That would leave about 2 people staffing all of terminal 2 at RDU

SATTSO posted in another thread that pax at SAT are allowed to choose the AIT or opt for the grope, but they are not allowed to choose the WTMD.

He did not indicate any exemptions to this protocol at SAT.

There is nothing on the website to support this.

There is also no other option when the WTMDs are closed and only NoS is operating.

The troop who had C-4 in his checked luggage is one such example. It is not unusual for young troops to pull knucklehead stunts like this, although most of them do it with M-16 rounds and such. He never had the intent of blowing up an airplane or hijacking it. He probably thought it would be a neat idea to smuggle some of the stuff home so he could show it off to his buddies and blow something up with it like a bridge, backyard porch or playground sandbox.

I'm not suggesting that C-4 should be permitted or that a soldier should be exempted from screening.

What I'm saying that is if one young trooper violates the trust placed in low risk passengers by pulling a stunt like this, then punish the violator not the entire low-risk passenger category. It's an acceptable risk. Besides, he's already in deep-enough kimchi seeing as how smuggling Army-issue controlled material is a major league violation of several military regulations, federal laws and a host of other legalities that's going to overwhelm whichever lawyer is gutsy enough to defend him in court.

However, I'm afraid that if something like this gains enough negative attention, then RBS would be killed for all the wrong reasons.

I believe that. Outside of self directed opt outs, if you hit the lottery, your only choice is to go thru the NoS or opt out. Every time I've opted out at BWI, I've walked right past the WTMD and straight to the penalty box for my grope.

That is correct. Passengers do not have the option to opt for WTMD screening. I never said that they did.

I believe SATTSO has hit the nail on the head, squarely. Remember this guy??

There, fixed it for you (bolded addition mine). Fact is that more than 50% of what TSA does is not immediately visible to the traveling public. Passengers most often interact with the TSO�s on the checkpoint, yet there is a significant number of TSO�s who do not work checkpoints, who do other jobs for the TSA, who manage plans and programs or man the TSOC Freedom Center in Virginia, or any one of many other duties or assignments.

You believe both of your statements to be true, yet the law disagrees. Can you explain why there is such a gulf between your belief�s and what the law says?

Ahhh, but if I or another TSO member of this forum were to say that there would be 5 or 6 other members ready to pick that idea apart. It�s already happened, several times. I note that none have done so with your statement. Again, I believe SATTSO has hit the nail squarely on its head.

I can�t speak for Bart, but for myself it would not. I also have a CCP, and I have a security clearance, and I work for the TSA, but I don�t expect that my fellow TSO�s will allow me to take anything aboard an aircraft that is disallowed for other passengers.

Unfortunately folks no different from either carolinaflyer or inkundernails bring Glocks to the screening checkpoint every day. 15 to 20 a week on average. Some weeks more, some less, but a week has not gone by yet that it has not happened. So no, we don�t �know� that carolinaflyer or inkundernails might bring their Glock someday.

Sorry, but treating you differently because of your additions or �disabilities� does not mean that someone is discriminating against you. Your situation requires variations in how people deal with you, not just at the checkpoint but everywhere, are they also discriminating against you? No, its just the reality of the situation.

Your argument is like the �black man� who gets stopped by the cops and screams �its racism� and ignores the fact that he was doing 45mph in a 25mph zone. The reality is that your personal situation requires a different approach. Saying that it is �discrimination� does not change that reality, it only makes it more dramatic. And we all need more �drama� in our lives now don�t we.

I think in the right organization, RBS is a good idea.

I think in the hands of a poorly trained, badly managed organization that can't even train the workforce at a single airport to pay extra attention to a single specific issue (ostomy bag handling at DTW) - that organization lacks the leadership and qualifed personnel to implement effective RBS.

In the strange workplace that is the TSA, we hear that TSOs hands are tied, they are not allowed to exercise common sense and independent judgment while simultaneously they are allowed to make up rules on the fly and to disregard the base rules established on the website. On top of that, any FSD can apparently modify rules at will without notifying the public in anyway.

Effective RBS requires a much better run organization to really work.

I think RBS at the checkpoint will result in a free-for-all where 'risk' is assessed by the individual TSO and the rules are anybody's guess. Might give more latitude to sensible TSOs, but with no will or effort to rein in the 'bad apples', it will probably be worse than what we have now.

Can you explain why you constantly need to insert unnecessary apostrophes in all your posts?


I'm sorry, WHAT?????????? Would you like to explain to me which law I have broken that justifies treating me like I am driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone? You have just proven my point, dude. Someone driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone has broken a law, regardless of what their race is. I have not, but you are assuming that I have.

The parallel analogy is like if every single black person was always and automatically pulled over at a DUI stop every block and treated like a criminal despite absolutely no indication that they are chemically impaired.

Why do I feel like I'm about to be shoved onto a train headed for a "work camp"?

I hope you never have some kind of medical condition that allows other people to treat you with such disrespect, rudeness, and suspicion.

Correct, I (and others) needed to parse your words more carefully.

I am physically unable to assume and hold the position in the NoS. When I am directed to the NoS and I opt out, I say why. I am always directed (as I always will be) to the grope.

The first couple times I did ask about the WTMD. I remember the second time clearly because the TSO had a distinctive appearance and because of the answer: "We can't let folks choose their screening method or the terrorists would know how to plan." Oddly, I was 'offered' the WTMD + grope.

On re-reading your post, I honestly don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Seriously. You make a flat statement that folks who are unable to hold the position are screened by WTMD.

I am not allowed to choose (other than 'self-select' timing) the WTMD or the NoS. I go where I am directed. I opt-out because I know I can't hold the postion required for a clear scan, so I will require a follow-up grope anyway. You say folks in my situation 'are' screened by WTMD. Not 'can' or 'might be' or 'could be given the alternate option'.

The only way I am screened by WTMD is because I was directed to a WTMD or because the WTMD is the only option open at that checkpoint.

It would be great if folks with advanced Parkinson's, balance issues, etc, who can't hold still long enough for a clear scan could use the WTMD, but I can't see how it could happen. A terrorist could fake balance issues.

This is true. It can most certainly boomerang into something that is frustrating on both sides of the X-ray machine. This is why I said that it requires an entirely new mindset from top to bottom. I don't know if TSA is ready to do that not because it's not capable but because it has been conditioned for the past ten years by a risk-avoidance mindset.

In my previous life in the military, I was part of a similar structure in terms of unconventional methodology and true outside-the-box thinking. It worked very well, but we had to spend a lot of time breaking-in new arrivals from Big Army. I see similar challenges with TSA as far as adjusting to what it really takes to truly screen based on risk management.

I disagree with the naysayers that TSA can't make the change. They said the same thing about the organization I was a part of. But it takes a truly concentrated effort from the top down in order to make it work until it becomes a natural business practice.

Problem is, this is exactly how TSA works. You've said it here yourself a long time ago: if one person craps his pants, everyone wears diapers. And that's how it's always been with TSA. One person tries a shoe bomb, we get the shoe carnival. One person tries an underwear bomb, we all get the NoS or an invasive search.

Trusted travelers aren't going to change this. One person does something and TSA goes crazy. That's just how it's been for years, and I don't see that changing. If this program is implemented, it will probably be short lived.

Then again, given all the Bad Apples� we read about in TSA and TSA still trusts them ... maybe not.

I still see this as more of a divide and conquer technique to shut up FF's and their opposition rather than sensible security.

It isn't going to work unless TSA comes to grip with discipline issues. Zero tolerance for pax has to be accompanied by zero tolerance for TSO misbehavior. As I have pointed out elsewhere, one unruly pax can impact quite a few people, but not as many as one unruly TSO can impact on a daily basis.

There are people in the current workforce who are not going to change. They will continue to mis-treat pax, they are and will continue to be a discredit to the organization and their actions will continue to tarnish the image of their co-workers and the organization.

I, too, worked in an organization that went through a couple major shake-ups in the last decades. Things didn't even begin to start shifting until they finally fired the vice-president of a division. Even then, it took a decade.
One thing that was intstrumental for us: word (and teeth) finally came down from the top. In essence: it is a pain to fire anyone, but you managers are paid the big bucks in part to deal with discipline. It became a major focus - dealing with problem employees. TSA needs to develop the will to do the same.

I don't want to be dealing with unfettered rogue TSOs exercising their version of RBS.

At a lot of airports, it is possible to opt-out by sending a designated decoy first. The designated decoy opts out, and everyone else starts getting sent thru the WTMD.

When I first heard about this innovation, I told my boss that I welcome it. But I also commented that this is going to require changes both internally within management as well as on the floor. It's like playing 3-dimensional chess after being conditioned to play conventional checkers.

I agree with you that this is going to be a bumpy transition. But I disagree that it's going to be an impossible transition.

Yes, you did!!!