news to me.

^ Golf Clap ^

Wasn't directed to you.

It's not your Rivets
 

First of all it's not your rivets that set off the walk through metal detector. more than likely it's because you wear shoes that are thick soled or have a metal shank or you just won't remove them to walk through. Now as for the rivets they are made of metal and yes the handwand is sensitive so when passed over the rivets it will alarm and every alarm needs to be resolved. Granted we know they are rivets but we don't know whats on the other side so we check. If you don't like removing your shoes I would recomend that you take some ankel socks or little booties and put them on just before you go through the walk through metal detector and send your shoes through the x-ray. Hope this helps :)

There is a standard that each machine must be set to. Depending on the environment that the WTMD is in (i.e. magnetic fields from surrounding machines or underground wiring) the WTMD may become more sensitive. I wear a $15 pair of walmart sneakers to work becuase they contain no shanks, but the eyelets of the shoes causes the occasional alarm when I step through. The technicians try to set it at the lowest possible setting to detect the test pieces. There could never be no standard WTMD because the environments are not standard.

gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding.

If you read Sharon's posts carefully, you will note that she does not wear shoes through the metal detector, and yet the detector still beeps.

Sharon has been flying for a very long time, more than enough to realize basic advice such as yours. Thanks anyway. :cool:

[QUOTE=UALOneKPlus]she does not wear shoes through the metal detector, and yet the detector still beeps.
[QUOTE]

It's a metal detector, not a shoe detector :D

Living in Israel as you apparently do, could you shed some light as to how their airport screening works and in what ways it's better or worse than what TSA does? I've heard it's more time consuming and sometimes (all the time?) involves interviews. Does it vary a great deal depending on which airline you're flying. i.e. El Al vs a foreign carrier?

El Al and the two smaller Israeli carriers have their own security system which is in addition to whatever security the out-of-country airport provides. Hence, when flying into Israel on Air France or Continental, you would have only the normal security.

When flying out of Israel you have to go through the same tough security no matter what airline you fly.

Yes, there are physical checks a la TSA but they are "line of last defense" (apart, of course, from air marshalls). The major part of Israeli air security is the questioning done on the ground before check in -- and long before you get to the screeners.

I have described this in detail on another thread on this forum and don't want to be repetitive, so I will just suggest that you take a look at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...4&postcount=35

Israeli Airport Security
 

With all the complaints made in this forum against TSA, I am truly surprised that there are those who advocate the Israeli security model.

In Israel, security begins long before a passenger arrives at a checkpoint. Each and every passenger's criminal record is checked against the Interpol database. At Ben Gurion International Airport, every car is checked as they enter the airport by guards armed with mini-Uzi submachine guns. Everybody is interviewed, some with more scrutiny than others. Dovster described that process in detail in a couple of other posts.

Is the Israeli model an effective one? Of course it is. However, there are some aspects of it that invite a closer scrutiny, especially when considering the individual liberties we hold so dear.

Currently, there are no background checks conducted on commercial aviation passengers at any of the US airports. I'm no lawyer and can't articulate the specifics involved in a justified background check; however, I presume it has something to do with reasonable suspicion and probable cause. In other words, it isn't until an individual does something to attract the attention of law enforcement that a background check, usually an NCIC data check, is performed. I don't know the legal ramifications of having background checks conducted on a routine basis as part of pre-screening of passengers, but I assume that this is one of the sticky points of conducting these at US airports.

Checking inbound vehicles at airports, on the surface, sounds like a good idea; however, in order for it to be practical, certain airports, if not all of them, would have to be reconfigured. Otherwise, the physical checks would be meaningless. In other words, you have to have certain physical boundaries, a means of ensuring the integrity of those boundaries (usually a guard patrol coupled with technological surveillance) and an evacuation plan should that integrity ever be compromised. This procedure would have to apply to airport employees, city buses, taxis, essentially, anything and everything on wheels. The costs involved to set this up at some 429 airports nationwide plus the additional manpower required especially during peak periods would be incredible. Plus, there is another civil liberties issue involved, especially when items not directly related to airport security, such as drugs, are found pursuant to these checks.

Racial profiling is used as the basis for the interviews in Israel. On the surface, some folks may have no objections to this. However, need to consider that one of the lessons learned from the tragic 1995 Oklahoma City bombing is that not all terrorists are Muslim fanatics. Timothy McVeigh was a decorated Gulf War combat veteran with a clean background. Fundamentalist Islamic-inspired terrorism is not the only threat against commercial aviation. To put it in the vernacular: there are a lot of wackos out there.

The other aspect of the interview process is what Dovster referred to as coming across as being "out of the ordinary." This leaves a very wide interpretation and could be inconsistencies in what a person claims to be as explanations for one's appearance (e.g. strong American accent with an Israeli military ID card). It also opens the door for other perceptions. For example, I don't imagine that many people complain or harrass Isreali security guards for the simple reason that this would invite more intense scrutiny by Israeli security. I simply cannot imagine this practice being acceptable anywhere in America. Many travelers have expired driver's licences or no license at all! Using the Isreali security model, they would have to undergo addtional security interviews that I imagine would also involve additional background checks. Many US travelers openly complain about security procedures as they undergo screening. Israeli security personnel have zero-tolerance for any jokes, or anything they construe as harrassment. I am willing to bet that there are no customer complaint forms at an Israeli security checkpoint.

One last note: the Israeli security personell are all government employees. Even El Al, which provides yet another addtional layer of security, uses government employees.

No doubt, as I noted previously, that Israeli security is much more effective than the airport security provided by TSA. And I believe TSA could adapt similar methods as Israel and apply it to all 429 airports that it services. However, the costs involved would be astronomical. Also, the civil liberties controversies would certainly make the so-called "shoe carnival" a very minor inconvenience.

What's my point to all this? TSA tries to balance prudent security measures with respect for individual dignity and civil liberties. The result is an imperfect security system. The system, as it is today, is much better than the one offered by the private security companies. Although the private security companies really did nothing wrong that resulted in the horrible atrocities of 9/11, it was the aftermath of 9/11 that revealed the many shortcomings and inadequacies of privately contracted airport security screening companies. No doubt TSA has room for improvement, and no doubt TSA should strive to improve the balance between security and individual privacy. But the whining that takes place in this forum from, what I presume to be college-educated, successful business entrepreneurs and others who are supposedly interested in solving issues with an objective approach, certainly leads me to believe that emotions cloud the thinking in here with mostly cheap shots directed at a group of people who are interested in serving and protecting the public.

I am truly interested in rational, meaningful discussions about airport security. I've developed a low tolerance for whining, hyperbole and cheap rhetoric. Still, of all the internet message boards I've visited, this one offers the most potential for truly stimulating exchanges of ideas and views. If I respond to your posts, I've determined you to be worthwhile. If I don't, then don't bother to waste your time with me....I certainly won't waste mine with you.

Bart, there are a few misconceptions in your post which I would like to clear up:

Each and every passenger's criminal record is checked against the Interpol database.

I have no information on that but I don't see how it is possible. You can walk up to the counter at Ben-Gurion and buy a ticket on the spot.

At Ben Gurion International Airport, every car is checked as they enter the airport by guards armed with mini-Uzi submachine guns.

Every car is stopped. Usually this consists of nothing more than the border policeman waiving you on. There are some random spot checks but these are rare.

Racial profiling is used as the basis for the interviews in Israel.

No, racial profiling is one of the factors. Other factors include nationality, age, sex, appearance and, as noted below, inconsistencies. In this, Israeli is recognizing reality: A Palestinian Moslem man in his 20's is more apt to attempt to hijack an El Al plane than is a European woman in her 30's. This woman, in turn, is more apt to be a hijacker than an American man in his 60's, who is more apt to be a hijacker than an Israeli woman in her 70's.

But, as I stated in the other thread, even the Israeli woman in her 70's is not given an automatic pass.


The other aspect of the interview process is what Dovster referred to as coming across as being "out of the ordinary." This leaves a very wide interpretation and could be inconsistencies in what a person claims to be as explanations for one's appearance (e.g. strong American accent with an Israeli military ID card).

Yes, it gives a wide interpretation and, yes, this is a good thing -- when the people given the authority are also well-trained. Still, wouldn't you want to take a closer look at a man showing you an American officer's military ID card but speaking with a very heavy French accent?

It also opens the door for other perceptions. For example, I don't imagine that many people complain or harrass Isreali security guards for the simple reason that this would invite more intense scrutiny by Israeli security.

You have never spent any time in Israel! Everybody gets harrassed here by everybody else! It is part of our national culture. Privates in the army scream and yell at captains and majors!

However, there is, indeed, very few confrontations at Ben-Gurion airport for two reasons:

1. We are all aware of the security situation in the country and understand why we have to be checked.

2. The security people (who wear civilian clothes, not uniforms), do their best to make the process as painless as possible. They basically try to make it appear as if they were holding a friendly conversation with you instead of questioning you. That goes a long way towards making it more pleasant. (The fact that most of them are attractive young women often makes me wish they were interested in asking me more questions!)

Israeli security personnel have zero-tolerance for any jokes, or anything they construe as harrassment.

Jokes are very much part of the procedure. In fact, when asked if anybody has given me something to take aboard the plane, I have responded "only those nice guys from Hezbollah" and gotten smiles in return.

I think the big thing here is that the security people take their jobs very seriously but not themselves. In American terms, it is the difference between being questioned by Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife.

Andy will get all the cooperation he wants -- Barney will be harrassed and laughed at.

is that analogous to saying that the same complaining, questioning of procedures, and sarcastic remarks would "fly" (pun, he he..) with israeli security folks?

how would an irate passenger be handled differently?

We've noticed. That's why metal-less shoes get the manual treatment by some over-ambitious screeners.

Dovster,
You're right. I've never been to Israel and rely on what I've read about Israeli security. Clearly, you've been there, done that, and continue to experience it.

What I was attempting to do was apply the Israeli model to American security screening and tried to focus more on the civil liberties implications. I read that each and every passenger's background is checked at least against the Interpol database. I have no way to verify or contradict that and have to assume that the author of the article (I believe it was USAToday but am not certain) had done his/her research. Whether it is a background check of 100% of the passengers or even as little as 10% on a random basis, my point is that Americans will object to such scrutiny if done strictly as a pre-screening measure.

Car searches: well, again, the article made it sound like every one of them is checked. However, if what you say is true about the checks being cursory and random checks being rare, then I'd have to ask what's the point of having vehicle searches? My point is that if we were to adapt such measures here in the US, then certain other things would have to occur first. And the issue here is primarily money while the secondary issue is the objection most Americans would have about their cars being searched.

The racial profiling issue was also meant to address the civil liberties concern. And let's face it, no matter what sort of system is devised, someone is going to feel singled out due to race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or any of the other multitude of reasons that people believe they are being discriminated against. It seems that no matter what sort of system TSA develops, it will spend more effort proving that it is not profiling than it would actually supporting the selection methodology. Perhaps that's a good thing and is what serves as a check-and-balance to prevent abuse. Still, there are people who believe that since the 9/11 attackers were Middle Eastern Islamic fanatics, it is a waste of time to place anyone else under the additional scrutiny of selectee screening. I believe we cannot afford to make assumptions about what a "typical" terrorist looks like. I will concur that subjecting 90 year old women in wheelchairs and 2 year old toddlers to the additional scrutiny of selectee screening is pretty ridiculous, and TSA could apply some more common sense to prevent the additional screening measures. (Everybody should undergo the primary screening measures and only undergo secondary screening whenever prompted by alarms/unresolved issues resulting from primary screening...but I digress.)

My comments about the interviewing methodology was not meant to criticize it. My point is that there is a level of subjectivity, and that soon leads to a point where Americans will object to the additional questioning unless things such as probable cause, arrest warrants and other things designed to protect against intrusive government are used as the basis for these questions.

As for jokes, perhaps that's more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else. Israelis have lived with the threat of terrorism almost since the time Israel was first established as a sovereign state. I'm sure you're not suggesting that jokes about Hezbollah or al Qai'da are something that security officers should take lightly. Although terrorism is something that has existed for a long time, we Americans are relatively new to the idea that international terrorists (or even domestic ones) could reach out and touch us right here in America. I don't believe American culture, or at least the legal system, could accept such jokes without prompting additional suspicion and scrutiny.

Don't know what you meant by the Andy-Barney analogy. I would hope the people who perform security screening DO take their jobs seriously. Not so sure you want to employ anyone who doesn't really care about the job you hire him or her for. However, I will agree that it's all about leadership and the ability to apply discretion, flexibility and common sense to different situations as they arise. While it certainly is easy to take pot-shots at TSA supervisors and screening managers who may appear to be inflexible or firmly bound to the letter of the law, show me ANY profession or line of work that doesn't have its fair share of by-the-book enforcers.

Of course, this opens another line of discussion. I firmly believe that some people are naturally born to lead and others are not. This goes against the grain of everything we believe in as Americans where everybody has a chance to excel if they only apply themselves. I am of the belief that some have "it" and some don't. All the schooling in the world won't change that. Leadership is something you are born with. Some realize it and use it; others never realize it and never use it. Those who aren't born with it will never emerge as true leaders, although they may become satisfactory managers. Naturally, I make the distinction between leadership and management.

Getting back to my main point: there are those who believe TSA security should be more like Israeli airport security. I'm saying, "not so fast, Junior. Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it."