Airline Security Changes Planned
 

Saturday's Washington Post: Threats Reassessed To Ease Clearance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081201557.html

It sounds almost rational.

Or a hoax.

I have to agree that it sounds fishy. Parts of the proposal are in the "too good to be true" category, like scissors, short bladed knives, ice picks, throwing stars, bows and arrows, etc.

If true, this represents the first intelligent thought from this agency in its 3.5 years of existence. But it sounds a little unbelievable.

It doesn't seem like a hoax, or the TSA spokesman would have denied it outright. I thought that it seems like they're trying to trim down SSSS...

I agree that it sounds too good to be true. However, maybe they picked a director that ISN'T an assclown?

I won't get my hopes up.

A few things I picked up:

"It also recommends that certain categories of passengers be exempt from airport security screening, such as members of Congress, airline pilots, Cabinet members, state governors, federal judges, high-ranking military officers and people with top-secret security clearances."

The pilots make sense. But what about everyone else who isn't in a uniform or famous like some people like Condie or Rumsfeld? Are they going to have to register to get some sort of card to be registered, or is a federal ID going to be enough?

People generally know what they're elected officials look like, and a few more famous ones, but most people couldn't pick out the rest.

And I can imagine those with TS clearances on cover assignments wouldn't their cover blown at security. This is where biometrics would be bad.

"The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights. Allowing those items was suggested after a risk evaluation was conducted about which items posed the most danger."

Someone's finally using their noggin. ^

"It also proposes that passengers no longer routinely be required to remove their shoes at security checkpoints."

We were never supposed to routinely remove our shoes per SOP. :rolleyes:

"Douglas R. Laird, former head of security for Northwest Airlines, said the proposal was a step backward. Laird said exempting certain categories of passengers from security screening would be dangerous because trusted groups have occasionally abused the privilege. "In an effort to be customer friendly, they're forgetting that their primary requirement is to keep airplanes safe," Laird said. "Either you screen everybody or why screen anybody?"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you can't trust those officials and those with TS clearances who went thru months of background checks, WHO can you trust? :confused:

Sure, the system could be abused. Just like shoe carnivals abuse SOP right now. What's wrong with the shoe being on the other foot? :D

I also don't like that "If approved ..." caveat that's strung out in there.

I agree. Baghdad Bob/TSA Tom would have denied it.

Bottom line: Sounds good, but I'm not holding my breath. Show me the money.

If they exempt members of Congress, I'm going to join that club so I can fly again without being searched.

Sounds too good to be true. When I see it in print tomorrow, I'll believe it.

Dumb@ss!!! :mad:

Perhaps I'm alone in agreeing with this but it seems to me that the chap's right. The obvious argument is the risk of bad guys using people in the exempt from screening catagory as mules. But do you even need to go that far when we get congressmen turning up with loaded firearms they forgot they had?

Actually, I think most congressmen should be screened as they ARE known bad guys. :D

Not to toot my own horn here, but I did predict that TSA would eventually swing more towards a true risk-management philosophy. However, these are mere proposals and there hasn't been any pen put to paper yet.

As for the proposals themselves, I agree with a lot of them. I think relaxing on scissors, knives with blades shorter than 5 inches and razor blades (as opposed to utility knive blades) is a reasonable risk. Not too sure about throwing stars, however. By definition, they are martial arts weapons. They serve one purpose only. Or, to put it another way, there are many non-weapon uses for scissors but there aren't any that I can think of for throwing stars. Therefore, I would continue to prohibit throwing stars. But, it's not my call. Still, I'm curious to see how the new prohibited items list will look.

As for exempting certain people from regular screening, I have to admit that I felt goofy screening the few Senators that I've screened. And I also feel it's a waste of time screening general officers and airline pilots. So if TSA exempts these people from screening, I don't have a problem with it. Airline pilots, by the very nature of their job, don't need a pair of scissors, a screwdriver or even a gun to take down a plane. All they have to do is just point the nose down. So it's a waste of time for us to screen them. What's needed instead is that they undergo a thorough background investigation. I do disagree with exempting anyone with a top-secret security clearance from screening. I've conducted a significant number of criminal and counterintelligence investigations with subjects who had such clearances. I draw the line with general officers because at that point in their careers, they've demonstrated their trustworthiness and reliability after over 25 to 30 years of service. This is different than a 22 year old specialist who also has a top secret security clearance because nothing was revealed in the background investigation to disqualify him or her from that clearance. The question of Senators, governors and other high officials being exempted is a matter of politics more than it is anything else. Soon after 9/11, one of the big media pings against the fledgling TSA was when a nail file was confiscated from former Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle. There have been other similar situations involving other politicians as well. So I don't have a problem with exempting these officials from routine airport security screening. As it is right now, a lot of them are either exempted or given special screening; so it's not really much a big change if it were to happen anyway.

Biggest change that I anticipate is either the modification or elimination of the shoe screening criteria. I predict it will be a modification rather than elimination. I support changing it not only for the reasons I've stated previously in other threads, but also because of a recent class (and I'm talking about a couple days ago as of this posting) that changed my view about shoe bombs. I still believe that shoe bombs are a real threat, but I would look for them in a certain type of footwear rather than, say for instance, dress shoes. I think TSA can ease up on that criteria. Not saying that it isn't possible to pack some explosives into the hollowed-out heel of a pair of dress shoes. But I am saying that I don't think that ALONE would take down an airplane. Big difference.

From this point, it's a wait and see. Publicly making a statement that appeals to a great number of travellers is one thing. Actually putting it into practice is somethinge else.

Interesting as it seems some common sense might be surfacing with these possible changes. However, I still believe that if a terrorist wants to bring down a plane, they will, not matter what we do to try and prevent such an event. We may make it a bit hard with real security, but not with window dressing security which is what we have at the moment.

I agree as well. There is definitely a big danger of forgetting or "forgetting" prohibited items, or perhaps not even being familiar with the rules. Also, making members of Congress deal with the same system as the rest of us gives them a personal incentive for making sure the system is fair and efficient.

Also, you never know when a flag officer or a federal judge is going to go off their nut. It's not like these guys are all of unimpeachable conduct--witness the impeachment of federal judges, and the occasional dismissal of four-star generals.

If this means exempt from SSSS then fine, but if we're talking a special 'WTMD bypass' lane for these categories then I have to agree with Laird. Do we expect every screener to memorize congressmen, governers, judges etc. ? If not then these folks will need some kind of foolproof ID, easier said then done (see various threads). As for airline pilots, does the name Frank Abignale ring any bells ? I have a pilot's license and something which would pass muster as a 'uniform', so I guess I'd start wearing that to travel :D

This is probably just a random suggestion. Politically it would not be good for Congressmen and Judges to automatically be exempt. They serve the people; but are not above the people. And simply being an elected or appointed official does not mean somebody has been vetted. Thoes with TS Clearances? Pah-leaze. Every tech contracter within a hundred miles of DC has one. Terrorists? No. But AFAIK there is no centralized database in place for adaquate tracking. Other agencies in the governmnet have a hard time accpeting and verifying clearances from each other. TSA allowing bypass on that basis can't and should not happen.

If it's only an exemption from SSSS -- well, SSSS shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place.

I don't think anyone on that list is going to be a terrorist. From a purely practical standpoint exempting them makes sense.

I don't think Congress should be exempted, though.

Bart,
One thing I think about the issue with screening the people you mentioned above is verifying identity. How can you verify that an airline pilot really is one and not a bomber with a fake badge or an airline pilot who is actually going to fly (vs. one who is just flying in a passenger's seat?) Are caterers, gate agents, and mechanics exempt too? What about TSA?

- Pat

It's starting to sound real to me now. I kind of think this was put out as a "feeler" to see what public reaction would be (there's a political term for this, but I forget what it is).

With all the news media outlets picking up on this, there's GOT to be something done, whether it's a relaxation of the prohibited items list and/or leniency of the shoe carnival.

That said, I was listening to CBS radio news a couple of hours ago and heard that the governor of Illinois was not pleased about the scissors or stars thing being re-allowed. He is talking about making it a state law to not allow those items aboard aircraft in his state. Given how it's all federal, I don't know how he's going to get his jurisdictional tentacles wrapped around that one, but we'll see.

Again, cautiously optimistic are the words here in 59-degree Denver today.

I have to agree. Airport security and immigration doesn't have a great track record now recognizing senators and representatives. There was a black lady congresswoman a few years ago who was detained at O'Hare after her return trip from Africa. They held her with no access to lawyers etc until she passed feces to show she was not smuggling anything in. They had no probable cause except they thought she might be a drug mule because she was black and seemed affluent.

This was another story that dropped out of site after awhile and we never saw the update.

How would we know they were real IDs? How many senators and congressmen could we recognize?

It is a bad idea to exempt anyone from screening. No weapons means no weapons. Government officials are not a higher class of citizen.

Yes and No
 

This is good and bad. Loosening up on the prohibited item list, shoe carnival, SSSS is all for the good. The throwing star thing goes a bit far, but no one is going to hijack an airplane with archery equipment (which competitive archers are probably loath to check in as baggage)

Exempting congressmen is a terrible idea. They need to be treated as ordinary citizens are. Same with federal judges - if they get a case in front of them dealing with screening in some way, the experience of having gone through it themselves is valuable.

The top secret clearance thing is very strange. Have they started issuing ID cards to show active clearances? When I worked for the government, that was certainly not the case. Some federal agencies don't even call the clearances by the same name (i.e. DOE's Q clearance), although there are equivalencies.

If I was a pessimist, I'd guess that the bad stuff will be approved and the good stuff will be rejected. I'm hoping for a pleasant surprise....

Lets all hope Bart is right.

I still can't see exempting pilots from screening entirely. Even if you assume they could crash the plane anyway (ala Egypt Air 990), they could still act as a witting or unwitting mule. "Put this package in the men's room, and take the $10,000." Would you trust foreign pilots as well?

Screening of airline staff started with PSA 1771 in 1987. Prior to that, airline employees could enter the secure area without a check.

After being fired, David Burke took a gun on board and murdered the flight crew. The plane crashed killing him and everyone else on board. I don't see any of the people listed as possibly being exempt that would also be exempt from going whacko like this.

I Smell a Rat!
 

Where the "I smell a rat" comes in is the carefully-worded phrases about doing these things as a cost-reduction measure. This tactic is one of the oldest tricks in the book here inside the Beltway. Chertoff is annoyed that his budget has been cut. So, he floats a trial balloon like this where he basically threatens to cut the meat from his agency because Congress has cut his budget. He sent out his talking head to make these remarks just to see who pushes back and how far they do.

His goal is to get an outcry from Congress along the lines of "You CAN'T do this!!!" in order for Congress to see the error of their ways and restore most of his budget cut. If Congress does nothing, he's not on the hook to actually follow through with these threats -- and that's what these are -- threats.

I find it interesting that he did this during the August recess. Staffers are in town, but the members aren't. So, he's not going to get a reaction. I guess his motivation was perhaps to get revenge by ruining a few vacations.

Even if this were real, I do not believe that the DHS/TSA culture will permit change this radical to happen. Just one of these changes would take 6-12 months to implement.

My recommendation is that we don't read too much into this proposal. It's simply the political process at work.

A lot would think Ted Kennedy is. Maybe that's why he's on the No Fly List? :D

Excluding those with high-level clearances (or perhaps those with polygraphs on file) does offer one advantage - it removes a well-investigated, low-risk population from the screening pool without regard to anything that could be considered prejudicial (race, religion, sex, etc). Of course, it would concern me a bit if a large number of the CIs you did on these individuals yielded derogatory information :p

Knives, scissors, arrows and throwing stars will be allowed, but no mention of
other small items currently banned, like my small jewelry making and wire cutters? :confused: How about if they just start with only looking at your ID and boarding pass ONCE. As much as I would appreciate not having to remove my shoes, jewelry and glasses, I don't look for any changes in the near future.

This is just the point that I was thinking of when I heard about potential exemptions based on people's status. If some people get security exemptions, then I would expect attempts at bribery or blackmail to get those people to act as "mules".

Consider that the IRA recently managed to rob a bank in Northern Ireland by taking hostage the families of two senior managers at the bank and then getting those two guys to allow the robbery to take place. I think this shows that if a person's family is under threat he can be coerced to do some pretty dire stuff. (OK - so a bloodless bank robbery is not in the same league as a hijacking).

If pilots became exempt from the security check, how far fetched is it to imagine that a terrorist organization would use this kind of tactic to force a pilot to take a prohibited item into the airside zone and leave it there for someone to use on another flight?

For this reason, I think there should be no exemptions. By all means give pilots, senators, VIPs and morris dancers a priority lane or something - but make sure that they are screened as thoroughly as everyone else. To do less could put their families at risk.

TSA= Typical Screener Arrogance
 

I'm concerned that the proposal contains two paragraphs referring to screeners' "discretion". This terminology is almost oxymoronic as stated. Their job is to be seen SCREENING people, not standing by twirling their HHMD wands (I'll leave it to you to choose which activity is most security-vital). Secondly, I wonder how many of them could even spell "discretion" and still get one letter in the correct position. Seems to me very little would change, given the more than often arrogant or assertive-to-the-point-of-absolute-nausea attitude many screeners display.

With 100 SSI criteria items which comprise the SSS public SSSlap in the face, it's also a good bet you'll still be forced to grovel in any number of ways and never be told why.

You guys go first. I don't trust people with big smiles calling me a damned liar by inference. Let me know how cold (and sticky) the floor is...

It's a difference between a general officer, for example, who possesses a top secret security clearance WITH a 25-year record of demonstrated trustworthiness and a 21 year old contractor who may have a top secret security clearance only because there was no derogatory information to disqualify him/her from consideration for that clearance. As a general rule, I believe everyone needs to undergo a measure of security scrutiny; however, IF there are going to be exceptions, then let's have some logic behind them.

If we are truly going to embrace risk management, then we have to accept the concept of exemptions. But let's not let the pendulum swing all the way to the other side and become a matter of political or economic convenience.

A loaded firearm is not a threat. A loaded firearm in the possession of somebody who intends to use it is.

Although I am no Hillary fan, if she carries a firearm for her own protection and forgets she has it in her purse, I can not foresee her suddenly remembering inflight that she has it and deciding to hijack the plane.

There have been several conferences at the regional level on radically overhauling the checkpoint and baggage SOPs in the past several months. The recommendations in the article are pretty much what came out of the conferences. Thankfully as the top TSA figure heads move on to lucrative contractor positions, these slots are being filled by people who actually have worked in the trenches and agree with the proposed changes. People in the field (screeners, leads, supervisors,managers) want these changes just as bad as you do. ^

Really I think this is all good.

The Congress exemption seems weird, but I could care less.

The most significant part of the changes, which I hope take effect, is the reduction in secondaries. If there is one thing that sets people on this board ablaze, it's cuckoo secondary screening. From a cost-cutting perspective, it seems like an obvious choice. Reducing secondaries will save money and make informed passengers happy.

If Chertoff and committee members are thinking clearly, they'll decide that someone who chooses to wear flip-flops, who doesn't alarm the WTMD, probably doesn't need a full secondary.

Likewise, the airlines can finally come to their own senses and edit their SSSS selection criteria. I always want to say, "Yes, after 100,000 miles over the last couple of years, I've decided that THIS is the flight in which I'll become a terrorist. It's a good thing that you selected me!"

As far as sharp objects go, I've never had issues myself with carrying any forbidden objects, but the danger presented by belt buckles, blenders and rolling pins does seem exaggerated.

Now if only the new rules could include recommendations for screeners to use their "inside voices..."

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.

"...agency's poor reputation..."
 

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.