|
Originally Posted by Bart
Nat Heatwole smuggled items in his shoes to prove how he could defeat the WTMD, and there have been other incidents of knives and razor blades deliberately inserted inside the soles of shoes. The point here is that shoes can be hollowed out and used to smuggle items through security if not specifically screened. How do we address this possibility? You seem willing to rely solely on the statistical improbability that it will ever occur again.
To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized the examination, even x-ray examination, of a shoe that sets off the WTMD. That covers the knives, razor blades, and weapons that could be concealed in shoes regardless of thickness or style. And many people here, including myself, don't question the screening of shoes that are clearly over 1". It's the all-shoes-off airports/checkpoints, which both sides acknowledge exist, that are the source of most "shoe carnival" complaints. The real question is explosives, which don't set off the WTMD. So let's not refocus the attention toward metal/weapons which are "solved" by the WTMD. Do you (where "you" can be yourself, the TSA, the government, or the public) believe that a less than 1" thick shoe sole is a probable vehicle for transporting explosives? Do you believe a < 1" shoe is a more likely vehicle than thin-sheet explosives wrapped around a torso, body-cavity carriers, etc.? If not, then the special attention given to < 1" shoes (i.e., all shoes) at shoe carnival checkpoints is not justified. But TSA locally and nationally would rather stand up for the "all shoes off" judgement calls of certain screeners/checkpoints/airports/FSDs than implement consistent policy. I've rarely if ever seen in person a supervisor/lead take the side of the passenger and stop the retaliatory secondary screening that comes from not removing a clearly non-profile shoe. (Bart, I know that you have written that you correct screeners on this shoes issue, and that is appreciated. But unfortunately that is one checkpoint at one airport and not the whole system.) There is something wrong with a system where one islamofascist wacko can try something with his shoes and it substantially changes policy forever, with no apparent end in sight. In the long run that means that even if there are very few terrorist attempts, we are asymptotically approaching a situation where pax are strapped down to their seats naked during flight, as year by year additional threat vectors are added that chip away at what pax can do/carry. It's why I believe the only solution to islamofascist terrorism is a combination of democritization and brutally killing enough of them and their children/families/cities to provide a real deterrent to future actions regardless as to if they like us. (Germans/Japanese may not have liked us in Sep 1945, but they quit trying to kill us.) Perpetually and incrementally increasing security restrictions in reaction to every crazy threat vector thought up by some lunatic is not a long term solution. |
Originally Posted by peachfront
I just take off my shoes every time and don't worry about it. I feel it is a superstition to say that people might catch some rare fungus or disease through a good pair of socks. To me, this is about as likely as those tin foiler types who say you could get mad cow disease from a chicken because
Since late 2003 I carry thin shower shoes ($0.99 value, all plastic, 0.33" sole) and wear them through all TSA checkpoints. I have never been asked to take them off. (Though one screener gave me an obviously retaliatory secondary for having them by accusing me of "scooting" and not lifting my feet high enough going through the WTMD.) I hear there are shoe carnivals that would make me take these shower shoes off. Should I encounter one of them, I will call for a LEO and spend a substantial amount of time writing up a police report and a complaint form, both of which will probably be endorsed by my Dr. |
Originally Posted by studentff
It's why I believe the only solution to islamofascist terrorism is a combination of democritization and brutally killing enough of them and their children/families/cities to provide a real deterrent to future actions regardless as to if they like us. (Germans/Japanese may not have liked us in Sep 1945, but they quit trying to kill us.) Perpetually and incrementally increasing security restrictions in reaction to every crazy threat vector thought up by some lunatic is not a long term solution.
Islamic terrorists caused 9/11 and many other terrorist acts before and since 9/11. But who is now "paying" for these acts? It's obviously not the real terrorists but instead the ten's of millions of travelers who are daily treated as potential terrorists. We've got to get at the root cause of the problem here and quit penalizing the 99.9999999% of the world's population who are not terrorists. |
Originally Posted by Bart
You're right. That was about two cents worth.
I have significantly less problem getting into work which is in a militarized, secure government facility than I do getting to a plane. Considering what goes on there and the target it could be, I STILL don't have to deal with a shoe carnival at work. In fact, NO ONE, not even visitors for one day, have to participate in any type of shoe carnival. On another note dealing with shoes: I take it Converse Allstars don't meet the profile ... right? Don't take these frustrations personally. We all know that you do your best to prevent shoe carnivals at your airport and that is appreciated. However, most people don't follow procedures as you do. Super |
Deleted
|
Deleted
|
Originally Posted by Bart
I agree with your frustration about screeners not following correct procedure. I find that I have to remind my screeners that not all shoes have to be removed. I think most of them do a good job of following procedures correctly, but this is something I have to stay on top of.
We were promised "professionalism", what we got was no better than security on 9/10/2001, only a lot more expensive.
Originally Posted by Bart
Hard to address this with your attempts to attack TSA with sarcasm. Nonetheless, I'll pose the same question to you as I posed to Cholula: if TSA were to determine after a period of time that based on the fact that no shoe bombs were detected, should it stop specifically screening shoes or perhaps modify the procedure to a random selection of one out of every five passengers? Would this be an acceptable alternative? I don't think you can discount shoes as a method for smuggling in explosives. Nat Heatwole smuggled items in his shoes to prove how he could defeat the WTMD, and there have been other incidents of knives and razor blades deliberately inserted inside the soles of shoes. The point here is that shoes can be hollowed out and used to smuggle items through security if not specifically screened. How do we address this possibility? You seem willing to rely solely on the statistical improbability that it will ever occur again.
As for the statistical improbability, the number of successful shoe bombs stands at ZERO. The number of shoe bombs caught by the TSA stands at ZERO. The TSA needs to focus on real threats, not react to false ones.
Originally Posted by Bart
Believe it or not, I do agree with you that TSA staffs can be streamlined. I do not agree with your cookie-cutter approach and find your numbers quite unrealistic. Again, you're slipping your anti-TSA bias into this and attempting to disguise it as reasonable discussion. I believe that a manpower survey is needed to determine how many screeners are really needed to adequately address the various passenger loads and various peak travel periods.
Originally Posted by Bart
By the way, David Stone retired from the United States Navy as a rear admiral. As a retired military officer, I find your lack of respect for the United States military offensive and disgusting. If this was your attempt at humor, then I didn't see it. If not, then know this: you just lost several points in my book.
In addition, I noticed that you only mentioned Stone. What about Magaw, Loy, Nacarra and the idiot in charge of LAX to name four off the top of my head?
Originally Posted by Bart
It's called a figure of speech. However, statistically speaking, terrorism really affects a very small number of people. If we were to go purely with the statistical probabilities, a great majority of us would never be affected. Of course, the few who are victimized by it may strongly object to this attitude. I don't believe ignoring it or accepting it as a matter of fate is the answer.
|
CameraGuy...
WHAT SECURITY PROFESSION do you do again? Just curious. Is this private sector? |
Private.
I am currently employed in the Manfacturing sector, but have experience in systems integration as well. I'll stand this experience up against anyone at the TSA. |
Originally Posted by Bart
My challenge to you is:
1) Should we just ignore the threat of shoe bombs completely and rely on the statistical probability that a significant majority of passenger footwear do not have explosives inserted inside of them? Is passenger convenience the priority here? 2) For those of you who believe that something needs to be done to prevent a shoe bomb from being smuggled through security, is there a better method than the current procedure? If so, I'm interested in your suggestion. Please understand that if you're going to propose better technologies such as the walk-thru explosives detection portal, there's a cost associated with that. Should EPTs be installed at every airport? Only major hubs? At only certain cities? Use your thinking caps; money doesn't grow on trees, you know. 3) For those of you who truly, honestly, in your heart-of-hearts, believe that the Richard Reid incident was a one-in-a-million occurence, please explain your rationale. I am genuinely curious how you can dismiss it so easily. I'm looking for reasoned responses here. There's enough whining and complaining in here to take up a lot of bandwidth, and I'll simply ignore the standard FrequentWhiner cliche' responses. I'm looking for a true discussion. If a passenger proceeds through the WTMD wearing compliant shoes and the WTMD does not alarm, they should be free to proceed. If a passenger proceeds through the WTMD wearing compliant shoes and the WTMD does alarm, they should get a second-chance check your pockets, take off jewelry etc. and if it still alarms, off to secondary for full screening. If a passenger proceeds through the WTMD wearing non-compliant shoes and the WTMD does not alarm, the passenger should only be required to submit to a shoe swab and when cleared the person should be free to proceed. If a passenger proceeds through the WTMD wearing non-complaint shoes and the WTMD does alarm, they should get a second-chance check your pockets, take off jewelry etc. and if it still alarms, then they get sent to secondary for the full treatment. If the above guidelines are followed, I would not take issue with receiving secondary. I do not understand why people are penalized with a full body search when the reason they are pulled aside is solely for having non-compliant shoes. If you are pulled aside for the shoes, then inspect the shoes! As for Superguy's original question posed as to how to deal with the mandatory shoe carnival airports, since my home airports SFO & HNL are two of the most notorious, this is what I do. Whenever I am sent to secondary for failing to remove my shoes (I cannot due to a physical disability), I submit to the full secondary and when I am cleared, I ask for a complaint form. This usually flusters the screener because her immediate concern is about herself. She calls a supervisor over and the supervisor tries to talk you out of filling out the form by saying that everything she did was correct. I tell them that statistics are very important and that despite the fact that I wear these shoes through many other airports in the US which have no issue with them, their airport does. That is the point where they tell me the other 15 or so airports are wrong and they are right. Ever since TSA reported the ridiculously low number of complaints about the breast groping (I think some talking head said only 400 complaints were filed) I realized it was very important to take the time to fill out the form each and every time. The number crunchers are only going to look at the statistics given to them. I am going to make my voice heard in those numbers. When I went through security at SFO on Friday, I didn't have the time to fill out the form and turn it into the supervisor, so I took it with me. Now I have a blank form that I can make copies of, fill out in advance, and hand it in. That should shave off a few minutes of the procedure. |
Umm...
Thats a great idea... except SFO and 4 other airports are private. They will simply toss it in the trash regardless. |
Originally Posted by TSASCRNR
Umm...
Thats a great idea... except SFO and 4 other airports are private. They will simply toss it in the trash regardless. SFO and the other airports you refer to have TSA management of private screeners. They will NOT simply throw anything in the trash. |
Originally Posted by CameraGuy
This in not an accurate statement.
SFO and the other airports you refer to have TSA management of private screeners. They will NOT simply throw anything in the trash. |
Deleted
|
Bart,
The wisdom of "flooding" the system with complaints is that the TSA is prone to touting the "low level" of complaints. Even though it is my opinion that this is simply number fudging, I still file a complaint form each and every time I am secondaried for wearing shoes with a 3/4" sole. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:38 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.