I don't think SATTSO has either but not fully sure. Wasn't a question about where a person worked anyhow.

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state_...o_felon/79015/

TSA orders Richmond airport to give security clearance to felon

Hmm, sure seems like TSA is calling the shots.

All activities may have security responsibilities but seems like TSA is in charge given the legislation passed by Congress.

:D:D Yeah.

Someone has to, should it be United Airlines? How about Enron?

I read the story and am not quite sure what to think. Even now. He was a kid when he did the crime, and kids commonly have their criminal records sealed when they reach the age of majority because I suppose society is giving them a chance to meet the expectations of their new status as an adult.

I'm pretty sure that we dont know the whole story anyway. Or anything even close.

Read above. Someone has to be in charge.

I recently had to take an 8 hour Hazmat course for the TSA. Dead boring BTW, but required because the TSA must conform to the requirements of the EPA and a few other federal agencies when dealing with Hazmat. Even the military must do so in many instances. No one gets a free pass. The point is that even though it may “look” like the TSA is in charge, they must follow the directions of other government agencies in areas where that other agency has jurisdiction. So the term “In charge” has several meanings when you are talking about government agencies.

No, nobody HAS to issue him a security badge. He is no more qualified for that badge then I am. The rules for that airport say that if you have a felony conviction that you can't get a badge. TSA made the airport give him a badge.

The guy had a felony conviction. The Airport authority uncovered the conviction and did not want to issue the badge. It was TSA knowing this that insisted that Richmond issue clearance for this person.

If TSA is in charge then TSA can in fact control all access to the sterile area. So is TSA in charge and just not doing the job? Or is it just dereliction of duty for TSA?

Hazmat is one area that I have direct knowledge. From my observations of how TSA handles confiscated items at the checkpoint I suggest that TSA is in fact in violation of EPA regulations.

If an item is considered to be hazardous then it must be treated as such until proven otherwise. TSA does not do this by tossing everything into common trash containers.

Keep in mind that the 8 hours of hazmat training make him a Hazmat Expert® now. :D

Your right Super, forgot the vast pool of experts TSA has at the ready!;)

hmmm
 

One must ask: How do you measure failure? Is it because some things get through? Is it because the airlines are allowed to have employees come into the secure area without screening? There is no perfection in anything. There is always going to be the "human element" and that leads to breakdowns. There are some people that believe since there has not been anything even remotely resembling 9-11 that TSA is a success. I know that most of the passengers on here would like to have the status quo from the good old days and I am not sure what your real agenda is for that. IT could be that you just hate government or authority, or you just chronic complain about everything. Whatever the case is most of everything on here is anecdotal and just feeds off itself.

So what you're saying is that the people here have little hard evidence for their assertions against TSA. By that logic, TSA can't back up its assertions either so we're all on equal footing.

Or it could be that TSA is an out-of-control agency that implements one unjustifiable policy after another based on panic, stupidity, and lies, and we would prefer to have sane airport screening policies that are proportionate to the actual risks facing air travel.

It is not anecdotal to note that by TSA's own numbers, the BDO program is a laughable and pathetic failure, nor that scientists who study human behavior regard it as such. It is not anecdotal to note that countries without a shoe carnival have not had any planes brought down by shoe bombs. It is not anecdotal to note that TSA has been dishonest from day one about strip-search technology.

Okay, then let's remember this the next time something does happen on a plane (shoe, panty, molar bomber, whatever) and then again remind ourselves of this just before TSA and DHS ramp up security and do stupid things like say you can't have anything in your lap during your flight or you can't go to the lavatory during the last 60 minutes of your flight.

Everything involves risk, including flying.

Per your statement, let's stop pretending we can achieve perfection. Let's just tell people that the government/TSA/airlines will do X, Y, and Z, but it is a waste of time, effort and money to do any more (honestly, waving chemical strips over drinks purchased airside?).

If people show up at the airport, they have made their decision to take the risk of imperfection in securing the plane and everyone can call it a day.

I, for one, am more than happy to take the risk we had on 9/10/01 even knowing what we know today. I was much happier back then as a passenger and I am pretty sure that - give or take some minutia percentage - I am probably just as safe and the risk no better or worse.

If anyone wants to understand why exempting some people but not others from screenings is risky (to the point of being deadly), simply read this article:

Councilman Shot Dead in New York's City Hall, Police Kill Assailant

I certainly haven't been empowered to speak on behalf of everyone else here, but, what the heck, I'm game ...

We agree that there is no such thing as "perfect" security. The question becomes, then: for every new procedure that TSA has put in place, is the incremental cost (in time, money, and inconvenience) worth the incremental increase in security? Or, perhaps, have certain procedures made flying less secure?

Consider checked luggage, for example. Before 9/11, it was understood that you could lock your checked bags with any lock you wished. Now, TSA insists that it needs to be able to inspect the inside of any checked bags, which means that passengers are told to only use "approved" locks, or no locks at all, or risk having their private locks forcibly removed. Of course, making the bags easier for TSA to open and inspect also makes it easier for thieves to open and inspect those same bags. How does the incremental increase in travel safety resulting from check bag inspection compare with the incremental decrease in "security" (in a much broader sense of the word) caused by greater likelihood of theft from bags? It's a legitimate question --- and one about which I honestly don't know what to think.

Heck, TSA understands this idea as well. TSA used to ban small lighters from carry-on bags. Now, TSA allows them --- and the reason given for the change was that the time being spent by TSOs in looking for small lighters was distracting TSOs from the more significant threats. Here, TSA made the judgment that there were more drawbacks than benefits, and changed policies.

Are there policies in place right now which don't seem to provide any added value, or perhaps even provide negative value, to the security process? Your answers and mine will differ. But the discussion is worth having.

Please prove that any "incremental increase in security" put in place by TSA has actually been an increase in security and not a decrease as everyone with any sense claims.

It is not anecdotal that TSA repeatedly fails GAO "red cell" tests, and that their personnel are routinely surpassed by contract airports in this regard. It isn't anecdotal that when TSA cases come to court, the agency gets its head handed to it.

The current version of the TS/S “sane airport screening” is a myth designed to serve no other purpose than to allow folks like yourself to point fingers. No one here has to date provided us with a viable screening method/system that will meet the needs of the nation and still be possible to do. They always fail in one area or another. And last but not least, the theory that TSA is lying to the public about the AIT systems (and of course the many other claims of this type) have never been proven. That one individual or another makes a verbal error, or writes something that is not 100% lawyer proof, does not make it a lie. Its makes it a statement that someone else does not like and/or makes assumptions about that are incorrect.

From your personal perspective the BDO program is a “laughable and pathetic failure”, but then again you do not know the objectives of the program and what the TSA considers to be a successful program. You have your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I see the program in operation and do not consider it a failure. “Some” scientists consider the program to be ineffective, others do not. IOW, opinions vary.

On the matter of shoe bombs, no other country has been targeted by someone attempting to destroy a commercial aircraft using explosives in their shoes. If they have not been targeted for such a plot then I can see why they have little concern in those areas. I know, you don’t.

FYI, there are entire organizations out there that want to kill Americans. They will do whatever they can to make that happen. There have been enough plots and operations directed at U.S. Citizens by these groups to convince most people that a certain amount of prevention and caution is necessary. There will always be segments of our society that refuse to be convinced. That prefer ignorance of the issues to knowledge because it violates their belief’s.