OMG [TSA self congratulations]
Aug 17, 2017, 5:59 pm
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Of all the complaints I have with TSA ... this is not one of them.
"Yes, Ms. Screener, I understand that this bottle says that it's 7 ounces. But you can clearly see that it's only 45% full, which means that it's really only 3.15 ounces, which is obviously less than the 3.4 ounces allowed."
Do we really want TSA screeners performing volumetric measurements and higher mathematics as a part of the screening process? (You think screening is slow *now* ...)
Or, worse ... would you like to see TSA congratulating itself (yay, back on topic!) for confiscating an LGA container because the screener correctly calculated that the container held 3.5 ounces of liquid?
The rule is stupid, but it's easy to enforce.
"Yes, Ms. Screener, I understand that this bottle says that it's 7 ounces. But you can clearly see that it's only 45% full, which means that it's really only 3.15 ounces, which is obviously less than the 3.4 ounces allowed."
Do we really want TSA screeners performing volumetric measurements and higher mathematics as a part of the screening process? (You think screening is slow *now* ...)
Or, worse ... would you like to see TSA congratulating itself (yay, back on topic!) for confiscating an LGA container because the screener correctly calculated that the container held 3.5 ounces of liquid?
The rule is stupid, but it's easy to enforce.
Aug 17, 2017, 8:31 pm
#32
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Of course TSA should simplify its screening procedures. It's been made perfectly clear in these forums that TSA screeners simply cannot keep up with the myriad of rules that TSA imposes. (Liquids. Medical liquids. Medical equipment. Cremains. Children. Passengers with disabilities. Breast milk. Tools. Identity papers. And so on.) Self-congratulatory attempts (back on thread!) at re-training do not seem to affect the frequency of rule violations reported here and elsewhere.
The logical alternative is to simplify the rules. The fewer rules that have to be enforced, the more likely that each rule will be followed correctly.
And if the rules are simple and few, then maybe it'll be less likely that TSA will congratulate itself (back on thread!) for simply doing its job.
Aug 18, 2017, 3:20 pm
#33
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Denver CO
Programs: HHonors Gold, National Emerald Club, no airline affinity status
Posts: 3,349
Of all the complaints I have with TSA ... this is not one of them.
"Yes, Ms. Screener, I understand that this bottle says that it's 7 ounces. But you can clearly see that it's only 45% full, which means that it's really only 3.15 ounces, which is obviously less than the 3.4 ounces allowed."
Do we really want TSA screeners performing volumetric measurements and higher mathematics as a part of the screening process? (You think screening is slow *now* ...)
Or, worse ... would you like to see TSA congratulating itself (yay, back on topic!) for confiscating an LGA container because the screener correctly calculated that the container held 3.5 ounces of liquid?
The rule is stupid, but it's easy to enforce.
"Yes, Ms. Screener, I understand that this bottle says that it's 7 ounces. But you can clearly see that it's only 45% full, which means that it's really only 3.15 ounces, which is obviously less than the 3.4 ounces allowed."
Do we really want TSA screeners performing volumetric measurements and higher mathematics as a part of the screening process? (You think screening is slow *now* ...)
Or, worse ... would you like to see TSA congratulating itself (yay, back on topic!) for confiscating an LGA container because the screener correctly calculated that the container held 3.5 ounces of liquid?
The rule is stupid, but it's easy to enforce.
Aug 19, 2017, 8:08 am
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,681
I'll leave the gratuitous insult directed at public schools alone.
Of course TSA should simplify its screening procedures. It's been made perfectly clear in these forums that TSA screeners simply cannot keep up with the myriad of rules that TSA imposes. (Liquids. Medical liquids. Medical equipment. Cremains. Children. Passengers with disabilities. Breast milk. Tools. Identity papers. And so on.) Self-congratulatory attempts (back on thread!) at re-training do not seem to affect the frequency of rule violations reported here and elsewhere.
The logical alternative is to simplify the rules. The fewer rules that have to be enforced, the more likely that each rule will be followed correctly.
And if the rules are simple and few, then maybe it'll be less likely that TSA will congratulate itself (back on thread!) for simply doing its job.
Of course TSA should simplify its screening procedures. It's been made perfectly clear in these forums that TSA screeners simply cannot keep up with the myriad of rules that TSA imposes. (Liquids. Medical liquids. Medical equipment. Cremains. Children. Passengers with disabilities. Breast milk. Tools. Identity papers. And so on.) Self-congratulatory attempts (back on thread!) at re-training do not seem to affect the frequency of rule violations reported here and elsewhere.
The logical alternative is to simplify the rules. The fewer rules that have to be enforced, the more likely that each rule will be followed correctly.
And if the rules are simple and few, then maybe it'll be less likely that TSA will congratulate itself (back on thread!) for simply doing its job.
That may be the logical alternative, but we are talking TSA. They are currently simplifying the rules, but I don't think the results are satisfactory, from either a pax or true security standpoint.
'Screener discretion', ie, all screeners have the right to confiscate anything at any time with no better justification than 'final say', is a failure.
There is now effectively only one rule: the screener always has the final say. You can't get much simpler than that. TSOs use their 'final say' to confiscate granola bars and breast milk - but I believe the 95% test failure rate and the obsession with genitals shows how well that's working.
Aug 19, 2017, 9:04 am
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
(bolding mine)
There is now effectively only one rule: the screener always has the final say. You can't get much simpler than that. TSOs use their 'final say' to confiscate granola bars and breast milk - but I believe the 95% test failure rate and the obsession with genitals shows how well that's working.
There is now effectively only one rule: the screener always has the final say. You can't get much simpler than that. TSOs use their 'final say' to confiscate granola bars and breast milk - but I believe the 95% test failure rate and the obsession with genitals shows how well that's working.
Aug 19, 2017, 7:03 pm
#36
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I used to spend plenty of time posting in this forum a line from one of TSA's early lists of permitted and prohibited items:
To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs)
may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart
is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore
may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart
is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore
may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
Screener discretion has always been the only rule that matters.
Aug 19, 2017, 7:20 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
The number is way higher than 45,000. Which rule used will depend on the screeners mood, how well a traveler submits to any abuse dished out, keeping ones eyes averted and so on.