That decision was made some time ago and is SOP and public knowledge (see the TSA website).

The problem is individual FSDs/managers/supervisors and screeners who refuse to follow SOP. Why this should be so is the subject of heated debate here and elsewhere, but until TSA comes up with a way to implement consistent application of its policy nothing is going to 'change'.

If they really are concerned with the length of line-ups then train the workforce properly and put some effective oversight in place.

Have you seen hunting arrows these days? They're designed to take deer down primarily due to internal damage and bleeding and I can guarantee if you shove one into someone, it's going to do more damage than a knife, even though the head is only a couple of inches long. Take a bow on, fine, but arrows, no.

The proposals are idiocy. Why on earth do you NEED a knife on a flight? A lot of the TSA stuff is bull****, but I fail to see why allowing throwing stars, arrows and knives is anything other than a step completely in the wrong direction.

In a free society the question is never why someone needs something, but rather why it should be prohibited.

True enough. And even though Hillary scares me, I'm reasonably confident that she wouldn't get roaring drunk in flight and do something she'd later regret. I can't say I have that degree of confidence in everybody who might qualify for the "exempt list" as originally presented. Or in the guy sitting next to them.

In spite of the TSA's constant denials that it receives significant numbers of complaints about security procedures, I think it's apparent that the flying public is fed up with "security screening" and Congress is finally beginning to pay attention.

There are those who may agree with you, but I see a much more practical explanation. Loy was paranoid to the extreme and advocated a risk-avoidance approach. Stone was less paranoid, paid lip service to risk-managment but was essentially still a risk-avoidance type of guy. Now along comes Hawley who has three years of data to understand what works and what doesn't. He's seen his two predecessors come and go. Could it be that he's the first one to actually try something different? Could it be that he's willing to give risk-management security an actual try?

Now I'm not holding my breath. The real proof is in the pudding. However, I do credit Hawley for at least considering changes to the current procedures. Big difference between considering changes and actually implementing them. So we'll have to wait and see if he actually delivers.

I think you give Congress too much credit. If they can't agree on simple political issues, what makes you think they'll agree on aviation security?

I never said they would agree on aviation security, Bart. How in heaven's name did you get that from what I wrote?

What I did say was that it seemed as if Congresspeople might be paying attention to the complaints of their constituents about screening procedures.

The cynic in me doesn't believe that Congress responds or even cares about what constituents complain about. They maneuver their views to cater to what constituents complain about only when it serves their political interests to do so.

Again, I seriously doubt this is the case with the recent TSA statement. I don't think Congress has a dog in this fight...yet. It's a non-issue until the next round of elections. Like abortion, gun control and other contentious issues, politicians may kick this topic about in their political debates, but they're not going to really step in and make any changes.

while i agree w/most of what is proposed, i abslutely do not agree with "special/limitted/or no screening" for people of status and/or flight crews. sorry but where the intent is good, one just needs to look back to a psa crash about 25 years ago casued by a very disgruntled employee who (sop back then) was allowed to pass thru a "special" (which eqatues to non-security check/wtmd) line without any type of scan. for those that don't remember, he brought a loaded handgun on board, shot the cockpit crew and the plane crashed. as a result of that, all airline/airport personnel had to pass thru security just like pax. that part needs to stay in place, imho.

It seems reasonable for FA's and maybe even flight crews to be subject to WTMD. However, as posters have pointed out earlier, the captain/co-pilot are at the controls and could dive the airliner into the ground if they choose. Moreover, pilots can now carry firearms on board if they complete the FFDO program. Checking pilots for knives, guns, etc. is largely a waste of time. Ground crews, on the other hand, should be subject to full screening just like passengers so that explosives are not secreted onto the plane. Common sense.

Most people with a Secret or Top Secret security clearance are not undercover, it's just part of their job or business. All officers in the Armed Forces have at least a Secret, along with many people working in the White House, State Department, etc. For any persons that have undergone a security clearance and background check, they know how stupid it is to be asked to "remove your shoes" or even pass through a metal detector. One can be cleared to handle sensitive national security documents and work for the POTUS in the White House, but he or she can't get on a freaking plane any faster than some chump on parole for murder? Yeah, that's bright

Not true at most airports.

There are two problems, as I see it, with letting trusted people skip security. One is the risk of complacency (the "I forgot I was armed" case), and the other is the risk of those people feeling above the law. There is a very simple solution: screen members of the trusted groups roughly 10% of the time, obviously with some randomization thrown in. Prosecute anyone caught with inappropriate materials, no matter how insignifcant. Nobody will want to lose their job/clearance/etc. over such a thing, so they will make darn sure they are "clean" before heading through the special line.

I don't see a trusted person being compromised as a risk, because, let's face it, there is much more damage that can done by these folks than being a mule through security.

Well intuitively it is "funny" to make such cleared people remove their shoes, in reality it is necessary. With no formal ID system nor other way to verify one's clearance level and status, and with potentially millions of people cleared, it is necessary to screen them too (and I am one who is normally against most of TSA's assinine policies).

Now, are we talking about excluding them from random SSSS? Well, I think that should be done away with anyway.

I would agree that the average level of trustworthiness between the different groups in the TSA memo may vary significantly. However, being a general officer just means that one is very adept at working within the system - history has proven that even general officers are not without character issues.

If someone offered me the chance to board a plane containing only unscreened people (with identities verified) from the groups named in the TSA memo, I would have no problem with it - even if I was sitting next to the 21 year old bow-wielding contractor wearing a throwing star for a belt buckle.
Sure, there could be a bad apple in the bunch, and perhaps one may even have unwittingly brought something aboard as a "mule". However, I have much more fear of the unscreened illegal alien with a felony record working for the catering company that stocks the plane. I also have a much bigger fear of the logsitics guy working for one of the companies on the "trusted shipper" list that dumps unscreened cargo into the airplane.

There will always be holes - ideally I would like to see some level of screening for everyone. However, I'm in favor of anything that can shift efforts to address higher risk areas.

in the case i mentioned, the disgruntled psa employee was either an f/a or held a ground postion but was defintley not flight deck crew and that's the premise for my post. i have absolutely no problem w/flight deck crews being armed and with that, they should go thru a "separate security check" but for all others (including unarmed flight deck personell), there should be no exceptions.