I hope no one is using real explosives as a test item in a regular screening checkpoint.

Your point I take is something must look like what you've been trained to identify or the test is not fair.

It's the item that does not look like an IED that is going to slip through.

Perhaps the GAO test is more on point than you like!

Yes, because when a terrorist goes through security, they'll tap you on the shoulder and whisper, "Hi, I'm a terrorist. There's a bomb in my bag." :rolleyes:

You don't get to study for finding a terrorist. And the fact that your agency fails those ANNOUNCED red team tests 80% of the time is unacceptable.

Incompetence must be rampent...
 

emphasis mine.

So you're saying that...
A) Everyone in charge of testing our (TSA) competence is incompetent or clueless as to their job;
B) The smart guys (BAO's) don't have a clue as to what the fake bad guys used to simulate things that go boom (which is kind of like saying the BAO's are up on threats from the past, but can't think of new threats that the real bad guys might be planning); and,
C) The people testing security are so stupid that they wouldn't actually use test materials that would allow the smart people being tested (TSA) the opportunity to demonstrate their skills.

Seriously, you may want to re-consider some of the magical thinking or twisted logic demonstrated by these conclusions.

A. No I was talking about the GAO agents. What makes them experts on IEDs; are they?
B. No the BAOs are very good at what they do. To be hired not only so they have to have training, they had to have succesful field experience. If a GAO agent doesn't understand what makes an IED, how can they successfully replicate one that has the characteristics of IED and their componets? If a terrorist wants to make an IED they have to use things can are components of an IED, no exceptions. They can make up things such as a "low-yield detonator", and wish it would explode - doesn't work that way.
C. People testing security are limited in what they can use, they just cant make things up and designate it as a certain componets. Even if you want it to work tha way, it doesn't. Sorry.

No, I think my conclusions are fairly accurate, and yours are not, as I had to correct you. I am not an expert on IEDs, no one is till they have actual experience working with them, which is the most likely reason the GAO report is flawed.

Seriously, don't let your biases color your judgement. Fine, many people do not like TSA. Maybe you don't, and people point out problems with TSA. Fair enough. But are you suggesting that everything the GAO does is perfect? That they don't make mistakes too?

The BAOs were brought into TSA (originally a program started in australia) because they have a particular expertise in a every paticular subject. They design test bags for us to run. They know how to build IEDs, what IEDs consist of, what they can do. Thy have spent their entire lives working to understand such devices.

Are the GAOs the same? Are they former EOD people? Do they have that experience? I doubt it. I doubt what they build is accurate or would actually be successful.

Terrorist spend their lives doing the same as the BAOs. If you spend much time reasearching terrorist, many spend years learning how to build IEDs. They too are often experts.

[QUOTE=stupidhead;1287

How many IED's have TSA BAO's identified at checkpoints? If the answer is "none" How do you know the are "very good at what they do"




What is the success / failure rate of tests run by BAO's?

How do you know the GAO doesn't use EOD people with experience?

Perhaps GAO does use experts and their experts are better than TSA's experts.

Em?

Things like water bottles, snow globes, batteries, or 3.4oz+ of H2O2 or acetone?

If TSA prohibits items as being IED components, and GAO testers bring them on, I'd call that a TSA fail. If TSA tries to weasel out of it by saying they aren't actually looking for what they say they are looking for, then what the heck? In a conflict of competence or trust, I'll take the GAO over the TSA any day.

Seems GAO has proven to be fairly credible over the years.

Shall we compare them with TSA's credibility?

The BAOs have to have successful experience actually identifying and disposing of real bombs. In the case of the 3 me. I know, they are firmer military, many years in various parts of the world disarming IED, their last handful of years spent in Iraq and Afganistan. Most BAOs have similiar experience.

WhY I mean by successful, an EOD can attempt to disable a IED, have it go off by mistake, and somehow survive. That is not counted as succesful experience.

As to your next question:

I was told by the BAOs they do not, as no one with EOD experience would even suggest something as silly as a "low-yield" detonator. But hey, any thing is possible, right?

I wonder if the person/s who finalized the GAO report did so with no knowledge of explosives. A google search on low yield detonators kept coming back to that report. Low voltage detonators do exist. Wonder if that is what the original document authors had in mind, but were overruled by the editors?

In either case, it sort of taints the report, doesn't it?

Hmmm, if the report is wrong by just one word then what? Do we hold all publicly published TSA documents to the same standard? One word wrong and the whole document is trash? If we do that then much, if not all of the documents TSA publishes would be null and void.

I missed your first part, but according to what the GAO reported, they did. If they used a detonator, that's an explosive. And if they did, yu kind of have to wonder how and who gav them such authority to do so? TSS can't even bring real explosvies into the checkpoint to train.

And another thought, if they did use real explosvies, and have no EOD training, which they most likely did not have, how stupid and risky was that?

Kind of makes you think those GAO people did a good job, huh? Or course I'm being sarcastic.

Google is your friend (although I had to sort through a lot of references to the GAO report):

(emphasis added)


~~ Irish