Encounters with the TSA

Last month fly from LHR to PDX out bound via LAX and home via ORD.

The flight out on UA was in 36 years of flying the very best experience
I have ever had. Excellant food and a crew whose service was second to
none.

At LAX we transferred terminals and had our first encounter this year
with the TSA. I was expecting to take my laptop out of the rack sack I
was carrying it in, one designed for computers and recommend by others
on this group. It did its job well except for this one time. It refused
to release the laptop for examination. Now why the TSA are incapable of
x-raying laptops in bags like most other security people I don't know
but of course the more I tugged the more stubborn the laptop/bag became.
An empty queue became a longish one and there was much teeth sucking and
tut tutting from the man behind Mrs Lansbury. The more he tutted the
more the laptop refused to slide out. In fact if the TSA guy had just
held the bottom of the rucksack it would have solved the problem but he
refused my polite request to do so and just stood there laughing at me.
In the end the guy in the queue tutted once too often and I enquired if
he had much money invested in his dental work. Solved the problem
because the laptop then popped out of the bag.

Placed my items in the tray and went towards the arch. As I did so I
took my cap off and held it so the TSA woman could see the inside. It is
normal in the UK to do this. She thrust a fist towards me and started
screaming but as she was incapable of speaking clear English and was
screaming I couldn't understand what she was saying. A guy behind me
came up and told me she wanted me to put my cap back on, which I did.
This resulted in her pushing me back as I went to go through the arch
and more screaming. The guy then said she wants you to take your cap off
walked back behind the yellow line on our side of the arch and put your
cap back on. This I did and went through no problems. Collected my gear
and turned to see where Mrs Lansbury was. She was on a chair, no shoes,
clothing in disarray being wanded by two TSA staff who had the wand up
the inside of her blouse and were not being careful as to want might be
being shown to the male passengers walking past. After much discussing
and wanding and prodding of her body, all in public view, they decided
her bra fastener had set the detector off and let her through. We
reached PDX without further incident but she was very embarrassed by the
fact that she had been searched in public view, she understood why but
not the how.

On the way home we checked in our four very large cases, Mrs Lansbury is
American and only buys her clothes when we are in the US not liking the
English fit or style, and promptly got selected to have them randomly
searched. The UA check in woman was very helpful directed me where to
take the cases while she finished printing out the luggage tags and then
came over, put them on the bags and gave us our boarding cards. The bags
were left to be checked as the TSA would then hand them bag to the
airline. There was more bags there then they could cope with and they
were first sorted into flight departure times, for checking later. In
fact they only opened one of the four bags, the one Mrs Lansbury had
packed her favourite brand of orange grease remover in which she swears
England has no equivalent of. The TSA had opened and then not screwed
the cap back on it properly so it had leaked over the contents of the
bag. Fortunately the bag with older clothing in and it washed out ok.

At security the laptop came out first time a good start I thought, I
emptied my pockets into the tray and went to walk through the arch, (no
cap this time it went in my carry on at check in). Stopped going through
the arch told to take my watch off. Place watch in another tray and go
to walk through the arch. Stopped and told to take my trouser belt off.
I said it hasn't caused any problems anywhere else and got told "We keep
our machines set on a much more sensitive setting than other
airports.You haven't travelled through Portland before". Not the sort of
thing to be saying in public, still go back take my watch off and put it
in a tray and go to walk through the arch. Get stopped for a third time
and told to take my shoes off. I do so go back put them in a tray and go
through the arch. As I go through I said to the guy wouldn't it have
been easier to mention all three items in one go to which he replied
"Teach you to do it properly next time". I amazed myself at the self
control I exhibited while I bite my tongue.

Spent a pleasant hour in the Red Carpet Club and go to the gate. As we
sit down the woman on the seat opposite reaches into her bag pulls out
her knitting along with two large knitting needles and proceeds to click
away. Which I think just about sums up the professionalism or lack
thereof of the TSA.
--
Lansbury

Lansbury wrote:

As we sit down the woman on the seat opposite reaches into her bag
pulls out her knitting along with two large knitting needles and
proceeds to click away. Which I think just about sums up the
professionalism or lack thereof of the TSA.

Knitting needles are now allowed by TSA rules, as are some types of
scissors and tweezers, but you can't carry a pair of pliers.

http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib..._16_2003v2.pdf

It just about sums up how arbitrary the rules are. I especially like
the following sections when juxtaposed:

- If you bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, you may be
criminally and/or civilly
prosecuted ...

- To ensure everyone’s security, the screener may determine that an item
not on the
prohibited items chart is prohibited.

I also like this quote in another part of their site:

"TSA has instructed all Screeners that passengers are NOT required to
remove their shoes. However, if your shoes alarm while proceeding
through the metal detector, you will be subjected to a secondary
screening."

On a recent trip, the screeners were asking everyone to remove their
shoes "to speed up the screening process." I was wearing sneakers, and
said that they should be OK. I wore them through the magnetic detector,
which did not alarm, but was directed to secondary screening so they
could take a swab of my shoes. It's a catch 22, you don't have to take
of your shoes, but you will be automatically subjected to secondary
screening. How duplicitous can they get?

How about if you Doug & Wendy Whiner types just go to the TSA website, PRINT
a copy of the rules and carry them with you when you travel. That way, you
can argue with the TSA until the cows come home, or they toss you in a
holding pen.

ITS NOT GOING TO CHANGE! You are ALWAYS going to find a TSA screener who's
either on a power trip that day, or just plain on the rag. (never travel
the 3rd week of any month ;-)

Your choice is not to travel, but I highly suggest you think twice before
arguing with a TSA screener. Your civil rights don't mean SQUAT where
national security is concerned. Airport and airliner safety has been deemed
a National Security Issue, therefore, you don't have a leg to stand on, and
you're ****ed!

If the rules say you don't have to take off your shoes, TELL them, then SHOW
them their own rules. Then, please come back and report to us how well you
enjoyed having a fist shoved up your ass during your body cavity search for
being a security risk, or in the very least, a security dissenter.

Not everyone who objects to security has something to hide, but the TSA
screeners are trained to immediately suspect that they do. THERE CAN BE NO
public objection to the screening process that works, if a loop hole is
found, it has to be closed before some terrorist asshole uses it and the
next plane you are on takes a nose dive into your Aunt Minnie's high rise
apartment building!

The more people complain about certain issues, the more issues are added to
screener's routines. In other words, bitching only makes it worse.

In the alternative, go to Egypt and pull that bitch and complain **** on El
Al and see how long it takes you to get out of an Egyptian jail.

Welcome Aboard!



"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Lansbury wrote:

As we sit down the woman on the seat opposite reaches into her bag
pulls out her knitting along with two large knitting needles and
proceeds to click away. Which I think just about sums up the
professionalism or lack thereof of the TSA.

Knitting needles are now allowed by TSA rules, as are some types of
scissors and tweezers, but you can't carry a pair of pliers.


http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...10_16_2003v2.p
df

It just about sums up how arbitrary the rules are. I especially like
the following sections when juxtaposed:

- If you bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, you may be
criminally and/or civilly
prosecuted ...

- To ensure everyone's security, the screener may determine that an item
not on the
prohibited items chart is prohibited.

I also like this quote in another part of their site:

"TSA has instructed all Screeners that passengers are NOT required to
remove their shoes. However, if your shoes alarm while proceeding
through the metal detector, you will be subjected to a secondary
screening."

On a recent trip, the screeners were asking everyone to remove their
shoes "to speed up the screening process." I was wearing sneakers, and
said that they should be OK. I wore them through the magnetic detector,
which did not alarm, but was directed to secondary screening so they
could take a swab of my shoes. It's a catch 22, you don't have to take
of your shoes, but you will be automatically subjected to secondary
screening. How duplicitous can they get?

In DEN, the airport screener told me that my shoes probably contained a
metal shunt that was likely to set off the detectors, so he asked me to take
them off and run them through the x-ray. In FLL, I saw many people
voluntarily taking their shoes off, although I did not (and I didn't ding
for it).

Tom Smith


If the rules say you don't have to take off your shoes, TELL them, then
SHOW
them their own rules. Then, please come back and report to us how well
you
enjoyed having a fist shoved up your ass during your body cavity search
for
being a security risk, or in the very least, a security dissenter.

Not everyone who objects to security has something to hide, but the TSA
screeners are trained to immediately suspect that they do. THERE CAN BE
NO
public objection to the screening process that works, if a loop hole is
found, it has to be closed before some terrorist asshole uses it and the
next plane you are on takes a nose dive into your Aunt Minnie's high rise
apartment building!

The more people complain about certain issues, the more issues are added
to
screener's routines. In other words, bitching only makes it worse.

In the alternative, go to Egypt and pull that bitch and complain **** on
El
Al and see how long it takes you to get out of an Egyptian jail.

Welcome Aboard!



"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Lansbury wrote:

As we sit down the woman on the seat opposite reaches into her bag
pulls out her knitting along with two large knitting needles and
proceeds to click away. Which I think just about sums up the
professionalism or lack thereof of the TSA.

Knitting needles are now allowed by TSA rules, as are some types of
scissors and tweezers, but you can't carry a pair of pliers.



http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...10_16_2003v2.p
df

It just about sums up how arbitrary the rules are. I especially like
the following sections when juxtaposed:

- If you bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, you may be
criminally and/or civilly
prosecuted ...

- To ensure everyone's security, the screener may determine that an item
not on the
prohibited items chart is prohibited.

I also like this quote in another part of their site:

"TSA has instructed all Screeners that passengers are NOT required to
remove their shoes. However, if your shoes alarm while proceeding
through the metal detector, you will be subjected to a secondary
screening."

On a recent trip, the screeners were asking everyone to remove their
shoes "to speed up the screening process." I was wearing sneakers, and
said that they should be OK. I wore them through the magnetic detector,
which did not alarm, but was directed to secondary screening so they
could take a swab of my shoes. It's a catch 22, you don't have to take
of your shoes, but you will be automatically subjected to secondary
screening. How duplicitous can they get?

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:21:23 GMT, "Thomas Smith"
-NO-SPAM wrote:

In DEN, the airport screener told me that my shoes probably contained a
metal shunt that was likely to set off the detectors, so he asked me to take
them off and run them through the x-ray. In FLL, I saw many people
voluntarily taking their shoes off, although I did not (and I didn't ding
for it).

At some point after its inception the TSA decided that all shoes had
to be x-rayed, not just those likely to trigger the detector. This
was bloody annoying to those of us who are experienced enough to know
the issues, and deliberately wear clothing that won't (e.g. shoes with
absolutely no metal in them at all, belts with plastic buckles, and so
on).

Then the TSA head office came out with the "clarification" that if you
didn't take off your shoes, you'd be subject to secondary inspection
if they triggered the alarm (well, duh!).

This appears to be bureaucrat-speak for the current situation, which
is that if you opt not to remove your shoes, you will be subject to
secondary inspection for the suspicious act of not removing your
shoes, whether or not the shoes trigger the metal detector.

I can partially understand the dilema, given that the incident they
are trying to prevent reoccurring (Richard Reid) didn't involve metal
in the shoes anyway, so the things wouldn't have triggered the
detector, so they want to *either* x-ray *or* swab your shoes. The
annoyance is the farce of suggesting that taking your shoes off is
*optional*.

Tom Smith
[ Snip ]

On a recent trip, the screeners were asking everyone to remove their
shoes "to speed up the screening process." I was wearing sneakers, and
said that they should be OK. I wore them through the magnetic detector,
which did not alarm, but was directed to secondary screening so they
could take a swab of my shoes. It's a catch 22, you don't have to take
of your shoes, but you will be automatically subjected to secondary
screening. How duplicitous can they get?

Malc.

"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:21:23 GMT, "Thomas Smith"
-NO-SPAM wrote:

In DEN, the airport screener told me that my shoes probably contained a
metal shunt that was likely to set off the detectors, so he asked me to
take
them off and run them through the x-ray. In FLL, I saw many people
voluntarily taking their shoes off, although I did not (and I didn't ding
for it).

At some point after its inception the TSA decided that all shoes had
to be x-rayed, not just those likely to trigger the detector. This
was bloody annoying to those of us who are experienced enough to know
the issues, and deliberately wear clothing that won't (e.g. shoes with
absolutely no metal in them at all, belts with plastic buckles, and so
on).


This requirement was put into place immediately after the Richard Reid
incident on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami. It was put
into place to relieve customer concerns since this was not being checked
routenely. I've noticed they now do shoe checks whenever they go to the
"Orange" alert level.

Then the TSA head office came out with the "clarification" that if you
didn't take off your shoes, you'd be subject to secondary inspection
if they triggered the alarm (well, duh!).


I think it is an option as an additional security item at some airports, and
may be a standard requirement at Code Orange.

This appears to be bureaucrat-speak for the current situation, which
is that if you opt not to remove your shoes, you will be subject to
secondary inspection for the suspicious act of not removing your
shoes, whether or not the shoes trigger the metal detector.


I know if you beep, you immediately go for secondary inspection immediaely.
In Denver, I beeped and was immediately sent to a holding pen to wait for
secondary screening. The holding pen is a hallway only about three feet
wide, and the walls are ten feet wide on the side, and five feet in front
where there is a door. It is glass, and open at the frunt, but it is still
quite closterphobic. They say I beeped because I touched the side of the
machine, but I dispute this. I suspect that I beeped because I forgot to
remove my pocket change.

I can partially understand the dilema, given that the incident they
are trying to prevent reoccurring (Richard Reid) didn't involve metal
in the shoes anyway, so the things wouldn't have triggered the
detector, so they want to *either* x-ray *or* swab your shoes. The
annoyance is the farce of suggesting that taking your shoes off is
*optional*.


Remember immediately after 9/11 when they banned fingernail clippers,
disposable razors, and corkscrews? The banned items list seems to be more
of a work in progress than a set list. The allowance for things that aren't
on the list to be banned are designed to give the airport screeners
discression to impound anything they see that is dangerous that is not
otherwise on the list. After all, no one seemed to think box cutters were
dangerous, either.

Tom Smith

In message , Malcolm Weir
writes
I can partially understand the dilema, given that the incident they
are trying to prevent reoccurring (Richard Reid) didn't involve metal
in the shoes anyway

Nor did it involve being searched by Americans.

, so the things wouldn't have triggered the
detector, so they want to *either* x-ray *or* swab your shoes.

But they don't swab your shoes if you take them off. So if the explosive
is transparent to x-ray [is that what you are saying?] then the best
strategy for the terrorist is to take his shoes off.

The annoyance is the farce of suggesting that taking your shoes off is
*optional*.

There was once the suggestion that the UK's photo driving licence was an
*optional* ID card, in the sense that you weren't forced to have a
driving licence. (And in the UK, unlike the USA, they mostly aren't any
use other than as proof of driving ability).
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 12:23:55 GMT, "None" wrote:

[ Snip ]

ITS NOT GOING TO CHANGE! You are ALWAYS going to find a TSA screener who's
either on a power trip that day, or just plain on the rag. (never travel
the 3rd week of any month ;-)

One is amused at the profound depth of ignorance of human biology
demonstrated here!

[ Snip ]

Not everyone who objects to security has something to hide, but the TSA
screeners are trained to immediately suspect that they do. THERE CAN BE NO
public objection to the screening process that works, if a loop hole is
found, it has to be closed before some terrorist asshole uses it and the
next plane you are on takes a nose dive into your Aunt Minnie's high rise
apartment building!

This is a totally bogus argument.

The more people complain about certain issues, the more issues are added to
screener's routines. In other words, bitching only makes it worse.

It depends *how* you "bitch". The most, and indeed possibly the only,
effective way is to *quietly* take notes of the screener's name and
then send a complaint to the TSA after you leave the airport...

In the alternative, go to Egypt and pull that bitch and complain **** on El
Al and see how long it takes you to get out of an Egyptian jail.

That may make more sense if the posted had written "Tel Aviv" and
Israeli...

Malc.

None wrote:

How about if you Doug & Wendy Whiner types just go to the TSA
website, PRINT a copy of the rules and carry them with you when you
travel. That way, you can argue with the TSA until the cows come
home, or they toss you in a holding pen.

As I pointed out, the rules are so vague that printing them is a waste
of time. I know of photographers who have printed out the sections
stating that hand inspection of film is an option, only to be told at
the security check to put the film through the scanner and don't argue.
So much for a written policy.

You seem to readily accept the arbitrary and nasty nature of security
inspections as acceptable. Some political beliefs, such as Fascism,
believe in the supremacy of the state, forced oppression of opposition,
and severe social regimentation. The security inspections haven't
reached that level - yet.

ITS NOT GOING TO CHANGE! You are ALWAYS going to find a TSA screener who's
either on a power trip that day ...

Sure it can change. If enough passengers make their views known to
airlines and government representatives, it will not be left as it is.
There have already been changes as a result of political pressure, such
as relaxing restrictions on certain items, and the allowance of separate
lines for premium passengers.

The more people complain about certain issues, the more issues are added to
screener's routines. In other words, bitching only makes it worse.

Wrong. Only someone who readily accepts subjugation believes in giving
up. Arguing with a screener about arbitrary policies and practices will
not achieve much, other than frustration. Expressing displeasure to
politicians is more effective.

In the alternative, go to Egypt and pull that bitch and complain **** on El
Al and see how long it takes you to get out of an Egyptian jail.

Been there. The security is much more straight-forward. They hand
checked film on request, and you had to submit to a body pat-down. The
rules were clear, they were professional, and it took less time than the
Keystone Kops exercise at many US airports.

Welcome Aboard!

James Robinson wrote in message

It just about sums up how arbitrary the rules are. I especially like
the following sections when juxtaposed:

- If you bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, you may be
criminally and/or civilly prosecuted ...

- To ensure everyone's security, the screener may determine that an item
not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 12:23:55 GMT in rec.travel.air, "None"
wrote:

Your civil rights don't mean SQUAT where
national security is concerned. Airport and airliner safety has been deemed
a National Security Issue, therefore, you don't have a leg to stand on, and
you're ****ed!

bull****. you obviously haven't read the constitution.