I don't see the ambiguity. The item was permitted on other occasions and not on this one. The item in question is not a prohibited item. So it is not a policy that is at issue (i.e., these type of key rings are prohibited), but an idiotic decision on the part of these particular TSO's.

Except that TSA has a written policy that any TSO can determine that any item not on the prohibited list is, in fact, a danger to flight security and therefore can be prohibited. (Which, as I've pointed out on the TSA blog numerous times, is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.)

So, one could argue that the problem is the interaction of a policy which gives TSOs incredible discretion, with different TSOs using that discretion in different ways. Both the policy and the TSOs bear fault here.

You are trying to capitalize on the term "bad decisions." Everyone here knows whether or not they are doing something that is either unethical, immoral or illegal. Some people do those things and, when caught, claim they were only following orders.

Again, no one should ever get a pass for excusing bad behavior by saying they were only following orders.

I went off on them a few weeks ago. I was in the CLEAR line in Atlanta and they wanted to search my bag. I saw them point at my bag on the screen and knew what they were pointing. It’s the Push up Pro Travel, 2 plastic discs with handles that come off. I had been stopped 1 time before and told the guy what it was and he looked and that was it. I told the woman where it was and what it was. She then proceeds to take ever item out of my suitcase. I lost it then, asking here if she would like not to throw my clothes all over the place to keep them from getting wrinkled. Then sense she was being rude, that she better place every item back in where she found it and not wrinkle my clothes.

At this point a supervisor came over, but he was worse. I ask what is dangerious about my item and he says I should take it out of the bag. I keep asking him the same question because he isn't answering it. He finally says he doesn't know why, but they can check whatever they want, even though he is their supervisor.

So after they rescanned my bag, I tell her I want everything back where it was. She doesn't and I tell her that item wasn't there. Her supervisor tells her to leave. Then some other TSA worker is also there now throws my stuff in my bag and tries to give it to me. I almost lost it further and called a cop over. I didn't give him permission to touch my bag, but we all know it would be worthless as nothing would happen. I also didn't get his name because I was busy getting my bag.

Why is it, I wonder, that when someone actually does something the way it's supposed to be done, that it makes people so much angrier? In this case, the male TSO mentioned first did his search incorrectly. The female TSO did it correctly. To wit: Any time a bag check is called - for anything - the bag has to be re-scanned through the x-ray after the item has been removed.

The STSO's advice was sound. If you have something that routinely triggers a bag check, save yourself - and us - some time and put it within easy reach of opening the bag. Right on top, for example, or even outside completely until it's through the x-ray.

And relax, dude. I fear that you're headin' straight for an ulcer with all of that excitement.

Oh, and, about the item itself? Plastic though it appears on the outside, the inside of it contains a big, sturdy plate of metal (different brands may have different mileage in construction, obviously, but I've seen more than a couple of these little doodads come through the Huntsville checkpoint) that's large enough to shield other items from x-ray view, depending upon how it's packed inside the bag, what orientation the bag is run at through the x-ray, and the bag's exact location on the belt itself.

Seems like they allways called a bag check on me in CLE. It turned out to be the large number of keys that I carried with me that got their attention.

I finally took the hint and had gotten into the habit of always taking the keys out and placing them in the plastic bin. Never had a problem after that, at least with the keys anyway. Dont know what it was about CLE, never had a problem regarding the keys at any other airport.

To get back ot, before I refused to fly anymore, I used to call TSA, and most TSO's , idiots everyday of the week, sometimes to their face, depending on how much I was traveling, along with a few other choice words I would use to describe TSA :mad::td:

Nothing against you personally Dean, even something as low as TSA has good people, very few in TSA's case, but you seem to be one of them.

So what do you do? There is no way that the list of prohibited items could ever be complete, man will always think of something new. Even if you could make the list complete no one would be capable of memorizing the whole thing.

TSOs have to have some room to make intelligent decisions.

Objection! Witness stating facts not in evidence. :cool:

It's not wrong to call them idiots because I'm sure they've heard that countless times before.

You change the way you relate to the public.

You don't create a list of "permitted" items, and then in the same breath say "the permitted list is a work of fiction, because anything on the list can be prohibited by a TSO". You don't tell passengers "everything you need to know is on the website", and then have TSOs tell passengers "well, the website is wrong". You don't tell passengers that you want them to be "partners" in the security process, and then treat them like the enemy when they approach a checkpoint.

You give up on the attitude that says "I'm going to make sure that nothing that could conceivably become a weapon will get aboard an airplane." As others have pointed out repeatedly, there are plenty of objects aboard an airplane that could be used as deadly weapons, given the proper training.

Instead, you give people a short list of prohibited items, perhaps with a few well-documented exceptions. You let them know that anything else might be prohibited as well, precisely for the reason you outline above.

At the same time, you train TSOs to think in a balanced way about screening ... finding ways to permit items on board instead of deny them. Train them to realize that a hollow bullet keychain isn't a weapon, and neither is a nipple piercing. Train them to do ETD tests on any large liquid rather than summarily denying them. In short, denying a passenger one of their possessions should not be a cause for celebration.

And, yes, I am a hopeless idealist.

Hogwash.

The SOP says that people can take a reasonable amount of liquid through a checkpoint, so long as the passenger makes a case for it (think an 8oz bottle of aloe and a sunburn). The TSAer is supposed to do an ETD swab and then if it passes, they should go.

I never see that happen. Every time I see passengers make a diplomatic fuss over a reasonably-sized container, the TSAer confiscates it, no questions asked.


Secondly (and there are more, but I'll limit this to two), If there's a bottle/container that's labeled 8.0 ounces, yet clearly has less than that, say 2 ounces, the TSAer goes by the amount on the label, not what's obviously in there. Gone --- confiscated.


You can't win the hearts and minds of the traveling public by "Engage" classes, happy-go-lucky posters about TSAers while waiting in line or confiscating liquids in unreasonable circumstances.

You have just assigned TSO's an impossible task!

+1 to the entire post.

You're not a hopeless idealist, you're simply advocating a return to what the pre-TSA, private screeners did. Back when it was clear that, say, a full-size functional samurai sword should not be allowed, and a plastic 1" toy gun attached to GI Joe's hand was not a threat.

Do you guys think that most TSOs make decisions, like the GI Joe gun, because they are stupid or do think the problem is deeper than that?

I think *most* of the asinine decisions made by the TSOs are due to the heat they will catch for allowing a "prohibited" item through.

This was pretty good---you had a much better response to that bit of nonsense than I would have had.