Security overkill
 

I flew out of FRA yesterday enroute to IAD. After going through security, I went into the RCC. Soon there was an anouncement that all passangers must vacate the RRC and again go through a security check. Fortunately, I was third in line because soon the line had become quite long. Apparently all passangers forward of the security check had to return and go through once more. Of course we all stood there waiting for the process to begin, but before anyone could be screened the toilets and all areas had to be cleared. Again I returned to the RCC and asked if this happened often. The reply was, "Yes, it's something new every day". When the flight was called, I went to the gate for a third security check. Again a long line which caused a thirty minute delay in the flight's departure. I like to feel secure, but is this security overkill ?

Definitely.

Complain to UA who will hopefully one day grow a spine and complain to the TSA, which is the disgusting organization that forces airports like FRA to harass people traveling to the US with this nonsense.

Very weird. I was through FRA on Saturday, and I only went through 1 check this time, versus the 2 I've had in the past (one to get into the gate areas, and one before the UA gates). This time the flight left from C4, right below the IFC Lounge. Much easier than going over to the B gates.

I hope there's some legitimate information that's prompting this, not just someone's idea that increased random checks are automatically a good idea. I can see that idea coming from someone at TSA but I'd hope that the authorities at FRA would be smarter in what to do to increase security.

I think SFO is one of the worst. Yesterday the priority line was 30-40 deep and I don’t believe they enforce the “priority” for everyone. And how is it that only SFO “recommends” that you take off your shoes, and if you don’t, you will automatically be singled out for secondary screening even if it does not cause the alarm to sound.

ORD, SNA, LAX, BOS, SJC does not “recommend” you to take off your shoes.

BOS TSA agents asked me the other day. I of course, told them to get stuffed! :p

Nope, this kind of nonsense happens only for US and UK bound flights.

I flew to ZRH from FRA and had no such issues. Also, if one flies UA after connecting from LH, one has to get harassed again making the transition from Terminal B to Terminal C. There is no such harassment in the opposite direction.

In PHX they always made me take off my shoes no matter what I was wearing that day. I thought it was a bit rediculous but then again if you show the slightest amount of resistence to what they're asking you gotta fear to be sent over to the secondary screening which is just humiliating becasue you feel like a criminal. and IMO it does very little to provide more security for the airlines anyway.

Yeah, this is a TOTAL farce! This totally goes against the TSA rules that shoes can stay on, and no secondary required if they dont set off the detectors. So many "random" secondaries? I wish we had the Registered Traveller program here...couldn't make me take them off then.

Randomman

Passengers shouldn't be blackmailed into giving up personal information so they can avoid harassment that shouldn't ever be happening in the first place. It is none of the government's business who travels domestically.

Is the Shoe Carnival an issue at the UA gates at PHX or all gates there?

Just remember, it can be worse. Try flying El Al, or most any flight to Israel. You get questioned - in depth - by a uniformed soldier carrying an Uzi. And likely as not the soldier is female, and maybe 20 years old.

That's probably punishment for the way they drive in Israel - literally on the sidewalks in places! :eek:

Seriously, one does hope there is a real reason to do all that security. For one, it's expensive.

Flying C from LHR-SFO, there was not a screening at the gate if you used the special Elite/Premium Cabin entrance when I went thru a week ago.

SJC always makes me take off my shoes. I've protested multiple times (like when I'm wearing sneakers, which I know have no metal in them), and they're always firm on that.

Haven't been through LAX in a while, but I seem to remember them being the same.

Last I checked, the people who ask the security questions for El Al in Israel and abroad are not Israeli soldiers though they are likely to have military experience for an obvious reason.

I have never been security-questioned by anyone with a uniform or a gun as part of the Israeli security routine.

Is this anecdote from personal experience?

In Israel, there is an obvious need.

I make a point to ask every time if I have to take off my shoes, and if I don't, will I be subjected to secondary screening? It has been a little more consistent in the past six months to a year. The reply I most often get is, "you may leave them on but we will have to subject you to more intense screening because we are not just looking for metal in shoes." I.e., they are looking for explosives. I used to complain to the hapless TSA agent about how their inconsistant policies are exactly what makes folks so upset at the whole process.

Sometimes, at the smaller or less busy airports, the TSA agents have actually looked at my shoes and let me pass through, which leads me to believe that other agents are just lazy and won't be bothered to check for a shoe "profile" and have all the shoes go through x-ray or secondary screening. :mad:

What type of explosive can an X-Ray find anyways that can not be found by the metal detectors? If they were swabbing every shoe for residue, it would be one thing...

It just seems weird, especially considering how sensitive the metal detectors are now.

Randomman

guess where this thread is moving to? :)
 

Travel Safety and Security - please follow it there

thanks

squeakr
MOD UAL

Yeah, no obvious need here in the US. :rolleyes:

I doubt this guy would agree with you, though.

Yeah, it is. Of course, both times it was at Schipol after a hard redeye in Y on NW. And a bit less than ten years ago to boot. So it may not be all that accurate a memory.

Except for the part about Israelis driving on the sidewalks. That's a bit hard to forget when you have to dive into the nearest alleyway. :eek:

Sounds as if most posters are willing to undergo the Barefoot Dance of Coercion just in order to be able to get aboard a plane on a ticket they paid for.

No, not I. Never again. Not in this lifetime. I may be old but I ain't THAT dumb, yet. Never will grovel or be made a public example again. Rest of you? Be sure to greet your TSA agents appropriately. Enjoy those cattle pens and get as comfortable as you can there on the back of the bus.

Are you kidding me? Explosives themselves are not metal. They will not set off the WTMD. They are found either on the x-ray or with the ETD.

Amen, brother!

The only way they are found with the x-ray is if someone is thoughtful enough to add the other items that are needed to detonate them - namely wires, a blasting cap and possibly a timer.

The x-ray will indicate something dense is there. It will NOT indicate that explosives are present.

... and PAY for the privilege of being blackmailed... :td:

Checkpoint x-rays do not detect explosives. The screener has to study the image and look for certain things that are consistent with improvised explosive device configurations. No matter what type of IED you have, they all have one common trait. To explain it another way, without violating SSI, every firearm has to have a trigger mechanism, a device that acts as a firing pin mechanism, a chamber to house the bullet itself and a barrel to launch the bullet through. Doesn't matter whether you're looking at a zip gun or Smith & Wesson pistol or M-16 rifle; all firearms have to have certain components in order to work. A similar principle applies to explosives.

The procedure is that you either submit your shoes for x-ray examination OR we will swab it for explosive residue.

Having said that, I believe TSA can scale back on its shoe examination policy and go to a random procedure (one out of every five, one out of every seven, one out of every ten, for instance) rather than inspecting each and every shoe. The reason I say this is because there has only been one incident of an attempt to use shoes as improvised explosive devices in the past four years. We can accept the risk of mitigating that threat with a random check as opposed to a mandatory check. Should there be any indication of an increased threat to aviation based on intelligence information (and not just a response to political rhetoric), then perhaps we can go to a mandatory check of all shoes until the "threat window" is closed, then go back to the random checks.

This is the difference between risk management and risk avoidance.

This is the challenge that I face as a Lead Screener: overcoming screener laziness. Most of my screeners do look at the shoes and make a call as to whether or not they meet the profile. Here's my problem: we've just had a new schedule change, so I now have new screeners to the shift with that same bad habit. I find myself having to re-train a new batch of screeners.

To my fellow screeners who are OSARPians: this changed my entire approach to screening shoes. I am more "liberal" about the shoe criteria. Unfortunately, it takes someone who is trained in OSARP to fully appreciate this. Sorry for the double-talk; but this has given me an entirely new perspective.

Really? Not true Spiff. You don't need the other elements. The x-ray doesn't indicate anything, ever. It only shows a pictuure. The operator knows what to look for. We may not know alot, but we know what a shoe is supposed to look like.

Do you believe that today there is a greater probability of an x-ray operator -- at the WTMD checkpoint-area -- catching explosives in the absence of the items listed by Spiff? Why?

Yes. I absolutely do think an x-ray operator at the checkpoint could catch explosives without the other components. Because we are trained to know how these things look on an x-ray. Not to mention some on the job experience. And thats really all I can tell you without risking my job.

Your replies to Spiff and GUWonder indicate that you fail to comprehend their posts.

C-4 or Semtex in a toothpaste tube or small peanut butter jar or shaped in typical modeling clay shapes (in the absence of other IED components) will not be identifiable to any x-ray operator as an obvious plastic explosive. It will appear as a dense object.

I don't want you to lose your job, so don't bother trying to explain to me how the plastic explosive in these examples looks different than any other dense item on the screen.

FWIW, I'm pretty confident that what you experienced was some kind of special situation, perhaps even a threat of some kind. Which is not to say that there aren't sometimes armed military personnel from host countries near the EL AL counter.

EL AL security agents who do pax screening are not active members of the Israeli military (I'm not saying an active member has never worked as an agent, who knows; but it's not the military who does the screening), and I'll bet you'll have a nearly impossible time locating anyone else who can point to a time that they've seen an actual EL AL security agent, doing screening, with an UZI.

(My response is just intended as an FWIW/FYI, not to argue with you - I quite believe that you saw what you saw. I'm just saying it's not typical, nor standard.)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's a shoe carnival thread that recently noted that ORD is now a carnival, and my own experience last week confirmed it. You are now told going in that if you've got thick soles you'll have to remove your shoes. (T3/AA in my own experience)

No!!! Not T3! :eek:

Saturday at SFO I got the whole random search procedure--the air-blower machine, complete wipedown of the inside of my luggage (I was using carryon)looking for explosive powder, check of all electronics, etc. And I'm a 74-year old 5'1" grandmother. Don't they have any common sense? I should have known. At JFK my 99-year old mother in a wheelchair had to remove her shoes and get patted down.

Actually, all you'll see is a dense object. If someone puts explosives in their luggage the x-ray will not tell you the operator that there are explosives in the luggage.

This focus on shoes is just plain stupid. And I'm not talking run of the mill, fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down stupid. I'm talking about stupid to the point where someone has drawn a circle for the person in charge of harassment at the TSA and this jackass keeps insisting it's a square. I'm talking about a person so stupid it's a miracle they make it out of the house without assistance by at least three other people.

I can smuggle explosives past the so-called security at the airport at will. That's right, any time I or anyone else wants C-4 or any other non-metalic explosive (and most are non-metallic) airside, they can do so. Why? Because your agency is so incredibly stupid thinking that shoes are the only place that passengers could ever hide explosives that they fail to realize or care that plastic explosives are malleable. A volume of explosive that will take down a plane and more will easily fit in a person's undergarments or in their body cavities. These explosives will also fit and go unnoticed in carryon baggage unless someone puts wires and a blasting cap there too.

Don't believe me? Your x-ray tests are done so that your employees will pass them and Congress won't send your agency back to the streets where most of your employees belong. If someone takes some PETN and molds it carefully, the operator of the x-ray won't give it a second look. It's just another one of thousands of dense looking objects that bored x-ray people see every day. MAYBE if someone shaped it into one of those cute bomb looking devices on that ridiculous sign at the checkpoint and stuck some wires and a clock around it, a screener might notice it, but even that is a real reach.

Congratulations on knowing what a shoe looks like under the x-ray. Guess what? The explosives aren't there.

Welcome to Flyertalk. :)

As has been posted before, the minute the TSA stops treating you and your mom as potential (or suspected) terrorists, the bad guys will somehow morph into 74 year old grandmothers and 99 year old great-grandmothers. Or at least they will recruit people like you to do their bidding.

You need to learn not to hold it in. You have to express yourself and really let it all out. Bottling up your emotions will just stress you out.

One minor picky point: your assertion about shoes would hold water if shoes were the only items passed through the x-ray. However, if you'll take a moment to notice, you will observe that everything goes through the x-ray with very few exceptions, and those exceptions are screened by an alternative method such as ETD sampling.

Of course, I was wondering how long it would take to bring up the ol' body cavity theory. Talk about degenerating down to potty humor. "What's that smell?" "Someone blew some sh*t up."

:D

5 to 19 people chewing "bubble gum" and there would be no need for "potty humor".

Before al-Qaeda recruits 74 year old grandmothers as shoe bombers, they will find 25 year old martyrs to smuggle butt bombs onto planes. Not trying to be too scatalogical, but al-Qaeda has been an extremely secretive group, unwilling to trust outsiders to carry out sensitive missions.