<raising hand> and especially if she's cute and has a ponytail (ok, it's like 90 degrees in sf today so the penalty box looks like a good place to cool down )

Anyone who works for this organization is a traitor. I decided.

This news does not make me happy. I nearly always got picked for the "random" check when it was in place.

I did develop a few [succesful] workarounds which I will share with you...
1) Waiting for both TSOs to be busy with other passengers before walking past them
a) After scanning one's BP, stand to the side and pretend to put your BP and wallet away, adjust bags, etc, until both TSO's are busy with other passengers (100% success).
This should work well with UA's Red carpet, CO's blue carpet and whatever colour AA's carpet is.

2) If the TSO's were not busy, I would hold my leg as if I was wounded or walk past them limping and obviously in pain. - THough I was not expecting it, since I saw them pull over a blind South Asian teenager once, I did have a 100% success rate using this strategy too.

3) Walk past them with my mobile to my ear, pretending I am listening intently (50% success - which might mean "no success" since it's supposed to be random).

4) Walk past them and when they call out "Sir", keep walking. My problem is that if someone is polite to me, I cannot be rude to them so this didn't work too well on account of me always walking over to them. Now, had they called me over rudely, there would have been some $h1t going down. (I suppose that was not at all succesful).

Has anyone actually been pulled over for secondary screening recently? Does TSA enforce its liquid policy when they do gate screening? After the initial screening, a lot of us take the liquids out of our freedom bags and put them back in our purses or backpacks. Would TSA confiscate our liquids at the gate if they were not in a freedom bag, especially if it were a surprise secondary? What about the liquids and drinks that were bought beyond the initial TSA screening point?

That's a good question, Sahara! I can only tell you what I did, which was to assume that any oversized drinks, etc., in the passenger's possession were purchased airside.

I'm not sure what the official policy is -- I completed an online instruction module on gate screening about 6 months ago, but wasn't actually tapped to do it until recently, whereupon I couldn't remember the protocol. I informed my supervisor, and he told me that my partner understood it, which (as it turned out) was not the case. He was clueless, too! So (as so many here accuse the TSA of doing), we simply made it up as we went along!

I don't suppose the supervisor was required to make sure your training was recent enough to be retained? Or to reassign you both if you told the truth that your co-screener was clueless. <shakes head>

I'll just open it up and pour it on the floor rather than just hand it over. Either way, I won't have water, but that way, they'll have to deal with the mess. It's not a crime to spill something.

Those new badges will really help you to maintain your authority in future hum-a-few-bars-and-I'll-fake-it situations.

Seriously, thanks for being honest. ^

I've used this approach successfully in YYZ on a number of occasions, and a couple times at FLL before the TSA took over.

I was actually thinking of doing just this - do not make eye contact, and if asked, then pretend I'm hard of hearing and can't understand what they're saying.

Call me anything you want. But please consider that the TSA workforce includes many currently active and retired members of the United States armed forces. Some of whom have been injured defending the country you just accused them of betraying. Most of them have no policy making authority.

I have never served. So call me a traitor all you want, although I love my country and consider my employment in TSA as a form of service. But don't you dare call any veteran a traitor. Especially if as I suspect you also never served your country.

In other posts I have written about how I think that TSA policies aren't perfect and should be challenged and debated. I welcome constitutional test cases. There is a place for a loyal opposition to any government program.

But I have also written about how the rhetoric of the people opposing TSA policies causes them to be branded as kooks and that undermines their cause. Good luck calling us all traitors. Good luck calling the screeners who are serving or who have served their country in combat traitors. You wonder why people don't join your cause.

Angry Dan

Would you feel better with the appellation of brigand? Dragons teeth? Lackey?

You could be a lot more productive in Afghanistan right now if it is your country that you are interested in serving rather than dis-serving the very people and Constitution that you swore to (and by the way I did as well May 1979 and February 1980). I even know of an outfit that will pay for your rotor-wing training in Alabama and guaranteed job afterwards.

That way you REALLY could be involved in transportation & security of your brethren.

You never did say which airport that you work at so we could finish up that posting you did a few weeks ago. My name is at the bottom of this post, perhaps someday you might have a bit more self-accountability and do the same.

Serving one's country is a noble accomplishment. That does not give one license to use the Constitution as toilet paper at a later date.

Military service and destroying people's civil liberties are not related in any way. If one commits traitorous acts, one is a traitor. Prior military service does not excuse future disgusting, un-American behavior.

Your opinion is important. Please continue to hold.

Understand your frustration, AngryDan, (father is a RET CW4 and LEO) but when you throw out "who here has served"? line, you are just going to get both sides digging in deeper, and you aren't likely to win many new signups either. And really, when getting screened, I care about as much about your combat experience as you do about the Ivy Schools I've attended. Yet both of us care about fulfilling our missions and getting the operation done efficiently and above all, correctly. I think law dawg said it earlier, that respect works both ways, and I really think in this day and age that common courtesy is appallingly rare, and creates a lot of unncessary friction in all our daily lives. In general I agree that a little bit of respect towards TSO's would go a long way towards making things easier for everyone. And what an amazing world it would be if TSO's had an impeccable reputation for courtesy and respectful behavior, and the world's top civilian organizations came to you to learn how to deal an increasibgly diverse and complex public.

I have had only one bad TSA experience, and that was way back in the day when everyone was just trying to figure out what to do, at a short-staffed podunk airport with apparently little accountability. OTOH I have had lots of TSO's send out a good vibe, and I have been keen to respond in kind. In the end, I think TSO's and FF'ers have a lot in common -- we both want safe aviation; we both want to go home at the end of the day instead of having out axxes blown into vapor; we want to be treated respectfully; and we want the TSA/DHS brass to be less brassy and conduct continuous improvement using data from those of us who are right there on the front line.

Almost as useless as the i.d. checks.

TSA personnel costs could be reduced 20% with no loss of safety.

I don't think it would serve the interests of my organization for me to invite you to my airport for a confrontation.

We have a private political disagreement. I think it would be abusing my position to invite you to my airport so that I can use my government office to further my private aims.

Furthermore I am anonymous so that it is clear that I don't represent the organization. Here I am a private citizen, and my views are my own. I happen to be a TSA employee, but I don't represent the organization as a spokesman.

Also as a supervisory employee, at work I sometimes have to support policies that I privately disagree with. I am not going to undermine that support by making statements against the organization's policies using my real name. By working for the organization, I have given up the right to speak out against it in my own name.

Angry Dan