and we also don't alleviate boredom with random complete searches. Here at HSV, if it's slow and boring (like today), the sooner you get your stuff and move on, the sooner we get to sit down and continue telling corny jokes.
Would a Person intent on doing harm care if he damages a probe just so he could get something on board. I highly doubt it. I want these TSI's to think like someone who would do harm. I mean how else would they find vunerable areas. If I am delayed because the airline can't figure out how secure their planes, thats their fault.
"Would a Person intent on doing harm care if he damages a probe "
Yes, they would care. If they wanted to be undetected.
"I want these TSI's to think like someone who would do harm."
Well, you got your wish. The TSI who climbed over the planes after being told he was doing damage sure 'thinks' like someone who would do harm.
The aircraft please. Who pays for the damaged aircraft? Is there any guarantee that this TSI type or one of his coworkers won't damage private property in the future (air craft damaged were private property)? What disciplinary measures were taken?
Bob, what other aircraft specific training have TSI's been given to that they may damage more airplanes in a quicker manner.
What was the outcome of this incident?
Was the TSI fired or disciplined in any manner?
How many travelers must be threatened before someone at TSA takes positive action?
Another dead thread with no answers. Thank you TSA for making travel a hazard when you damage the aircraft.
As a pilot, this sort of behavior scares me. Question for you: did the TSI in question gain access to the sterile area using his/her badge? If so, then climbing around on the airplanes is an invalid test of security. He/she would have had to gain access to the aircraft without a SIDA badge to make the test valid. The first priority should be keeping would-be troublemakers out of the secure area. I spend quite a bit of time at O'Hare and I find it to very secure! So why have some TSI pretend he/she gained illegal access to the planes unless he/she did? This behavior could endanger the passengers and crew. Luckily the mechanics caught this before anything tragic happened. Kudos to the mechanics for catching it.
We're *all* part of keeping flying safe. Even though pilots and Flight attendants get screened and screeners (according to a recent Denver news report) do not. What's up with that, by the way? I don't understand. I try to be patient with the screening process, even though I, too, have had a background check.
Has the TSA considered using fingerprint technology for flightcrews and perhaps themselves as well? We're all fingerprinted anyway, seems like a good idea. Ah, well, it's just one more of those things on my "I don't get it" list.
Again, the aircraft. Who paid for the repairs? This isn't rocket science.
Their even whining that I said they're whining! WOW. What a sad affair.
The world is a different place. You may not agree, but accept. You are alive. You have freedoms. Though you may feel that our government may be "morons" as you put, you are free to leave as well.
Post a Comment