Your opinion is your own, of course, but the facts of the matter show it to be incorrect. I'm sure my own airport isn't an isolated deal when it comes to that, and we have eight ex-military personnel, two current military personnel, and five ex-law enforcement officers working with us in screening positions.

We have another ex-law enforcement officer who also served in the military serving in an administrative training position, as well as a former FAA inspector and a former chief-of-police working in management positions. Our AFSD locally is a former air marshall, and the FSD for our hub/spoke system is retired from the Secret Service.

Also - the last time I heard about the pass rates of the assessment test for hiring on into a basic screening position with the TSA, about 90% of applicants failed. Here at Huntsville, during the last hiring cycle we did where I actually paid attention, of the two hundred or so people that actually made it past the assessment test, only six of them made it to the interview, and only three were actually hired.

I also know of a small handful of people who, while otherwise were either qualified or overqualified for the position, were washed out of the selection pool at the credit check portion of the hiring process after the interview.

That would depend entirely upon what, exactly, he applied for. I'm assuming he didn't apply to be a TSO with that kind of resume, but the process of hiring in for any other position besides TSO/LTSO/STSO is unfamiliar to me, and I wouldn't be able to comment on it beyond complete and total blind speculation.

Incidentally, I have been in situations where I have been in possession of TSA website printouts and a TSA Supervisor has told me that their rules change by the day and by station, so any TSA documentation I might produce may or may not be applicable at a checkpoint.

you were handed a baloney sandwich and to the supervisor. they should know better and i would call them on the fact that if the public is to know about i) then it cannot by nature of just that (the public knowing about it, be ssi. you can also do what i do and that is to re-print my pages the night before i travel so if there "is a change" , it happened over night and then it's up to the supervisor to produce the change

(bolding mine)

Thank you for the warm welcome. I think you have accurately summarized the problems between TSA and the traveling public in the bold section above. How does TSA solve this issue? Simple, improve hiring standards and applicant screening, especially where hiring is handled primarily at the local level.

I don't think management will have any reason to hassle me. I am careful to avoid revealing SSI, and any of my responses that might get into SSI material are based entirely on official TSA released public information. I occasionally put together bits of info from different TSA sources to provide the most complete answer I can manage, but that is no different than what any good journalist or researcher might do.

As to your question, we are not provided any specific training in the basic class on how to deal with sarcasm or any other indication that the passenger does not want to cooperate. During initial training, that would not be an effective use of time, due to the variety in passengers. Additional training and professional development can vary widely between airports, and I would be surprised if training of this nature was not available somewhere. Also, SPOT is based on involuntary behaviors. Voluntary behaviors are not relevant.

Sorry, but this is the best answer I can offer without violating SSI. I know it is not complete.

From the TSA website: "TSA's BDO-trained security officers are screening travelers for involuntary physical and physiological reactions that people exhibit in response to a fear of being discovered."
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm

I have to agree.

I can only offer guesses as an answer. HSVTSO Dean gave some excellent information that might have come into play with your father in law's application. He should be able to get a more specific statement of what, precisely, caused him to be unsuccessful in his application. I am not sure how to go about requesting that info, but I can look into it, if you are interested.

TSA certainly employs a lot of former LEO, former military types. They also have these locally-directed hiring guidelines. Locally, I have seen some pretty poor candidates come out of the most recent incarnation of the local hiring initiative. (A few excellent candidates, too, but some have been very poor quality.)

From the TSA website: "We have begun, therefore, to develop a local hiring and training system in order to achieve efficiencies and better meet our current and expected hiring requirements."
http://www.tsa.gov/press/speeches/as...able_0392.shtm

Fair point. I will never judge a person who does what they think necessary to get through security harshly. It just makes me angry, because D-Y-W-T-F-T should not be happening. This will only be corrected, especially when supervisors are the perpetrators, if passengers who are subjected to the abuse report it. TSA can attempt to silence or pigeonhole complaints that come internally. They have a much harder time subjecting public complaints to the same treatment. With a solid record of problems, TSA can make sure that those who are committing these infractions out of ignorance get the appropriate remedial training. (They can also make sure that those who ignore any/all attempts to get them proper training and information will be subjected to the proper disciplinary actions.)

It particularly disgusts me when passengers get hassled over medically necessary items. (Possibly because my brother was severely injured and has been in a wheelchair for over 9 years as a result.) For goodness sake, we are talking about medically necessary items. Why is this an argument??!!

That TSA Supervisor was wrong. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to challenge the sup in such situations. Some of them really dislike being wrong. The best thing I can suggest is to keep reporting such violations when they occur. TSA has more options to deal with the renegade employee if they have a clear, well documented paper trail to support their actions.

This sort of issue is a great opportunity to test the "Got Feedback" program.

PS: And lastly, for those who want to know why TSA is interested in large amounts of cash, the following link provides some interesting information about financing terrorism. The Washington Post link is also well worth following.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008...is_still_b.php

The article in no way answers why TSA would be concerned with a persons cash. When $10K cash is withdrawn or deposited from a financial institution a Currency Transaction Report is required to be completed. International travel requires declarations to customs. There are other means to watch for flow of monies but that would be SSI and you have no need to know the details.

TSA has no business concerning themselves with a persons cash. Other agencies may have a need to know but not TSA.

It is not illegal to carry as much cash as one desires provided proper customs forms are submitted it required.

Cash is not a threat to the safe conduct of a flight.

TSA should try doing the core tasks that they have so much trouble doing well.

It was stated earlier on this thread, not by me, that TSA's interest is related to some potential link between large amounts of cash and terrorist activity. (I cannot confirm or deny this, as it is not within my need to know)

The article is public information which speaks directly to this potential link. The Washington Post article that is referenced includes information about specific costs to finance certain terrorist attacks. I thought it might be of interest to those with an interest in the topic.

As to whether the interest in large amounts of cash is a good or legal use of TSA time, I am not entirely convinced.

While I have enjoyed reading this thread and am grateful for your willingness to participate, that was a little bit of a waffle there.

TSA's purpose is to ensure Transportation Security. Unless it is TSA's official position that it is somehow possible to hijack or destroy an aircraft with a wad of C-notes, said wad is not relevant to the security of transportation, and therefore not relevant to TSA. Otherwise, TSA would have to investigate ANY form of highly portable, highly concentrated wealth brought onto a plane by a pax. "Sir, where'd you get that Patek Phillipe? You weren't going to use it to bribe a pilot to fly to Cuba, were you? Could you step this way?"

IMNSHO, of course.

M

Couple of thoughts.

First, only one of the organizations listed in the counterterrorism blog can be even vaguely considered a terrorist group. The rest are solidly fighting illegal occupations, illegal states, governments with tenuous credibility, puppet regimes, and most of them have extremely well functioning social service operations that are literally the only reliable means of subsistence for those subject to the whims of their occupiers. It should be perfectly OK for people to provide whatever support necessary to those fighting oppression (like the founding fathers).

Second, I don't think agents tasked with ensuring aviation security should be in the business of determining who might be carrying cash that might end up somewhere the u.s. government politically objects to. Again, it should be up to people to use their money as they see fit without fear of it being taken away.

so why can't the rest of the tsa think the way you do? ^

(btw, to get "d-y-w-t-f-t" to come up "not truncated", put in a "-" as "w-t-f" without them...... )

Someone who is carrying 10,000 cash may or may not be a terrorist. Chances are, they are legally in possession of the cash.

Someone who is carrying illegal narcotics may or may not be a terrorist, but there is NO dispute that what they are doing is illegal.

And yet federal L/E can't get TSA to adopt a consistent policy for how to handle illegal narcotics found at a screening location.

I know for a fact several instances when our resolute TSA work force has ignored the smuggling of narcotics with the exceeding lame "but it's not our job" to report it.

You also have dozens here at FT that would agree with those few TSOs you mention. They expect TSA to put horse blinders on to anything and everything illegal as long as it is not a threat to their flight. I'm glad to hear that these upstanding Americans are ok with criminals using commercial aircraft to go from point A to B quicker so to expand their activity and do more damage to neighborhoods (and families) across the country, whether it be drugs, sex crimes (i.e. internet meetings that occur daily), or worst yet, murder.

I agree that the #1 priority for TSA is airline/transportation safety, but to ask any person with a shred of morality to look the other way when there is contraband (or even child pornography) for the sake of keeping the rest of the flying public inconvenienced, is....well, everyone knows my opinion already...

And it shouldn't even come to the notice of the TSA, because cash can't bring down planes. Someone who is an illegal immigrant, just got a same-sex marriage (in some jurisdictions), married their cousin (in some jurisdictions), is fleeing being served papers for a civil lawsuit, is behind on child support payments, is behind on their mortgage payments and abandoning the house, has three unpaid parking tickets and $25 in library fines - ALL THESE PEOPLE can be said to be doing illegal things! The TSA is not supposed to be a catch-all stop-everybody-because-they-can authority. Are they? If the narcotics carrier doesn't alarm the WTMD, and nothing suspicious shows up on Xray, how's the TSA "finding" the contraband? Suspicious behavior leading to a deeper search of personal belongings that don't contain a weapon?!?Yes. if the narcotics falls out on the floor, they should be calling their nearby LEO. But what you're advocating leads inevitably to having drug-sniffing dogs at every WTMD. And screening for warrants at the ID check station. And checking for late child support payments when the passenger attempts on-line check-in. If that's generally agreed to be going too far, then when would you halt the process? Ever more invasive background checks before being allowed to fly isn't going to cut it - the populace will not stand for it.
Count me as one. We line up and go through the checkpoints to be screened for weapons. LEO can't set up such checkpoints on the street in front of Starbucks or football stadiums or in front of polling places (places we also queue up) because there's no probable cause. That people line up to be funneled onto airplanes is just a convenience for abusing our constitutional liberties against unreasonable search? Nay, nay.Why don't you catch them before they get to the airport, eh? Too hard? Criminals too slippery? Constitutional protections too strong?No, the ONLY mission for the TSA should be the S of T. It's in their name. LEO should be E'ing the L, investigating the criminals, and getting them out of circulation.Yes we know. Can't fault you for wanting a way to do your job with less effort. Now I ask - how do you SLEEP at night, knowing those same criminals, murders, kiddie porn merchants and collectors, cousin-marriers, parking fine scofflaws, and the rest - how can you sleep at night knowing they're out there among us? Plying their nasty trades, victimizing the innocent, and all that?

How can you stand by and DO NOTHING while they're infesting your neighborhood, hiding behind closed doors, keeping secrets on their hard drives?

Why aren't you kicking down doors, setting up checkpoints on every street, scanning all Internet traffic - you know the bad guys are out there. They might be flying tomorrow, but they're loose in our neighborhoods TODAY!

There are, of course, limitations placed on law enforcement because of this little constitutional thing. Whatever restrains you from becoming a vigilante police force should also restrain the TSA from their incessant mission creep. That's all we ask - no mission creep, reasonable restraint from abuses, accountability for the TSA staff who violate their SOP, administrative and legislative branch oversight who are in turn accountable to the voters. Same as we expect from our local LEO and from our military.

You are missing my point. I'm not suggesting that TSA specifically start targeting illegal narcotics (so your stash should be safe. )

What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of a TSA screener notifying L/E if they find a large amount of cash, given that 1) it might not be illegal and 2) as another poster has noted - cash can't make a plane crash, and TSA's refusal to adopt a policy requiring their screeners to notify L/E when they find illegal narcotics in the course of a normal screening.

Fair point. 49 CFR 1520 is a funny rule.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.4.8&idno=49

The point that is relevant to this discussion is that something which would normally be SSI may become fair game for open discussion if it it is widely reported or released by the proper TSA (or Coast Guard) officials. It can be difficult to give straight answers under these constraints. If I can find a better way to stay within my requirements under this rule and still give you useful information, I will.

From the TSA blog: "People. The threat environment makes it clear that we need to add layers of security to be effective against adaptive terrorists. This means adding a capability to detect a potential problem even if they are not carrying anything prohibited - in other words, more focus on people, not just things. That means deploying more officers specially trained in behavior detection and document checking to identify people that intend to do harm, not just waiting to find their prohibited item in a carry-on bag."

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/03/chec...es-coming.html

It would appear TSA's stance is that people who might be linked to terrorist activity present a potential risk to the aircraft, even if they are not carrying anything prohibited at the moment. If you want to discuss the validity of that position, I'm all ears, although I'm not sure how much I will be able to contribute.

I agree with your principles. The US is a wealthy, prosperous country that benefited from foreign support of our struggle against oppression, and our citizens should feel free to offer that support in kind, if they feel moved to do so.

Terrorism is a tactic to apply coercive force against more powerful government forces. It is potentially a very powerful tactic. If we ignore the reasons that motivate the individual terrorist, we open ourselves to, well, the mess that the US has from our mishandling of foreign policy.

I am currently reading Dying to Win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism by Robert A. Pape. Although I have not finished it, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in examining how and why we define terrorism.

This is a dodgy issue. I don't think agents tasked with enduring aviation security should be tasked with monitoring cash traffic through airports. I think that if there is a legitimate need to do this, there are probably other agencies better suited for this task.

As to how people use their money, would you also argue that people should be able to use their money to purchase child pornography, of purchase narcotics for sale? Terrorism is a subset of crime. I don't have a problem with bringing in LEOs if we have a good reason to believe that we are seeing evidence of criminal activity. I do think we need to be careful about what we define as evidence of criminal activity.

Just 50,996 or so employees left to go. (From what I've seen, Cee, OneOfThosePeopleYouLoveToHate, and HSVTSO Dean also seem to be among the "good employees.")

Thanks for the tip. I took the liberty of correcting it.

I don't necessarily think this is the place to discuss my opinion of the "War on Drugs," but I'd be fascinated to see what sort of responses that discussion would provoke.

I think TSA would benefit from a lot of consistent policies, handling of illegal but otherwise non-threatening items is just one of those which are needed. I also think that TSA needs better guidance on how to handle potentially suspicious, but legal items which are allowed on aircraft. My personal preference would be to talk to the person, explain the source of suspicion, and proceed according to the person's response and potential threat level. (Of course, I could advocate more strongly for this approach if I believed I could trust all of my colleagues to make reasoned, rational, threat based decisions that respect civil rights and liberties.)

And an additional note, for anyone who is interested, I found a public statement about SPOT program results while I was researching for my latest set of responses. I know that it doesn't include specifics, or any proof at all. Much of the information related to SPOT is SSI, and very carefully protected, so I was surprised to see even this much information made available to the public.

From the TSA website: "Illegal immigrants have been identified through SPOT. So was a passenger carrying surveillance photos of high-risk buildings and bridges. Another more obvious intercept was of a man wearing several layers of clothing with wires extending from his sleeves to a black box he was carrying. And, in 2005 at Logan, several passengers sitting separately were seen making clandestine signs to one another, while pretending not to know each other. They later admitted to being paid $5,000 to travel between airports and observe security."

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._bdo_spot.shtm

Agreed, though it's calmed down a lot in the past few years. Back when TSA was first started, it was absolutely 100% true - policy changes happened by the day, occasionally by the hour. A person could come through the checkpoint at 12pm and by 5pm there would be a different procedure. It's calmed down a little bit now, but changes still happen. Our management said, back when we first rolled out at Huntsville, to "stay flexible." We do our best.

Incidentally, our supervisors are usually pretty good about getting together amongst themselves and hashing out a definition of policy instead of all of them working at it through their own opinion and interpretation of what it means. This happened after almost all the TSOs were ready to lynch them for everything always being different dependent upon which STSO was in charge. They're also pretty good about in-briefing material, with new stuff being repeated for four days straight to ensure that everyone gets it and nobody can claim they were off on their RDOs when the information came out, and anyone who was off for an extended period of time (such as annual leave use), the first thing they normally say when they get back is "So, what's changed?" so that they can be kept up-to-date.