Kids Keep Shoes on in DEN/BOS/ATL/IAH/MIA - UPDATED

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by FriendlySkies, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    You took the words right out of my mouth....I was going to ask the same of you.
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Like puffers? Scrapped ...

    Like Nude-O-Scopes? Rolled out without being properly tested, rejected where they've actually been evaluated (Hamburg) ...

    Like technology that actually worked, such as hand-held metal detectors? They've been scrapped, too.

    We do have ETD swabbing equipment that alarms on hand lotion. :rolleyes:

    I can hardly wait for your next technology rollout. :D
    N965VJ, FriendlySkies and DeafBlonde like this.
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    He said "most airlines", and he's right on that point. My reaction is the same as yours, but the age limits at the 3 airlines I checked on were: UA 12, AA, 12, DL 14.

    His analogy is flawed but he's right with regard to the age requirement for unaccompanied minors.
  4. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Folks, we're all "unaccompanied" when subject to TSA feel-ups, no matter what age we are.
    My son started flying by himself to visit his airport-designer granddad when he was seven. A parent can get a pass to go with their child out to the gate. Then they are accompanied by the airline staff, per the rules Doober cited, if they need to change planes (as he often did at ATL). The 12-14 age rule is for no-assist flying.

    Thank God my freedom-loving father did not live to see today's TSA, or his daughter's assault at their hands.
    Body searches are even less defensible today because of the change in the TSA policy regarding children and shoes; for that I'm grateful to TSA.
    barbell likes this.
  5. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    It is not a wild allegation. It has been testified to and shown on video.
  6. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Bart, you can refuse to acknowledge this all you want. We've seen it. We've seen the female TSA clerk shove her hands up into the labia of that young kid of 13 or 14, Abbott's daughter, we've seen the back of her hands forcibly making contact with that girl's labia, with your colleague TSORon stating that this was by SOP. That genital contact shown is neither accidental nor incidental. The sliding motion on the front of the pubic bone is a molestation of the first order. That simply should not be done on a US citizen without probable cause. The sliding motion up into the labia and testicles and perineum is also a molestation of the first order and should not be done on a US citizen without probable cause. If you are close enough to make contact possible or most likely probable, then you are invading beyond what is reasonable.

    From the way you defend this, I am understanding that this is one thing that is NOT going to be changed by the new procedures you hint at. That is unacceptable. We could give a rat's butt about the shoes.
    barbell and Doober like this.
  7. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Happily, Mike informs us that this site will have an "ignore" feature in the not-too-distant future which I will use as I did at the other place. I'm sure there will be others using it also.
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Not sure why anyone would want to ignore bart here. The insight that we get from his posts is invaluable in understanding TSA at a local level.
    N965VJ and barbell like this.
  9. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Agree, we need to listen to Bart and other screeners carefully.
  10. Doober

    Doober Original Member

  11. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Guys, Everyone does this already. But personal attacks which add nothing to the discussion can and should be ignored; Doober's application of that to the non-substantive comment from Bart makes her correct (again), and it would be nice if that were acknowledged.
  12. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    This is really pointless. I find your comments lacking credibility. "forcibly making contact with that girl's labia"? Makes for great porn, and there are other sites where that's more appropriate just in case you want to get your jollies off that stuff.

    I realize that I cannot account for actions that occur at other airports. Or mine, for that matter. I don't work the floor 24 hours a day. However, I am very confident about my perceptions of how screening is actually being conducted. I'll match my hours on the floor against you or a combination of you and others; I still have more hours observing how screening is being conducted. So while there may be perhaps one example of screening that's gone too far, it is not characteristic of how it's done across the country.

    Here's my bottom line: children rarely get patted down under current procedures. It's going to be even rarer when the new procedures go into effect. I applaud TSA for finally taking steps towards real risk management. It's long overdue. I don't know how it will change other procedures, but I am told that this is only the first of many steps to come. I'm looking forward to it.

    I don't expect any of these changes to win you or others over. You seem pretty close minded enough. And that's certainly your right.
  13. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Believe it or not, I agree with you on most of your points. I don't know what happened to the Explosive Trace Portals (puffers). Here one day and gone the next. And while I understand the technology of the Cast Prosthesis Imager (Castscope), I think its design is flawed. (I'd give it concave features rather than the current flat ones because NOTHING on the human body is flat; concave features are more conducive to imaging arms and legs.) Before spending money on anything else, I'd concentrate on the checkpoint x-ray machine. With some exceptions, they are the same models that were used when 9/11 occurred. I find it appalling that TSA hasn't made any great strides improving THAT technology (there are newer models that have dual screen technology, and that IS impressive technology. Problem is that there's a limited number of them: I think these should be our primary checkpoint imaging system for property.)

    By the way, ETD technology works. When it alarms on hand lotion, it is most likely alarming on the glycerin component found in many lotions and soaps. The problem is not with the fact that it alarms on hand lotion. The problem is with how these types of alarms are resolved. The technology is doing its job. Glycerin is a key component. Unfortunately, it is also used in a lot of other non-explosive products. Removing the ability to detect it, though, would be unwise.

    I think integrating the checked baggage x-ray machines with the airline baggage handling system is the best move made by TSA so far. It greatly improves efficiency; if your bag doesn't make it to your plane, it's probably because you waited until the last possible minute to check in. Otherwise, we don't touch the bag unless it alarms the machine, and a clear bag goes directly to the aircraft. The best feature is that there's less handling of bags and that reduces on-the-job injuries. Back injuries are extraordinarily high among TSOs (I teach 'em to never trust a bag; always treat it as if it weighs 100 pounds no matter how small it is). However, with this efficiency also comes the elimination of a great number of baggage screener positions. As TSOs quit, retire or are fired, their vacancies will not be filled. And I don't have a problem with that as long as the technology is able to keep up with the pace.

    I will agree that certain procedures need to be modified. I disagree that there's anything inappropriate. That's the "field operator" in me assessing what is and what isn't a REAL threat. The quicker TSA steps away from the one-size-fits-all screening mentality, the better I believe it will be for you and me. Unfortunately, there are enough knuckleheads on both sides of this equation who are resisting this change. They are clinging to outdated risk avoidance; and THAT, my friend, is the Maginot Line TSA needs to avoid.
  14. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    I'm not so sure- I think everyone should be going through the same screening. X-ray of belongings, walk through / hand held metal detectors, and Explosive Trace Detection / Explosive Trace Portals.
    KrazyKat likes this.
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    If all the false alarms that occur with ETC swabbing are an indications that it's "working", the specs are wrong: A bad design, duly implemented.
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    If all the false alarms that occur with ETC swabbing are indications that it's "working", the specs are wrong: A bad design, duly implemented.
  17. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    The Master List of documents dozens of these if you are in need of facts. As anyone in LE knows, arrests and convictions reflect only a portion of the actual crime rate.

    These events are the product of TSA policies and employees, not wild imaginings.

    To what would you attribute the seven sex crimes by TSOs in the last nine month? Can you cite another organization with a comparable level of criminal conduct?
    Cartoon Peril likes this.
  18. RB

    RB Founding Member

    If ETD alarms on hand lotion then the technology does not work for airport screening.

    Either the sensitivity needs to be adjusted down or set to alarm on other compounds. My personal experience was an alarm on my camera bag. That bag was new, had not been handled much, had not been exposed to hand lotions or other common items yet it still alarmed. A FALSE ALARM that distracted several TSA employees from other screening duties.
    Cartoon Peril likes this.
  19. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Pshaw, next you'll say that false alarms, waste of time, and confusion actually aid terrorists!
  20. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    not porn, just an accurate description of what happened in that video. I would have convicted based on that visual evidence. I realize that what that woman did to the Abbott girl *may* not be SOP--that's your department, and it certainly is not done in all cases and perhaps most cases--it might be rare. In what I've seen personally, no screener came close to that. I'm curious why you will not comment on what you saw in the Abbott tape. Did that screener go too far? A simple question. If so, what can be done to prevent this from happening to people that honestly don't deserve it?

    Will only children--those of us less than 12--see these changes? If not, why won't risk-based changes be applied so that the bulk of pax can benefit?

    If only children (those less than 12 years old) will experience these changes, no, you won't win us over. If those changes extend to everyone, and they are indeed significant, they will be matched in changes in pax attitudes toward you. Of course. That is basic human nature.

    My close minded-ness does not result in my hands touching your crotch. So no harm there, I believe.
    DeafBlonde and Doober like this.

Share This Page