Is this SOP for a patdown?
Jul 16, 2010 | 9:17 pm
#16
Join Date: Dec 2009
Programs: TSO, AS MVP, AOPA member, Private Pilot ASEL
Posts: 571
Oh yeah, looking "down people's pants" (by the way, totally not what is happening but hey, believe what you wish since you will anyway) is certainly a bonus to my day....
:ro lleyes:
Jul 17, 2010 | 2:55 am
#19
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
Well blasting caps and detonators are explosives by definition, albeit small ones, but they are explosives.
Oh yeah, looking "down people's pants" (by the way, totally not what is happening but hey, believe what you wish since you will anyway) is certainly a bonus to my day....:ro lleyes:
Oh yeah, looking "down people's pants" (by the way, totally not what is happening but hey, believe what you wish since you will anyway) is certainly a bonus to my day....
:ro lleyes:
Jul 17, 2010 | 7:39 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Jul 17, 2010 | 7:45 am
#22
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Good job, you've proven you have no clue as to what you are talking about!!
Jul 17, 2010 | 7:54 am
#23
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
You need some more coffee, perhaps lots more, before attempting to discern what I'm really saying. Or maybe a Vallium, I'm not the one doing any 'proving' here @:-) .
Jul 17, 2010 | 8:06 am
#24
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
In fact that's exactly what you suggested or implied. Prior to the latest WBI and/or patdown, if there was no WTMD alarm there was no secondary (except retaliatory ones), so if detonators do not alarm the WTMD (you say) then you have no idea how many were smuggled in. In all likelihood the number is zero but that's not the point - if you weren't concerned about them before why now ?
You need some more coffee, perhaps lots more, before attempting to discern what I'm really saying. Or maybe a Vallium, I'm not the one doing any 'proving' here @:-) .
You need some more coffee, perhaps lots more, before attempting to discern what I'm really saying. Or maybe a Vallium, I'm not the one doing any 'proving' here @:-) .
So why assume the following: - "if you weren't concerned about them before why now?" What leap in logic made you state that?
And the rest of your statemets are also filled with incorrect assumptions; but let's deal first with what I asked you above.
Oh, I've had my two cups of coffe, and they were good, smooth and tasty, thanks!!
Jul 17, 2010 | 8:48 am
#25
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
In the past I have gotten several secondaries (my 'demeanor', you know) and most were wandings and/or swabs and cursory patdowns if at all. My waistband was felt, not rolled over. Only once, recently, have I had to remove my belt.
That's my experience and it is at odds with your contention that patdowns have always been done this way. I simply do not believe that the patdown process has not been escalated, in response to what I have no idea.
What are the other things about which I have "no clue"? I'm willing to be enlightened.
Jul 17, 2010 | 9:11 am
#26
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Because the number of patdowns has increased, including post-WBI ones and WBI opt-out ones.
In the past I have gotten several secondaries (my 'demeanor', you know) and most were wandings and/or swabs and cursory patdowns if at all. My waistband was felt, not rolled over. Only once, recently, have I had to remove my belt.
That's my experience and it is at odds with your contention that patdowns have always been done this way. I simply do not believe that the patdown process has not been escalated, in response to what I have no idea.
What are the other things about which I have "no clue"? I'm willing to be enlightened.
In the past I have gotten several secondaries (my 'demeanor', you know) and most were wandings and/or swabs and cursory patdowns if at all. My waistband was felt, not rolled over. Only once, recently, have I had to remove my belt.
That's my experience and it is at odds with your contention that patdowns have always been done this way. I simply do not believe that the patdown process has not been escalated, in response to what I have no idea.
What are the other things about which I have "no clue"? I'm willing to be enlightened.
And since we have different pat-downs, can you tell me which one you received, as in some we do NOT clear the waistband this way? Did you alarm the WTMD, do you have a medical device preventing you from going through the WTMD, were you a selectee, can you not remove your shoes (all of these will result in different types of pat-downs).
And not being mean here, but this is why I am saying many of your assumptions are incorrect.
Jul 17, 2010 | 10:54 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,986
Oh and while we are upping the screening standards how about screening all of those airport workers who enter without any screening what so ever?
Jul 17, 2010 | 11:06 am
#28
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
If security is really needed then why stop at just rolling down a waistband? Lets go for the full strip search and cavity checks. Can't be to safe!
Oh and while we are upping the screening standards how about screening all of those airport workers who enter without any screening what so ever?
Oh and while we are upping the screening standards how about screening all of those airport workers who enter without any screening what so ever?
Jul 17, 2010 | 11:15 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Assumptions are liable to be incorrect when simple things like when is a patdown not a patdown is Secret Squirrel Intelligence(sic). You can't answer that, I know.
So if I refuse the WBI, I'm going to get the industrial strength patdown regardless of whether or not I alarm the WTMD. Is that assumption correct ? Just want to be forewarned, it helps my blood pressure.