Lately I have been discussing the shoe criteria with TSA supervisors at airports I pass through. After getting past the "SSI" nonsense, most of them admit that the rule is to x-ray shoes with soles exceeding 1 inch in thickness. So far, so good. But then they say that the determination of sole thickness is up to the screener. I have a big problem with that.

At one airport recently (actually, I can't recall which one!), the supervisor was pretty nice about it, but he insisted that the screener looking at the shoes would decide how thick they are. I asked if a screener could similarly "determine" that I am 6 feet tall (adding about 6 inches to my actual height). The supervisor refused to answer that question.

I continue to insist that sole thickness is a factual question that can be objectively determined. Just have a few cheap plastic rulers at each checkpoint, and the job is done. One supervisor told me that checking shoes that way would slow up the lines. That may be a valid perspective, but close to 100% shoe removal isn't exactly speeding up the lines, is it?

Any opinions on this?

Bruce

Working within the framework of the existing shoe profile and the inane "threat" of shoe bombings, I'm afraid that the best solution might be to stick with the screeners' judgement, for expediency's sake.

I can think of many good solutions that would work--from a simple laser level set 1" from the floor, so your shoes have a red line on them as you walk past it, and if the soles are taller than the line, the screener can tell you that your shoes need to come off, to the plastic rulers mentioned (they requiring slightly more time per pax buit costing a lot less than the laser levels!) But they require some degree of expenditures, and I'm not sure they speed things up enough to waste money on a process that ought better be discontinued entirely.

While it initially might slow some of the lines up, it shouldn't take too long for screeners to start to know what one inch heels look like.

I'm thinking of picking up some of those six inch plastic rulers and handing them out to screeners who can't determine one inch. Perhaps a number of us should buy them and start handing them out. At least it might get some notice.

Even better, we could do a group buy and have something imprinted on them along the lines about the one inch rule. "No metal, no 1 inch heel: let my shoes go." Suggestions?

They seem to be so sensitive about 'us' knowing the 1 inch rule...about their so-called secret procedures. Perhaps the better approach is to begin driving the issue home with TSA staff that their so-called procedures are in fact not secret at all, and are available at many online forums. That should get them in abit of a pickle. I think some of them still have no idea that many of us know what SSSS means.

The entire shoe rule is flat out stupid - total ineffective security and just another act of closing the barn door after the animals escaped. Too many resources chasing after events that have occured in the past and show little evidence of ever being attempted again.

We need to work towards getting the entire shoe carnival halted. It is a silly waste, especially given the 'policy' isn't even standardized between airports, or even from one screener to the next!

The way the wording is: "appears to be over X thickness" Since appearances can be deceiving, I think it would not get off the ground by having rulers at the divesting point. Slowness aside, it will lead to disagreements that amount to fractions. The passenger will lose.

Not to belabor a point made here time and time again but at what stage does sanity once again rule??
We�re now reduced to measuring shoe thickness with micrometers.
One potential...and I might add unsuccessful... shoe-bomber in history. And he was thwarted by pax aboard his flight.
Five hundred million+ shoes examined since then with no other shoe bombs found.
Is this going to continue for eternity??
Dumb question.
I already know the awswer.....

... imagine if he was the "underwear bomber" instead of the "shoe bomber".

"tie goes to the runner" is what I tell my screeners. In other words, if they can't determine whether or not the shoe bottom meets the specified criteria, then the passenger gets the benefit of the doubt. More and more of my screeners ask the passengers to turn their feet sideways to allow my screeners to get a good view of the profile of the shoe before making their judgment. Others still haven't caught on, but I'm working on it.

I...along with many other posters...have made a similar point in the past. And you KNOW it�s going to happen sooner or later. Some dude will pack a plastique charge in his jockstrap and, successful or not, watch what happens then.....
One potential shoe-bomber results in hundreds of millions of travelers removing shoes for the indefinite future.
A couple of unfortunately successful bra-bombers in Russia results in the groping incidents we witnessed over the previous holiday season.
As a frequent traveller with no more nefarious intent than to pass through airports as fast as possible, I�ve got to wonder what additional security outrages we�ll be faced with in the future.

You're talking the Gov't here... they'll go for the lowest bidder. What will they get? 12 inch rulers marked out in centimetres with the "1" marked in big florescent red.

LOL. You guys are having way too much fun.

Just to give you a little insight, remember last year when TSA supposedly finally got us all on the same sheet of music? TSA issued us a poster with pictures of shoes that would meet the special screening criteria. We had no problem with hiking boots, thick soled flip flops and other similar shoes. However, unfortunately, the poster depicted just about every type of shoe imaginable. Instead of clarifying the standard, it pretty much added to the confusion.

Since then, at least at my airport, we've decided that while some of the shoes are depicted on that stupid poster, they may not necessarily meet the special screening criteria. Took us a while to get away from screening all shoes, but to be honest, it seems that whenever we take a couple steps forward, we also end up taking one backwards. Uh, no pun intended.

Yeah, I'm somewhat frustrated with this screening criteria, but I'm paid to deal with it.

Heaven help us if there's ever a "bunghole" bomber.

Which is why I'm going to tape a 1" marked on masking tape on my sandals to help your cohorts at BWI this week. Leave no room for doubt that the soles are less than 1".

And you can bet that no men resisted such a mandate to screen bras.

Or as I've frequently said, I'm so glad Richard Reid didn't stick the bomb up his butt.