Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - TSA wants to test your drink -- at the gate

we've known about this silliness for a while, but the subject line is currently the top headline at drudge.

link is to a colorado tv news story (http://www.kjct8.com/news/Passenger-could-be-asked-to-give-drink-samples-to-TSA/-/163152/15394098/-/2eprat/-/index.html) that basically boils down to "well this is dumb, and TSA won't explain why they're doing it"..

there's one passenger interviewed who sounds like she wants to be an AFS type, but she is still bewildered by this stupidity....

Main headline article


http://www.kjct8.com/news/Passenger-could-be-asked-to-give-drink-samples-to-TSA/-/163152/15394098/-/2eprat/-/index.html

1. Chug drink.
2. Hand TSO the empty bottle.
3. Thank them for taking care of your trash, and finally making themselves useful.

Interesting...

We asked the TSA about the drink testings and they said, "TSA employees have many layers of security throughout airports. Passengers may be randomly selected for additional screening measures at the checkpoint or in the gate at any time."

Wonder if they're saying "attempting to enter the jetway", or if they claim they can wander around the gate seats and just start testing.

we've known about this silliness for a while, but the subject line is currently the top headline at drudge.

link is to a colorado tv news story (http://www.kjct8.com/news/Passenger-could-be-asked-to-give-drink-samples-to-TSA/-/163152/15394098/-/2eprat/-/index.html) that basically boils down to "well this is dumb, and TSA won't explain why they're doing it"..

there's one passenger interviewed who sounds like she wants to be an AFS type, but she is still bewildered by this stupidity....

And one of the most entertaining comment threads ever.

Interesting...

We asked the TSA about the drink testings and they said, "TSA employees have many layers of security throughout airports. Passengers may be randomly selected for additional screening measures at the checkpoint or in the gate at any time."

Wonder if they're saying "attempting to enter the jetway", or if they claim they can wander around the gate seats and just start testing.

I have read reports here on FT of exactly that happening. The TSO will approach a traveler, ask, "May I test your drink?", and when given an affirmative, they will wave a Magic Test Strip (TM) over the beverage and move on.

It's the security theater equivalent of a seance, or an excorcism. "The power of Pistole compels you! The power of Pistole compels you! This beverage is CLEAR!"

I'm trying to think of a scenario where this sort of testing would be effective.

Either the liquid is explosive and the passenger would refuse to drink it (because the passenger would have to be complicit in order to get it on the plane); or, they're looking for something that will make the pax sick (in which case it would be the fastest incubation period ever and the culprit would clearly be smart enough to get around anything the TSA does).

Would could they possibly find?

If they came to me, I would just walk them back to the vendor and ask for a replacement. I think Starbucks would be sympathetic to, "The TSA thinks you gave me radioactive coffee - can I just get a new one?"

I'm certain that this is supposed to be explosives testing. But, according to those whith more chemistry knowledge than me, there is no chemical test for explosives or the chemicals that make up explosives, which doesn't require the test articles to come into physical contact with the tested material. In other words, the Magic Strips (TM) they're currently waving over beverages to "test" are absolutely useless for that purpose.

This is one screening procedure I will not comply with. I'll dump my drink, or chug it, or whatever, but nobody is going to wave some kind of chemical test strip over something I'm about to ingest, or worse, dip the strip into it.

I'm certain that this is supposed to be explosives testing. But, according to those whith more chemistry knowledge than me, there is no chemical test for explosives or the chemicals that make up explosives, which doesn't require the test articles to come into physical contact with the tested material. In other words, the Magic Strips (TM) they're currently waving over beverages to "test" are absolutely useless for that purpose.

This is one screening procedure I will not comply with. I'll dump my drink, or chug it, or whatever, but nobody is going to wave some kind of chemical test strip over something I'm about to ingest, or worse, dip the strip into it.

It has to be far more likely that the TSO does something to endanger you via your beverage than for the Coca Cola Company to alter your drink.

I'm trying to think of a scenario where this sort of testing would be effective.



It is very effective at keeping TSOs employed to waste your tax dollars.

It is very effective at keeping TSOs employed to waste your tax dollars.

^

Thousands Standing Around.

It is very effective at keeping TSOs employed to waste your tax dollars.

That's exactly it, busy work.

I am curious how this would work.

If I refused, would I be arrested or escorted out for refusing screening?

What if I just chugged the drink and handed them the empty bottle? Same thing?

This has got to be one of the dumbest - and clearly thuggish - policies I've ever heard of from them, and that's saying something.

Just once I'd like to see them try this on a 'screamer'.

You know, the stereotypical woman who, in a tense situation, immediately starts screaming.

TSA approaches 'screamer' in gate area.

TSO: Ma'am, I need to test that drink for security reasons.
Pax: But I just bought this drink right over there at Starbucks! (voice rising)
TSO: Sorry, Ma'am, it's just one of our many layers designed for your protection. (Actually designed for TSA's protection, each 'layer' is one more chance for us to do our job right and catch anything that we should have caught during a previous layer...).
Pax: (screams, throws beverage) Help! Help! My drink is poisoned! Starbucks has explosives in their coffee! Help! I want my money back!

Refuse and ask the TSA for this sheet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_safety_data_sheet

Pax: (screams, throws beverage) Help! Help! My drink is poisoned! Starbucks has explosives in their coffee! Help! I want my money back!

The passenger would be arrested for interfering with the screening process (or for burning the TSO thug, if it was a hot drink) and would have a starring role in the "People Say the Darndest Things" section of the weekly TSA blog police log.

On a serious note, how should one fight back against this disgusting make-work scheme, that will not get a LEO summoned?

On a serious note, how should one fight back against this disgusting make-work scheme, that will not get a LEO summoned?Say no, finish the drink and explain (slowly) to whoever is summoned that since you're not dead/dying and they are welcome to test[sic] the empty cup ("it's in the trash, over there"), that you have satisfied their request.

Really, just say NO. @:-)

Say no, finish the drink and explain (slowly) to whoever is summoned that since you're not dead/dying and they are welcome to test[sic] the empty cup ("it's in the trash, over there"), that you have satisfied their request.

Really, just say NO. @:-)

I should have clarified my question to add, "while keeping the beverage you intended to drink during the flight."

And one of the most entertaining comment threads ever.

^^^ Over 1500 comments and counting!!!

The passenger would be arrested for interfering with the screening process (or for burning the TSO thug, if it was a hot drink) and would have a starring role in the "People Say the Darndest Things" section of the weekly TSA blog police log.

On a serious note, how should one fight back against this disgusting make-work scheme, that will not get a LEO summoned?

Hand over the drink, obviously (assuming you really are at the gate because you want to fly..:rolleyes:).

Hand it over, and as you do so, immediately stand up, gather your things and put some distance between you and the screener (just to be safe). Communicate. Make it clear that you are not happy that you just forked over $ to a vendor who sold you suspect goods. Make it clear that you intend to ask for a refund. Make it clear that you don't understand why the beverages sold in the sterile area are not screened at point of sale for the pax safety. Make it clear that you don't understand why you jump through hoops to enter the sterile area, but clearly the vendors and their wares are not screened. Ask if the testing is the result of particular intel or if it's just a new level of security implemented to cover up the fact that the vendors and their wares are a gaping security hole.

Above all, do not try to disguise your terror at being at risk of consuming a potentially harmful beverage (if it can damage a plane, think what it can do to your insides). Do not try to disguise your fright at realizing that the sterile area is anything but and that you are still highly at risk. Express your concern that there might be razor blades or other contraband in the paperback you just purchased at a sterile-side vendor.

Do not take the beverage back when they are through. If you are told to hold it, don't. For your own safety, place it on the floor and distance yourself, preferably hiding slightly behind another TSO in the immediate area. Make it clear that even after it has been 'tested' and deemed 'safe', you still don't trust the beverage, the testing, or the entire situation that puts a pax in the sterile area at risk from a vendor purchase. Make it clear that you are heading directly to the vendor for a refund - ask the TSO if he/she will accompany you.

Take it seriously. Very seriously. Out of an abundance of caution. Because you really do want to fly. Because they're doing this is a tacit admission that the other 21 layers of security aren't enough.

Say no, finish the drink and explain (slowly) to whoever is summoned that since you're not dead/dying and they are welcome to test[sic] the empty cup ("it's in the trash, over there"), that you have satisfied their request.

Really, just say NO. @:-)

Yep... this is the only correct response. For all types of reasons.

If they 'push back' on that answer? I chug the drink - too much too drink? It oops (sorry about that) spills - If I feel that either of these will get me into trouble? I just plain ignore them - not too much of a stretch when I'm jet lagged to act like a total zombie. But? No matter how I do it? Nobody - not even with their stupid silly magic strips - is chemically testing a drink that I then continue to drink. Not happening

There was once a land of the brave and the free - whatever happened to that fabled land?

There was once a land of the brave and the free - whatever happened to that fabled land?

I hear that it was celebrated mourned last night with fireworks in cities and towns across the land.

Seems TSA's expecting a little heat over this, they've already made a blog entry defending the practice.

I posted a comment asking if we're required to comply with the test, and what are the consequences of refusing.

"You" or "I" carry little weight in dealing with TSA's inanities--but if the ultimate result of this TSA policy is that Starbucks (or another vendor) will lose money as people will stop buying drinks from them, that vendor may carry a little more clout, in getting this policy rescinded.

Hand over the drink, obviously (assuming you really are at the gate because you want to fly..:rolleyes:).

Hand it over, and as you do so, immediately stand up, gather your things and put some distance between you and the screener (just to be safe). Communicate. Make it clear that you are not happy that you just forked over $ to a vendor who sold you suspect goods. Make it clear that you intend to ask for a refund. Make it clear that you don't understand why the beverages sold in the sterile area are not screened at point of sale for the pax safety. Make it clear that you don't understand why you jump through hoops to enter the sterile area, but clearly the vendors and their wares are not screened. Ask if the testing is the result of particular intel or if it's just a new level of security implemented to cover up the fact that the vendors and their wares are a gaping security hole.

Above all, do not try to disguise your terror at being at risk of consuming a potentially harmful beverage (if it can damage a plane, think what it can do to your insides). Do not try to disguise your fright at realizing that the sterile area is anything but and that you are still highly at risk. Express your concern that there might be razor blades or other contraband in the paperback you just purchased at a sterile-side vendor.

Do not take the beverage back when they are through. If you are told to hold it, don't. For your own safety, place it on the floor and distance yourself, preferably hiding slightly behind another TSO in the immediate area. Make it clear that even after it has been 'tested' and deemed 'safe', you still don't trust the beverage, the testing, or the entire situation that puts a pax in the sterile area at risk from a vendor purchase. Make it clear that you are heading directly to the vendor for a refund - ask the TSO if he/she will accompany you.

Take it seriously. Very seriously. Out of an abundance of caution. Because you really do want to fly. Because they're doing this is a tacit admission that the other 21 layers of security aren't enough.

This is great. ^ (Except, I wouldn't give them any ideas about dangerous paperback books. Let them figure that one out themselves!)

Seems TSA's expecting a little heat over this, they've already made a blog entry defending the practice.

That's because Spokesholess Lisa's entry about the PreCheck Ponsi went over so well.

Refuse and ask the TSA for this sheet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_safety_data_sheet

Interesting thought. Are the test strips hazardous?

My two cents on the blog post.

>> So other than possibly taking a few
>> moments of your time before boarding
>> your flight, it's business as usual.

If by "business as usual", you mean tactics with little grounding in scientific theory, I concur wholeheartedly.

Mr. Burns, do you ever stop and think about what you write, or are you like a parrot (with all due respect to those highly intelligent creatures) who merely mimics what he is told?

Now let's actually think for a bit ...

Suppose Mr. Terrorist did manage to smuggle his liquid explosives past your hawk-eyed screeners at the checkpoint. Why would he be holding the container at the gate, pretending to drink the "beverage"? It would be hidden away in his bags, of course.

Now since large liquid-filled drinking bottles are banned from the checkpoint, there are two possible sources for any beverage a passenger is drinking at the gate:

* The passenger has filled his empty bottle with water from the water fountain. A positive result from a test on such a drink would indicate some major issues with the municipal drinking supply, and an immediate call for all residents of the city to stop drinking tap water would inevitably need to be issued at once.

* A passenger has bought a drink from an airport vendor. These vendors -- Starbucks, Hudson News, etc. -- typically supply airports nationwide. A positive result from a test on such a beverage should necessarily lead to an immediate grounding of all the nation's planes, for it would indicate a plot involving a nationwide supplier of airport concessions.

That neither of these actions would come from a positive test result shows that these random tests are a sham.

They only benefit two classes of people: TSOs, for providing more work beyond staffing checkpoints; and vendors such as Smiths Detection, whose lobbyists have successfully convinced your bosses that without their equipment, planes would be falling daily from the skies.

I realize, Bob, that it is clear that you do not have the thinking capacity to understand any of this. Unfortunately, it is quite clear that no one at the TSA or DHS does either.

I believe they are looking for a solution with a high content of H2O2. I suppose the theory is that if the content of H2O2 in the solution is high enough to use the synthesize explosives, the vapors will be sufficient to cause the strip to test positive. I could be way off, but that's my understanding of what this is about. I decline to defend the wisdom of the practice, however.

I believe they are looking for a solution with a high content of H2O2. I suppose the theory is that if the content of H2O2 in the solution is high enough to use the synthesize explosives, the vapors will be sufficient to cause the strip to test positive. I could be way off, but that's my understanding of what this is about. I decline to defend the wisdom of the practice, however.

I believe you are correct, however others with far greater knowledge than my own have affirmed there is no method for detecting H202 without physical contact (i.e. submersion vs vapors).

Not to mention that higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide are much more susceptible to light and heat, decomposing into water and oxygen at a faster rate than lower concentrations. Labs will refrigerate 30% hydrogen peroxide.

h2o2 sounds like what they are catching, the only other possible hazardous liquid you can get past is contact solution, but that will just give you raging diarrhea. Could be good for a distraction when they wonder why someone has been in the bathroom for 30min.

"No thank you."

Interesting thought. Are the test strips hazardous?

In most likelihood they are not dangerous... or effective.

The problem, as with all things TSA, is that we don't KNOW they aren't hazardous. The TSA refuses to allow the public to know any of the TSA standards, policies or procedures.

Not to mention that higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide are much more susceptible to light and heat, decomposing into water and oxygen at a faster rate than lower concentrations. Labs will refrigerate 30% hydrogen peroxide.

Probably not H2O2. Organic peroxides can be highly explosive and highly unstable, so it's conceivable that given a sufficient concentration of peroxide, a terrorist could create a high explosive, but they require strong acids and time to react. The concentration of H202 required would require refrigeration and a special container. Mixing them is a complex multi stage process that would be difficult to achieve in an airliners bathroom.

My bet would be an "astrolite" type of explosive of ammonium nitrate and hydrazine. Hydrazine is extremely toxic even in small quantities. I recall from my hazmat experience that if you can smell it, the concentration has exceeded fatal levels. Nasty stuff to be carrying in public and a terror hazard in itself.

I'm certain that this is supposed to be explosives testing. But, according to those with more chemistry knowledge than me, there is no chemical test for explosives or the chemicals that make up explosives, which doesn't require the test articles to come into physical contact with the tested material. In other words, the Magic Strips (TM) they're currently waving over beverages to "test" are absolutely useless for that purpose.

The physical contact occurs through the vapor phase; any explosives or explosive byproducts detected would have to be volatile. Think of these strips as a less-sophisticated and less reliable form of the now abandoned "puffer" devices...

"Officer, I have have half a liter* hydric acid dissolved in dihydrogene-monoxide in this container. Am I allowed to take it on board?"


*doubly suspicious - using the metric system!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

I believe they are looking for a solution with a high content of H2O2. I suppose the theory is that if the content of H2O2 in the solution is high enough to use the synthesize explosives, the vapors will be sufficient to cause the strip to test positive. I could be way off, but that's my understanding of what this is about. I decline to defend the wisdom of the practice, however.

As I have discussed at some length in this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1355926-testing-eye-drops.html) (including an interesting exchange with TSORon), peroxides are not volatile enough, and test strips not sensitive enough, to detect traces of them in the air above a solution, no matter how concentrated. There are no test strips capable of detecting peroxides when waved above a solution. This is pure security theater.

The physical contact occurs through the vapor phase; any explosives or explosive byproducts detected would have to be volatile. Think of these strips as a less-sophisticated and less reliable form of the now abandoned "puffer" devices...

So volatile, in fact, that in all liklihood any such chemicals would have detonated the would-be terrist directly to Valhalla on the cab ride to the airport, correct? At least, that's my understanding from the little I've read online about explosive liquids.

Probably not H2O2. Organic peroxides can be highly explosive and highly unstable, so it's conceivable that given a sufficient concentration of peroxide, a terrorist could create a high explosive, but they require strong acids and time to react. The concentration of H202 required would require refrigeration and a special container. Mixing them is a complex multi stage process that would be difficult to achieve in an airliners bathroom.

My bet would be an "astrolite" type of explosive of ammonium nitrate and hydrazine. Hydrazine is extremely toxic even in small quantities. I recall from my hazmat experience that if you can smell it, the concentration has exceeded fatal levels. Nasty stuff to be carrying in public and a terror hazard in itself.

You've described a close cousin to hypergolic rocket fuel, except that the oxidizer generally is nitrogen tetroxide. Your HAZMAT experience is 100% correct. The other aspect about hypergolics is that they don't explode; they burn. If one or both of these chemicals doesn't kill you at home or on the way to the airport, releasing a quantity of N2O4 vapors into an airliner in flight would do a good job dissolving most peoples' lungs. Regardless, this scenario is nonsense because you couldn't handle it without killing yourself first.

Any possible way we could come up with a means to make the hand-waving strips positive to see what they'd do?

Are there any liquid explosive plots that are viable? Everything that I have read makes it sound like you would need lab conditions that are not readily available in an airport/airplane. Either that or they are so volatile that the bomber would likely blow himself up before getting to the airport. Was the liquid explosive plot that caused the war on liquids a viable plot?

I see some comments posted on the TSA Blog asking what happens if someone refuses the testing. There also are some asking why liquids aren't allowed through the checkpoint if they can be tested. I have a feeling they won't be answered.

Any possible way we could come up with a means to make the hand-waving strips positive to see what they'd do?

Has anyone on FT *ever* reported a positive on the liquid test strip? My guess is no. Given that many FTers have seen positive ETD swabs, "positive" NoS alarms, etc., the lack of a test-strip positive makes me highly suspicious that there is no such thing and that the test strips really are nothing but blotting paper and pure theater. If that is case, it's possible even the screeners don't know.

There's been some success in the past figuring out what TSA is doing by looking at public procurement records to see what they buy. Has anyone looked for the test strips in this fashion?

Are there any liquid explosive plots that are viable? Everything that I have read makes it sound like you would need lab conditions that are not readily available in an airport/airplane. Either that or they are so volatile that the bomber would likely blow himself up before getting to the airport. Was the liquid explosive plot that caused the war on liquids a viable plot?


Yes a liquid plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434) is viable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot); this one resulted in a death in 1994 and nearly downed a 747.

However, there are several interesting things to note about this plot:

1) Neither the USA nor anyone else overreacted by banning liquids. In fact, this plot occurred more than a decade before the war on liquids. There was much more common sense pre TSA. Governments around the world realized that the best course of action was to disrupt the plot and severely punish the terrorists, not to harass and terrorize millions of innocent passengers.

2) The successful device used nitroglycerin stabilized in a cotton-like material in a contact solution bottle. a) Pre war-on-water ETD could detect nitroglycerin quite well. b) liquid soaked cotton balls (or wet clothes/rags) have never been banned under the war-on-water. c) Contact solution is explicitly permitted by TSA under the medical liquid exemption (though it may be confiscated at random).

3) The successful plot bore little or no resemblance to the Hollywood-type plot portrayed as justification for the war on water. There was no makeshift lab equipped with ice baths and temperature control in the aircraft laboratory. Peroxide explosives were not used.

So while the fantastical plot described by TSA in 2006 does not seem practical, there are practical plots. However, why any bad guy would resort to notoriously unstable, unreliable, and dangerous (to the perpetrator) liquid explosives when there are much more reliable technologies available and reliable ways to get them onto aircraft is beyond me.

Let me simplify this discussion a lot: There is nothing specifically dangerous about the liquid state of matter.

Explosives can come in all states of matter, and be prepared in different states (liquids stabilized onto solids, etc). There is no reason the TSA should be testing/limiting our sodas and not our chocolate bars.

Has anyone submitted their drink for testing and then actually had the strip turn purple or develop a faint + sign or do whatever it is that happens when a drink is positive for [something or other]? What, exactly, happens to you and your formerly refreshing beverage at that point?

Has anyone submitted their drink for testing and then actually had the strip turn purple or develop a faint + sign or do whatever it is that happens when a drink is positive for [something or other]? What, exactly, happens to you and your formerly refreshing beverage at that point?

Well, I would think that the first thing that would happen is the TSO hands you a cigar and wishes your family the best of luck with their little bundle of joy.

Seriously, I don't even want to know. I'm sure it would involve lots of barking and a demand to know where you got that dangerous drink, followed by a "resolution" patdown (in a bathroom?) and removal from the secure area for rescreening.

All that said, I'd much more likely chug the drink and hand them the empty cup upon being told that I'd been "randomly selected".

You've described a close cousin to hypergolic rocket fuel, except that the oxidizer generally is nitrogen tetroxide. Your HAZMAT experience is 100% correct. The other aspect about hypergolics is that they don't explode; they burn. If one or both of these chemicals doesn't kill you at home or on the way to the airport, releasing a quantity of N2O4 vapors into an airliner in flight would do a good job dissolving most peoples' lungs. Regardless, this scenario is nonsense because you couldn't handle it without killing yourself first.
Which sounds that more terror would be created by the binaries, and not the results of mixing the binaries.

Let's remember that this is about the execution and prevention of terror. That does not functionally relate to things going boom (though there is a possible link).

If these magic TSA strips do indicate that there are explosives present, 99.99999+% of the time it's going to be a false alarm. Some unlucky passenger is going to have a miserable experience at the hands of the TSA, police, etc.

However, on the incredibly rare chance that it is a terrorist and they have some magical liquid bomb, what is the TSA going to do? I doubt the terrorist is going to wait for additional testing to be performed and will simply detonate the bomb. If they have an elaborate plot to get this liquid past security, no matter how they do it, I figure they have a way to detonate the bomb. It may not be as lethal and flashy as blowing up a plane, but blowing up a busy gate would probably get the same terror effect. The same thing would happen if they were caught at a busy checkpoint.

Well, I would think that the first thing that would happen is the TSO hands you a cigar and wishes your family the best of luck with their little bundle of joy.

Seriously, I don't even want to know. I'm sure it would involve lots of barking and a demand to know where you got that dangerous drink, followed by a "resolution" patdown (in a bathroom?) and removal from the secure area for rescreening.

All that said, I'd much more likely chug the drink and hand them the empty cup upon being told that I'd been "randomly selected".

I suspect if a test ever does come back positive, the fall-out will all be on the passenger - the pax will get extra attention, groping, bag searches, reports, name forever on government databases somewhere (after all, the pax must be guilty of something if his/her name is on a government report somewhere).

The vendor will be off the hook - I seriously doubt that if a Starbucks beverage tests positive, TSA is going to immediately shut down Starbucks, confiscate all Starbucks drinks in the sterile area immediately, freeze all Starbucks employees and conduct a rigorous swabbing of the entire shop and its workers.

After all, a 'bad guy' could never infiltrate Starbucks (protected by TSA's magic 'trusted vendor' program). A 'bad guy' would instead immediately put however much 'nasty' he's carrying into his beverage while at the gate (the same 'nasty' that he presumably slipped past the checkpoint).

Somebody in TSA procurement signed a sweetheart deal with a good friend to supply TSA with over-priced, useless test strips and now TSA is trying to find a way to use them. After all, now that they've been caught over-ordering and stockpiling goods in warehouses and lying to Congress when caught, I suppose they have decided to 'use up' existing supplies (ordered from cronies and friends) before asking the taxpayer to pay for more.

This happened to me at Salt Lake City on Delta a few weeks ago. They told me they were checking on the vendors.
I really don't need a reason. We have to comply. Just get on with it.

"we have to comply" .... "resistance is futile" - sorry, but I'm not yet ready to be branded and shackled.

There is no reason the TSA should be testing/limiting our sodas and not our chocolate bars.

Well of course that's the next step after the (predictable) failure of the liquids test to yield any positive finds.

Incrementalism my friend, Incrementalism.

This happened to me at Salt Lake City on Delta a few weeks ago. They told me they were checking on the vendors.
I really don't need a reason. We have to comply. Just get on with it.

No you don't. Just put liberty, freedom, and country above self and you'll be surprised how easy it is.

This happened to me at Salt Lake City on Delta a few weeks ago. They told me they were checking on the vendors.
I really don't need a reason. We have to comply. Just get on with it.

And had your drink tested positive for something-or-pther, with what would you then be complying?

We have to comply.

The second we start blindly complying with everything some pizza-boxer tells us to do is the second the terrorists win. Always question, always demand an answer, and always refuse to comply until someone gives you one.

They told me they were checking on the vendors.

Bullspit. They can go test the vendors' stuff, then, not the passengers' stuff.

This happened to me at Salt Lake City on Delta a few weeks ago. They told me they were checking on the vendors.
I really don't need a reason. We have to comply. Just get on with it.

No you don't.

Flying out of SLC the other day, had two TSA sheep come up to me with their little secret tester strips. I said I refused to which I got the obligatory "do you want to fly today"? :rolleyes: One beverage hadn't even been opened yet, which I pointed out and they said it didn't matter. I handed both bottles to them and refused their return. Into the garbage they went. Next time I'll be asking for an MSDS on the strips as well as a complaint form.

Has anyone submitted their drink for testing and then actually had the strip turn purple or develop a faint + sign or do whatever it is that happens when a drink is positive for [something or other]? What, exactly, happens to you and your formerly refreshing beverage at that point?
Well, if the TV ads I've seen are any indication, the faint "+" symbol may mean you're pregnant. So you and your refreshing beverage are probably headed off to see the OB/GYN.

Flying out of SLC the other day, had two TSA sheep come up to me with their little secret tester strips. I said I refused to which I got the obligatory "do you want to fly today"? :rolleyes: One beverage hadn't even been opened yet, which I pointed out and they said it didn't matter. I handed both bottles to them and refused their return. Into the garbage they went. Next time I'll be asking for an MSDS on the strips as well as a complaint form.

Well, that answers my question. Play along or you get threatened. I certainly hope you let them have a piece of your mind... I know that if I were threatened like that over an unopened drink that I had just purchased (or any drink), I'd also refuse to take them back and then I would light them up with as much of a ruckus as I possibly could, taking care to use clean language. Being that you're out of the checkpoint, I think there's a lot more freedom to be assertive with these _________s, no?

So - if you refuse and demand a LEO, doesn't that buy you time to continue drinking / finishing your beverage (assuming you've opened it)? They can't physically prevent you from drinking it in their presence (that would be assault/battery).

Oh boy... wonderful to know I may have this to look forward to
when flying out of here in 10-days.

I wonder what results "your strip has contaminated my drink,
please purchase me a new drink" would have.

I could then request evidence their strips do not leave behind
harmful chemicals.

Why am I reminded of old war movies, check points and the
Gestapo?

Perhaps they think that a pax may have connections with a
vendor that slips them something special when making a purchase.

In that case, direct their attention to the vendors and not the
passengers. Go into their stores and request to test several
unopened drinks in the display.

Seems there may be a security loophole with what a vendor
brings into a sterile area... just speculating.

Flying out of SLC the other day, had two TSA sheep come up to me with their little secret tester strips. I said I refused to which I got the obligatory "do you want to fly today"? :rolleyes: One beverage hadn't even been opened yet, which I pointed out and they said it didn't matter. I handed both bottles to them and refused their return. Into the garbage they went. Next time I'll be asking for an MSDS on the strips as well as a complaint form.

This BS has got to stop.

If you head paid for the drink with a credit card, could you have later disputed the charge?

"At the time that I had planned to open the drink, the seal was already broken."

After all, you were not planning to open the drink at the gate.

By pulling this crap right as you are about to board, you lose all of the leverage of showing up two hours early for your flight and having all the time in the world to play along with the TSA's games.

The fact that the TSO pulled this crap on an unopened bottle indicates that this is not about security at all. Not one bit. Zero.

Blood boiling on a Saturday morning. :mad:

So - if you refuse and demand a LEO, doesn't that buy you time to continue drinking / finishing your beverage (assuming you've opened it)?

Except this crap is pulled as the flight is boarding, and unless you have an understanding gate crew, you run the risk of missing your flight as you wait for a LEO and try to sort things out.

Except this crap is pulled as the flight is boarding, and unless you have an understanding gate crew, you run the risk of missing your flight as you wait for a LEO and try to sort things out.

Oh ... walk away from them and on to the plane? :p

Oh ... walk away from them and on to the plane? :p

Let me know how that works out for you.

I am reminded of a old episode of M*A*S*H where someone gets an unauthorized nose job. To get around Frank Burns discovering who got it everyone in camp wears bandage on their nose.

It would be great to organize a mass protest by handing out a cup to everyone going into the sterile area asking them to hold (not fill) it until boarding. That would give the TSA something to do check a bunch of empty cups for bad air.

Of course I would rather have one of these in my cup:

http://www.sevendeals.com/p-313-snake-nut-can.aspx

That would give the TSA something to do check a bunch of empty cups for bad air.

A lot of that is generated every time a TSO opens his mouth.

It would be great to organize a mass protest by handing out a cup to everyone going into the sterile area asking them to hold (not fill) it until boarding. That would give the TSA something to do check a bunch of empty cups for bad air.

Hmmm...we're going to need to hire more TSOs....

Another option: stay close to where you purchased the beverage from. If the TSA walks over and wants to test it, go back to the merchant and demand a refund, as they clearly sold you an unsafe drink. Making that little scene of it at a McDonald's or a Burger King would cause an even greater headache for the franchisee.

If enough people do that, whether they get the refund or not, you can bet the HMS Hosts and Paradies of the world will come down on the airports to get the Thousands Standing Around to quit wasting their shop employees' time.

Another option: stay close to where you purchased the beverage from.

All good, until the TSA thug demands you hand over your drink as you are at the gate about to board.

Another option: stay close to where you purchased the beverage from. If the TSA walks over and wants to test it, go back to the merchant and demand a refund, as they clearly sold you an unsafe drink. Making that little scene of it at a McDonald's or a Burger King would cause an even greater headache for the franchisee.

If enough people do that, whether they get the refund or not, you can bet the HMS Hosts and Paradies of the world will come down on the airports to get the Thousands Standing Around to quit wasting their shop employees' time.

I'm betting most reputable places would just give you a replacement drink without the need to make a scene.

I was approached at SEA and asked if they could test my Diet Coke, I simply finished it before giving an answer and just handed over the empty bottle and walked off.

The TSA employee was bewildered and just stood there (deer in headlights) looking at me before throwing the bottle away and walking off.

Dan

This is why it's good to be in a club.

I was approached at SEA and asked if they could test my Diet Coke, I simply finished it before giving an answer and just handed over the empty bottle and walked off.

The TSA employee was bewildered and just stood there (deer in headlights) looking at me before throwing the bottle away and walking off.

Dan

This is good news. No threats? No getting kicked out of the airport? Nice.

All good, until the TSA thug demands you hand over your drink as you are at the gate about to board.
Chug it, hand them the empty bottle/cup.

I'm betting most reputable places would just give you a replacement drink without the need to make a scene.
The scene is the point. Make the employees (and patrons) uncomfortable because someone is demanding to know why the TSA would want to test a drink sold there.

The TSA employee was bewildered and just stood there (deer in headlights) looking at me before throwing the bottle away and walking off.
Classic. :D

Oh ... walk away from them and on to the plane? :p

Let me know how that works out for you.

not a beverage check, but when I boarded my flight at LAX this morning, I had my BP scanned, and entered the jetbridge, where there were 4 TSA standing on the sides of the jetbridge. One of them asked for my ID. I responded "I'd love to play security theater with you today, but I've already provided your agency with my ID 3 times this morning, and I need to catch my flight now". I kept walking onto the plane. None of them followed me. Probably stunned at my insubordination.

So volatile, in fact, that in all liklihood any such chemicals would have detonated the would-be terrist directly to Valhalla on the cab ride to the airport, correct? At least, that's my understanding from the little I've read online about explosive liquids.

As I used the word "volatile", I meant it's ability to evaporate, to transform from the liquid to the gas phase. For anything to be detected by these strips, it must be able to evaporate from its container at a sufficient rate at a given temperature to reach whatever threshold concentration is sufficient to produce a signal on a test strip. This does not necessarily correlate with a substances tendency to detonate.

I have never been approached about this -- I don't think I've ever taken a beverage to the boarding gate. But this should work for all but the biggest of gulps:

"Can I test your beverage?"
"Absolutely."
Chug what's left, hand it over, say "thanks" and go back to whatever you were previously doing.

No scene, no loss of investment, your drink has been thoroughly vetted AND...someone else swaggers it off to the garbage can for you.

In hindsight, I am surprised that the bewildered agent did not follow me or punish me in some way for handing over the empty bottle and walking away, but she just stared at me and threw the bottle away.

My last gate screening, I was selected and I said out loud (the out loud part was actually an accident at the time, though I am happy about it now), what, did you miss something at the checkpoint and hope the would be bad person is on this flight? My comment got a chuckle from the GA and a few of the pax, but the TSA employee was less than amused and said, sir, it is just an extra layer of security.

Dan

, but the TSA employee was less than amused and said, sir, it is just an extra layer of security.


That "extra layer of security" stuff is amusing. The entire reason to have layered security is because one layer compensates for weaknesses in a different layer. Because the TSA does not do anything different in gate checks than what they did earlier, they are not adding a security layer. They are merely reperforming work within the same layer.

This is why it's good to be in a club.

Whenever I have to deal with the TSA I wish I had a club.

An informative piece over on Jaunted.com, putting the uproar over liquid checks into perspective:

Jaunted.com:
New TSA Liquid Checks Trigger National Freakout, for Some Reason
July 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM (http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/7/6/145455/5273/travel/New+TSA+Liquid+Checks+Trigger+National+Freakout,+f or+Some+Reason)

A short quote:
When a blogger figured out how to defeat TSA's (http://www.jaunted.com/tag/tsa) million-dollar scanners and posted the proof to YouTube (http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/3/9/142812/2634/travel/Blogger+Totally+Defeats+TSA%27s+Full-Body+Scanners+with+a+Simple+Trick), Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that she literally hadn't heard about it (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/napolitano-unaware-of-how-to-video-on-beating-tsa-scanners-video/). When a report by DHS's inspector general uncovered systematic TSA security breaches and issued a report (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-tsa-report-cnn,0,3358581.story), officials from the airport security (http://www.jaunted.com/tag/airport%20security) agency told Congress that fixing things would take a while (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/tsa_tells_congress_that_pluggi.html).

But spill one dead guy's ashes all over security at the end of a very bad PR month, (http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/6/29/114654/178/travel/TSA+Wraps+Up+a+Very%2C+Very%2C+Very+Bad+Month) and suddenly there are (http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/26674?c=airport_aviation_security) new rules on top of damage control on top of new rules. And to think, some critics suggest that TSA responds faster to public relations issues than they do to security issues!

My flying habits are pretty well set in stone. I carry a Brita water bottle with me, hanging from my carry-on, but I rarely drink from it in the terminal. But I often fly out early in the morning and wind up grabbing some arterial congealant at the Burger King or other fast food purveyor inside security. When I do this, I always sit in the food court area to finish it, including the beverage, and throw the cup away before I make my way to the gate.

Thus, I rarely have anything liquid other than my Brita bottle when I'm at the gate, so I'll probably never get approached by these goons with PH testing strips masquerading as explosives detectors.

Now, I'd really, really love to be approached by one at the food court while I'm chewing my heart attack sandwich. I'm a cheapskate, but I'd sacrifice half my breakfast; I'd wrap up the sandwich and throw the whole breakfast, including the beverage cup, into the trash.

"Sure, go ahead. It's in there."

I believe you are correct, however others with far greater knowledge than my own have affirmed there is no method for detecting H202 without physical contact (i.e. submersion vs vapors).

I don't think this is true. I haven't done a complete scan, but it looks like a number of potential vapor phase detection schemes are available.

I don't think this is true. I haven't done a complete scan, but it looks like a number of potential vapor phase detection schemes are available.

None of which involve waving paper strips over an open container.

In hindsight, I am surprised that the bewildered agent did not follow me or punish me in some way for handing over the empty bottle and walking away, but she just stared at me and threw the bottle away.

My last gate screening, I was selected and I said out loud (the out loud part was actually an accident at the time, though I am happy about it now), what, did you miss something at the checkpoint and hope the would be bad person is on this flight? My comment got a chuckle from the GA and a few of the pax, but the TSA employee was less than amused and said, sir, it is just an extra layer of security.

Dan

I don't know about anyone else, but, I don't want a penny of my tax dollars to go for "extra" layers of security.

So - wouldn't a would-be terrorist just put their bottle of _____ (that they somehow got through security) in their carry on? TSA won't check what they don't see, right?

Ugh. This is so dumb.

So - wouldn't a would-be terrorist just put their bottle of _____ (that they somehow got through security) in their carry on? TSA won't check what they don't see, right?

Ugh. This is so dumb.

We need to create a new urban dictionary term for idiotic which is "TSA".

"Dude, that guy's wiping before he poops" .
"That's friggin TSA".

i finally had a TSA blog comment censored! apparently "or is this make-work program just a way to turn Thousands Standing Around into a Test Strip Army?" wasn't a big hit with the blog team...

I am curious how this would work.

If I refused, would I be arrested or escorted out for refusing screening? I refused to participate in this nonsense SEA a couple of years ago, while seated at a gate in the north satellite. They weren't sure what to do about my refusal and went off to ask a supervis:rolleyes:r what do do. In the interim, I finished my drink. They ended up playing the DYW2FT game with me and I let them test my empty cup. (Original thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1039377-liquid-insanity-sea-random-testing-passenger-beverages-gate.html))

I refused to participate in this nonsense SEA a couple of years ago, while seated at a gate in the north satellite. They weren't sure what to do about my refusal and went off to ask a supervis:rolleyes:r what do do. In the interim, I finished my drink. They ended up playing the DYW2FT game with me and I let them test my empty cup. (Original thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1039377-liquid-insanity-sea-random-testing-passenger-beverages-gate.html))

I don't watch TV, so I obviously missed the news report about the flight that was taken down by a passenger's empty styrofoam cup.

I realize that expecting a front line TSA employee to understanding chemical engineering is a little much, but where does common sense come into play? Clearly, TSA has had to at least consult with a chemical engineer and with his/her help have made a determination regarding liquids and how they change molecularly under different circumstances, so is this just a case of poorly explaining what they are looking for to their front line people and allowing the front line people to run wild in the guise of keeping us safe?

As a side note, what I would love to know is, if I am consuming it (the potentially dangerous liquid), what good is it as a weapon?

Wouldn't my bodies metabolism of the given suspicious liquid change its molecular structure enough to render the potentially harmful substance useless?

Dan

Clearly, TSA has had to at least consult with a chemical engineer and with his/her help have made a determination regarding liquids …

Why do you assume that?

Smiths Detection (or the like) lobbyist: There have been several liquids-based plot to bring down planes. Clearly this is a threat the TSA must mitigate. We have these strips here, where if you wave them over a bottle and drop some water on it, they tell you whether you are dealing with a terrorist.

John Pistole: Ooh, we have too many TSOs but we can't let Congress know, or else they may cut our staffing budget. We could give these strips to TSOs to test passengers' drinks before they board. Deal!

I'm going to go out on a very, very long limb here. I've said for a long time that getting Evil Liquid airside would be incredibly easy: open up a plastic 20 oz. Coke bottle, empty and wash it, fill it with my Evil Liquid, cap it with a differently-colored cap (like the yellow caps on real-sugar Cokes during passover), and get my buddy who works for an airside restaurant to wheel it in hidden in the middle of a bunch of flats of Coke. I go into the restaurant, ask for a Coke, and my buddy hands me my "special Coke" with my Evil Liquid in it.

Now, I know there are Roaming Liquid Inspectors (RLIs), and let's assume here that they have test equipment that will actually detect the evilness in my liquid and save the day. I'm not going to be carrying around my Evil Liquid in my hand. I'm going to stuff it in my backpack; therefore, the RLIs will never even see it.

(Question: I've never been a victim of a gate search. Do TS"O"s do Liquid Tests or make people surrender liquid during gate searches?)

(Question: I've never been a victim of a gate search. Do TS"O"s do Liquid Tests or make people surrender liquid during gate searches?)

I have witnessed a TSO go ballistic because someone had their personal water bottle full during a gate check. The TSO was demanding to know how the pax got it through security and asking if the passenger wanted to fly today. Apparently, the concept of carrying it through empty then filling it up at a water fountain is completely foreign to them.

I've also had a TSO at SNA do a gate search of my laptop bag, during which he found a non-aerosol hand sanitizer spray. He asked if I'd had it out in a separate bag during checkpoint screening. When I asked what business it was of his, he replied that he would have to confiscate it if it hadn't been properly screened, then asked again. My reply was, "Sure, whatever," and he just put it back into my bag and sent me on my way.

I'm going to go out on a very, very long limb here. I've said for a long time that getting Evil Liquid airside would be incredibly easy: open up a plastic 20 oz. Coke bottle, empty and wash it, fill it with my Evil Liquid, cap it with a differently-colored cap (like the yellow caps on real-sugar Cokes during passover), and get my buddy who works for an airside restaurant to wheel it in hidden in the middle of a bunch of flats of Coke. I go into the restaurant, ask for a Coke, and my buddy hands me my "special Coke" with my Evil Liquid in it.

Now, I know there are Roaming Liquid Inspectors (RLIs), and let's assume here that they have test equipment that will actually detect the evilness in my liquid and save the day. I'm not going to be carrying around my Evil Liquid in my hand. I'm going to stuff it in my backpack; therefore, the RLIs will never even see it.

(Question: I've never been a victim of a gate search. Do TS"O"s do Liquid Tests or make people surrender liquid during gate searches?)

I'll go out on a longer limb and assert that the best way to get Evil Liquid on an airplane is to simply bribe a clerk or two.

I have witnessed a TSO go ballistic because someone had their personal water bottle full during a gate check. The TSO was demanding to know how the pax got it through security and asking if the passenger wanted to fly today. Apparently, the concept of carrying it through empty then filling it up at a water fountain is completely foreign to them.

I've also had a TSO at SNA do a gate search of my laptop bag, during which he found a non-aerosol hand sanitizer spray. He asked if I'd had it out in a separate bag during checkpoint screening. When I asked what business it was of his, he replied that he would have to confiscate it if it hadn't been properly screened, then asked again. My reply was, "Sure, whatever," and he just put it back into my bag and sent me on my way.

Maybe we're looking towards a future of 100% gate searches nationwide. Every single gate would have TS"O"s assigned to it, and you don't board without photo ID, a BP with matching name, a Freedom Grope and a manual search of your carry-ons. You can never be too sure...

I'll go out on a longer limb ans assert that the best way to get Evil Liquid on an airplane is to simply bribe a clerk or two.

Well of course it is.

These are low-paid clerks with no security clearance and pretty much no respect or concern for their country. A terrorist's best friend.

Apparently, the concept of carrying it through empty then filling it up at a water fountain is completely foreign to them.

Among other concepts - like reason, common sense, ethics, and basic hygiene.

These are low-paid clerks with no security clearance and pretty much no respect or concern for their country.

Or their countrymen.

Well of course it is.

These are low-paid clerks with no security clearance and pretty much no respect or concern for their country. A terrorist's best friend.

Hypothetical situation: a passenger stands up an an airplane, pulls out a gun, and attempts to either (1) make the pilot fly somewhere, or (2) rob passengers of their valuables. Soon enough, the passenger is hog-tied with giant zip ties, the gun is waiting to be handed over to LE as evidence, and LEOs are waiting at the destination and telling the TSA to keep their pretend badges away from their real LE work.

While being interviewed, the robber claims that he bribed a TS"O" to let him through security with a gun. How on earth do you verify this statement as true or false? LE (and the TSA) know that the landside-airside barrier is so porous, there are countless ways he could have gotten the gun onto the airplane: friend working at the airport, friend who's an LEO, or the NoS simply didn't detect the gun.

On a side note, my blood pressure doubles when there's some article about a box knife being found in a seat back pocket, and invariably, someone is quoted saying "I don't see how the box knife could have possibly made it on the airplane with the TSA on guard!"

While being interviewed, the robber claims that he bribed a TS"O" to let him through security with a gun. How on earth do you verify this statement as true or false?

That'd be difficult to prove when the video of the clerk handling the miscreant's bag at the checkpoint disappeared.

While being interviewed, the robber claims that he bribed a TS"O" to let him through security with a gun. How on earth do you verify this statement as true or false? LE (and the TSA) know that the landside-airside barrier is so porous, there are countless ways he could have gotten the gun onto the airplane: friend working at the airport, friend who's an LEO, or the NoS simply didn't detect the gun.


Sure, there are tons of options. I was only pointing out that low paid clerks are targets for bribery.

And if that was the case, said clerk would probably not be smart enough to hide the payments. It would be easily figured out.

"Sir, I'm carrying Dihydrogen Monoxide. Just to let you know, it can cause severe burns, electrical failures, corrosion and even death if consumed in large quantities. It's used as an industrial solvent, fire retardant and in pesticides. What harm could it possibly cause?"

Mike

I refused to participate in this nonsense SEA a couple of years ago, while seated at a gate in the north satellite. They weren't sure what to do about my refusal and went off to ask a supervis:rolleyes:r what do do. In the interim, I finished my drink. They ended up playing the DYW2FT game with me and I let them test my empty cup. (Original thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1039377-liquid-insanity-sea-random-testing-passenger-beverages-gate.html))

Thanks for sharing that thread.

It brings up a question I've had all along with gate searches, and now also this nonsense: How in the world is any kind of arbitrary search away from the checkpoint considered to be constitutional? Especially if the idea is that if they find drugs or anything illegal - not just a weapon - they'll call a cop and turn you in? TSA is an agent of the government and that kind of behavior is prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Period.

Hand your beverage to the TSO and while he/she makes magic, reach in your bag and pull out another large sealed beverage.

Or reach in your bag and pull out a large container of lotion or alcohol - something obviously too large for the checkpoint, non-medical, a sterile area purchase.

Wonder if they'll test all sterile area liquids, or just beverages.

"Sir, I'm carrying Dihydrogen Monoxide. Just to let you know, it can cause severe burns, electrical failures, corrosion and even death if consumed in large quantities. It's used as an industrial solvent, fire retardant and in pesticides. What harm could it possibly cause?"

Mike

Be careful with that stuff! A lungful of that substance can kill you. Avoid full immersion without special equipment.

On a side note, my blood pressure doubles when there's some article about a box knife being found in a seat back pocket, and invariably, someone is quoted saying "I don't see how the box knife could have possibly made it on the airplane with the TSA on guard!"

The best part of that scenario is when Bob the Blogger defends the "oopsie" by saying that knives are not considered a threat, then turns around a week later and boasts about the "great catch" when a screener gets a keyring-sized Swiss Army Knife off a Boy Scout.

"Sir, I'm carrying Dihydrogen Monoxide. Just to let you know, it can cause severe burns, electrical failures, corrosion and even death if consumed in large quantities. It's used as an industrial solvent, fire retardant and in pesticides. What harm could it possibly cause?"

Mike

Mike, there's a fish pun waiting to be made.

It brings up a question I've had all along with gate searches, and now also this nonsense: How in the world is any kind of arbitrary search away from the checkpoint considered to be constitutional?

The best answer I've ever gotten from a TSO during a gate check is, "The signs at the checkpoint say we can."

Be careful with that stuff! A lungful of that substance can kill you. Avoid full immersion without special equipment.
Dihydrogen monoxide is also responsible for aggressive behaviour. Researchers found that when they removed all the water from aquariums containing Siamese fighting fish, all signs of aggression disappeared almost immediately. Further research confirmed that complete water deprivation decreased aggressive behaviour in mammals; but sometimes it took a few weeks.

Dihydrogen monoxide is also responsible for aggressive behaviour. Researchers found that when they removed all the water from aquariums containing Siamese fighting fish, all signs of aggression disappeared almost immediately. Further research confirmed that complete water deprivation decreased aggressive behaviour in mammals; but sometimes it took a few weeks.

It is absolutely true that 100% of convicted violent felons consume dihydrogen monoxide regularly, sometimes in great quantity.

~~ Irish

"Sir, I'm carrying Dihydrogen Monoxide...

As also seen in post #37 here

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18878915-post37.html :D

Well of course it is.

These are low-paid clerks with no security clearance and pretty much no respect or concern for their country. A terrorist's best friend.

As I see it, while some of the policies and procedures are okay or even good many are just CYA to protect the bureaucrats higher up the chain when failures occur and the front line (clerks if you will) are left to assume (on their own) the reasoning (as it seems they are given the same info we the general public are told) for what they are doing and with a little imagination on their part and the fact they are "officers" they are left to assume that their hard work is now protecting the general public from the would be bad actors out there.

That is how you (IMHO) get airside screening of liquids as some yahoo (probably some low level bureaucrat in Washington or maybe even at the airport admin level) figures that liquids are bad, there are liquids air side, so let protect the public by checking them with our "magic dangerous liquid identification strips" (Patent Pending :D).

This lack of education and the fact that front line TSA Employees are essentially clerks explains how Post #: 96 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18896915-post96.html) occurs, where the TSA employee is going to confiscate a liquid because it was not found in a baggie upon the gate search, but when told it was in a baggie at the checkpoint he did not confiscate it. The TSA employee is nothing more than a clerk and he is told in a baggie safe, out of a baggie unsafe and not given any reasoning for the baggie and thus has to confiscate a liquid not found in the baggie even though for all intense and purposes it may meet all other qualifications for being "safe" air side.

Dan

These are low-paid clerks...We need to stop repeating the claim that TSA employees are low-paid. They are not; in fact for what most of them do they are over-paid IMO.

Pay Band Minimum Maximum
A $17,083 $24,977
B $19,570 $28,546
C $22,167 $33,303
D $25,518 $38,277
E $29,302 $44,007
F $33,627 $50,494
G $39,358 $60,982
H $48,007 $74,390
I $58,495 $90,717
J $71,364 $110,612
K $85,311 $132,237
L $101,962 $155,500
M $120,236 $155,500

I don't know what band those infesting, err... manning the checkpoints will likely occupy, but it won't be the lower or upper, so I'd guess most of them are pulling down about 50k. That ain't chump change.

I'll go out on a longer limb and assert that the best way to get Evil Liquid on an airplane is to simply bribe a clerk or two.

Exactly. That is how drug smugglers have been doing business for the last two decades, and it a terrorist really wants to plant an explosive device on an airplane, he/she will take the same route.

We need to stop repeating the claim that TSA employees are low-paid. They are not; in fact for what most of them do they are over-paid IMO.

I don't know what band those infesting, err... manning the checkpoints will likely occupy, but it won't be the lower or upper, so I'd guess most of them are pulling down about 50k. That ain't chump change.

Compared to what the people they're molesting make, it's chump change.

The bigger issue is that they clearly aren't good at decision making, which means they likely have bills they can't pay. Again....a terrorist's best friend, as far as bribery goes.

Dihydrogen monoxide is also responsible for aggressive behaviour. Researchers found that when they removed all the water from aquariums containing Siamese fighting fish, all signs of aggression disappeared almost immediately. Further research confirmed that complete water deprivation decreased aggressive behaviour in mammals; but sometimes it took a few weeks.
I figured it would only take 3 days (max).

We need to stop repeating the claim that TSA employees are low-paid. They are not; in fact for what most of them do they are over-paid IMO.

Pay Band Minimum Maximum
A $17,083 $24,977
B $19,570 $28,546
C $22,167 $33,303
D $25,518 $38,277
E $29,302 $44,007
F $33,627 $50,494
G $39,358 $60,982
H $48,007 $74,390
I $58,495 $90,717
J $71,364 $110,612
K $85,311 $132,237
L $101,962 $155,500
M $120,236 $155,500

I don't know what band those infesting, err... manning the checkpoints will likely occupy, but it won't be the lower or upper, so I'd guess most of them are pulling down about 50k. That ain't chump change.
Not sure how time-accurate, yet this should be representative. Appears an STSO can do rather ok:

Area Director (TSES)
Deputy Area Director (TSES)
Federal Security Director (TSES)
Deputy Federal Security Director (TSES)
Assistant Federal Security Director - Screening (K-band)
Deputy Assistant Federal Security Director - Screening (J-Band)
Transportation Security Manager - Screening (I-band)
Transportation Security Manager - Screening (H-band)
Supervisory Transportation Security Officer (G-band)
Lead Transportation Security Officer (F-band)
Transportation Security Officer (E-band)
Transportation Security Officer (D-band)

Mike, there's a fish pun waiting to be made.

Ah, it's good to be back. :)

The best answer I've ever gotten from a TSO during a gate check is, "The signs at the checkpoint say we can."

I'm totally bringing my own sign next time.

Mike

That is how you (IMHO) get airside screening of liquids as some yahoo (probably some low level bureaucrat in Washington or maybe even at the airport admin level) figures that liquids are bad, there are liquids air side, so let protect the public by checking them with our "magic dangerous liquid identification strips" (Patent Pending :D).

Dan

I'll trade you my super secret Kommander Kody SSI decoder ring for your magic dangerous liquid identification strips
... and I'll throw in the box of Cracker Jacks too.

if these magic strips are so effective, why not employ them at the gate, and ditch the rediculous size limits on liquids ?

if these magic strips are so effective, why not employ them at the gate, and ditch the rediculous size limits on liquids ?

They only work if somebody's drinking from it. The explosives seem to mix with saliva.

They only work if somebody's drinking from it. The explosives seem to mix with saliva.

That explains why I get gas when drinking bottled water. :D

They only work if somebody's drinking from it. The explosives seem to mix with saliva.

AND they only work on the bottles of water from the pallets airport vendors buy at Costco, not on the bottles of water from the pallets YOU buy at Costco.

if these magic strips are so effective, why not employ them at the gate, and ditch the rediculous size limits on liquids ?

Because the TSA would have to find some other make-work project for the excess TSOs.

The gate checks don't exist out of any need for additional security.

Mike

As a side note, what I would love to know is, if I am consuming it (the potentially dangerous liquid), what good is it as a weapon?

That's what I've been wondering.

Oooh! What if I'm drinking a sake bomb? ;)

Has anyone submitted their drink for testing and then actually had the strip turn purple or develop a faint + sign or do whatever it is that happens when a drink is positive for [something or other]? What, exactly, happens to you and your formerly refreshing beverage at that point?

I think if you see a + sign it means you're pregnant!

I think if you see a + sign it means you're pregnant!

As I wipe the saliva off my monitor... :D

Mike

"Has anyone submitted their drink for testing and then actually had the strip turn purple or develop a faint + sign or do whatever it is that happens when a drink is positive for [something or other]? What, exactly, happens to you and your formerly refreshing beverage at that point?"

My theory: that will never happen, as the Magic Strips are pure Bravo Sierra, most likely overpriced strips of construction paper sold to a gullible (or knowing) TSA. Coincidentally, this means that Magic Strips are correct 100% of the time, since they have never been used on an actual liquid explosive.

My theory: that will never happen, as the Magic Strips are pure Bravo Sierra, most likely overpriced strips of construction paper sold to a gullible (or knowing) TSA. Coincidentally, this means that Magic Strips are correct 100% of the time, since they have never been used on an actual liquid explosive.

Now that sparks an interesting thought. Suppose I pack a few strips cut from construction paper. How would the following dialog work?

TSO: I need to test your drink.
ME: OK but first I need to test your test strip to make sure it's safe to wave it over my drink. I'll just wave my test strip over yours and if it changes color then yours is not safe to use.

Now that sparks an interesting thought. Suppose I pack a few strips cut from construction paper. How would the following dialog work?

TSO: I need to test your drink.
ME: OK but first I need to test your test strip to make sure it's safe to wave it over my drink. I'll just wave my test strip over yours and if it changes color then yours is not safe to use.

I've got some water-activated color changing paper (kids use water markers and color on it). Could make it even more interesting by using some of this, which will in fact change color when the water drops are applied.:D

My theory: that will never happen, as the Magic Strips are pure Bravo Sierra, most likely overpriced strips of construction paper sold to a gullible (or knowing) TSA. Coincidentally, this means that Magic Strips are correct 100% of the time, since they have never been used on an actual liquid explosive.
Kind of like the GT200:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT200

Now that sparks an interesting thought. Suppose I pack a few strips cut from construction paper. How would the following dialog work?

TSO: I need to test your drink.
ME: OK but first I need to test your test strip to make sure it's safe to wave it over my drink. I'll just wave my test strip over yours and if it changes color then yours is not safe to use.

No, no!

"If mine changes colour, then yours is safe to use" :-)

DanishFlyer

Kind of like the GT200:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT200

I wonder how many of those the TSA has in the warehouse in which they were hiding stuff from Congress.

No, no!

"If mine changes colour, then yours is safe to use" :-)

Screener: "So you won't let us test your drink until you test our strip?"
You: "That's correct."
Screener: "And you say that if your strip changes color, ours is safe?"
You: "That's also correct."
Screener: "And what exactly is in those strips of yours?"
You: "That's SSI."

:D

When I was flying out of ROC last Nov,they were doing this . What a joke. I thought the one 'officer' was going to pass out he was so large. It kills me how the sheaple just hand it over like nothing. They never asked me ,but i was not about to let them stick something in my drink.

No, no!

"If mine changes colour, then yours is safe to use" :-)

DanishFlyer

You are, of course, right. Thanks for the correction.