Originally Posted by eyecue
The Human factor that comes into play here. Its called discretionary application or interpretation. . . .
The fact of the matter is that if you are asked to take off a belt it is because we dont want it to alarm and slow you down. Some of us can judge a belt buckle as to whether it will set off the metal detector. If in doubt we ask you to remove it.
. . .
If you dont then the infringment gets more and more intrusive. So you have to decide what battles to fight. If you are requested to remove something in all fairness if you do, you will be sent on your way. If you dont then you run the risk of getting secondary. Hope this helps.
The problem is that it's sometimes very obvious that the additional screening is punishment for not following the "suggestion." E.g., the poster that had his/her bag searched because he/she refused to remove her shoes, the people who get a pat down because they don't remove their belt even though the belt doesn't alarm, etc.
If a WTMD screener says "please remove your cell phone from your belt," (this happened to me; we all make mistakes.) I say "Oops" and "sorry" and "thanks" and am pleased that that suggestion/requirement saved me an annoying secondary.
If a WTMD screener says "we suggest you remove your belt," I don't, and then I alarm, I deserve a secondary.
If a WTMD screener says "please remove your belt or you'll get a secondary," then OK, at least I was told and the screener was honest.
If a WTMD screener says "we suggest you remove your belt," I decline, I don't alarm, and then I (or my bag) get a secondary anyway for no other reason, then it was most likely punishment, and I'm unhappy.
I think a few briefings to screeners on wording between the last two scenarios would greatly reduce pax/screener frustration. Any scenario which creates the appearance of punishment screenings is bad public image for the TSA. As screenings get more physically intrusive, it's more important that this appearance of punishment is reduced. Unfortunately when complaints of punishment screenings are made, the administration always seems to side with the screener using some excuse. I do wonder though if, privately, habitual punishment screeners are corrected by their management.