Despite TSA's best efforts, prohibited items still get thru the security checkpoints
Jan 14, 2003, 10:50 pm
#46
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,349
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TSA@CAE:
The TSA website is not the United States Code.
No, but it is legal for us to prohibit such items from being taken on an aircraft, and that is backed by the supreme court, the attorney general, and congress. Again I say...if it bothers you so much, take a bus or train.</font>
The TSA website is not the United States Code.
No, but it is legal for us to prohibit such items from being taken on an aircraft, and that is backed by the supreme court, the attorney general, and congress. Again I say...if it bothers you so much, take a bus or train.</font>
Jan 14, 2003, 10:55 pm
#49
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newport News, Va USA
Posts: 82
tazi...it may very well be changed. Our organization is changing daily. We are striving to be better, but the ultra liberals will never be happy no matter what we do. I suspect they complained pre 9-11 too.
Jan 14, 2003, 10:59 pm
#50
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 227
The secretary of transportation can set regulations and also fines for these regulations.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/46303.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/46316.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/46303.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/46316.html
Jan 14, 2003, 11:14 pm
#52
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,349
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TSA@CAE:
Spiff...instead of complaining so much. Come up with a better solution. Anything short of that is whining. Nobody likes a whiner.....</font>
Spiff...instead of complaining so much. Come up with a better solution. Anything short of that is whining. Nobody likes a whiner.....</font>
Jan 14, 2003, 11:29 pm
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tmspa:
Where in this section does is say that a knife is "not" a dangerous weapon? See below:
Sec. 46505. - Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(a) Definition. -
In this section, ''loaded firearm'' means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
(b) General Criminal Penalty. -
An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual -
(1)
when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;
(2)
has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or
(3)
has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.
</font>
Where in this section does is say that a knife is "not" a dangerous weapon? See below:
Sec. 46505. - Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(a) Definition. -
In this section, ''loaded firearm'' means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
(b) General Criminal Penalty. -
An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual -
(1)
when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;
(2)
has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or
(3)
has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.
</font>
To respond, I'm reprinting a post of mine written before the corkscrews and cigar cutters (and several other harmless items) were deleted from Mineta's "prohibited items" list.
The statute doesn't exclude 7.4 pound laptops from the definition of "dangerous weapon," either, but that doesn't make carrying the computer through the checkpoint a felony. Billions of objects are not listed in the statute. That doesn't make them "dangerous weapons" for purposes of section 46505.
Why is a boxcutter (or pocketknife, pair of scissors, sewing kit, corkscrew, screwdriver, etc.) not a dangerous weapon under this statute?
Because Congress has yet to declare that those items are banned and that carrying them violates this statute. Norm Mineta apparently issued a secret regulation in September, 2001 (since I have no operational need to know, I haven't seen it) banning from aircraft cabins many common ordinary household items, some of which are listed above.
The Secretary's authority for banning all of these sharp and pointy items (which were allowable pre-Sept. 11) is questionable since they are not a "dangerous weapon" under this law (or any other federal law).
How come they were allowable pre-September 11? Because they aren't "dangerous weapons."
But law can change to fit changed circumstances, right? Yes, except for criminal statutes. They only prohibit that which is contained within their words, and they don't evolve (as does the rest of our common law). The US constitution may be a living, flexible, ever-changing document, but not 49 USC 46505. It prohibits only what it prohibited when written by Congress, and nothing more.
Before September 11, the FAA permitted pax to carry knives provided the blades were under four inches in length. Did the FAA previously not prosecute possessors of under-four-inch knives because they were looking the other way at a felony - or was it because they acknowledged it wasn't a "dangerous weapon"? I wasn't aware that agencies could enact exemptions to criminal statutes on their own.
I wasn't aware that the Secretary of Transportation (or any other cabinet member) possessed any authority for defining what constitutes a felony and what doesn't. Should you be aware of precedent to the contrary, then I humbly apologize.
If I'm wrong then I'm a felon, as I have flown many thousands of miles a year for over 20 years with all sorts of "concealed dangerous weapons" on my person and in my carry-on bags. Items like my swiss army pocketknife, sewing kit, scissors, corkscrew, small screwdrivers and wrenches, boxcutters and probably several other now-"prohibited items" on the ever-changing TSA list.
Not only am I a felon (if you are correct) but so are many millions of other Americans. It is for that reason I respectfully dissent.
The TSA asserts that bringing a prohibited item to the checkpoint (even accidentally) can be a criminal offense. What the TSA omits is the fact that only dangerous weapons are illegal (guns, large knives, explosives, etc.).
The "prohibited item list" ban of household non-weapons and the confiscation of those items from travelers since September 13, 2001 has been illegal. Widespread, yes. Legal? No.
Jan 14, 2003, 11:30 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TSACAE:
I Wasn't Verbally attacking him and if SPIFF thinks I did this, I am sorry. As for you, lighten up, it was meant to be funny. </font>
I Wasn't Verbally attacking him and if SPIFF thinks I did this, I am sorry. As for you, lighten up, it was meant to be funny. </font>
Jan 14, 2003, 11:37 pm
#56
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 227
Who's to say that a large knife is any more dangerous than a small knife. And some of these "household" items that you speak of could cause some serious damage. I worked in a state prison for 2 years and I've seen some "harmless" things used as a weapon. One of the most wicked was a rolled up newspaper soaked and water and dried to a concrete-like consistancy. Or may I submit, a sharpened toothbrush?
Jan 14, 2003, 11:44 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JS:
On the bright side, according to my estimates, this means that the success rate for security finding the pointy objects (unlikely evil use notwithstanding) is 98%.
2% failure rate sounds pretty low compared to what I've read before, but just as a mathematical exercise, let's continue. With p = probability of finding the prohibited item from a passenger carrying one
and 1) assuming p is the same at the main security checkpoint as it is at the gate
and 2) assuming 5% of passengers go through secondary gate screening
and 3) assuming the discoveries at the two checkpoints are independent (very good assumption, since TSA screeners don't run back and forth to check the same passenger twice)
7 items at the gate over 15 months, and 514 items per month at the main checkpoint is 514*15*0.05 = 386 items per "checked gate person" per month at the main checkpoint, plus another 7 found at the gate, for a total of 393 (7 versus 386 means we can assume practically zero slip past both).
7 out of 393 is 0.0178. The probability that a "gate check" passenger carrying a prohibited item makes it past the main checkpoint without discovery AND is found at the gate is (1-p)*p. If (1-p)*p is 0.0178, that means p is 0.98, or a 2% failure rate. Much better than the bomb-detection machines.</font>
On the bright side, according to my estimates, this means that the success rate for security finding the pointy objects (unlikely evil use notwithstanding) is 98%.
2% failure rate sounds pretty low compared to what I've read before, but just as a mathematical exercise, let's continue. With p = probability of finding the prohibited item from a passenger carrying one
and 1) assuming p is the same at the main security checkpoint as it is at the gate
and 2) assuming 5% of passengers go through secondary gate screening
and 3) assuming the discoveries at the two checkpoints are independent (very good assumption, since TSA screeners don't run back and forth to check the same passenger twice)
7 items at the gate over 15 months, and 514 items per month at the main checkpoint is 514*15*0.05 = 386 items per "checked gate person" per month at the main checkpoint, plus another 7 found at the gate, for a total of 393 (7 versus 386 means we can assume practically zero slip past both).
7 out of 393 is 0.0178. The probability that a "gate check" passenger carrying a prohibited item makes it past the main checkpoint without discovery AND is found at the gate is (1-p)*p. If (1-p)*p is 0.0178, that means p is 0.98, or a 2% failure rate. Much better than the bomb-detection machines.</font>
http://www.lsj.com/news/local/030108..._security.html
And my point is this: If seven items are missed at the main checkpoint and found at the gate, and let's say only 5% are Gate-Groped, doesn't that mean we might reasonably conclude that maybe 140 items are missed at the main checkpoint each month? And only seven are found? That leaves maybe 133 prohibited items each month, or is my math bad?? Just at Lansing.
Jan 14, 2003, 11:48 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tmspa:
Who's to say that a large knife is any more dangerous than a small knife. And some of these "household" items that you speak of could cause some serious damage. I worked in a state prison for 2 years and I've seen some "harmless" things used as a weapon. One of the most wicked was a rolled up newspaper soaked and water and dried to a concrete-like consistancy. Or may I submit, a sharpened toothbrush?</font>
Who's to say that a large knife is any more dangerous than a small knife. And some of these "household" items that you speak of could cause some serious damage. I worked in a state prison for 2 years and I've seen some "harmless" things used as a weapon. One of the most wicked was a rolled up newspaper soaked and water and dried to a concrete-like consistancy. Or may I submit, a sharpened toothbrush?</font>
I'm pointing out that carrying them is not a criminal offense, despite the TSA's website assertion to the contrary. Carrying guns, large knives and explosives (things that constitute, under the law, dangerous weapons) is clearly illegal. None of the post-September 11 additions to the "prohibited item list" violates any US criminal law - and certainly not 46505.Michigan did make it a felony last spring to carry a knife thru a checkpoint, but I'm sticking to US federal law here.
Jan 15, 2003, 1:14 am
#59
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 3
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
I doubt it gives you a savage sense of glee, but you accept a paycheck for randomly harassing people. I'm sorry, but you have to take responsibility for your actions even if you're "following orders".
</font>
I doubt it gives you a savage sense of glee, but you accept a paycheck for randomly harassing people. I'm sorry, but you have to take responsibility for your actions even if you're "following orders".
</font>
Jan 15, 2003, 5:13 am
#60
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Oxford, CT USA
Posts: 256
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TSA@ABQREBEL:
Spiff it really blows my mind people like you exsist. You and other people see a upgrade in security as harassment but I bet that the people that lost their lives on 9/11 would have wished that the United States had implamented these security upgrades along time ago. Israel has had this kind of security for sometime and has not had a severe incident due to them. So, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT and let us do our jobs!!!!</font>
Spiff it really blows my mind people like you exsist. You and other people see a upgrade in security as harassment but I bet that the people that lost their lives on 9/11 would have wished that the United States had implamented these security upgrades along time ago. Israel has had this kind of security for sometime and has not had a severe incident due to them. So, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT and let us do our jobs!!!!</font>
This is just my opinion and I may be wrong here and I am certainly sure I will catch heck for this statement but I feel what I fell. I am convinced now more then ever that the purpose of all of these new TSA posters is to come to this board and gang up on those non TSA supports and harrase them.
We have been discussing our TSA viewpoints for many months now, and despite the FEW cases of name calling it has all been very civil.
Now in the last week I can count dozens of attacks on FT from TSA folks. Were the TSA folks baited? Maybe, in some posts they were.
I have seen an effort by many long time FT'rs to tone down the posts. I wish I could say the same thing for our new TSA friends.
Sorry but I just had to get that off my chest. I think I am going to head down to the Budget Car Rental Forum for a short vacation. Its much quiter down there.
rawbert