The gun applique as seen on the purse does not meet the definition of a replica.

It appears that you grossly overestimate my position with the agency. I have consistently pointed out that things like this are not in keeping with policy - to a lot more people than just Bob. I have no answer for you other than some people do not follow the SOP like they are supposed to. Whether that failure is a conscious decision, or due to a lack of awareness is something I can not tell you, for I do not know.

I am... The problem does not appear to be (at leat in my POV) the training program. Based on the training I have recieved consistently with TSA, I am able to reasonably recognize what is a viable threat, something that could easily be confused as a viable threat item, and something that is completely harmless. Some here may disagree with me on some items at times - but I am fairly certain that based upon the premise of whether something is a viable threat (and easily confused with a viable threat) vs something that is not a threat at all - we would reach a pretty similar consensus when faced with a list of items. The sticking point would be realistic replicas (which, as you know, are not allowed by regulation) - I am fairly certain that we would still have a general consensus, but that the numbers would be much lower.

** Realistic to me is something that would easily be confused with the real thing - literally. This is changing, with the introduction of the new coatings and colors on firearms, this has expanded that list just a little bit. However, any time that I would prevent an item from being allowed past the checkpoint, I would be able to articulate the reasoning, and it would be noticeable to someone not working for the organization... (and for those that may ask, no I will not gt into a line by line item discussion on what should/should not be allowed based upon the myriad news clippings from the last 10 years or so)

As for the bomb comment, that is a tough call - the organization clearly indicates that those types of comments are frowned upon (through various outlets and even newsie pieces from time to time). I am almost certain every single TSO has heard someone say a phrase very close to "there is not a bomb or anything like that in my bag". I am also certain that some TSOs have heard someone say a phrase like "There is a BOMB in my bag". The former is presumably meant to alleviate any concern, while the latter is meant to convey that there is actually something to worry about... or it is meant as a joke... or the person really has a bomb in their bag... or - see where that is heading? I would like to see some common sense protocols in those situations, but I understand why TSA has the regulations written as they are (even if I disagree with them).

I assume you are alluding to training as a BDO which has been proven by GAO to be no better than guessing.

Why should we take what you have to say with any serious thought when the program is seriously flawed?

This means that TSOs are still free to confiscate my nitro pills at the checkpoint. It does not matter what the website says (it is still incorrect) or what the SOP is.

I never even hinted at BDO training, although the program is pretty good stuff. I know much more about behavior and the way we exhibit signs of stress than the average person. This does not make me a human lie detector, nor someone that will always recognize when something is wrong, but it does greatly increase my chances of noticing something that others (without that same training) would not.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the commentary above - in the least. All of those situations can be handled with a modicum of common sense, however, the regulations sometimes do not allow for that (due to the way they are written).

BDO training is not "good stuff" - it's a garbage 'science' boondoggle. BDOs are more likely to identify someone that is a threat to aviation security by wearing a blindfold and guessing - something that has been demonstrated by evaluation of the program by GAO. In fact, BDOs have primarily "detected" crimes that are in no way related to aviation security (smuggling, human trafficking) when they manage to guess correctly. Honestly, defending that program simply proves that you drink the TSA Kool-Aid willingly.

I play poker and a part of the game is behavior detection ("tells") vs. opponents that are actively trying to deceive. Any player worth their salt knows that tells are used ONLY when a very close decision has to be made, as they are well-known to be very unreliable as a primary indicator. Anyone that has read Caro's "Book of Poker Tells" knows more about human behavior and how we exhibit signs of stress than the average person. I can loan you a copy if you want to round out your BDO training.

For example: My adrenaline amps up when I'm bluffing. My adrenaline amps up when I have a big hand and have a good chance of winning a pot. The bigger the pot or bluff, the larger the reaction.

The physical indications are exactly the same in both cases (dilated pupils, throbbing carotid in my neck, slight shaking of hands, stiffness of movement, among others). So when I use my hand to cover my neck and tilt my head down to hide my eyes behind the brim of my baseball cap and am very careful with how I place my bet in front of me - am I bluffing or do I have that flush? At that point, my opponent is only guessing if they rely solely on my body language.

Wow, a personal attack in the first paragraph, awesome days indeed. I will key you in on a little something, the principles of behavior detection studies and interviewing, and card playing and just about any other situation where you are taught to "read people" are the same. Do some research into the behavioral studies by most recognized sources and programs and you will see common themes and conclusions. The same things you mention here, are in every single study of behavioral analysis, recognition and interpretation - soooo, which is it? The stuff in your book and that you use playing cards is either effective, or junk science, so which is it? Be careful how quickly you answer though, because the answer you give indicates that the same statement holds for every other behavioral program (or study or card playing book, or interrogation manual, or interviewing technique manual) that uses these same types of behavioral observations and analysis.

Do you completely disregard the criticisms of the program from the GAO and other sources?

Wow.

Of course, this is the agency that believes that nitro pills are a hazard to aviation security.

TSA has had months to address the Nitro pill issue and has yet to do so. The "Can I Bring My" tool still returns a non-responsive result to the Nitro pill question.

If TSA can't even address a simple medical question how can anyone expect them to address something of a more complex matter.

It is things like this that makes TSA a worthy topic for shows like Family Guy.

In other words, BDO "training" matches an array of other "training" in that there's minimal evidence any of it is even vaguely useful. You might as well, study chicken entrails.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/sc...or-sleuth.html

I never disregard any information. I also understand that the ability to recreate the same levels of stress in a laboratory environ is impossible. The studies that are the closest to the same levels of actual stress have shown some better results - but nothing out there is 100% reliable.

The answer on the site indicates that Nitro pills are allowed.

TSA is worthy of a Family Guy episode, perhaps even more than one.

Using chicken entrails when accompanied with the correct bones and a hard surface to cast them on have been an accepted practice for looking into the future in many cultures throughout time...

But seriously, look up some of the research that relies on interviews and video footage of people in stressful situations (such as video of suicide bombers, folks commiting serious crimes, folks being interviewed as subjects of serious crimes, etc). These studies are beginning to gain some purchase and are increasing - although they are not getting published as quickly as I would like, most of them are not publicly avialable yet. Now, I do not necessarily believe the studies that are dropping 90%+ results, as that is not even consistent with the cultural differences in the varying ethnicities and countries, however, these reports and studies can be used as a starting point for independent research (if you are truly interested enough, you can begin with this link - http://www.examiner.com/article/over...hority-figures. ).

Until we have some comprehensive research that uses footage of people under high levels of stress, we are not going to have usable results that are compelling for the masses and skeptics. Telling a handful of college kids (or people in general) to lie about something from their past while in front of a camera, is simply not going to generate much in the way of realistic stress (which sadly is how most of the research out there has been conducted). I think the most telling and compelling video so far is the one of the Volgograd bomber out in front of the station prior to their entry - you could write a textbook on behaviors that most people will recognize as something out of the ordinary.

No, it does not. The response discusses larger amounts of LGA's. That is clearly non-responsive to the question.

This, <deleted>, is exactly what the TSA website says when one does a search for "nitro pills":

NOWHERE on the TSA website is it written that nitro pills are specifically allowed.

Video of the Tsarnaev brothers prior to the Boston bombing would certainly dispute your assertion. As for suicide bombers, by the time they would get a place where they are on video, it's too late. As for "folks being interviewed as subjects of serious crimes", if one has come up against a true psycopath, that person is not going to give any "tells" as he believes he has done nothing wrong.

As for the linked article, really, face shapes give clues to personality? A sloped forehead says: No wonder the GAO says the BDO program is worthless.