Dovster

Before the SCLB (Stupid Cigarette Lighter Ban) went into effect, I flew SAV-LGA with my BAG (Beautiful American Girlfriend). I had three Zippos with me --having bought two additional ones for my collection.

The screener told me I was only allowed to carry two on board and that I would have to give one up. I asked if the BAG could carry one for me, he said yes, and that ended the problem.

This seems like the same thing to me.

Bart

Deleted

Gargoyle

If they vote were held on FT, you'd replace Kip Hawley in a second.

TMOliver

I'm amused by the lack of perception and insight revealed by many here.....

Let's face it, aside from providing some modest, read that very modest, level of "security" involving air pax, little more than could be accomplished by alert, well trained airline staff - after all WN will keep you off their planes if you're drunker'n Cooter Brown - the "Real Deal" with screening, screeners and much of the TSA's over-bulked, steroid-enhanced structure is sociopolitical psychology.

To enhance the traveling public's level of confidence in the safety of airports, airlines and travel from terrorists or simply mad (wo)men, yours and my Representatives, Senators, and Prez and his Executive Branch have created a giant confabulation of Pablum to make us (us in this case being all those folks who don't read flyertalk and simply accept the world as it passes before their eyes) feel more secure. Just as with home remedies, patent medicines, snake oil cures and just plain conjering, the program is designed to make you feel better, not to cure anything much.

I'm not sure we could live with or accept the rigors of a "real" travel security program, especially the regular invasions of privacy and the denial of civil liberties which would flow from it. What we have now is a "Band-Aid", little better than nothing, but better than nothing at all.

Sadly, the system can't be allowed to "go gently into the night", since any incident occurring after it was allowed to lapse would be blamed on the politicians, just as now any incident would inevitably result in even more tedious and irrational screening. What happened to the demented traveler in Miami was in a sense an inevitable occurrence in the midst of a system just waiting to "Cry Wolf".

I don't blame the screeners, simply cogs and not very well machined ones in the ungreased gear wheels, nor even the politicians who simply vote for bread, circuses, and the public perception of safety, always good bets for re-election. For any Congress(wo)man facing an election evey two years to vote against "safety and security" would be to sign his/her personal eviction notice.

Blame it all on "us", the amazingly gullible, all too easily hornswoggled John Q. Public, our friends, relatives and fellow citizens.

Bart

Deleted

Flaflyer

Thank you Bart for a most excellent post.

"I oppose random screening of passengers as a "follow-up" to the primary screening methodology"

This is my observation also. The idea that a Bad Guy might be deterred because he MIGHT JUST MIGHT get a randon secondary is absurd.

If the TSA does not trust their standard screening to detect all threats, it tells me that TSA does not trust their own ordinary procedures. This tells me and the Bad guys that TSA considers their own normal procedures to be a joke. It is basic logic, not a SSI secret. Duh.

As a frequent flyer, this does not give me confidence in the TSA system as it currently exists. I cannot have confidence in the system when TSA demonstrates to us all that TSA does not have confidence in its own system.

N830MH

Become my mom's friend Shalom who flew on AA & HP and he got with SSSS on the ticket and does anything happen with his boarding pass with SSSS on him? He has go through at the checkpoint during search. I don't quite understand about him and he came here at PHX last week on Thursday afternoon. I look it up on his boarding pass and I saw with SSSS on them.

First thing he is during on their way to LAS and he has with fingerprinted & photo on him at MIA. Does anyone you know about during with fingerprint & photo at the checkpoint at MIA? Then he get through to the gate their way to LAS. He has with problems on SSSS with the ticket all the way to LAS then PHX. I am not sure exactly what happen with extra pay on the ticket.

eyecue

I have to disagree with the statement that some of you are making about SSSS being a waste of time. While it doesnt serve as a deterent because of its fame, it does serve a purpose, although that purpose is becoming more obscure with the latest changes. I have personally taken prohibited items that were threats, off of people in the selectee lane that would have otherwise gone undetected.

PhlyingRPh

This is standard operating procedure for me and my family when we travel (my wife and three little children are normally SSSS'd but not I). If one is intelligent about when and where to perform the exchange, you and the TSA officers can save a great deal of time and annoyance.

BTW, I am finding that ethnic travel agents, especially here in London are a wealth of information on how to avoid or at least minimize secondary screening. Many are also kind enough to issue international itineraries that normally would ellicit four S's by splitting itineraries into U.S. domestic legs and international legs.

Wally Bird

Surely a damning indictment of the 'standard' screening process then. Or have I misconstrued ?

John C

Nice discussion. I agree with you Bart about the skeleton of the system being reasonable, though I would point out that the skeleton predates the existance of the TSA. It was inherited from legacy processes that existed prior to the TSA's creation and therefore I give the TSA no credit for having created a workable skeleton. We instead must look at the enhancements to the basic system born under the TSA to determine if the organization has improved or degraded the system itself and I generally find that they have added significantly more inconvenience to the model than actual security.

The shoe carnival is a wonderful example. As a knee-jerk reaction they began requiring everyone to remove their shoes and subject them to xrays. As time passed, they began to realize the silliness of the policy and they only required those shoes that set off a metal detector to be scanned. Although I am no expert, I don't think platic explosives set off metal detectors so I am a little confused as to the purpose of the current policy, but as a layman it certainly seems silly.

When talking about security, one must examine both the list of prohibited items and the methods for their detection. Under the TSA, an amazing array of completely harmless items were banned. Can any serious person imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane with nail clippers? Again without sufficient forethought, the TSA's contribution was to enlarge the list to include items that they are only now admitting pose no danger.

And finally, the SSSS system bears specific mention as it is likely the dumbest procedure at all. Why would any sane system premark the boarding cards of those who will be subjected to additional screening? As I said earlier, it is the equivalent of the IRA printing "AUDIT THIS ONE" on the top of select 1040 forms and then subjected those and only those to audits. It is simply absurd. If the selection is to be made by computer, then why not install a boarding pass scanner much like the ones that exist at the boarding gates today and allow the system to identify those to be selected only once they enter the process so that they are not prewarned? The new random selection process for some passengers is a step forward. And Wally bird is right on the money - if additional banned items are being found through this process it can only be the discovery of items of limited threat from people with no intention to use them in a malicious way and at best it is just an indictment of the standard system's ability to find prohibited items.

As to leadership, I agree with you completely though I note that it seems to be making significant steps forward as of late. The new changes to the selection system and the prohibited items list both make sense and show that finally somebody within the senior leadership is trying to inpose some sanity into the process. I know organizations of that size change slowly, so I am encouraged that hopefully there are more good changes in the future. But the one thing I would really like to see from the leadership is more consistency between airports. The local level leadersip will always have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the process but right now different airports can be night and day between not only tempo but also in the actual procedures that they follow and rules they enforce.

Dovster

No prohibited item is, in itself, a threat. If I have an M-16 in my hand luggage, but absolutely no intention of using it, there is no threat to the safety of the flight.

Question: Of the prohibited items you have confiscated, both in primary and secondary screenings, how many do you even suspect of having been carried by a person who intended to hijack and/or damage the aircraft?

Were any of these people ever arrested and charged with attempted hijacking or any terrorism-related crimes?

PatrickHenry1775

I would like to venture an answer to these (rhetorical) questions:

Of the prohibited items you have confiscated, both in primary and secondary screenings, how many do you even suspect of having been carried by a person who intended to hijack and/or damage the aircraft? None, if honestly answered.

Were any of these people ever arrested and charged with attempted hijacking or any terrorism-related crimes? NONE, because TSA/DHS would have trumpeted to high heaven the arrest and foiling of a terrorist plot to hijack an airliner. However, we have heard plenty of stories of passengers - Americans - who traveled on airliners with prohibited items but who did not even hint at hijacking the craft. What does that dichotomy prove?

michaelchertoff

Not a single thing, except the bias of those who trumpet it.

PatrickHenry1775

...???

The absence of trumpeting speaks volumes.