Playing "Fun with TSA" -- anyone can do it
 

This actually happened a couple of months ago but I forgot to post about it. I was departing LIH (Lihue, HI) and before walking through the metal detector I was told I needed to remove my belt. I then told her "Then I'll need a private screening."

(Reasonably true... my girth means my pants don't stay on easily, combined with the fact that I've lost a little weight lately -- not nearly enough, but some -- means the likelihood of me inadvertantly "dropping my pants" in public was a real possibility.)

However, the TSA agent, who clearly heard what I said, just repeated in an exasperated, and louder, voice, "SIR, YOU MUST REMOVE YOUR BELT." I responded with "Yeah, I heard you the first time. But I'm still going to need a private screening."

Wow! She looked so livid I though her head might explode. She fumed for a few seconds, then curtly told me to "stand over there." I happily complied, trying desperately to supress my stupid grin.

I eventually got my private screening, and some leisure time while they x-rayed my belt (what the hell is that supposed to find?) But while still "waiting in line" a young woman was told to get in line behind me (for reasons I did not catch.) But instead of walking back through the metal detector she moved between the detector and some absurd little gate they had set up, and got in line behind me.

The TSA agent was livid (even more) and insisted she go back the way she came so she could exit via the metal detector. But the young woman just kept saying "but you told me to get in the line up." I don't think she understood what the TSA agent wanted. And she never did comply. In the meantime I think the TSA screeners blood pressure trippled, and probably took several years off her life.

It's the simple things in life...

imho, nothing at all but rather it is to prevent the wtmd from alarming due to the belt buckle. i never take my belt buckle off as it does not alarm and on the few occasions that i am asked to remove my belt, i tell the tso at the wtmd that it never alarms* and walk thru without issues**


*it is brass, about 3"x3" and i am convinced that brass does not alarm

**once i was given a retaliatory secondary ("male assist, full") for not removing my belt and politely raised the roof with a supervisor before i was "touched" saying that there was no argument they could submit to me that a full secondary on either me or my bags was required simply because my belt did not alarm as i went thru the wtmd. the supervisor agreed and let me pass.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...04lebx33x2.jpg

Things like this for example...

Sure - might happen!
 

Superman with the pee-wee knife you show could maybe slice a fellow passenger, but would probably be KILLED by the other passengers.
A knife like this is NO THREAT to aviation, what with blast-proof cockpit doors.

The level of threat involved doesn't change the fact that they are prohibited. Plus something like this is artful concealment which brings a new element into the mix.

Did you not read the the persons post you quoted? knives are a non-threat (plus there catered on every flight), is it that hard to get through your head? Your average person does not know how to wield a knife for it to due much other then a small cut. Then TSAs policy makes absolutely no sense (like a lot of the restrictions TSA promotes that have no basis in reality) in that I carry a fiskar scissors in my backpack that where laser sharpened (IE sharper then a scalpel) arent seen as a threat but yet my benchmade folder that the blade is shorter then the scissors is. Those scissors arent one but two daggers and all i need is a coin to remove the screw.

Then there's the fact that every person who has stepped out of line has been stopped by passengers on the flight (no fam involvement) and in some cases died due to being suffocated.

The fact that they are prohibited doesn't change the threat level.

What is "brought into the mix" by artful concealment?

Artful concealment gets a LEO involved.

Is artful concealment unlawful?

Wow, this sounds like an authoritative assertion. :rolleyes:

A few of us regular travelers appreciate the fact that they continue to screen. What is it, like 20 seconds extra out of your life?

Of course a post titled like this one leads me to understand the mood of a few that post here.... :)

I think I know who you are talking about at LIH. Real nasty Smurf (Does not deserve the respect of being called a TSO) with a short temper and power trips to make up for some shortcoming in life.

I don't subscribe to the "safety at any cost" school of thought - my perspective on it is somewhat different - but yes, you will find that many that post here genuinely believe that weapons of any sort are no threat to aviation at all and should be freely allowed through security checkpoints and on board. As long as it's not explosive, it goes through.

That viewpoint makes it particularly difficult (think head-banging-against-wall) to try to "educate" them on a different way of doing things since they are starting from such a warped position.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people who (a) possess a modicum of common sense, and (b) travel regularly so are a stakeholder in the argument as opposed to an armchair expert, would strongly argue against weapons being allowed on aircraft.

Certainly makes me wonder if there is a big overlap between these people that you frequently see in this forum and those that actively campaign for wider gun rights in shopping malls, around schools, etc. Certainly there is a lot they have in common :rolleyes:

Gotta love the argument that if you don't agree with me you have a warped position, don't possess common sense and must be an armchair expert.

:rolleyes:

This summarizes things well, I think. I have no problem with people traveling with firearms, but per the regulations, in checked baggage. Further, if the powers that be wish to declare certain items are not allowed in the cabin, so be it. But there are other mechanisms for dealing with these things than to have them end up on eBay.

For example, the pen-knife most of us used to carry all over. These can certainly be carried safely in the cargo hold. So, instead of "surrender under duress," the TSA could easily hand the pax an envelope and say put it in here, give them a claim check and put it in a bin for a gate agent to pick up just before boarding and put it in the cargo hold. Just like we do for camping permits at state parks. Money in envelope. Receipt torn off and kept, envelope in pipe. Minor logistics problems exist and stuff will certainly be lost from time to time, but better than what we have now, and at the destination, just pick the stuff up at the luggage claim.

On another note, the TSA gave up confiscating cigarette lighters, not because they were inherently safe, but because they didn't want to spend the money disposing of all the butane. And butane burns. At least this is what is implied from a TSO's comments.

Now imagine a terrorist who knows they are unlikely to get bad stuff on an airplane. Six buy tickets on flight x, arrive at security with six 1.5 liter. sealed coke bottles, separately, still ice cold. TSA confiscates and trashes, along with the rest of the liquid POWs. Six more come by for another flight, an hour later. Six more cokes with 1 liter each, in the same garbage can. No screening of these, they are thrown away as they are in plain view and the obedient pax immediately give them to the agent to dispose, per the rules. Now, there's 15 liters of incendiary/explosives in the trash can, one with the artfully concealed detonator. The terrorists are en route when the explosion takes out the terminal.

Better we let people take a demonstration drink of their cokes at the checkpoint and take them on the airplane where at least they'll be dispersed and unlikely to cause serious damage.

There are tons of items that can be concealed with a belt, like the knife above, detonators, wiring, even a sheet of explosive, just about anything you can think of to cause damage to an airplane or the people on it, can be concealed within or attached to a belt. :D

To the OP, there should have been no attitude with you over the waiting to remove a belt. Many passengers have a similar situation to you (meaning for some reason their pants will not stay up all the time without a little assistance of some sort!), all it takes is a bit of patience and just plain courtesy. I have even screened individuals that held their pants with one hadn while I screened the opposite side, and vice versa. It is not an uncommon occurence, and should not have resulted in an attitude. Sorry you had a bad experience.