"A suspicious bag and a security lapse forced officials to evacuate three planes and clear hundreds of people from Mineta San Jose International Airport's Terminal A on Sunday. The incident, the airport's worst security problem since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, delayed at least 56 afternoon and evening flights and affected more than 2,500 passengers."
Brilliant! The machine routinely produces false-positives and they still evacuated the terminal. What imbeciles! Why not just close down the airport permanently in the name of safety???
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
bdschobel
Nov 4, 02, 10:09 am
Wait until next year. You'll see this sort of thing daily.
Bruce
EPS
Nov 4, 02, 12:17 pm
Terminal at San Jose Airport evacuated
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/04/BA40398.DTL
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Security officials evacuated the largest terminal at San Jose Airport Sunday afternoon after a screener failed to stop a passenger whose carry-on bag tested positive for chemicals related to explosive devices.
About 2,500 people, including incoming and outgoing passengers, were affected by the evacuation and flights on Southwest and American Airlines were delayed up to two hours.</font>
doc
Nov 4, 02, 1:07 pm
Security officials evacuated the largest terminal at San Jose Airport Sunday afternoon after a screener failed to stop a passenger whose carry-on bag tested positive for chemicals related to explosive devices.
I might have been responsible for this over-reaction- then again maybe I'm imagining a real person has read what I sent... :/
I sent an email off to the TSA, and when I got an instant automatic moronic self-serving boilerplate response I fired off an immediate reply that was, well, somewhat acidic in tone.
The email, it's reply, and my counter reply are below:
Attn Customer Service Manager:
Did I ask for a canned boilerplate response?!!!
NO!!!!!
Actually have a WARM BODY read my below original email, and you will note that YOU are ALREADY in charge of the supposedly trained FEDERAL employees I am concerned about!!
Sending a boilerplate saying that all the problems and inconsistancies will be gone once you take over is very poor public relations and, well, just plain STUPID!!
Our fine Federal employees at work again (that would be saracasm you hear).
Have a REAL person decide what to say, and actually write a real and topic-direct response once the incidents, employees, and policies have been reviewed.
Otherwise, I will be forced to believe that this is all nothing more than yet another government blunder, with uncaring job-guaranteed employees, combined with a grab for more power by their higher-ups.
You're pretty D@#% close to that already with this ridiculous reply http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif
TSA-ConsumerResponse wrote:
Thank you for your message expressing your concerns about airport
security.
On February 17, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) assumed responsibility for civil aviation security in the United States.
Our responsibilities include day-to-day Federal security screening operations
for passenger air transportation and related research and development activities. With the transition of security responsibilities to TSA, we have instituted
tightened procedures for checked baggage and safeguarding all airport areas
In addition, new Federal screeners are being hired and trained to screen passengers and baggage. As part of that effort, TSA is working closely with the airports, air carriers and contract personnel to ensure the safety of aircraft operations on and around all airports. Our goal is not just to make people feel safe but to ensure that they are safe. We are confident that implementation of these efforts will ensure a renewed sense of confidence in the screening process of the aviation system.
We work very hard to establish security consistency. As we inspect screening
operations at airports and receive feedback from the traveling public, we address inconsistencies and ensure corrective actions are taken, when necessary. Once the screening process is federalized and is no longer subject to local interpretation, we will be able to provide more consistent screening. Until then, we will continue to do all we can to inspect screening operations and provide written procedures to specify how the process is to be applied.
TSA expects to meet the November 17, 2002 deadline for deploying federalized
screeners to all identified airports. You can follow TSA's progress by visiting our website: <http://www.tsa.dot.gov/>.
Please accept our appreciation for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. Your help and support are important contributions to ensuring the safety and security of the Nation's aviation system.
The TSA Consumer Response Center
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 7:47 PM
To: TSA-ConsumerResponse
Subject: SJC Federal screeners/security procedure incidents
It is my understanding that SJC is now using Federal screeners that have
gone through the training procedures.
If I am wrong in this, please provide the correct data.
I am reporting second-hand two areas of concern related to me by my husband:
-Another traveller requested his film and camera, in a clear bag, be
hand inspected at the security checkpoint. The screener took it to his
supervisor and was repeatedly told to put the bag through the x-ray
machine.
My husband was unable to determine if the screener did not actually
understand the order, did not know how to hand-inspect the items, or if
the screener was trying to non-directly clue in the supervisor regarding
the obligation to hand-inspect photographic equipment and film on request.
In any case, the law was NOT followed, and the scenario indicated a lack
of training on the policy, or a lack of understanding of their
obligations under law by the supervisor.
-My husband belatedly realized that he had taken his laptop and it's
carrycase with him recently to a model-rocket build and launch (big
ones!), and thus was expecting the swab they used on the bag to come up
positive- much to his shock he was waved through after the swab test!!
He could not see how there was no trace of anything suspicious on his
bag, as there was heavy exposure to explosives and other similar
substances in non-contained forms ripe for transfer only days before the
flight.
These incidents were at the Alaska Airlines screening point around 11AM
on this last Sunday.
Please let me know if I am mis-reading the FAA/TSA regulations regarding
film and cameras, and why a swab-test would miss something so serious.
I put my children on planes, unaccompanied, to their father's on a
regular basis out of SJC, and I would really like to feel that security
is of the highest quality.
Incidents like these create doubts about the wisdom of doing so, and a
suspicion of incompetence in the current staff and/or supervisors.
"The problem for thousands of inconvenienced passengers lies in the chemistry of bombs and the limitations of the cloth-swab tests used to find explosives traces on carry-on luggage. The tests are very sensitive, but imprecise. They will find minute amounts of an organic compound, but can't pinpoint its exact identity. The result is too many false positive results."
"At both San Jose and SFO, screeners were distracted from the potentially suspicious passenger. In both cases, communication between airport security and law enforcement fell down. It took as long as 30 minutes at San Jose last week before police realized that a passenger had slipped by."
'Distractions' were likely the need to go off and randomly harass other passengers whose only crime was wanting to travel that day. Maybe when the time comes that we discard "random security" the pinheads will actually be able to properly scrutinize real potential threats. Also, as the article indicates, there are viable solutions to this problem, but the TSA just isn't interested. What else is new?
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
sdl
Nov 19, 02, 8:11 pm
I got a REPLY! (sort of)
The TSA, after an endless series of bounces from my various guesses at useful email addresses, cc'd me on a forward to Gail Rossides, 3rd in command.
Check out their commentary http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
S
-----------------------------------------
Ms. Rossides
I am forwarding this message received by the Consumer Response Center for information/action. The camera/film issue is similar to one that I forwarded recently and it seems to be a recurring issue. I am not sure what, if anything, is required regarding the second complaint. The swab test should be accurate. Since this is a second-hand report-hearsay-I can not evaluate when or how or what type of chemicals the laptop might have been exposed to or even whether they are included in our markers. I defer to your judgement whether that issue warrants elevating this message.
TSA Consumer Response Center
5-1416
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:32 PM
To: TSA-ConsumerResponse
Subject: Security Incidents at SJC under Federal purview/ lack of
appropriateresponse from TSA consumer email group
Please forward this to the correct persons listed below:
I am hoping that this is successful in getting to any of the top three
individuals at TSA responsible for the Security Screeners/Supervisors
and their quality/training, ie, you, James Loy, your DUS for Management
and Policy Stephen McHale, or your Assoc US for Training and Quality
Performance, Gale Rossides.
_
There is either no individuals manning your usual email source from the
consumer, or they are not willing to respond to my below concerns.
In either case, it is empirative that someone within the organization
that can address the issues be alerted to them!
I now have an additional grave concern, due to the only reply being a
boilerplated automatic email platitude that is also inappropriate to the
original email.
(see below emails enclosed in full for an explanation of the problems)
There has been no response to my counter-reply from anyone.
Please address this problem.
(Above emails were enclosed here)
NickP 1K
Nov 21, 02, 1:10 pm
It wasn't you... Alaska is Terminal C, this incident happened hence... the explosives screening just seems to be useless.
EPS
Nov 22, 02, 1:45 am
Here we go again...
Travel resumes at San Jose airport
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2002/11/21/jose.DTL
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
A spokeswoman for the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport reports that passengers are resuming travel tonight after an evacuation at the south checkpoint of terminal C because of a security breach.
According to the spokeswoman, a unknown person walked away from a Transportation Security Administration checkpoint at about 4:45 p.m. after an explosive detection machine tested positive. TSA screeners were unable to find the traveler and had the concourse evacuated.</font>
sdl
Nov 22, 02, 3:33 am
OK, now I *know* that you simply cannot LOSE someone past the security checkpoints in C!
These are small and very contained areas, unlike A...in order to leave them you either turn around and go back out right past the security checkpoint, board a plane, or open an alarmed door onto the tarmac!
The biggest area there has a longish wide straight hall and a single waiting area at the end- you wouldn't lose someone there for more than a few seconds, like if they went into the restroom or something; the others are so tiny that you couldn't get more than 50 feet from security!
I smell an attempt to make it sound like something different happened, and not a repeat of the last go-round-
but I bet it was lack of attention by the scanner to the machine results AGAIN!
To be honest, I'm considering driving to LA vs flying http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif
S
Spiff
Nov 22, 02, 8:42 am
Please do and write your representatives and your airline's president and let them know why you drove.
And this keeps happening at the airport named after the jackass in charge of airport "security". Ironic.
This horse@#$% has got to stop.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sdl:
To be honest, I'm considering driving to LA vs flying http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif
S</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 11-22-2002).]