chollie

He made a big deal about how much frosting there was on this particular cupcake. Frosting that apparently couldn't be ETD'd.

I find it very very hard to believe that there is more frosting on one of these cupcakes than there is on an entire regular-sized frosted cake (which, according to his 'Holiday Tips' blog post, is permitted - subject to TSO approval, of course).

I wonder if it would have made a difference if the jar had been labelled: "Contents: 1-4 ounce cupcake, 2.8 ounces frosting" and packed in a regulation Kippie bag.

goalie

They could have just created a "secure zone" around said cupcake, put a birthday candle in the cupcake, lit said candle and if it went "boom", well glory be, the TSO was right.

cordelli

One of the blog comments he posted sort of addressed that

So what you are saying is that if someone wants to disguise a bomb as a pie, they will have better luck getting it on the plane if it looks like a "normal" pie, rather than a "newfangled modern" pie.


The sad part is there are actually responses thanking him for explaining the real side of the story

Thanks for clarifying that. I'd heard of the cupcake incident but didn't have all the details. Now that I do, I see why it was not allowed on the aircraft. Yeah, it was cute but it could have been deadly also.


Which I would guess is why he actually blogs about these silly events and actually tries to defend them.

spd476

Bob's blog post makes me wonder if he actually believes what he writes or if he shows up in the morning and goes "You want me defend the TSA for what???".

I'm flying home from LAS next month. This makes me want to get to the airport early with cupcakes. I can put the cupcake in a jar in a plastic bag or separate the frosting into 3.4 oz bottles. The trip is still a month away so I'm sure the TSA will have done something more idiotic to make people forget about the cupcake.

Combat Medic

I've asked why if a bottle of water is so dangerous that the TSA doesn't call the bomb squad every time somebody shows up at a checkpoint with one. Then again, I'd love to hear that call. "Please come quick, there's a bottle of Aquafina!"

SirFlysALot

Wait... Discretion? Since when?

Global_Hi_Flyer

Somebody buy them some adult diapers. Really.

onlyairfare

This morning on the Today Show, Natalie Morales reported the cupcake story, commenting "Well now we are all safe from cakes on the plane." Lots of snickering ensued.

studentff

This mentality also poses major risks for anyone traveling with custom electronics, scientific equipment, or really anything that the TSA screener is unlikely to have seen on the shelves at Walmart or Best Buy. We are at the whim of the attitude and personal experience level of every random screener.

IMO they should only be prohibiting items that they actually believe to be WEI, not items that they simply can't identify. A way to fix this would be for Congress to modify the law controlling TSA to prohibit them from confiscating/seizing/prohibiting any item that "is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary." This policy would also provide an instantaneous end to the war on water.

I would prefer if they would also require the screener who confiscates/seizes/prohibits any item to file a sworn statement with local law enforcement and ask for charges against the passenger. This would make perfect sense for passengers caught with WEI, who deserve to be prosecuted. And it would totally shape up TSA when their employees got charged with filing a false police report, abuse of authority, etc., for confiscating cupcakes and bottled water. If the passenger is not found guilty of carrying WEI, they should be able to go after the TSA employee individually on both civil offenses and criminal offenses (i.e., theft).

chollie

It isn't surprising, really.

All pax are 'guilty' until temporarily and conditionally accepted as 'innocent' long enough to get through the checkpoint (but not necessarily until they are on the plane, they might get 'guilty' again before boarding, hence the BDO's and gate checks after the checkpoint). The burden of proof is on the pax at all times.

All belongings are 'suspicious' (and/or desired by a TSO) until they are temporarily and conditionally accepted if the TSO says so. They may become suspicious again after the checkpoint, hence the testing of beverages and bag searches at the gate areas. The burden of proof is on the pax to prove that none of his/her items violate the TSO's personal interpretation of policy and the TSO's personal ability to understand the purpose of an item.

TSA training is thorough, comprehensive and on-going (unlike the TSA background checks). If a TSO doesn't understand or want to understand what something is for (or if a TSO understands very well indeed and likes something very much), it clearly must be something bad.

chollie

(bolding mine) Provided by Bob himself, no doubt, or one of his cronies.

Burfey

Bob describes the potentially explosive cupcake as: A cupcake with a thick layer of icing inside the jar.

He then provides links to two real liquid explosives plots:

The 1995 “Bojinka Plot” which used nitroglycerin, nitrate and sulfuric acid as the liquid explosive.

The 2006 foiled liquid explosives plot which used peroxide-based liquid explosives. Specifically, acetone peroxide, and/or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine.

It doesn't take a degree in brain sugery. A fast-food trained TSO might not be able to tell the difference between nitroglycerin or peroxide, but they all know what cake icing is. The TSO even made comments to the passenger about how delicious that frosted cupcake was. He knew exactly what he was confiscating, and he knew it was not an explosive. It was a food product.

It's funny Bob would compare those two real liquid explosive plots with that cupcake because the only thing it proves is that his under-trained, lacking in common sense co-workers are not even bright enough to know how to use discretion.

Bob's blog also made it perfectly clear that this confiscation was based on TSO discretion---not TSA policy. Lets keep bringing those cupcakes in a jar through CPs and allowing TSOs confiscate it. After 10, 15, or 20 more cupcake confiscation incidents like this hitting the news media, TSO's might finally recieve training in discretion.

Global_Hi_Flyer

This is really no surprise to me at all. For years it has been policy in many agencies to publicly back employees, even if the employees were wrong. It's part of the authority complex that infests those agencies: if you admit you're wrong then people will be less likely to respect your authoritah in other matters. It's all part of the blue shirts - badges mentality.

Problem is that once a boneheaded decision like this is sustained it become lifetime policy, regardless of how stupid.

A similar real-life example is the recent story about the FAA grounding a crane (bird) migration program. While the FAA waived the rule, it never should have come to that.

mikeef

Funny. I made almost exactly the same point in a yet-to-be-approved post. My question is, does this fall under the "If you see something, say something.," rule? Next time I see the TSO throw a potential explosive in a garbage can, who do I alert?

Of course he doesn't believe it. He's just the hired PR gun.

Loved that movie. Samuel L Jackson rocked. His best performance since "Cupcake to America."

Mike

chollie

Ironic, isn't it?

I respect an agency that publicly and immediately disciplines a 'bad apple' employee or modifies a policy that is unclear or that results in inappropriate results. I respect the agency as a whole and the employees in general (other than a 'bad apple').

I do NOT respect an agency that covers up and enables 'bad apples'. I lose respect for the agency and the enabling/complicit fellow employees.

Analogy? The Catholic church. I think the Church as whole and the individual church functionaries lost far more respect by covering up the actions of its 'bad apples' than would have been the case if they had openly addressed the problems when they arose. The cover-up undermined respect for the Church's 'authoritay'.