Airport Screening Procedures

[Bedlam]

Honestly, the stupid ban on carrying on liquids really killed airline flight for me. I used to fly all the time with just carry on luggage-now, unless I want to spend a small fortune on toiletries at my destination then have to throw them away, having to check luggage adds to the misery of waiting at an airport.

The hilarity is that it's not even carrying liquids on board that's banned. You just can't bring liquids through the checkpoints. You can pick up a bottle of soda or water or whatever at the shops in the secure area before boarding and bring it on no problem.

Which I have always thought is one of the reason why its still in place, the airport shops get to sell you water at double the normal price. In addition you can buy large glass bottles of alcohol and take them on in hand luggage, a nice handy bludgening, sharp and flamable weapon. They could ban these but that would cut into profits.

In addition over the last year I've seen one or two offers in UK airports were you can pay more to get through security quicker (not board the plane first, get through secuity), can you say conflict of interest?

[Broomstick]

...As the TSA keeps making noises about imposing simliar security on trains and inter-urban busses his transportation choices are getting more and more curtailed due to this nonesense. Any thoughts?

I hadn't heard about the train and bus thing; please tell me more.

Well, after the TSA got their mitts on the airports a certain slice of the agency started on mission creep. They discarded a plan to impose metal detectors and the like on mass transit after realizing that it was never going to work strictly from a logistical standpoint. Some people would very much like to impose airport-style security on Amtral and busses, what else is there to say? Nothing that has been actually put into play, but the TSA keeps testing the waters. After all, if the terrorists can't get on airplanes they'll need some other way to get around, so now you have to check the trains and busses, and then... well, won't there always be something more than needs to be secured.

Ha ha ha. You've never flown with someone who invariably sets off metal detectors. My Other Half has a shitload of metal holding his right leg together, enough so it ALWAYS attracts attention from security guards with metal detectors. He'd been denied boarding on one occassion even BEFORE 9/11, since then... he just hasn't even tried to fly (except with me or some other private pilot). No matter what, he's going to attract extra attention. Because I travel with him, I will also get additional attention.

In addition to the search hoopla mentioned, there is now also the issue of names. You see, the TSA has announced that the passenger name on the ticket must now match the name on the person's ID exactly by a particular date. Aside from the issues of airlines printing everything in caps, for decades they've refused to adapt their machines to deal with spaces in names, or hyphens. So if you name falls in that category you're shit out of luck. Are you a Von Somethingorother? Too bad. Are you an O'Connell or O'Brien? Sucks to be you. Hyphen in there anywhere? No flight for you! Excuse me - do I now have to go through the trouble and expense of changing my legal name in order to get on an airplane? The airlines and TSA say they are "working on it".

Again I say always try to be nice to TSA agents. Some agents are definitely not very smart but most are people just working a regular job.

You don't get it - it doesn't matter how nice my spouse is to the TSA agents. He sets off the detectors. He's got about 6 kilos of titanium and surgical steel inside of his right leg. It's not a prosthesis he can take off to have inspected. It is inside his leg, under the skin and muscle. It's clearly not a natural thing. It's clearly something implanted that sets off the Big Scary Machines. Politeness doesn't count for shit. I don't think the agents have a choice here. There's no fucking way for him to pass through security under the present rules. As the original surgeon who did the work is dead for a couple decades there doesn't seem to be any way accommodate their paperwork requirements.

Current security means someone like my Other Half doesn't fly commercial anymore. If we had a reason to fly to a destination outside the US we'd probably have to fucking drive to Canada and fly from there. We can never go to Hawaii, as there is no way to do so without going through the TSA, who will not let my spouse get on a commercial airplane, and I just don't have the Mad Piloting Skillz to make a trip across the Pacific.

My best advice if a really bad situation occurs and you have time talk to a manager; if you don't, get the screeners names and talk to manager when you get home or write a letter.

What do you do when the manager can't help you and all the letters in the world won't do shit because the security rules leave you out in the cold?

The system is far from perfect, but for most people it is unfortunate that we have to forgot about TSA issues so we can move forward with our travel.

Yeah, right - and just fuck anyone physically unable to satisfy the TSA. Tough shit - someone performed some surgery so you didn't lose your leg, but you didn't foresee the need to document it thirty-five fucking years ago and now sucks to be you - YOU aren't allowed to fly anymore in the name of keeping the skies safe. Never mind YOU have never done anything wrong and YOU are no threat - you have no recourse. There is no one and nothing to appeal to.

My Other Half is actually lucky - he's married to a pilot who can conceivably rent an airplane and fly him to where he wants to go. Except, of course, for the little detail that we seriously lack money right now. You see, that's the other shit thing about this. The rich CAN circumvent all this shit by chartering an airplane. Not rich? Sucks to be you. So the oligarchs aren't inconvenienced, and the unwashed masses are trained to act like sheep.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out another very bad downside of the TSA's useless security theatre-the long, long lines at security checkpoints are very vulnerable to terrorists themselves.

It actually has been pointed out MANY times. The TSA doesn't give a fuck.

[Cecelia5578]

...As the TSA keeps making noises about imposing simliar security on trains and inter-urban busses his transportation choices are getting more and more curtailed due to this nonesense. Any thoughts?

Presumably they are talking about inter-city rail (i.e. Amtrak) rather than commuter rail. I often take Amtrak's Capitol Corridor between Santa Clara and Sacramento, and we pass through many small, out of the way stations that don't even have a station office (longer routes like the Coast Starlight also cover the same route). In order to provide secure checkpoints at every stop...wow, the cost of doing so would be enormous. Either that or they'd have to junk quite a few of their stops.

Hopefully, when (not if) California gets HSR finally, we'll avoid the corrosive influence of the TSA. One of the selling points of HSR is that you'd get to avoid airport security, and any encroachment by the TSA would really, really suck.

[Zed Snardbody]

It's nothing short of ridiculous security theater performed by knuckle draggers that don't seem capable of exercising any judgment whatsoever. What kind of idiot decides a three-year old is a potential security threat who needs to be groped?

Fuck you. The people in blue don't get to decide what they're going to enforce, when its your job, your paycheck on the line, you do what those people in suits tell you. They tell us everyone get screened if you don't and someone see's its your ass and your badge out the door.

I'm not any more happy about half the shit then you are, but the people at the airports don't get to make policy. Take it up with Washington. Yea it sucks to work at the airport and McDonalds, but that doesn't make the people who work there knuckle draggers.

Really? Even "random" screenings? You can't tell me someone there isn't exercising poor judgment about who does or doesn't get extra attention. Dipshits like this guy certainly don't help the TSA's reputation as knuckle-draggers.

Considering that the unpredictable screening procedure (USP's) are generated daily by Washington and that there was such resistance about carrying them out at the individual airports that they had to resort to programming the metal detectors to select people since the officers wouldn't do it then yes, there is squat for discretion in the workplace.

And yes we have some shit heads. So does wal mart, so do doctors, cops, and every other single profession. Should we be held to a higher standard, fuck yes. But when there are 50,000 to 60,000 uniformed TSA employees we get fuck heads. You want to have an issue with policy thats fine, I probably have more then you being able to see behind the curtain. But I want you to realize that the people in blue are micromanaged to excess and have the worst morale in the federal service and the worst on the job injury rate aside from the military. It's not excusing the abuses that have taken place, but shit like this is not our call. When you're beat down everyday its simply just easier to get snippy and short with the passengers and just get them gone.

I'm just very tired of listening to people pointing the finger at us as if we're patting people down for shits and giggles. I do it for my pay check to keep my house and to keep my family fed, not keep myself entertained by hassling poor passengers.

[General Zod]

Considering that the unpredictable screening procedure (USP's) are generated daily by Washington and that there was such resistance about carrying them out at the individual airports that they had to resort to programming the metal detectors to select people since the officers wouldn't do it then yes, there is squat for discretion in the workplace.

Too bad the government hasn't exactly been clear about this?

And yes we have some shit heads. So does wal mart, so do doctors, cops, and every other single profession. Should we be held to a higher standard, fuck yes. But when there are 50,000 to 60,000 uniformed TSA employees we get fuck heads. You want to have an issue with policy thats fine, I probably have more then you being able to see behind the curtain. But I want you to realize that the people in blue are micromanaged to excess and have the worst morale in the federal service and the worst on the job injury rate aside from the military. It's not excusing the abuses that have taken place, but shit like this is not our call. When you're beat down everyday its simply just easier to get snippy and short with the passengers and just get them gone.

I can't think of a single Law Enforcement agency or hospital that's been held responsible for thousands of thefts of personal property each year. Though considering how many of these get "settled" I'm not sure if "being held responsible" is the proper term.

I'm just very tired of listening to people pointing the finger at us as if we're patting people down for shits and giggles. I do it for my pay check to keep my house and to keep my family fed, not keep myself entertained by hassling poor passengers.

Except enough screeners clearly seem to do it for shits and giggles that it's a legitimate concern.

[Zed Snardbody]

They're not clear on a lot of shit, getting a procedural answer out of them is hard enough when you're on the inside.

On the thefts, I wont deny that they've happened, but I will rebut with the the following. Most large airports use an inline system where we have almost squat interaction with the bags. There are a lot more baggage handlers then there are TSA baggage handling staff. One of the unfortunate consequences of the use of inline systems which are automated high speed conveyor belts that feed checked luggage through scanners is that a whole lot of locks get sheered off on the conveyor belts. I've stood underneath the baggage system on peak times and it will literally rain luggage locks. It shames me as a person to know that my co workers are responsible for thefts. All I can offer is that anecdotal evidence that makes me believe that a lot the thefts are from baggage handlers and airport staff knowing they can pass the buck on to us. I have stories I would love to share but I know that they don't meet the standard for a rebuttal on this board. I guess the appropriate thing would be to state that I concede on this point, but I would hope that you would consider what I've said. I'm not trying to pass the buck, there is just simply enough loop holes and dead spots in the process that its easy for the bad people to do bad things.

On your last point, all we can do is argue back and fourth without gaining ground on each other. But I'll leave it with the following, the hand held metal detector searches and the pat downs are the least "fun" parts of the job. Pretty much everyone would be doing something else. If we're going to play airport jackass to someone is probably going to be with a bag search honestly. We've got a lot more procedure to work with and a lot more justification to delay you with that then a search of your person. I'll put it bluntly, patting people down is not fun.

[Broomstick]

People act like bad TSA staff invented baggage theft - they didn't. It was common before the TSA was created. While no doubt there are bad apples at the TSA, they aren't the only ones touching your bags. They do make a handy scapegoat, but you think the guys chucking your bags into the airplane don't occasionally succumb to temptation?

But they really ought to fix the automated equipment that damages luggage. I realize the TSA drones can't do shit about it, but damaged luggage, even when stuff isn't stolen, it just part of what makes airliner travel it's own circle of hell.

[Simon_Jester]

And yes we have some shit heads. So does wal mart, so do doctors, cops, and every other single profession. Should we be held to a higher standard, fuck yes. But when there are 50,000 to 60,000 uniformed TSA employees we get fuck heads. You want to have an issue with policy thats fine, I probably have more then you being able to see behind the curtain. But I want you to realize that the people in blue are micromanaged to excess and have the worst morale in the federal service and the worst on the job injury rate aside from the military. It's not excusing the abuses that have taken place, but shit like this is not our call. When you're beat down everyday its simply just easier to get snippy and short with the passengers and just get them gone.

Where does the injury rate come from?

I'm just very tired of listening to people pointing the finger at us as if we're patting people down for shits and giggles. I do it for my pay check to keep my house and to keep my family fed, not keep myself entertained by hassling poor passengers.

If your bosses were competent I'd have no problem with the TSA; while I'm sure there are people in the organization who do things "for shits and giggles," it's not like all, or even a significant fraction, of you guys join it so you can do that.

The real problem is the sheer bureaucratic dickery behind some of the policies, the institutional mindset in Washington where the agency can basically hold itself immune to the need to pay the costs for screwing up. It's troubling that they seem to be able to declare new policies more or less on a whim, with minimal input from the public and no back-and-forth process. They just get to arbitrarily decide how much crap to give the average airline passenger, how much crap to make you give the average passenger, and there doesn't seem to be any viable means of recourse.

I think that's what bothers most people. Even if some of them get stupid and apply the blame to the person patting them down, rather than the person who decided to have them patted down.

[Alyeska]

Its not fair to lay all baggage theft on the TSA. But an increase in theft can be placed on them. The requirement to not lock your luggage or only use known keyed locks makes it impossible to protect your luggage from thieves now. Previously we could put big honking locks on a suitcase that would keep it shut.

[General Zod]

Its not fair to lay all baggage theft on the TSA.

Since when does "thousands of thefts" = "all thefts"? Don't shove words in my mouth.

[Alyeska]

Its not fair to lay all baggage theft on the TSA.

Since when does "thousands of thefts" = "all thefts"? Don't shove words in my mouth.

Since the TSA's inception it has gotten the majority of the shit thrown at it for baggage theft. They aren't directly responsible. But the TSA policies have made theft easier by baggage handlers.

[General Zod]

Its not fair to lay all baggage theft on the TSA.

Since when does "thousands of thefts" = "all thefts"? Don't shove words in my mouth.

Since the TSA's inception it has gotten the majority of the shit thrown at it for baggage theft. They aren't directly responsible. But the TSA policies have made theft easier by baggage handlers.

Except for when they have actually been caught in the act. Considering baggage handling was done almost exclusively by the TSA until a few years ago I'm not sure why you're treating them as separate entities. There's been more than twenty thousand incidents of theft from baggage handling. Even if I were exceedingly generous and said that only 25% were a result of TSA agents, you're still looking at numbers in the thousands. So again, don't shove words in my mouth.

[[R_H]]

The rich CAN circumvent all this shit by chartering an airplane. Not rich? Sucks to be you. So the oligarchs aren't inconvenienced, and the unwashed masses are trained to act like sheep.

What's stopping the terrorists from chartering a plane themselves and then flying it into a target?

[Keevan_Colton]

The rich CAN circumvent all this shit by chartering an airplane. Not rich? Sucks to be you. So the oligarchs aren't inconvenienced, and the unwashed masses are trained to act like sheep.

What's stopping the terrorists from chartering a plane themselves and then flying it into a target?

Most targets that they'd want to hit are engineered to withstand the impact of a small aircraft. There is also the previous deterrent to shooting down an aircraft that hostages offer. That's not such a big deal anymore thanks to 9/11.

Of course, there are a ton of targets that it would work with to cause mayhem and devestation, thankfully most terrorists are even thicker than the charming examples of the people tasked with stopping them.

[aerius]

What's stopping the terrorists from chartering a plane themselves and then flying it into a target?

Most targets that they'd want to hit are engineered to withstand the impact of a small aircraft. There is also the previous deterrent to shooting down an aircraft that hostages offer. That's not such a big deal anymore thanks to 9/11.

Then again if you're filthy rich you can charter a 747 and fly that into a building. Say, if you're a terrorist who's backed up by a ton of Iranian oil money.

[Keevan_Colton]

Then again if you're filthy rich you can charter a 747 and fly that into a building. Say, if you're a terrorist who's backed up by a ton of Iranian oil money.

Yep, of course given the volume of private 747 charters you'd hope there'd be enough people to spare to look into those that arent busy patting down three year olds.

[Thanas]

I'm not any more happy about half the shit then you are, but the people at the airports don't get to make policy. Take it up with Washington. Yea it sucks to work at the airport and McDonalds, but that doesn't make the people who work there knuckle draggers.

I've got five destroyed document replicas and a busted suitcase of my brother that would disagree with you. Oh, and the TSA idiot who decided to screen me two times just to make sure.

[[R_H]]

Most targets that they'd want to hit are engineered to withstand the impact of a small aircraft. There is also the previous deterrent to shooting down an aircraft that hostages offer. That's not such a big deal anymore thanks to 9/11.

How small an aircraft-something the size of a Learjet etc?

Then again if you're filthy rich you can charter a 747 and fly that into a building. Say, if you're a terrorist who's backed up by a ton of Iranian oil money.

Or take control of a FedEx/UPS/DHL/cargo plane.

[Broomstick]

Most targets that they'd want to hit are engineered to withstand the impact of a small aircraft. There is also the previous deterrent to shooting down an aircraft that hostages offer. That's not such a big deal anymore thanks to 9/11.

How small an aircraft-something the size of a Learjet etc?

In general, 12,500 pounds (about 5,700 kg, roughly) seems to be the point where folks (other than the hysterical) start getting concerned. There have been a number instances of very small airplanes, 4 seat Cessnas basically, colliding with buildings and in general it's building 1 airplane 0 in those cases. Loss of life and property damage does occur, but frankly your average SUV driving into someone's living room will usually have more catastrophic results. They're just not big enough, fast enough, or massive enough to do much damage.

It's not like airplanes haven't been colliding with buildings for decades. In 1945 a B-25 collided with the Empire State Building. Yes, 14 people died and there was about a million dollars in property damage, and that's tragic, but the building reopened for business the following Monday, just two days later. That was a 33,500 pound airplane (15,200 kg), or several times heavier than the point we currently start worrying about more security. Sure, they can do damage but they aren't going to have the effect of a B-757 like on Sept 11.

Then again if you're filthy rich you can charter a 747 and fly that into a building. Say, if you're a terrorist who's backed up by a ton of Iranian oil money.

Or take control of a FedEx/UPS/DHL/cargo plane.

Or some terrorist group can just fucking BUY a 747 in some godforsaken corner of the world, load it up with fuel in some African shithole with near zero regulation and minimal to non-existent security and fly it wherever the hell they want, into whatever the hell they want.

Airplanes travel, that's sort of what they're for. It's impossible to secure every aircraft on the planet. It's impossible to be perfectly safe. At a certain point you have wake up and realize you aren't going to be perfectly safe. If you want an aviation industry at all you'll have to accept that there will always be a certain unavoidable risk. If you try to impose airline level security on everything that flies you'll kill almost every business that flies because either it imposes far too many costs, or it makes the particular job impossible.

You want to scale security in an appropriate way. The bigger and heavier the airplane the more damage it could do in the wrong hands. On the flip side, the smaller and lighter an airplane is the less damage it can do. A one size fits all approach is ludicrous.

[spartasman]

What I'm worried about is that as more people use alternate modes of transport, High-speed rail and the like, the TSA will use it as an excuse to impose travel regulations on those industries as well. So why getting on a train may be a preferable alternative to dealing with going through airports, it's more important to 'nip it in the bud' (for a lack of a better term) now.

[eion]

I do it for my pay check to keep my house and to keep my family fed, not keep myself entertained by hassling poor passengers.

At what point does "I'm just doing my job" stop being an acceptable excuse?

The whole point of protests like National Opt-Out Day is to make you guys in blue (I have my own separate issues with the pseudo-cop uniforms, but that's another issue) uncomfortable. You're supposed to hate violating peoples' civil rights and personal dignity, and then you’re supposed to pressure your bosses to find a better way to screen people. If this really is the only way to keep us safe (and I don't believe it is, if we're catching the guys at the airport, and according to the covert tests we aren't even doing that, than we have failed miserably) then it out to be done publicly, with great shame and deference for all those involved.

I’ve yet to have occasion to “enjoy” the new personal touch of the TSA, but when I fly next I shall be opting out of the virtual strip-search because I don’t much like my naked body being captured for all time and me not even getting a copy of it for posterity. And I won’t be embarrassed when that poor guy runs his hands up and down my inner thigh 4 times because I’m not the one doing anything wrong; if anyone is doing something to be embarrassed about he is.

[Broomstick]

The whole point of protests like National Opt-Out Day is to make you guys in blue (I have my own separate issues with the pseudo-cop uniforms, but that's another issue) uncomfortable. You're supposed to hate violating peoples' civil rights and personal dignity, and then you’re supposed to pressure your bosses to find a better way to screen people.

I seriously, seriously doubt the front-line TSA agents have ANY pull with their bosses. Zero. Zip. Nada. I don't think the people setting policy give a fuck what the guys actually doing the searching have to go through. They sure a hell don't give a fuck about the flying public. Double that "don't give a fuck" for the innocents hurt by all this security theater with no recourse - too bad, collateral damage, it's not like they're real people anyhow, not like the government officials oh-so-carefully steered around the lines and the pornscanners and pat-downs. You know, if those government officials actually gave the smallest fuck about the flying public they would subject themselves to this shit as well, just to set a good example.

[eion]

The whole point of protests like National Opt-Out Day is to make you guys in blue (I have my own separate issues with the pseudo-cop uniforms, but that's another issue) uncomfortable. You're supposed to hate violating peoples' civil rights and personal dignity, and then you’re supposed to pressure your bosses to find a better way to screen people.

I seriously, seriously doubt the front-line TSA agents have ANY pull with their bosses. Zero. Zip. Nada. I don't think the people setting policy give a fuck what the guys actually doing the searching have to go through. They sure a hell don't give a fuck about the flying public. Double that "don't give a fuck" for the innocents hurt by all this security theater with no recourse - too bad, collateral damage, it's not like they're real people anyhow, not like the government officials oh-so-carefully steered around the lines and the pornscanners and pat-downs. You know, if those government officials actually gave the smallest fuck about the flying public they would subject themselves to this shit as well, just to set a good example.

Maybe you're right, but the TSA bosses probably find it easier to carry out their policies if they have a compliant workforce. And making the front-line notcops uncomfortable is the only chance one has to move the discomfort up the food chain. Any letter one sends, phone call one makes, or protest one organizes is more than likely never going to enter a policy makers' sightline, but they do hold occasional employee meetings to my understanding. If enough screeners stand up there and express discomfort with the procedure, tell stories of crying 3-year olds and veterans with shame in their eyes, and share the disparaging remarks from other passengers perhaps a small percentage of that will make its way up to the middle managers, and then another small percentage will roll up to the policy makers.

But I'd prefer your solution: make EVERYBODY go through TSA screening who flies on a commercial flight to start, and I'd love to see a couple photo-opps of exempt government officials submitting to the pornoscanner and groping to show that they too can stand a little public embarrassment in the interests of "safety" security theater. And if the kids are going to be required to go through the scanners and/or gropings than I'd like to see Sasha and Malia, and Lindsay and Tricia (John Boehner's daughters) up there too.

[muse]

Or just boycott flying entirely. When tourist destinations with money that matter such as Disneyworld, Las Vegas and NYC start losing enough money from lack of tourists they'll start lobbying behind the scenes to get the rules fixed.

[aerius]

Getting back on topic, there's way better ways to do airport screening. You don't want people bringing weapons aboard, so you setup a metal detector, that takes care of firearms and edged weapons. For explosives you use a puffer machine, they have them setup at the CN Tower in Toronto so people don't blow it up. Then you hire some workers who aren't dumb as a bunch of rocks and allow them the discretion to do what they need to do, along with the accountability to go along with it so they can be fired/charged/whatever if they abuse their powers. It's not that hard. You don't need gropings for everyone nor the see through everything machines.