Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
In my humble opinion? (Or my "not-so-humble" opinion?)
I think that TSOs are under-educated regarding what constitutes a legitimate threat.
Now, that could happen in a couple of different ways. One generous theory is that TSA's education program isn't "effective" --- in the sense that, at the end of the process, TSOs can't distinguish between legitimate threats and expressions of free speech. One more cynical theory is that TSA's education program is deliberately incomplete --- because then TSA has legal cover when an individual TSO finds a hidden stash of drugs, even though TSOs aren't supposed to be looking for drugs.
So, I'm assuming that TSOs are told that if a passenger says "I HAVE A BOMB IN MY SUITCASE!!", the TSO has to take the passenger seriously and initiate appropriate procedures for dealing with the threat. But are TSOs trained in how to distinguish between those things and expressions of free speech?
I am... The problem does not appear to be (at leat in my POV) the training program. Based on the training I have recieved consistently with TSA, I am able to reasonably recognize what is a viable threat, something that could easily be confused as a viable threat item, and something that is completely harmless. Some here may disagree with me on some items at times - but I am fairly certain that based upon the premise of whether something is a viable threat (and easily confused with a viable threat) vs something that is not a threat at all - we would reach a pretty similar consensus when faced with a list of items. The sticking point would be realistic replicas (which, as you know, are not allowed by regulation) - I am fairly certain that we would still have a general consensus, but that the numbers would be much lower.
** Realistic to me is something that would easily be confused with the real thing - literally. This is changing, with the introduction of the new coatings and colors on firearms, this has expanded that list just a little bit. However, any time that I would prevent an item from being allowed past the checkpoint, I would be able to articulate the reasoning, and it would be noticeable to someone not working for the organization... (and for those that may ask, no I will not gt into a line by line item discussion on what should/should not be allowed based upon the myriad news clippings from the last 10 years or so)
As for the bomb comment, that is a tough call - the organization clearly indicates that those types of comments are frowned upon (through various outlets and even newsie pieces from time to time). I am almost certain every single TSO has heard someone say a phrase very close to "there is not a bomb or anything like that in my bag". I am also certain that some TSOs have heard someone say a phrase like "There is a BOMB in my bag". The former is presumably meant to alleviate any concern, while the latter is meant to convey that there is actually something to worry about... or it is meant as a joke... or the person really has a bomb in their bag... or - see where that is heading? I would like to see some common sense protocols in those situations, but I understand why TSA has the regulations written as they are (even if I disagree with them).