And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders
Aug 23, 2009, 6:53 am
#151
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Whether your realize it or not, you just repeated what I said. If the operator can clear the shoes whether inside a bin or in a bag, then the items are clear. If not, then the operator will call a bag check. It's the same thing, you just don't realize it. (Rescreening is always an option but is not mandatory).
Bottom line: you can either help out the x-ray operator or risk spending a little bit more time at the checkpoint. It IS up to you, pal.
Bottom line: you can either help out the x-ray operator or risk spending a little bit more time at the checkpoint. It IS up to you, pal.
I've never had any trouble packing the bin that way and yesterday was no exception. The x-ray operator looked at the image for a tiny bit, picked up one of the shoes a couple of inches to see what was under it, and sent it on. The "delay" was, at most, five seconds. Given the likelihood of light things like flip-flops ending up all over the place if not in a bin, to me what I did seems the best thing to do. Bart, do you agree?
Aug 23, 2009, 7:12 am
#152
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
But even if we did get to round off as you are suggesting that would mean that 3.5oz containers are OK according to the TSA, and we know that to be false. It would also mean that a TSO could decide to only permit containers 2.5oz or smaller, because that rounds off to 3. Again, not true.
Aug 23, 2009, 7:16 am
#153
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
I wholly disagree. We don't get to add on decimal places and round off. We must accept the specific number given. And the fact that they give different numbers in different places is both misleading and moronic. They have a PR campaign ("3-1-1") and then they have actual policy. The fact that they cannot coordinate the two is pretty pathetic.
But even if we did get to round off as you are suggesting that would mean that 3.5oz containers are OK according to the TSA, and we know that to be false. It would also mean that a TSO could decide to only permit containers 2.5oz or smaller, because that rounds off to 3. Again, not true.
But even if we did get to round off as you are suggesting that would mean that 3.5oz containers are OK according to the TSA, and we know that to be false. It would also mean that a TSO could decide to only permit containers 2.5oz or smaller, because that rounds off to 3. Again, not true.
Aug 23, 2009, 7:32 am
#154
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: RDU, Delta GM/1MM, Hilton Diamond (for now), Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 3,443
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.
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.
So by saying 3oz in this case you don't mean 3.4oz IMHO.
Aug 23, 2009, 12:05 pm
#156
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
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.
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.
So Bart what I hear you saying is that Blogger Bob Burns of TSA HQ is wrong when he stated that "Shoes on the Belt" was not policy.
Is that it? Your calling Bob a liar?
Aug 23, 2009, 1:58 pm
#157
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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.
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.
Aug 23, 2009, 2:11 pm
#158
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Look, the TSA loves its little acronyms and cute sayings. VIPR, SPOT, etc.
3.4-1-1 doesn't sound as cute and cuddly to the TSA as 3-1-1. They likely don't want to spend the money to fix their signs.
Besides, it would also admit that the TSA is wrong, and we all know the TSA never admits making an error.
The closest thing I've seen to a correct sign was a hand-written one in Philadelphia's D Concourse during the construction last year, taped to a temporary wall saying it's 3.4 oz.
3.4-1-1 doesn't sound as cute and cuddly to the TSA as 3-1-1. They likely don't want to spend the money to fix their signs.
Besides, it would also admit that the TSA is wrong, and we all know the TSA never admits making an error.
The closest thing I've seen to a correct sign was a hand-written one in Philadelphia's D Concourse during the construction last year, taped to a temporary wall saying it's 3.4 oz.
Aug 23, 2009, 3:26 pm
#162
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Maybe they should have spent the money on the new cop uniforms on that then. @:-) Or is TSA more about show rather than truth and accuracy?
Aug 23, 2009, 3:35 pm
#163
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
I'm not calling Blogger Bob a liar. I am simply stating what the correct procedure is. The policy is that TSOs will not correct passengers or force them to put the shoes on the conveyor belt. I've said this in previous posts, and it's consistent with what Blogger Bob is saying on the TSA site.
I'm also saying that if an x-ray operator cannot properly clear images of shoes, whether they are laid directly on the belt or not, then that operator will summon a bag check. If you place your shoes directly on the belt, you increase the likelihood of the x-ray operator being able to clear them without further inspection.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not you put the shoes on the conveyor belt. But you now have some additional insight that may make your security screening a little more smoother.
Some of you will insist on holding your breath until you're blue in the face.
I'm also saying that if an x-ray operator cannot properly clear images of shoes, whether they are laid directly on the belt or not, then that operator will summon a bag check. If you place your shoes directly on the belt, you increase the likelihood of the x-ray operator being able to clear them without further inspection.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not you put the shoes on the conveyor belt. But you now have some additional insight that may make your security screening a little more smoother.
Some of you will insist on holding your breath until you're blue in the face.
Strange, the DFW TDC drone who clearly stated that shoes must be on the belt did not say they could be in a bin if one so desired.
So is this another of your well trained TSO's just making up rules at the checkpoint or is this another case of TSA rolling out a policy without any thought to the implications of how it would be implemented?
It certainly didn't sound like there was a choice in the matter.
Aug 23, 2009, 3:35 pm
#164
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Whether your realize it or not, you just repeated what I said. If the operator can clear the shoes whether inside a bin or in a bag, then the items are clear. If not, then the operator will call a bag check. It's the same thing, you just don't realize it. (Rescreening is always an option but is not mandatory).
Bottom line: you can either help out the x-ray operator or risk spending a little bit more time at the checkpoint. It IS up to you, pal.
Bottom line: you can either help out the x-ray operator or risk spending a little bit more time at the checkpoint. It IS up to you, pal.
I agree that in practice, the outcome is probably generally the same. But at any time prior to screening, a TSO can tell me to put my shoes on the belt. If that SOP is in place, then I can't say no. If it is not in place, I can tell him that it is recommended to do so, but not required (and then I will be off to my "continuous secondary screening").
And I don't think that it is current policy. The reason - liability. If it is only recommended, but not required, any damages done to shoes can much more readily be avoided.
Aug 23, 2009, 3:39 pm
#165
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,597
Of course, in NRT, in HKG, in KUL, in SIN, I never had to take my shoes off in the first place.