USA Today: Phoenix airport screening draws angry complaints
Oct 31, 2013, 7:26 am
#166
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
What should have happened is all the clerks involved should have been arrested and the whole TSA operation in the airport should have been cleaned out and replaced, from the FSD on down. It's a corrupt organization. They weren't protecting aviation security, they weren't even furthering the goals of the agency. They were abusing a passenger in order to punish her for questioning their authority. That's corrupt - using one's position to further one's on personal objectives.
What else should happen is that Ms. Armato should be given about a million dollars and the government should sue the clerks involved to indemnify it.
What else should happen is that Ms. Armato should be given about a million dollars and the government should sue the clerks involved to indemnify it.
Certainly, I think the clerks involved in the original incident should have been fired immediately.
In the second incident, when Ms Armato was being shadowed by a "TSA authority", instead of the authority making herself immediately known to the offending clerk, the incident should have been allowed (with Ms Armato's cooperation) to play itself out again as it did before, so that the extent of the corruption could be discovered. Had an entire group of TSOs been in on it, they should also have been fired, not to mention the TSM of that particular c/p.
Likewise, in her subsequent transits of the c/p, Ms Armato should never have had anything to fear; if a clerk refused to follow the established procedure, she should have been instructed to refuse screening and back out of the c/p, then immediately call the FSD's office - and she should have been given the FSD's emergency contact information to make that possible. She should never have any fear of encountering the rogue TSOs who humiliated and punished her, no matter which c/p she chose to use.
It seems clear to me, however, that the biggest breakdown at PHX is the FSD himself, who is not properly managing the people beneath him. Perhaps he's an empty desk (someone who is never there), or perhaps he is a moronic, clueless political appointee who leaves everything to his underlings, or perhaps he's an AFS type who enjoys defacating on the Constitution and willingly allows his underlings to bully and humiliate the traveling public.
In any organization, bad people = bad management. Whether it's a McDonalds where the tables are dirty and the food is bad, or a military unit where discipline is lax, or an accounting firm where deadlines are constanly missed, or a TSA station where SOP is never followed and the public is consistently mistreated, any systemic problem in any organization is a symptom of bad management - because good management holds people to the rules and fires those who refuse to abide.
Of course, this problem can be traced through all levels of TSAright up to John Pistole, and even to his boss, Janet Napolitano (and whomever winds up replacing her).
Oct 31, 2013, 8:45 am
#167
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely.
Certainly, I think the clerks involved in the original incident should have been fired immediately.
In the second incident, when Ms Armato was being shadowed by a "TSA authority", instead of the authority making herself immediately known to the offending clerk, the incident should have been allowed (with Ms Armato's cooperation) to play itself out again as it did before, so that the extent of the corruption could be discovered. Had an entire group of TSOs been in on it, they should also have been fired, not to mention the TSM of that particular c/p.
Likewise, in her subsequent transits of the c/p, Ms Armato should never have had anything to fear; if a clerk refused to follow the established procedure, she should have been instructed to refuse screening and back out of the c/p, then immediately call the FSD's office - and she should have been given the FSD's emergency contact information to make that possible. She should never have any fear of encountering the rogue TSOs who humiliated and punished her, no matter which c/p she chose to use.
It seems clear to me, however, that the biggest breakdown at PHX is the FSD himself, who is not properly managing the people beneath him. Perhaps he's an empty desk (someone who is never there), or perhaps he is a moronic, clueless political appointee who leaves everything to his underlings, or perhaps he's an AFS type who enjoys defacating on the Constitution and willingly allows his underlings to bully and humiliate the traveling public.
In any organization, bad people = bad management. Whether it's a McDonalds where the tables are dirty and the food is bad, or a military unit where discipline is lax, or an accounting firm where deadlines are constanly missed, or a TSA station where SOP is never followed and the public is consistently mistreated, any systemic problem in any organization is a symptom of bad management - because good management holds people to the rules and fires those who refuse to abide.
Of course, this problem can be traced through all levels of TSAright up to John Pistole, and even to his boss, Janet Napolitano (and whomever winds up replacing her).
Certainly, I think the clerks involved in the original incident should have been fired immediately.
In the second incident, when Ms Armato was being shadowed by a "TSA authority", instead of the authority making herself immediately known to the offending clerk, the incident should have been allowed (with Ms Armato's cooperation) to play itself out again as it did before, so that the extent of the corruption could be discovered. Had an entire group of TSOs been in on it, they should also have been fired, not to mention the TSM of that particular c/p.
Likewise, in her subsequent transits of the c/p, Ms Armato should never have had anything to fear; if a clerk refused to follow the established procedure, she should have been instructed to refuse screening and back out of the c/p, then immediately call the FSD's office - and she should have been given the FSD's emergency contact information to make that possible. She should never have any fear of encountering the rogue TSOs who humiliated and punished her, no matter which c/p she chose to use.
It seems clear to me, however, that the biggest breakdown at PHX is the FSD himself, who is not properly managing the people beneath him. Perhaps he's an empty desk (someone who is never there), or perhaps he is a moronic, clueless political appointee who leaves everything to his underlings, or perhaps he's an AFS type who enjoys defacating on the Constitution and willingly allows his underlings to bully and humiliate the traveling public.
In any organization, bad people = bad management. Whether it's a McDonalds where the tables are dirty and the food is bad, or a military unit where discipline is lax, or an accounting firm where deadlines are constanly missed, or a TSA station where SOP is never followed and the public is consistently mistreated, any systemic problem in any organization is a symptom of bad management - because good management holds people to the rules and fires those who refuse to abide.
Of course, this problem can be traced through all levels of TSAright up to John Pistole, and even to his boss, Janet Napolitano (and whomever winds up replacing her).
I think more than firings would have been the right course of action. The most senior person involved in the screening should have been charged with hostage taking, unlawful detention, or any other crime that would apply and tried before a jury of their peers. The other TSA participants, depending on involvement, should have been treated the same or as a minimum fired on the spot. After happening the second time the FSD should have been relieved for cause.
Oct 31, 2013, 9:30 am
#168
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
I think there are problems throughout the PHX organization, although ultimately the buck stops with the FSD (who I think has actually been replaced once. Like EWR, sometimes you need to sweep with a much bigger broom, or hand-pick the FSD replacement and send in someone who has one specific assignment, clean the place up).
I don't recall which terminal the Amato cr*p took place (repeatedly), but Yuki Miyamae was harassed (and continued to be harassed long after the original incident) at PHX.
PHX had months and months of baggage thefts that were reported but went unaddressed by the airport, until it finally made the news - then an investigation almost immediately (shock!) found who had been doing it, almost on a daily basis (people from outside pulling up to the curb, running inside, grabbing bags and leaving). IIRC, wasn't PHX also the airport where a vet was told to attempt the NoS after removing his prosthetic leg?
At PHX T2 if you are directed to the NoS and point out you have a physical limitation, you are often challenged to demonstrate the limitation or talk about it and you are always informed that any limitation makes you an 'opt out' (usually repeated: "Then you are opting out. You can't raise your arms? Then you are opting out. That makes you an opt out. You're an opt out".
It reminds me of EWR, which, IIRC, has replace the FSD. Or HNL. Sometimes the problems are so deep-rooted, so pervasive, it's almost necessary to declare the local organization a disaster area and send in a cleanup team.
Or, of course, they could simply keep sending in 'secret shoppers' with breast milk and breast prostheses and other physical infirmities and writing up everyone (TSO, LTSO, STSO, suits) who didn't follow the rules.
I don't recall which terminal the Amato cr*p took place (repeatedly), but Yuki Miyamae was harassed (and continued to be harassed long after the original incident) at PHX.
PHX had months and months of baggage thefts that were reported but went unaddressed by the airport, until it finally made the news - then an investigation almost immediately (shock!) found who had been doing it, almost on a daily basis (people from outside pulling up to the curb, running inside, grabbing bags and leaving). IIRC, wasn't PHX also the airport where a vet was told to attempt the NoS after removing his prosthetic leg?
At PHX T2 if you are directed to the NoS and point out you have a physical limitation, you are often challenged to demonstrate the limitation or talk about it and you are always informed that any limitation makes you an 'opt out' (usually repeated: "Then you are opting out. You can't raise your arms? Then you are opting out. That makes you an opt out. You're an opt out".
It reminds me of EWR, which, IIRC, has replace the FSD. Or HNL. Sometimes the problems are so deep-rooted, so pervasive, it's almost necessary to declare the local organization a disaster area and send in a cleanup team.
Or, of course, they could simply keep sending in 'secret shoppers' with breast milk and breast prostheses and other physical infirmities and writing up everyone (TSO, LTSO, STSO, suits) who didn't follow the rules.
Oct 31, 2013, 9:47 am
#169
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
I think there are problems throughout the PHX organization, although ultimately the buck stops with the FSD (who I think has actually been replaced once. Like EWR, sometimes you need to sweep with a much bigger broom, or hand-pick the FSD replacement and send in someone who has one specific assignment, clean the place up).
I don't recall which terminal the Amato cr*p took place (repeatedly), but Yuki Miyamae was harassed (and continued to be harassed long after the original incident) at PHX.
PHX had months and months of baggage thefts that were reported but went unaddressed by the airport, until it finally made the news - then an investigation almost immediately (shock!) found who had been doing it, almost on a daily basis (people from outside pulling up to the curb, running inside, grabbing bags and leaving). IIRC, wasn't PHX also the airport where a vet was told to attempt the NoS after removing his prosthetic leg?
At PHX T2 if you are directed to the NoS and point out you have a physical limitation, you are often challenged to demonstrate the limitation or talk about it and you are always informed that any limitation makes you an 'opt out' (usually repeated: "Then you are opting out. You can't raise your arms? Then you are opting out. That makes you an opt out. You're an opt out".
It reminds me of EWR, which, IIRC, has replace the FSD. Or HNL. Sometimes the problems are so deep-rooted, so pervasive, it's almost necessary to declare the local organization a disaster area and send in a cleanup team.
Or, of course, they could simply keep sending in 'secret shoppers' with breast milk and breast prostheses and other physical infirmities and writing up everyone (TSO, LTSO, STSO, suits) who didn't follow the rules.
I don't recall which terminal the Amato cr*p took place (repeatedly), but Yuki Miyamae was harassed (and continued to be harassed long after the original incident) at PHX.
PHX had months and months of baggage thefts that were reported but went unaddressed by the airport, until it finally made the news - then an investigation almost immediately (shock!) found who had been doing it, almost on a daily basis (people from outside pulling up to the curb, running inside, grabbing bags and leaving). IIRC, wasn't PHX also the airport where a vet was told to attempt the NoS after removing his prosthetic leg?
At PHX T2 if you are directed to the NoS and point out you have a physical limitation, you are often challenged to demonstrate the limitation or talk about it and you are always informed that any limitation makes you an 'opt out' (usually repeated: "Then you are opting out. You can't raise your arms? Then you are opting out. That makes you an opt out. You're an opt out".
It reminds me of EWR, which, IIRC, has replace the FSD. Or HNL. Sometimes the problems are so deep-rooted, so pervasive, it's almost necessary to declare the local organization a disaster area and send in a cleanup team.
Or, of course, they could simply keep sending in 'secret shoppers' with breast milk and breast prostheses and other physical infirmities and writing up everyone (TSO, LTSO, STSO, suits) who didn't follow the rules.
I have wondered why TSA took no interest in secret shopper type evaluations of checkpoints after it was discussed in the TSA Blog several years ago. I can only guess that TSA knows how bad the problems are and didn't want to do anything to fix it.
Oct 31, 2013, 1:31 pm
#170
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Or they did and the results were so embarrassing they decided it was best left unpublished.
Oct 31, 2013, 2:17 pm
#171
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
In my experience, most people who are doing something wrong genuinely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
Never attribute to malice that which can as easilly be attributed to stupidity.
Oct 31, 2013, 3:16 pm
#172
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
Or, perhaps they simply look at the way they do things and say, "Oh, please - we do everything right! We're completely by the book! These people criticizing us have no idea what it's like to be us! We're fine just the way we are, and if they don't like it, they can take the bus!"
In my experience, most people who are doing something wrong genuinely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
Never attribute to malice that which can as easilly be attributed to stupidity.
In my experience, most people who are doing something wrong genuinely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
Never attribute to malice that which can as easilly be attributed to stupidity.
Oct 31, 2013, 3:57 pm
#173
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Or, perhaps they simply look at the way they do things and say, "Oh, please - we do everything right! We're completely by the book! These people criticizing us have no idea what it's like to be us! We're fine just the way we are, and if they don't like it, they can take the bus!"
In my experience, most people who are doing something wrong genuinely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
Never attribute to malice that which can as easilly be attributed to stupidity.
In my experience, most people who are doing something wrong genuinely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
Never attribute to malice that which can as easilly be attributed to stupidity.
Oct 31, 2013, 7:26 pm
#174
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
That suggest you are competent in your work. On the other hand we are talking about TSA and its employees.
Nov 1, 2013, 10:47 am
#175
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
It might turn out that the 'rogue' TSO was actually an overpaid trainer with a couple stripes on his/her shoulder.
Nov 3, 2013, 6:08 am
#176
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
I forgot to mention in the earlier response to this, TSA did not confiscate the items, the process is TSA discovers what is believed to be a firearm (or is a confirmed firearm), and they contact the local LEOs - that is essentially the end of TSAs participation with the exception of taking a photo, and filing the incident report that goes with it. All other steps are taken by the LEOs - so TSA did not confiscate the items, if they were confiscated, it was done by the local LEOs.
The picture looks like a normal staging for record keeping based on LEO protocols I have seen. It has the container laid open, the bullets removed from the mags and the weapon superimposed on a plastic laycard that appears to be similar to the ones used in investigative imagery (similar to the ones used at crime scenes to give a size/dimension comparison). TSA does none of that, TSA simply wants the image of the weapon for reporting purposes (the incident report). As soon as the weapons are identified or discovered (many times still in the xray machine), LEO is contacted and TSA simply maintains the weapon in situ until the LEO arrives. Once they arrive, it is the LEOs situation and process from that point forward.
Every story always has 3 sides, sometimes all 3 sides coincide, sometimes 2 sides coincide, and sometimes none coincide. I currently have nothing to dispell the stories I have read on the internet/news sites. I have nothing to give clarity on the incident from the side of TSA (and at this point, I do not anticipate any other information to come out on the behalf of TSA). Also, please take into account that I am not on the reporting list for cases like this, I am not given a list of printouts, emails or even summaries of investigations and the like - so I am essentially as in the dark on information on this situation as you are. I have also said that I think it should have been handled better, and that proper redress should be applied, I have nothing more to give you. I am not in management, I have not been made privvy to the information from statements by the TSOs or other employees in the area when it went on, and yet you are asking me, as an employee of the organization (and a pretty low on the ladder one at that), to recommend the termination of all involved, based simply on accounts by one point of view, the video tape - which has no audio, and a complete lack of information as to what was holding the process up from the TSA point of view? I am not in a position to speak on what happened past the statements I have already made, so again, I have nothing else to give you.
So it's equally speculative on Bob's part, without factual ground underneath it, to assume the money wasn't confiscated.
The question Bob could have answered, and chose not to, is who gave the $ to LE? Who staged the photo with a gun, ammo and $?
Bob could have contacted the airport in question and actually researched this before responding. Instead, he chose to wordsmith TSA boilerplate as a reply - "TSA shouldn't do this, so they must not have done this, although I don't really know any more than anyone else looking at the picture, because I'm just speculating".
Spoken like a politician - but we all know how highly regarded politicians are, and how much the public trusts what they say.
The photo doesn't show the entire contents of the bag. It doesn't show the gun in situ. As in other pictures, the gun and any other contraband objects are removed, 'staged', and photographed. There may have been a towel around the gun, but unless the gun was photographed in place, the towel wouldn't be in the photo.
I wonder if Bob will ever address the issue of certain heart meds not being confiscated at the checkpoint if the screener chooses to read labels.
The question Bob could have answered, and chose not to, is who gave the $ to LE? Who staged the photo with a gun, ammo and $?
Bob could have contacted the airport in question and actually researched this before responding. Instead, he chose to wordsmith TSA boilerplate as a reply - "TSA shouldn't do this, so they must not have done this, although I don't really know any more than anyone else looking at the picture, because I'm just speculating".
Spoken like a politician - but we all know how highly regarded politicians are, and how much the public trusts what they say.
The photo doesn't show the entire contents of the bag. It doesn't show the gun in situ. As in other pictures, the gun and any other contraband objects are removed, 'staged', and photographed. There may have been a towel around the gun, but unless the gun was photographed in place, the towel wouldn't be in the photo.
I wonder if Bob will ever address the issue of certain heart meds not being confiscated at the checkpoint if the screener chooses to read labels.
That's not true, every story does not have 3 sides. In many cases, one side is clearly right and one side is risible. That is true in the Armato case. And as an aside, it happened in early 2010, haven't you had enough time to get as much of all "3 sides" as possible?
Here's what happened:
The TSA clerks locked a passenger in a cage because in a previous encounter she had tried to get them to follow the breast milk screening rules.
They walked around for an hour ignoring her until she missed her flight.
Finally, they let her out of the cage and a manager talked to her, she tried to get him to read and follow the TSA's published rules but he wouldn't. She wound up having to sit and pour the milk into small separate containers.
Here's a response by Ms. Armato to the TSA's statement published after her false imprisonment:
http://www.sustainablemothering.com/.../#comment-1648
Excerpt:
So a WEEK after the incident, they had somebody shadow her, and this person had to intervene because the clerks STILL didn't want to follow the rules.
Is any part of the recounting of events false?
Can you point to any statement contradicting it?
What should have happened is all the clerks involved should have been arrested and the whole TSA operation in the airport should have been cleaned out and replaced, from the FSD on down. It's a corrupt organization. They weren't protecting aviation security, they weren't even furthering the goals of the agency. They were abusing a passenger in order to punish her for questioning their authority. That's corrupt - using one's position to further one's on personal objectives.
What else should happen is that Ms. Armato should be given about a million dollars and the government should sue the clerks involved to indemnify it.
Is there another side to that? In the ensuing almost 4 years, has anything come to light justifying locking Ms. Armato in a cage and then walking around doing nothing for an hour?
If not, what should happen to government employees who do something like that?
Here's what happened:
The TSA clerks locked a passenger in a cage because in a previous encounter she had tried to get them to follow the breast milk screening rules.
They walked around for an hour ignoring her until she missed her flight.
Finally, they let her out of the cage and a manager talked to her, she tried to get him to read and follow the TSA's published rules but he wouldn't. She wound up having to sit and pour the milk into small separate containers.
Here's a response by Ms. Armato to the TSA's statement published after her false imprisonment:
http://www.sustainablemothering.com/.../#comment-1648
Excerpt:
So a WEEK after the incident, they had somebody shadow her, and this person had to intervene because the clerks STILL didn't want to follow the rules.
Is any part of the recounting of events false?
Can you point to any statement contradicting it?
What should have happened is all the clerks involved should have been arrested and the whole TSA operation in the airport should have been cleaned out and replaced, from the FSD on down. It's a corrupt organization. They weren't protecting aviation security, they weren't even furthering the goals of the agency. They were abusing a passenger in order to punish her for questioning their authority. That's corrupt - using one's position to further one's on personal objectives.
What else should happen is that Ms. Armato should be given about a million dollars and the government should sue the clerks involved to indemnify it.
Is there another side to that? In the ensuing almost 4 years, has anything come to light justifying locking Ms. Armato in a cage and then walking around doing nothing for an hour?
If not, what should happen to government employees who do something like that?
Nov 3, 2013, 6:23 am
#177
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
I would think that many people do not have a problem with audits and someone keeping tabs on their job performance in order to let management folks know what they are doing that makes them competent, and to provide management a chance to give constructive feedback (if any is to be given) along the way - thus giving the employee a chance to improve in their performance and by extension a better chance at a better review... At least, that is the way I view it.
Last edited by gsoltso; Nov 3, 2013 at 6:25 am Reason: clarity
Nov 3, 2013, 6:57 am
#178
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
I would think that many people do not have a problem with audits and someone keeping tabs on their job performance in order to let management folks know what they are doing that makes them competent, and to provide management a chance to give constructive feedback (if any is to be given) along the way - thus giving the employee a chance to improve in their performance and by extension a better chance at a better review... At least, that is the way I view it.
Why, yes I was. You invited me to.
TSA claims to treat us with dignity, respect, and courtesy. If they could only consistently deliver that, there would be no issue.
Nov 3, 2013, 7:05 am
#179
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by gsoltso;21718391Every story [I
always[/I] has 3 sides, sometimes all 3 sides coincide, sometimes 2 sides coincide, and sometimes none coincide. I currently have nothing to dispell the stories I have read on the internet/news sites. I have nothing to give clarity on the incident from the side of TSA (and at this point, I do not anticipate any other information to come out on the behalf of TSA). Also, please take into account that I am not on the reporting list for cases like this, I am not given a list of printouts, emails or even summaries of investigations and the like - so I am essentially as in the dark on information on this situation as you are. I have also said that I think it should have been handled better, and that proper redress should be applied, I have nothing more to give you. I am not in management, I have not been made privvy to the information from statements by the TSOs or other employees in the area when it went on, and yet you are asking me, as an employee of the organization (and a pretty low on the ladder one at that), to recommend the termination of all involved, based simply on accounts by one point of view, the video tape - which has no audio, and a complete lack of information as to what was holding the process up from the TSA point of view? I am not in a position to speak on what happened past the statements I have already made, so again, I have nothing else to give you.
Some TSA clerks locked a passenger in a cage for an hour and then stood around doing nothing. Never mind not having inside supersecret information justifying this behavior. Can you *make up* a scenario in which this behavior should be met with *anything* other than firing?
Can you *make up* a scenario in which this behavior can be interpreted as anything other than corrupt - using one's one position to promote one's own personal goals.
What other point of view could there be other than Ms. Armato's? From the time she approached the checkpoint, she was in the right and the clerks were in the wrong. The rules of their employment required them to screen her breast milk without putting it through the X-ray machine. Instead, they locked her in a cage.
The first clerk that told her she needed to put her breast milk through the X-ray machine should have been fired. That's not the rule, and a clerk who doesn't know and follow the rules shouldn't be on the job.
If that sort of thing happened, clerks wouldn't abuse passengers. If a clerk who didn't know what a NEXUS card was and didn't look it up got fired, clerks would know what a NEXUS card is from then on. If a clerk who didn't know the rules on medical liquids got fired, clerks would learn and follow the rules. The problem isn't training, it's that there are no consequences for failing to pay attention to the training or follow the rules.
Again, never mind not knowing the other "two sides". Can you make up one or two other "sides" explaining why the clerks visible on the video shouldn't have been fired? Is there any explanation, real or imaginary, that can show why they shouldn't have been fired? Anything.
Nov 3, 2013, 7:53 am
#180
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
I forgot to mention in the earlier response to this, TSA did not confiscate the items, the process is TSA discovers what is believed to be a firearm (or is a confirmed firearm), and they contact the local LEOs - that is essentially the end of TSAs participation with the exception of taking a photo, and filing the incident report that goes with it. All other steps are taken by the LEOs - so TSA did not confiscate the items, if they were confiscated, it was done by the local LEOs.
The picture looks like a normal staging for record keeping based on LEO protocols I have seen. It has the container laid open, the bullets removed from the mags and the weapon superimposed on a plastic laycard that appears to be similar to the ones used in investigative imagery (similar to the ones used at crime scenes to give a size/dimension comparison). TSA does none of that, TSA simply wants the image of the weapon for reporting purposes (the incident report). As soon as the weapons are identified or discovered (many times still in the xray machine), LEO is contacted and TSA simply maintains the weapon in situ until the LEO arrives. Once they arrive, it is the LEOs situation and process from that point forward.
Every story always has 3 sides, sometimes all 3 sides coincide, sometimes 2 sides coincide, and sometimes none coincide. I currently have nothing to dispell the stories I have read on the internet/news sites. I have nothing to give clarity on the incident from the side of TSA (and at this point, I do not anticipate any other information to come out on the behalf of TSA). Also, please take into account that I am not on the reporting list for cases like this, I am not given a list of printouts, emails or even summaries of investigations and the like - so I am essentially as in the dark on information on this situation as you are. I have also said that I think it should have been handled better, and that proper redress should be applied, I have nothing more to give you. I am not in management, I have not been made privvy to the information from statements by the TSOs or other employees in the area when it went on, and yet you are asking me, as an employee of the organization (and a pretty low on the ladder one at that), to recommend the termination of all involved, based simply on accounts by one point of view, the video tape - which has no audio, and a complete lack of information as to what was holding the process up from the TSA point of view? I am not in a position to speak on what happened past the statements I have already made, so again, I have nothing else to give you.
The picture looks like a normal staging for record keeping based on LEO protocols I have seen. It has the container laid open, the bullets removed from the mags and the weapon superimposed on a plastic laycard that appears to be similar to the ones used in investigative imagery (similar to the ones used at crime scenes to give a size/dimension comparison). TSA does none of that, TSA simply wants the image of the weapon for reporting purposes (the incident report). As soon as the weapons are identified or discovered (many times still in the xray machine), LEO is contacted and TSA simply maintains the weapon in situ until the LEO arrives. Once they arrive, it is the LEOs situation and process from that point forward.
Every story always has 3 sides, sometimes all 3 sides coincide, sometimes 2 sides coincide, and sometimes none coincide. I currently have nothing to dispell the stories I have read on the internet/news sites. I have nothing to give clarity on the incident from the side of TSA (and at this point, I do not anticipate any other information to come out on the behalf of TSA). Also, please take into account that I am not on the reporting list for cases like this, I am not given a list of printouts, emails or even summaries of investigations and the like - so I am essentially as in the dark on information on this situation as you are. I have also said that I think it should have been handled better, and that proper redress should be applied, I have nothing more to give you. I am not in management, I have not been made privvy to the information from statements by the TSOs or other employees in the area when it went on, and yet you are asking me, as an employee of the organization (and a pretty low on the ladder one at that), to recommend the termination of all involved, based simply on accounts by one point of view, the video tape - which has no audio, and a complete lack of information as to what was holding the process up from the TSA point of view? I am not in a position to speak on what happened past the statements I have already made, so again, I have nothing else to give you.
Why isn't this the case with weapons?
In regards to PHX I think all that was being asked was your opinion on what proper redress should be based on information publically available.
I would assume that TSA has policies in place for screenings that don't fit the cookie cutter format. Was policy followed in this case and if not should people not be held accountable?