Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders

And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders

Old Aug 23, 09, 6:53 am
  #151  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Whether your realize it or not, you just repeated what I said. If the operator can clear the shoes whether inside a bin or in a bag, then the items are clear. If not, then the operator will call a bag check. It's the same thing, you just don't realize it. (Rescreening is always an option but is not mandatory).

Bottom line: you can either help out the x-ray operator or risk spending a little bit more time at the checkpoint. It IS up to you, pal.
I think this is quite clear. I went through the B checkpoint at DCA yesterday (and went back out soon after to catch a train due to delays, but that's another story). I packed my single bin in my usual "summer" way: I put my laptop on one side, leaving 1/3 of the bin empty. On that side, I put my cellphone, keys, Kippy bag, and then my flip-flops on top. The only thing dense on that side was the 3x5" cellphone.

I've never had any trouble packing the bin that way and yesterday was no exception. The x-ray operator looked at the image for a tiny bit, picked up one of the shoes a couple of inches to see what was under it, and sent it on. The "delay" was, at most, five seconds. Given the likelihood of light things like flip-flops ending up all over the place if not in a bin, to me what I did seems the best thing to do. Bart, do you agree?
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 7:12 am
  #152  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,165
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
I disagree. I think that page is just fine. It doesn't say "3.0" in one place and "3.4" in another. "3" and "3.4" are compatible. When you write "3", you mean "3 +/- 0.5". If you mean to be more precise, you say "3.0".
I wholly disagree. We don't get to add on decimal places and round off. We must accept the specific number given. And the fact that they give different numbers in different places is both misleading and moronic. They have a PR campaign ("3-1-1") and then they have actual policy. The fact that they cannot coordinate the two is pretty pathetic.

But even if we did get to round off as you are suggesting that would mean that 3.5oz containers are OK according to the TSA, and we know that to be false. It would also mean that a TSO could decide to only permit containers 2.5oz or smaller, because that rounds off to 3. Again, not true.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 7:16 am
  #153  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by sbm12 View Post
I wholly disagree. We don't get to add on decimal places and round off. We must accept the specific number given. And the fact that they give different numbers in different places is both misleading and moronic. They have a PR campaign ("3-1-1") and then they have actual policy. The fact that they cannot coordinate the two is pretty pathetic.

But even if we did get to round off as you are suggesting that would mean that 3.5oz containers are OK according to the TSA, and we know that to be false. It would also mean that a TSO could decide to only permit containers 2.5oz or smaller, because that rounds off to 3. Again, not true.
It is an engineering thing. If you mean 3.00 then 3.00 is what is meant. If you say 3 then anything from 3.0000 to 3.99999 is acceptable.
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 7:32 am
  #154  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: RDU, Delta PM, Hilton Diamond (for now), Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
I disagree. I think that page is just fine. It doesn't say "3.0" in one place and "3.4" in another. "3" and "3.4" are compatible. When you write "3", you mean "3 +/- 0.5". If you mean to be more precise, you say "3.0".

So the chart at the is the approximation and what's below is the more precise rule. I don't read it as a "contradiction". Where I have problems is when 3.4 isn't mentioned at all.
In this case there are a lot of items that are 100ml which is 3.38 oz and there are a lot that are under 3. So the TSA NEEDS TO BE MORE CLEAR. Even their screeners are confused and I've had them say something about my 100ml bottles which said 3.4 oz on them. "This is more than 3oz".

So by saying 3oz in this case you don't mean 3.4oz IMHO.
jfulcher is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 7:34 am
  #155  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:14 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 12:05 pm
  #156  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,582
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Then I'll rephrase: you now know that shoes placed directly on a belt make it easier for an x-ray operator to scan them faster. You don't have to put them on the belt, but regardless what you read on the Blog, unless there's been some change I don't know about, it is still procedure. It's just not being enforced. I still teach officers that shoes ought to be placed directly on the belt but to not get their panties in a wad when they aren't.

You now have a choice of either helping out the x-ray operator or not. That's the ball that's in your court. You don't have to help out the x-ray operator......but don't you get your panties in a wad when the operator decides to call a bag check.

So Bart what I hear you saying is that Blogger Bob Burns of TSA HQ is wrong when he stated that "Shoes on the Belt" was not policy.

Is that it? Your calling Bob a liar?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 1:58 pm
  #157  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
I disagree. I think that page is just fine. It doesn't say "3.0" in one place and "3.4" in another. "3" and "3.4" are compatible. When you write "3", you mean "3 +/- 0.5". If you mean to be more precise, you say "3.0".

So the chart at the is the approximation and what's below is the more precise rule. I don't read it as a "contradiction". Where I have problems is when 3.4 isn't mentioned at all.
Perhaps you should look at that page again. It says "3 ounce or smaller." 3.4 ounces is not smaller, so it won't fly. Below it then states "3.4 ounce bottle or less." Inconsistency on the same page.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 2:11 pm
  #158  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Look, the TSA loves its little acronyms and cute sayings. VIPR, SPOT, etc.

3.4-1-1 doesn't sound as cute and cuddly to the TSA as 3-1-1. They likely don't want to spend the money to fix their signs.

Besides, it would also admit that the TSA is wrong, and we all know the TSA never admits making an error.

The closest thing I've seen to a correct sign was a hand-written one in Philadelphia's D Concourse during the construction last year, taped to a temporary wall saying it's 3.4 oz.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:20 pm
  #159  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:13 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:24 pm
  #160  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,251
The whole thing of shoes comming off is stupid non sense
coachrowsey is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:25 pm
  #161  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,944
Originally Posted by Bart View Post

Some of you will insist on holding your breath until you're blue in the face.
And based on personal experience, many TSO do not follow the policy.
Tom M. is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:26 pm
  #162  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Silver, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I would think that when TSA funds the replacement signs that someone will come up with a more accurate public information campaign.

Your comparison to speed limits doesn't cut it with me. Nice try.
Maybe they should have spent the money on the new cop uniforms on that then. @:-) Or is TSA more about show rather than truth and accuracy?
Superguy is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:35 pm
  #163  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,582
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I'm not calling Blogger Bob a liar. I am simply stating what the correct procedure is. The policy is that TSOs will not correct passengers or force them to put the shoes on the conveyor belt. I've said this in previous posts, and it's consistent with what Blogger Bob is saying on the TSA site.

I'm also saying that if an x-ray operator cannot properly clear images of shoes, whether they are laid directly on the belt or not, then that operator will summon a bag check. If you place your shoes directly on the belt, you increase the likelihood of the x-ray operator being able to clear them without further inspection.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not you put the shoes on the conveyor belt. But you now have some additional insight that may make your security screening a little more smoother.

Some of you will insist on holding your breath until you're blue in the face.

Strange, the DFW TDC drone who clearly stated that shoes must be on the belt did not say they could be in a bin if one so desired.

So is this another of your well trained TSO's just making up rules at the checkpoint or is this another case of TSA rolling out a policy without any thought to the implications of how it would be implemented?

It certainly didn't sound like there was a choice in the matter.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:35 pm
  #164  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Whether your realize it or not, you just repeated what I said. If the operator can clear the shoes whether inside a bin or in a bag, then the items are clear. If not, then the operator will call a bag check. It's the same thing, you just don't realize it. (Rescreening is always an option but is not mandatory).

Bottom line: you can either help out the x-ray operator or risk spending a little bit more time at the checkpoint. It IS up to you, pal.
Actually, I did not repeat what you said. You said that the SOP is still in place, but it is not being enforced. If that is the case, under what authority do you have to tell your TSO's to ignore the procedure? It has a chilling effect if the policy is in place, but not being enforced until a lone TSO decides to do so.

I agree that in practice, the outcome is probably generally the same. But at any time prior to screening, a TSO can tell me to put my shoes on the belt. If that SOP is in place, then I can't say no. If it is not in place, I can tell him that it is recommended to do so, but not required (and then I will be off to my "continuous secondary screening").

And I don't think that it is current policy. The reason - liability. If it is only recommended, but not required, any damages done to shoes can much more readily be avoided.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Aug 23, 09, 3:39 pm
  #165  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering expat
Posts: 41,543
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I'm not calling Blogger Bob a liar. I am simply stating what the correct procedure is. The policy is that TSOs will not correct passengers or force them to put the shoes on the conveyor belt.
That is NOT what is happening in real life. Out of the last four times I've had the misfortune of encountering a TSA checkpoint, twice the TSO rudely pulled my shoes out of the pin and placed them on the belt.

Of course, in NRT, in HKG, in KUL, in SIN, I never had to take my shoes off in the first place.
halls120 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: