|
Originally Posted by WindOfFreedom
(Post 15529334)
"Photos of the elusive woman were distributed to gate agents while officers held dozens of flights to search aircraft."
So where did they get her picture? Inquiring minds want to know. TSA described it as a minor incident, but it nevertheless sparked a Out of an Abundance of Caution®, The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued the following security directive. Effective immediately, all grandparents must be placed inside a 1 quart see thru zip-lock plastic bag prior to entrance to the secure area. If a grandparent cannot fit inside the zip-lock baggie, Transportation Security Officers (TSO's) will instruct passengers to place their grandparents inside their checked luggage. The TSA: Keeping you safe in the war on terror, one penis, two breasts and one grandma at a time |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15530634)
The root cause of the problem lies squarely on the shoulders of TSA not controlling the Screening Process.
Sounds like the pax thought they had completed screening and moved off to clear the checkpoint. Even the TSA doesn't believe the passenger was really a threat, no matter that she set off some alarm. If they believed she was a threat they would have had dumped the airport. Instead, they're more worried about the negative publicity from a terminal dump while searching for grandma. All this episode demonstrates is that even the TSA believes that invasive searches of everyone are theater and are not necessary for security, and that they're more concerned with their pr than actual security. |
I think it was just a malfunctioning X-Ray scanner, the elderly are not held together as well as the younger folk and when it zapped her, she was disintegrated.
|
As it turns out, the TSA actually did find the woman and apparently decided to do the follow-up scan at her destination.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of making everyone safer by scanning her four hours later, when she got off the plane. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15539851)
As it turns out, the TSA actually did find the woman and apparently decided to do the follow-up scan at her destination.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of making everyone safer by scanning her four hours later, when she got off the plane. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 15530188)
Why not? A passenger managed to enter the sterile area of the airport without having completed screening. Furthermore, the passenger in question had an unidentified item on her person which TSA was concerned enough about to want to search her further. Using TSA logic ... why shouldn't this cause an immediate shutdown of the terminal?
Oh, and I'm LOL'ing how the TSA made her go through security once she was doine flying. .... |
would have liked to see what they would have done had she refused screening at the destination...once on the ground AT the destination, the whole DY...T loses its significance as a threat. And I would have LOVED to see the debate about jurisdiction if the TSA insisted on trying to press charges, not to mention that I do not see a judge in EITHER Cali OR Texas finding that the post-flight search was 'reasonable' in light of the alleged mission of TSA (that whole BS about making flying safer).
|
Originally Posted by michelle227
(Post 15539941)
would have liked to see what they would have done had she refused screening at the destination...once on the ground AT the destination, the whole DY...T loses its significance as a threat. And I would have LOVED to see the debate about jurisdiction if the TSA insisted on trying to press charges, not to mention that I do not see a judge in EITHER Cali OR Texas finding that the post-flight search was 'reasonable' in light of the alleged mission of TSA (that whole BS about making flying safer).
~~ Irish |
Intersting snippet
On Christmas Day at D/FW, a woman described as very elderly showed up with an anomaly on her scan. She was waved on to secondary check, but instead went to her gate and boarded her flight. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15539851)
As it turns out, the TSA actually did find the woman and apparently decided to do the follow-up scan at her destination.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of making everyone safer by scanning her four hours later, when she got off the plane. |
Originally Posted by goalie
(Post 15539994)
somebody dropped the ball
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15530634)
The root cause of the problem lies squarely on the shoulders of TSA not controlling the Screening Process.
Sounds like the pax thought they had completed screening and moved off to clear the checkpoint. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15539851)
As it turns out, the TSA actually did find the woman and apparently decided to do the follow-up scan at her destination.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of making everyone safer by scanning her four hours later, when she got off the plane. Hey TSA/DHS the screening is suppose to be done before one gets on the plane so says the rules implimented by you or did that just slip your minds that day. Oh I know what happened... The TSA Agent who was suppose to prevent the elderly lady from leaving the area got distracted by some hot passenger getting the all over feel up in the next lane over. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15539851)
As it turns out, the TSA actually did find the woman and apparently decided to do the follow-up scan at her destination.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of making everyone safer by scanning her four hours later, when she got off the plane. |
My new theory - the TSA needed to compare the saved scanner image with what they really found on the woman so as to have something to train people with.
(Yes, I'm aware that the TSA has claimed they don't store the images. I'm also aware that their "training" is laughable. This post is closed-captioned for the sarcasm-impaired.) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:31 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.