The Return of TSA Gate Screening?
 

I'm not sure what's up lately. Maybe I just haven't seen this very much, but twice in the past two weeks I have seen people getting the full body check at gates prior to departure. Last week at ORD, a woman was extremely unhappy being told that she had to wait for TSA and wouldn't be allowed to board until she was screened -- and the flight wasn't going to be held for her. She had been at ORD for four or five hours on a layover apparently and was pulled out of line for the treatment.

Today at IAH, I saw two guys getting the treatment before boarding.

What's going on? Are these SSSS tickets that got missed? Or are these SSSS BPs that got issued to connecting pax? (And that makes no sense whatsoever.)

I may be wrong here but I believe that when the TSA stopped gate screening on nearly every flight, they retained the right to random gate screenings. And I've seen them on very rare occasions over the last couple years.
Perhaps you just ran into a couple random screenings back-to-back.

Okay, as you are well aware, the computer that prints boardnig passes is the one that puts the SSSS on it. IF they get missed at the checkpoint, when the pax goes to board and the GA sees the SSSS they have to call TSA and have them screened. Some airports send the PAX back to the CP to have it done and others have screeners that are sent to the gate. There are cases where the CP screeners dont mark the pass to show that it was done and therefore, it gets done again. This really pisses passengers off.
I have seen cases where the ticket counter computer lets the passenger have a BP that has no SSSS on it and the computer at the gate says that they are SSSS. I have seen PAX that come from connecting flights and go to the gate for the next leg and the computer at the gate says they are SSSS and they have never left the sterile area. Random gate screenings are not done anymore.

i would imagine the airline employees checking boarding passes would cause more problems in that regard. (skycaps, etc)

may be wrong...

It never hurts to keep a red pen on your and write TSA with a circle around it on every boarding pass anyway!

That seems like an obvious rule to change:

If a passenger is checked-in without the SSSS, he or she should not be subject to a change of status prior to boarding. Unless the passenger changes his or her mind and--at the gate--decides to pay cash for a ticket to Beirut with no checked bags, it makes no sense.

One of my coworkers just got sent back to the checkpoint with her whole family. I think that actually CREATED a security threatl; she was ready to kill someone at that point.

"Hi, your flight's been cancelled. And now we think you present a risk to the nation's security because of that cancellation."

Common causes of missed selectee screenings (and resultant gate screenings):

1. Contracted ticket reader failed to properly route the selectee passenger into the appropriate lane (for those checkpoints that have a separate selectee screening lane).

2. TSA failed to properly identify the selectee (for those checkpoints where TSA screeners check boarding passes at all of the WTMDs).

3. (as pointed out by eyecue) TSA failed to properly annotate the boarding pass even though selectee screening was conducted. (Holy hell to pay for that mistake.)

4. (as pointed out by eyecue) Selectee passenger is making a connection but never left the sterile area; the gate agent isn't aware of this and either calls for a TSA gate screening or redirects the passenger to the checkpoint for selectee screening.

5. Airline employees, mostly crew members, are designated as selectees but use their airline identification to get through the checkpoint to purposely avoid the additional screening. Always end up getting screened at the gate anyway.

Also pointed out by eyecue, there are instances when passengers are issued a "security document" which is not a boarding pass but allows the passenger to process through the checkpoint. Usually, the security document will have the four SSSS if the passenger is a selectee. However, I've also seen it when the security document did not indicate selectee status yet the boarding pass, when issued at the gate, did. Don't ask me why the same computer system which spits out the security document at the ticket counter prints out SSSS at the gate.

Here's the frustration from a screener perspective: the airlines CAN use some common sense and exempt passengers who weren't selectees on the cancelled flight. Some ticket agents just don't want to assume the responsibility (just blame it on the computer) whereas others are just hard-asses about it. My point is that existing policy allows airlines to override the computer whenever it spits out SSSS just because the passenger technically falls within one of the parameters for selectee screening. Same applies for underaged children; the airlines CAN exempt them from selectee screening is the computer pops SSSS on the boarding pass. Fortunately, TSA has gone back to its previous policy of allowing us to exempt underaged children at the checkpoint. The airlines can also exempt active duty military personnel on official travel orders, and the airlines are inconsistent in this regard. This is a big thing at SAT since we have a lot of military travellers. Point is that there is a lot the airlines can do to alleviate unnecessary selectee screening but don't. This is transparent to the traveller, and we end up getting a lot of the blame.

Comes with the territory.

I really think the Airlines needs to redo their policy on SSSS. I hate seeing military on one way tickets get ssss, the airlines CAN delete this and they just don't. If a flight has been cancelled and they re-book half the flight is SSSS. Just stupid. I also want to know why some checkpoints have to check boarding passes and others don't. I think it must have something to do with the airlines demanding it. I know at my airport the airlines have asked the TSA to recheck the boarding passes at the WTMD because the airline employed ticket checkers miss half of them. But at MCO they don't. The selectee line there was very long both times this week.

Not sure the airlines can totally delete it. I wonder if some gate agents get spooked on trumping the SSSS. Heck, UA audits most of GAs upgrading stuff, I can only imagine what would happen with SSSS exemptions.

Whatever happened to that thread a month or two ago --- someone saying 'on good authority' about the SSSS thing being relaxed?

Your are partially correct about the airlines not being able to trump just any boarding pass with SSSS on them. However, the airlines CAN exempt certain ones such as infants & young children, military on official travel orders (reservists, guardsmen & active duty) as well as active duty military personnel, and they can exempt those passengers who were not previously a selectee but were selected for the current flight only because their previous flight was cancelled. There are, contrary to popular belief, common sense provisions in the current policy. The problem is one of human dynamics: it is easier to go with the path of least resistance than to assume responsibility for a decision.

Understood.

In UA's case, they're afriad to lose their jobs. I know a few CSRs, they tell me of the ramifications of issuing out-of-place upgrades. Can only imagine what might happen with the SSSS thing.

try this one......and it happpened this past memorial day w/e

i was returning las-sfo and took a bump from the 4pm to the 6pm and guess what-i got ssss'd on my "new flight". the gate agent was dumbfounded and couldn't figure out how to remove it-which i told him not to as he would probably get in big trouble. he made a phone call to find out what to do and he was told to tell me that i had to return to the tsa check point for screening. neither one of us could believe that so i had him tell the person on the phone that i very politely (seriuosly-not sarcastically) refused and that i would surrender my i/d and bags to the g/a and wait for tsa to come to me but i was not, as a previously screeded pax who was now inside the sterile and secure area, going to return to the checkpoint unattended.

the result, 5 tsa folks and 1 leo showed up (after 40 minutes :eek: ). the tsa folks were b/s because i didn't follow procedure by returning to the checkpoint and the leo had to keep himself from laughing at the whole situation. afterwards, he joined me in the smoking room for a quick one and he said i was absolutely correct as if i was now "deemed a security risk" because of the "aftermarket ssss", i needed to be kept/politely detained where i was.

so given my situation and the others mentioned above, the sugestion that bart made of having a way to remove "aftermarket ssss", is the right, and most logical way to go

Yet another example of the airlines and TSA providing "World Class Security, World Class Service" :rolleyes:

actually in this case, i don't fault ua but rather the parameters they were told to use-the g/a couldn't believe what happened and it's the progamming that needs to be changed but you can't change the programming without someone changing the rules so i put the blame on the tsa "system"

I think PH1775 felt the same way.

I know I do.

I can think of several ways to get rid of the "SSSS" but I won't mention it cause it'll give the evil TSA an idea.

Correct. IIRC, airlines do not have the discretion under the current system.

the whole screening process is really a big joke
 

After sept 11, the idea of TSA was essentially to ensure that anyone who travels isn't planning to bring weapons or cause criminal acts such as those that happen to the twin towers. It wasn't meant to provide the TSA folks with powers or for them to use condescending behaviour towards travellers.

At that period in time, other airports considered the world safest such as singapore changi airport, Tokyo and others screened passengers and once they were past security, they were never asked to come back. At these screening posts, the screening personnel were aware that even though they were doing "security", they were aware that they were part of the service industry and the expectation is that they cannot be HOSTILE in attitude and remain polite yet professional.

Its really weird and doggy to have to ask someone after they have been through security to go through security again because of some administrative blunder that no one is ready to admit to. To do so is an admittance that TSA didnt screen properly the first time. In which case, i think its fair to say that if anyone lost any property in the terminal or if they are robbed or mugged or whatsoever, TSA at that particular airport can be sued for negligence. It is specific and non-negotiable that TSA would be partially responsible.

To make things worse, there is some truth in the TSA folks being "power hungry individuals" or giving lots and lots of attitude, to put it simple. A lot of times, a lot of complaints are due to the attitude given by TSA individuals.

Let's just use an example being cited in this thread of someone being ask to return to TSA even though they have been screened. Does the TSA individual recognise the inconvenience and mistake that the company made that caused this individual to suffer a re-screen. Furthermore, in such circumstances, it would only be appropriate for the TSA folks to recognise that the poor traveller has gone through the screening process and should only be screened as a "lip service" or "for show" only and not be given a lot of trouble by the individual TSA staff. Very often, it is not.

I have always been against the shoe policy implemented by USA and its inconsistent 1 inch rule. Must someone really suffer physically from the dirty floors that the TSA operate from before a mistake is realised??

Hopefully, Bart can realise what im getting at.

Actually, this is the flaw in selectee screening. It is the fundamental reason why I think selectee screening is a waste of our time and yours. Everyone who passes through the checkpoint IS screened. Selectees, that is, those unfortunate souls with SSSS on their boarding passes, have to undergo secondary screening regardless of whether or not they alarmed the WTMD or had anything suspicious detected by the x-ray operator inside their carry-on. However, my point is that they DID undergo primary screening (WTMD & x-ray of property) just like everyone else.

From a strictly risk-vulnerability point of view, I am 100% confident that any selectee who was "missed" at the checkpoint is NOT carrying anything dangerous that is going to take down a plane. They may have a lighter (heavens!) or maybe a baby Swiss Army knife (gasp!), but they will NOT have anything that is going to pose a real threat to the people on that plane. Nonetheless, we're required to re-screen them again at the gate if they weren't properly screened as selectees at the checkpoint. One time, the airline simply sent a missed selectee back to the checkpoint for the proper screening. My screening manager was upset that the airline didn't escort the passenger back to the checkpoint. I asked him what the big deal was, and he told me that it was considered a breach. Having known him as a friend a number of years prior to TSA, I asked him how he could say that to me and keep a straight face. He didn't appreciate the comment. To this day, I am still dumbfounded how TSA considers this a breach.

As for the rest of your post, you'll get no disagreement from me. There is no excuse for rude behavior. However, allow me to point out that rude behavior existed before TSA from private contract screeners. It exists outside of TSA as well. It is, unfortunately, a reflection of our society where rudeness seems to be tolerated. Reminds me of a joke about a customer who finishes paying for his goods at the register and then asks the cashier, "Aren't you supposed to wish me a nice day?" And she responds, "It's written on the receipt."

It makes sense from an "Ivory Tower" point of view. IF the reason behind the selectee screening is that you should find what was missed in the regular screening, and I guess that's what the I.T. characters believe, then why give the selectee a chance to drop "that thing" in a trash can on his way back to the checkpoint, only to pick it up again on his way to the gate the second time.

I don't see it that way. Regular screening is effective. Yeah, perhaps we'll miss lighters and small pocketknives, but those things are NOT going to take down an airplane. The rationale behind selectee screening, at least my interpretation of it, is that while everyone undergoes screening, we are taking extra steps to ensure that certain people who meet a certain criteria based on some terrorist profile matrix don't pose a threat by screening them TWICE.

Here's my criticism of that mentality based on 20 years of military intelligence experience which includes expertise in measures to counter foreign-directed espionage, international terrorism, sabotage and foreign intelligence collection measures:
Not intended to offend anyone; just being blunt.

Bart,

I couldn't agree more about the stupidity of the selectee screening. I did put a capital "IF" in the front of my sentence just to indicate that IF that's really what the Management thinks about selectee screening, then I could see why the passenger shouldn't be allowed to go back by himself.

But, again, I agree with all your three points against the selectee screening. I, too, think it is a waste of time and resources, both of which could be used much better for the regular screening.

sorry for the truncation but i wanted to say thanks ^ and that i couldn't agree more with your 3 points-especially point #3 as that IS the key. if there is any "possibility", hence SSSS or other indicator, then they don't fly until it is either solved (and fixed to prevent any future incidents-like those who aren't "bad guys/gals" but can't get off "the list" or are continuously SSSS'd for no apparent reason) or the person is arrested becasue they are "bad"

my bad-misread the meaning :)

Unfortunately, even in a society wherein a screener has a modicum of intelligence, that must yield to the imperative of legalistics. The umbrella of legalism unfortunately is skewed in the direction of TSA and airlines. You can be SSS'ed by g/a who is pissy, and the g/a can feed the SSS onto the BP very easily, using over 100 parameters as justification, several of which he/she should be able to scurry under nicely should the thunder of litigation ever dare roll toward him from the direction of rationality in the cattle chutes.

If SSSS is such a no-brainer, why on earth does everyone in TSA bend over backwards to enforce it? 'World Class Service' mantra again? Or the 'dignity and respect' pledge of TSA which we are supposed to swallow whole, since in a real and honorable world, SSS is supposed to be random? Let's see how many screeners jump on the 'governmental inertia' aspect of such arcanity.


"Damned if I do and damned if I don't" would be another screener/G/A response.

Damned right.

Need help figuring that one out? When will the minions complain to the boss enough times to give him a proverbial slap in the back of the head to wake him up?

Secondary for this poster? Never again. How 'bout you? Okay with it? Floors sticky enough to turn you away yet? Been yelled at by enough idiots whose wages you pay yet?

Once was more than enough for me.

Here is what is so asinine about SSSS and screening at the gate. If someone is thought to be a threat, so that the passenger gets assigned SSSS,and that person is not secondarily screened at the checkpoint, then shouldn't the entire terminal get dumped and re-screened? I hate to even bring up the subject, but let's think through this idiot scenario.

Passenger is assigned SSSS, so somebody or some software concludes passenger is a threat.

Passenger gets through checkpoint screening, and de facto does not alarm WTMD or have anything outlandish in carry-on bags that showed up on X-rays. (Query- if someone crazy shows up on checked luggage, does TSA then inform checkpoint or gate so that additional screening of that passenger occurs?)

Once passenger is through the checkpoint, into the "sterile area", passenger is not explicitly observed. If passenger was able to get some prohibited item through the checkpoint, the passenger could theoretically stash the item for another passenger-terrorist to carry on the airliner.

At the gate, gate agent sees the SSSS and calls for TSA to screen passenger there. Problem is, the SSSS passenger has had the run of "sterile area" for some period of time. "Sterile area" is no longer sterile. If TSA is going to be internally logically consistent, such a breach should result in a terminal dump. Screening the passenger at the gate is purely a cosmetic action to satisfy some meaningless SOP that a bureaucrat developed. Only God knows what SSSS passenger could have hidden in "sterile area" for an accomplice to carry onto airliner. Of course, if checkpoint screening were worth a damn, a passenger could not get anything truly harmful through that step. Either way, this procedure is more Kabuki security, just an entertaining show rather than actual security.

^ You need to be promoted. Go take Hatfield's job at EWR. :)

Forget Hatfield - watch out, Chertoff!

Employees of "U.S. aircraft operators," including flight crew, qualify for SSSS exemption, so the scenario you mentioned shouldn't happen in the real world. I'm pretty sure members of the U.S. military (active, reserve and National Guard) can also be exempted even when they're not on official travel, per last month's TSA directive on selectee exemption.

If you make it to the gate without being SSSS screened, they should just give up. Telling you to go back to the checkpoint to be screened? That's the most pathetic "security" policy I've heard in a while. As if a terrorist isn't going to be smart enough to drop off his bomb in the bathroom or something before making nice with the TSA? :rolleyes:

This reminds me of a similarly stupid Greyhound "security" scheme that I posted about in this forum last year. I'm too lazy to search for the link at the moment.

Agreed. Tell it to the airlines. The agents at the ticket counter are empowered to make the exemption. Often, they do not. So we're stuck having to screen them.

And of course, when called on it, they blame it on TSA.

A viscious circle 'tis.

Also, PatrickHenry1775 you call the SSSS Kabuki drama, an entertaining show, but not real security. I posit it isn't entertaining, either. Giving gate ticket agents empowerment to force SSSS upon hapless PAX's is a nightmare of mismanagement and dissociative thinking in the first place.

Entertaining?

"...we are (damn well) not amused..."

(in best Ed McMahon drunk voice) "You are correct, sir, Yes!!!"

Some of us who go throught the charade frequently look at the whole performance as Kabuki theater in an attempt to assign some meaning to the performance. Strictly speaking, this is not entertainment, especially when $5 billion per year is spent on this endeavor. No matter who assigns SSSS, and I think joint and several liability between the national government and the traveler's airline should apply, this farce does little if nothing to ensure safety for the public, but sure wastes our tax dollars.

As I stated earlier, if a passenger is considered a risk, then screening at the gate is an exercise in futility, because the passenger has likely been in the "sterile area" for an extended period of time. During that time, if that passenger was actually a terrorist, he/she would have had sufficient time to secrete a dangerous instrument or weapon so that a confederate not designated SSSS could retrieve the object and carry it aboard the flight. Thus, gate screening of a passenger designated SSSS is only a "feel-good" measure.

The geniuses on the 9/11 Commission should not have spent time on "SSSS" designation. Rather, they should have addressed Able Danger and the wall that apparently prevented military assets from notifying civilian law enforcement and other agencies that terrorists were training in the United States.

Gee, so what's your opinion of "reverse gate screening?"

What, pray tell, is "reverse gate screening?"

"Reverse Gate Screening" is when passengers randomly select a dozen TSA employees to be patted down. I actually carry my own mat with feet marks on it. Be sure to thank the TSA for their cooperation when you're done.

No really...

I think that Eyecue is speaking of the bizarre technique of screening passengers after their flight is complete. This occurs when a breach is discovered but the flight has departed... upon arrival at the next airport, passengers must re-clear security, even if they're not actually going to be flying any more that day.

What would happen if one refused to cooperate with "reverse screening"? If you're finished flying for the day, the TSA certainly can't try to intimidate you with the "you'll miss your flight" threat.

I do not understand the logic behind reverse screening. Seems to me that the logical thing to do is to escort all arriving passengers out of the terminal directly. That way, those who have arrived at their final destination are free to leave; those who have a connecting flight will need to process through the security checkpoint. Even so, seems to me that it's closing the barn door after the horse has left.

We've actually discussed this from a legal standpoint on this board already. The TSA's signs always state that one's property is subject to search at ANY time.

As I understand the law, one consents to any and all TSA searches just by passing through the WTMD once. Like it or not, that's how it's interpreted.

I am stunned that the TSA continues to spend its money screening passengers who are done flying. I cannot fathom WHY they would bother with the ridiculous time and expense of screening arriving international passengers who are only going to ground transportation. This is the case in Cincinnati, Atlanta, and other airports. It's so wasteful. And I'm sure that there is a reasonable way to redesign the arrivals area with a bus to landside.

There is nothing worse than arriving after an 8 or 9 hour flight, only to wait in line for 25 minutes for unnecessary security screening.

The same is true of "reverse" screening. It's a waste of time and personnel. I fail to see any logic behind it.