Lighters to be Allowed on Airliners Again

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm

Quote:

---

New Policies for Lighters and Breast Milk

In an effort to concentrate resources on detecting explosive threats, TSA will no longer ban common lighters in carry-on luggage starting August 4, 2007. Torch lighters remain banned in carry-ons.

Lifting the lighter ban is consistent with TSA's risk-based approach to aviation security. First and foremost, lighters no longer pose a significant threat. Freeing security officers up from fishing for 22,000 lighters every day (the current number surrendered daily across the country) enables them to focus more on finding explosives, using behavior recognition, conducting random screening procedures and other measures that increase complexity in the system, deterring terrorists. The U.S. is the only country in the world to ban lighters – all other nations, including Israel and the U.K., do not.

TSA is also modifying the rules associated with carrying breast milk through security checkpoints. Mothers flying with, and now without, their child will be permitted to bring breast milk in quantities greater than three ounces as long as it is declared for inspection at the security checkpoint. Breast milk is in the same category as liquid medications. Now, a mother flying without her child will be able to bring breast milk through the checkpoint, provided it is declared prior to screening.

---

According to a graphic on the linked page, TSA screeners confiscated 11.6 million lighters in 2006. This item in their FAQ did make me laugh:

Quote:

---

Q. Does your lighter need to be in a baggie since it contains liquid?
A. No. TSA's common-sense approach harmonizes with worldwide standards for lighters.

---

I always thought TSA and common sense was a contradiction in terms :D

Just tonight I saw a TSA agent holding up a handful of lighters and yelling to the long line waiting, "Don't think you'll get past me with one of these! Don't bother trying to come through with them!" Sadly, he wasn't joking around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Just tonight I saw a TSA agent holding up a handful of lighters and yelling to the long line waiting, "Don't think you'll get past me with one of these! Don't bother trying to come through with them!" Sadly, he wasn't joking around.

---

Now that is sad and funny all at once.

Where was that Phil?

This comes down to money, we are spending a ton to get rid of the lighters.

JFK T4 Conc B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

Where was that Phil?

This comes down to money, we are spending a ton to get rid of the lighters.

---

So am I now to believe that lighters still present a risk but since they are costing a ton to dispose of the TSA is allowing them back? One can perceive this as putting security aside over cost. Its also raises question as to the validity of the liquid ban, if lighters were such a threat and now they aren't for whatever reason can't the same be said for liquids? Whatever the reason I'm sure Zippo is jumping for joy, they can once again sell their lighters in duty free shops all around the country.

I think something that allows for more effort to concentrate on finding the explosive material (such as a liquid) instead of banning very common triggers (a cigarette lighter) makes sense actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I think something that allows for more effort to concentrate on finding the explosive material (such as a liquid) instead of banning very common triggers (a cigarette lighter) makes sense actually.

---

Phil that wasn't the reason given as to the lift in the ban, the reason given was cost. So it makes perfect sense to assume that if costs increase in other arenas of security the TSA and or DHS may soften those rules as well. The liquid ban is a farce to as I've got water and gels through the X-ray device on my last few trips, twice was by accident as I forget they were in my carry on the third time I just could have cared less knowing they would have missed it couldn't be bothered to remove it and I was right. I'm finding that the TSA overlooks allot during peak bank times at airports. Coming back from Seattle three weeks ago the lines at SEA were almost out the door but they were spitting things out of the Xray devices like a factory producing whatever, it was basically "ok let go, get going, next, get going, next."

Here's what I don't get about the whole liquid ban to begin with, and why I think it's pointless...

If a terrorist wants to bring some sort of liquid explosive on-board or the like, but is only limited to 3oz and say needs 50oz to create a successful detonation, what would prevent him or her from having 17 of his or her friends, book tickets on flights going different places, all carrying 3oz of this explosive liquid through security. Once past security, the friends can rendezvous one or two at a time, each time passing off the liquid, until the main man is left with just over 50oz of liquid explosives...

This could easily be accomplished at an airport like say.... Atlanta, where hundreds of thousands of people pass through there on some days...

So what is this 3oz liquid allowance really preventing???

Feaseability is the issue with that idea though it could very well be done. I think the liquids ban needs to go away too because I am tired of spending money in every damn city I travel to on the planet at the airport for a flipping 24 hour stay for pleasure.

How about you go over to flyertalk.com to bash the TSA. Us locals don't make the policy, we are mandated to follow it though. The argument "well you can change it" isn't valid. I would like to keep my job.

I was as shocked as anyone about the reversal in policy as it goes for lighters. What was explained to us was the officers time would be better spent looking for explosives than lighters. The cost of containing the Haz Mat and removal is high which I am sure is a big factor. Also companies like Zippo have been lobbying and there is more of a chance an electronic ignition would be used as opposed to a flame. The higher intensity torch lighters will still be banned.

The risk of 17 people performing what was described is less than one or two people. Cutting down the amount of liquids was a risk based decision.

No use trying to argue with me because I have my own personal opinions of all this. I'll give you the company line, try to answer legit questions and joke with you. If you want to proclaim your opposition I really don't care. Like I said we are mandated to enforce regulations whether we like them or not.

Sorry Phil, if what you explained happen at one of my airports I could address it but JFK is it's own animal and I have enough of my own fun to deal with.

How about we not bash but be allowed to discuss the TSA right here?

So as of now, lighters are perfectly fine to use on an aircraft, but the TSA agent can take my bottle of Poland Spring, a major threat.:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Hold on while I step outside and beat myself senseless.

emshighway, I admire how you stick up for your employer. But the whole think is insane and AL Jazeeza TV probably loves laughing at these safety rules.

And before you even think of typing, just sit back and say this aloud to yourself:

"We can allow lighters (through security) on board the aircraft, but we cannot allow bottles of water through security."

And try to justify to yourself, not even me, that it makes sense.

I have to say, guys, that though some of the security procedures that are in place might seem a little strange, I always read criticism, yet I never see recommendations for CHANGE, or for what SHOULD be implemented.

There was a threat where people were going to use liquid explosive to detonate multiple aircraft. So they made rules that have to do with liquids. Should they have done nothing? What more can be done? The rule might seem silly, but even if it makes it just a little more difficult to carry out an attack, or to add an extra level of screening, then I'm for it.

And yes, Mario, a bottle of Poland Spring can be modified to sneak in a dangerous chemical.

One guy tried to light a fuse on his shoe that had explosives in it. So they banned lighters. Makes sense to me. What SHOULD they have done?

I'm not trying to defend the TSA. But it's impossible to make our airline system 100% free from the threat of terrorism doesn't mean you sit on your butt and do NOTHING.

Again, I see what I honeslty classify as whining constantly (not jsut here, but everywhere), but see no contribution towards positive change in improving airport/aircraft security in the present environment.

There is information of bottles which contain compartments that can hold explosives and/or chemicals which mixed can cause an explosive reaction.

Here are some links of what I am describing:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... xico1.html

http://www.victoriacollege.edu/policeac ... rtment.pdf

http://www.efindoutthetruth.com/diversion_safes.htm

Lighters can only hold a very small amount of fuel. Bottles can hold a lot more.

So now why should the TSA take your bottle of water? Do we know you? Do we know what is really in the bottle?

OK, so the majority of people flying are trustworthy. So should we take a chance and allow all or just some bottles when there is the possibility there may be something that can take a plane down. Do you want to be the one who decides what can go and what can't? Do you want that responsibility or it easier to say well, a quart size baggie with liquids in it is a reasonable risk?

Before I go further everyone please understand that I am posting my own views and am not "officially" representing any government agency here. I posted a comment about cost and TBird jumped on it as official.

In my personal opinion there is no reason to have lighters and/or matches inside a cabin you can't smoke in. But I'm not a smoker so...

I have seen a lot of intelligence which scares me. I got called in to work in the middle of the night when the British plot was discovered. Many of us shook our heads when the policy was given to us. I may not agree with the decision to ban liquids but it is part of my job to enforce the regulations of the US Government and I shall do it no matter what my opinion is.

There is new technology coming out which will scan liquids without even opening them. Should they alarm then they would be opened for further testing. Hopefully this will ease the present problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

And yes, Mario, a bottle of Poland Spring can be modified to sneak in a dangerous chemical.

but see no contribution towards positive change in improving airport/aircraft security in the present environment.

---

A dangerous chemical such as...lighter fluid? touche ;)

OK, I just read emshgwys post and links and I can see the point to a degree. UNfortunately these are all knee jerk reactions. The shoe bomber prompted removing all shoes prior to flight and on lighters on planes, the London Bombings prompted no bottles of water past security. These are all knee jerk to a degree.

God forbid the future holds a plot to smuggle crap onto a plane using tampons, or a pair of glasses, I cringe at what the next level of 'security' we'll see.


emshighway, Is there at least a department working within your ranks that is working towards thinking ahead of plots and towards implementing the best technology now? At least that would be reassuring to the public.


(BTW, I an not bashing the TSA. Recent flights through JFK, BOS, SFO, SEA, SMF and DFW did show some repectable TSA employees with the few usual imbeciles thrown in. There still lies a bit of inconsistency between airports. Hopefully the enemy will not see these as easily as I have.)

Again less than an ounce of lighter fluid compared to eight or more ounces.

There are several departments working different angles. Throwing out technologies without a lot of testing can be as damaging. One case is the ETPs (puffers). They were being tested but congressmen pushed to have them deployed (at their local airports of course). The initial screen time was 12-17 seconds. As time went on the times increased to 27 seconds. One person through a lane every 30 seconds becomes a nightmare. The deployment was stopped and the machines have to show consistent performance before deployment will ever continue.

The backscatter machine is great except for one little drawback :shock: . The system has been worked and worked and the present view has just an outline and is very vague except for any organics (weapons, metals, masses). But the stigma stays with the system so it is hard to deploy.

Equipment is getting smarter and smaller. Look at computers and cell phones. The progression wasn't overnight. It has taken about 20 years to get where we are now with those technologies. I had one of the first Motorola flip phones and it was huge. My first PC was $3000 now I am typing on a Ultra-Mobile PC.

Now onto the knee jerk reactions. So a threat is identified and terrorists are known to try multiple hits so what do you do? Wait and see if they will hit or put something in place to try to stop it? Someone breaks into your house through a window in the back of your house. Do you repair the window, take steps to protect that window but don't do anything to the front windows? Sometimes these are hard choices which will look stupid but do you do nothing and take the chance. How many congressmen and the media would be calling for someones head on a platter if something did happen. It is a no win situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

OK, so the majority of people flying are trustworthy. So should we take a chance and allow all or just some bottles when there is the possibility there may be something that can take a plane down.

---

We should just start profiling.... :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

OK, so the majority of people flying are trustworthy. So should we take a chance and allow all or just some bottles when there is the possibility there may be something that can take a plane down.

---

We should just start profiling.... :shock:

---

It was discussed at the beginning of the liquids ban but then the lawyers got involved.

Hey, it has taken hundreds of years for the government to be as screwed up as it is today. The TSA is only five years old, we are just trying to catch up!!! :wink:

Quote:

---

Before I go further everyone please understand that I am posting my own views and am not "officially" representing any government agency here. I posted a comment about cost and TBird jumped on it as official.

---

I simply responded to you're post. EMS regardless of what you post in reference to security you work for the TSA and therefore what you say maybe perceived as information you've obtained through work. In you’re comments you did say "we" which I think logically would be interrupted as the TSA, you weren't speaking from opinion but as an agent for the TSA, therefore my argument and inquiry are valid for discussion. The change in policy was perceived as cost over security given the fact a lighter was used to try to bring down that American flight. I think its fair for someone to ask “before it was dangerous and now its not?” Do you see the mix message here? Same with liquids, one-day liquids weren’t a threat the next they were. Whoever is speaking and reasoning these decisions to the public need to do a better job.

EMS you need to stop taking these arguments so personal. I have NEVER once said "EMS you're the problem, you suck, you're unprofessional." or anything to that nature. You seem to have allot of pride in you're work and I think that's great, its a serious job that sadly I don't see very many TSA agents in the New York area take seriously. Regardless if you think I'm a frequent flyer elite snob I do fly more then anyone on this site (except for Art at ISP) for business and I've simply been disappointed with some of my observations of the TSA. I think we can do allot better then what we have out there now.

Phil you're comment as to you simply hear us attacking and making complaints and not doing anything about it, I've been part of a number of passenger survey’s by the airlines, airports, and the TSA, so I have made suggestions. You might disagree but being my job is to travel so much, the airlines, airports, and the various gov't agencies that tax my ticket and benefit from the revenue I bring them...I have every right to point out faults that I see and so does anyone who faces an increased risk of a security failure because they travel so much for their livelihood. Before stating that you only hear complaints you should ask "what have you done to help make it better." I very often pointed out things that I've seen to TSA and local police while traveling. So to you’re point I have suggested change.

I know there's no simple answer to keeping people safe in the sky and the fact is anyone who flies on a regular basis have to resign themselves to the threat something might happen. What I ask and I've mentioned it in a number of my posts regarding the TSA is that consistent policy and procedure be followed with a professional sense of urgency. That in no way is attacking anyone or complaining its simply asking a gov't agency that is funded by tax dollars to do their job.

People can make personal comments about the TSA but when someone posts an answer they are taking arguments personally? This is such bull. Just like flyertalk all people want to hear is their side and people agreeing with their side. Have a different opinion then we are taking things personally.

With the amount of airports and personnel absolute consistency is difficult. Sorry, the threats aren't consistent.

Let's take the NYPD as an example or any large agency. With around 38,000 officers you will not get absolute consistency. They go by the Patrol Guide. Some of you have had different experiences with the Police while spotting. These officers do the best they can.

People are doing their jobs. Did you get past your own views and see that I wrote that I don't necessary agree with the policies?

Tommy,

Again, it's easy to find faults in the security process, but no one acknowledges that there are few, better solutions. As I said, I agree some of what's being done might not be the best, but I can't think of anythign better. Can you think of anything better? You say you have suggestions....I'm all ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

You say you have suggestions....I'm all ears.

---

Yes, let's here? You have someone who can send your ideas up the chain. Let's see what you got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

People can make personal comments about the TSA but when someone posts an answer they are taking arguments personally? This is such bull. Just like flyertalk all people want to hear is their side and people agreeing with their side. Have a different opinion then we are taking things personally.

With the amount of airports and personnel absolute consistency is difficult. Sorry, the threats aren't consistent.

Let's take the NYPD as an example or any large agency. With around 38,000 officers you will not get absolute consistency. They go by the Patrol Guide. Some of you have had different experiences with the Police while spotting. These officers do the best they can.

People are doing their jobs. Did you get past your own views and see that I wrote that I don't necessary agree with the policies?

---

I've never said you have to agree with me and I've read everything you've posted and I see you don't agree with some of the policies. Again I'm not arguing with you're point of view or attacking it, I was simply posing a question for discussion based on the information you posted. Each of us are going to have our own opinions, I base my opinion on the frequent I do. My observation is pretty objective as well; I pretty much look at each event for what it is. When I hear one person talk about whom they banged last night when they are manning an X-ray device its clear to me they shouldn’t be there. Also in no way are the posts in this thread anything like what is posted at Flyertalk, I don't think its fair to even compare. I’ve found flyer talk to be filled with non-business travelers who simply try to work the system for whatever gains they can get and if it doesn’t work for them it simply sucks in their eyes.

I'm fully aware not every airport is going to act the same way but some level of consistency is achievable in any organization. For a min look at if from my perspective. I travel 160,000 miles a year and for a month or two things are done one way, you go through the procedure and you're like ok this is cool and then BAM something changes and you are chastised for not following direction. Well how the hell do I know you're changing what was done a week ago, yes I know its to deter terrorists from finding holes but some professionalism would be nice. The TSA is in a strange situation, they're number one job is security but they are also in a customer service position as well.

I fly maybe on average one RT a month and I've dealt with some awesome, totally professional TSA agents, and I've dealt with some clueless agents on a powertrip for no reason, or who were too busy joking with each other than paying attention to their jobs. (In one case, my friend got a bottle of Gatorade through security, where the agents seemed to care less about their job and were too busy "smoking and joking" (haha I can't believe I just said that)). This, along with countless stories about similar observations by frequent travelers, leads me to believe that behavior like this, both positive and negative, happens all the time

Is there any type of CCRB or IAB division of the TSA? While I'm not such a fan of these agencies in many cases with the NYPD, the NYPD is a whole lot more of a subjective agency than the TSA is, and I think an oversight agency or a investigative branch of the TSA might do wonders to catch screeners slacking on the job or not performing in a professional manner.

Also, let me say that I don't fault TSA agents for the policies put in place by the "higher-ups" but I do blame the ones that slack on the job, treat the job as "just another gig to pay the bills", or who don't enforce the policies in a professional manner.

We all saw how four airplanes caused thousands of deaths, billions if not trillions of dollars in damage, cleanup and settlements, and how it propelled us into two wars causing thousands of more casualties, costing us billions of more dollars, creating a large political rift on the domestic front and causing a negative image around the world of the United States and Americans.

Airport security is a very serious matter, and we need people who understand this, and who are willing to accept personal responsibility for their job.

I believe this means either raising the requirements for the job, or having more oversight on the day-to-day operations of the TSA by an independent organization or the like....

There is an Internal Affairs group but they are small with only a few for a region. Local Transportation Security Inspectors do tests on a daily basis.

While the pay and benefits have gotten better than pre 9/11 you still get what you pay for.

Consistency is a pet peeve of mine but with the crystal palace changing the game plan it is had to get 45,000 people on the same page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Tommy,

Again, it's easy to find faults in the security process, but no one acknowledges that there are few, better solutions. As I said, I agree some of what's being done might not be the best, but I can't think of anythign better. Can you think of anything better? You say you have suggestions....I'm all ears.

---

I strongly believe the system should be re privatized or put in the hands of the airport or owner of the airport with strong regulatory control over the security of the airport. I believe very strongly that a for profit organization has a greater stake in identifying risks if they're profit is at stake. I also don’t believe that counter argument that is was private before 9/11 is valid. Its easy to assume if we take it private again the same thing will happen, the same thing can happen now. I just believe that when a company’s profit is at risk they are going ensure the regulations are meet.

Put someone in charge...port security is handled by god knows how many agencies right now. If you're not going to reprivatized airport security then put one agency in charge. If you ask the security Director at ISP who's in charge of ISP's security you'll get a million different answers, TSA is in charge of one part, Islip town is in charge of another, and Suffolk Police is in charge of another part. Put one agency in charge of the entire operation and have the others report into it. I reported in Sacramento to the TSA that a CSR at the WN ticket desk wasn't checking id, he told me that's not their area of control that I have to find a Sacramento Police officer. This goes to show that if one part of the pie isn’t accountable for another things slip through the cracks. One controlling agency should oversee the security of the entire port of entry and exit.

The nationwide roll out of an express lane for business travelers needs to be sped up, why no one uses it now is simply because not enough airports have it. I'm not even sure who's in charge of it? Is it a private company? This rollout should be in the hands of the TSA if it isn't already.

This next point sort of goes into the last point, to speed up screening all Gov't issued IDs need a smart chip to help better identify the traveler. A national ID is needed.

JFK, LAX, MKE, RDU, and TUL seem to have different standards for the size of the zip lock bag you can take through the checkpoint, why is this? This goes back to consistency, every airport should be following the same rules.

More supervisory visibility, there should someone at the checkpoints who you can easily be identifed as a supervisor. The white shirts all look the same and I don't know how to tell a supervisor from a regular agent. Managerial presence goes a long way in the eye of the consumer to promote the sense of accountability and professionalism. If someone who wants to do something sees someone of authority ensuring their people are doing their jobs they might thing twice. Even if its for show, the display of a leader is a powerful statement

Profiling, we need to start profiling plain and simple. The woman in the wheel chair who's almost blind and in adult diapers isn't going to hijack a 747. Why waste the time of two TSA agents to search her when Faham who's in his early 20s looking around like he's up to something goes on through? More random secondary screening of people meeting the profile of a terrorist should be done.

Screening cargo. Why is this such a hard thing to do? Is it that we'll slow down its movement from point A to point B? When I was at SEA three weeks ago getting a tour of Alaska's operations I asked them "do you screen cargo?" I got a look and they moved on to the next subject.

Tommy, I agree and I disagree. I agree that there needs to be more done here to standardize and I like the idea of privatization but if privatized make sure that the person speaks english and has a competnecy of someone to keep us safe. In the past the "security" was done by a guy who had just hopped off of an AA A-300 from the DR and spoke enough english to aks for id and boarding pass. Unacceptable.

We need to raise the pay on the screeners, put them through an indepth competency test, and than train them not only to identify threats but to address them as well.

As far as screening of cargo etc... I agree half and half. Coming from a family where my dad well stepdad is the president of a large freigh forwarding company and my mom the vp of ocean freight and I occasionally dabbleing I know the logistics involved there and to touch and screen every peice of ocean, air, rail and road freight is just about impossible. The other risk people do not take into account and overlook as well is UPS and FedEx. You put something in a package and it is on the right flight you have yourself an issue. Majority of FDX and UPS stuff goes unscreened. Some things to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Tommy, I agree and I disagree. I agree that there needs to be more done here to standardize and I like the idea of privatization but if privatized make sure that the person speaks english and has a competnecy of someone to keep us safe. In the past the "security" was done by a guy who had just hopped off of an AA A-300 from the DR and spoke enough english to aks for id and boarding pass. Unacceptable.

We need to raise the pay on the screeners, put them through an indepth competency test, and than train them not only to identify threats but to address them as well.

---

Ryan I think that's a give in...I also think that example can exist today anywhere in our society. As for training I know they do go through a variety of tests and classes. I do have to ask EMS what kind of soft skills or customer service training do you're people go through? This itself could be a key reason for some of examples we bring up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

I strongly believe the system should be re privatized or put in the hands of the airport or owner of the airport with strong regulatory control over the security of the airport. I believe very strongly that a for profit organization has a greater stake in identifying risks if they're profit is at stake. I also don’t believe that counter argument that is was private before 9/11 is valid. Its easy to assume if we take it private again the same thing will happen, the same thing can happen now. I just believe that when a company’s profit is at risk they are going ensure the regulations are meet.

---

The problem with airlines or airports having the screening is their interests are the $$$. In the past security was forsaken. With tight regulatory control private screening may or may not work. I know having the airlines run the screening was always a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Put someone in charge...port security is handled by god knows how many agencies right now. If you're not going to reprivatized airport security then put one agency in charge. If you ask the security Director at ISP who's in charge of ISP's security you'll get a million different answers, TSA is in charge of one part, Islip town is in charge of another, and Suffolk Police is in charge of another part. Put one agency in charge of the entire operation and have the others report into it. I reported in Sacramento to the TSA that a CSR at the WN ticket desk wasn't checking id, he told me that's not their area of control that I have to find a Sacramento Police officer. This goes to show that if one part of the pie isn’t accountable for another things slip through the cracks. One controlling agency should oversee the security of the entire port of entry and exit.

---

I worked at ISP so I can tell you exactly the deal there. Airports are responsible for perimeter and terminal security. The LIMA PD are only actually peace officers and have limited arrest powers. Suffolk County PD is there is pick up the slack. Do you really think a group like the Port Authority of NY and NJ is just going to step back and let one federal agency just run everything? It has been an uphill battle to get where we are now and it isn't the greatest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

The nationwide roll out of an express lane for business travelers needs to be sped up, why no one uses it now is simply because not enough airports have it. I'm not even sure who's in charge of it? Is it a private company? This rollout should be in the hands of the TSA if it isn't already.

---

You do realize all the registered traveler program does is exempt you from being designated a selectee by the airline? You will still need to go through the screening process. If you alarm you will still be going through secondary screening. Also understand that there won't be an extra line added but one of the lanes will be taken away from the rest of the passengers (if we actually do it). This will slow down the overall wait time. Some checkpoint I don't see there being a designated lane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

This next point sort of goes into the last point, to speed up screening all Gov't issued IDs need a smart chip to help better identify the traveler. A national ID is needed.

---

A lot of ACLU lawyers are pushing back on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

JFK, LAX, MKE, RDU, and TUL seem to have different standards for the size of the zip lock bag you can take through the checkpoint, why is this? This goes back to consistency, every airport should be following the same rules.

---

Quart size is the standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

More supervisory visibility, there should someone at the checkpoints who you can easily be identifed as a supervisor. The white shirts all look the same and I don't know how to tell a supervisor from a regular agent. Managerial presence goes a long way in the eye of the consumer to promote the sense of accountability and professionalism. If someone who wants to do something sees someone of authority ensuring their people are doing their jobs they might thing twice. Even if its for show, the display of a leader is a powerful statement

---

There is, look at the shoulder boards. One stripe is an officer, two a lead, three a supervisor. There are screening managers around but you probably never recognized them because they are in suits thus blend in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Profiling, we need to start profiling plain and simple. The woman in the wheel chair who's almost blind and in adult diapers isn't going to hijack a 747. Why waste the time of two TSA agents to search her when Faham who's in his early 20s looking around like he's up to something goes on through? More random secondary screening of people meeting the profile of a terrorist should be done.

---

Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers. As far as the elderly women, how do you really know it isn't someone in disguise? :roll: Items have been put on children and the elderly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Screening cargo. Why is this such a hard thing to do? Is it that we'll slow down its movement from point A to point B? When I was at SEA three weeks ago getting a tour of Alaska's operations I asked them "do you screen cargo?" I got a look and they moved on to the next subject.

---

Agreed. There is a program but it relies on the shippers to do the screening. There is also a program of known shippers. Cargo Transportation Security Inspectors monitor the cargo shipping by visiting the shippers but they would like to see something better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

As for training I know they do go through a variety of tests and classes. I do have to ask EMS what kind of soft skills or customer service training do you're people go through? This itself could be a key reason for some of examples we bring up.

---

The TSA officers are probably the most trained government employees. They have to go through three hours of training a week. There is classroom and computer training. Besides daily tests by inspectors, the x-rays machines run constant tests of images. Screeners must recertify every year or they are terminated (The process has changed a little with quarterly tests instead of one annual). This is one of the reasons for the reported high turnover.

As far as customer service it is stressed but you do get what you pay for...

DHS is routinely in our NY HQ office and wharehouses where we have them but the screening is extremely random. We have more screening of our paperwork than items in all actuality. We actually have a department if you want to call it that that is dedicated to those things and dealing with those issues.

Well you asked for suggestions, this is pretty much what I've put in the surveys and questions I've been asked. As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, I'm very well aware it’s not perfect and one has to accept the risk of air travel and what might happen. I'll be flying again this Friday so the dance continues. I will say its not all that bad to get through the checkpoint. I'm generally through in less then a min at ISP, its just a matter of knowing the routine and being prepared and hoping you don't get stuck behind Big Al who hasn't traveled since 1970 and has more metal on him then a bronze stature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

DHS is routinely in our NY HQ office and wharehouses where we have them but the screening is extremely random. We have more screening of our paperwork than items in all actuality. We actually have a department if you want to call it that that is dedicated to those things and dealing with those issues.

---

Those are the inspectors not screeners. The current regulations put the responsibility for ensuring the IACs (Independant Air Carriers) know the shippers they deal with and are trustworthy to screen what they ship.

Trust me no one in DHS likes this but there is big political push back on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Well you asked for suggestions, this is pretty much what I've put in the surveys and questions I've been asked. As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, I'm very well aware it’s not perfect and one has to accept the risk of air travel and what might happen. I'll be flying again this Friday so the dance continues. I will say its not all that bad to get through the checkpoint. I'm generally through in less then a min at ISP, its just a matter of knowing the routine and being prepared and hoping you don't get stuck behind Big Al who hasn't traveled since 1970 and has more metal on him then a bronze stature.

---

And I knew what the answers would be.

Thus you found the problem. If it wasn't for passengers this job would be easy!!! :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

God forbid the future holds a plot to smuggle crap onto a plane using tampons...

---

The Russian government blames two Chechen women for the bombs that simultaneously took down two jets after takeoff from Moscow in August 2004. It was initially speculated that they had smuggled the explosives on board via their holiest of holies. I'm not sure if the Russians ever definitively said this is what actually happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

God forbid the future holds a plot to smuggle crap onto a plane using tampons...

---

The Russian government blames two Chechen women for the bombs that simultaneously took down two jets after takeoff from Moscow in August 2004. It was initially speculated that they had smuggled the explosives on board via their holiest of holies. I'm not sure if the Russians ever definitively said this is what actually happened.

---

Actually was explosive filled bras. That's were the full patdowns came from.

And the ban is GONE!! I am going to test TSA in a few days bringing a lighter and putting it in one of the little change bins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuart schechter

And the ban is GONE!! I am going to test TSA in a few days bringing a lighter and putting it in one of the little change bins.

---

You do that!!