Go for it! I'll buy the stuff for you to shine your balls.

Anything to make MCO better is a big step. I figure they picked MCO due to the amount of little people that travel through there.

Mike

Then wand them to find the source of the alarm.

Odd you should mention that: people feel differently about different levels of screening.

Though I doubt anyone here will believe it, when TSA only employeed WTMD and HHMD, this was the same reaction I received from more than a few passenges. They alarmed the WTMD, needed to be screened by HHMD, and started on how they were being treated like criminals. I saw grown men cry (women too), simply becuse they were going to be wanded.

At the same time, I have had men tell me they could care less if there were patted down with the new procedure, and men and women demand to use the AIT.

My point is this: there will always be those who claim that screening makes them feel like a criminal. And when you implement new procedures, it all shifts, but not in one way.

Most of those with metal implants demand the AIT, because they have correctly learned how to divest their property and avoid a pat down (they were patted down even with the HHMD because, surprise, it would alarm). To them, they feel less like a criminal with the way TSA does things now. But I doubt few here will accept that.

So when someone tells me they don't want "to feel like felons every time [they] walked through the airport", I have to wonder, under what type of security screening are they talking about? The old way with WTMD/HHMD or the new way with AIT/SPD?

It is a step in the right direction ^ and imho, you have to start somewhere so why not with little Johnny/Janey? If this works (and I sure hope it does, my next guess will be that as long as they are mobile (i.e not in a wheelchair), little Johnny/Janey's grandparents will be next and then working it up the line leaving me, the orthopedic shoe ter'wrist as the last one but again, it's a start folks

Or the liquid non-sense to end entirely?

So pretty much children 12 and under in the US will be treated similarly to every traveller in most of the rest of the world? (Actually, can you clarify - if one alarms the WTMD, one has to remove shoes? That doesn't happen on the first alarm in other places, so I would like clarification please.)

What about pat downs?

Becasue this is a pilot program. Different parts of RBS are being test at different airports. Once the pilot program is complete and is successful (meaning parents don't start using their children to hide prohibited items - which I HAVE seen) it WILL go nation wide.

I think that there's four airports participating in the pilot program for RBS. One is MCO, I think another is BOS. Whether it's the same stuff that MCO is doing or they're testing another facet of RBS, I don't know.

I don't know the names of the other two airports.

I have never felt like a criminal. Not even if the WMTD alramed. Cause I was fast cleared since I didnt have anything dangerous on me.
I dont mind screening in general. Since I am a very peaceful person and innocent.

I do mind that a stranger female or male can grope /touch me in place that would be a crime outside the airport. It should be a crime inside the airport to.

It is offending, weird, sick, sexual assult and everything else.

I should not have to go through that to travel.

Neither should I fear all this when I do go to an airport. I never liked flying but sometimes I have to since I have family in Europe. But I never in my wildest dreams would think I feared the airport and the TSA. I thought they were there for my protection.
Now I need to be protected from them
And that is very, VERY sad.

Regarding the different airports, are they terminal specific or across the board at the airport?

Agreed in general. I've heard a lot of TSA horror stories, but I don't recall one where a 15-17 year old was hassled by a TDC for not having ID. If there aren't any, then maybe TSA is doing that right. If it were common, I think we would have heard about it.

This will be interesting. TSA history would suggest that RBS would mean the current level of screening for everyone and more screening for those deemed risky. E.g., if the BDO doesn't like your answers, micro-expressions, or non-answers, you get sent for a full secondary. But this MCO policy may signal an inflection point toward using RBS to reduce screening, and it's becoming clear that TSA is worried about the bad PR it gets from overzealous screening.

If RBS changes mean that the vast majority of people (i.e., 95%+) get substantially less invasive screening, then that could help TSA from a PR standpoint and make it easier to dismiss complaints from civil-liberties activists.

But it's going to be a very hard balance to strike. If the new policies can be perceived, even falsely, as racial/ethnic/religious profiling, TSA will get in huge trouble from identity-based civil rights groups that have a lot of clout with politicians and the courts. TSA has mostly avoided this problem by treating everyone equally badly; any RBS changes will remove that cover.

Realistically, and I'll get called a racist for this, I don't see how any RBS that reduces screening for many or most people will not result in foreign citizens, men 18-35 or so, and yes, Muslims, getting more screening than others. Even if you use non-racial, non-gender, non-age, non-ethnic, non-religious criteria for the RBS, any policy that doesn't result in increased screening for these groups is more likely to miss the terrorists, because that's who the terrorists have mostly been. The USA won't stomach that kind of profiling, regardless of how effective it is or is not at reducing overzealous screening or catching terrorists. If RBS ends up targeting conservatives ("right-wing gun loving extremists", pro-life activists, etc.) when a Democrat is President and liberals ("eco terrorists", racial/ethnic-group activists) when a Republican is President, that won't fly either.

If the new policies only reduce screening for a small or moderate percentage of passengers or rely on a trusted traveler program requiring invasive background checks, I don't think they will help the PR issue much. Particularly if people are perceived as being ineligible or flunking the background check for racial, ethnic, religious, monetary (bad credit report), or lifestyle (transient with no fixed address) reasons.

I also don't see how, given the TSA mentality, management or the screeners will be able to stomach reduced screening for any large number of people. TSA mentality seems based on treating every passenger as a likely terrorist and every bag as likely WEI. Changing that is a huge paradigm shift.

For me, the new way. But I can't speak for everyone. I will wholeheartedly agree with you that you will never be able to please everyone. But the system we have now has become a political patchwork of last-minute fixes rather than anything that provides actual security.

AFAIC, the WTMD/HHMD, along with the baggage X-Rays, are about as good as we are going to get. Additional security seems to be maximum imposition for minimum incremental security.

Mike

This is a step in the right direction the same way allowing of-age black males to vote was a step in the right direction: sure, it makes things better than they were, but it still leaves a long journey ahead.

Information posted on the TSA web site, including pilot testing locations

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/expedited_screening.shtm

Question for SATTSO and GSOLTSO. Did TSA send you guys out to talk about this pilot program? Timing is sure interesting.

Sure. That's valid. Just like it has been prior to the shoe hysteria.