"This year alone, the use of advanced imaging technology has led to the detection of over 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told FoxNews.com. The TSA would not disclose exactly what those items were, but it said they included weapons like ceramic knives and various drugs -- including a syringe filled with heroine hidden in a passenger’s underwear.
If the items were only being transported, and were not going to be used to harm others onboard or in the airport, TSA's mountainously expensive efforts yeilded a ZERO reduction in risk to the travelling public.
Is there any evidence at all that the items were going to be used to harm a fellow passenger?
tinman435
Nov 18, 10, 12:48 pm
Thankfully the comments on the article are showing the public is not buying it. TSA's hole might have just gotten a bit deeper.
LOL. ^
Got to prohibit the distribution of those "Constitutions". Very dangerous.
cordelli
Nov 18, 10, 12:53 pm
150 machines, cost $170,000 each plus all the installation, electricity, and manpower to run them, and they are averaging less than one item per machine.
Betting the metal detectors have a much higher average.
So using the TSA logic, the metal detectors are a better machine for security. :D
Nobody cares about anything they catch that is not related to a threat for the people on the plane. Really, when was the last time somebody was stopped with something that was a threat to the people on the plane?
Was it the lady with the multiple ID's in her bag?
Or the woman with the checks?
The addict who wanted to get high on the plane?
Gonna go way out on a limb here and say if somebody was to do a bit of searching, they could find way more than 130 items they have missed since the scanners were put into place (say the actor last week who was bragging about getting a knife through?)
packet
Nov 18, 10, 12:55 pm
Since when was the TSA supposed to be screening for drugs? Pot on an airplane isn't a danger to anyone.
That said, 800 million passengers through US airport security, quite a few through the AITs and this is all they found? If it was anything truly dangerous, Pistole would be all over the news with pictures.
N965VJ
Nov 18, 10, 12:59 pm
This year alone, the use of advanced imaging technology has led to the detection of over 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items," TSA spokesman Greg Soule (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/18/tsa-enhanced-imaging-kept-illegal-dangerous-items-plans-year/#ixzz15fIEzXG5)
/yawn
The TSA can bark like a seal all it wants, I'm not throwing it a fish. The pre 9/11 private sector firms were effective at finding weapons, explosives and incendiaries at the checkpoint, and we didn't spend $8.2 billion dollars a year for it.
michellemck99
Nov 18, 10, 1:08 pm
Let's have fun with math, shall we?
CNN says there were 28,000 commercial flights per day (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html) in 2008.
Today is November 18, which is the 322nd day of the year. Yesterday made it 321 full days of flying.
28,000 times 321 = 8,988,000 estimated flights so far this year
130 divided by 8,988,000 = 0.00145% chance that the TSA found a "dangerous item" on a flight this year.
(That ignores that some unknown proportion of "dangerous item"s included things like heroin in underwear, which is unlikely to have interfered with plane operations nor caused passenger harm on a flight.)
The next exercise in this fun-with-math workbook could be to compare this stat against 450 deployed AITs (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/index.shtm) at $200,000 each (which I think I read somewhere on FT?) to come up with cost per contraband item found. Such math would ignore labor costs, installation and maintenance costs, and so forth.
Oy.
Munch
Nov 18, 10, 1:26 pm
Let's have fun with math, shall we?
CNN says there were 28,000 commercial flights per day (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html) in 2008.
Today is November 18, which is the 322nd day of the year. Yesterday made it 321 full days of flying.
28,000 times 321 = 8,988,000 estimated flights so far this year
130 divided by 8,988,000 = 0.00145% chance that the TSA found a "dangerous item" on a flight this year.
(That ignores that some unknown proportion of "dangerous item"s included things like heroin in underwear, which is unlikely to have interfered with plane operations nor caused passenger harm on a flight.)
The next exercise in this fun-with-math workbook could be to compare this stat against 450 deployed AITs (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/index.shtm) at $200,000 each (which I think I read somewhere on FT?) to come up with cost per contraband item found. Such math would ignore labor costs, installation and maintenance costs, and so forth.
Oy.
(450 * $200 000) / 130 = $692 307.692
Take out the heroin, and you get
(450 * $200 000) / 129 = $697 674.419
And that, of course, assumes that the other 129 items were truly dangerous enough to post a danger to a flight.
One wonders how many of the people carrying these 130 items were prosecuted and convicted. One suspects that number is far less than 130.
tev9999
Nov 18, 10, 1:32 pm
The knife probably got a fine in the mail. Drugs probably got thrown out of court as a violation of the Fourth Amendment since it is outside TSA's LEGAL scope, if they were prosecuted at all. 128 bottles of eye drops hit the trash can.
PostmanPat
Nov 18, 10, 1:35 pm
(450 * $200 000) / 130 = $692 307.692
Take out the heroin, and you get
(450 * $200 000) / 129 = $697 674.419
And that, of course, assumes that the other 129 items were truly dangerous enough to post a danger to a flight.
One wonders how many of the people carrying these 130 items were prosecuted and convicted. One suspects that number is far less than 130.
And of course these numbers mean sweet FA as you have no idea how many dangerous items people decided not to carry, or if you like potential attacks we averted, because people considered the risk of being caught high enough not to even try.
Boggie Dog
Nov 18, 10, 1:37 pm
(450 * $200 000) / 130 = $692 307.692
Take out the heroin, and you get
(450 * $200 000) / 129 = $697 674.419
And that, of course, assumes that the other 129 items were truly dangerous enough to post a danger to a flight.
One wonders how many of the people carrying these 130 items were prosecuted and convicted. One suspects that number is far less than 130.
Adding in that TSA now numbers around 65,000 people give or take.
Lets assume an average salary of $35,000 (on the low side) each.
That would be 65,000 X $35,000.00 = $2,275,000,000.00.
And for all of that money not one terrorist has been identified, captured, tried and convicted.
Are we really getting our money's worth from TSA?
And of course these numbers mean sweet FA as you have no idea how many dangerous items people decided not to carry, or if you like potential attacks we averted, because people considered the risk of being caught high enough not to even try.
Do you really think a person willing to blow themselves into bits will worry about getting caught at the checkpoint?
The only thing that will happen is the bomb will go off sooner.
sangreal
Nov 18, 10, 1:42 pm
And of course these numbers mean sweet FA as you have no idea how many dangerous items people decided not to carry, or if you like potential attacks we averted, because people considered the risk of being caught high enough not to even try.
In Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else with security checkpoints you see people getting caught and checkpoints getting attacked, yet terrorists still try. Why does only the TSA (which has never caught a terrorist) have the ability to scare off all would-be attackers with the risk of being caught?
tev9999
Nov 18, 10, 1:45 pm
And of course these numbers mean sweet FA as you have no idea how many dangerous items people decided not to carry, or if you like potential attacks we averted, because people considered the risk of being caught high enough not to even try.
Or walked upstairs to the checkpoint without a WBI and kept their heroin for themselves.
Welcome to FT!
MikeMpls
Nov 18, 10, 1:47 pm
That's well over half a million $ per item, probably 1-2 million $ per dangerous item.
That's also only one item every 3 days, perhaps only one dangerous item every 1-2 weeks.
These estimates don't even factor in the costs (people, utilities, space) of operating the machines, which is probably another $200-300K annually.
It also mean that only 1 of every 2 WBI's has even helped to find anything thus far.
Metal detectors & human screeners have to be more effective, both cost-wise & at finding dangerous items. Even TSA's GED-squad must do better than the nude-o-scopes.
Comanchepilot
Nov 18, 10, 1:47 pm
So what? Things do not hurt people or cause mayhem and damage - people do.
How many of those items were going to be used for nefarious purposes on an aircraft? After interviewing the person - they can determine if the person and the item are a threat- so - lets have the rest of the story. . . .
How many of the 130 items had a reasonable intent to be used for nefarioous purposes on an airplane or were 130 items seized simply items left in bags by travelers who forgot about them??
PostmanPat
Nov 18, 10, 1:48 pm
Welcome to FT!
Thanks - Unfortunately I couldn't remember my old password and the linked e-mail account I no longer have. I would much rather recover my old SydTgFlyer account :)
Flahusky
Nov 18, 10, 1:50 pm
Just off the top of my head;
1. Herion junkie
2. FA w/1oz of Coke for personal use
3. Mule w/19 bags of coke taped to body
4. Man w/'defense' pen
5. Man w/bullet in bag
6. Person w/Snow Globe
7. person w/ Torch lighter
That is just 7 I can recall of the top of my head, I'm sure #5-7 has happened a few times. So in reality the kettles got caught carrying 125 things they shouldn't have.
PostmanPat
Nov 18, 10, 1:50 pm
Do you really think a person willing to blow themselves into bits will worry about getting caught at the checkpoint?
The only thing that will happen is the bomb will go off sooner.
Which of course presumes that the only dangerous item people might try to smuggle onto a plane is a bomb - which is of course tripe.
In Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else with security checkpoints you see people getting caught and checkpoints getting attacked, yet terrorists still try. Why does only the TSA (which has never caught a terrorist) have the ability to scare off all would-be attackers with the risk of being caught?
I would be interested in the data that you have to support the number of attempts there have been prevented "everywhere else" where something was averted by screening at an airport.
Munch
Nov 18, 10, 1:53 pm
That's well over half a million $ per item, probably 1-2 million $ per dangerous item.
That's also only one item every 3 days, perhaps only one dangerous item every 1-2 weeks.
It also mean that only 1 of every 2 WBI's has even helped to find anything.
That, and that the number of "dangerous items" anyone, anywhere is trying to get onto airplanes is incredibly small.
Metal detectors & human screeners have to be more effective, both cost-wise & at finding dangerous items. Even TSA's GED-squad must do better than the nude-o-scopes.
Yes and yes. The risk is so small that there's no sense in using expensive, dangerous new technology in hopes of catching that 131st item that's not really terribly dangerous.
tev9999
Nov 18, 10, 2:01 pm
Which of course presumes that the only dangerous item people might try to smuggle onto a plane is a bomb - which is of course tripe.
Gun gets past security - few people get shot, maybe a hole in plane causing non-explosive decompression, a few to a dozen killed/wounded, terrorist gets crap beat out of him by non-injured passengers. Not nice, but no 9/11.
Knife gets past security - a couple people get cut, maybe killed, terrorist gets the crap beat out of him by non-injured passengers.
Flammable material gets past security - small fire, FAs put it out, some burns, terrorist gets the crap beat out of him by non-burnt passengers.
Bottle of water gets past security - passenger quenches thirst.
pmocek
Nov 18, 10, 2:01 pm
Which of course presumes that the only dangerous item people might try to smuggle onto a plane is a bomb - which is of course tripe.
Of course. People can, do, and will carry lots of things that can be dangerous onto airplanes. If you ban boxcutters, people will still have ink pens and shoestrings. Not to mention their bare hands. And those are just the things that are allowed. People can stow any manner of contraband in various body cavities.
It's ridiculous to focus all this energy and put up with all these intrusions surrounding one place that people congregate and are at risk of being harmed en masse. If, as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and security contractors would have us believe, there really were bogeymen lurking around every corner trying to slip weapons, explosives, and incendiaries onto airplanes so they could harm people, we'd surely see those bogeymen using those same methods to harm people at sporting events, concerts, public parks, train stations, restaurants, the queue just outside of TSA airport barricades, and everywhere else people congregate. But we don't see that, and it isn't because our government is strip-searching people as a condition of entry to those places.
Flahusky
Nov 18, 10, 2:02 pm
And of course these numbers mean sweet FA as you have no idea how many dangerous items people decided not to carry, or if you like potential attacks we averted, because people considered the risk of being caught high enough not to even try.
Yes, the 8"-12" knitting needles and the multiple 6" screw drivers I carry threw with NO questions asked are less dangerous the a 1.25" nail-file on someones clippers or 20 oz bottle of Water.
Never mind the determined person who will have a un-screened cleaning/baggage person or ramp person bring them what they want...
slsdi
Nov 18, 10, 2:11 pm
How many of the 130 items had a reasonable intent to be used for nefarioous purposes on an airplane or were 130 items seized simply items left in bags by travelers who forgot about them??
I think with all this outrage they'd be tooting their horn big time if they actually deterred something.
Boggie Dog
Nov 18, 10, 2:20 pm
Which of course presumes that the only dangerous item people might try to smuggle onto a plane is a bomb - which is of course tripe.
Agreed, but name other items that can be used to breach a reinforced cockpit door.
nbs2
Nov 18, 10, 2:22 pm
Bottle of water gets past security - passenger quenches thirst.
Wrong.
Passenger uses superlative hand-to-hand combat skills, knocks out everybody on the plane and fills the little drink coaster area of each seat with water, then places each passenger's mouth and nose in said water, killed each person (including FAs, who he has placed in empty stink shield seats). Passenger then employs superlative ventriloquist skills to mimic FAs voice to convince captain to open door to flight deck. Once door is open, he then disables all personnel and engages in the same water death method used on other passengers. Once in the cockpit, he takes over the plane and flies toward the second star to the right and straight on till morning, conquering Neverland.
And that, my friend, is why we can't allow more than 1qt of water on our planes. The 3oz separations are there to increase the chance that he might spill some while opening all those containers.
janetdoe
Nov 18, 10, 2:24 pm
I am related to a 65-year old woman who forgot to take her Glock (for which she has a concealed carry permit) out of her laptop case. But it was caught by the x-ray scanner. Do you think that is included in the 130 figure?
Certainly there was no danger/intent in this case. The TSA admin said 'You wouldn't believe how many people do this." I think the statistic she gave is that they see a couple or a few of these per month. I would guess IAH has similar numbers, so does that mean 50 guns confiscated in Texas alone? From licensed individuals with full criminal background checks and no intent whatsoever to cause any harm...
PS - I'm not sure if she had bullets. 15 in the clip would mean she was responsible for 16/130 dangerous items. :D
CaliC
Nov 18, 10, 2:38 pm
I am related to a 65-year old woman who forgot to take her Glock (for which she has a concealed carry permit) out of her laptop case. But it was caught by the x-ray scanner. Do you think that is included in the 130 figure? ... PS - I'm not sure if she had bullets. 15 in the clip would mean she was responsible for 16/130 dangerous items. :D
That wouldn't be covered under the "advanced imaging technology" in the article. That would be under the good old baggage xray.
Cali
doober
Nov 18, 10, 2:45 pm
Of course TSA refuses to breakdown illegal vs. dangerous.
It's beyond me why they would even put this out. Everything they say and do to try to mitigate the damage only makes it worse.
Then again, this is the TSA.
janetdoe
Nov 18, 10, 2:46 pm
That wouldn't be covered under the "advanced imaging technology" in the article. That would be under the good old baggage xray.
Cali
Yeah - I just read the article and you are correct. But I still think it's a funny story. Maybe that's because I would consider having this woman, armed, on my plane to be just as effective as an FAM. ;)
Flahusky
Nov 18, 10, 2:55 pm
I am related to a 65-year old woman who forgot to take her Glock (for which she has a concealed carry permit) out of her laptop case. But it was caught by the x-ray scanner. Do you think that is included in the 130 figure?
Certainly there was no danger/intent in this case. The TSA admin said 'You wouldn't believe how many people do this." I think the statistic she gave is that they see a couple or a few of these per month. I would guess IAH has similar numbers, so does that mean 50 guns confiscated in Texas alone? From licensed individuals with full criminal background checks and no intent whatsoever to cause any harm...
PS - I'm not sure if she had bullets. 15 in the clip would mean she was responsible for 16/130 dangerous items. :D
I'd love to fly knowing a lady like this is on the plane. Most people would consider her a non-threat, surprise! ^
mozgytog
Nov 18, 10, 3:28 pm
Of course TSA refuses to breakdown illegal vs. dangerous.
If any of them were actually dangerous, they'd be jumping at the chance to identify them.
Instead they have to rely on trying to confuse people who don't understand that what they're basically being told is:
'We found 130 tubes of toothpaste or bags of SEMTEX with the body scanners.'
If you were actually finding explosives, you wouldn't be talking about toothpaste.
N965VJ
Nov 18, 10, 3:36 pm
And of course these numbers mean sweet FA as you have no idea how many dangerous items people decided not to carry, or if you like potential attacks we averted, because people considered the risk of being caught high enough not to even try.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
I am related to a 65-year old woman who forgot to take her Glock (for which she has a concealed carry permit) out of her laptop case. But it was caught by the x-ray scanner. Do you think that is included in the 130 figure?
Of course those incidents are included. I've long said that most firearms caught at the checkpoint were normally law-abiding folks that had an "Oh, crap!" moment at the airport. Also, one of the TSA employees that posts here confirmed that just as many law enforcement officers are caught trying to take a firearm through the checkpoint, although the TSA does not include those in the public tally.
barbell
Nov 18, 10, 3:48 pm
And that, my friend, is why we can't allow more than 1qt of water on our planes. The 3oz separations are there to increase the chance that he might spill some while opening all those containers.
I always suspected that Kip Hawley posted on this board. I never imagined it'd be so easy to spot him, though.
nbs2
Nov 18, 10, 4:00 pm
Are you telling me you didn't even crack a smile? I know that last bit was pretty weak, but I was rushing out the door and wanted to get a Nappy bag reference in. Still, getting compared to KH hurts - being compared to Pissy would have been worse, but still.
barbell
Nov 18, 10, 4:04 pm
Are you telling me you didn't even crack a smile? I know that last bit was pretty weak, but I was rushing out the door and wanted to get a Nappy bag reference in. Still, getting compared to KH hurts - being compared to Pissy would have been worse, but still.
I laughed my @$$ off!
Bravo, sir!
Qwerty42
Nov 19, 10, 2:25 am
Let's just make the person monitoring the AIT a licensed radiologist. That way, we can double-dip TSA security monitoring with a head start on Obamacare for all.
LuvAirFrance
Nov 19, 10, 3:11 am
I thought the point was to keep terrorists off. Well, I guess the point is whatever they want to make it.
Kiwi Flyer
Nov 19, 10, 3:56 am
I thought the point was to keep terrorists off. Well, I guess the point is whatever they want to make it.