gingersnaps

Is private screening the answer to airport woes? Based on testimony from Department of Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth, the answer is NO. Roth testified:

The answer is not private screeners. The answer is not abolishing the TSA. TSA Administrator offered a tepid response to the Roth’s testimony, “This was not a deliberate test of the entire system”. A simulated bomb enters the sterile area after the AIT fails to detect it OR a screener fails to detect the bomb? What reliable system, remains in effect beyond the checkpoint? The simulated bomb would have made it onto an aircraft.
Neffenger, continued with his testimony. He identified a root cause of screening failures.

TSA Leadership effectiveness was measured on a disproportionate focus on wait times (speed) at the expense of security! Given this disproportionate focus is there any wonder why Managed Inclusion was created? Given that disproportionate focus, is it any wonder TSA continues Managed Inclusion? Do not be fooled that TSA has ended Managed Inclusion; TSA spokesman Mike Englund:

Furthering the concerns about TSA Leadership is found in Roth’s testimony. Roth has stated that TSA disagrees with OIG results, even when those results match the testing conducting by the TSA. Roth also stated Rebecca Roering, a TSA Official at MSP, is on record as stating “TSA has hired into leadership positions a number of former Airline Executives and others who place more emphasis on Customer Service and passenger wait times than on security and detection rates.”

Can it be expected that TSA Leadership will flip a switch and instantly change from its disproportionate focus on efficiency? Is the continued use of Managed Inclusion evidence of where the focus remains? Does TSA Leadership need an overhaul?

chollie

The buck stops at the top.

No sane person could possibly accuse John Pistole of emphasizing customer service or even human dignity.

To address your final questions: the current presence on staff of Roering, who just lied through her teeth, indicates it will be business as usual.

Unless she's referring specifically to the Pre program and is suggesting that this is a weaker form of security to make life easier for pax and not an equally effective form of security appropriate to people who have undergone a background check that is immediately more current than the checks of the screeners on the job.

I've seen zero evidence to suggest that there's a link between Red Team failures and TSOs getting sloppy because they are trying to hurry pax through. One would think something that pervasive would be hard to keep from HQ - and that the Red Team would likely notice it.

Boggie Dog

I think the entire TSA Security Model is flawed. Should passengers be screened? Absolutely, as well as airport workers. The focus should be on willowing out the higher threat individuals by using a basic screening for all and increasing screening for those who require extra attention. Screeners should be civilian employees with federal oversight. That way they can be fired at will unlike the mess we have today. Screening should be soley used to find WEI and not water, jelly, cupcakes, embossed purses or the like. That is TSA's biggest failing in my opinion, an organization that really has no idea what it should be doing. TSA is a ship without a rudder making way with full steam.

tanja

One of the bigest issues with TSA is their communication with people. They have to stop barking, be rude, treat people like criminals.
All they do is their on power trip.
And on that they will not get respect at all.

Xyzzy

Oh - just what we need -- another layer. I guess we'll have dogs at every checkpoint now t...

gingersnaps

What did Rebecca Roering lie about?

First, Red Team testing is not the same as the OIG testing. That was made very clear during a different Congressional hearing.

Second, and more importantly, the TSA Administrator admitted that TSOs felt pressure to hurry based on the same metrics driven attitude that influenced TSA leadership.

petaluma1

Except it's supposed to be Managed Inclusion III:

Mike England and David Castelveter might need to talk to each other to set their stories straight.

A perfect example of why the TSA needs to go away.

chollie

Until relatively recently, TSA 'leadership' was John Pistole. John Pistole didn't come from an airline executive suite, he introduced the gropes, underwent one himself (allegedly) and said it was uncomfortable and invasive, but necessary. IIRC, it was on his watch that the NoS became the primary screening method (contrary to what previous TSA leader Nappy had promised). There were assurances that the NoS wouldn't slow the process down, although it was obvious from the beginning that walking through the WTMD, possibly followed by a wanding, was much faster than assuming and holding the position in the NoS, often followed by an invasive grope.

In short, John Pistole made it perfectly clear throughout his tenure that speed and pax comfort were not his concern.

If the fast-talking spokeswoman is hinting that the Pre program, billed as offering the pax an 'expedited' checkpoint experience, has led to TSOs failing to do their job properly, perhaps she could provide supporting data that the failures are greater in Pre lanes or at airports with Pre because TSOs are focused on speeding the process. If there were a grain of truth in what she's saying, she would be able to demonstrate a corresponding pattern of better and worse failure rates.

Neffenger sounds like his number one focus right now is improving test scores. I don't think right now he cares if pax wait 45 minutes in line and every single one gets a full-body grope. He just wants his numbers to look good. There's probably a very generous bonus involved, as well as a major pay rise to sweeten his retirement.

gingersnaps

You do not seem to understand who is who.

Rebeca Roering IS NOT A SPOKESWOMAN for TSA. She is a TSA Manager and whistleblower against TSA. She works at MSP.

chollie

Apologies (red face).

Nevertheless, what I posted is true. For her to suggest that John Pistole (or Nappy or Hawley) were remotely concerned about the 'customer experience' is ridiculous. Pistole, in particular, is on record making it clear that security concerns trumped any concern for pax comfort or dignity.

cestmoi123

I'll believe TSA leadership actually cares about security when they:

1. Tell checkpoint staff "if it's not a firearm, an explosive, or an incendiary, it's none of your business. We're not going to waste our time and distract our focus by trying to be the drug/human trafficking/credit card fraud/whatever police."

2. Tell everyone "the liquids threat and the shoe threat were wildly overblown, so we're not going to waste time and focus on people's water bottles or making them take off their shoes."

3. Tell everyone "the full body scanners catch some things that metal detectors don't, but they're also deeply flawed, so we're going to only use them on a small randomly selected portion of the flying public, to ensure that someone trying to sneak something through the checkpoint knows there's a chance they'll go through one, but at the same time eliminating the need to subject large numbers of people to them."

Boggie Dog

Don't wait up.

gingersnaps

In the context of Roering's statement, and in the context of her whistle blowing against TSA at MSP and another Manager at MSP who is a whistleblower; I believe Roering was speaking of Local TSA Officials - particular Federal Security Directors (FSD) and such.

-------------------------------------------------------------


As for Pistole, he attempted to follow international standards regarding knives. This was rejected by the public. He also introduced Managed Inclusion - which is still in operation. Managed Inclusion is designed to pull the unvetted from standard screening lines and cram them into the Precheck screening line. He also attempted to require airport operators to "guard" exit lanes - airlines and airport operators sued and complained.

It can not reasonable be presumed that the 95% failure developed overnight when Pistole left the agency. It is not reasonable to presume that an "Acting" TSA Administrator should have been held accountable for the 95% failure rate.

The more reasonable explanation is that the 95% failure is persistent with some degree of variances.

The more reasonable explanation is that under Pistole, that local airport TSA management developed the attitude of speed over security developed.

gingersnaps

What would you provide to demonstrate that the shoe threat and liquids threat were "wildly overblown"?

chollie

The failure rate didn't go from a historical 10% to 95% 'overnight'. IIRC, it has always been unacceptably high and it simply got higher.

I suspect some of the problem is the 'consistent inconsistency' that allows every FSD and to some extent, every screener, to set his/her own rules. I think that much-lauded inconsistency is also behind problems like red team failures. Among other things, each FSD (and lower ranks) can decide how best to handle high volumes of pax. They can invent and implement their own variations of 'managed inclusion' and 'random selection'. The locals can set specific targets of emphasis (in the past, this included profiling by race and dress or specifically highlighting things like snowglobes or even LGAs - something that a previous TSA administrator has since said could have been allowed even during his tenure.

Downsides to this 'anything goes' approach are that HQ doesn't really have a clue what's up with day-to-day operations at most airports and the agency is weaker because in a well-run agency, pilot projects would be limited to certain airports, documented, reviewed, and recommended as standard everywhere if appropriate - or rejected if they seemed to jeopardize security in any way.

Pistole? The man who introduced the grope that was, by intent, designed to be invasive and uncomfortable. By his own description, if you have had a grope that was not invasive and uncomfortable, you have had a TSO who was not performing his/her duties and who was contributing to red team failures.

Was that TSO rushing through the grope for the pax's sake? Or because even TSOs get tire of kneeling with their faces in strangers crotches all day long?

Local airport management (and local checkpoint management) at some airports may have prioritized speed over thoroughness, but that was not the point of Pre or Managed Inclusion. They were supposed to separate the marginally more trusted travellers who had already gone a background check from those who are slightly less trustworthy because they are complete unknowns, thus making it easier for screeners. It's hard to be on 100% red alert for every pax, every time - especially when you're also on your cellphone and indulging in personal conversations while you are working. Theoretically, TSOs could rotate through 'light' Pre duty and 'red alert' ordinary lanes - not unlike giving sniffer dogs a rest.

Perhaps her comments are true for MSP; I hardly think she, or indeed, anyone at TSA HQ, can say at this moment with absolute certainty what is causing TSOs to fail tests. Personally, I think TSOs talking on their cellphones or engaging in personal conversations while on duty at the checkpoint is a huge distraction and should be addressed.

Slightly OT: there's something almost surreal about standing in 'the position' while a TSO kneeling in front of you with their face inches from your privates carries on a conversation with another TSO nearby. Perhaps TSA has more faith in its screeners to be able to multi-task without losing effectivity.