You know, the popular thing today is to chant "support the troops." Yet I can remember when this wasn't always the case as recently as 10 years ago.
BS. Bart, you've apparently fallen under the mistaken belief that the world began on 9/11. We've been supporting the troops for a lot longer than the past 10 years. I was on active duty during the first Gulf War, and my shipmates and I felt nothing but support from the American people during that little skirmish. Moreover, the last time I felt any disrespect was in 1971, when my career began.
If you felt disrespected before 1999, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
I'm curious what the rest of the story is. The supervisor clearly committed assault and should have been charged. What you're saying is not proof that TSA condones this type of assault.
Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove here. If the TSI damaged property, then he should he held accountable. Seems to me that you're a bit unclear. Who said he damaged the temperature probe? Was he inspecting it? And if so, did he inspect it correctly?
Your first question. Are you sure it was the Department of Justice acting on its own with absolutely no request from the TSA to intervene?
TSA supervisor defended in worker assault case
Dallas: Justice Dept. says he has immunity in handling of subordinate
12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, October 9, 2007
By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News mgrabell@dallasnews.com
The Justice Department says a Dallas Love Field security screener should be immune from prosecution on a charge that he assaulted a subordinate on the job. And last month, the government asked a federal judge to step into the misdemeanor case.
The case involves a February incident in which a Transportation Security Administration screener told police that her supervisor grabbed her arm, turned her around and held her in place during an argument over how to handle an upset passenger.
The Justice Department argues in court documents that the supervisor was acting "in the scope of his employment ... under the color of federal law."
"That's outrageous," said Cris Soulia, a TSA screener and representative for the southwest region of the American Federation of Government Employees. "Nowhere have I read where we are allowed to lay our hands on anybody outside of normal screening functions. We don't detain people. We're not law enforcement."
While TSA screeners are allowed to pat down passengers to search for explosives and other weapons, they rely on police to detain passengers and make arrests. It's unclear what authority a supervisor has to touch another screener.
Spokeswomen for the Justice Department and the TSA declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
But Mr. Soulia said he wasn't surprised that the government is taking the supervisor's side.
"It's just the way that management takes care of their own and not their employees, not the front-line screeners," he said. "And people wonder why we need a union."
Since the creation of the TSA in 2001, the federation of government employees has been fighting in court and on Capitol Hill to get collective bargaining rights for screeners.
But while the TSA allows screeners to unionize, the agency has said a collective bargaining arrangement would inhibit the agency's ability to adapt to changing security needs.
TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said the agency looks after all its employees.
"Every case is different," she said. "Certainly we look at things with an unbiased eye."
The Love Field incident described in court documents started when a passenger passed through a security checkpoint carrying a bottle of water. TSA screeners told her she couldn't bring it through, and the woman walked out of the security area to finish her water, according to a police report.
She then became irate, yelling and crying, after TSA screeners told her she had to go through security again, police said.
The acting screening manager, James Smith, 62, was called over to talk to the passenger.
Julia Blackburn, a lead TSA screener, told police that she then tried to tell Mr. Smith what happened but that he told her, "You need to go over there and do your job." She said he then grabbed her by the arm and held her.
Ms. Blackburn, 60, waited a week to report the incident out of fear of retaliation, she told police.
The Justice Department alleges in federal court documents that Ms. Blackburn interrupted Mr. Smith's conversation with the passenger.
"At all times, Mr. Smith's actions in communicating with [Ms. Blackburn] were authorized by law and were necessary and proper," Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine A. Miller wrote in court documents. "Mr. Smith believed that his conduct supervising [Ms. Blackburn] was justifiable under the circumstances."
Ms. Miller argued that the misdemeanor assault citation should be handled in federal court instead of municipal court because there is "interest in preventing the harassment of federal officials by disgruntled employees through the filing of criminal complaints with state law enforcement agencies."
Ms. Blackburn has not responded to the request to move the case into federal court, and no hearing date has been set.
Neither Mr. Smith nor Ms. Blackburn returned calls seeking comment.
While the TSA is a relatively new agency, it's not unusual for the Justice Department to step into criminal cases or lawsuits involving federal employees on the job, said Gony Goldberg, assistant general counsel for the federation of government employees.
Before intervening, the department will usually evaluate the case on its own to determine whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment, she said.
Courts have split in previous cases alleging an assault on the job.
"Some courts have held that the assault is not within the scope of employment," she said. "Some courts have held that it is within the scope of employment based on the fact that it happened on the job during work hours and that, therefore, this is a discipline issue, not a criminal issue."
You should read a bit more of what your agency is doing to aviation. 9 outside air temperature probes on 9 SAAB 340s which cancelled 40 American Eagle flights.
He was "inspecting" the temperature probes by using them to hoist himself on them so he could get to the Jetway parked away from the SAAB 340s. Would that be proper procedure for an aviation security inspector?
I really don't know of a way to detect icing conditions other than with an outside air temperature probe, do you?
TSA investigating possible violations by American Eagle
Story Highlights
TSA says regional airline keeps jetways too close to unsecured aircraft
Inspector was able to gain access to seven idle aircraft at O'Hare airport
Inspector climbed onto jetway by grabbing aircraft instrument
The probes could have been damaged, so planes were grounded, inspected
(CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration said Thursday it was opening an inquiry into "multiple security violations" by American Eagle at Chicago's O'Hare airport just a day after the airline complained a TSA inspector could have jeopardized the safety of their aircraft by grabbing a probe on the fuselage of several planes to hoist himself aboard.
The TSA said in a statement it has "consistently found problems" at O'Hare regarding American Eagle, a regional carrier for American Airlines. This week's inspection "was a follow-up to earlier inspections in which the same vulnerability existed," the TSA said. The inquiry could result in fines totaling $175,000, the agency added.
At issue is American Eagle's practice of leaving unsecured aircraft parked too close to jetways during night hours, when the planes are out of service, a TSA official told CNN. Airlines are allowed to park planes with unsecured doors, provided they are away from jetways so they are inaccessible, the official said.
But early Tuesday morning, a TSA inspector was able to gain access to seven of nine parked American Eagle planes by hoisting himself up with pipe-like air temperature probes on the side of the aircraft. Pilots use readings from the probes to gauge the probability of icing.
The method of entry infuriated American Eagle officials, who said the inspector "could have jeopardized the safety of our customers and crew" by damaging the equipment. The airline removed all nine aircraft from service to inspect the probes and found no damage, said airline spokeswoman Andrea Huguely. Nonetheless, about 40 flights were delayed because of the inspections, Huguely said.
The TSA admitted its inspector erred by touching the probe and said he will undergo retraining. But it said the inspections demonstrated a vulnerability that someone with ill intent could have exploited.
The problem is not systemic, the TSA said Thursday, it is one "specific to this carrier at this airport."
"The inspector was ... seeking to close a real danger to the traveling public, not looking for a technical violation. The TSA stands behind the inspector and that effort," the statement read.
American Eagle could not be reached immediately Thursday afternoon. But in a statement Wednesday, the airline said it was "confident that it followed all proper security procedures."
"If not observed by vigilant Eagle employees in Chicago, the actions of this inspector would have been unknown and could have jeopardized the safety of our customers and crew because of potential damage to the sensitive equipment mounted on the aircraft fuselage," the airline said. "American Eagle is also concerned that the TSA inspector's method of physically hoisting himself up to the jet bridge using a part of the aircraft could have placed him in physical danger."
Captain Sam Mayer, a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Union, expressed concern about the inspector's actions to CNN.
Most air temperature probes have a painted decal on the side that reads 'NO STEP,' " he said.
"We caught it this time. But who knows if this has happened other times ... and with other planes that are out there," he added.
And this is from your own TSA's response. I don't see where the TSA paid for the damage nor downtime of the aircraft.
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/08/upda...spections.html
On August 19 a Transportation Security Inspector (TSI) was conducting a routine compliance inspection on aircraft parked on the airfield at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport (ORD). The TSI inspected nine American Eagle aircraft to look for and test, among other things, access vulnerabilities or areas were someone with ill intent could gain access to the aircraft.
Aircraft operators are required to secure each aircraft when left unattended. The TSIs are encouraged to look for and follow through on vulnerabilities. During the inspection process at ORD the Inspector used a Total Air Temperature (TAT) probe – a probe that protrudes from the side of the aircraft that is used to measure outside air temperature – to pull himself up while investigating possible access vulnerabilities with the unattended aircraft.
The Inspector was following through on regulatory inspection activity. The Inspector was able to gain access to the interior of seven of the nine aircraft inspected, which is an apparent violation of the airline’s security program. TSA is reviewing the inspection results and depending on the conclusion, could take action with the airline, up to and including levying of civil penalties.
While the inspection process is a vital layer of aviation security, it is not TSA’s intent to cause delays or potential damage to aircraft as a result of our inspections. TSA took immediate steps to re-enforce education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a plane.
As I posted earlier, responsible behavior and always followed by accountability for errors.
Just as you do your part as 1 screener out of 40,000 (albeit as a trainer though which does increase your effectiveness), I do my part with each screener that I encounter. And I do see immediate change of behavior.
By the way I spent at least 30 seconds looking up these two very serious incidents of a TSA employee's criminal (or at least culpable) behavior. I'm honestly quite surprised you are not using the material with your training syllabus on what TSA employees should not do.
__________________
paul k. sanchez
boca raton, florida 33428
Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove here. If the TSI damaged property, then he should he held accountable.
Bart, I have a suitcase (carry-on size) that was damaged by a screener that outright refused my offer to either: show him how to open the bag or tell him how to open the bag. He very rudely told me that he knew what he was doing as he was tearing the lining next to the zipper when trying to open it. He covered his name badge when I asked for a supervisor, then told me he could make me miss my flight (he didn't know that I had 2 hours to kill - the only thing I might miss was eating dinner in the concourse restaurant). Supe denied he was doing anything wrong as he dumped a couple of pieces of electronics that were carefully packed on the floor. Supe claimed to have no complaint forms. Supe refused to tell me who her boss was - and claimed not to know who the FSD was. Supe even refused to give me the name of the screener involved.
My complaint letters to the FSD AND the airport were ignored, as was my request for compensation.
Not only was the way this was handled disrespectful to me and my property, there was no penalty for the screener. The airport was BWI, en-route to TYR via IAH. Fortunately, I came home via general aviation, but the bitterness of the experience comes back every time I see the suitcase.
I'd like to hear you and Bart (and Borax, if he, too, is a TSO; I don't remember) discuss your differing opinions on whether or not questioning someone about his belongings is useful in "clearing" one of those belongings when it is a bag of white powder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek
I
Bart and Borax:
When you find a bag of white powder and are trying to determine whether or not it is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, of what value in making your determination is the word of the person who you suspect of carrying such a substance?
Will you vary the thoroughness of your examination of the suspicious substance based on the person's responses to your questions?
Let's get this straight, cupcake - I'm not a TSO, never have been, never will be, so don't make that mistake again.
However, it seems common sense that if a TSO finds someone with an unknown white powder he would look at the totality of circumstances to determine whether to conduct a chemical analysis or otherwise detain the person for additional questioning. For example, if you have a mother and infant, the white powder might very well be baby formula. Then again, baby formula is used to cut cocaine, so it might not be so innocent.
I don't do terrorist evaluation but if you find someone who does I am certain they would tell you that the question and response segment is critical to the analysis. Remember, it is not merely a matter of "clearing the white power" as you so narrowly put it, but of clearing the passenger as a non-threat to air safety.
I do not really have an opinion as to whether it would be better to do a chemical analysis in every case. Certainly that would rule out explosives, but perhaps that would cause the TSOs to become overconfident on machinery. Which, as explained earlier, is not the best course of action.
My point was not relying on respect from you or anyone else. I truly don't care if you respect me or not. And I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the chant today about supporting the troops is just another politically-correct mantra that some folks claim for the sake of staying popular.
Where did I say or imply I didn't respect you? I was simply disagreeing with your assertion that regard for the troops amongst the population at large didn't reappear until after 9/11.
While some people might "support the troops" simply out of political expediency, I would point out that the as an institution, the U.S. military ranks high.
Quote:
Harris Poll Shows Military Still Most-Admired U.S. Institution
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 7, 2006 – The military continues to be the most admired institution in America, according to the latest Harris Poll.
A total of 47 percent of Americans said they have a "great deal" of confidence in the military. Some 38 percent of Americans said they had "only some" confidence and 14 percent said they had "hardly any" confidence in the military.
The military was followed in the poll by small business - a new category in 2005 - with 45 percent of Americans saying they had a great deal of confidence; colleges and universities, 38 percent; the Supreme Court, 33 percent; and Medicine, 31 percent.
At the bottom of the survey, released March 2, were law firms at 10 percent, Congress at 10 percent, organized labor at 12 percent, major companies at 13 percent and the press at 14 percent.
Anchoring the middle was organized religion at 30 percent, the White House at 25 percent, public schools at 22, the courts and justice system at 21, and television news at 19.
The military has done well in the poll since the mid-1980s. The first poll, conducted in 1966, had the military at 61 percent approval rating. The next poll, conducted in 1971 showed the corrosive effect of the Vietnam War on America. Only 27 percent of Americans had confidence in the military then.
The public confidence in the military climbed after the 1970s and by 1989 the military was the most-trusted organization in the United States.
Harris Interactive, based in Rochester, N.Y., conducts the poll without sponsors. "We do this on our own," public relations coordinator Kelly Gullo said.
Gullo said Harris Interactive pollsters canvassed 1,016 U.S. adults via telephone. She said the sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percent.
and Obama's recent speech at Annapolis.
Quote:
After an era when so many institutions and individuals acted with such greed and recklessness, it's no wonder that our military remains the most trusted institution in our nation.
Bart, you seem very confident about the utility of questioning someone who attempts to carry a bag of white powder across a TSA airport checkpoint and about the implications of that person's words and actions, but you have not responded to requests for clarification of your position.
I still maintain that if you suspect that the substance is explosive, you should test it, regardless of if or how the person responds to your interrogation. Otherwise, you'd be screening for people with ineffective acting skills, not for dangerous items. You implied that a confidently-delivered, logical, and consistent, response might "clear your alarm" but you explicitly said that the person's responses would not decrease the thoroughness of your examination of his property. Your response doesn't seem logical and consistent to me.
It would make sense for a police officer who is looking for indication of any wrongdoing and attempting to build a case against someone to ask questions in hopes of getting an inconsistent response that could provide cause for further investigation, but TSA luggage inspectors are not law enforcement officers. Their job is to search people and their belongings for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. We have plenty of examples of them misunderstanding this duty and using the search we allow them to perform not simply to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but also to search for any indication of wrongdoing -- such as a bag of controlled substance.
I'd really like to hear how your interrogation of a person carrying a bag of white powder can help you determine if that powder is an explosive. Could you please continue our conversation?
What I read says that there was no damage to the aircraft although TSA also said that the inspector should not have hoisted himself up by using the temperature probes.
What if he had? What if he had bent one rendering it unreliable? What if that same aircraft had departed into IMC? What if that same airplane in IMC with an unreliable indicator had started acruing ice, unknown to the pilot who was reassured by the unreliable indicator? Or the aircraft had a critical operation requiring precise airspeed indications which were wrong and undetected?
I can assure you that the resulting front page disaster would be likely blamed not on the TSA agent/jackass, but on the Pilot who "failed to recognize" a developing condition, or on an undetermined mechanical failure.
I have, from time to time, delayed my departure to have a mechanic look at an airplane where a pre-flight inspection revealed something might be amiss. Occasionally they've found something wrong and I waited to fix it. You gonna let these guys out on the ramp? Then put them through A&P school so they know not to touch certain things on airplanes. And do it before someone or a plane load of people die!
What if he had? What if he had bent one rendering it unreliable? What if that same aircraft had departed into IMC? What if that same airplane in IMC with an unreliable indicator had started acruing ice, unknown to the pilot who was reassured by the unreliable indicator? Or the aircraft had a critical operation requiring precise airspeed indications which were wrong and undetected?
I can assure you that the resulting front page disaster would be likely blamed not on the TSA agent/jackass, but on the Pilot who "failed to recognize" a developing condition, or on an undetermined mechanical failure.
I have, from time to time, delayed my departure to have a mechanic look at an airplane where a pre-flight inspection revealed something might be amiss. Occasionally they've found something wrong and I waited to fix it. You gonna let these guys out on the ramp? Then put them through A&P school so they know not to touch certain things on airplanes. And do it before someone or a plane load of people die!
Good point greentips. All of those aircraft have mach limits probably in the vicinity of mach 0.48. The only way the mach speed can be displayed is with a working outside air temperature probe.
__________________
paul k. sanchez
boca raton, florida 33428
Good point greentips. All of those aircraft have mach limits probably in the vicinity of mach 0.48. The only way the mach speed can be displayed is with a working outside air temperature probe.
Thanks. Didn't know how technical to to get about the C.corner. I think most people and the media have flogged ice to death.
Thanks. Didn't know how technical to to get about the C.corner. I think most people and the media have flogged ice to death.
I think anytime someone uses an outside air temperature probe to hoist up 200 lbs of weight (with an explicit "NO STEP" next to it) is an automatic grounding of the aircraft while the probe is removed and bench tested. The endeared TSA aviation security inspector in question did it 9 ....ing different aircraft.
There is no greater threat to aviation (and now any mode of transportation) than the TSA itself.
__________________
paul k. sanchez
boca raton, florida 33428
