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, 2:38 pm
  #121  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:16 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 2:49 pm
  #122  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,183
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
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.
Right. They changed the policy. But they have not updated their website in a consistent manner. Nor have they updated the signage. Or the announcements. Why not?

It is quite similar to the speed limit example provided. The rule changed but you're still disseminating the wrong info. Even the overhead PA announcements - something that should be easier and cheaper to change than all the signs - are still wrong. How can you reasonably expect folks to follow a rule that is not accurately publicized?

The TSA makes the rules. The least they can do is accurately publish the rules so the public can be aware of them and those who care can make an effort to comply. The folks here are not the ones bringing the 6 ounce shampoo containers through the check point. We actually mostly play by the rules because we have to do it too frequently and we don't want to spend any more time in the lines than necessary. So when the rules are not actually correct it is frustrating. After all, how can we comply with rules that we aren't told about?
sbm12 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 2:58 pm
  #123  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:15 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:19 pm
  #124  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9,372
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I was pointing out that this was not a disinformation campaign as alleged by others.
Are these the same "others" you claimed wanted no security at all?
Tom M. is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:27 pm
  #125  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:15 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:39 pm
  #126  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean View Post
Huntsville will no longer begin the new procedure for powder screening monday, I'm told.
So the threat so grave that it merits the screening protocol so secret that TSA can't share any information about it before implementation isn't so grave that the protocol can't wait a bit longer?

Sweet thundering Christ, you people really DO think we're as stupid as you are, don't you?
JSmith1969 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:39 pm
  #127  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Never said that. I said that they think the security they want should apply to someone else. They don't think they need to be screened, but the "other guy" certainly does.
Oh, so you're making stuff up again.
JSmith1969 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:43 pm
  #128  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:15 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:46 pm
  #129  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I think it's prudent to make sure all the ducks are in order before going public, don't you?
It's even more prudent for security agencies to not waste their functionaries' and clerks' time searching for imaginary threats.
JSmith1969 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 3:53 pm
  #130  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering expat
Posts: 41,868
Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
Cynically, I view this as a way for TSA to keep checking for drugs in the post-Fofana era. If they can claim that a powder could be a weapon, they can justify the cocaine busts and keep trumpeting their "successes".
Radiogirl's cynicism may be very well-placed. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out this is exactly what TSA is trying to do.

Originally Posted by DevilDog438 View Post
Still nothing on the TSA website about the new "rules." Gotta love an out of control agency that feels it has no need to be accountable to the Constitution its officers swear an oath to uphold and defend to the best of their abilities.

How TSA personnel can live with themselves in good conscience is beyond me.
It's called remaining employed. Given the choice between ignoring the trampling of our rights which produces a paycheck, and standing up for what is really right and being unemployed, what would most people choose?

Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
I don't fly to the US anymore, Ron, and your colleagues at LAX, DEN and BWI are the reason why. But I make a point of knowing your policies because my Australian colleagues and friends look to me for advice. Increasingly, my advice is "go somewhere else."
You aren't alone. I was in your neighborhood last week at a regional meeting relating to security, and when the issue of flying came up, there was universal derision directed at TSA and DHS. Those from the US listened to the complaints and were hard pressed to disagree, especially when we saw that airport security doesn't have to be arrogant, oppressive and inefficient to be effective.

On the way back to the US, I was talking to a flight attendant about the drop in business travel. The FA told me they've seen a significant drop off in paid business travel to the US. While it is good for me (upgrades) it is really hurting airline profits, and paying business customers are choosing to not travel to the US.

Way to go, TSA.
halls120 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 4:30 pm
  #131  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by AngryMiller View Post
So the excuse of 'we don't want another 9/11 on our shift' wears thin? Not having enough political capital hasn't stopped them in the past from doing incredibly thoughtless things.
Ahhh, but they're slowly working their way toward that goal. They've pulled a couple of real boners recently that got the attention of very influential congressmen. They backed off on one NPRM where they actually went through the motions and published a proposed regulation in the Federal Register. It garnered the most comments of any proposed regulation by any federal agency ever in the history of the docket system. Congress told them that if they persisted, they would introduce a resolution of disapproval in response to the NPRM precluding them from every attempting to issue such a rule. They backed down.

More recently, due to yet another abuse of the SSI/Security Directive process, the TSA funding bill, HR 2200 was amended to prohibit the use of SSI and security directives based on SSI for longer than 180 days unless they entered the formal rule making process and published an NPRM.

This amendment passed by a healthy margin and is now part of the bill sent to the Senate. While there were many democrats crossing over to vote for the amendment, I think co-sponsored by a democrat, all of the Nays on the role call were democrats. Nonetheless, it did pass and awaits its fate in the Senate.

I would encourage all to write their senators when the senate version comes up to make darn sure that this clause isn't negotiated out in the conference committee.

That way, the TSA can keep its precious horsepee SDs if they are really real, but they have to justify them if they want to keep them. The most they can do this kind of abuse is 6 months without formal rule making.

PS. I learned something on the trail in the back country of the high rockies. 3 day old horse pee smells much worse than 3 day old horse manure, and the stuff emanating from the TSA is much older than 3 days.
-----
Next travel requirement: All cabin passengers must take bean-o in front of a security checkpoint to insure passengers don't band together to create a fuel-air explosive with body gasses.
greentips is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 6:18 pm
  #132  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I'm not disagreeing that the [3-1-1] signs ought to be corrected. I was pointing out that this was not a disinformation campaign as alleged by others. I think the wiser course of action would have been to come up with a replacement set of signs as soon as the budget allowed (and in the government bureaucracy, life cycle replacement costs are usually factored in).

I truly don't see why this is such a big deal to you and others. You certainly know the policy but are obsessing over these signs.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can explain why I'm concerned. It's a matter of principle ... but perhaps not the principle you might think.

As an ordinary passenger, I'm asked to "know the rules" before I fly. Many TSA employees (here and at the TSA blog) have repeatedly said "everything you need to know is on the TSA website". Well ... in about 10 minutes of searching, I can find at least 5 different places on tsa.gov where the limit is described as 3 ounces, not 3.4 ounces --- along with at least one or two places where the limit is (correctly) described as 3.4 ounces. Now, if I wasn't an obsessive reader of the TSA blog and FlyerTalk, how would I be expected to know which is the correct rule?

There have been plenty of reports here and on the TSA blogs of painful interactions between passengers and TSA employees, which usually can be reduced to the following:

Passenger: The TSA website says I can take this.
TSA Employee: Sorry, the website is wrong. You can't take it.
So, if I know that the TSA website has errors, and TSA employees openly state that the TSA website contains errors ... why should I trust that any of the rules there are correct?

Ok, in the grand scheme of things, 0.4 ounces isn't going to be a big deal for me. But if TSA can't manage to get this one little detail right, even after people have been yelling about it for years, why should we have any confidence that all the other rules on TSA's website are accurate? How can I, as a passenger, be expected to follow the rules, when even the few rules posted to TSA's own website are contradictory?

Look, I have no problem with keeping the current signs because of budget constraints, as long as there is a commitment to print signs with the new limits once the current batch runs out. But there's absolutely no reason why TSA couldn't fix the signs on its website right now. Fixing the signs on the TSA website doesn't use up one frakking piece of paper. All it requires is the will to act. (Ok, and a little bit of money to pay the graphic artist to make the change.)
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 6:36 pm
  #133  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by JSmith1969
Sweet thundering Christ, you people really DO think we're as stupid as you are, don't you?
Peace and good tidings upon you this day.
HSVTSO Dean is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 6:57 pm
  #134  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 966
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.
But that's not what the policy *IS*, Bart - and the signage is *STILL WRONG*. The documentation is *STILL WRONG*. It's been YEARS since the change was made, and there's still official documentation saying 3-1-1 - how long SHOULD it take for your agency to get its act together? I mean, if the local law-enforcement agencies and DOT can put up new speed-limit signs the DAY a road's speed limit changes from 45 to 35, is it REALLY asking too much for TSA to spend the tiniest amount of time and effort to ensure that the rules they want everyone to follow are accurately published where people can actually read them?

Demanding people follow conflicting rules doesn't make THEM look like inconsiderate, incompetent b-a-s-t-a-r-d-s, Bart...

And now your agency is going to be rolling out a new, pointless, and illegal policy with no notice whatsoever to the flying public it's aimed at inconveniencing. TSA Delenda Est, indeed.
erictank is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 7:45 pm
  #135  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by halls120 View Post
It's called remaining employed. Given the choice between ignoring the trampling of our rights which produces a paycheck, and standing up for what is really right and being unemployed, what would most people choose?

Way to go, TSA.
In government service, moral cowardice is a given. It's practically a job requirement.
n4zhg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: