<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by screenerx:
Two years ago, the walkthru's werent set so high. If you did ring, you got a second chance to walk thru.
</font>
Why not go back to the "second chance" policy? Wouldn't it be faster for me to take the dime out of my pocket (literally the source of my last few beeps) and put the dime through the x-ray than to wand me? I can see how third/fourth/fifth chances would slow the line, but is there a perceived security risk to letting people remove an article from their person and put it on the x-ray?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The prohibited items list wasnt so long. Now you have to be more aware on the xray and the images. Because unlike guns and IED's, little knifes, scissors, etc.. don't jump out like they others do. So more time is spent on the Xray, adding to the lines.
</font>
Interesting statement which seems believable. What it implies is that if the govt and sheeple go back to a reasonable prohibited-item list that only includes credible threats, it will make life much easier for the screeners and let them focus more on the important parts of the job.
Are there any credibly-threatening items you can think of that are tricky to see on x-ray?
(e.g. I'd consider a 20-inch sword placed thin-side to the x-ray to be a credible threat. Or an umbrella with a fencing-style foil built in. Or an explosive detonator, improvised or otherwise. But I do not consider pocket-knives less than 2-4", small scissors, tweezers, nail clippers, etc. to be credible threats. I probably don't consider box-cutters to be credible threats either, though some would debate that and they're certainly more credible than the small scissors.)