Am I to presume therefore that you disagree with the statement, "Use of screeners' brains is much more important than indiscriminate use of wands"?

I certainly hope you did not discourage the use of brains when you were a teacher.

Bart, The security officers in TLV are not especially trained to find the 22 year old palestinian in the croud. They are trained to talk to EVERYONE and identify suspicious people by the way they response. They are more afraid of 25 year old American or British girls that met the 22 year old Palestinian male and took a package from him to deliver to his "brother" abroad. They are more afraid from the ones that carryu a bomb without their knowledge, than the terrorists who will try to board the planes (those will be much easier to find...).
So, when you go to check-in, they will ask you the obvious questions - Did you pack your own bags?, Were your bags with you at all times since you packed them? and more. They will take your passport and ask you for personal details that are written there. They are not doing it to get the obvious answers and move on, they wait to hear what are your responses and how you say it. That's the way to pick up the terrorist or the unknowingly courier. AFAIK, most if not all the boms found by Israeli airport security were found by identifying the person carrying it as suspicious rather than going through every suitcase and treating them equally. This is the way they found a British girl in the 80s trying to carry a suitcase given to her by her Arab-origin boyfriendto carry on a LHR-TLV flight.

This system cannot be implemented in the USA or elsewhere in a high capacity airport, Period!. The reason is the volume of passengers. Even in the new terminal in TLV, some flights get delayed on high volume hours from time to time (especially LY flights as all LY passengers in all flights go through the same security line while the rest of the airlines spread over 4 different security lines). These questions take time and most airports/airlines do not have this luxury of extra emplyees and time. Also, most US airports do not have the extra area for such security checks prior to check-in.

No this would be the statement I would disagree with....

Trixie, in that case, that should have been the statement you quoted before citing your disagreement.

Perhaps you are right on both points:

1. You are not "especially interested in seeing thorough security procedures" -- you would much rather rely on indiscriminate wanding a la TSA.

2. I almost certainly would not personally take you to the airport.

So are you saying you went too far? Because in your own words it earns so much more respect ^ to admit you are wrong?
If not for anything else but offering to escort me to the Airport

I would not call being searched or wanded by airport personnel indiscriminate if my fellow escort saw fit to whisper to them I was last seen taking a package from an Arab speaking person.
So that would be like comparing Apples and swingsets :rolleyes

No, Trixie, but the last remnants I have of gentlemanly behavior inhibit me from saying why I wouldn't want to escort you to the airport.

I believe the shreds of said behavior were discarded when this was posted to get a laugh....

Oh geez, get a life! Perhaps your plans to join the "Terribly Stupid Attitude" group is the right one for you.

Can't wait to hear you griping about getting your break 3 minutes late as I run through the gauntlet.

You've made your mark here, your sour attitude was highlighted to thousands in a FlyerTalk email today. Happy now?

You honestly believe a screener workforce of 45,000 can be trained to make those judgments? Ambitious goal but hardly realistic. Look at how poorly we do at consistently following an SOP that's pretty straightforward with very little discretion for judgment calls.

As far as random screenings go, I agree with you 100%. I'm not a big believer in them and I do not enforce it at my checkpoint. Seems like a cruel joke to play after someone goes through all the trouble to pass through the WTMD successfully only to end up being tagged for random secondary screening. However, I beg to differ on random secondary screening of property. I think that's sound practice.

As for the tube of toothpaste, the only thing that comes to mind is what occurs at checked baggage screening rather than passenger screening. If you're talking about passenger screening, then I agree. A screener should be able to identify a tube of toothpaste. However, if you're talking about checked baggage screening, then I partially disagree. The EDS machine alerts on items that have the same physical properties and/or characteristics as explosives, and we have to check out each and every alert. In my little perfect world, we would be able to exercise the same screener discretion at checked baggage as we do at passenger screening. In other words, if it looks like the machine alerted on a tube of toothpaste, then the screener should be able to make an on-screen resolution determination as opposed to a physical inspection to confirm what's already obvious on the screen.

They're making judgements now. I think they should be: 1. selected more carefully; 2. better trained; and 3. better supervised.


If the EDS machine alerts, then it's not a random screening. I'm not going to complain if you want to look in my checked suitcase if I've forgotten not to pack toothpaste in it (although I'd like to be there when you do it; fortunately, this is possible at my local airport). But once that case has passed that screening, I don't expect to find that it's been opened because of a further, random, screening.

Look, I don't want anyone smuggling weapons onto an airplane. It's in my interest for you to do a good job, and I try to be cooperative and pleasant with screeners. But the system is not perfect; the SOP, even if "pretty straightforward" could use some revision; there needs to be more consistency in applying the SOP; and some TSA screeners need more and/or better training to hone their screening skills and to improve their skills in dealing with the public (so that they can defuse, rather than escalate, tense situations).

It is neither disloyal nor uncooperative to point these things out. Please do not confuse (constructively intended) criticism with personal attack, nor attempts at humor with threats.

The new EDS systems they use in TLV these days have large flat screen TVs for every station of a manual baggage screen. When the EDS system alerts on something, the screener gets a full snapshot of the bag on screen, with the shape of the item that gave the alert and it's exact location in the bag. This way, time is saved and the screener does not have to go all over the bag to find that toothpaste.

Yes, agreed. That's my point. We can't even apply a relatively simple SOP consistently in all 450 TSA airports; I don't see how we would consistently apply the type of latitude we're discussing. However, don't confuse this as me opposing such a goal. I'm just pointing out that we're a long way from that goal. I would like to see TSA screeners have much more latitude than we now have.

As for selection, well, it's a pretty extensive process. It's much better than what was used for the private contract screeners (I used to be one), but I will agree with you that it certainly has room for improvement. Still, we're trying to hire more female screeners at San Antonio and from what I've heard, 150 women applied but only one passed the screener assessment process.

As for training, I think the tools are certainly available to have exceptionally well-trained screeners. However, I don't think all of the airports are using those resources wisely. We have monthly classroom instruction, online computer courses and daily updates. We never had these tools as contract screeners. The real issue is supervision, and true leaders understand the long-range benefits of a sound training plan that is executed with emphasis. We don't have that type of leadership at TSA. Most supervisors pay lip service to training rather than ensure it is conducted effectively. Don't know if it's something exclusive to TSA or if this is the nature of any civilian bureaucracy in the federal government.

As for supervision, I agree. NCS Pearson hired the original batch of supervisors and, in my opinion, did a poor job. There are some great supervisors but my experience is much more negative. I have to admit that I scratch my head wondering how some of these folks ever got to be supervisors. However, the reality is that once a person is hired in any bureaucracy that he or she has to work real hard to get fired for incompetence. And I've seen some supervisors try real hard but apparently not hard enough.

OK. Then we agree. Your reference to toothpaste threw me off; I didn't know if you were talking about checked baggage screening.

I enjoy this type of discussion. I have my own criticisms of TSA and am pretty open about it. I don't have a problem discussing this with you and do not question your loyalty or patriotism. The problem I have are with those who post negative comments simply to bash TSA for no other reason than because they're so angry over some negative experience they had at an airport checkpoint and refuse to take an objective look at the problem.

I agree with you that some TSA screeners need to work on customer service skills. I think we have a pretty good handle on that here in San Antonio. According to the most recent J.D. Power & Associates report, we ranked number one in customer service for our airport category. I think that's because we have a more mature screener workforce with a significant majority of our employees either retired or former military and/or law enforcement. Many passengers give us feedback and criticize a lot of other airports for not having this level of professionalism and courtesy.

I am not blind that some screeners at some airports get confused and think they are law enforcement officers rather than screeners or believe that the only way to handle a situation is to bully someone rather than act with cool, calm professional demeanor. I don't have a good answer for you on how that can be corrected other than for you, as a paying customer, to put your concerns in writing to the airport FSD, TSA Director Stone and/or your Congressional representative. You are not the enemy (nor are we), and I agree with you that we need to work together against the real enemy. I agree that we need to first clean up our own (TSA) house first.

To Dovster. I had a similar question. I smoke cigars, and asked if it was ok to carry on an EMPTY butane lighter. I waited 5 days for a reply, and got the same answer that you did. CAll them. Well I tried that and after ringing and ringing for what seemed like forever, I was transferred to an outsource company in INDIA. Imaging that, our own government outsourcing federal jobs to India. That sure sets an example. Well, the person who answered said no, not even an empty lighter. Doesn't make any sense at all. You cannot carry butane fuel, so what danger is there in an empty lighter????

Maybe try http://www.TSATravelTips.in

Sad.