Newsstand - Airport Screeners Got Job Test Answers

Airport Screeners Got Job Test Answers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3241396,00.html) (no reg) <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Airport Screeners Got Job Test Answers


Thursday October 9, 2003 12:16 AM

By LESLIE MILLER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Airport screeners hired by the government to check baggage for bombs were given most of the answers to the tests they took to qualify for the job, according to an internal Homeland Security Department investigation.

In addition, job applicants were not required to show they could identify dangerous objects inside luggage, a ``critical defect'' in the written tests, according to acting department inspector general Clark Kent Ervin.

``It is extremely disturbing that most of the questions were rehearsed before the final examination, that a number of the questions were phrased so as to provide an obvious clue to the correct answer, and other questions appear to be simplistic,'' Ervin wrote in a letter to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

During classroom training, screeners were given the questions in open-book quizzes and then the answers. The course ended with a closed-book examination of 25 questions. Nineteen of the questions on the final test were identical or virtually identical and three were similar to those on the quizzes, Ervin said. </font>Do you feel "safer" yet?



[This message has been edited by xyzzy (edited 10-08-2003).]

Who cares? These people were hired to provide a sense of security which was not directly correlated to any actual threat which would justify their hiring.

Yet another reason to disband this piece of crap, un-American agency permanently. And throw its scumbag leaders in jail or into China or North Korea where they belong. Comrade Loy and Kim Jong Il would make a terrific team.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Airport Screeners Got Job Test Answers

...and they still failed?!?

havent heard of to many people failing the checked luggage test. This article really seems to focus on the baggage test. And those questions were never present in any of the test we were giving.
.

"The agency is continuing to cross-train passenger screeners." That is truly funny.


Before Washington sends people out to make sure things are being done right, they need to send people out to see what there stupid prodecures have done. They have made all these prodecures but don't seems to understand the impact they've had on travel.

You have people on this forum that would rather fedex or not check their luggage. They've made a shoe policy that just harasses passengers.

Before they send people out to decide on this stuff, they need to make a properly training program, need to make a set of prodecures and test them and find a perfect balance between safety and custom service.

"was charged with a massive task: hiring tens of thousands of government workers in less than a year to replace the poorly trained, poorly paid, privately employed screeners who checked passengers before they boarded airplanes."

They also need to get there act together. They training wasnt great and the people were poorly paid but the screeners did their job correctly that day but ended up being the scape goat for stupid airline and government prodecures.




[This message has been edited by screenerx (edited 10-08-2003).]

And the TSA goons treat US like WE are the bad guys! Go figure.

This is nothing new. Sure they gave us the answers, if you consider going over the test, which was multiple choice, by reading the questions and then the possible answers. One would have to be seriously retarded to fail the test without the overview. Then again, one would have to be seriously uneducated to fail the initial assessment, and at least 70% of those who took it did. Such is the state of affairs in the US. Baggage screening was, for me, the biggest waste of time with their percentage system. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many bags actually get opened?

------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many bags actually get opened?

</font>

Too god@#$% many.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Today's Wall St. Journal has one of the actual multiple-choice questions from the Final Exam for screeners.

Q: Why is it important to screen bags for improvised explosive devices (IEDs)?

1. The IED's batteries could leak and damage other passenger bags.
2. The wires in the IED could cause a short to the aircraft wires.
3. IEDs can cause loss of lives, property and aircraft.
4. The ticking timer could worry other passengers.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Middle_Seat:
Today's Wall St. Journal has one of the actual multiple-choice questions from the Final Exam for screeners.

Q: Why is it important to screen bags for improvised explosive devices (IEDs)?

1. The IED's batteries could leak and damage other passenger bags.
2. The wires in the IED could cause a short to the aircraft wires.
3. IEDs can cause loss of lives, property and aircraft.
4. The ticking timer could worry other passengers.</font>

Yep, thats one of them alright. What the guy did was read the questions and then the answers. He would emphasize answer number 3 to clue in the terminally stupid what the correct answer was. It was that much of a joke. The extent of the baggage training that those I worked with received was this guy administering the test.

------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

[This message has been edited by The Unknown Screener (edited 10-09-2003).]

Uh ... four!

How about "all of the above"? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Bruce

Same situation in Canada. 100% was the standard for our upgrade course in fall 2002 (to bring us "up" to CATSA standards) but the invigilator was more than happy to provide assistance to anyone having difficulty.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CATSA Screener:
Same situation in Canada. 100% was the standard for our upgrade course in fall 2002 (to bring us "up" to CATSA standards) but the invigilator was more than happy to provide assistance to anyone having difficulty.</font>

Were the questions (and answers) equally idiotic and obvious or is that just a US specialty?

What should have the questions been?

The job is extremely easy as it is. If you've done the job, you know what Im talking about.

The worst part of it is the guys/gals up top who make up policies that beyond stupid.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by screenerx:
What should have the questions been?

The job is extremely easy as it is. If you've done the job, you know what Im talking about.

The worst part of it is the guys/gals up top who make up policies that beyond stupid.</font>

Thats true, it is about the stupidest job I ever took. I am glad I am out of that field of "expertise."



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
Were the questions (and answers) equally idiotic and obvious or is that just a US specialty?</font>

The Transport Canada exam of yore was reasonably challenging. The CATSA upgrade test was somewhat easier but not pushover easy. Only problem was the invigilator giving obvious hints. As the others say though, it's not a hard job. The only tricky part about any of these tests is remembering quantities and special procedures and such, eg allowable quantities of liquor, proof limit, quantities of aerosols, exceptions, dealing with human-ashes, VIPs, etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CATSA Screener:

The only tricky part about any of these tests is remembering quantities and special procedures and such, eg allowable quantities of liquor, proof limit, quantities of aerosols, exceptions, dealing with human-ashes, VIPs, etc.

</font>

What's the difference how much alcohol you have as long as it fits into the overhead or under the seat in front of you, and you have the right number of carry-ons?

Speaking of alcohol, they wouldn't let my wife through this summer in YYT with one bottle of homemade wine. Can anyone tell me why that might be, unless its just because it was homemade?

I'd have sat there and drank it, but that's another story.

So based on my experience all the screener has to remember with alcohol is none. Shouldn't be too hard to remember that.

You'd have to ask the people in charge why that is.

If they took your wifes homemade wine, then that was a supervisor call I guess.

Dont truthfully understand the whole liquor thing for carry on but I understand the concern in the belly of the plane.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 1K_From_SNA:
What's the difference how much alcohol you have as long as it fits into the overhead or under the seat in front of you, and you have the right number of carry-ons?

Speaking of alcohol, they wouldn't let my wife through this summer in YYT with one bottle of homemade wine. Can anyone tell me why that might be, unless its just because it was homemade?

I'd have sat there and drank it, but that's another story.

So based on my experience all the screener has to remember with alcohol is none. Shouldn't be too hard to remember that.

</font>

My memory on this is a little hazy but I believe our regs state something like this: a passenger can't carry more than four litres of alcohol, it must be factory sealed with a government label and it can't be more than 80-proof. The proof bit is for flamability reasons. So yeah, homemade wine is a no-go although many screening points don't bother checking. These alcohol regulations have been in effect for years.

It really does not matter if they had the answers or not. After all, the job makes no sense and does not do what it is advertised to do.

&lt;b&gt;The job description should read something like this.&lt;/b&gt;

While working at the TSA, your primary objective is to look good. Your supervisor will guide you in your efforts to hassle fliers and make their life miserable. You will work with thousands of other people that are able to carry out a job that intelligent people realize is a waste of government time and money. To make the traveling public feel good, you will randomly de-shoe, grope, and otherwise invade the privacy of normal citizens. You will attain raises and more benefits based on the number of bags you mangle or inspect.

Though it is possible that we might look for real terrorists, we really do not know who they are, so we will continue to hassle average people to blow smoke up their arse.

You will also check lots of ID cards. It does not matter if they are real or even belong to the person presenting it. Just make sure it matches the ticket they are holding.

You will NOT be responsible for the people outside the secure area who might have bombs. Nor will you be concerned with most airport employees that enter aircraft without inspection. You will not be able to closely inspect items that COULD be used as a weapon. You will be provided with a defined list of dangerous items.

The idea is to harass airline passengers. That's all. We know that a repeat of 9/11 as we know will not happen again based on our efforts, but we do all this anyway.