Laptop RAM damaged through security
Jun 28, 2004 | 2:53 pm
#31
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
Shoes and More Shoes
Originally Posted by Bart
If you insist on not removing your shoes at all, even after they alarm the WTMD, then you don't have to take them off. The TSA SOP previously required us to have shoes removed for secondary screening. That is no longer the case. Screeners are allowed to screen shoes using explosives detection technology while the person being screened is still wearing them. This will add a few minutes to your time at the checkpoint. It is easier if you remove your shoes. But TSA can accomodate those who strongly object to removing their shoes.
I certainly understand that TSA is looking for more than metal shanks, but at least the shoe box gives a warning of one of the two things that will cause additional screeing. And if it is "criteria" footwear, would not you be told before you walk through that it meets the "criteria"?
Am I correct in understanding that if my shoes do alarm that explosive detection technology can be used and my shoes will not have to be taken off to go through x-ray? If so, then how does this prevent a knife (not that it should be prevented, but that is for another thread on another day) from being found in my shoes then?
I will be traveling with my mother-in-law on Wednesday and she is pretty unhappy when has to take off her shoes (she is so easy-going that when something does get to her, you tend to sit up and take notice). So if what I am understanding is true, then if she alarms she can ask for the explosive detection technology review and will not have to have to remove her shoes. She would probably be happy to hear that.
Jun 28, 2004 | 3:22 pm
#32
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
I agree with you on the "shoe tester". It lets the non profiled shoe wearers a heads up.
I suggest your mother-in-law wear what is called airport safe (low and no shank). If she wears shoes over one (1) inch high and doesn't want to divest them she will be directed to secondary screening. If the shoes alarm when being wanded, they must be x-rayed - this x-ray will also satisfy the profiled shoe scrutiny. If they do not alarm, a screener must conduct the required ETD search, or submit the shoes for x-ray inspection if no ETD is available.
Hope this helps.
I suggest your mother-in-law wear what is called airport safe (low and no shank). If she wears shoes over one (1) inch high and doesn't want to divest them she will be directed to secondary screening. If the shoes alarm when being wanded, they must be x-rayed - this x-ray will also satisfy the profiled shoe scrutiny. If they do not alarm, a screener must conduct the required ETD search, or submit the shoes for x-ray inspection if no ETD is available.
Hope this helps.
Originally Posted by ND Sol
Bart and TSAMGR, thanks for the quick responses. Perhaps I am dense about certain aspects or maybe it is because certain procedures have been entrenched in my mind from traveling.
I certainly understand that TSA is looking for more than metal shanks, but at least the shoe box gives a warning of one of the two things that will cause additional screening. And if it is "criteria" footwear, would not you be told before you walk through that it meets the "criteria"?
Am I correct in understanding that if my shoes do alarm that explosive detection technology can be used and my shoes will not have to be taken off to go through x-ray? If so, then how does this prevent a knife (not that it should be prevented, but that is for another thread on another day) from being found in my shoes then?
I will be traveling with my mother-in-law on Wednesday and she is pretty unhappy when has to take off her shoes (she is so easy-going that when something does get to her, you tend to sit up and take notice). So if what I am understanding is true, then if she alarms she can ask for the explosive detection technology review and will not have to have to remove her shoes. She would probably be happy to hear that.
I certainly understand that TSA is looking for more than metal shanks, but at least the shoe box gives a warning of one of the two things that will cause additional screening. And if it is "criteria" footwear, would not you be told before you walk through that it meets the "criteria"?
Am I correct in understanding that if my shoes do alarm that explosive detection technology can be used and my shoes will not have to be taken off to go through x-ray? If so, then how does this prevent a knife (not that it should be prevented, but that is for another thread on another day) from being found in my shoes then?
I will be traveling with my mother-in-law on Wednesday and she is pretty unhappy when has to take off her shoes (she is so easy-going that when something does get to her, you tend to sit up and take notice). So if what I am understanding is true, then if she alarms she can ask for the explosive detection technology review and will not have to have to remove her shoes. She would probably be happy to hear that.
Jun 28, 2004 | 3:44 pm
#33
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Spiff, you are probably speaking to the choir. We are explaining the procedures, we may not and probably do not agree with them.
Please understand the TSA people on FlyerTalk are front-line personnel who do not create policy. These people, including myself are trying to feed our families and are insulted by you questioning our patriotism and common sense. I know you are trying to start an argument and I ask my fellow TSA personnel to refrain from replying to these comments and report them to the FlyerTalk Administrator.
Thank you.
Please understand the TSA people on FlyerTalk are front-line personnel who do not create policy. These people, including myself are trying to feed our families and are insulted by you questioning our patriotism and common sense. I know you are trying to start an argument and I ask my fellow TSA personnel to refrain from replying to these comments and report them to the FlyerTalk Administrator.
Thank you.
Originally Posted by Spiff
Thanks for the clarification, Bart.
However, I object most strongly to:
"2. If you're wearing shoes that meet a certain criteria for the type of screening I mentioned above, then whether or not they have steel shanks inside them isn't the issue. If you're wearing them when you enter the WTMD, you will be directed for secondary screening even if you don't alarm."
There are NO credible "criteria" for shoes. Any amount of explosive material that can be hidden in a shoe that meets the "criteria" can easily be hidden in or on a person. Continuing to use these stupid "criteria" amounts to criminal negligence on the part of those who mandate them as they are nothing but passenger harassement that takes away resources that could instead be used for real security.
Moreover, in addition to screening the shoes of a person who does not alarm, that person is hand-wanded. This is blatant harassment. Shoes were the criteria for the WTMD, the person does not alarm at the WTMD, but they are hand wanded. Plain and simple harassment.
I think that the TSA's management are nothing less than treasonous ...-clowns for this and other idiotic mandates. FSDs who interpret these "criteria" to mean any/all shoes are also treasonous ...-clowns. I question the patriotism and common sense of screeners who continue to work for treasonous ...-clowns such as these.
However, I object most strongly to:
"2. If you're wearing shoes that meet a certain criteria for the type of screening I mentioned above, then whether or not they have steel shanks inside them isn't the issue. If you're wearing them when you enter the WTMD, you will be directed for secondary screening even if you don't alarm."
There are NO credible "criteria" for shoes. Any amount of explosive material that can be hidden in a shoe that meets the "criteria" can easily be hidden in or on a person. Continuing to use these stupid "criteria" amounts to criminal negligence on the part of those who mandate them as they are nothing but passenger harassement that takes away resources that could instead be used for real security.
Moreover, in addition to screening the shoes of a person who does not alarm, that person is hand-wanded. This is blatant harassment. Shoes were the criteria for the WTMD, the person does not alarm at the WTMD, but they are hand wanded. Plain and simple harassment.
I think that the TSA's management are nothing less than treasonous ...-clowns for this and other idiotic mandates. FSDs who interpret these "criteria" to mean any/all shoes are also treasonous ...-clowns. I question the patriotism and common sense of screeners who continue to work for treasonous ...-clowns such as these.
Last edited by TSAMGR; Jun 28, 2004 at 3:58 pm
Jun 28, 2004 | 3:50 pm
#34
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
TSAMGR, that makes the most sense (as if any of this does).
If your shoes alarm on the handwand at secondary, then you will have to remove your shoes from what I understand you are saying. If that is the case, then Bart's statement below would not be correct in that situation?
"If you insist on not removing your shoes at all, even after they alarm the WTMD, then you don't have to take them off. The TSA SOP previously required us to have shoes removed for secondary screening. That is no longer the case. Screeners are allowed to screen shoes using explosives detection technology while the person being screened is still wearing them. This will add a few minutes to your time at the checkpoint. It is easier if you remove your shoes. But TSA can accomodate those who strongly object to removing their shoes."
If your shoes alarm on the handwand at secondary, then you will have to remove your shoes from what I understand you are saying. If that is the case, then Bart's statement below would not be correct in that situation?
"If you insist on not removing your shoes at all, even after they alarm the WTMD, then you don't have to take them off. The TSA SOP previously required us to have shoes removed for secondary screening. That is no longer the case. Screeners are allowed to screen shoes using explosives detection technology while the person being screened is still wearing them. This will add a few minutes to your time at the checkpoint. It is easier if you remove your shoes. But TSA can accomodate those who strongly object to removing their shoes."
Jun 28, 2004 | 3:52 pm
#35
Founder of FlyerTalk
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Spiff
I think that the TSA's management are nothing less than treasonous ...-clowns for this and other idiotic mandates. FSDs who interpret these "criteria" to mean any/all shoes are also treasonous ...-clowns. I question the patriotism and common sense of screeners who continue to work for treasonous ...-clowns such as these.
We should be lucky that select TSA employees has chosen FT to help answers the many questions our members have - along with their opinions. I'm not aware of other travel Web sites that have this luxury, and I'm not happy that we as members of FlyerTalk would want to screw up this conduit to the TSA.
While not using the very same words, I can be a "AC"sometimes as well.
Now, I'd like to read more about the expert opinions of those with computers and defective RAM.
Jun 28, 2004 | 3:53 pm
#36
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
Spiff, you are probably speaking to the chior. We are explaining the procedures, we may not and probably do not agree with them.
If your shoes meet some profile, fine then, search the shoes. But why does that extend to a wanding of the rest of the person's body, after the offending shoes have been scanned? Especially since the wand and frisk puts the passenger at the highest risk of intentional or unintentional physical abuse, it seems like a purely punitive measure.
Jun 28, 2004 | 4:08 pm
#37
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
I checked it with the SOP and thats what it says. Bart will have to explain what he meant but I believe he was referring to passengers who strongly object to removing their shoes at secondary screening. Could there be a change in the SOP in the last few days? Definitely, it is a moving target.
Originally Posted by ND Sol
TSAMGR, that makes the most sense (as if any of this does).
If your shoes alarm on the handwand at secondary, then you will have to remove your shoes from what I understand you are saying. If that is the case, then Bart's statement below would not be correct in that situation?
"If you insist on not removing your shoes at all, even after they alarm the WTMD, then you don't have to take them off. The TSA SOP previously required us to have shoes removed for secondary screening. That is no longer the case. Screeners are allowed to screen shoes using explosives detection technology while the person being screened is still wearing them. This will add a few minutes to your time at the checkpoint. It is easier if you remove your shoes. But TSA can accomodate those who strongly object to removing their shoes."
If your shoes alarm on the handwand at secondary, then you will have to remove your shoes from what I understand you are saying. If that is the case, then Bart's statement below would not be correct in that situation?
"If you insist on not removing your shoes at all, even after they alarm the WTMD, then you don't have to take them off. The TSA SOP previously required us to have shoes removed for secondary screening. That is no longer the case. Screeners are allowed to screen shoes using explosives detection technology while the person being screened is still wearing them. This will add a few minutes to your time at the checkpoint. It is easier if you remove your shoes. But TSA can accomodate those who strongly object to removing their shoes."
Last edited by TSAMGR; Jun 28, 2004 at 5:46 pm
Jun 28, 2004 | 4:20 pm
#38
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Secondary screening is a whole process of hand wanding and pat down (if needed). The whole process has to be done, there isn't a "just screeen that area" procedure. If a profiled shoe alarms while you go through the WTMD then you have a second chance to divest the shoes. If they don't alarm then you will be sent to secondary. Do I think this is right? No. Do I think profiling shoes makes sense? Spiff has numerous times explained the amount of explosives that can be put in a shoe can be "inserted" in other places on the body. The best of both worlds would be a WTMD and ETD combined. There is a pilot program trying the system. I hope it is expanded and we can get rid of the shoe profiling. Until then I suggest you bring a pair of "airport safe" shoes and use them while going through the checkpoint.
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Spiff did actually raise one valid question in his rant: why, if a person is shoe profiled but did not set off the metal detector, should they have to be wanded?
If your shoes meet some profile, fine then, search the shoes. But why does that extend to a wanding of the rest of the person's body, after the offending shoes have been scanned? Especially since the wand and frisk puts the passenger at the highest risk of intentional or unintentional physical abuse, it seems like a purely punitive measure.
If your shoes meet some profile, fine then, search the shoes. But why does that extend to a wanding of the rest of the person's body, after the offending shoes have been scanned? Especially since the wand and frisk puts the passenger at the highest risk of intentional or unintentional physical abuse, it seems like a purely punitive measure.
Last edited by TSAMGR; Jun 28, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Jun 28, 2004 | 4:52 pm
#39
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 940
If your shoes meet some profile, fine then, search the shoes. But why does that extend to a wanding of the rest of the person's body, after the offending shoes have been scanned? Especially since the wand and frisk puts the passenger at the highest risk of intentional or unintentional physical abuse, it seems like a purely punitive measure.
Most of us have come here to help give information that can help you understand the process better, to help protect yourselves, and make it easier for you. We can't change policy and all the complaints in the world from frontline staff doesn't seem to do a thing. If you want to see changes, you need to make that push and stop coming here and just calling TSA higher-ups names.
Most of us seem to be glad to answer and clear up the current procedure questions and such. But we can't make changes to the policies.
Jun 28, 2004 | 5:10 pm
#40
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
Spiff, you are probably speaking to the choir. We are explaining the procedures, we may not and probably do not agree with them.
Please understand the TSA people on FlyerTalk are front-line personnel who do not create policy. These people, including myself are trying to feed our families and are insulted by you questioning our patriotism and common sense. I know you are trying to start an argument and I ask my fellow TSA personnel to refrain from replying to these comments and report them to the FlyerTalk Administrator.
Thank you.
Please understand the TSA people on FlyerTalk are front-line personnel who do not create policy. These people, including myself are trying to feed our families and are insulted by you questioning our patriotism and common sense. I know you are trying to start an argument and I ask my fellow TSA personnel to refrain from replying to these comments and report them to the FlyerTalk Administrator.
Thank you.
Nevertheless, how can one continue to work in a job (not just this job but any job) where one is asked to do things that simply fly in the face of the principles upon which this country was founded? There's a need for security at airports. However certain airports' FSDs have chosen to go above and beyond reasonable security and have instituted policies that are truly un-American. I've given you all plenty of reasons why those policies are both un-American and completely ineffective from a security standpoint. If my boss forced me to do such things, I'd walk in a heartbeat.
I did not mean that I question anyone who works for the TSA's patriotism. I do think that if your FSD is one of those shoe fetishists or an implementer of other un-American policies that you need to do some soul-searching as to why you continue to work for such an individual.
Jun 28, 2004 | 5:28 pm
#41
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 940
I did not mean that I question anyone who works for the TSA's patriotism. I do think that if your FSD is one of those shoe fetishists or an implementer of other un-American policies that you need to do some soul-searching as to why you continue to work for such an individual.
This question has been addressed to many people many times already here, Spiff. But I will give you the jest again.
The job market sucks. Yes, new jobs are opening up and TSA screeners are leaving for them. But until a job is a for sure thing, the money as a screener isn't bad. It's enough to keep people a float and families afloat.
Jun 28, 2004 | 6:07 pm
#42
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Spiff
Nevertheless, how can one continue to work in a job (not just this job but any job) where one is asked to do things that simply fly in the face of the principles upon which this country was founded?
For myself after I retired from municipal civil service, entered the IT field and was making great money. 911 came along and my company was severely affected and laid off half of the workforce. A temporary logistics job came up and the company was subcontracted by Lockheed Martin to assist with the federalization of airports. I do my job very well and this was noticed and I was asked to join TSA as a temp. Once my position was posted I applied and was the only one who qualified (not up to the FSD, it is up to OPM). I did not get my job through cronyism and am proud of my job as far as the hard work I do.
Are there things I don't like? Yes, but thats in any job. Trust me you think the front-end is bad, the back-end is worse. Do I have principals? yes but I also have bills and a family to feed. If everyone could leave a job where they didn't like something then the world would stop. It's the burden you bare for the almighty dollar.
Jun 29, 2004 | 7:11 am
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
I checked it with the SOP and thats what it says. Bart will have to explain what he meant but I believe he was referring to passengers who strongly object to removing their shoes at secondary screening. Could there be a change in the SOP in the last few days? Definitely, it is a moving target.
No change to the SOP. I fat-fingered my post trying to clarify the issue regarding the walk-thru metal detector and neglected to cover the hand held metal detector. Mea culpa.
What I was attempting to address was that shoes don't necessarily have to come off automatically. A person can elect to wear them through the WTMD.
If the shoes alarm the hand held metal detector during secondary screening, they will have to be x-rayed because they obviously contain metal.
If the shoes do not alarm during secondary screening but meet the criteria for profiled shoes, then they will have to be examined with explosives detection technology. What I meant to emphasize is that the passenger can keep the shoes on during this process.
Even if the shoes come have to be removed for x-ray, the passenger can request to wait until the shoes are returned to put them back on before resuming the rest of the hand wanding procedure.
That was my whole point: you don't have to walk barefooted at the checkpoint nor do you have to stand on dirty floors during the hand wanding. TSA screeners can accomodate those who don't want to remove their shoes up to a point such as I described above.
Sorry for the confusion.
Jun 29, 2004 | 8:44 am
#44
Founder of FlyerTalk
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,540
The way that screener and TSAMGR answered the question about why they work at TSA is certainly honest - no bones about it. Anyone who would answer that question in the limelight as truthful as it was answered certainly has gained a bit of respect on FT. Thanks for being honest and as you say, you're just the messenger and i'm glad some of us remember that.
Understand I'm not above criticizing the role and execution of the TSA policies, i just think we can do it without artificial name calling.
Understand I'm not above criticizing the role and execution of the TSA policies, i just think we can do it without artificial name calling.
Jun 29, 2004 | 10:20 am
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,588
What I don't understand is why TSA cannot just come-out and say what shoes are being profiled. That way, people can, if they choose, avoid wearing those shoes to the airport, which will reduce their hassle and the amount of time and resources needed to screen them. I appreciate that our front-line TSA FTers cannot divulge more information, but the policy makes no sense.
