It's only a 'jacket' if it's unbuttoned
 

From Neal Boortz:

THE LATEST FROM THE TSA

I don't want to identify the airport ... but here's my latest TSA adventure. It happened over the weekend. As I approached the screening machine I was wearing a colored t-shirt (t-shirt of color, if you will) with an unbuttoned long sleeve sports shirt. The lady shoving the luggage into the machine told me I had to remove my jacket.

"It isn't a jacket. It's my shirt."

"Well you have something on under it."

"That's my undershirt."

"Well, you're wearing it like a jacket, so you'll have to take it off."

"What if I just button it?"

"That would be OK".

So .. I buttoned it up and went on through .... wondering just where they get some of these people, During that flight I couldn't help but think that my safety was dependent on a woman who couldn't tell a sports shirt from a jacket and who thought that by somehow buttoning it up all threats were removed.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200502/02142005.html

hmm
 

If you had it unbuttoned then it would be bulky and hanging on you. When you buttoned it up, it left nothing to the imagination as to your outline and form so you were allowed through. No mystery here.

Each time I travel I find it to be a great learning experience. Here they are worry about a shirt unbutton but at EWR a passenger is allow to go through security with a butcher knive.

All a terrorist needs to do is carry a vial of nitroglycerin - a clear yellowish substance. Never will it be detected.

If it is unbuttoned you should not be embarrassed taking it off.

Travel tips:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/travel.htm

Sheer lunacy. Do you just take whatever your bosses tell you as policy and regurgitate it? Do you have capacity for critical thought? If it was a baggy shirt and it was untucked, it would still be "bulky and hanging on" him whether it was buttoned or not.

Maybe you can answer these questions, that so far no TSAer here has bothered to address: do terrorists not wear undershirts? Is that why a baggy shirt/sweatshirt must be removed only if there's a t-shirt beneath? Or is this information SSI? :rolleyes:

This has been addressed here before but I'll try my best to explain it. And, no, this is not SSI, this is what we can tell pax in line if they question us. In addition to jackets and coats, bulky sweaters and sweatshirts, hoodies, vests, pullover windbreakers, thick shirts and that type of item needs to come off and be sent through the xray. This allows a quick way to clear the item and the passenger. If the passenger balks at removing the item for whatever reason, i.e. nothing on underneath, think its a stupid rule, refuses with no explaination, then they do not have to remove said item. They are to be refered to secondary screening where the hand wander will determine if the person and the garment in question can be cleared through wanding/pat down or if a private screening and garment removal is necessary.

myrgirl, we all know the rule. The problem is that the rule is moronic. Your response above is just further regurgitation.

One more time with the question -- do terrorists always wear undershirts? Is that why one has to remove if one has undershirt and not remove if one does not have undershirt? Or is this policy just lame-*ss psuedo-security like just about every other TSA lame-*ss policy?

One more time with the answer. They need to come off, but sometimes we try to be considerate, okay? What's so difficult to understand?

The question is WHY do they need to come off, which I have now asked about 300 times. You have yet to answer. It's not so difficult. Just say, "yes, it's an assinine, stupid, moronic rule" and we'll all be satisfied.

Why do they need to come off? You know the answer to that, don't you?

Some Russian whores bribed some airport security personnel, two planes blew up, and within days the TSA leadership suddenly figured that we all needed to be patted down if we weren't dressed like Superman, Spiderman or Batman.

If you're wearing skintight Spandex, you're not a bomb-toting terrorist.

If you're dressed normally, like most Americans tend to dress, you must disrobe and the security "professionals" must pat down your breasts and groin to make sure there aren't any imaginary explosives.

Kubuki Theatre at its finest. Amazing what $5 billion will buy you. If you try hard enough to flush it down the toilet.

What a stupid country we have become.

Ordinarily one has to remove always except there would be too many complaints from other nearby persons.

Sorry, if this farce were actually necessary for security, then either ignore the complaints from other nearby persons or put up partitions behind which the "baggy" shirts can be checked. Or maybe use technology, "bomb-sniffing" machines, for an actual security checkpoint, rather than make-work window dressing.

We have that: private screening. :)

"bomb-sniffers" would be nice, however.

Yes many screeners have the capacity for critical thought but if your bosses override you and say do it this way it doesn't do much good does it? Some checkpoints are run strictly by the book and others allow for a little common sense wiggle room.
Me personally I tend to look at the rules in two perspectives, the letter and the spirit. Take the outer garment rule, it's possible to look at people from more than one perspective. While they have their back to me putting their stuff on the belt are there any unusual bulges? When they turn to face me is their clothing form fitting enough so that it can't hide anything or is the garment open wide enough so I can clearly see the contours of the person's body underneath the garment? Is the garment hanging oddly like one with something sown into the lining would be?
Observations like that are why i'm more liberal with what I allow people to wear through the metal detector but unfortunately if the supervisor overrides me and says they must come off then the matter is ended.

I'm not averse to flinging epithets myself, but I do try to be accurate. They were Chechyns whose husbands had been killed 'fighting' the Russians. Whores they most certainly were not.

umm
 

One could argue that those black widows sold their bodies in the ultimate way :D

Rule on taking jackets off
 

I thought I read somewhere that you did not have to take off a suit jacket if your blouse did not have sleeves. So, the week of February 7th, I go through security at IAH Terminal B. When asked to take my jacket off, I pulled the top of it aside and showed that the blouse underneath was sleeveless, simultaneously saying, "I'm sleeveless." I was allowed to walk through the metal detector with my jacket on.

The week of February 14th, I go through security at IAH Terminal A and do the same thing. I was taken to secondary screening by two TSA screeners who were confused about the procedures. The first one told me to pick up my bags and take them with me, at which point the second one rushed up and said that I couldn't touch my bags. There was some back and forth between the two - I think the first screener assumed that I could touch my bags because the only thing that needed to be checked was under my jacket, but the other screener said no.

BTW, neither of my suit jackets were bulky or showed any bulges (I wear the suit jackets to hide the "natural" bulges, which is why I don't like taking the jackets off at the checkpoint ;) ).

Guess I'm going to have to go back to wearing suit jackets that can button all the way up to look as if there is no blouse underneath, then unbutton the top buttons after I get through security.

As a frequent flyer, I have not forgotten the horror of 09/11 and do not oppose measures that truly assist with security. However, I don't think that having a person remove his or her suit jacket is a deterrent to terrorism (and if it were, it obviously was not being consistently applied, even at the same airport). It strikes me as odd to have to plan my wardrobe according to the ever-changing TSA rules.

The first screener was wrong, the passenger is not allowed to touch their belongings until cleared in secondary, however you may request that the screener bring your things so they will not be out of your sight. Hope that helps.

No one is perfect. No matter how specific you make rules and regulations people will see them how they want to. It's not a dumb rule to ask that Security be able to see the true you.

There are more things then just bombs that a person can strap to themselfs that are going to slow down the screening of passangers. Here is a easy one. I have seen several times where someone was asked to remove a loose fitting garmet.

You take you "jacket", "hoody", etc off guess what the screener can now see that you forgot to take your cell phone off your belt. YES, cell phones have metal. You forgot to take that can of chew out of your back pocket (Copenhagen has a metal bottom on it), you have one of those stupid metal belts on, or one of a hundred things that you would totaly have forgoten that would have sent you into secondary screening.

More then just safety, it is a great tool to get people through faster. I love the rule, and would rather take something off, be done, and on the plane while someone else is still arguing or asking for a supervisor.

It's a stupid, meaningless rule. I could just as easily hide my bomb in my pants as underneath my jacket. Should everyone have to take off their pants? Also, if one isn't wearing anything underneath the jacket one doesn't have to take it off. Do terrorists always wear something underneath their jackets?

If a jacket does not come off, the passenger is supposed to be sent to secondary as well as a person wearing other articles of clothing so big and bulky as to obscure the body.

If you have a unusual shap under you pants... then yes you will take them off or not fly. (clean or dirty) :p

Well, if your a terrorist thats not "wearing" anything under your jacket I guess I dont have to worry about you taking your jacket off now do I?

How will you know if I have some C4 taped to my thigh and I'm wearing slightly baggy pants?

In regards to the second sentence, above, it makes no sense whatever.

I understand but disagree with the policy
 

Thank you, omascreener for clarifying the policy - that actually kind of makes sense under the assumption that taking off the jacket is necessary. If someone doesn't want to take off his or her jacket and if that person were to have something hidden underneath that is not detected by the metal detectors, then it makes sense that you don't want that person touching his or her carry-ons because that person might be able to move the offending item to the carry-on when moving to secondary screening.

I don't have a problem with you having to carry out a rule with which I disagree, and I would appreciate additional information on the "sleeveless" rule.

I agree with Japhydog (and may be stretching his argument a bit, so please forgive the license, Japhydog) that it would be easier for a young person wearing baggy pants (has the TSA seen how baggy the pants are these days?) to take something inappropriate onboard than for a professional woman in a tailored suit.

Update this morning - I went through IAH Terminal B and did not even try the sleeveless thing. I just buttoned the jacket of my suit coat and answered yes when asked (twice) whether this was my outer layer of clothing. I had on a sleeveless "shell" (all the women who read this know what it is) underneath that I would never wear in public without a jacket.

I only have one suit that buttons all the way up - guess I'm going to have to get another one, so I can feel comfortable on the flight out and the flight back in.

I'm going to relate an incident I had last summer at the checkpoint. I'm also going to state that this isn't justification for secondary or not. Anyway I was in the wanding position at the checkpoint and at the time we were under pressure for always having someone being wanded. I selected a young man about 19 years old only for the sole reason he had baggy clothes on. When he came through the walk-through he did not alarm. I started the wanding procedure with him setting down and wanded his feet and lower legs with no alarm. However when I was doing the outline his pants were so baggy I had to have him pull them up and I also had touch the material to get close enough according to our SOP well low and behold when I got down to his ankles the wand hit something. I patted down the area and felt something taped to his leg. I called the supervisor and we took him into the private screening room and found that he had to plastic bottles of wine taped to his leg. And yes we let him keep them. Just thought I would relate the story.

omascreener, thank you...
 

Thanks for being willing to share your experiences with us. I didn't know that wine even came in plastic bottles and don't know why he would tape those to his legs instead of stowing them in his checked or carry-on luggage, but your story made me laugh!

Even though I disagree with the jacket thing, I have to say that there are many more good TSA agents than bad. Most of them have a really good sense of humor about the same joke they have heard 20,000 (random number) times before, and many of them make jokes with the people in line. I've also been chosen for additional screening several times and the people doing the screening were professional and did not make me feel humiliated in any way (even during the breast screening).

The only one that ticked me off was the person reviewing boarding passes (after we had already shown our ID's and boarding passes in the security line) at Charlotte. The week before, there were two lanes, so in the week that I'm discussing, I started into the second lane, then realized that this was not an open lane (I think her not looking at that lane cued me to that, because it wasn't blocked off). I started back, but the people behind me that went in the first lane were already way ahead, so I just stayed in the second lane, The person reviewing the boarding passes scolded me for going to the other lane, I apologized profusely and she told me that I was going to get a secondary screening for not following the rules. I got the yellow card and went through the secondary screening, but I felt that she was overstepping her authority by punishing me for something I didn't even know was wrong.

Maybe it's too early in the a.m. after a long night, but I'm not following you here, FemaleFlyer, were the "rules" that you were not following posted anywhere or had you been verbally told the "rules" and chose to ignore them, or were they once again, some capricious rules that some screener just made up on the spot seconds before you were sent to secondary?

What gets me the most upset about TSA front-line people, is their failure to follow their agency's own written policy, especially regarding shoes. Part of their training should be learning to ID at a glance shoes that have less than a 1" heel/sole. Please don't tell me it's a "judgment" call - there should be no judgment about it. During training they should be drilled over and over and over again until they can just look at your shoes and know they don't have to be removed.

For heaven sakes, any good cook can measure exactly dry ingredients in the palm of the hand or know exactly when a cup of fluid has been poured from a bottle.

Surely rent-a-cops can be trained to identify 1" heels - and if they can't, they should be failed and not allowed to be on the lines.

There is no "sleeveless" rule. If you are wearing a jacket with either nothing on underneath, (or the appearance of such), or somthing like a shell or cami that you prefer to not expose, you can proceed through wearing your jacket. However, if you choose to wear your jacket, you are to be secondary screened and the handwander will be able to determine if your torso can be cleared by patting you through your jacket or if you'll need to remove your jacket in a private screening. The same goes for bulky sweaters and hoodies.

The baggy clothing rule is to be in effect for below the waist as well. If a person proceeds through wearing baggy pants, they are to be referred to secondary for wanding and a possible pat down.

If this works for you, fantastic! But just bear in mind that anyone choosing to wear a jacket is supposed to be sent to secondary screening.

Supposed Synonyms for "supposed": made-up, imaginary, invented.

All wonderful terms for the way many screeners actually seem to apply their alleged SOPs.

Hi FemaleFlyer,

One thing you might try instead of wearing a suit jacket that buttons all the way up: wear gym clothes or something similarly casual. I've noticed that I get selected for secondary nearly every time I'm fashionably dressed, but if I look like a slob I never get picked. I actually have an "airport uniform" as ridiculous as that is: yoga pants, sports bra, white top, keds-ish cheapo payless shoes.

I don't presume to know why dressed-up women get picked more frequently, but I like to avoid secondary at all costs, and if slobbishness gets me there, fine. It's much the same as in college, when I used to get viciously catcalled every time I walked along a certain street: I started to wear out-of-style eyeglass frames and shapeless slovenly clothes and the problem stopped.

Styling lessons
 

Great interpretation of the notion of a jacket! Did she explain how many buttons you have to button up in order not to be characterized a jacket? :D Probably she is a wanna be fashion designer (or a designer in her previous life :D :D )