RS

Thanks for your very funny self-description. Sounds like you're a big guy who could reasonably attempt to subdue a dangerous passenger.

I would rather have a bunch of you guys up front (limited to 1.5 drinks per two hours of flight) than all the terminal security.

NoStressHere

I am sorry but you will now have to be shackled in your seat. Better safe than sorry you know.

Are we STUPID or what?

tsadude

I remember hearing about this along time ago. But for this article to state "the newspaper reported, citing airport sources it did not identify". Gimme a break. This information could have come from a janitor. Inspectors do not talk about the results of inspections like this with newspapers if they value their jobs anyways. I and many other supervisors test our screeners all of the time by hiding things on our persons and bags we carry. If they do not find the item we have a after action review of what happened and how to correct the problem. Simple continuous training methods. There is no 100% secured airport. Continuous training is the answer. Besides, I do not think that it is any different from a pilot of a large aircraft failing a surpise check ride is it?

tazi

They did before the TSA took over and, in my opinion, they still should. I do not think that the TSA should be 'self-monitoring'. To me, this is absolutely rediculous!

tsadude

So you think that they should broadcast the specific problems and locations? I will add that they are not TSA self monitoring, the FAA conducts these tests.

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 01-22-2003).]

essxjay

Huh. _You_ don't trust journalists?? Newsflash, Columbo, _we_ don't trust a lot of what's going on with the TSA at the moment ...

And the blantant sarcasm IS warranted.

tazi

Quote from linked article:

Before the federalization of the nation's airport security workforce, the mostly private contractors who staffed airport checkpoints were regularly tested by inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration. The results of those tests were made public when disciplinary action was taken or civil fines were levied.

It's not clear whether any of the TSA employees at Bradley who failed to catch the fake bombs or the knife will face formal discipline.

Regardless, under the TSA, which is now responsible for monitoring itself, no information is publicly released on the performance of airport screeners. In fact, TSA spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan refused to confirm whether the agency is conducting such tests at all.

So, which is it? Is the FAA still carrying out inspections or is the TSA truly self-monitoring??? Regardless, I think the public should know what they are getting for their money.

hnechets

OK, let me say that I pretty echo essxjay's views on trusting the TSA here. May I add that I don't trust the press much more, though!

But if I may, most humbly, say something not in rebuttal, but in--um, counterpoint: I trust the TSA much better than Arbrogast's (and others, et. al) minimum-wage felons from the old days. They are not perfect, they are aggravating, and IMHO only, are implementing "feel-good" procedures rather than effective procedures.

That is their directive, though, the TSA folk are not making this stuff up themselves. The people whose behinds we need to kick are the lawmakers.

Again, I have NO love for this whatsoever, just trying to be fair.

Finally, I would like to thank tsadude for having the sheer guts to participate on this board. He knew from the get-go that this was not gonna be a cake walk. So, I'd just like to say thanks, tsadude, your input is appreciated by me, anyway, even though we are no way going to see eye to eye on everything.

tazi

I'll echo essxjay's sentiments here. It's not like this came from the National Enquirer. It was reported by several very reputable news sources.

tsadude

You will get a generic report card but the details will be left out. To much information being released would reveal possible ways around security. As far as I know the FAA has kept us on our toes.

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 01-22-2003).]

Spiff

News Flash 2:

If the holes are that big, they will be leaked. There is no way that many people can keep a secret.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

essxjay

"Hello, Pravda??"

JustanotherScreener

Is it just me, or would most complaints disappear if the TSA would do away with the random searches?
Other than the people "selected" (and yes I too think this system needs work), I think the random checks should be limited to an exterior check of the bag for explosives.
I've never understood the random searches of passengers and their bags when there is no alarm to warrant it.

CameraGuy

JustAnotherScreener,

Welcome. Yes, the Secondary Harrassment is a HUGE bone of contention.

But, there are other problems as well. Like the fact that a head case supervisor on a power trip informing me that "Once you set foot through that door, your belongings are MINE".

Or, the fact that in OMA, I can put my outer jacket in the large bins, but in BOS and LAS, this act is a crime against the USofA.

Consistency is a MUST. Head cases who make their own rules for a power trip MUST go.

JustanotherScreener

Hi Camera,
Sorry to hear about your run in's with boneheads, but take that for what it is. I was a screener pre TSA (post 9/11) and saw ALOT of that type of attitude. At least at my location it's not tolerated anymore.
As for consistency, they preach it constantly, but don't seem to practice it yet. Hopefully it will evolve into a consistent organization that makes some sense.