Originally Posted by Night Owl (Post 24427444)

My sister in law and 10 year old nephew fly out of ATL a couple of times a month while my brother is working in STL for six months. Last weekend while they were in the precheck line, he asked him mother why people make such a big deal out stuff like tshirts with guns on them. She suggested he ask one of the
screeners, knowing they would give him the standard line about keeping him safe. Jack' s reply was "But what's unsafe about a picture on a shirt?"

Originally Posted by DeafBlonde (Post 24428581)

Sometimes I think that TSA would be more effective it it was run by 10-year-olds... <sigh> :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Night Owl (Post 24427444)

My sister in law and 10 year old nephew fly out of ATL a couple of times a month while my brother is working in STL for six months. Last weekend while they were in the precheck line, he asked him mother why people make such a big deal out stuff like tshirts with guns on them. She suggested he ask one of the
screeners, knowing they would give him the standard line about keeping him safe. Jack' s reply was "But what's unsafe about a picture on a shirt?"

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 24430130)

Anecdotal, I see shirts like that all the time and grenades etc. Nothing is ever said.

Originally Posted by eyecue (Post 24430130)

Anecdotal, I see shirts like that all the time and grenades etc. Nothing is ever said.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 24430144)

If only everyone in the TSA had that kind of common sense. Unfortunately, some TSA employees have even freaked out over harmless words.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24434870)

I even had someone wearing one of the protest shirts during National Opt out day, we finished screening his stuff, spent some time speaking to him, even answering questions (mostly ones that were pertaining to the basic process they have to follow for opting out and one about which rock group we liked best). I never understood tshirts with funky/scary/gun themed print being a problem - even the tshirts making fun of TSA, what is the problem?

Originally Posted by Xyzzy (Post 24445929)

TSA is not phased by pictures of weapons on shirts. It seems, that they are m:eek:st scared by stuff written in Arabic.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24434870)

I never understood tshirts with funky/scary/gun themed print being a problem - even the tshirts making fun of TSA, what is the problem?

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24434870)

I never understood tshirts with funky/scary/gun themed print being a problem - even the tshirts making fun of TSA, what is the problem?

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 24446909)

Images of a gun on a purse is a TSA Show Stopper.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1125354.html

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 24455215)

Apples and oranges, Boggie Dog. That replica gun is 3-D (even if it's still only exactly half of a replica gun).

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 24434918)

??

It's your agency, <deleted>. If you don't know the answer, wouldn't those in your agency who do support zero tolerance policies on images be able to answer your question better than an innocent pax?

It happens frequently enough (even if you don't do it at your airport!) that there is clearly a valid underlying security concern. It can't be just the over-reaction or tetchiness of an occasional 'rogue' screener, because this sort of response (to words or images) is routinely defended by higher-ups.

This would be a good question for Blogger Bob to address - enquiring minds, even ten-year-olds, would like to understand. @:-) (Unfortunately, the rationale is probably SSI and can't be disclosed).

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 24454238)

In my humble opinion? (Or my "not-so-humble" opinion?)

I think that TSOs are under-educated regarding what constitutes a legitimate threat.

Now, that could happen in a couple of different ways. One generous theory is that TSA's education program isn't "effective" --- in the sense that, at the end of the process, TSOs can't distinguish between legitimate threats and expressions of free speech. One more cynical theory is that TSA's education program is deliberately incomplete --- because then TSA has legal cover when an individual TSO finds a hidden stash of drugs, even though TSOs aren't supposed to be looking for drugs.

So, I'm assuming that TSOs are told that if a passenger says "I HAVE A BOMB IN MY SUITCASE!!", the TSO has to take the passenger seriously and initiate appropriate procedures for dealing with the threat. But are TSOs trained in how to distinguish between those things and expressions of free speech?

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24479375)

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).

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24479215)

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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 24480443)

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?

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24505061)

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.

Originally Posted by pa3lsvt (Post 24505446)

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.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 24514163)

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.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24514035)

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.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 24514163)

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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 24514973)

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.

Originally Posted by cestmoi123 (Post 24515051)

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

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24519486)

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24519486)

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

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 24519486)

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. ).

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 24519624)

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.

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 24519624)

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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 24520436)

I fail to see how anyone can claim that the TSA website says nitro pills are permitted.

What am I missing here?

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 24520985)

Shift the focus to what the real grounds for denial were.

NITRO pills, not nitro PILLS.

Note the same confusion regarding Clearcare contact solution. The problem is not with contact solutions (liquids) being handled as medical substances. The problem is with one specific ingredient in this particular brand of solution.

Here's an answer (very similar to the situation with nitro pills) from TSA's own Blog. Perhaps <deleted> even knows the author.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/05/tsa-2010...avel-tips.html





and from the same thread:



<deleted>, read the above from your own agency's blog. Do you see the problem? A certain 'TSM/<deleted>' was very active (and unprofessionally testy, IMHO) on that thread.

My pills never alarmed. They are dispensed in a tiny glass bottle inside a regular pill bottle (big enough to hold the prescription label). There were no negative swab tests, but the inside bottle wasn't tested. It was identified and confiscated because the external label clearly identified the contents.

(bolding mine)

Note that the 'average' pax will still get prohibited Clearcare through the checkpoint IF it is small enough to fit in the baggie and IF a screener doesn't happen to notice the label and demand the secondary test that will result in confiscation. This is exactly what happened with my nitro pills.

Something else interesting. I seem to recall someone denying that there are SSI documents detailing specific information that is not available to the pax - specifically, the exact limitations (weight, length) used to decide whether or not a walking cane will be allowed. There's an interesting exchange on this blog post where a current TSO slaps a former TSO down because the former TSO's inside information is out-of-date.

A 'Former TSO' posted about the LGA restrictions applying to fish.



Interesting that there's an SSI CP FAQ website that is presumably not only more informative but also more current than the website info available to pax. I wonder if this is where the DEN rules on weight/length/etc. on medically necessary canes is.

OT: if the rules for LGA quantities can be bent because someone decided that a clear liquid with live fish swimming in it is OK in greater than 3.4 ounces, then why would 'a couple gallons' be an issue? Once again, it's clear that either there's SSI information on the CP FAQ limiting the amount of acceptable water with fish, or it's entirely up to the TSO to make the call 'just because'.

Kind of like saying that even if an LGA passes a test, there are a 'slue of other factors at the checkpoint' that might result in its confiscation. I assume 'slue of other factors' is a fancy way of saying if the screener has a chip on his shoulder or wants the item, it will still get confiscated, medical or not.