Originally Posted by Tennisbum
I think this is a matter of screening and training of TSA personnel. I can't believe that Americans are inherently unable to learn to make the kind of judgements that European screeners are trained to make.
You honestly believe a screener workforce of 45,000 can be trained to make those judgments? Ambitious goal but hardly realistic. Look at how poorly we do at consistently following an SOP that's pretty straightforward with very little discretion for judgment calls.
Originally Posted by Tennisbum
I've been wanded, patted down, had my shoulder bag, carryon and checked luggage search (not all on the same trip). I've never felt indignant because I could always understand the reason (even if I felt the reasons- bulky sweater, toothpaste tube in suitcase, etc.- might be a bit silly). I think completely random, rather than targetted, searches and questioning are just a waste of time and resources. This is one of the reasons that I always feel safer flying from Europe to the US than the reverse.
As far as random screenings go, I agree with you 100%. I'm not a big believer in them and I do not enforce it at my checkpoint. Seems like a cruel joke to play after someone goes through all the trouble to pass through the WTMD successfully only to end up being tagged for random secondary screening. However, I beg to differ on random secondary screening of property. I think that's sound practice.
As for the tube of toothpaste, the only thing that comes to mind is what occurs at checked baggage screening rather than passenger screening. If you're talking about passenger screening, then I agree. A screener should be able to identify a tube of toothpaste. However, if you're talking about checked baggage screening, then I partially disagree. The EDS machine alerts on items that have the same physical properties and/or characteristics as explosives, and we have to check out each and every alert. In my little perfect world, we would be able to exercise the same screener discretion at checked baggage as we do at passenger screening. In other words, if it looks like the machine alerted on a tube of toothpaste, then the screener should be able to make an on-screen resolution determination as opposed to a physical inspection to confirm what's already obvious on the screen.