Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders

And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders

Old Aug 22, 09, 8:00 pm
  #136  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
I have sympathy for the "3-1-1" signage and don't think it should be changed. It's concise and easy to understand and remember for the kind of traveler that it's aimed at. "3.4-1-1" looks silly and is much harder to remember. It's an approximation and I don't see it as any more incorrect than saying "a meter is about three feet".

Where I do fault the TSA is in not spelling it out as "3.4" whereever there's a "3" in prose, such as in the explanation of "3-1-1": the "3" should be explained as "3.4 oz".
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 8:01 pm
  #137  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
What part did you not understand? Or, to put it in Barney Frank speak, on which planet do you live?

The initial policy was 3.0 ounces. A whole campaign was then rolled out based on the 3.0 ounce restriction. It wasn't until later, when TSA found itself running into a problem due to the Europeans restricting 100 ml rather than 90 ml, TSA revised the policy to 3.4 because that's about as close to 100 ml as you can get.

There is no conspiracy. There is no attempt to deceive or mislead. It was a typical bureaucratic foul-up. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be angry about it; you should. But call it what it really is.
Bart, so what if your organization comes across as a group of rank amateurs with a Napoleon complex? A professional organization would make sure that ALL of the documentation released to the public would be in agreement, especially something with as high of a profile as the 3-1-1 stuff. I found conflicting documentation (different pdf files) on TSAs home page and even found conflicting items inside of a document (unforgivable if you want the public to take you seriously). TSA won't get taken seriously until it gets its act together, which doesn't seem like will happen anytime soon.

Blogdag Bob, PV blogger, ignored complaints for months on end about this issue. He's got a public face and for those document to remain up, unedited shows many, just how incompetent TSA really is. Perhaps Janet should be reading the TSA website instead of www.whatdoesitmean.com .
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 8:31 pm
  #138  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
I have sympathy for the "3-1-1" signage and don't think it should be changed. It's concise and easy to understand and remember for the kind of traveler that it's aimed at. "3.4-1-1" looks silly and is much harder to remember. It's an approximation and I don't see it as any more incorrect than saying "a meter is about three feet".
Here's a simple solution. The real limit is 100ml, right? So, change the signage to "100-1-1". Bingo, problem solved. "100-1-1" is just as neat and clean as "3-1-1" is, and furthermore, it's still accurate.

(Okay, let's skip the obligatory "but nobody understands metric" tangent. People will learn it if you make them learn it. Every time I go to the grocery store and have to buy my bottles of soda in containers that are approximately 67.6 ounces large, I manage just fine ... and so does everyone else.)
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:08 pm
  #139  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
If you say so, I guess. The signs were practically fresh from the printers when the modification took place. Perhaps you're right and TSA should have spent the funds necessary to correct the signs. I mean, with the current administration's penchant for out-of-control spending, the cost would have been a drop in the bucket.

By the way, they weren't errors. This is the point you and others seem willing to ignore. The policy originally started out as limitations to 3.0 ounces. It was later (and I believe it was only a few weeks later) that TSA changed the policy to 3.4 ounces in order to be compatible with how the Brits were doing it.

Bart, the change from 3.0 to 3.4 ounces happened a long time before TSA changed the information on the TSA web pages. It tool months of questioning why the official information disagreed with policy. Also there was confusion by TSO's who continued to limit liquids to 3.0 oz well after the change.

TSA was so professional that they couldn't be bothered to do something as simple as changing the information for travelers on the appropriate web pages.

Now the signs might have taken longer to update but per Blogdad Bobs post he stated that the signs would not be changed. So for people who don't use the Internet the wrong information is still being provided.

Of course when someone works for an agency like TSA I understand the need to defend the incompetence that is the norm.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:14 pm
  #140  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:14 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:17 pm
  #141  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I'm happy, too. On the surface, it looks like a sound approach, but I'm the type who likes to really kick it around and work out all the bugs before going final; and I don't think this procedure was ready for that.

And I agree, it's not as bad as the Chicken Littles are claiming. But it does have some areas that need to be worked out. The only "heartache" I have with it is that I just finished putting the pressure on my instructors to train the procedure this weekend; I mean, I pushed them hard. So Monday morning is going to be interesting when I go to work.
Is this another policy rescinded before implementation like the "Shoes on the Belt" deal that is still screwed up to this very day depending on which checkpoint/airport/well trained TSO one encounters of a given day?

Incompetence at every level, that's TSA!
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:27 pm
  #142  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:14 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:31 pm
  #143  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
No. It's a truly innovative way of searching unconventional explosives. A lot of friends whose opinions I respect have great things to say about this detection technology. However, I think they didn't work out all the bugs yet and decided to hold off implementation. I'm glad because the last thing TSOs need is to be put in an embarrassing situation even though they followed procedure to the letter. Now they get to fine tune it some more.

I'm all for innovation, but one of the things I'm curious about is WHO gets to do the field test? When I was in the Army, if you really wanted to test a new piece of equipment, you gave it to a buck private. You didn't tell him to read the instructions because the real test came when he didn't do it as envisioned by some pencil-chewing geek in a lab. I don't know if that was done with this particular technology.
Well at least you didn't try to defend the Shoes on Belt screw-up. And about that just what is the real fricken policy?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:43 pm
  #144  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:14 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:56 pm
  #145  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
The procedure is to have shoes placed directly on the belt. However, it's nothing worth circling the wagons over if a passenger either fails to place the shoes directly on the belt or refuses to do so.

Bottom line, if the x-ray operator can't clear it, then it's not going to be cleared until further checks are made.

The ball is in your court.

No, the ball is squarely in TSA's court.

If the PV Blog is considered to reflect TSA policy then Blogdad Bob clearly stated that "shoes on the belt" was not policy.

The issue is that depending on airport some checkpoints flatly state that shoes must be on the belt, others don't care and at others its a toss up depending on who is operating the checkpoint. How is a traveler expected to comply with such a mix bag of instructions?

This is like the 3.0/3.4 ounce deal where TSA refuses to make a call and stick with it.

Now if this represents typical TSA Professionalism then I understand you guys not being able to implement something simple like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 4:40 am
  #146  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:14 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 6:03 am
  #147  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
I'm with Radiogirl on this one

It looks to me like a blatant attempt to get around the current court decisions and continue with their illegal extension of an "administrative" search.

TSA Delenda Est.
n4zhg is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 6:09 am
  #148  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Then I'll rephrase: you now know that shoes placed directly on a belt make it easier for an x-ray operator to scan them faster. You don't have to put them on the belt, but regardless what you read on the Blog, unless there's been some change I don't know about, it is still procedure. It's just not being enforced. I still teach officers that shoes ought to be placed directly on the belt but to not get their panties in a wad when they aren't.

You now have a choice of either helping out the x-ray operator or not. That's the ball that's in your court. You don't have to help out the x-ray operator......but don't you get your panties in a wad when the operator decides to call a bag check.
Bravo Sierra on your training. That is not what you should be telling your TSO's. You should tell them that if for some reason the x-ray machine can't see through an inch of gray plastic, but can see through the carry-on bag that has shoes in it, then rescreen. Even the Male Business Traveler Video shows him putting his shoes in a bin.

Look at this page where the TSA says 3 ounces and right below it 3.4 ounces. That is inexcusable.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 6:34 am
  #149  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:14 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 6:47 am
  #150  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
Look at this page where the TSA says 3 ounces and right below it 3.4 ounces. That is inexcusable.
I disagree. I think that page is just fine. It doesn't say "3.0" in one place and "3.4" in another. "3" and "3.4" are compatible. When you write "3", you mean "3 +/- 0.5". If you mean to be more precise, you say "3.0".

So the chart at the is the approximation and what's below is the more precise rule. I don't read it as a "contradiction". Where I have problems is when 3.4 isn't mentioned at all.
RichardKenner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: