Practical Travel Safety Issues - ABQ screeners don't know their geometry

At ABQ this week, a screener insisted on turning two of our bags on their sides to go through the x-ray machine. But both bags were taller lying on their sides than sitting straight up! He insisted on knocking our belongings over and accomplished nothing besides making the bags harder to see through.

I only found it annoying because I hate it when these guys grab my bags in the first place, and I had carefully placed all of our carry-ons with the shortest dimension facing up-down so that he wouldn't have to touch them.


At SJC the previous week I had a stare-down with a screener who tried to physically take my purse out of my hands. I held on tight, then asked him through clenched teeth if he wanted me to take my laptop out of the bag. He then tried to pull my laptop out of my hands as I removed it, but I held tight and glared at him hatefully until he quit it and let me place the thing gently in a box myself, as I didn't trust him not to slam it down carelessly. He caught the chill and decided to leave for his break early. Grabbing items out of people's hands is offensive, aggressive, and patronizing.

At ABQ this week, a screener insisted on turning two of our bags on their sides to go through the x-ray machine. But both bags were taller lying on their sides than sitting straight up! He insisted on knocking our belongings over and accomplished nothing besides making the bags harder to see through.

I only found it annoying because I hate it when these guys grab my bags in the first place, and I had carefully placed all of our carry-ons with the shortest dimension facing up-down so that he wouldn't have to touch them.


At SJC the previous week I had a stare-down with a screener who tried to physically take my purse out of my hands. I held on tight, then asked him through clenched teeth if he wanted me to take my laptop out of the bag. He then tried to pull my laptop out of my hands as I removed it, but I held tight and glared at him hatefully until he quit it and let me place the thing gently in a box myself, as I didn't trust him not to slam it down carelessly. He caught the chill and decided to leave for his break early. Grabbing items out of people's hands is offensive, aggressive, and patronizing.

You seem to bring out the best in these screeners.
You don't, by chance, have a tattoo on your forehead that says:
Screw the TSA! Do you?

Ha! I'm afraid I don't have to go out of my way to find "idiotic / abusive screener" stories; these really are the people I encounter as I enter checkpoint after checkpoint.

But I only post here about the particularly annoying or disturbing interactions. The stories I tell here represent about 25% of my screening experiences. It's obvious that us super-frequent-flyers make up the majority of those griping about the wasted money and effort involved in creating this farce of security.

I experienced help from TSA one day at the MSP airport (far right security checkpoint), THis help consisted of seeing if a Dell notebook could fly. In a attempt to get the trays back as soon as possible he selected my tray (with laptop still in it) instead of the 5 empty ones in front of it. He picked it up and turned quickly, it turns out that the laptop could fly for a short distance but does not land well. On impact parts started flying off in different directions. While the TSA person was concerned they were acting as if it was my fault for not getting to it faster. THe irony of this was that TSA procedures in MSP were the cause for the delay after exiting the scanner. That day in the MSP airport they checked my boarding pass and ID when getting into the line and again before entering the scanner and a third time after exiting the scanner, it was this check that allowed me to watch the flying dell. I wunderstand the first 2 checks but the third within 10 feet and 10 seconds of the previous seems to be overkill (or maybe stupid). TO make thsi loang story short we put most of the pieces back in place and the Dell worked. THere were things broken but our company fixed them. :confused:

At ABQ this week, a screener insisted on turning two of our bags on their sides to go through the x-ray machine. But both bags were taller lying on their sides than sitting straight up! He insisted on knocking our belongings over and accomplished nothing besides making the bags harder to see through.


Not to be insulting ;),but the screener was right. Your bags are supposed to be on layed flat.

Can someone other than tsadude who works for TSA clarify? Is the policy that the bags go through with the shortest dimension facing up-down (which would make sense since that makes the bag easiest to see through) or is it that the top of the bag as determined by strap placement faces the side?

My bag is about eight inches tall and twelve inches wide and twenty-six inches long. If you send it through the way I set it, the X-ray goes through eight inches of stuff. If you knock it over like the ABQ guy did, the X-ray goes through twelve inches of stuff.

Can someone other than tsadude who works for TSA clarify? Is the policy that the bags go through with the shortest dimension facing up-down (which would make sense since that makes the bag easiest to see through) or is it that the top of the bag as determined by strap placement faces the side?

My bag is about eight inches tall and twelve inches wide and twenty-six inches long. If you send it through the way I set it, the X-ray goes through eight inches of stuff. If you knock it over like the ABQ guy did, the X-ray goes through twelve inches of stuff.

TSADude is correct. Most people load their bags top to bottom with items setting up on there bottoms and such. So if your bag is standing up, you get a picture of the top of a image/s in a bag and it's not exaclty easy to tell what they look like.

With a bag on it's side, even if thicker, it's much easier to determine what the items are in a bag.

Let me give you a example:

If you ran your bag like you do now and a laptop was present in it, it'd proably be on it's back or latch. We'd only see a small profile of it and it would show up more dense.

At ABQ this week, a screener insisted on turning two of our bags on their sides to go through the x-ray machine. But both bags were taller lying on their sides than sitting straight up! He insisted on knocking our belongings over and accomplished nothing besides making the bags harder to see through.

Can you just clear something up for me with this paragraph? Was a bag check called on your bag, showing it made it harder to see through or did you determine on your own that it was harder to see?

Can you just clear something up for me with this paragraph? Was a bag check called on your bag, showing it made it harder to see through or did you determine on your own that it was harder to see?

There was no bag check called on my bag; this interaction happened before the bags entered the x-ray. There wasn't much in the bags, just clothes and toiletries, so I'm sure they weren't hard to see through either way.

Thanks for your thoughts. It still seems really counter-intuitive that the TSA rule is to turn the bags over even when that presents a longer dimension parallel to the x-ray beam. Now I'll know better how to avoid having the screeners touch my bag.

Now I'll know better how to avoid having the screeners touch my bag.

You are gonna be hard pressed not to have a screener touch "your" bag. Just from what I've read, you will be targeted @ most CP's. You're the kind of pax that makes a screeners day.

Get the "full treatment" much ? :rolleyes:

The stories I tell here represent about 25% of my screening experiences. It's obvious that us super-frequent-flyers make up the majority of those griping about the wasted money and effort involved in creating this farce of security.

I fly 20 days a month, every month (does that make me a "super-duper-frequent-flyer"?) - often going through security 2-3 times a day as bad habits keep me heading outside between flights. I have had exactly 1 frustrating experience in 5 years of flying, and it was due to one particular airport's misguided policy (that has since changed). Perhaps changing your approach or tactics might change your experiences. What we put out there in life often determines what we get back...

Just a thought.

Can someone other than tsadude who works for TSA clarify? Is the policy that the bags go through with the shortest dimension facing up-down (which would make sense since that makes the bag easiest to see through) or is it that the top of the bag as determined by strap placement faces the side?

My bag is about eight inches tall and twelve inches wide and twenty-six inches long. If you send it through the way I set it, the X-ray goes through eight inches of stuff. If you knock it over like the ABQ guy did, the X-ray goes through twelve inches of stuff.
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/airport-security.htm ;)

TSADude is correct. Most people load their bags top to bottom with items setting up on there bottoms and such. So if your bag is standing up, you get a picture of the top of a image/s in a bag and it's not exaclty easy to tell what they look like.

With a bag on it's side, even if thicker, it's much easier to determine what the items are in a bag.



:p :p :p :p

Gradgirl, I can understand your "holier than thou" approach towards the screeners. Some people are just that way. But you need to understand that the screeners see hundreds even thousands of bags every day and most screeners assisting with loading the items on the x-ray belt know which configuration will most likely produce the best results and avoid having the bag needing to be rescanned. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, it doesn't. I'm sure that no screener is intentionally trying to see just how angry they can make you. But keep in mind, if you keep making every little detail into a major scene, you will most likely be remembered, but not in a good sense. I'm not bashing you, just making a comment. You can approach the checkpoint in any manner you see fit. I don't hold a grudge. I only have to put up with it for 30 seconds!

You are gonna be hard pressed not to have a screener touch "your" bag. Just from what I've read, you will be targeted @ most CP's. You're the kind of pax that makes a screeners day.

Get the "full treatment" much ? :rolleyes:

Makes a screener's day? If so many screeners weren't power-hungry, agressive, ineffective idiots this wouldn't be the case. If screeners didn't like to lord their "authority" over pax, this wouldn't be the case.

I will tell you something right now. If the "flying Dell" story posted above had been my PowerBook G4 flying (and landing) that screener would have received the "full treatment" from me. The only thing that pisses me off more than the shoe bull**** is the laptop bull****.

Makes a screener's day? If so many screeners weren't power-hungry, agressive, ineffective idiots this wouldn't be the case. If screeners didn't like to lord their "authority" over pax, this wouldn't be the case.

I will tell you something right now. If the "flying Dell" story posted above had been my PowerBook G4 flying (and landing) that screener would have received the "full treatment" from me. The only thing that pisses me off more than the shoe bull**** is the laptop bull****.

ooooweeee........shaking in my boots.

Don't know where you get the "so many screeners......blah,blah,blah" from, but I do know this. If you step up to the x-ray belt with an attitude, then don't expect anything less in return.....period !

If a screener is in anyway, shape, or form, rude, obnoxious, or "aggressive" with you (without provacation) tell the sup / SM / LEO / AFSD /FSD / Congressman. It is your right you know.

Makes a screener's day? If so many screeners weren't power-hungry, agressive, ineffective idiots this wouldn't be the case. If screeners didn't like to lord their "authority" over pax, this wouldn't be the case.

I will tell you something right now. If the "flying Dell" story posted above had been my PowerBook G4 flying (and landing) that screener would have received the "full treatment" from me. The only thing that pisses me off more than the shoe bull**** is the laptop bull****.
Who's being aggressive? :confused:The screeners want to get you through the line and on your way and that's it. They do not want anymore interaction than you do. GradGirl seems to like pushing buttons and when she's addressed, she's is a victim. I personnally have no problems getting through security as a passenger. I recently went up north to my grandmothers funeral and had nothing but carry on bags filled with alarm type crap. No selectee status and only had to remove my shoes in PIT. No big deal. In and out in about 30 seconds. If you want attention, they will be more than glad to provide it. Your choice. Sometimes the attention is not warrented, but most of you guys seem to love the confrontation that gets you nowheres and eats up your time. The screeners dont care, their on the clock.

ooooweeee........shaking in my boots.

Don't know where you get the "so many screeners......blah,blah,blah" from, but I do know this. If you step up to the x-ray belt with an attitude, then don't expect anything less in return.....period !



If that flying laptop story had happened to me, you can sure as he** bet that you'd get an "attitude" from me. I almost guarantee that I wouldn't be flying that day because I wouldn't leave the checkpoint/supervisor until I had a personal apology from the screener that destroyed MY property, a an apology from the supervisor, an assurance from the screening manager that they (either the at fault screener or the TSA, I don't give a da**) would pay for the damage to MY property, an assurance that the at fault screener would be fired (or at least seriously disciplined), and a report from the LEO present about the damage to MY property.

I'm shaking with rage just thinking about this scenario.

God I hate screeners with attitudes like that.

Are screeners really saying that it's perfectly mannerly and acceptable to take an item out of a person's hands? That's just absurd. If something is sitting on the table, then maybe it makes sense to help feed it into the x-ray, but grabbing something out of my hands is just plain aggressive and rude.

Like I said, most (75%) of my interactions with screeners are completely acceptable in every way, leaving aside the fact that my 4th amendment rights are being trampled when I have to submit to search and seizure without probable cause to suspect me of a crime.

I definitely don't want any attention from screeners; I wish them to stay the hell away from me and my stuff to the greatest extent possible in this monstrous charade.

I can definitely understand the passenger's rage if their laptop was dropped. If it were mine, I'd be totally irate. I had one instance that was Delta's fault. I had to gate check my carry-on and I got to watch it get literally thrown off the plane. It hit the top of their conveyor belt and dropped to the tarmac. I freaked out. Delta's response: "Your luggage is designed to protect its contents. We are not liable for damage to the items inside your luggage." I am sure that most TSA supervisors will help resolve the situation the best that they can. Don't expect them to grovel at your knees begging for forgiveness, but they will help begin the claims and investigation process to help get your computer repaired or replaced.

Honestly, when I was a screener I saw passengers dropping and breaking their own stuff much more frequently than screeners. In my time (18months) I dropped one camera. The passenger wasn't looking and it bounced on one of our floor mats and didn't appear to break. I said, "uh... I just dropped your camera on the floor." He said, "oh, well it looks fine but thanks for telling me." I offered to write down details for a claim but he didn't want to wait around.

Gladgirl,

I won't take anything from anyone's hands. If they place the item on the belt incorrectly, I will stop it and try to adjust it myself (we don't have entry screeners most the time now). I had a few cases where a passengers got upset with me for even trying to do so. I told them why and still they got irate for even touching their stuff. So I ran it like they had it and had to call a bag check because I couldn't see a damn thing clearly in the bag.

Guess who those passengers filed a complaint against? And guess what they put down, harrasment. Thats the kind of crap from passengers that pisses me off. A lot of you assume you know exaclty what to do. Problem is, not ever screener is the same and they like it a certian way. But because it isn't your way, you folks sometimes throw a fit. It could be exaclty by the SOP but a little different and people will still file a complaint.

Instead of automatically assuming that a screener is out to get you, why not assume but ask? Instead a lot of FF's (And yes it is FF's) like to feel a complaint form the minute they get a chance, and leave out the little details and such.





PS I had a real bad day at work.

Screenerx,

I do hope tomorrow is better for you than today was. I have not filed a complaint against a screener except for that one "inappropriate contact" issue that you've read all about elsewhere on this board. I don't file complaints for tiny things. I think it's very good manners of you, screenerx, not to take things out of people's hands.

I am glad that the screeners have clarified the bag placement issue for me. My goal is to put the things on the belt the way you'll want them so that nobody has to do extra work (as a bonus I get the control of handling my own luggage).

I'm shaking with rage just thinking about this scenario.

God I hate screeners with attitudes like that.

I totally agree. If it had been my laptop, I'd blown a gasket too. Screeners must always be aware of what they're doing so things like this horror story don't happen.

What I was trying to convey was if you come to the CP with an attitude of "D*mn I hate these mf'ers, I wish they'd all go to H*ll" then don't expect to get anything less than the same back atcha.

What's the 'ol saying........"use honey, not vinegar".

Believe me a smile and a "Hi, how are ya" will get you thru a hellava lot quicker. I love the interaction of the CP, especially when we get a good natured, fun loving pax coming thru with jokes. Brightens the day. But all it takes is one sour pussed FF who just lost an account, and has already had his/her 3rd Martini coming thru with MAJOR 'tude. F*cks up the whole freakin' process. H*ll yea, you're gonna get the "full treatment" and then some. :rolleyes:

But all it takes is one sour pussed FF who just lost an account, and has already had his/her 3rd Martini coming thru with MAJOR 'tude. F*cks up the whole freakin' process. H*ll yea, you're gonna get the "full treatment" and then some. :rolleyes:

Wow, glad to know you guys base your security screening on such scientific and well-thought-out methods. :rolleyes: Should you be telling us this? Isn't "criteria" supposed to be SSI?

Believe me a smile and a "Hi, how are ya" will get you thru a hellava lot quicker. I love the interaction of the CP, especially when we get a good natured, fun loving pax coming thru with jokes. Brightens the day. But all it takes is one sour pussed FF who just lost an account, and has already had his/her 3rd Martini coming thru with MAJOR 'tude.


TakeScissorsAway,

We don't want to get through quicker. Or at least, I don't. I want to get through with the maximum shreds of dignity I can. Being ordered about, having my belongings taken out of my hands and carelessly slung across tables, undressing at the behest of uniformed government agents, submitting to unnecessary invasions of my body and my property: these things don't put me in a joking mood. The TSA holds this degrading power over me because the U.S. Government thinks I am a criminal, and that's humiliating in the extreme. How are we supposed to take it? Like it's some kind of carnival ride?

I don't drink, and I don't bring outside problems into my checkpoint experiences. It's the checkpoint itself that's the problem. In fact, I'm even pretty good now at shaking the disgust and the degradation off once I'm through. It's the TSA's mission that's the problem, not my attitude.

First of all, no screener is allowed to grab anything from a person's hands unless the screener is reacting in self-defense, the item in question is some sort of weapon and the person is attacking the screener with that weapon. (Self-defense is NOT TSA policy; however, it IS the law. Believe it or not, a screener acting in self-defense may also be fired from TSA.) Otherwise, any screener who grabs something from a person's hands is basically committing assault on the person and is subject to criminal action. (This works BOTH WAYS and applies to passengers as well as screeners, by the way.)

When a person enters a checkpoint and submits his/her property for X-ray examination, the screener should be evaluating whether or not there is anything prohibited or dangerous inside the property. It is the screener's responsibility to make this determination BEFORE the owner regains control of the property. This is why screeners shouldn't find themselves grabbing anything out of anyone's hands because the screener should gain control of the suspected bag BEFORE the owner has a chance to reclaim it. If a screener has control of a bag and the owner attempts to grab the bag from the screener, then the owner is subject to criminal action for interfering with official screening functions at a federal checkpoint. Once a bag has been cleared and returned to the owner, the screening process is completed. Again, the screener cannot grab the bag from the passenger. If the screener believes that there is still something dangerous or prohibited inside the bag after the owner regains possession, then it becomes a matter for a supervisor or screening manager to solve. Of course, the screener is going to have to explain to his/her TSA superiors why he or she lost control of the bag before clearing it.

Seems that some folks are confused about what their rights are. You have to the right to complain about abusive or rude screeners. Please exercise this right so that rude behavior is documented. This will enable the TSA leadership to counsel the screener in question and that screener will either change the behavior or be fired for cause. TSA does not tolerate rude treatment of passengers, but it needs documented evidence before it can take action.

As for inspecting boarding passes, well, a lot of that stems from the goal of catching passenger-selectees at the checkpoint and screening them there rather than at the gate. I know it may seem pretty silly to have to show a boarding pass several times within a span of 10 feet; however, consider the alternative of having to be screened at the gate during the boarding process when the gate agent notices the SSSS on the ticket with no indication of secondary screening from TSA.

Other than that, screening supervisors are required to record certain information for certain incidents, and much of that comes from the boarding pass. You ALWAYS have the right to ask why your personal information is being recorded and how that information is going to be used. You ALSO have the right to take down the name of the supervisor and/or screening manager and follow up on the incident with the local TSA Federal Security Director. This ensures that the supervisor and/or screening manager are acting within their authority and prevents illegal abuse or harassment of passengers.

TSA is a good organization and there are a lot of good people in it. Unfortunately, there are also some rotten apples as there would be in ANY large organization. Customer feedback helps us clean our act and maintain a standard of professional and courteous treatment of people who undergo security screening.

The TSA holds this degrading power over me because the U.S. Government thinks I am a criminal, and that's humiliating in the extreme. How are we supposed to take it? Like it's some kind of carnival ride?

You were treated like a criminal before 9/11 to. Your bags being subjected to x-ray and your body being subjected to a WTMD and a possible wanding were the norm. Where was the outrage? They had no reason to search you, they had no reason to believe because you had a gun you planned on taking over a plane. And I don't care for the invasive search excuse here. You were still being treated like a criminal before 9/11, by being subjected to a search in the first place.

After 9/11 the biggest change to security in my view was the addition of random wanding and bag checks. I personally hate the policy of random wanding but agree with the random bag checks. The most I've found during a random wanding is a little pocket knife, not a real threat in my view but a supervisor brought it up in the briefing the next day why we need to do random wands.

Random bag checks in my view are good, as long as it's a ETD test. IT's quick and it can tell if the bag might have explosives in it or not.

You were treated like a criminal before 9/11 to. Your bags being subjected to x-ray and your body being subjected to a WTMD and a possible wanding were the norm. Where was the outrage? They had no reason to search you, they had no reason to believe because you had a gun you planned on taking over a plane. And I don't care for the invasive search excuse here. You were still being treated like a criminal before 9/11, by being subjected to a search in the first place.

That's a good point, screenerx. In fact, I had exactly the same attitude, looking at screening as a violation of my 4th amendment rights, pre-9/11. Perhaps the pre-9/11 screeners deserved my defiant attitude even more than you guys do because they were poorly trained to interact with the public.

It's not true that the only changes are random wandings and bag checks. The changes I see are pretty major: we have to unpack our fragile laptop computers and send them through the machines without padding, we are frequently forced to various states of undress, the list of prohibited items is a mile and a half long, the x-ray machines are running at higher intensities that destroy even regular speed film, and wanding is orders of magnitude more aggressive. Screeners never touched my undergarments before 2001. Now I feel that being wanded puts me at risk of molestation. I fear punitive wandings if I don't behave in a lemming-like fashion and do everything the TSA tells me to do. Previously all travelers were subject to roughly the same search; now I am subject to more intensive searches than others because I often travel on one-ways or change my tickets the day I travel. Things have gotten much much worse for frequent travelers.

That's a good point, screenerx. In fact, I had exactly the same attitude, looking at screening as a violation of my 4th amendment rights, pre-9/11.

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you asserting that there should be no screening at all because, in your assessment, it violates the 4th Amendment?

If so, I would disagree with this, as I think there is some probable cause for an initial search when attempting to enter the "secure" area.

It's not true that the only changes are random wandings and bag checks.

I didn't state that it's the only change I stated I feel it's the biggest change. Why? Because most people now know how to get through a WTMD without setting it off and random screening (including SSSS) are where people seem to get screened the most.

the x-ray machines are running at higher intensities that destroy even regular speed film, and wanding is orders of magnitude more aggressive

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. My airport handles a lot of professional photographers because of the surrounding area and I can say that about 80 to 90% of them don't have their flim taken around. Why? because it's never been affected. Then you have the regular pax come up and say "Your machines ruined my film last time." I honestly start to wonder if people might be the ones ruining their own flim but don't even know it.

Anecdotal evidence suggests you are a trouble maker, and are drawing attention to yourself with your aggressive attitude. What's deplorable is how you are deiberately creating situations simply for the purpose of being able to complain about them. What's next? ... I shudder to think.....

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you asserting that there should be no screening at all because, in your assessment, it violates the 4th Amendment?

If so, I would disagree with this, as I think there is some probable cause for an initial search when attempting to enter the "secure" area.

"Probable cause" means the totality of evidence suggests to a reasonable person that an individual has committed or intends to commit a crime. Do you mean that because I want to board an airplane, there is a reasonable suspicion that I intend to commit a crime?

Probable cause (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm)

In evaluating probable cause, ‘‘[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’’ (http://tomdelay.house.gov/constitution/hints/amendment4.asp)

However, "stop and frisk" law doesn't seem to require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion, one step below probable cause.
Stop and frisk (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/frisk.htm)

The airport screenings go way beyond any searches we could be subject to if we were just going about our business in our cars or walking down the street. The only reason they are legal is on the tenuous grounds that they are "voluntary". I think air travel should not be considered voluntary; there isn't much of an alternative way to petition your government in DC if you live in Hawaii. In fact, there's a thread in Newsstand about some Alaska residents who are suing on similar claims. Now that ID checks, bag searches, et cetera are creeping into local, regional, and national rail transport, it's even harder to make the claim that travelers give up their privacy voluntarily.


Example of an almost certainly unconstitutional search where there is not probable cause (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/338/kent.shtml)

Here's a photo of 200 speed film said to have been damaged by a CTX-5000 scanner. (http://www.f-stop.org/sample_photograph.htm)

I don't have first hand experience with this, since I use a digital camera. I do, however, have first hand experience of having my laptop damaged by its trip through an x-ray machine with no padding. My backlight bulb was broken and I lost use of it for a week and a half while it was being repaired.

SSSS isn't really a random search, since it's fairly obvious why we get picked for it.

Anecdotal evidence suggests you are a trouble maker, and are drawing attention to yourself with your aggressive attitude. What's deplorable is how you are deiberately creating situations simply for the purpose of being able to complain about them. What's next? ... I shudder to think.....

What situation do you think I deliberately created? As I said, most of my trips through checkpoints are pretty uneventful, but when someone does something like try to pull a bag out of my hands or touch my underwear or sling my computer carelessly across a table, yes, I complain right there and then. I wish all Americans were troublemakers of that sort. Even the TSA people on this board have stated that making complaints about screeners, if those complaints are justified, is a good thing.

Gladgirl,

I thought you meant the x-rays in the checkpoint as far as flim goes. It's pretty made clear to the public, don't check your luggage and flim together. But for some reason people don't get it and blame the TSA for it.

SSSS is a random search in my view because of my experience with it and most passengers. Is uses a critiera sure but not every single person is chosen it seems.

Gradgirl,
The photo that you show is from film that had undergone screening through the checked baggage machines. It is true that the checked baggage machines will harm undeveloped film. If I am not mistaken, that is clearly posted at virtually all checked baggage screening locations. Some screeners even ask before they accept the baggage.
Undeveloped film under 800 speed is not affected by passenger screening x-ray machines. To prove it, I had a personal roll of film place through the x-ray 20 consecutive times. I had other screeners as witnesses. I went and had that roll developed during my lunch break and brought them in. There was no sign of damage whatsoever. I had used 400 speed since I am too cheap to purchase 800 speed film. I may try that someday.

I wish all Americans were troublemakers of that sort.

Good point. If Americans weren't "troublemakers", we'd probably still be a British colony.

That's a good point, screenerx. In fact, I had exactly the same attitude, looking at screening as a violation of my 4th amendment rights, pre-9/11. Perhaps the pre-9/11 screeners deserved my defiant attitude even more than you guys do because they were poorly trained to interact with the public.



The more I think about it, I think the entire civil liberties issue boils down to the fact that the TSA is government and the private screeners were not government. For all their perceived faults, the Argenbrights of the pre-9/11 days were just like us -- private citizens. I dare say that most of us who put Constitution and Liberty above self have had a hard time finding the paper trail (or have been denied access to it or simply been blown off) supporting much of the authorities the TSA and its screeners have assumed.

Gradgirl,
Undeveloped film under 800 speed is not affected by passenger screening x-ray machines. To prove it, I had a personal roll of film place through the x-ray 20 consecutive times. I had other screeners as witnesses. I went and had that roll developed during my lunch break and brought them in. There was no sign of damage whatsoever.

While I appreciate your level of concern being high enough to try the experiment yourself, please remember that one experiment does not constitute proof. The level of x-ray exposure to the film will vary greatly based on its orientation going into the machine, the individual quirks of that specific machine, the individual quirks of the screener operating the machine, i.e., how long they look at it, and the individual sensitivities of that specific roll/brand of film to x-ray radiation.
And (as you noted in the description of your experiment), the effects are cumulative over many scans.

I will continue to request a hand-check of ISO400 or higher film or any other film I expect to be x-rayed more than twice. It's just not worth the risk that a few months down the road I will find irreplacable photographs fogged.

A small fraction of screeners seem to think pax don't have the right to request a hand check of film that is below ISO800. That is untrue, but I usually stick at least one roll of 800+ film in the bag just to provide an excuse.

I guess the "proof" is in the thousands of passengers who fly with their cameras in their carry-on bags or rollaboards, without incident.

My little Canon Elph has a permanent home in my bag, along with a few rolls of film in case I need extra on a trip. I have debated getting one of those lead-lined film bags to keep it in, but after years of full-time flying with only one incident I realized it would be a waste of money.

The one incident: I had a disposable camera that I'd forgotten about; it was left in my bag for well over a year and probably went throught the x-ray machines at the checkpoint hundreds of times. There were some fuzzy spots in the resulting photos when I finally developed it. Perhaps it was caused by the security scanners, perhaps it was just old film at that point, or perhaps it was just the shoddy construction of the disposable that allowed light to leak in. Who knows.

In any case, I'm fanatical about my scrapbooking, but I don't worry about my film.

While I appreciate your level of concern being high enough to try the experiment yourself, please remember that one experiment does not constitute proof. The level of x-ray exposure to the film will vary greatly based on its orientation going into the machine, the individual quirks of that specific machine, the individual quirks of the screener operating the machine, i.e., how long they look at it, and the individual sensitivities of that specific roll/brand of film to x-ray radiation.
And (as you noted in the description of your experiment), the effects are cumulative over many scans.


Do you actually know what you are talking about or learning how to talk out another orifice? Do you work for one of the X-Ray companies such as Smith or Rapidscan?

Here's a photo of 200 speed film said to have been damaged by a CTX-5000 scanner. (http://www.f-stop.org/sample_photograph.htm)

I don't have first hand experience with this, since I use a digital camera. I do, however, have first hand experience of having my laptop damaged by its trip through an x-ray machine with no padding. My backlight bulb was broken and I lost use of it for a week and a half while it was being repaired.

SSSS isn't really a random search, since it's fairly obvious why we get picked for it.

They put the film in checked baggage. Were they too dumb to read the signs?

Here's a photo of 200 speed film said to have been damaged by a CTX-5000 scanner. (http://www.f-stop.org/sample_photograph.htm)

I don't have first hand experience with this, since I use a digital camera. I do, however, have first hand experience of having my laptop damaged by its trip through an x-ray machine with no padding. My backlight bulb was broken and I lost use of it for a week and a half while it was being repaired.


Film should *never* go in checked luggage, which is where the CTX scanners are used. Even if outside of the USA where other methods are used for the scanning of checked luggage (and luggage is encouraged to be locked), film should never go in checked luggage, just as anything else of value (i.e. jewlery, electronics, medication, etc).

As far as the CTX machines go, they are an expensive joke & a waste of money IMHO, with the high false positive rates generated (a significant reason for the unlocked baggage policy here in the United States).

SDF_Traveler

Film should *never* go in checked luggage, which is where the CTX scanners are used. Even if outside of the USA where other methods are used for the scanning of checked luggage (and luggage is encouraged to be locked), film should never go in checked luggage, just as anything else of value (i.e. jewlery, electronics, medication, etc).

SDF_Traveler

Its a good point, I was chatting to a guy who makes baggage handling systems, and that was something he stressed (he's UK based, but the company provides systems around the world). Basically, you may get away with it, you may not, but its a bit of a roulette, which you wouldn't want to take a chance on. Hand baggage x-rays can be powerful enough to damage film, but they don't crank them up that high for normal use, so generally safe to put less sensitive film through.