Passenger with broken wrist denied boarding due to "explosive residue"
Feb 16, 2018, 9:22 pm
#31
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
The idea is reasonable--you probably drove to where you parked.
There should be two exceptions, though:
Not in a bar parking lot and not if the engine is cold.
There have been actual explosive detections. No threat, though--just bags that were handled by people who handle explosives.
There should be two exceptions, though:
Not in a bar parking lot and not if the engine is cold.
There have been actual explosive detections. No threat, though--just bags that were handled by people who handle explosives.
Explosive detections. Ha! TSA is virtually useless in detecting actual explosives.
Feb 17, 2018, 11:26 pm
#35
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 33
Engines can take quite a while to cool down too. Mine takes 4 hours.
Feb 19, 2018, 10:58 am
#36
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: gggrrrovvveee (ORD)
Programs: UA Pt, Marriott Ti, Hertz PC
Posts: 6,091
On the ETD being built to detect / not detect certain particulates, to Loren Pechtel's point, it's doing what it was designed to do. The real question should be what TSA should do to verify the innocuousness of a person's cast (or whatever else) when residue is detected. "Let's try the same thing again" is not really a solution to the problem.
Feb 20, 2018, 6:21 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
For the record, it seems the bio was from OMICS International, which is apparently 1) India-based (explaining some of the very poor grammar/language) and 2) is accused of unethical publishing practices and was actually sued by the US federal government. Her real bio can be found here: Faculty and Staff - Biology - Virginia Military Institute
On the ETD being built to detect / not detect certain particulates, to Loren Pechtel's point, it's doing what it was designed to do. The real question should be what TSA should do to verify the innocuousness of a person's cast (or whatever else) when residue is detected. "Let's try the same thing again" is not really a solution to the problem.
On the ETD being built to detect / not detect certain particulates, to Loren Pechtel's point, it's doing what it was designed to do. The real question should be what TSA should do to verify the innocuousness of a person's cast (or whatever else) when residue is detected. "Let's try the same thing again" is not really a solution to the problem.
To your second point, I'm sure many of us fondly remember the CastScope back in the days when the TSA gladly irradiated the flying public.