What other airports utilize "reverse" screening?

http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/lo...b2fba7d68.html

Some interesting counter material for the sheep that believe we need to screen passengers on all commercial aircraft to protect the non-flying public on the ground from a 9/11 style attack.

I would think a 25,000 lb turboprop carrying 500+ gallons of fuel is still very much a "flying missile".

Any PAX connecting from an international flight coming into the USA goes through "reverse" screening.

Not quite "any" passenger. Some international passengers go through TSA/CBP screenings at their point of origin, which will allow them to arrive at a "normal" gate without undergoing re-screening here. (This happens frequently with flights originating in Canada, for example.) But this is the exception, not the norm.

Back in the late 70s through the mid-80s, I remember commercial flights on small commuter airlines in California that had no screening of any kind. If you were flying from Santa Maria (SMX) or San Luis Obispo (SLO) to LAX, you would fly from the boonies airport to LAX and land at the old Commuter Terminal. If you landed at one of the regular terminals, they made you go through pre-9/11 screening as you entered the main terminal. Since you were generally connecting to another flight, it wasn't a big deal.

In the TSA era, if I were flying just to Portland from Klamath Falls, I would refuse the reverse screening and they could escort me out of the secure area. (Disclaimer: I have no idea concerning the practicality of flying from Klamath Falls to Portland.) If I were on a flight anywhere else and they wanted to do a reverse screening for whatever contrived reason and if it was my destination airport, you can bet I would decline to be screened.

There have been FTers who have refused reverse after arriving on an international flight without a connection at airports with no direct exit from Customs.

If you are not connecting and you are at a station such as PIT where accessing the street from CBP requires traversing a secure area, you may either go through screening or simply notify TSA that you would prefer an escort.

It may take a bit of time, but at some point an Officer will escort you through the secure area and to the non-secure area. For most people, time is money and even if it's not they want to get going to it's reportedly not often sought.

Although they're calling it "reverse screening" (which I define as automatic screening for all deplaning pax), my impression/assumption from the article is that upon arrival the passengers would directly be taken landside ("bused to the main terminal" in the article), and would then undergo bag-checking and security screening like an originating passenger for their onward journey. So refusal of screening for pax terminating at Portland would not be an issue. But again, just my assumption.

Reverse screening sounds like the right call here. They're talking about 12 departures PER WEEK, so a maximum of 360 passengers per week. Realistically, given the planned departure times, you'd need to have two TSA staff onsite (at least) for about six hours a day during the week, and three on weekends. So, that's at least 72 staff hours per week, plus you'd need relief people most likely, equipment and maintenance, etc. etc. etc. That airport is just too small to justify a TSA presence.

Should be structured like Cape Air is at some smaller airports - arrive, get on plane, go. A number of smaller airports in New Zealand also have no security screening, and it hasn't resulted in mass carnage.

There are a number of tiny airports in Australia with commercial service (say 2 Dash-8s a day, one in and one out). They don't do any security screening at departure, but passengers arriving at (for example) Sydney go through a quick WTMD and x-ray of bags before being allowed into the (sterile side) of the terminal.

...yet.

So the people making this flight are safe enough to fly to another airport without screening but not safe enough to continue onward?

As far as I could tell during my brief visit to NZ it was actually dependent on plane size: jets (A320 and bigger) had screening, turboprops (ATR72 and smaller) didn't. Admittedly I only observed this at Christchurch and Queenstown, but my acquaintances there confirmed most domestic flights don't have screening (and were surprised when the A320 flight did have screening). Furthermore, the screeners didn't seem to care about liquids (I seem to remember taking my cup of coffee through the WTMD), but that could just be my memory failing.

Darn. I was really hoping that "reverse screening" meant that I got to frisk a TSO.

Mike

OMG! What a horrible thought!! Where is the Mr. Yuk emoticon?!?!

As noted elsewhere, it's a function of the size of the plane (also range and speed), and how much damage you could really do with it. A hijacked 30 seater prop presents much less risk to the general public than a hijacked 767that's fully fueled, which weighs 14x as much, and flies 2x as fast.

Which came first: some sort of regulatory exemption from fixed terminal security screening checkpoints (and related screening) for very small commercial flights, or 9/11 and the TSA later in 2011?