Originally Posted by Cholula

I've never been secondaried for "scooting" or "high-stepping" :) but I have been called to task for walking through the WTMD too fast. I guess I failed to notice the speed limit sign for the WTMD.
No secondary for that one. Was just told to walk back through slowly the second time.

Originally Posted by eyecue

Let me say right off the bat that TSA doesnt retailiate against you for not removing your shoes. If they are over the profiled criteria for sole height, you are asked to emove them. Some screeners seem to think that all shoes should be x-rayed (they like to xray everything) and some cant tell height very well. Such being the case if your shoes are picked to be removed by the screener and you dont, you will get sent down to secondary screening to ensure that you dont have anything hidden in them. The amount of time it takes is dependant on who busy the screeners are at the time that you get sent down. Another way to look at this is to say that those airports that you walk right through the checkpoint with high heeled shoes, are not doint everything that they should be doing to protect the passengers on the planes. Hey we dont make this stuff up. If it was a credible threat or had not been tried we wouldnt be doing it and we dont do it just to hassle you. The airports that dont do it are not being nice, they arent doing their jobs.

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775

There is a word for behavior like that described: pretext. This type of a stop can lead to personal liability and punitive damages against the LEO, or screener, engaging in this behavior. These cases are difficult to prove, but with unbiased witnesses, can be proven.

Originally Posted by TSASCRNR

The fact of the matter is, go ahead and prove it that a LEO pulled you over for absolutely no reason.

Originally Posted by TSASCRNR

Maybe one out of a thousand will write a complaint letter for that police officer. The rest wont bother because they know there will not be a "fix" to the problem.

Originally Posted by Bart

p1cunnin,

Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of what you say. I truly don't know how serious the "shoe-bomb" threat is. It's been tried once, and that's about it. I don't find it acceptable that we should dismiss it simply because it's too inconvenient to the millions of passengers who have to remove their shoes and/or have them undergo ETD swabbing as part of their secondary screening. Nor do I find it acceptable that we dismiss it simply because you stand a greater risk of being struck by lightning than being victimized specifically by a terrorist with either a bomb in his shoe or one of the several components smuggled inside his shoes (with other components either smuggled by co-conspirators or hidden by him in his carry-on bags).

I suggested a review of data at some point down the road as a possible way to deal with this theoretical threat in a more pragmatic way. For instance, if after a couple of years of data shows that this is truly a remote threat, then perhaps we can mitigate it under a risk-management philosophy to a more random sampling (and I suggested perhaps one out of every five people who pass through the checkpoint or some other similar ratio). I truly don't believe we can eliminate shoe screening completely. I also suggested we include ETD swabbing of worn footwear, hands and belt buckle as part of the standard secondary screening process. In this way, we aren't ignoring the threat, theoretical or remote as it may be, but we aren't going overboard by throwing a lot of resources at a terrorist methodology that may never be used again. Even so, people are going to complain no matter what we do. Still, I see this as a reasonable approach based on emperical data rather than as a response to emotions and inconvenience.

I don't know why TSA has such a difficult time expressing one simple little standard to the field. I agree that the TSA web page really offers very little guidance to the passengers as to which shoes are acceptable. My gut instinct tells me that, as with any bureaucracy, nobody wants to take the risk for making a decision on which shoes are acceptable only to have that exact same model of shoe used in a future incident to smuggle explosive components through a checkpoint. The way I see it, the upper management in TSA is paid to make these tough decisions, and they are taking the coward's way out by leaving the standard ambiguous for both you the customer and me the screener. The guys and gals paid to make these decisions make a hell of a lot more money than me, and they aren't earning it.

Add to that the Nervous Nellie politicians who criticize TSA for going overboard in its methods yet point fingers whenever an incident occurs with something that "could have been worse" had it not been for a stroke of luck. For example, the specific ban on lighters. It's all about perspective and taking a reasonable approach to security rather than obsessing with the many different ways a terrorist can smuggle items through a checkpoint. Congress and TSA has to draw the line somewhere, and that line should be drawn based on a risk-management approach rather than a risk-avoidance approach. The current handling of cargo is one example of risk management, yet there are those in here who are demanding that 100% of the cargo be screened. I believe that 100% of the cargo allowed on commercial airliners be screened. Big difference, and still consistent with a risk-management approach. I think the cargo issue is a greater one than shoes or lighters.

I don't know if we'll ever get there, my friend. This upcoming ban on lighters is such a giant step backwards for airport security. What makes it worse is that it's codified in law, so it will truly take an act of Congress to override it.

Thank you for your response. I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange of views.

Originally Posted by myrgirl

I just looked up New Balance 608 and they look like they fit the profile to me. That's a pretty thick sole on there.

http://image.basspro.com/images/imag...000/76316b.jpg