Which is why I'd even settle for an independent "rule arbiter" on hand at every airport to keep TSOs honest. This person would be appointed by GAO or another non-DHS body, have access to all permissible TSA search techniques and could be called when a pax cries foul. The TSA can tell the pax "oh, it says we can randomly change the rules" but if the rule arbiter says "no, that's specifically prohibited" then TSA must relent.

That way SSI may be kept just that but there will be an impartial body available to keep TSA in check.

It'll never happen, but I think in reality it satisfies the supposed need to keep the actual procedures secret.

We were also told that 1 gallon bags would be permitted through the checkpoint, which has never appeared to become reality (except perhaps at SAT)

The misinformation online presented by some representatives of TSA, whether intentionally posted or not, is another point which frustrates many.

I used to refer people to tsa.gov but that appears to be often pointless, if TSOs and/or airports are creating their own rules and disregarding what is posted on their own supposedly official website.

Much as I generally appreciate the input from HSVTSO and gsoltso here, I find this thread rather depressing. I can only hope that gsoltso proves to be right in the very near future. (And in this case, unlike some who reported here about the then upcoming late 2010 changes, I believe that he is sincere and is not gloating or taunting us regarding changes to come).

It sounds good in principle but I can't imagine TSA going along with it with anything approaching willingness. TSA behaves like the only way to protect SSI (like it even needs protecting) is to make stuff up randomly. If the arbiter were to say "no, they don't have to say their name" then part of SSI (or the lack of it) is revealed. Plus, the arbiter would need immunity from "interfering" with the process, which TSA will see as a security risk. Otherwise, TSOs will be threatening the arbiters with arrest on a regular basis.

Interesting idea ... but I don't think it's feasible.

Anyone appointed by GAO or a similar body is still a government employee, and would have a hard time as being seen as truly "independent" --- by either party.

And I seriously doubt anyone outside the federal government would be seen as acceptable to DHS.

Actually, since the beginning, TSA has given FSDs leeway in making such local policies that are more restrictive than what TSA itself requires. You just can't make something less restrictive. So long as the FSD in question is capable of justifying it to Washington's satisfaction, then it typically stands.

I would note that it would be next to impossible to justify any kind of massive difference, such as... oh... Nashville adding red bonnet-style hats to the prohibited items list, or something, and Seattle deciding that only Hefty-brand plastic bags can be used to take LGA through the checkpoint. Typically, these differences are minor, like with the iPad stuff, or whether or not shoes need to be in a bin or not. TSA's official baseline rule is that it doesn't matter if shoes are in a bin or not. Some airports have made local policies that require shoes to be in a bin, others that require them to be directly on the belt. While I consider such an argument to be silly, I'm sure they have what they are just absolutely sure are good reasons for having such local policies.

That's how I understand it, anyway. We only have one local policy in our hub/spoke that I'm aware of that differs from what TSA brass says to do, so things are kept fairly simple on our end.

Incidentally, I've also heard from passengers that Dulles and Las Vegas also require small electronics, like iPads and Kindles and Nooks and such, to be removed from carry-on to be put through the x-ray.

That would be a correct assumption, based on my own observations. If I had to just completely make up a number and pretend it's the least bit statistically relevant, I'd say that it's four clip-on styles to every one button-on style. Though lately the all-plastic clip-on style has become more popular, too.

And that is why I didn't understand the gallon bags being permitted at one airport and not others. It generally fits both your examples (less restrictive, and one type/brand of bag) I tend to believe what you and gsoltso post here and I think that you both have good intentions with your presence here.

I can understand someone misinterpreting a new rule or directive and mistakenly posting information, but when we see it stated several times it becomes really frustrating and I at least become mistrustful of information I read here. The same holds true for things on the tsa.gov website which are contradicted in the field.

Again, I appreciate your input and your feedback, but it often just reaffirms what I have been feeling.

We understand that and it's part of the problem. What is infuriating is having some() TSA workers come on here and spout the official line at their airport as being the ultimate reference point, and not believing when told that it is different elsewhere.

I won't repeat my tirade about designed inconsistency and its logical ramifications. Suffice it to say it's a nonsensical canard.Going solely from memory but I think there is a clause somewhere in the USC which says the FSD can implement additional measures (I'll look for it later).

+1 to the points you make in both this and your earlier post.

Whenever a TSO (real or alleged) posts here, on the blog, or elsewhere, their posts reflect folks' image of TSA generally.

I wonder if some of the TSOs (real or alleged) who post nonsensical, inflammatory, insulting or misinformed posts here and elsewhere really think about their audience.

A TSO who responds on the blog with a condescending post telling someone to 'just read the website before going to the airport' - knowing that the website may be incorrect or that the local practice at that particular airport (FSD direction) or even with that particular TSO may be something completely different - does that TSO realize that he/she has just set his/her co-workers up? Pax will show up at the checkpoint only to find out that the website and the checkpoint practices bear little relationship to each other. Won't be an optimal experience for either the checkpoint TSOs or the pax, although the pax always gets the worst of the deal.

I've shown TSO posts on this forum and the blog to folks who don't fly regularly. How do you think it affects folks' perceptions of TSA when they see these posts? Do the negative posters realize how their negative, condescending, 'pax=perp, pax is always guilty by default' attitude' is displayed not just for active posters, but also for many lurkers?

When a TSO posts incorrect information or misleading information on this forum to try to antagonize folks or cause folks to encounter difficulties at the checkpoint, it impacts the credibility of the organization. It was absolutely clear last fall that many of the changes coming would upset folks, but at least one TSO (real or alleged) took obvious delight in dropping hints (and one clear lie) about coming changes and the anticipated unhappiness.


The overwhelming majority of posts by TSOs (alleged or real) that I see on the blog and other forums are critical or hostile to pax.

One pax with a chip on his/her shoulder can have a negative impact on possibly several TSOs/pax at a checkpoint.

One TSO with a chip on his/her shoulder can have a negative impact on dozens of pax (as well as TSOs) at a checkpoint. Further, one TSO distracted by a chip on his/her shoulder is all it takes for something to get past the checkpoint. Hate and vitriol can and do interfere with job performance.

And just a nit...but has anyone actually verified that the gallon bags are allowed at SAT?

There must be something really wrong with me.

I've travelled with my 3-1-1 items in gallon size bags, quart size bags, mini bags, the bags that some airports have (DCA) and most recently, I stuck my toothpaste and my deoderant in a Subway sandwich bag without any issues.

Could it be because I understand the intent of the rules (a few "under 3.4 oz LGA items" that would fit into a quart sized ziploc bag) and therefore have no issues?

To get back on topic - you will never, ever, see the military taking over for TSA.

Well, there's clearly something wrong with the lax security you have encountered. The website is pretty clear on what type of baggie allowed, and I believe one of our other TSO posters has said that an FSD can have 'local' rules, but not ones that are more lenient than the base rules.

Do you just use a wide variety of baggies at your checkpoint, or do you actually find this laxness to be so widespread?

?? Y'all have told us repeatedly that there are many retired or former military folks already working for TSA. Clearly the skillset is a good match and the discipline is a plus.

Do you just not believe it could happen or do you think it would not be a good thing to replace TSA with the military?

This isn't about the TSA having to give up randomness, it's about individual screeners not being allowed to make up the rules on the spot. They'd also only be called if a pax challenged the TSO on whether they were allowed to do what they were trying to do. All this would really do is put someone credible in the position of saying "that's the way it is" or telling TSA to back off as opposed to the supervisory screeners looking out for their own. This could even include things the FSD has enacted for a particular locality as long as they've done so in writing and it's been approved by Washington. The arbiter doesn't need to actually read the rule, but merely be there to tell TSA they've gone too far. While the arbiter couldn't clear you through security w/o TSA giving the go ahead, they could provide a written statement essentially saying TSA violated the rules that one could then use in court if they chose.

It could be.

It also could be that you've been lucky.

Anything could be true.

Really? So you claim to be from my part of the world; at MUC yesterday the woman in front of me had her liquids in a mesh bag and in a shower cap. She was sent back to check her items or to purchase a bag from the automat.

(All of this was done very politely and professionally) At MUC, LHR, and most of the international airports I transit, the rule is a one litre bag and they do enforce it.

Many here have not been able to pass through TSA checkpoints with bags as you describe. But you simply support our argument that the TSA is very inconsistent with how they apply their own rules. Thank you for making our case.

Wishful thinking above in terms of results. The TSA has already been "militarized" in various ways and it improves nothing by itself. In some ways, it has made matters worse and will continue to do so.

And more weapons on federal employees at the airports would just make for more of a dog and pony show than is already the case.

+1

The source of much of the attitude we encounter at checkpoints. Either from those who think/wish they were still in the military or from those who simply emulate them.

It is, or should be, a 100% civilian function.