Hi, Bob, and welcome to FT. Also, thank you for your service -- sincerely!

It's this post of yours that, for most of us, gets to the core of the issue. TSA is not there to provide security. It's there to provide a dog-and-pony show so that casual fliers will have enough confidence in the airlines to continue buying their once-a-year tickets to visit grandmaw. When you couple their virtual uselessness with an officious attitude, you're not going to win friends.

As for how they wear their uniforms, it doesn't make the slightest difference to me. If I see a Marine, I don't care if he or she is wearing torn and tattered camos or the best dress uniform. It's the person inside the uniform that I respect because they've earned the right to wear it. There are good TSOs and bad TSOs, but it doesn't matter to me whether their shoes are spit-shined or the tails of their shirt are hanging out. As far as I'm concerned, they are not, and will never be, in the same category as military service personnel, law enforcement officers, fire fighters or paramedics. THESE are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, and have my abiding respect and deep gratitude. TSOs are just actors in a pointless bureaucratic show.

When I was a professional actor, I once played a policeman on Cagney & Lacey. I did not, at any time, confuse the fact that I was wearing a policeman costume with the thought that I was the same as one.

Think I'll give the French authorities the benefit of the doubt on this one though: http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?...mentid=9792592

Good grief, Lady !

Welcome to FT. ^

I haven't read all the way down the thread, but a couple thoughts:

1) On this board, many (most?) fly really often and the TSA has made it a hassle. Not everything we critique on this board is actually worthy of scrutiny-- but we take offense at terminal dumps.

2) We have several folks on this board that are former/current US Armed Forces, LEO, DOD, etc and they may be able to lend you a hand.

3) Good choice not to pursue the TSA. It would have been aggarvating.

But as we've seen, SOP can be interpreted by the FSD and made more "restrictive." It only seems to be a suggestion, not a rule. Otherwise, there'd be no excuse for designed inconsistency if everyone stuck to the SOP.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Almost everything about the screening process in the SOP is set up as a guideline. There are some hard rules in these sections, such as screeners must honor a request from a passenger if they want their film-camera to be hand-checked, and the specific pattern for hand-wanding, but the "designed inconsistency" is built from the aspect of people having differing interpretations of what the screening guidelines say. It's also why TSOs at Airport X hate TSA at Airport Y :D - different interpretation, so even to them the whole thing looks absolutely foreign with only the uniforms and the general process being the same, with a lot of particulars changing based on the interpretations of the FSD or, more likely, the STSOs who train the TSOs.

Other stuff in there, like conduct or dress code, are not presented as guidelines. They are given as rules to be followed with no deviation. We're in white undershirts now because TSA worked to hammer out a vague part of the dress code that seemed to allow for black undershirts. TSA didn't want black undershirts. They wanted white undershirts, and went out of their way to re-specify that. It doesn't matter that our FSD personally thinks that the black shirts look a lot nicer with the blue shirt.

No, TSOs being courteous and polite is (supposed to be) a mandate. It's far more likely to be lax enforcement by the STSOs, rather than purposeful direction from management, that lends itself to poor and improper conduct on the part of TSOs. If the STSO won't document it, then there's very little that can actually be done about it. Kip Hawley did all he could on the matter when he sent out a directive some time ago stating that the barking must stop (he even used the term "barking" :D), but, again... if the STSOs don't document it?

I'm pretty sure that's the main reason why the Got Feedback? thing got instituted. From what I understand, it sends two copies of your complaint - one to TSA itself, the other to that airport's specific management (in essence, going over the STSO's head). If TSA looks in on it and finds that their management hasn't made any kind of investigation at all, much less taken corrective action, then they're likely to want to know why.

But it WASN'T at a checkpoint!
The dummy grenades were in CHECKED baggage.
So why dump the whole terminal?

Congradulation on excallant decision. This's web sites works is done. :D

Sicken's alot of us here.

Agree and congradulation you're good decision.

Welcome to flyartalk's Bob! :)

At my airport, a lot of out checked luggage is screened underneath the airport, in an area where there is a lot of airline equipment...tugs, close to the tarmac, etc. I am not an expert on explosives, but if a grenade were to explode in this area, on the lowest level of the airport, near vehicles containing fuel, wouldn't that be a bad explosion? Wouldn't the structure of the airport be compromised, in a greater area than 90ft? I know it is near the tarmac, but I am not sure of how close the planes actually sit to this area, but couldn't one grenade explosion lead to other explosions that lead to bigger explosions?
I guess what I am saying/asking is that, if a grenade explodes and effects 45ft around...that is 45ft up,down, and to the sides...right? So if there are a lot of windows around, vehicles, oxygen tanks or anything else that would be in that area....wouldn't the safest thing be to evacuate?

Your fond of using that "military/war heros" line in your posts aren't you? You claim no disrespect in an earlier post. In reading the thread it sure doesn't appear you are using your descriptions of some TSA employee's backgrounds in an "respectful" way.

You can level with us, you think 99% of law enforcement, military, are your version of "heros" don't you?

Perhaps that's a reason not to screen baggage near fuel, load-bearing supports, etc.; something that should be considered in advance, not when the first potential explosive is discovered.

Of course it isn't SOP!

I, myself, have a very soft voice and I don't raise it because if I did, I'd be hoarse by the end of my shift. I also practice the 8-ft. rule (i.e., it's futile to communicate verbally with someone more than 8 feet away). The only time I run into trouble is when I need an assist for a PAX in the corral, but usually one of my louder colleagues takes over and sounds the call-to-action for me. :)

Bob, regarding your situation: Are you aware that the TSA offers health insurance (pays 1/2 your premium) to part-time employees? And part-timers also qualify for a 401K and pension plan? As a self-employed person, you might really benefit from this sort of arrangement. I'd encourage you to give it a shot. Like any job, it has its moments ... but overall, it's really not so bad!

Finally, regarding the grenade situation: Both incidents involved carryon baggage, not checked, and in the first, the checkpoint was shut down. (There was no terminal dumpage.) I'm not sure how the second (the case of the belt buckle) was resolved, but I don't think it involved any disruption to other passengers. Just wanted to clear that up!

Random thought: TSA should post copies of all complaints (minus personal info) online. Pax would be able to see which airports generate the most complaints. Presumably, this info is already available through FOIA so I don't see any reason why not.

That information is Sensitive Security Information... TSA managers are sensitive to the fact that publicly revealing that information could adversely affect their job security.

I bet that somehow the TSA will figure out some way to consider complaints from the public to be sensitive and not subject to FOIA requests for "security" reasons.

For the answer to you're question just visit you're nearest airport TSA checkpoint and watch the TSA morons at work wasting you're tax dollers and bulying granmothers. :D

Grenade? What? To the OP, some background in your post would be nice.