Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

Elderly passenger triggers security alert at D/FW Airport

Elderly passenger triggers security alert at D/FW Airport

Old Dec 27, 10, 12:09 pm
  #16  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,429
Originally Posted by WindOfFreedom View Post
"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.
OMG-the surveillance tape was not only found but it actually was "not damaged" and viewable

TSA described it as a minor incident, but it nevertheless sparked a grandma manhunt throughout the entire airport.
And the Secret Service wrestled grandma to the ground.....

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
goalie is offline  
Old Dec 27, 10, 12:13 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
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.
Or the passenger pretended to believe she completed screening. Handed off explosives to a second passenger. Then she left the terminal, so that she wouldn't be found in a sweep.

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.
Ellie M is offline  
Old Dec 27, 10, 12:17 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MSP
Programs: DL Diamond, Marriott Plat, HHonors Gold
Posts: 45
Talking

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.
p1um1oco is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:15 pm
  #19  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
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.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:17 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold and Silver Wings, AS MVPG75K, HH Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,239
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
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.
Why? Because they can.
Fredd is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:23 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ABE/PHL/EWR
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
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?
But with NoS, ANYTHING is an unidentified item, not a prohibited item. In the "old days" when a WTMD alerted to something, there was a lot better chance it was a prohibited item then when the NoS alerts. TSA *always* wants to search us further, they just haven't found a way around the law to pat down down everything and make us bend over

Oh, and I'm LOL'ing how the TSA made her go through security once she was doine flying. ....
323power is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:35 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austin (TX)
Posts: 305
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).
michelle227 is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:48 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by michelle227 View Post
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).
If she refused, they'd probably fine her $11,000

~~ Irish
IrishDoesntFlyNow is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:50 pm
  #24  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,429
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.
When I am sent for my secondary for my orthopedic shoes, I am never "waved" to go into the little plexiglass booth. The WTMD gatekeeper watches me enter and stands sideways to watch both me and the pax coming thru the WTMD so imho, if "grandma" was waved on to a secondary, somebody dropped the ball
goalie is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:51 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
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.
You don't want her driving home from the airport with something in her pocket, do you???
TheGolfWidow is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 9:54 pm
  #26  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by goalie View Post
somebody dropped the ball
I think that's pretty much a given these days. Saying the TSA dropped the ball is kind of like saying the '76 Buccaneers had some issues with defense.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 10:08 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
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.
Hey, that would have been my conclusion. "OK, you boys are through playing your little games, I can go now, toodle-oo!"
WindOfFreedom is offline  
Old Dec 28, 10, 11:33 pm
  #28  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
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.
I am on the floor dying of laughter because that is just totally ridiculous and most definately stupid

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.
Lara21 is offline  
Old Dec 29, 10, 3:28 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
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.
head spinning...
BubbaLoop is offline  
Old Dec 29, 10, 8:59 am
  #30  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
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.)
Caradoc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: