What are YOU stepping in?
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20060703/lo_kgtv/9463455

All those who are surprised raise your hands. :rolleyes:

But but but we're safe from shoe bombs! ;)

Hmmmm.....

I wonder if a mass dog-doo-on-soles demonstration would put the breaks on the shoe carnival... ;)

Won't do anything. TSAers don't touch the shoes.

Hey, if someone's shoe was covered in dog ...., we'd probably not allow them through without cleaning the shoe, so give it a whirl...

...Otherwise just leave your shoes on! it takes 30 seconds to do a quick shoe swipe... 'Sides, if human nature stands to reason the more people who don't take off shoes, the less people will be asked to take off shoes. ;)

That's it, after reading this I am going Howard Hughes and start wearing kleenex boxes on my feet.

I don't have to remove those, do I?

;)

Swab this, matey! :pirate smilie:

From the article:This can't be right (too good to be true). Is is also illegal for a TSA agent to force someone to take their shoes off during secondary? If not, isn't this meaningless?

Edit: Oh, I get it. You're not forced to take off your shoes. You have the option of not flying.

The only surprise is that it's taken this long to come out AND that the reporters were actually ABLE to get these samples off the floors @ the checkpoints in the first place!!

But then, I wonder how many of them are now on a no-fly list because of it??

:rolleyes:

From a screener point of view, our job is to make sure certain shoes are either screened by x-ray or scanned by ETD sampling. It's the passenger's choice. We cannot tell you to take off your shoes; however, we CAN recommend you remove them or undergo secondary screening. Again, it's your choice.

No TSA screener, lead, supervisor, screening manager or FSD can put anyone on any no-fly list or selectee list.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why the airport management doesn't clean the checkpoint more often. The janitors are hired by the city. It would make more sense for them to clean the one area where passengers are more exposed to dirt and bacteria than anywhere else in the airport: the security checkpoint. On top of that, there are often spills, and it takes a while before the maintenance personnel respond to our calls. Just makes sense to have someone essentially assigned to the checkpoint to periodically mop and sweep the floors and to respond immediately to spilled Starbucks cups.

While I'm not disputing that it's possible to transmit bacteria on checkpoint floors, I doubt that it's as easily transmitted as the article tends to suggest. A note to my critics: I advocate keeping the checkpoint clean as I just posted above; however, I don't think that the checkpoint is a public health hazzard. It may be for some, but not for the general public. But for those who want to give in to the panic, consider the following: public phones, public toilets, any seat in a public area, door handles, even the silverware used at public restaurants are subject to the exact same risk of exposure to bacteria. My point here is that you have to draw the line between a reasonable concern for sanitation and an unreasonable paranoia.

But here's the real kicker. You KNOW you may have to REMOVE your shoes when you get to the checkpoint. Why do people still travel sockless? My standing recommendation to travelers has always been to pack either a spare pair of socks or flip-flop shower shoes exclusively for checkpoint screening. Wear them temporarily while screening and, after you've cleared the checkpoint, remove them and any transmitted germs from your feet and either pack them inside your carry-on or (if you're really obsessed over this) throw them away. Either way, a little bit of reasonable prevention on your part certainly sounds smart.

They would, but OSHA rules won't let the janitors take off their shoes when they mop the floor.

This probably won't be much of a hit with this crowd.....

Screener: "Ma'am, I also recommend you remove your shoes..."

Passenger: "You expect me to walk barefoot on these floors?"

Screener: "Oh, don't worry. You won't get our floors dirty."

(True story. This screener has amazing people skills and great sense of humor. The lady took his comment as intended and had a great laugh.)

Given that the usual choice at IAD is shoes off or secondary, i.e., no swab option, let me get this straight - I cannot be ordered to take my shoes off even in secondary?

I have specifically asked for the swab and been denied that option. I have been told that it was not my choice, i.e., not my decision to make. I have been told that if I go to secondary I will be ordered to take my shoes off, "if I want to fly today".

I wear thin flip flops to avoid having to take off my shoes....however in ORD they made me take them off. Really, though? I can't even fit a matchstick in the sole let alone anything else.

Or how about the guy in the 1st class AA line in BOS who was shouting, 'We're looking at ALL shoes today'??

Bart, as I've said before, the world you have created in SAN bears little, if ANY resemblense, to the one WE fly in day after day, airport after airport.

Let me clarify.

At the WTMD, you have the option of removing your shoes, if they meet the screening criteria. Shoes that meet the screening criteria can be screened either by x-ray or ETD sampling.

However....

if your shoes alarm the WTMD on your first pass, the screener can explain that your shoes caused the alarm. (There's an indicator panel on the screener's side of the WTMD that lights up in the area of the alarm. It's not 100% accurate because sometimes a pack of cigarettes stored inside someone's socks or a cell phone inside a lower pocket such as one of those cargo shorts that are popular today will also indicate an alarm in the same area as the shoes.) You have the option of either removing the shoes (since you now KNOW that they alarmed the WTMD) or undergoing secondary screening.

At secondary screening, if your shoes alarm the hand wand, those shoes have to be x-rayed, and your feet have to be hand-wanded without your shoes on (if you are sockless, then all that is required is a visual...unless you're wearing very saggy trousers that cover most or part of the foot...the screener would then be screening the top of the foot and ankle). You may request that screening not resume until your shoes are returned. I have had some disagreements with my own peers on this point; they believe that someone could theoretically slip a prohibited item back into a shoe if permitted to put the shoes back on before being completely screened. As a master of diversion and concealment in my former profession, I find this theory laughable. The SOP does not specifically address this point. I think it's good customer service as well as common sense to allow a person to put his or her shoes back on after the feet have been either hand-wanded or visually inspected before continuing to screen the rest of the body---if the passenger so requests. Most people, about 99% of them, just want to get it over and done with and aren't interested in putting their shoes back on until the hand-wanding is complete.

If your shoes did NOT alarm the WTMD but you are referred to secondary screening because they met the criteria, then all that is needed is an ETD sampling of your shoes. However, there's a catch to it: you cannot have any contact with anyone who DID alarm the WTMD or else you'll have to undergo the Full Monty as well. We try to segregate passengers who alarmed from those who did not; but our goal is to immediately respond to those who didn't alarm because all that's required is a simple ETD sampling of the shoes.

If you're wearing medical shoes or cannot remove your shoes for medical reasons, the SOP allows us an alternative screening method.

The issue is, has been and will always be clearly understanding the SOP. It disappoints me whenever I read that there are still screeners out there who don't know the SOP. I quiz my screeners daily with a "question of the day" (followed by a "Chuck Norris fact" just to start the day off on a humorous note).

Hope this clarifies any confusion on shoes.

Get the name of the screener, the name of the supervisor, and submit a complaint to the FSD and airport station manager. Again, the reason for getting the airport station manager involved is to exert some internal pressure on the FSD. The airport station manager is, for lack of a better word, the FSD's landlord and is interested in happy customers.

Certainly a lot smarter than b*tching about it online, eh?

And if there were any possibility, regardless of how remote, that something might actually come of it, don't you think I/we would??? How many complaints do you think HAVE been filed w/the TSA, FSD's, airport mgrs, airlines, the press, younameit, since YOUR agency came on-line about a myriad about problems, MOST of which, if not all, stem from 'failure to understand the SOP', as you put it??? I've filed a number of them, many of which I've outlined in this Forum as well as the response, if any, that's been rec'd (those on the receiving end of said complaints also appear to have a 'failure to read & understand the nature of the complaint' problem!) As you, yourself, have pointed out, the reasons for the continued & ongoing failure to recognize the most basic problems w/in your agency stem from lack of leadership @ the top (middle & bottom, in my opinion!), combined w/a complete lack of accountability of the agency as a whole for this 'failure to understand the SOP'.

CNN just aired this piece.

Either be part of the solution or part of the problem, pal.

So are you saying that the article's author was wrong in asserting that it's illegal to force someone to take off their shoes? What do you do if someone, saying they read this article, refuses to remove their shoes during the secondary?

People actually do that?? :confused:

Note to self: NEVER bum a ciggie from someone who carries them in his socks.

Bart created a nice little screening world in SAN?? Not the SAN I know. :td: :td:

But I see Bart is in San Antonio, probably far enough from San Diego that he can't hear our screeners barking that all shoes MUST come off.

From what I can see, Bart lives by the rulebook or SOP and has difficulty comprehending that others do not. This is merely a statement of fact and not meant to be a criticism as surely more people who live by the SOP are needed in the TSA, especially at the screener/supervisor level.

He refers to his duty time and area as Bartworld, so it's certainly possible his little slice of checkpoint heaven is isolated from the rest of TSA hell.

Bart, I know others have thrown this out to you, and so will I. I will redeem an award on UA to get you to EWR thru IAD (with ample time in between for you to check out IAD) and connecting thru DEN on the way back, whenever you want.

If enough of us offer to fly you around the country, and you take us up on it, maybe you'll see we're not blowing smoke with what we say.

Super

If your shoes alarm the hand wand, they need to be x-rayed. You can always refuse to remove them. However, the screener is then unable to clear you, and this will result in you being escorted off the checkpoint and denied access to the aircraft. It may also mean intervention by law enforcement officers since they may have the basis for reasonable suspicion, but this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I, of course, cannot speak on the law enforcement aspects. From a TSA perspective, we were unable to clear you due to your unwillingness to cooperate.

LOL. Bartworld is something that has existed for me throughout my life. During all four of my commands, I made it very clear to my subordinates that they were now in Bartworld and I was their God; there were no other gods but Bart and Bart's Law was absolute. I've toned it down with my non-military coworkers in TSA, but the translation is the same. Whether I'm in charge at the checkpoint or baggage screening pod, they are in Bartworld. My screeners clearly understand this simple philosophy.

Bart follows the SOP, but Bart also reserves the right to make common sense intepretation of the SOP which may vary from the way other leads and supervisors interpret the SOP.

It's been a successful recipe for me throughout my life. Why fix it if it ain't broken?

If someone did not alarm at the WTMD, there is absolutely no legitimate reason why they should be subjected to the hand wand during secondary harassment. What alarm is being resolved? None.

Just one more example of the filth in charge of the TSA using passenger harassment as a substitute for airport security. Treason is all these filth are performing. :td:

Read my post #16. You're taking a piece of what I said in response to someone else's question. Post #16 addresses your concerns more completely.

Sigh - I'm so boring. I don't leave it up to any of you any more. Life's too short; my time is more valuable & I have others to thank for protecting my liberties. Yes, Spiff will think I'm a wuss - I don't care.

I carry my nice F class LH slippers & take my (slip-on Cole-Haan) shoes off & put the slippers on in front of TSA. I pass through 'clean' (ie, didn't alarm the machine & don't have to take the slippers off), so no SSSS or any hassles.

And actually given I'm normally waiting for the bizness nimrods (as well as tourists) in front of me to empty their pockets (and they SAY that they travel a lot), it takes zip extra time on my part on either side.

Cheers.

So, in the end, you can force people to remove their shoes. The punishment for failure to do so is not flying and the potential of detention by LEOs. The article (from the OP) is wrong.

No one forces you to do anything. You have to weigh your determination to keep your shoes on against your determination to make your flight. If you choose to not cooperate with security, then you don't get to make your flight. But instead of being hauled off to jail, you're merely escorted off the checkpoint. Keep in mind, though, that I'm speaking strictly from a security perspective. From a law enforcement perspective, in some jurisdictions, refusal to cooperate with airport security officers in resolving an alarm may be enough to trigger a law enforcement search and/or detention for questioning.

Are you certain it's been successful? Somehow, I don't quite get that it has been.

You know, Bart, there was a time I truly expected better from you, but clearly that time has passed.

While I agree that walking without shoes at a checkpoint is nasty what about all the things you touch in your everyday life? Not everyone washes their hands regularly. http://www.hygenius.com/importance.htm. How about the recirculated air that you breath in buildings and on passenger aircraft?http://www.webmd.com/content/article/49/39915 How about that new immigrant that you work with everyday that could have TB? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads= My point is that germs are everywhere not just on the floor at the airport checkpoint.

Pardon me while I step aside and have an emotional moment.

Much more disgusting than the airport security check point is the restroom door. There are far too many people who go to the restroom, do their business, DO NOT wash their hands, leaving whatever "residue" on the door handle. Yuck!!!!

Also, have you ever noticed how many people DO NOT cover their mouth when they cough or sneeze?

If that's not being forced to remove one's shoes, what is (besides the actual phyical act of someone grabbing them and pulling them off you against your will)?

:confused: This is like saying that nobody forces me to obey the law; I just get fined or sent to jail if I disobey the law.

I think Bart finally drank the Kool-Aid :(

As I'm the guy from post 16 (thanks for the explanation), let's get down to specifics:

Here's the shoe I have worn for every flight for the last 3 years:

http://www.onlineshoes.com/productpa...en=w&pcid=2579

It does not set off the WTMD. I ask for a swipe instead of removing them. Am I entitled to a swipe? Can I be forced in secondary to take them off even though they do not set off the WTMD (under the threat of "do you want to fly today?")?