Just stop and think for one second.
 

I've been lurking here for a couple days; the reason being is that I was thinking of pursuing employment with TSA. I own a small internet business, and as we all know, things have been really bad lately with our economy. I am prior Military and also a former Correctional Officer so I thought I would look into some type of government Security or Law Enforcement job.

After reading comments in the thread about the Grenade, I have decided to chime in. It amazes me how people can complain about the TSA clearing them away from a potential explosive!! If in fact that item was a live Grenade, and the TSA decided to open the item it was in causing it to detonate because it was rigged; man would all you people be going nuts!!!!! What if your wife and children were in the line at that check point? And for all you experts who comment on things you don’t know anything about; please stop, it really makes you look bad. I have been around and have had many different types of Grenades on my person during my Military enlistment; and I can tell you that if I had seen that grenade in the package, I would have cleared the area. Why would someone have any type of Grenade in their luggage; ether for a souvenir or to cause harm. A lot of the souvenir grenades are made from real grenades that have had their explosive material removed; actually most of them are made from Practice Grenades that have a blue colored spoon on them. The practice is the same as a real grenade, it just has a small charge similar to a fire cracker in them; and again is usually colored blue on the spoon. That all being said; if I had intentions of bringing a live Grenade on a plane, I would paint the dam thing blue, or Gold, and even put it on a piece of wood with a sign that reads “Complaint Department, please take a number” and have the number hanging on the pin. That way it would appear to be “FAKE!” (There is a novelty that is sold like this) They did their job and took the precaution; nobody was hurt and all is good.

Now that you read the part about the Grenade on the piece of wood; would you really want a screener to let it go on the Airplane without checking it out further? How would you feel sitting in your seat on the plane after reading this, and then seeing a screener let the above mentioned Grenade go through because he used his common sense and figured it was just a prop?

You complain and complain about the TSA and how they don’t let you bring this or that on the plane; you know what you can and can’t bring, so don’t bring it? Are you going to die without your shampoo or water on the plane??? I have been to the airport many times; not as much as most of you but I understand what I have to do and never have a problem. It’s funny to see that the people who are complaining the most, seem to be the same group.

After being on this site for the last couple days I have decided not to pursue a career with TSA for a number of reasons. One is because of the shear hatred that everyone has for a TSO. I have to hand it to you guys from the TSA that are on this board; you really have a tough job. You all seem to be very educated and professional; that brings up another reason that I will not be pursuing the TSA. Although there are many professional people working for the TSA, there are also those who are not. I have seen them first hand and it sickens me. My view is that if you are going to wear a uniform, you better dam well wear it with pride, and have it squared away. I see some of these guys that look like they sleep in their uniforms. I also can’t stand to see the way some of them carry themselves. Until the TSA can weed these *hitbags out, the TSA will never get any respect, and I can’t work for an organization that is looked upon the way the TSA is.

To the men and women that work for the TSA on this board, I thank you for your professionalism!!! To the other people; lighten up on the TSO’S, not all of them are bad. Don’t label them all as clowns and losers, because some of them may in fact have seen and done more then you will ever know. And to the ones that have chips on their shoulders, and look like a bag of *hit, put a complaint in on them; just hope they don’t ask you to “take a number”;)

Semper Fi,

Bob

I also must add that I feel the TSA implements a lot of ridiculous procedures. The whole organization in my opinion needs to be revamped. It is really sad to see some people being overly screened when they don’t need to be. And sometimes it’s the TSO with a chip on his shoulder; but probably most of the time it’s the TSA’S protocol that the TSO has to follow or he will be FIRED.

Semper Fi,

Bob

Bob:
Welcome to FT & hope you will continue to post here.Great decision in deciding not to join the TSA.

Welcome to FT.

So where do you draw the line for yourself on what's OK for TSA to do? You're not going to die if TSA makes you fly naked or in a hospital gown; would that be OK?

Would you be OK if TSA said you could have no carry-on luggage at all? My employer's policies forbid me from checking a laptop as luggage (no idea what happened to anyone who got caught at LHR during the initial panic over the liquids threat, though I suspect a lot took trains to mainland Europe and flew from there), so I guess we couldn't work and travel any more. TSA refuses to take responsibility for valuables in checked luggage, so I guess that means no jewelry or high-end clothes? What if TSA decided to ban cell phones?

My middle-aged parents and elderly grandparents aren't going to die from having to take their shoes off at the checkpoint, but it's still physically difficult for them, humiliating for them, and an activity that increases their risk of an injury-causing fall. Some people choose not to fly because of that hassle. Are you OK with that?

Are you OK with TSOs using a virtual strip machine on you, or your daughter, knowing that they can find a way to save the image in spite of TSA's claims (think cell-phone camera for a crude solution) and post it on the internet?

Are you OK with DHS/TSA keeping a secret blacklist of innocent Americans who have been convicted of no crime who cannot fly but yet have no effective means of due process or redress?

Where do you draw the line? TSA seems to think it can do anything and everything to passengers if it can remotely connect it to some perceived improvement in security even if it flies in the face of the Bill of Rights, common sense, and human decency. I think they've gone way to far and need to be reigned in.

I don't think the phrases "free country" or "home of the brave" apply to a place where we have to present papers to request permission to travel from the government (ID check and no-fly list) and where our government is afraid of toothpaste and bottled water but unwilling to deploy technological solutions or risk management to deal with that fear. I appreciate your service, and the service of my father and grandfathers, but I'm not at all convinced we do that service honor with the direction the surveillance-state and security-state are heading.

Thanks for the welcome Coachrosey and Studentff.

Studentff; all of your points are well made and I agree with you. If you read my second post you will see that I indeed feel that there are many problems with the way the TSA is run.

I hope that this does not take away from the point I was trying to make in my first post.

Semper Fi,

Bob

They have a lot of reasons to complain, 90% of them valid. TSA's SOPs are a joke and there has been no effort to improve them while keeping the same level of safety. The way I can relate with FTers is limited to a couple of months which I did heavy air travel, so yes, you may know how it works and go through security every time like an expert, but you're financing an agency that has so many flaws and you see nothing being done to improve it.

Please understand; I get it that TSA has a lot of procedures implemented that need to be changed. I get it that a lot of their SOP is ridiculous. Some people on here are complaining about things that are trivial, and some of the complaints are ignorant, that is the point I was trying to make. I was also trying to point out that not all of the TSO’s are bad.

And by no means do I claim to be an expert traveler. Studentff made a lot of great points and I agree with all of them; they are things that should be complained about; my post was to have people think about what they are complaining about before they do.

Welcome to Flyertalk. :)

I second the ^ on deciding against working for the Terrorism Support Agency. Good decision.

Former correctional officer - prison guard? The last thing the TSA needs are more former prison guards and former police officers. That's not the mission of the organization.

I'd look into going back to prison guard, since we keep incarcerating more and more prisoners. Here in CA, prisons are hiring.

IMO, part of the problem is that some dingus thought early on that the TSA needed former Special Forces and retired Marines and washed-out cops and maybe even washed-out prison guards. So that's what they got. And that's why the TSA is such a screwed up organization from top to bottom.

What the TSA needed were people with experience in dealing politely with non-criminals, not people well-versed in arresting or killing or controlling people, like cops, military heroes or prison guards.

You're right - they're not all clowns and losers. But there are far too many clowns and losers, from the top all the way to the bottom.

Again, congratulations on having enough self-respect to avoid that agency.

Re: the grenade, I agree that these cases need to be taken seriously and that evacuations are sometimes, maybe even often, warranted.

But I do think there are cases where TSA could ask the passenger/owner a few questions and resolve the alarm without calling in the bomb squad an evacuation.

In a lot of cases, simply asking the passenger a question like "do you have anything that might resemble a grenade" and then evaluating the response alongside the totality of the situation (e.g., 85-year-old passenger, sheepishly admits he forgot his souvenir, etc.) would help. If TSA trusts their vaunted "behavior detection officers," (BDOs) then they should use the BDOs to evaluate responses in these cases. If the BDOs are worth their cost, they should be able to tell the difference between a sheepish souvenir carrier and a nervous/malicious terrorist in the vast majority of cases.

There have been too many cases where a power supply wrapped in some cables, or a slightly unusual electronic device, have resulted in TSA freakouts that probably could have been avoided with a simple conversation.
See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=534358 for an example and http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515053 for another.

Some of these incidents have resulted in serious property loss for the passenger with no compensation from TSA or other agencies. See:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=368482
and
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4991865

FWAAA; I appreciate your comments.

I can tell you this; as stated, I was a former Correctional Officer and Marine, you are insinuating that because of that service, I would treat people unfairly and I take offense to that. Professional former Marines with common sense are exactly what the TSA needs. I guarantee that the TSO’s that you come in contact with that treat you with respect were probably prior Military; most of those guys know their place with the TSA; they’ve done, and I use the word you used, Hero stuff already, and probably didn’t join the TSA to boost their ego.

Semper Fi,

Bob

Taking my shoes off in Denver when I was under a doctor's care for an excruciating back pain issue didn't kill me, but it aggravated a situation that caused increaed pain for days after. The fact that I came armed with my prescription pain pills, X-rays on a CD that the hospital E-R I had to go to while on the trip gave me, and a doctor's instructions that I avoid extreme bending and stretching for two weeks meant nothing to them, I was going to take them off and put them back on. Then they told me I needed to clear the chair so others could use it and told me I was making a scene by wincing in that much pain.

Now...that didn't kill me certainly, but was it okay with me? Absolutely NOT. My regular doctor was just dumbfounded that the TSA would ask someone obviously in severe pain and with documentation that showed he was under a doctor's care would treat someone like that.

--PP

Welcome to FT! This probably could have been put in the other thread, but we'll give you a pass because you're a newbie. :D

I don't think the objection was the fact that the TSO pulled the person aside to check out the grenade. He did the right thing. But shutting down the terminal? That went too far. They could have easily run the ETA or pulled the passenger aside. We all support some level of safety at the airport. But we don't support "security for the sake of show."

Look forward to hearing more from you!

Mike

And that is one thing that is wrong with the TSA; they need to have a stricter hiring process; such as only prior professional Military personnel with common sense and the expertise to make a command decision. The way it is now; they have to take every situation as it is the real deal, or people are going to get hurt. Even if TSO’s were all prior Military, for certain situations such as with something that appears to be an explosive, no one should just assume it’s not because the person with the item doesn’t look like a terrorist. That is when mistakes happen and people get killed.

Semper Fi,

Bob

"Oh yeah, my paperweight. Don't worry about it. It is a fake grenade....trust me."

Bob,

Thank you for being a part of this country's defense through the beloved Corps. You did a job few want to do. Welcome to FT!

I have noticed, especially in the last two years or so, some improvement in the average competence (not to mention basic manguage skills) of the TSO's as a whole. When the TSA first started it was the largest assemblage of the hard-core unemployable and gum-cracking, barely literate flotsam that I had ever seen. I usually hear TSO's cracking their gum and complaining about how unfair their schedules are and whining about how long it is until thier next break once a trip, it used to be every time I passed through a check point, so a 75% reduction in that by my entirely unscientific observation.

You are entirely correct that former military and law enforcement is exactly what the TSA needs. We're not at the low point of the TSA where the answer to a question I asked one of the Phi-beta-kappa members at EWR terminal "A" was "I not dem, dey nah me!" but there is still so much of the original talent, combined with generally incompetent leadership, that the TSA definitely has a long way to go.

--Paul

I can see your point Mike but with explosives I think they did the right thing by shutting down. If I was in charge, and I believed a Grenade was in someone’s luggage, I would not have taken any chances.

Now the situation with pp is a different story. They should have had you sit in a chair PP and taken your shoes off for you, and then put them back on. That is what I would have done.

Semper Fi,

Bob

I'm not just insinuating - I'm confidently asserting. :)

Please don't take offense, as none was intended. What I see (as former military myself) is that too many of the screeners issue orders to passengers like Sgt Carter screaming to Gomer. THAT's the big problem. Military officers have perfected issuing orders - and that's what we have at the TSA right now. The top issues orders and each level of command re-issues orders. Finally, we get the screeners yelling orders at us. It's one thing to bark orders at subordinates. It's quite another to bark orders at non-subordinates and then to turn around and whine about the lack of respect from the abused passengers.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you "visit airports often" but that you don't travel as much as some here. Ever been to the UK? Other cities in Europe? Tokyo? Singapore? Chile? Agentina? Brazil?

In none of those countries have I encountered airport screeners acting like they do here. They're quiet, unobtrusive, and almost apologetic when they have to conduct any sort of secondary screening. And I've never seen anything that looks like the retaliatory secondary screenings conducted by the TSA.

Your expertise is in control. Command and control. I didn't insinuate that you'd treat people unfairly. I'm very confident you'd treat people the way the current batch of ex-miltary, ex-cops, ex-prison guards currently treat us. They don't treat us "unfairly." They treat us poorly far too often. And that we don't need.

Thanks for the kind words Paul; one of the main reasons why I decided not to pursue the TSA was in fact because of those Gum Cracking Slobs! I just don't understand why they don't weed them out! I feel bad for the squared away TSO'S. It's good to hear that you see some good TSO's, as I am sure the ones on this forum are.

Just more reason why I am glad I made the decision not to join the TSA. If I had to bark orders at innocent people, I would quit. I do remember a few times seeing guys barking orders and thought they looked like a joke.

Maybe someone on this forum from TSA can confirm whether or not it is TSA policy to bark orders at the Flyer?

The only time I have been overseas was through the Military so no, I haven't seen how other countries airports operate.

Again it all falls on the TSA higher ups; if they can make the TSO's bark orders, they can also make them treat people with respect and that is where I think prior Professional Military Personnel would do a great job.

Semper Fi,

Bob

Funny thing about airport security and Flyertalk. Flyertalk began in May, 1998 and after searching, I was unable to find any significant complaint posted anywhere on this site about US airport security unitil the second week of September, 2001. Norm Mineta had a problem with private airport security and after numerous airport shutdowns following the discovery of prohibited items and checkpoint screwups, he convinced enough people that a nationalized screening force was necessary. Things have rapidly gone downhill ever since November 19, 2001.

I'm not anti-airport security. I'm anti-Mineta/Chertoff/Hawley pretend airport security. And all of the loyal foot soldiers who happily implement their nonsense. Just doin' their job.

Bob would no doubt be a kind, benevolent, polite airport screener. He wouldn't take delight in taking away water in August or baby medicine from young mothers like some other former military screeners. But so far, the TSA, laden with war heroes and ex-cops, hasn't turned out that way.

I'm going to agree with this and that's nothing personal, Bob.

In the haste of putting together the TSA it seems clear that a quasi-military model was adopted. I think that direction was wrong-headed. Civilian security should be conducted by civilians using civil laws and civil practices. It takes a long time and considerable effort for an ex-soldier, ex-cop, ex-guard etc. to shed the mindset of regimentation, obedience and adherence. Many never do, they just carry it forward to their next job. Even worse are the wannabes who are not ex-anything but wish they had been. Far too many of both types in the TSA screening force and yet the TSA still seemingly believes these are the very type of candidates they want. No.

I'm a civilian, I'm not under military jurisdiction. And I shouldn't be just to board a civil airliner.

The OP implores us to "Just stop and think for one second" and discusses the jetBlue terminal clearance due to the fake grenade.

I have no issues with the TSA stopping fake grenades. I do think that if anyone at the TSA were to Just stop and think for one second, they might have concluded that emptying the entire terminal was not warranted. Emptying the entire terminal and re-screening everyone was a tremendous waste of time and money.

There's simply no reason that a grenade (even if real) at a checkpoint (don't know if it was carryon or checked bag) calls for emptying the entire terminal. If it blew up it simply wouldn't harm anyone more than x feet away. If anything, it places the passengers at greater risk of a secondary attack at the curb. Everyone who has studied terrorist behaviour know this. Anyone for whom "risk management" is a familar term know this.

So clear a safe perimeter. But emptying an entire airport terminal? All you've done is tell the terrorists that they can make everyone dance and spend $$$ by showing up at the airport with fake grenades in checked bags. Sorta the dimbulb nonsense of taking every phoned-in bomb threat seriously, like it was the real thing. Terrorists in the USA don't phone in bomb threats. When idiots are in charge of security, we don't get security.

OP: Just stop and think for one second, please. :)

TSA's BDOs are either useful or useless, but can't be both. If TSA believes they're useful for picking out bad guys (including drug users, cash users, and illegal aliens, none of which are a threat to aviation :rolleyes: ), then TSA should also give BDOs some weight in analyzing the response of someone asked "what's the funny looking electronic device in your carry-on?"

It's about the totality of the situation, not if someone "looks like a terrorist." Where's the positive ETD swab on the bag to back up the assumption that it contains explosives? How credible is their explanation about the item?

I can give TSA a pass on freaking out at the replica grenades, but not on the golf-ball trackers or laptops. That TSA and the bomb squads were working together to destroy the private property of passengers after it had been cleared, but out of the ever-important "abundance of caution" is absurd. That they then refused to compensate the victims is even more absurd.

Ok, this is getting out of hand as I should have known it would; this will be my last reply on this subject. FWAAA, you state that if the Grenade went off it wouldn't hurt anyone more then x feet away. What to you is x; an m67 Fragmentation Grenade has a casualty radius of about 15 meters; 90 feet is a large radius, and that’s not to say the metal won't fly further than that. So, as in my first post; you need to Think for one second. "Correction on the 90 feet radius statement; what I meant to say is 90 feet end to end"

When a dam Grenade goes off and kills someone that was behind the 90 foot mark the TSA decided to use so they would not inconvenience anyone, you would be in an up roar that they didn't do more to protect people. And god help it if it was someone you know.

They did the right thing and that's all there is to it.

The other stuff you are arguing is worth it; this is ridiculous! My god, people had to go through security again instead of possibly getting their dam head blown off.

And people that bring fake Grenades to the airport should be held accountable for that for now on. How STUPID CAN PEOPLE BE!

Semper Fi,

Bob

90 feet may be a large radius, but 15 meters is not 90 feet.

It would be safe to say, given the totality of the circumstances, that getting everyone away from the area would be more than sufficiently prudent. You have a low probability of it actually being a grenade. If it is a grenade you a low probability of an actual grenade detonating. If it actually detonates you have a low probability of casualties for people at least X meters away and behind some barrier (wall, etc.). A low probability times a low probability times a low probability is a very low probability.

I'd say clearing the general area would be more than sufficient.

Bob,

While I agree that the area should have been contained, 15 meters is really about 45 feet. So the area really isn't that big.

Furthermore - and this is the kind of stupidity I've seen in some of the TSA terminal dumps - folks that are forced to leave the secure area must walk right past the screening stations.... the same place that the suspect object is. That's true at some heavily traveled hub airports, such as CVG, DCA, LAX, etc. I can promise you that the separation between the screening stations and the exit lane is NOT Level-5 (or even level 2) certified.

The agency has problems from head to foot... Unfortunately, the deterrent effect of many of the policies handed down from "on high" have always been ineffective (more for show than anything), and have become even less effective as time has gone on (as people see their lack of value).

What needs to happen is to have the agency take a real "risk management" approach, rather than doing "shows of force" that make people goose-step. It truly is about command-and-control of the public....

Yes, there are real risks that need to be addressed. The problem is that real risks are often overlooked in the zeal for "catching" someone with a 3.5 ounce bottle of liquid... or arguing that pumpkin pie is a gel.

I said I wasn't going to reply but I had to clear my statement up; what I meant to say is from end to end the area would be 90 feet, which is pretty large. I wasn't at the airport and I don't know what the scene looked like, but I am not going to put them down for clearing to big of an area. Also, just because the casualty radius is 90 meters, "about 45 feet, about 90 feet end to end," doesn't mean the shrapnel won't fly further. It would also fly through walls.

I guess we could argue this all day; I just can't look at them in a bad light for that call. However the other things such as the little bottles and all the other crazy stuff, I am 100% behind all of you.

Semper Fi,

Bob

I just would like to say one more thing; you guys all seem like good people. I don't have to put up with what you do everyday at the airport so I guess it is a lot easier for me to defend something the TSA did.

I would not like to be talked down too or pushed around. I just hope you can remember that not all the guys that work there are bad. Even though there are a lot of crazy things they do; I am glad someone is there checking.

I hope things change for the better, maybe after the election it will.

Semper Fi,

Bob

Bob:
I could give you a detailed, multi-paged analysis of people's negative, unforgiving attitudes towards the TSA -- their policies, their procedures, their attitudes and their employees -- and why I think they are justified.

Instead, I'll simply point out that people on this board come into contact with agents working for dozens, or even hundreds, of air travel security agencies around the world in the course of their travels. Yet 99% of the complaints are about one agency -- the TSA. The examples provided by other agencies prove that not only is it possible to provide security without being petty, harassing or intimidating, it apparently isn't even that difficult, since just about every other agency in the world seems to have managed it without a huge amount of difficulty. So when you go off on a trip to 2, 3, 4, 5 countries, and your experience in one of those countries is markedly worse than all the others, why would you think anything but negatively about the TSA?

I thought the TSO who relayed that story to FT said that the checkpoint was shut down, not that the terminal was dumped, though I don't have time to go back to the thread and re-read it. Am I mistaken?

Don't worry, it's not. It's actually TSA policy that TSOs are to "be courteous" and "polite" to passengers (quotationed words actual terminology used in the SOP!)

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.