Practical Travel Safety Issues - Fair warning to my FT friends!

deleted

They need to send the bozos in charge to "regulatory".

disgusting

BS retalition more like it

Winning the hearts and minds of the traveling public, one confiscation at a time.

Is it just timing that TSA loses all their stimulus money and then this happens?

Interesting (and sad) if this comes to fruition.

Ciao,
FH

Ya know what?

Never mind.

Because I really do consider you guys my friends, even those of you who ... well, my username says it all, doesn't it?! :)

OK, some info for you. Couple days ago at my airport, we had a briefing regarding an incident in which a passenger was caught trying to smuggle an oversized toiletry item through the checkpoint on their person. Because of the location and nature of the item, it was quite clear that this was a case of concealment, not just an "oops, left my lotion in my pocket."

During the briefing, we were told such cases in the future will be turned over to regulatory, and passengers who artfully conceal even non-weapon prohibited items (i.e., 8 oz. lotion, not a knife) may face fines for doing so.

I've heard people on here bragging about carrying their toothpaste through the mag in the pockets of their cargo pants, and similar strategies. You may wish to reconsider in the future ... I don't know what kind of fines we're talking here (that's beyond my pay grade) but it's probably going to be in excess of the cost of replacing a $2 or $3 toiletry item! :eek:

What does "turned over to regulatory" mean?

Also, is it considered artful to conceal something by putting it in one's pocket?

Ya know what?

Never mind.

Did you expect us to be jumping up and down for joy over this?

We're attacking the message, not the messenger here. If you can't understand that, well, I don't know what to say.

Also, is it considered artful to conceal something by putting it in one's pocket?

Probably, considering the vast majority of TSOs wouldn't have any (more of a) clue.

What does "turned over to regulatory" mean?Likely to be LE. To be charged with "artful dodging of legitimate screening for harmless objects."

That's actually been the rule for a little while now, at least a month or two, since I first noticed that it was added to the guidance policy regarding civil fines.

To wit:

Enforcement Sanction Guidance Policy (http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/FINALSanctionGuidancev1.12.07.pdf)
C. Other Security Violations by Individuals or Persons
1. Attempt to circumvent a security system, measure, or procedure by the artful concealment of a liquid, aerosol, or gel (other than those permitted). 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(1) — $100-$200

What does "turned over to regulatory" mean?

It means to call the Transportation Security Inspectors to come take over the situation and start an official investigation. The TSIs are TSA's regulatory inspectors. They're the ones who decide on any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and send in the reports to levy the fines.

But y'all will be polite when you bust us, right?

Oops that must have been SSI :D Thanks pmocek for quoting the OP in your post :cool: Funny, I always assumed that this was exactly what the TSA would do if they ever caught someone smuggling a toothpaste through in their underwear... just seems in character for them, and let's face it, the rule's so ridiculous that if they couldn't find a way to enforce it, it would become irrelevant anyway.

What really bugs me though is that this is following announcements that the liquid rule is going to be phased out... or did I misunderstand that?

What does "turned over to regulatory" mean?...It means to call the Transportation Security Inspectors to come take over the situation and start an official investigation. The TSIs are TSA's regulatory inspectors. They're the ones who decide on any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and send in the reports to levy the fines.are the tsi's leos? ;)

These are civil penalties, not criminal fines. Since the address on my DL isn't even my real address, good luck collecting on the $100 :)

I have no plans to alter my smuggling. Nothing to see here.

What really bugs me though is that this is following announcements that the liquid rule is going to be phased out... or did I misunderstand that?

They've been hinting that the liquid rules would be relaxed or phased out later in 2009. I predict that they'll find some reason to maintain them; there will either be a "problem" with the promised technology or they'll announce that some "expert" has made an explosive out of mineral water and mascara. :rolleyes:

I have no plans to alter my smuggling. Nothing to see here.

Seeing they'd record your name details as well, you could end up on the No Fly List, Selectee list or similar ... now that would be fun for a tube of Colgate.

Hmmmm! This must be why at SYR (SYR has a long history, even in TSA terms, of overreacting to non-threats) every male going through the WTMD was being patted down, the morons were X-raying wallets, and the ID checker was extremely concerned that Frederick might not be the same as Freddie*. :rolleyes:
* (Until the pax said he would not answer any more questions, just get a supervisor, and suddenly the ID checker tried to claim she was just making conversation.) Wonder why this agency has < 0 credibility?

It means to call the Transportation Security Inspectors to come take over the situation and start an official investigation. The TSIs are TSA's regulatory inspectors. They're the ones who decide on any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and send in the reports to levy the fines.

IOW, the division of the TSA that managed to damage aircraft by climbing aboard several using a sensitive piece of equipment to hang on to.....

Oops that must have been SSI :D Thanks pmocek for quoting the OP in your post :cool:

^^

I wonder if the OP has heard from headquarters yet.

Seeing they'd record your name details as well, you could end up on the No Fly List, Selectee list or similar ... now that would be fun for a tube of Colgate.

Quite a judgment call, isn't it? We usually fly International C on UA and it's natural to slip the amenity kit toothbrush and tube of Colgate into the pocket while going to and from the lav.

Artful? :td:

I wonder if the OP has heard from headquarters yet.

I doubt it, since none of it was SSI. What's more likely is that she either (a) got frustrated at the comments she was recieving from the FT folks as a result of it, or (b) she was cornered by a member of management at her airport and was told to cease and desist, under the "careless and disparaging statements" clause of the TSA employee conduct regulations.

Her last statement on this thread leads me more to believe the former, but I know of a couple TSOs that've vanished off FT as a result of the latter.

IOW, the division of the TSA that managed to damage aircraft by climbing aboard several using a sensitive piece of equipment to hang on to.....

Yes, the same group of people. Anything having anything to do with regulations and security programs, the TSIs oversee. In that particular instance, there apparently is a requirement on the airlines to secure their planes from outside, unauthorized penetration when they're parked at night, and the TSIs, in an attempt to ensure that they were properly sealed, attempted a penetration test.

And promptly broke some stuff.

the morons were X-raying wallets

A requirement from the TSA.

... the morons were X-raying wallets...


A requirement from the TSA.

Can you elaborate without being disappeared? Why is the wallet X-ray performed so infrequently if it's a requirement? (Same wallet normally passes security at least 2x/week without even coming out of the pocket / Other pax express disbelief that I was late boarding so the security ociffers could X-ray my wallet.)

And, I sure hope OOTPYLTH isn't getting BART syndrome, editing to erase post after post after post. :(

I doubt it, since none of it was SSI. What's more likely is that she either (a) got frustrated at the comments she was recieving from the FT folks as a result of it, or (b) she was cornered by a member of management at her airport and was told to cease and desist, under the "careless and disparaging statements" clause of the TSA employee conduct regulations.




That's never bothered her before:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/910765-today-checkpoint-i-wasnt-there.html

Who was she disparaging, other than perhaps an oblique reference those FTers who admit to smuggling oversized liquids through a checkpoint, if you choose to read her comments as such?

Seeing they'd record your name details as well, you could end up on the No Fly List, Selectee list or similar ... now that would be fun for a tube of Colgate.

The no-fly list over concealed toothpaste and an unpaid fine? I dare them - I'd be in my Congresscritter's office every day and on the phone with CNN and AP until it was resolved.

... or (b) she was cornered by a member of management at her airport and was told to cease and desist, under the "careless and disparaging statements" clause of the TSA employee conduct regulations.

... I know of a couple TSOs that've vanished off FT as a result of the latter.

I hope this is not what happened. Clearly the fools who have told certain TSA employees not to post here have never read their posts and the posts of (alleged) TSA employees on the TSA's own blog. The posters here, even when I'm not in complete agreement with their sentiments, have always been a credit to TSA. Their posts have been civil (polite, even!), humorous on occasion, and informative. Nothing like the TSA employee posts on the TSA blog, which have frequently been both hostile and ignorant. I quit reading the blog because I got sick and tired of reading "if only the PAX would read the rules on the website" - yeah, right!



... and the TSIs... attempted a penetration test.

And promptly broke some stuff....A requirement from the TSA.

Sorry, I honestly don't know where my mind is this morning. Thinking about TSA just brings out the worst in me...:p

I doubt it, since none of it was SSI. What's more likely is that she either (a) got frustrated at the comments she was recieving from the FT folks as a result of it, or (b) she was cornered by a member of management at her airport and was told to cease and desist, under the "careless and disparaging statements" clause of the TSA employee conduct regulations.

Her last statement on this thread leads me more to believe the former, but I know of a couple TSOs that've vanished off FT as a result of the latter.



Yes, the same group of people. Anything having anything to do with regulations and security programs, the TSIs oversee. In that particular instance, there apparently is a requirement on the airlines to secure their planes from outside, unauthorized penetration when they're parked at night, and the TSIs, in an attempt to ensure that they were properly sealed, attempted a penetration test.

And promptly broke some stuff.



A requirement from the TSA.

How much did the TSA pay American Eagle for the damages of the ATR42s? Did the TSA compensate American Eagle for the days the aircraft were grounded (outside air temperature probes are an airworthy item, a minot thing when needing to know for icing conditions or mach limit speed)? When did the TSA apologize for the damage? I missed that press release. Was the TSA aviation security inspector charged with Federal crime for willful damage of those aircraft? Was the TSA aviation security inspector at least fired then?

Or perhaps I should learn the mantra of any TSA employee, "Do as I say not as I do".

Perhaps I'll get lucky and a group of TSA screeners will be trying their hand at operation playbook at a non-part 139 airport that I'm using that day.

How much did the TSA pay American Eagle for the damages of the ATR42s? Did the TSA compensate American Eagle for the days the aircraft were grounded (outside air temperature probes are an airworthy item, a minot thing when needing to know for icing conditions or mach limit speed)? When did the TSA apologize for the damage? I missed that press release. Was the TSA aviation security inspector charged with Federal crime for willful damage of those aircraft? Was the TSA aviation security inspector at least fired then?

How should I know all of that? :P

That's never bothered her before:

Perhaps the proverbial straw, and the proverbial camel...?

Can you elaborate without being disappeared?

Sure.

Near as I can figure (speculation: on) this was changed a couple of years into doing the job, most likely as a result of people complaining about the TSOs (then TSSs) 'rummaging' through folks' wallets (speculation: off).

If the wallet stays in your pocket and you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life.

If you're sent to secondary though, and have to be hand-wanded (and have, like, a key or something in there to make it alarm), or wallet sits low enough in the pocket to be hit during a random pull-aside pat-down, then the wallet would have to be brought out of the pocket and be taken to be x-rayed. We are not, strictly speaking, permitted to do a physical search of someone's wallet unless the x-ray inspection deems there to be a possible threat in the wallet (such as the swiss army card that I had to pull out of one yesterday).

Make a little more sense, now? :D

How should I know all of that? :P



Perhaps the proverbial straw, and the proverbial camel...?



Sure.

Near as I can figure (speculation: on) this was changed a couple of years into doing the job, most likely as a result of people complaining about the TSOs (then TSSs) 'rummaging' through folks' wallets (speculation: off).

If the wallet stays in your pocket and you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life.

If you're sent to secondary though, and have to be hand-wanded (and have, like, a key or something in there to make it alarm), or wallet sits low enough in the pocket to be hit during a random pull-aside pat-down, then the wallet would have to be brought out of the pocket and be taken to be x-rayed. We are not, strictly speaking, permitted to do a physical search of someone's wallet unless the x-ray inspection deems there to be a possible threat in the wallet (such as the swiss army card that I had to pull out of one yesterday).

Make a little more sense, now? :D

Ah, so in spite of the fact my wallet was not x-rayed first, perhaps the TSA screener at FLL looking thru my credit cards during my secondary was a bit out of line?;)

Oh and don't worry about the all the questions I asked you earlier about the wondrous TSA aviation security inspector in Chicago who damaged all those American Eagle ATR42s. The answer is exactly what you were not willing to write. Absolutely fracking nothing other than the initial TSA threat that they were going to fine American Eagle $250k when they had the audacity to tell the press about your brethren TSA inspector's actions.

Ah, so in spite of the fact my wallet was not x-rayed first, perhaps the TSA screener at FLL looking thru my credit cards during my secondary was a bit out of line?

Probably. If it came out in secondary screening, he was supposed to take it to be x-rayed, as opposed to doing a physical search. The TSO-in-question might have considered it more expedient to just do a physical search, or he might've had a hang-up about taking it away from you to be x-rayed.

We had a TSO like that in HSV. He absolutely refused to take the wallet away from the passenger to be x-rayed, regardless of what the procedures said to do. He did physical searches of the wallet every time. He was disciplined for it more than a few times before he finally retired.

Oh and don't worry about the all the questions I asked you earlier about the wondrous TSA aviation security inspector in Chicago who damaged all those American Eagle ATR42s. The answer is exactly what you were not willing to write. Absolutely fracking nothing other than the initial TSA threat that they were going to fine American Eagle $250k when they had the audacity to tell the press about your brethren TSA inspector's actions.

Aircraft in question were actually ERJ-135/140/145 jets, which make up the AE fleet at ORD. Absolutely disgusting what the TSI's did at ORD with the Embraer jets.

The ATR's that AE operates are primarily MIA & SJU based and operate in warm wx markets.

Liquids in pockets artful concealment? That is absolutely ridiculous, but hey, nothing surprises me with the TSA anymore.

I believe it's absolutely disgusting they are able to issue "civil fines" with no real recourse for appeal. Sure, an appeal process exists, but it might as well be called "kangaroo court" between "SSI" and "secret rules".

SDF_Traveler

Sure.

Near as I can figure (speculation: on) this was changed a couple of years into doing the job, most likely as a result of people complaining about the TSOs (then TSSs) 'rummaging' through folks' wallets (speculation: off).

If the wallet stays in your pocket and you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life.

...
Make a little more sense, now?



Sorry, no. I wasn't clear enough in my original post. The WMTD occifer was patting down males that hadn't alarmed at the WMTD. So "...you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life..." has been discontinued at SYR. When the wallet is "discovered" during the patdown, then the insistence on X-raying it, which your post kind of explains.
The mouth breathing 2 striper, who at SYR alone, is considered a supervisor and not a lead by the cluster of clowns staffing this ridiculous rodeo, was determined that this is happening all across the country "due to a recent change in policy". Since he probably never gets beyond a 10 mile circle around SYR, and I've never seen it at any other airport, or read any of the complaints such intrusive idiocy is bound to spawn on this board, I'll attribute this sad experience to another SYR overreach.
Amazing thing is, the SYR airport authority has publicly acknowledged that they need to make major changes to recover passenger traffic, but think they can do this by just luring a fast food restaurant to the airport. Got a choice? Go ROC or ALB. :mad:

i think i should report to police the next time i find something missing in my bag then and the tsa tag in there.

The WMTD occifer was patting down males that hadn't alarmed at the WMTD. So "...you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life..." has been discontinued at SYR. When the wallet is "discovered" during the patdown, then the insistence on X-raying it, which your post kind of explains.

It hasn't been discontinued. I even mentioned it, as I'll quote below, with the bold for emphasis-

If you're sent to secondary though, and have to be hand-wanded (and have, like, a key or something in there to make it alarm), or wallet sits low enough in the pocket to be hit during a random pull-aside pat-down, then the wallet would have to be brought out of the pocket and be taken to be x-rayed.

However, at SYR, it seems that they choose to simply have the WTMD operator do the pat-down instead of going over to the fish bowl to do the same thing. It's permissible, and actually fairly common - we do the same thing here in HSV.

What I was specifically referring to when I wrote "you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life" was if you go through the WTMD, don't alarm, and don't get pulled over for the pat-down -- i.e.; you walk through, then walk on down the row and pick up your stuff and leave without ever being stopped by the WTMD operator or the HHMD operator.

The mouth breathing 2 striper, who at SYR alone, is considered a supervisor and not a lead by the cluster of clowns staffing this ridiculous rodeo, was determined that this is happening all across the country "due to a recent change in policy". Since he probably never gets beyond a 10 mile circle around SYR, and I've never seen it at any other airport, or read any of the complaints such intrusive idiocy is bound to spawn on this board, I'll attribute this sad experience to another SYR overreach.

Well, he's right about one thing, and wrong about one thing. It is happening all over the country - or, at least, should be. He's wrong, however, about it being a recent change in policy. That's been policy for a number of years now.

(Incidentally, he might have been in the role of acting-supervisor, which a LTSO would be if the STSO was off the floor. If the STSOs at lunch or something, and you ask to speak to "the supervisor," then the LTSO is the one who you'll speak to)

It hasn't been discontinued. I even mentioned it, as I'll quote below, with the bold for emphasis-



However, at SYR, it seems that they choose to simply have the WTMD operator do the pat-down instead of going over to the fish bowl to do the same thing. It's permissible, and actually fairly common - we do the same thing here in HSV.

What I was specifically referring to when I wrote "you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life" was if you go through the WTMD, don't alarm, and don't get pulled over for the pat-down -- i.e.; you walk through, then walk on down the row and pick up your stuff and leave without ever being stopped by the WTMD operator or the HHMD operator.



Well, he's right about one thing, and wrong about one thing. It is happening all over the country - or, at least, should be. He's wrong, however, about it being a recent change in policy. That's been policy for a number of years now.
...

Interesting, thanks for the info. I never would have equated pat down every same sex pax as any sort of random selection. I guess the reason it may be happening all over the country, but I never experience it, is because the typical airport security circus, if they choose to antagonize pax in this manner, does it only rarely. At antagonize all pax to the max SYR, however, I suppose a random pat down = every same sex non WTMD alarming pax gets a pat down.
Give me no TSA ROC anyday. :mad:

Can you elaborate without being disappeared? Why is the wallet X-ray performed so infrequently if it's a requirement? (Same wallet normally passes security at least 2x/week without even coming out of the pocket / Other pax express disbelief that I was late boarding so the security ociffers could X-ray my wallet.)

And, I sure hope OOTPYLTH isn't getting BART syndrome, editing to erase post after post after post. :(

I'm pretty sure that its supposed to be x-rayed if you bypass the wmd because you need a full body pat down. It's also supposed to x-rayed if you alarm while walking through the wmd and it sets oh the hand wand alarm later. If you didn't fall within either of these categories the TSO probably made an effort to go above and beyond. He probably had a bad feeling about you. Did you say or anything that would irk him or seem abnormal?

...Near as I can figure (speculation: on) this was changed a couple of years into doing the job, most likely as a result of people complaining about the TSOs (then TSSs) 'rummaging' through folks' wallets (speculation: off).

If the wallet stays in your pocket and you don't alarm the WTMD, then all's well and you go on ahead with your life.

Interesting. In the early days, I used to put my wallet through the Xray. Then a TSO at LAX T1 told me that not to unless there was something that would set off the detector. And I haven't put it through since.

Then a TSO at LAX T1 told me that not to unless there was something that would set off the detector. And I haven't put it through since.

Sounds like customer service to me; like an attempt to help ensure you stay in contact with your wallet, more than anything else.

I'm pretty sure that its supposed to be x-rayed if you bypass the wmd because you need a full body pat down. It's also supposed to x-rayed if you alarm while walking through the wmd and it sets oh the hand wand alarm later. If you didn't fall within either of these categories the TSO probably made an effort to go above and beyond. ....

Precisely. Your first two constructs align exactly with my observations and experience. TSO's going "above and beyond"? ... While it's hard to determine why somone would feel a need to increase the level of useless and pointless harassment at an airport check-point, I personally feel such action to be unappreciated, unnecessary, and unacceptable. (There's a connection here with a thread a while back where someone had observed at SLC, I believe, random patdowns of pax who had cleared the WTMD. IIRC, OOTPYLTH stated that this was a new SOP.)

...He probably had a bad feeling about you. Did you say or anything that would irk him or seem abnormal?...

Hmmmm. You seem to be saying that TSO patdowns will be dispensed if a pax attitude is not acceptable, even if the WTMD does not alarm and there's nothing to conjure or imagine from the X-ray image. Surely it can't be so?

Actually the teenage boy behind me was also patted down, even though his mother was clearly aiding and abetting the stupidity with her "anything for security" attitude. Hence my conclusion, just another SYR overreach, (Remembering how, just after the Glasgow car bomb attempt, SYR set up orange barrels on the terminal road to force a single lane of traffic and then required drivers caught in this mess to drive right by the terminal without stopping. :rolleyes:)

Anyone else want their country back yet? :(

Sounds like customer service to me; like an attempt to help ensure you stay in contact with your wallet, more than anything else.

Why does this "customer service" go out the window if a pax is patted down for no reason (no alarm at the WTMD) then? Why the sudden fixation on a wallet that can't even alarm the WTMD?
My approach at SYR, if I must fly out of there, before they return to "normalcy", put my wallet in the backpack, let them conjure up something else to harass me over.

Anyone else want their country back yet? :(

No, now that it's FUBAR you can keep it. I've got Oz. ;)

Seriously, I'm saddened by what my native country has become, and I wouldn't want to live there anymore.

Why does this "customer service" go out the window if a pax is patted down for no reason (no alarm at the WTMD) then?

Because, in the scenario the other guy described, it happened prior to him coming through the WTMD.

There are no directives stating that 100% of all wallets must be x-rayed, 100% of the time. There are, however, non-negotiable circumstances where it is required, and all of them are associated with secondary screening (be it HHMDs, BIPDs, or FBPDs).

He hadn't come through the WTMD yet, so it didn't have to be x-rayed — i.e.; "Here, man, hang onto this. Just put it back in your pocket. Don't want to run the risk of it disappearing."

Once we do hit one of those circumstances, however, where it must be x-rayed, then we have no more choice in the matter. There is no discretion, there is no opt-out in the name of customer service, there is no personal choice in the affair. If it must be submitted for x-ray inspection, then it must be submitted for x-ray inspection.

Unless you're that guy I wrote about earlier who worked at HSV, who absolutely positively refused to do it.

My approach at SYR, if I must fly out of there, before they return to "normalcy", put my wallet in the backpack, let them conjure up something else to harass me over.

That'll work just fine. TSA actually recommends you do that (as per the IN-OUT-OFF stuff).

There are no directives stating that 100% of all wallets must be x-rayed, 100% of the time. There are, however, non-negotiable circumstances where it is required, and all of them are associated with secondary screening (be it HHMDs, BIPDs, or FBPDs).

Dean, are the policies you described specific to wallets, or do they apply to any items felt by TSA staff through the clothing of someone who is searched?

If they're specific to wallets, how is "wallet" defined? If I have a bunch of personal documents enclosed in something that is not considered by TSA to be a wallet, will that packet be subject to the same policies as it would be were it enclosed in something you consider to be a wallet?

If these policies are wallet-specific, it seems to me that people who value their privacy should empty their wallets into their pockets prior to a TSA search.

Dean? Can you provide any more detail about this wallet policy? It seems to me that if wallets cause extra hassle and loss of privacy, people should replace them with something similar that is not a wallet or simply empty their wallets' (non-metallic) content into a pocket.

Dean? Can you provide any more detail about this wallet policy? It seems to me that if wallets cause extra hassle and loss of privacy, people should replace them with something similar that is not a wallet or simply empty their wallets' (non-metallic) content into a pocket.

I've never had a wallet problem because I tuck it well inside a compartment on my bag - and my wallet could best be described as 'George Constanza' stuffed. Wallet stays in the bag before approaching the checkpoint, then only comes out afterward so I can put my ID back.

I've never had a wallet problem because I tuck it well inside a compartment on my bag [...]. Wallet stays in the bag before approaching the checkpoint, then only comes out afterward so I can put my ID back.

That's fine until you're in an unfamiliar airport, something -- likely security staff -- distracts you, and while you're looking the other way for a few seconds, a thief picks up your bag on the other side of the belt and calmly walks away with it.

I and many people keep cash and documents in our wallets because we want to be absolutely sure we do not part with them. There's no way I'm going to voluntarily send it down the x-ray belt.

I'm still very curious if the policy Dean described applies to anything in pockets or just certain items, and if the latter, which ones?

Sorry, Phil, didn't check it for a little while~

Dean, are the policies you described specific to wallets, or do they apply to any items felt by TSA staff through the clothing of someone who is searched?

The latter, though there are some very specific stuff that's exempted from having to be x-rayed if it's discovered during the search (the examples given by TSA amount to things such as paper clips or loose coins), in which case they would receive a physical/visual inspection.

Everything else - pens, wallets, a pack of cigarettes, etc etc - have to go through the x-ray.

Everything else - pens, wallets, a pack of cigarettes, etc etc - have to go through the x-ray.

What about cash, passports, licenses, credit cards, insurance cards, airline tickets, financial records, and personal correspondence?

No, no, no, no, no, no, maybe, maybe.

By themselves? No.

When I think of 'financial records' though, I'm not exactly thinking of something you can keep in your pocket~ I'm seeing, like, a portfolio with a tidy (or significant, dependent upon who you are!) stack of papers inside. Since you should have been directed to put something like that through the x-ray before even coming through the WTMD (why you wouldn't have it in your carry-on anyway, though, I wouldn't know~) in the first place, however, I consider that one kind of moot.

Same goes for personal correspondence. If it's a piece of paper all by itself? No. If it's several of them folded up and in an envelope, then yeah, it'd be taken to be x-rayed. Even a single piece of paper folded up in an envelope, though, is easily and thoroughly cleared with a physical search.

Everything else - pens, wallets, a pack of cigarettes, etc etc - have to go through the x-ray.

What about cash, passports, licenses, credit cards, insurance cards, airline tickets, financial records, and personal correspondence?

No, no, no, no, no, no, maybe, maybe.

By themselves? No.

Okay, what if they're not by themselves, but wrapped in a piece of leather or nylon?

When I think of 'financial records' though, I'm not exactly thinking of something you can keep in your pocket~ I'm seeing, like, a portfolio with a tidy (or significant, dependent upon who you are!) stack of papers inside.

I'm talking mainly about records that describe financial transactions I have made with other parties and with my credit union. Typically, we'd call these receipts and ATM slips, but they're still financial records, they're things I'd like to keep in my posession, and they're all my business, not TSA's.

Same goes for personal correspondence. If it's a piece of paper all by itself? No. If it's several of them folded up and in an envelope, then yeah, it'd be taken to be x-rayed. Even a single piece of paper folded up in an envelope, though, is easily and thoroughly cleared with a physical search.

I meant this as a kind of catch-all for other paperwork that I might carry in my pocket and that I do not want to share with some bag inspector.

These are all things that I'd rather not part with, which is why I typically carry them on my person, usually in something I loosely refer to as a "wallet". I don't want my wallet or its contents out of my sight.

I think it's unreasonable for TSA to require an x-ray of my wallet, assuming that it doesn't contain metal. Any non-metallic item that I or anyone else really wants to carry through your checkpoint undetected that is small enough to be hidden in my wallet (or in the sole of my shoe) could -- and would -- be concealed in my armpit, in my mouth, under my testicles, between my buttocks or in my rectum. You simply cannot prevent those items from being taken aboard unless you perform body cavity searches.

X-raying wallets makes no more sense than x-raying shoes does.

How much did the TSA pay American Eagle for the damages of the ATR42s? Did the TSA compensate American Eagle for the days the aircraft were grounded (outside air temperature probes are an airworthy item, a minot thing when needing to know for icing conditions or mach limit speed)? When did the TSA apologize for the damage? I missed that press release. Was the TSA aviation security inspector charged with Federal crime for willful damage of those aircraft? Was the TSA aviation security inspector at least fired then?

IIRC, American Eagle was told to eat the repair cost and shut up if they didn't want to get hit with a number of major fines.

The entire DHS is out of control and needs to go.

what type of major fines. Im sorry but to me that sounds like blackmail and making a terroistic threat

Come on people. Is anyone really worried? :confused:

Come on people. Is anyone really worried? :confused:

Worried about TSA screeners who can arbitrarily decide that some harmless item* you've got is on a top-secret list of prohibited items, confiscate it, and then fine you for "artfully concealing it" in your carry-on bag. No, why should anyone worry about that?? :rolleyes:

*Leather bookmark (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/356014-tsa-saves-us-bookmark.html), water for infant formula (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/808833-no-water-allowed-infant-formula.html), frying pan (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11082938-post16.html), battery pack (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/850332-tsa-pats-self-back-confiscating-homemade-battery-pack.html), gel-packs for breast milk, solid deodorant, t-shirt...

what type of major fines. Im sorry but to me that sounds like blackmail and making a terroistic threat

IIRC, the airline was in violation of some regulation regarding keeping aircraft doors locked, even when parked away from the terminal. That was the reason that the TSI was trying to get into the planes, even though he damaged the aircraft in the process of trying to gain entry to the aircraft.

So, the airline could've been fined for security violations, and then the airline could've countersued TSA for damaging its aircraft. At that point, it's probably easier to just say that the fines offset the damages and move on.

IIRC, the airline was in violation of some regulation regarding keeping aircraft doors locked, even when parked away from the terminal. That was the reason that the TSI was trying to get into the planes, even though he damaged the aircraft in the process of trying to gain entry to the aircraft.

So, the airline could've been fined for security violations, and then the airline could've countersued TSA for damaging its aircraft. At that point, it's probably easier to just say that the fines offset the damages and move on.

I look forward to my next meeting with a TSA security inspector or even a TSA screener who wants to learn what he (and can't do) while outside of a sterile area.

IIRC, the airline was in violation of some regulation regarding keeping aircraft doors locked, even when parked away from the terminal. That was the reason that the TSI was trying to get into the planes, even though he damaged the aircraft in the process of trying to gain entry to the aircraft.

So, the airline could've been fined for security violations, and then the airline could've countersued TSA for damaging its aircraft. At that point, it's probably easier to just say that the fines offset the damages and move on.

My BS meter just pegged and broke from that comment. felony willful negligence and damage to private property is legal, sorry that only BS TSA would pull out of its butt like its other stupid rules and fantasy theories on threats

My BS meter just pegged and broke from that comment. felony willful negligence and damage to private property is legal, sorry that only BS TSA would pull out of its butt like its other stupid rules and fantasy theories on threats

Under that same theory, though, it's possible that the airline broke some law by not properly securing their aircraft.

Sure, the airline could've taken the TSA to court, and perhaps even won. But usually, the only people who really win in lawsuits are the lawyers, who get paid no matter who wins. Not to mention dragging the whole incident out for months (years?) in the courts. This is why people settle out of court ... it's faster and cheaper than, y'know, actually winning.

Interesting. In the early days, I used to put my wallet through the Xray. Then a TSO at LAX T1 told me that not to unless there was something that would set off the detector. And I haven't put it through since.My last three times through CDG I was told to take out my wallet and run it through the xray. And they're not even TSA.
:mad:

Worried about TSA screeners who can arbitrarily decide that some harmless item* you've got is on a top-secret list of prohibited items, confiscate it, and then fine you for "artfully concealing it" in your carry-on bag."Only if I let them, and that is not likely to occur".