Terminal Dump at MAF after US Soldier attempts to bring bomb thru TSA checkpoint
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,079
It is amazing that many peolpe do not get this.
As pointed out by the GAO, the FBI, and various other agencies, the greatest risk is an un-assembled IED. It is more difficult to see on the x-ray. It can potentially be brought in at different airports. People involved do not need be on the same flight; they do not need to meet - one person can dump an item in a trash can for another to pick up in an hour or so later.
Explosives found at the checkpiont is such a rare event that dumping the terminal is a prudent measure. After which a sweep of the terminal should be conducted, and passengers/employees re-screened. To not do so would be silly. Would be stupid, actually.
But I suspect that many on this site will complain about TSA no matter what happens. Goes with the territory, I guess.
As pointed out by the GAO, the FBI, and various other agencies, the greatest risk is an un-assembled IED. It is more difficult to see on the x-ray. It can potentially be brought in at different airports. People involved do not need be on the same flight; they do not need to meet - one person can dump an item in a trash can for another to pick up in an hour or so later.
Explosives found at the checkpiont is such a rare event that dumping the terminal is a prudent measure. After which a sweep of the terminal should be conducted, and passengers/employees re-screened. To not do so would be silly. Would be stupid, actually.
But I suspect that many on this site will complain about TSA no matter what happens. Goes with the territory, I guess.
I think a terminal dump is nothing but security theater if the answer to any of the questions above is a NO.
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,025
If a group wanted to further disrupt air travel in the US, staging an attack at a checkpoint would be very effective.
#33
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
I disagree. The level of infiltration necessary to sneak a bomb into cargo is high. That portion of cargo that's unscreened is from known shippers. The more people are needed to execute a plot and the deeper they need to be, the harder the plot is to execute and hence the less of a threat.
#34
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Do TSA employees require all airport workers to depart the terminal during a terminal dump. Are these airport workers screened before departure or re-entry? Do TSA employees investigate all areas of the terminal, kitchens, work areas, vendors stores, etc.?
I think a terminal dump is nothing but security theater if the answer to any of the questions above is a NO.
I think a terminal dump is nothing but security theater if the answer to any of the questions above is a NO.
#35
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,331
Whoa - are you seriously trying to say that, if a person who worked for TSA brought explosive materials to work, either accidentally or intentionally with no malicious intent (perhaps just to show them off to coworkers), that you would support NOT firing but simply retraining that person and allowing them to keep their job with TSA? That's what you said, SAT - I sure hope that's not what you meant.
It is amazing that many peolpe do not get this.
As pointed out by the GAO, the FBI, and various other agencies, the greatest risk is an un-assembled IED. It is more difficult to see on the x-ray. It can potentially be brought in at different airports. People involved do not need be on the same flight; they do not need to meet - one person can dump an item in a trash can for another to pick up in an hour or so later.
Explosives found at the checkpiont is such a rare event that dumping the terminal is a prudent measure. After which a sweep of the terminal should be conducted, and passengers/employees re-screened. To not do so would be silly. Would be stupid, actually.
But I suspect that many on this site will complain about TSA no matter what happens. Goes with the territory, I guess.
As pointed out by the GAO, the FBI, and various other agencies, the greatest risk is an un-assembled IED. It is more difficult to see on the x-ray. It can potentially be brought in at different airports. People involved do not need be on the same flight; they do not need to meet - one person can dump an item in a trash can for another to pick up in an hour or so later.
Explosives found at the checkpiont is such a rare event that dumping the terminal is a prudent measure. After which a sweep of the terminal should be conducted, and passengers/employees re-screened. To not do so would be silly. Would be stupid, actually.
But I suspect that many on this site will complain about TSA no matter what happens. Goes with the territory, I guess.
Certainly, your hypothetical scenario of multiple components being smuggled through multiple airports and meeting up for assembly at a single destination is not impossible, but it's so wildly improbable that it's not worth spending the electrons to type about it online. And the fact that you're positing it as a possible or partial reason for a terminal dump after explosives are found simply illustrates the rank, unbridled, rabid, over-the-top paranoia which permeates not only your agency, but the entire country in general.
While I expect no honest answer I have to wonder just what training that TSA employees have on clearing large structures of possible IED's? Do TSA employees require all airport workers to depart the terminal during a terminal dump. Are these airport workers screened before departure or re-entry? Do TSA employees investigate all areas of the terminal, kitchens, work areas, vendors stores, etc.?
I think a terminal dump is nothing but security theater if the answer to any of the questions above is a NO.
I think a terminal dump is nothing but security theater if the answer to any of the questions above is a NO.
I don't know if this is done, but it also seems that it would be a logical time to check the suspected bad guy's ticket to see if her was traveling alone or with companions who might have gotten through already, and to interrogate him and get a rough idea of whether he's a genuine threat or just a moron with no ill intent.
Done as such, I find a terminal dump in the case of actual explosives being discovered to be a prudent move, a moderately effective search methodology, and a reasonable delay.
A terminal dump based on a knife being found would not be reasonable.
A terminal dump based on a gun being found would not be reasonable.
A terminal dump based on a single positive ETD swab would not be reasonable.
But a terminal dump based on actually finding real explosives in a traveler's bag? Yeah, I'll go along with that one, for sure.
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,079
I don't see why. It seems highly unlikely to me that a single plot would involve both passengers sneakings items through checkpoints and insiders. If you find evidence of the potential forthe former plot, I don't see that it's necessary to look for evidence of the latter, since it's too unlikely that both would be involved. Few on this forum would advocate looking for every possible plot at the checkpoint, just the more practical ones. So why advocate it in that situation?
If TSA employees are tasked with searching for WEI inside the terminal after a dump and are not trained on clearing large structures then I would suggest that is also Security Theater.
From a security point of view not suspecting all avenues as a means of compromise is in my mind just more Security Theater. The people with the most opportunity to bring a prohibited item into the secure areas of the airport are employees since they are rarely screened.
Knowing the reason and actions taken when a terminal is dumped would be required to know how much effective the steps taken by TSA are.
#37
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
If the purpose of a terminal dump is to simply re-screen passengers then I would agree with you. That would negate any reason for TSA employees walking through the terminal peeking into trash cans and such. Peeking in but not dumping the contents of the dust bins is pretty much a useless action. If TSA employees are doing this then that is Security Theater.
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,401
10 miles? Are they suspecting a large nuclear weapon? In the absence of finding an actual bomb, I think an evacuation of any sort would be an overreaction. But I don't think that a terminal dump is. As was said upthread, here is a real risk of having explosive components brought in by different people and later assembled. Rescreening everybody to doublecheck that this isn't the case doesn't seem that much of an overreaction to me. Many here are in favor of a "risk-based" approach. It seems reasonable that once you've found one passenger with a bomb component that the risk is now higher than others may have one as well.
#39
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,629
I disagree. The level of infiltration necessary to sneak a bomb into cargo is high. That portion of cargo that's unscreened is from known shippers. The more people are needed to execute a plot and the deeper they need to be, the harder the plot is to execute and hence the less of a threat.
I wonder if that verification/certification process is a one-time thing (like the TSA background check - pass once, you're good for the rest of your employment), or if it is something that is reviewed periodically (company changes hands, cost-cutting/financial difficulties lead to corner-cutting or out-sourcing to unmonitored agents).
I also wonder if DHS/TSA ever performs the equivalent of 'Red Team' tests to verify that the 'known shipper' is actually following the rules.
TSA's own baggage screeners were found to be shirking their duties in HNL and I believe there was an issue a few months ago in ATL that had to do with procedures not being followed when airside vendors were delivering products to the airport.
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,079
I would say if it is important enough to dump the terminal then that would be all peoples and require inspection of all areas. Employees have more opportunity to bring something in (for a hand off), or to hide something somewhere (for a hand off). Why should TSA automatically rule out non-passengers?
My questions also go to what skills do TSA employees have to inspect large buildings. According to TSA some of the detonators or other items they are concerned about are very small. Something that could be taped to the bottom of a chair or such. A true inspection could take a day or more if it was thorough.
All I am suggesting is that for TSA to walk through a terminal after a dump is more likely to make sure all passengers have exited than to find a suspect item.
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Jan 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm
#41
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
I was thinking of a case where people arrive into, say, ATL with IED components from LGA, JFK, MIA, FLL and BOS. If the person with the explosive is caught in LGA, doing a terminal dump there wouldn't find anything. And trying to do a terminal dump at ATL based on his destination would be too costly to be practical since you'd have no idea of the timing: when the others would be arriving.
#42
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Wrong.
The greatest risk any traveler takes is driving to the airport.
The greatest risk of a terrorist attack is a suicide bomber (or another attack) in the middle of the zig-zagged lines of passengers awaiting screening at a TSA checkpoint.
The second greatest risk of a terrorist attack is a bomb (in unscreened cargo) that is shipped via cargo hold.
IEDs are much farther down the list of potential terror attacks. Even if an IED is onboard,
passengers and crew still have a chance to thwart its detonation (like they did to the underwear bomber).
The greatest risk any traveler takes is driving to the airport.
The greatest risk of a terrorist attack is a suicide bomber (or another attack) in the middle of the zig-zagged lines of passengers awaiting screening at a TSA checkpoint.
The second greatest risk of a terrorist attack is a bomb (in unscreened cargo) that is shipped via cargo hold.
IEDs are much farther down the list of potential terror attacks. Even if an IED is onboard,
passengers and crew still have a chance to thwart its detonation (like they did to the underwear bomber).
You entire comment is silly, as the groups I cite come from their reports or statements regarding possible terrorist attacks, how it may be carried out, what type of weapons may be used - and that is all.
#44
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
And yours shows that your ego overrides your civility.
Whoa - are you seriously trying to say that, if a person who worked for TSA brought explosive materials to work, either accidentally or intentionally with no malicious intent (perhaps just to show them off to coworkers), that you would support NOT firing but simply retraining that person and allowing them to keep their job with TSA? That's what you said, SAT - I sure hope that's not what you meant.
Whoa - are you seriously trying to say that, if a person who worked for TSA brought explosive materials to work, either accidentally or intentionally with no malicious intent (perhaps just to show them off to coworkers), that you would support NOT firing but simply retraining that person and allowing them to keep their job with TSA? That's what you said, SAT - I sure hope that's not what you meant.
And its amazing to me that some here would actually take my other comment serious. I post that in the sense, "ask a silly question, get a stilly answer".
Last edited by SATTSO; Jan 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm