Passenger with Loaded Pistol at DFW – Using imaging technology, a .380 pistol loaded with seven rounds and one chambered was discovered in the pocket of a passenger at DFW. After resisting arrest, the Dallas/Fort Worth Department of Public Safety arrested him on a state charge.
23 Firearms Discovered This Week – 18 of those firearms were loaded and seven had rounds chambered. See a complete list and more photos at the bottom of this post.
Suspicious Image At PHL – An ominous image was discovered on the X-ray monitor at Philadelphia (PHL). It appeared to be a possible pipe bomb. While screening the bag, the passenger became upset and stated: “I can bring a bomb through here any day I want and you will never find it.” The item ended up being a GPS watch inside a PVC pipe with two end caps. Philadelphia Police responded and arrested him on a state charge.
Items in the Strangest Places –It’s important to check your bags prior to traveling. If a prohibited item is discovered in your bag, you could be cited and possibly arrested by local law enforcement. Here are a few examples from this week where prohibited items were found in strange places.
A knife concealed within an ink pen was discovered in a carry-on bag at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW).
A knife was discovered concealed in the lining of a carry-on bag at Columbus, Ohio (CMH).
Thirteen Batons – Thirteen 20” expandable batons were discovered in a carry-on bag at Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA).
Stun Guns –10 stun guns were discovered this week in carry-on bags around the nation: Three at Atlanta (ATL), two at Denver (DEN), two at San Francisco (SFO), and one each at Burbank (BUR), Detroit (DTW), and San Diego (SAN).
Miscellaneous Prohibited
Items - In addition to all of the other prohibited items we
find weekly, our Officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic
replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, Airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition,
batons, and a lot of sharp pointy things -- to mention a few…
You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be
declared to the airline. You can go here for more details on how to properly
travel with your firearms. Firearm possession
laws vary by state and locality. Travelers should familiarize themselves with
state and local firearm laws for each point of travel prior to departure.
Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the throughput is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. The passenger can face a penalty as high as $7,500.00. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items.
*In order to provide a timely weekly update, I compile my data from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly (increase) from what I report in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear, or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will not be estimates.
Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the throughput is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. The passenger can face a penalty as high as $7,500.00. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items.
*In order to provide a timely weekly update, I compile my data from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly (increase) from what I report in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear, or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will not be estimates.
If you haven’t seen it yet, make sure you check out our post highlighting the dangerous, scary, and downright unusual items our officers found in 2012.
TSA
Blog Team
If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.
If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.
50 comments:
Can TSA detail any item that would not have been found using baggage xray for carry on bags and WTMD technology on passengers this past week?
People give the TSA a lot of flack for finding guns and other items when there appears to be no nexus to terrorism.... I'm not afraid of terrorists; I'm afraid of a whack job that thinks carrying a loaded gun on an airplane is an okay idea. A mass shooting on an aircraft can't be resolved in a timely fashion. Keep up the good work TSA!
Wow - what NOT to say at an airport - I can bring in a bomb and you won't find it. Ooops they did. 2 points for the TSA.
Hey you found a gun with the body scanner. You know that would have been found with the metal detector that is much cheaper, less invasive, and has less health risks than the scanners. The metal detector would have found it 100% of the time, unlike the scanners which have been proven to allow metal objects to be taken through them (see Jon Corbett's videos).
You still haven't convinced me that these scanners are worth the money, especially since you had to remove the backscatter ones that are less than two years old. How much is that costing taxpayers?
The body scanners are terrible for people who use insulin pumps. We have to risk the scanner damaging the pumps or get an invasive full body patdown with repeated genital contact.
You guys have a thankless job. But, I for one am saying "Thank You!" for keeping those idiots from bringing weapons on a plane! In this day & age I can't believe how many people try to sneak weapons on board, especially LOADED GUNS!!
Please, keep up the good work and your attention to details. Thank you, again!
I find this sentence:
"Using imaging technology, a .380 pistol loaded with seven rounds and one chambered was discovered in the pocket of a passenger at DFW"
to be disingenuous. A basic metal detector would have found it just as well, and been faster, cheaper, and quite frankly, better.
Passenger with Loaded Pistol at DFW – Using imaging technology, a .380 pistol loaded with seven rounds and one chambered was discovered
A metal detector would have found this, too, at much less expense and with fewer lost Rights.
Suspicious Image At PHL – An ominous image was discovered on the X-ray monitor at Philadelphia (PHL). It appeared to be a possible pipe bomb. While screening the bag, the passenger became upset and stated: “I can bring a bomb through here any day I want and you will never find it.” The item ended up being a GPS watch inside a PVC pipe with two end caps. Philadelphia Police responded and arrested him on a state charge.
1) I seriously doubt it looked like a pipe bomb. Unless air looks like C-4 and a commercially made watch looks liek a jerry-rigged timer.
2) YOU CALLED THE COPS ON HIM!? Even after it turned out to be nothing!?!
A knife concealed within an ink pen was discovered in a carry-on bag at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW).
A knife was discovered concealed in the lining of a carry-on bag at Columbus, Ohio (CMH).
Any "garrotes" this week?? (You 'saw' what I did there, right?)
Thirteen Batons – Thirteen 20” expandable batons were discovered in a carry-on bag at Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA).
Why are these banned? Are canes/crutches/other things with poles/rods banned as well? Wht sence does it make to ban a stick-like object... yet allow sticks?
10 stun guns were discovered this week in carry-on bags
...because those terrorists are planning to stun a plane. ::eyeroll::
Yet another week, and no mention of terrorizing an 11-year old girl.
In other words, the naked body scanners found nothing a wtmd wouldn't have found. Why are you lot so impressed with these stupid things again?
Keep up the great work!
Why do you need whole body scanners to find a gun? It would certainly be found using the metal detector.
These invasive, slow, highly innefective and possibly carcinogenic machines should not be in use as primary screening in our airports.
good job guys.
keep the good work.
Zachary sez - "I find this sentence:
"Using imaging technology, a .380 pistol loaded with seven rounds and one chambered was discovered in the pocket of a passenger at DFW"
to be disingenuous."
Not disingenuous at all, merely a statement of what actually happened.
West
TSA Blog Team
Clerk West, it's disingenuous because the use of the NOS was irrelevant to finding it. Saying "using imaging technology" is an attempt to justify the use of the NOS, but a metal detector would have found it and several others that were sneaked through the NOSs last week. The use of a metal detector would also have reduced the threat of terrorism compared to the use of NOSs because the NOSs slow down the line, increasing the concentration of passengers vulnerable to an attack on the checkpoint.
West, it does come across disingenuous because even though it states a fact, "scanner found gun," by saying "using imaging technology" the TSA is hoping readers will wrongly infer that other technology, such as WTMD, would not have found the gun.
Since the TSA is so darn set on using the naked scanners, the statement is being used to fulfill an agenda, not merely list facts.
Also, Bob goes a step further by listing the number of bullets, and specifically mentions the chambered round, hoping readers will be terrified and fulfill TSA's agenda of frightening flyers into submitting to the above mentioned naked scanners.
Maybe you can answer this question, West, since so far Bob refuses to address it - the number of TSA employees who post here anonymously. They are easy to spot as they are usually pro-TSA and rude and sarcastic to critics.
The current crop in this comment section are quick "TSA IS AWESOME!!!" posts. It's nice other commenters aren't being slammed, but it not only disingenous, but unethical to allow TSA employees to pretend to be non-employee public citizen commenters, especially during work hours.
Skewing the comments towards positive may make your bosses happy, but it's a lie. That's bad enough on a private company's website, but should never be tolerated on a gov't website.
We know TSA Admin Pistole thinks the public is starting to like the TSA. I'm sure false results from fake positive comments is in part leading to his skewed view.
Now to my afore-mentioned question: Why is Bob (and his bosses) allowing this?
GSOLTSO said...
"Not disingenuous at all, merely a statement of what actually happened."
While it may be a factual statement of what actually happened, it's disingenuous in that the pistol would have been found with a WTMD. Which has been pointed out several times above.
West, would a WTMD have found the gun? Answer yes or no.
So, you guys found a watch, and that somehow means you're doing a great job? I'm confused.
Anon sez - "West, it does come across disingenuous because even though it states a fact, "scanner found gun," by saying "using imaging technology" the TSA is hoping readers will wrongly infer that other technology, such as WTMD, would not have found the gun. "
It is actually a fairly simple way of indicating that the imaging technology can find metallic and non-metallic items, which is the goal behind deploying the it.
Wintermute sez - "While it may be a factual statement of what actually happened, it's disingenuous in that the pistol would have been found with a WTMD. Which has been pointed out several times above."
Again, it is a way of showing that the imaging technology finds metallic as well as non-metallic items.
Anon sez - "West, would a WTMD have found the gun? Answer yes or no."
Yes. However, the WTMD would not find non-metallic threat items that the imaging technology would.
West
TSA Blog Team
GSOLTSO said...
"It is actually a fairly simple way of indicating that the imaging technology can find metallic and non-metallic items, which is the goal behind deploying the it."
"Again, it is a way of showing that the imaging technology finds metallic as well as non-metallic items."
West
TSA Blog Team
...........................
Exactly how does the finding of a gun show that the Strip Search Machines are
"a fairly simple way of indicating that the imaging technology can find metallic and non-metallic items"?
Substantiate your claim that this event proves anything about finding non-metallic items.
I don't recall any non-metallic item being said to be found with the Strip Search Machines this past week. So that would indicate that either there were non or the Strip Search Machines missed them all.
What it does tell us is that TSA has squandered $$$ Millions $$$ of tax dollars on unproven and possible dangerous equipment that is just not needed.
Tell us, what does a Strip Search Machine cost?
How much does a WTMD cost?
GSOLTSO said...
It is actually a fairly simple way of indicating that the imaging technology can find metallic and non-metallic items, which is the goal behind deploying the it.
...Except for the fact that it can't. Need I remind you of Jon Corbett??
For those not in the know, Jon found out that the Backscatter x-ray scanners (which use radiation reflected of the person to form the image) show a metal object as a black blob. Unfortunately, it also shows the background behind the person as black. So, a metal object on the side of a person would shows as a black blob against a black background, making it invisible to the scanner.
He successfully used this to get a metal container past the scanners. And recorded a video of it. Which the TSA tried to have pulled from Youtube.
More info: http://www.infowars.com/man-demonstrates-why-tsa-body-scanners-are-worthless-for-security-purposes/
So, 'West', the scanners DON'T always catch things the plain, simple, basic metal detectors will catch. As you know quite well.
RB sez - "Substantiate your claim that this event proves anything about finding non-metallic items."
Couple this finding with previously posted information here on this blog:
http://blog.tsa.gov/2012_11_09_archive.html
And you have stories indicating that the AIT finds both metallic and non-metallic items.
West
TSA Blog Team
" I'm not afraid of terrorists; I'm afraid of a whack job that thinks carrying a loaded gun on an airplane is an okay idea. A mass shooting on an aircraft can't be resolved in a timely fashion."
Translation: I am not afraid of something that has actually happened but that is extremely rare. I am afraid of something that has never happened. In either case, I am very, very afraid! Thanks TSA!
And you have stories indicating that the AIT finds both metallic and non-metallic items.
West
TSA Blog Team
February 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM
.....................
Stories, as in fiction? Not very convincing.
We also have evidence, hard evidence, that TSA screeners miss somewhere around 70% of all target items.
Even if the Electronic Strip Search Machines did find the occasional item does that justify the extreme cost that taxpayers are being made to pay?
I suggest not given that you can only show one case of a non-metallic item being found when we have somewhere around 1.6 million people who fly daily. This is especially true given that TSA allows all manner of real potential weapons to enter the sterile area without any benefit of any kind of screening.
The airport worker security hole is so large it could easily account for another 9/11 type event yet TSA turns a blind eye to this known threat.
TSA is simply a colossal waste of money and resources and taxpayers should not be asked fund such waste.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHL4Pfx9mOrAncAS_Zw_zIQvsJuFanZPVPLE3sSUKQk/edit?pli=1#
I'm sure it was all a misunderstanding.
Right, Bob?
GSOLTSO said something irrelevant...
dis·in·gen·u·ous
Adjective
Not candid or sincere
The fact is, it was disingenuous to state that the gun was found by virtual strip search, as it would have been found by WTMD. Also, it was disingenuous because the TSA has a failure rate of approximately 70%.
"I'm not afraid of terrorists; I'm afraid of a whack job that thinks carrying a loaded gun on an airplane is an okay idea."
...but a gun could be found by a walk-through metal detector, and there would be no need to irradiate people, photograph them naked, or grope them.
Yippee! Your Scanners found something bad! Even though a more better option exists that could have done the same thing. Faster. Cheaper. And.... well... more better.
So now the usual question..... how many terrorist did you find? How many terrorist plots did you stop?
And why did you call the cops on a guy for sticking a watch in a tube?
It amazes me that people still think it is OK to bring loaded weapons onto planes and it amazes me that people want to whine and complain that someone it trying to keep Americans safe in the air. All of you complainers need to get off the computers and get a life. Find a real campaign where you can make a difference. Thank you TSA - and no I do not work for TSA.
Anonymous said "All of you complainers need to get off the computers and get a life."
Derogatory and disrespectful comments are allowed now?
There are just some things that should be left at home. Why would you need knives on a plane anyway? Good job tsa.
Anonymous said...
"...whine and complain that someone it trying to keep Americans safe in the air...."
With an aproximate failure rate of 70%, they need to try harder.
As for the insults (which violate comment guidelines, BTW), A) I have a life and B) I'm sorry that you feel that standing up against these Constitutional abuses is not a worthy enough campaign.
I need to mail a letter to TSA and the contact page doesn't have a mailing address. What is the TSA postal mailing address? Please don't tell me it is a secret!
"Yes. However, the WTMD would not find non-metallic threat items that the imaging technology would"
Once again, West, you gloss over the fact that the naked body scanners have never actually FOUND a "non-metallic threat item," while they HAVE subjected many thousands of citizens with private, harmless medical devices to needless, invasive, and humiliating treatment by your agency.
Anonymous said...
It amazes me that people still think it is OK to bring loaded weapons onto planes and it amazes me that people want to whine and complain that someone it trying to keep Americans safe in the air. All of you complainers need to get off the computers and get a life. Find a real campaign where you can make a difference. Thank you TSA - and no I do not work for TSA.
February 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM
________
So, in other words, anyone who believes that a government agency is unneccesarily invasive and expensive should forfiet their right to question the methodology and usefullness of said government agency. I weep for this country.
Anon said: People give the TSA a lot of flack for finding guns and other items when there appears to be no nexus to terrorism.... I'm not afraid of terrorists; I'm afraid of a whack job that thinks carrying a loaded gun on an airplane is an okay idea. A mass shooting on an aircraft can't be resolved in a timely fashion.
-------------
if we'd all abandon the demonstrably inaccurate idea that gun free zones prevent mass shootings, you wouldn't need to worry about it. if the passngers were not disarmed as a condition of getting where they need to be, a potential mass shooting would be resolved pretty damn fast, or more likely would not occur at all. most mass shooters seek a soft target - that is why mass shootings occur at known gun free zones. those potential mass shootings that have occurred where citizens are not disarmed by the deluded have largely been stopped short of the threshold for a mass shooting (usually considered 4 people). without intervention by citizens (armed or not), mass shootings are seldom "resolved in a timely fashion." when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. stop depending on the nanny state and take responsibilty for your self.
Anon sez - "I need to mail a letter to TSA and the contact page doesn't have a mailing address. What is the TSA postal mailing address?"
You can simply address the letter to:
TSA:Contact Us
601 12th St. S
Arlington, VA 22202
Hope this helps.
West
TSA Blog Team
You don't have to fly. Take a bus or train instead & wonder what the person next to you has on them. Those scanners are not to detect metallic things, but to find items like bombs. Remember the underware bomber? No metal detector would have found that.
"TSA:Contact Us
601 12th St. S
Arlington, VA 22202"
Don't be surprised if it is returned to you marked something to the effect of "unknown address."
Happened to me twice using an address that I found on the TSA website!!!!
screen shot
Anonymous said...
"Those scanners are not to detect metallic things, but to find items like bombs. Remember the underware bomber? No metal detector would have found that."
Any yet they have found no bombs and are only effective in generating false alarms (ie, tubes of toothpaste that, while banned, are NOT a threat to aviation). Also, the underwear bomber's flight did not originate in the US, so would be ineffective at catching an underwear bomber who were actually competent ;)
You really do have issues... ref issue 1..if some dumbo says they can carry a bomb onto a plane they need arresting- FACT.
ref the baton issue in the u.k (where im from) they are classed as "blunt force trauma weapons" they are designed to injure or incapacitate i've yet to come across a walking stick thats designed to injure. If you dislike the tsa so much heres a clue- drive or walk everywhere then you wont have to suffer the humiliation of being searched like everyone else so that everyone can fly safely.
All TSA screening equipment is mandated by Congress including which vendors the technology is purchased from
Good job TSA for doing what you do with the equipment and procedures provided.
Susan Richart said...
"TSA:Contact Us
601 12th St. S
Arlington, VA 22202"
Don't be surprised if it is returned to you marked something to the effect of "unknown address."
Happened to me twice using an address that I found on the TSA website!!!!
It's worse than that- the entire contact page is 404!
Try it yourself- goto
http://blog.tsa.gov/
and click "Contact the TSA Blog Team" in the "Blog Links" section on the right.
That takes you to
http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/07/tsa-blog-e-mail-address.html
Now- try clicking "TSA Contact Center", and you get a 404 error. ie: the page doesn't exist!!
The same for "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP)" and "Claims Management Office".
I guess they really don't want people contacting them!!
"If you dislike the tsa so much heres a clue- drive or walk everywhere then you wont have to suffer the humiliation of being searched like everyone else so that everyone can fly safely."
How many times must it be pointed out that TSA searches people at train stations, bus stations, major sports events, highway checkpoints, etc.? Google TSA and Amtrak, for example. Google VIPR.
Also, please clarify the degree of humiliation that you personally are willing to experience (or have your family experience) in order to move about the country freely. Does it involve giving up the Constitutional rights that so many have fought for?
Anonymous simon hill said...
You really do have issues... ref issue 1..if some dumbo says they can carry a bomb onto a plane they need arresting- FACT.
No- "Opinion".
We still have (some) Free Speech in this country. And if I want to say "It is totally possible to get a bomb on a plane", then I am free to do so. Don't like it? Too bad- move out of the country.
ref the baton issue in the u.k (where im from) they are classed as "blunt force trauma weapons" they are designed to injure or incapacitate i've yet to come across a walking stick thats designed to injure.
ANY stick (or stick like object) can injure. It's all about how it's used. Banning one particular stick-like object, while allowing other is stupid and useless.
If you dislike the tsa so much heres a clue- drive or walk everywhere then you wont have to suffer the humiliation of being searched like everyone else so that everyone can fly safely.
Firstly, people CAN'T get away from the TSA by driving, walking, or taking the bus- the TSA has it's dirty little paws into all that, too.
Second, I have no problem being searched to make sure I'm not carrying a gun or bomb (or even a knife, even though after 9/1 no one with a simple knife will be taking over a plane- knife or no, they'll be beaten down by the passengers). A simple WTMD (Walk Through Metal Detector) and a chemical sniffer (electronic or canine) would handle that just fine.
On the contrary, what I have have a problems with is the useless stuff the TSA does. Confiscating water bottles. Making people take off their shoes. Forcing breast feeding moms to drink their own breast milk. Handling pliers to women and telling them to yank out their nipple piercings. Squeezing ostomy bags. Stuff like that.
Anon said: On the contrary, what I have have a problems with is the useless stuff the TSA does. Confiscating water bottles. Making people take off their shoes. Forcing breast feeding moms to drink their own breast milk. Handling pliers to women and telling them to yank out their nipple piercings. Squeezing ostomy bags. Stuff like that.
Okay, Im going to break this down as best I can...Water bottles are fine, not the water itself if over 100 ml (3.4oz). Shoes are removed to close the possibility of a terrorist using the same tactics of Richard Reid, aka, the shoe bomber. If we allowed shoes to be worn, its something they could then take advantage of. Next, we do not require mothers to drink their breastmilk, nor do we make people "yank" their piercings out, nor do we "squeeze" ostomy bags. Yes, we have tests we must perform to clear certain medical/exempted items, but these procedures you speak of (probably blown out of proportion by media or passengers wanting their 15 mins of fame), are not what is performed. TSA may not be the most enjoyable agency to deal with, but most of the time, passengers get bent out of shape either bc their view was muddled by stories they heard, not bc of their own experience or they just dont want to be inconvenienced. Yes, TSA is an inconvenience but I truly stand behind the point thats its necessary. Not all procedures are perfect, but sometimes you have to try them in order to rule them ineffective and move on. There is so much info and training that goes into why we do what we do and NO, most of it cant be disclosed to the public bc its SSI. So Im not saying the public cant say what they want, but there are reasons why we do what we do and when you dont have all the info, it can look unreasonable and unnecessary. I dont understand why other companies/agencies do what they do, but thats bc I as an outsider dont know all the rules/regulations/procedures. I could go on all day but I wont, I just want people to understand that TSA and its employess dont "get pleasure" from doing things the agency requires we follow/abide by. Im open to hearing/replying to CONSTRUCTIVE critism/questions.
I hope my previous comment was of some help in clarifying but if not, please respond and I'd be more than happy to clarify further!
kellymae81 said... Im open to hearing/replying to CONSTRUCTIVE critism/questions.
First, why does the TSA cost so much? Security screening pre-September 11 cost roughly a third what the TSA costs and was just as effective. Some would argue that the TSA is actually less effective screening than pre-911 methods, and over the years I tend to agree with them more than I do the TSA.
Then, why does the TSA do what it does? Wouldn't it be more effective, and more legal from a Constitutional standpoint, for the TSA to set the standards for security without actually providing the security? The FAA sets the standards for aircraft maintenance that must be followed but doesn't actually provide the maintenance so we know it can be done.
Then, and this may just be me personally, but why does the TSA do things that even most children can identify as stupid? You can't go into the terminal unless you have a ticket but we screen everyone who goes into the terminal.... if everyone is getting screened wouldn't everyone in the terminal be 'safe?' Also there is the fun liquids game.... my 100 ml bottle of water it too dangerous to let through, but my three bottles of 30 ml are perfectly fine. And that 100 ml bottle of water that is so dangerous? We're just going to throw it in this trashcan here because its not like its dangerous or anything.
So my question to you is have you not paid attention to the many frequent commentors on this site who have offered a myriad of ideas that are better, cheaper, or both, regarding aviation security?
And my constructive criticism to offer is for the TSA to defund its field agents and return airport security back to the individual airports and airlines. Then follow the "Administration" part of the TSA name and create the guidelines, rules, and laws regarding aviation security using the same FAR model the FAA uses for maintenance. This will surly reduce the operating budget, and therefore tax burden, on the Citizens of this once-great nation. And it might even enhance security in the process.
kellymae81, your use of Richard Reid as a scare tactic is transparent for three reasons. First, his flight did not originate in the US, therefore the TSA ridiculous shoe carnival would not catch him. Second, the passengers and crew took him down. Finally, he was NOT a viable threat.
As for your other comments, all of those things that the TSA doesn't require have happened at one point or another, and the liquid ban is pointless because any liquid explosive that poses a viable threat to aviation either requires such large quantities that it would not go unnoticed or is too unstable to make it to the airport. (IOW, the liquid explosives plot was also not a viable threat to aviation.)
If blog comments that call others stupid can be posted, why was my original reply to kellymae81 not posted?
kellymae81 said, "Not all procedures are perfect, but sometimes you have to try them in order to rule them ineffective and move on."
No. You don't spend public dollars testing whatever catches your fancy. Spending billions of public dollars on procedures and equipment without thoroughly testing them first is wasteful and insulting to taxpayers. If TSA had solicited public input before making investments in, say, the whole-body scanners, the intense concerns about radiation and privacy could have been addressed before spending millions of public dollars on the scanners. TSA knows that this is the case; the evidence for it is TSA ending the Rapiscan contract because Rapiscan could not address a privacy concern. It is sad that it took millions of public dollars and several years for TSA to see it, though, when it was immediately obvious to the public. TSA, start listening to the public before you spend public dollars! Hold the public hearings that the courts require you to hold!
Screenshot.
Post a Comment