Pointed metal scissors!

I have to admit that I am just chagrined to know that after almost 2 years as an agency that there are some TSA checkpoints that still don't understand the SOP. The SOP specifically describes pointed metal scissors as prohibited. Blunt tipped, round tipped or otherwise non-pointed scissors are permitted to be taken aboard aircraft. The problem is that many blunt tipped scissors appear to look like pointed scissors on the x-ray screen, resulting in physical searches of those bags. The scissors with the rounded ends are an easy call; however, there are some scissors that aren't quite pointed but don't have the rounded tips neither. In most cases, I'll make the judgement call to allow them through the checkpoint, but I'll take the extra time to explain to a passenger that the scissors fall within a gray area which may be subject to a tighter interpretation by another supervisor at a different airport/checkpoint. I usually advise them to put them in their carry-on baggage the next time they travel to avoid any hassle. Kids' school scissors, as a general rule, are permitted. Their design alone, intended so that children can use them safely, should be a clue.

As for enforcing policies I don't agree with; that's life in every profession or line of work. I don't agree with all the policies TSA enforces; and I use whatever latitude the SOP allows to apply common sense. Personally, I think scissors and knives with blades less than 3 inches are harmless. A simple ball point pen, in the hands of a trained martial artist, can be a lethal weapon. So where do we draw the line?

I think risk management should take precedence over risk avoidance. Allowing small scissors and small pocketknives, including money clips with small blades, in my humble opinion, are an acceptable risk. However, I am employed as a screener who enforces policy and not as a high level staff puke who makes policy. I get paid to do a job, and I will continue to do so. If whoever made the comment about people joining TSA because they agree with its policies is really serious about that rationale, then let me ask you this: do you, as an employer, expect your employees to agree with your policies? or do you pay them to do their jobs?

I am confident that small scissors and small pocketknives will eventually be taken off the prohibited items list. The prohibited items list has changed over time, and mostly as the result of customer feedback. Cigar cutters used to prohibited as well as cork screws, flasks and nail files. They are permitted items today. But then again, a real frequent flyer would know this.

You need to get a grip !!

Why do you think I included this ( ) smiley ?

See, I told you he/she was joking.

Why do I feel safe? Because I feel like the TSA are doing their best to find weapons and bombs. Maybe they're not equipped to do their best or they have some dum-dums in their ranks, but I feel much safer with them than without them.

There are more threats out there than just terrorists. In another topic, you guys were talking about being OK with guns on flights. Are you nuts??? I've never seen so much rage in my life than in an airport and alot of times it's the airline's fault. Screeners make people mad too, but they're not the only ones ticking people off. The last thing I want is to allow the flying public to be armed at 30,000 feet.

I feel that some of the items they take are a waste of time, but I feel safe knowing that there are no guns or bombs on my plane.

I agree about guns and bombs, but then why does TSA worry about things like scissors? That's my complaint. Worry about real potential threats, not basically harmless items that lots of people carry around with them. Confiscating scissors is not making anybody safe. Agree?

Bruce

I agree 100%.

That's true in almost every profession. But, the TSA was started under the guise of law enforcement. The first director, McGaw, was a secret service guy and he filled the senior ranks with people with whom he felt comfortable and were of a similar mindset. I vaguely recall some of his early statements and press conferences in which, if left to his own devices, he was ready to create an armed TSA force with police powers.

As I'm sure you know, the hard-core LE/security community is notoriously risk-adverse. The vastly disporportionate amount of resources the TSA has placed at airports -- the LAST line of security -- is a prime example of risk-adverse thinking. Also, risk-adverse organizations solve problems by throwing people and money at them. They solve more problems by throwing more people and more money at them. By cutting screeners and the TSA budget, Congress is telling the TSA become risk managers. As we've all seen, the TSA is as equally adept at blowing off Congress as they are at blowing off the taxpayers.

Risk-adverse organizations place 100% of the risk on external entities. We all heard it: "You'd better get to the airport 3 hours earlier!" "Leave your luggage unlocked or we may have to break into it!" "It's the airline's decision to make you an SSSS!" "Lines are going to be really long. You better read the website and do everything we tell you!" "If you want to be taken off the no-fly list, change your name!" "We will fine you!" "The entire terminal was emptied and x-hundred passengers rescreened."

The only way the TSA will ever become "risk managers" is with a complete paradigm shift and overhaul. Face it, that's completely impossible with an organization this size with such a firmly entrenched culture. Can you imagine training your fellow screeners and their supervisors to understand and practice risk management??? Regretfully, as I've suggested in other posts, the TSA has become like the old Soviet Politburo. The primary reason d'etre of both organizations was/is to perpetuate itself.

Your risk management comment is right on, but it would take a small nuclear weapon in the DHS/TSA's head shed to make it happen.

Yet it is still possible to down an airplane. Last Christmas the rumor was that some women were going to carry plastic explosive in their persons and down some flights. As far as I know that is still possible.

How do you know that? We've already determined that screening isn't a complete guard. Neither you or I know whether there are or aren't any guns or bombs on a plane. I suspect that what we have in place is a system that prevents attacks by the least competent terrorists. The ones we should be concerned with are the ones who think these things through. Apparently, the 9/11 terrorists were in that group and it appears that Al Queada(sp?) is in that group too.

I'll tell you why I would feel safe on an airplane with guns on board. It is because arguments against them are pure emotionalism. There are cities in the US which concealed carry permits and on an emotional level you'd think "wow, people will just shoot each other left and right if they get angry" but that doesn't happen. The truth is, people in this world are capable of an incredible number of malicious acts, yet the number of malicious acts is surprisingly low. I think that there are two reasons for this: the number of truly malicious people in the world is pretty low, and people consistently under-estimate how much other people value their own skin. Consider the fact that there are steak knives in nearly every restaurant that you go into. Are people dying in aisles with knives in their backs? No. Putting suicide terrorists aside for a second, most people have more survival instinct than to wave a gun around in a plane if the penalty was life imprisonment or something nearly as severe.

On purely emotional terms it makes sense to ban many things, but when you really think about how much violence is possible in the world and how much of it never happens, you begin to realize that weapons are relatively innocuous.

If you have ready many of TakeScissorsAway's posts, they tend to "joke" a lot. In fact, from what I have read of their numerous posts the majority of them tend to run along the lines of "joking". So that when someone presses them on the issue they can always say, "I was just joking".
Other then their "joking" posts the rest of their posts IMO are pretty elitist/contentious.

No, they applied for a job because they needed a job. You join a political party because you agree with their platform. You join a church because you agree with their beliefs. You join a company/agree because you agree you need to be paid so you can support your family.

If you don't agree with paying taxes do you not pay them?
If you don't want to stop for a traffic light do you just go through it?
If you don't like paying insurance do you just don't pay it?

Sometimes the end does justify the means.

Nice. Start up some trash talk then complain when you get backwash. And what was the point again? Oh yeah...politics.

Cute response. Except I never complained about the backwash.

The point? I was just venting. No political motive. It was very irritating when it happened.

What's wrong with a little humor among friends ?

If you would like to press me on an issue, press away. I have nothing to hide. Just don't ask me to divulge any thing that would tend to get me fired or worse !

I understand frustration. I know little pointed scissors don't belong on the prohibited list. They along with countless others don't belong. But until the list is changed, I bound by it......sorry, that's just the way it is.

I totally agree.

But until that day I'm gonna TakeScissorsAway <<<<<<<< HUMOR

See I don't feel safer when I am screened because I know that I am not trying to do harm to anyone and the TSA is simply wasting my time and money by screening everyone in this manner. "But how do WE know that you are not trying to do harm?" the screeners will say. And the response back is that if you are trying to secure something, the least efficient way to do that is to try and check EVERYTHING. What you should really do is rule out those things that will not cause damage and then concentrate your efforts on those things that are more likely to do damage. Rounded scissors from a 4 year old couldn't hurt anything. An aluminum soda can on the other hand could be deadly. One is confiscated as being a "threat" the other is handed out free on almost every flight.
If we really wanted to secure these planes we would concentrate the efforts on finding out who the bad guys are and not let them on the planes. The circus we see every day at the airports is simply a show for the public to make them feel safe. We are no safer today then we were before 9/11. See the discussion on spotting the FAM if you want to see even more stupidity in action.

If one inappropriate comment "destroys all of your work," then that work probably isn't very significant.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't good screeners. Quite the contrary. In fact, I think that the good screeners should take pride in their work and spread good things about the TSA.

But at the same time it's important to realize that there are bad apples in the organization and bad experiences among the traveling public. Wishing it away won't do any good. Better to accept it and work to being the best you can be and encourage others to do the same. Ultimately the bad ones will (hopefully) be weeded out and the overall reputation of the TSA will improve over time.

In the mean time, don't take negative comments about the TSA personally. People are angry at the delays, inconveniences, and at the few rude and unprofessional screeners that they have dealt with. Chances are you are not personally responsible for their unhappiness so it's silly to take offense at their comments.

You can read my post on a related subject here.