Encounters with the TSA

In message , mrtravel
writes

In the US, you get one bag, and one personal item.

When I last left the USA I had one rolling bag and a briefcase (the
check-in staff refused to let me check the bag on the grounds I was mad
not to take as a carry-on). I keep my laptop in my briefcase, and it's a
two-handed job to get out (one hand for the bag, the other for the
laptop) unless you balance the bag on your knee (hence the one-legged
part). John Cleese, eat your heart out.

You are also asked to take off top-coats, and as others have described
most of us take off our jackets as well (simultaneously removing
watches, shoes and so on).

The most recent place I was TSA searched (*arriving* at Atlanta), there
wasn't any room for anyone to "step aside", as the screening facility is
shoe-horned into a lobby with a queue of about a thousand people. [No, I
don't exaggerate, it typically takes 15 minutes waiting in a pretty fast
moving line].
--
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.

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.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:04:37 +0000, Lansbury
wrote:

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:38:06 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

More seriously, did she think he was
retrieving a concealed weapon?

No because if she had I guess I meant have been dealt with if a
different way. I put my cap back on and no attention was paid to it or
me at all. after I walked through the arch.

Someone at Heathrow suggested they could have a CCTV tracking system and
they were concerned it would photograph me without baseball cap and be
fooled when I put it back on. But the tracking systems I have seen are
far to complex to be fooled by that. It might explain why I had to go
back behind a yellow line before I put my cap back on.

I doubt it's a "tracking system", but in the (regular) event of a
security breech, they usually have a very good idea of who they're
looking for.

Presumably, though, the problem with removing your cap is that they'd
have *too good* an image of you, which is of couse far less fun for
them.

Still, the mind boggles gently, on the grounds that I frequently keep
a (flat) cap in a coat pocket and would likely habitually place it
there (together with phones, wallets, change) before approaching the
arch...

Malc.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 20:41:25 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

[ Snip ]

non-ferrous metal, and less likely to trigger the detector

Interesting hint for potential terrorists.

Well, for the stupid ones. The smart ones already know this. The
(alleged) government sponsored ones would (presumably) have access to
the screening technology so they can check what is, and isn't likely
to alarm the screeners...

A watch, on the other hand, is a big chunk of metal, frequently ferrous

Mine's titanium. Not sure whether that's non-ferrous enough.

Yep. It would be extremely unlikely to trigger a magnetometer
detector.

Watches (and other things that have to go through the scanner), are
easily stolen. And especially if you are being secondary searched,
no-one appears to be assigned to look after your valuables which are out
of sight at the end of the x-ray belt.

Well, I have to say on the few occasions that I've been secondarily
screened they've been pretty good about letting me ensure that things
are coralled. Of course, for obvious reasons, *I* can't be allowed to
handle my stuff before the screening, but they've at least assembled
it in a pile at the end of the machine where it has been visible to me
while the inspection continues (this was true of SFO/AA and DEN/All).

However, my normal technique to help address this is to place small
items inside pockets, briefcases, etc. which makes it much harder for
someone to sneak off with it...

Malc.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , PTRAVEL
writes
I'm still not clear about what part of, "remove all metal objects"
gave
you
trouble?

JOOI, do you recommend that people take off their wedding rings?

Of course not, for a couple of reasons.

But which bit of "remove all metal objects" is giving you trouble?

A little bit of common sense is called for, here.


It's this kind of attitude that "Rules are Rules", apart from when
someone says they aren't, that confuses the travelling public.

It may confuse casual flyers, which is why I support separate lines for FFs.


non-ferrous metal, and less likely to trigger the detector

Interesting hint for potential terrorists.

Gold, in sufficient quantity to fashion a gun or knife, would set of the
metal detectors.


A watch, on the other hand, is a big chunk of metal, frequently ferrous

Mine's titanium. Not sure whether that's non-ferrous enough.

I don't think it is. I used to have a titanium watch, but I put it through
the scanner anyway.


What's the big deal?

Watches (and other things that have to go through the scanner), are
easily stolen.

Yes, but there's a protocol for that, as well. I don't let anything of mine
be put through the x-ray until I can walk through the metal scanner. That
way, it doesn't wind up sitting on the other side while I'm waiting to get
through (a common mistake that thieves have been known to exploit). If, for
some reason, I'm tagged for secondary inspection, I insist that it be
conducted in sight of my belongings (that's a TSA reg, I think). I've never
been given trouble about that. Once I'm reunited with my belongings, I
immediately put my watch back on, my pen back in my pocket, etc. That way I
know that nothing's missing before I leave the TSA area. Once, I had my
boarding pass in my jacket pocket. When I put my jacket back on, my arm
forced the pass out of my pocket and into my sleeve. As I habitually
checked myself before leaving the area, I noticed the pass was missing from
my pocket. I told one of the TSA inspectors, who immediately called out to
all the others, who made a search for the missing pass. The possibility of
a lost item was taken very, very seriously by TSA.

And especially if you are being secondary searched,
no-one appears to be assigned to look after your valuables which are out
of sight at the end of the x-ray belt.

As I said, my understanding is that you have right to insist that your
possession remain in your sight during the secondary. When I've been tagged
for the "random" secondary inspection, it was either conducted within a few
feet of the end of the x-ray belt, or the inspector asked me which were my
bags and hand-carried them to a nearby table where the secondary inspection
was conducted.

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 20:51:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , mrtravel
writes

In the US, you get one bag, and one personal item.

When I last left the USA I had one rolling bag and a briefcase (the
check-in staff refused to let me check the bag on the grounds I was mad
not to take as a carry-on). I keep my laptop in my briefcase, and it's a
two-handed job to get out (one hand for the bag, the other for the
laptop) unless you balance the bag on your knee (hence the one-legged
part). John Cleese, eat your heart out.

You are also asked to take off top-coats, and as others have described
most of us take off our jackets as well (simultaneously removing
watches, shoes and so on).

My recent "train" through the x-ray machine was:

Laptop #1 in a tray
Laptop #2 in another tray (it's just a tiny Libretto, which I use as
a super PDA)
Briefcase (sometimes in a tray, too)
Rollaboard (which happens to be a camera bag)
Tray with coat and shoes.

So that's three trays and two bags, which is hard to carry!

The most recent place I was TSA searched (*arriving* at Atlanta), there
wasn't any room for anyone to "step aside", as the screening facility is
shoe-horned into a lobby with a queue of about a thousand people. [No, I
don't exaggerate, it typically takes 15 minutes waiting in a pretty fast
moving line].

Yep. Some screening facilities aren't setup for the newer policies.
One of the things that AA did at SFO (prior to the TSA taking over)
was extending the size of the tables in front of the machines so that
two or three people could stand and unload while another was heading
through the arch. Staff can easily skip ahead of the unloaders, which
is popular all the way around.

Malc.

Authorities in Tampa, FL experimented with a facial recognition system in
the Ybor City section of town (a popular night life area) from about 2000
until this spring. They discontinued it when they found they made no
arrests by using the system.

Tom Smith

"Lansbury" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:38:06 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

More seriously, did she think he was
retrieving a concealed weapon?

No because if she had I guess I meant have been dealt with if a
different way. I put my cap back on and no attention was paid to it or
me at all. after I walked through the arch.

Someone at Heathrow suggested they could have a CCTV tracking system and
they were concerned it would photograph me without baseball cap and be
fooled when I put it back on. But the tracking systems I have seen are
far to complex to be fooled by that. It might explain why I had to go
back behind a yellow line before I put my cap back on.

--
Lansbury

"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...
My recent "train" through the x-ray machine was:

Laptop #1 in a tray
Laptop #2 in another tray (it's just a tiny Libretto, which I use as
a super PDA)
Briefcase (sometimes in a tray, too)
Rollaboard (which happens to be a camera bag)
Tray with coat and shoes.

So that's three trays and two bags, which is hard to carry!

Then stop hauling so much crap on board. "Mayflower" travelers like that
tend to cause delays and unnecessary bag checks at the gate.

"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