Risked Based Security for pax aged 12 and under
Aug 17, 2011 | 1:54 pm
#106
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:00 pm
#108
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Prince Albert piercings do not alarm the WTMD. They DO alarm the HHMD.
This actually has caused some problems, meaning those who have them assume they will alarm the WTMD, so they would not divest properly, and alarm the WTMD. Which used to lead to the use of the HHMD, which would then alarm where the piercing was, which would lead to.... Lets just say, no HHMD, problem solved.
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:02 pm
#109
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
There will ALWAYS be people who violate rules in ANY organization that exist. I suspect that even where you work/worked there were employees who did whatever they wanted. However, as millions of children fly each year, what you talk about is a rare exception to the rule; it actually works fairly well.
But if you wonder if a TSO will argue with a parent that they belive the child is older than 12, the answer is "yes". There is NO system that could be perfect.
But if you wonder if a TSO will argue with a parent that they belive the child is older than 12, the answer is "yes". There is NO system that could be perfect.
What TSA rule in Texas was violated by the TSA demanding ID of an unaccompanied 16-year-old boy, with US and Pakistani citizenship, traveling from one Texas airport to another airport in the US where the young passenger shows his Pakistani passport and thereby gets subjected to additional screening of the (TSA-wanted-and-approved) bigoted sort that subjected him to such due to presented national affiliation?
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:05 pm
#110
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Seriously, no insult meant. Trying to explain why I believe it was "out there".
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:05 pm
#111
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
The FT outage being attributed to the TSA seems to be along the same lines as the FT outage being attributed to DL or UA management: sarcasm or a joke, to highlight some of the critical attention they've been getting as of late on FT too.
You didn't answer the question(s) asked of you.
To answer your questions, your typing "risked" in that context doesn't upset me. I am merely curious if your use of "risked" in this context copies language being used by TSA management or TSA management-hired contractors with whom you may have been dealing or whose material has been delivered to you.
To answer your questions, your typing "risked" in that context doesn't upset me. I am merely curious if your use of "risked" in this context copies language being used by TSA management or TSA management-hired contractors with whom you may have been dealing or whose material has been delivered to you.
Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:08 pm
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
Because those who have a conspiracy mind-set usually do not believe their conspiracy questions/thoughts are "out there". But they are. I post here at my own will, and take some risk by doing so. You and others may try to blame TSA, but it only comes from you that you believe TSA would send people here. Much like the post I remember seeing when the site went down for a few hours - and a few said it was TSA that "attacked" FlyerTalk.com
Seriously, no insult meant. Trying to explain why I believe it was "out there".
Seriously, no insult meant. Trying to explain why I believe it was "out there".
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:10 pm
#113
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
I have post this before - and was flatly called a liar. However, since you asked...
I have seen knives, a stun gun, and drugs. Drugs I could care less about as far as my job goes. As far as being a citizen of this country, all of those count for some type of child endangerment as far as I am concerned.
The stun gun one really upset me. The father had a baby in a carriage, and insist the child could not be removed, but he had to make his flight. Eventually he removed his child (took a long time, and police were involved). Under the blanket the baby was laying on was a stun gun.
These are things I have personally seen. There are others I know about that are confirmed: Bullets and guns are not common, but every once in a while a parent does use their child to try to bring them through the checkpoint. Sad, isn't it?
I have seen knives, a stun gun, and drugs. Drugs I could care less about as far as my job goes. As far as being a citizen of this country, all of those count for some type of child endangerment as far as I am concerned.
The stun gun one really upset me. The father had a baby in a carriage, and insist the child could not be removed, but he had to make his flight. Eventually he removed his child (took a long time, and police were involved). Under the blanket the baby was laying on was a stun gun.
These are things I have personally seen. There are others I know about that are confirmed: Bullets and guns are not common, but every once in a while a parent does use their child to try to bring them through the checkpoint. Sad, isn't it?
What then could possibly trigger patdowns of children under 12-years-old? Explosives, of course. Couldn't that threat be cleared by having the child's adult companion "patdown" the child and then doing an ETD test on the adult? (Assuming no "false positives" from baby lotion, shampoo, conditioner, soap, diaper rash ointment, etc.)
IMHO, there would seem to be no excuse at all for patting down children. Period. Ever. Never.*
* Except, of course, unless the TSA's mission isn't really about keeping WEI off the airplanes, but is, in fact, part of a big, illegal, unConstitutional, drug interdiction effort.
Last edited by DeafBlonde; Aug 17, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:14 pm
#114
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:17 pm
#115
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Bolding mine: All of these items could be discovered with the WTMD if they were concealed on the childs "person," that is. No one, AFAIK, has objected to searching the child's conveyances (i.e. strollers, baby carriers, etc.) Children that are too young to walk through the WTMD on their own can be carried by an adult. Any screener, bright or not, sould be able to clear any alarm without a patdown.
Now hold a child, and between that child and your body conceal an item. That actually would work well, too, to defeat a WTMD.
But ignoring that, other things you do not seem to understand about the WTMD: I have been there when knives, bullets, and even BLASTING CAPS (metalic detonators with the explosive (non-metalic) removed) have cleared the WTMD.
Technologies have limitations. Hoping they do not does not make it so.
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:29 pm
#116
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
There seems to be a little you do not know about the WTMD. Do you know the trick of holding your hand over your belt buckle to prevent it from alarming the WTMD? It works pretty well....
Now hold a child, and between that child and your body conceal an item. That actually would work well, too, to defeat a WTMD.
But ignoring that, other things you do not seem to understand about the WTMD: I have been there when knives, bullets, and even BLASTING CAPS (metalic detonators with the explosive (non-metalic) removed) have cleared the WTMD.
Technologies have limitations. Hoping they do not does not make it so.
Now hold a child, and between that child and your body conceal an item. That actually would work well, too, to defeat a WTMD.
But ignoring that, other things you do not seem to understand about the WTMD: I have been there when knives, bullets, and even BLASTING CAPS (metalic detonators with the explosive (non-metalic) removed) have cleared the WTMD.
Technologies have limitations. Hoping they do not does not make it so.
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:30 pm
#117
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
If I was running TSA I would have people talking the party line in social media. I don't see any conspiracy in asking if that is what your here to do.
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:33 pm
#118
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 29,078
Aug 17, 2011 | 2:35 pm
#119
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
There seems to be a little you do not know about the WTMD. Do you know the trick of holding your hand over your belt buckle to prevent it from alarming the WTMD? It works pretty well....
Now hold a child, and between that child and your body conceal an item. That actually would work well, too, to defeat a WTMD.
But ignoring that, other things you do not seem to understand about the WTMD: I have been there when knives, bullets, and even BLASTING CAPS (metalic detonators with the explosive (non-metalic) removed) have cleared the WTMD.
Technologies have limitations. Hoping they do not does not make it so.
Now hold a child, and between that child and your body conceal an item. That actually would work well, too, to defeat a WTMD.
But ignoring that, other things you do not seem to understand about the WTMD: I have been there when knives, bullets, and even BLASTING CAPS (metalic detonators with the explosive (non-metalic) removed) have cleared the WTMD.
Technologies have limitations. Hoping they do not does not make it so.
Would a screener let me hold my hand over the buckle nowadays?
Aug 17, 2011 | 4:00 pm
#120
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
And interesting that you would think so...
Would it be a fair question then to ask if people have been sent to sites like FT by groups that do not like TSA to spread the word, so to speak? Pesronally, I think that would be foolish to assume