![]() |
reusing test strips
Watching a clerk at ATL right now.
He is standing by the document checker and swabbing hands as people pass by. He has 2 test strips - and he alternates between them. He swabs hands and puts the test strip in the machine. When the test strip exits the machine, he puts it on top of it and reuses it on the next traveler as the other strip is in the machine. He is also not wearing gloves... His buddy just took over and is following the same procedures. Third clerk in a row now doing the same thing. And so is the fourth one. However, we have now upgraded to rotating 3 test strips. |
Further proof, not that we need it, that TSA-provided security is a farce.
Who is the FSD at ATL? I'd send him a copy of your post. Which reminds me: is there a list of all FSDs that can be accessed by the public? |
Originally Posted by dimramon
(Post 23155177)
Watching a clerk at ATL right now.
He is standing by the document checker and swabbing hands as people pass by. He has 2 test strips - and he alternates between them. He swabs hands and puts the test strip in the machine. When the test strip exits the machine, he puts it on top of it and reuses it on the next traveler as the other strip is in the machine. He is also not wearing gloves... His buddy just took over and is following the same procedures. Third clerk in a row now doing the same thing. And so is the fourth one. However, we have now upgraded to rotating 3 test strips. It will also be good to record some of this silliness with your phone, but I recommend being unobtrusive about it. You know how TSOs get when they are recorded screwing up or breaking rules.
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 23155408)
Further proof, not that we need it, that TSA-provided security is a farce.
Who is the FSD at ATL? I'd send him a copy of your post. Which reminds me: is there a list of all FSDs that can be accessed by the public? Now you've got me thinking - what would a TSM say if you asked for he name and contact info of the FSD's office at their airport? |
Acting ATL FSD as of Sept 2013: Paul Armes (Old News)
As you might expect, he's a piece of work. I have no idea if he is still there. You can try "[email protected]" and see what happens.
Upon further review, it turns out the TSA sent him to SLC. Makes you proud to know that there are completely dedicated and mobile TSA SESs out there. :p |
Never mind the FSD, don't we have someone from the TSA who has joined us here on FT officially? Granted, if there was a picture or video of the screeners in action, it would be even better (& harder to discount!).
|
Originally Posted by txrus
(Post 23156932)
Never mind the FSD, don't we have someone from the TSA who has joined us here on FT officially? Granted, if there was a picture or video of the screeners in action, it would be even better (& harder to discount!).
|
Originally Posted by txrus
(Post 23156932)
Never mind the FSD, don't we have someone from the TSA who has joined us here on FT officially? Granted, if there was a picture or video of the screeners in action, it would be even better (& harder to discount!).
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 23157227)
Might get better results with a tweet.
|
Originally Posted by txrus
(Post 23156932)
Never mind the FSD, don't we have someone from the TSA who has joined us here on FT officially? Granted, if there was a picture or video of the screeners in action, it would be even better (& harder to discount!).
Much like a public complaint, however, I'd expect such a report to GNDN at warp speed. |
Originally Posted by dimramon
(Post 23157243)
I dont use twitter... yet :)
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 23157401)
TSA certainly does - did you see the list of accounts Ross posted?
|
Originally Posted by dimramon
(Post 23157455)
I have not... Never really looked into twitter.
|
It's not going to cause a false positive--if it didn't detect once it won't detect the next time.
It could pass other contamination, though. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 23157734)
It's not going to cause a false positive--if it didn't detect once it won't detect the next time.
It could pass other contamination, though. Let's say item one is swabbed with a swab and does not alarm. Then the same swab is used for swabbing a different item from another pax and it also does not alarm but when using the same swab for a third item from third pax, the combination of the residue from both the first and second swabs with the residue of the third item sets off the alarm. It's basic chemistry where A is good, B is good and C is good along with combining A & B but when you combine A, B AND C, you have a problem |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 23157734)
It's not going to cause a false positive--if it didn't detect once it won't detect the next time.
It could pass other contamination, though. Those random checks are infrequent enough that misting with IPA between swabs actually has time to sterilize the swab. Alcohols at 70% concentration will kill most germs in 10-15 seconds. But if they are swabbing everyone as they pass through the TDC, and depending on how thoroughly they douse the test strip, an alcohol protocol may not be sufficient to prevent the spread of germs. I tend not to get too fussed about germs, and I think that people overuse hand sanitizers. The handles on your luggage are probably just as filthy as your average passenger's palm. So even if the swabs are not sterilized, it's near-zero risk compared to other risks you regularly take. (Like touching the filthy tray tables and seat-back pockets in your airplane seat...) If they are swabbing personal medical equipment, I would insist on watching them sterilize the swab first if I had a compromised immune system. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:40 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.