Saturday Morning Strange But True...
Saturday morning, a Transportation Security Officer working the x-ray machine saw two razor blades in what appeared to be a book in someone's carry-on bag. During the bag check, the razor blades were found inside the pages of a Bible, and bag belonged to... a priest. Can't make this stuff up.
My job at TSA involves collecting, analyzing and sharing information. This includes regularly checking a TSA site run by our Transportation Security Operations Center that provides real-time reports on incidents that happen around the country. These reports include: weapons found at checkpoints, people behaving badly on planes, terminal evacuations, suspected IEDs, planes that lose contact with air traffic control and other incidents.
On any given day, there are dozens of reports sent in from airports ranging from routine to bizarre to truly scary. On Friday, we posted a story on our website about five incidents reported into the operations center that morning before 9:00 a.m. EST, including three guns (two loaded) and two knives found in carry-on bags. All of the people who got caught with guns said they didn't know the gun was in their bag, but the man with the knives said he knew he couldn't take them on the plane, but really wanted to anyway. He was arrested.From time to time, I'll be posting stories about some of the things in the incident reports that catch my eye and might be of interest to you. Have a good weekend.
Labels: mission
posted by Lynn at
9:02 PM
100 Comments:
Singing your own praises is fine, but few claim that airport security isn't necessary. Please don't talk about how much better you are than the absence of airport security, but only how you are better than commercial airport security in August 2001.
Note: I lean towards having the TSA, but I think posts like this serve no purpose.
February 24, 2008 8:37 AM
Anyone with any sense at all knows you're just trotting out PR stuff in an attempt to keep the masses afraid, very afraid. You're fighting a losing battle.
However, have fun and just keep right on trying to justify the existence of the TSA, Lynn.
February 24, 2008 8:53 AM
I have no issue with TSA keeping weapons off aircraft. My question, how did the person with the marijuana compromise the safe conduct of the flight they were taking?
TSA, Transportation Security Administration. Not All around Cop.
February 24, 2008 10:00 AM
This is an excellent idea. The public should be aware of what happens at the airports across our country.
February 24, 2008 10:05 AM
"Baton Rouge TSO Finds Loaded Handgun in Maintenance Worker's Vehicle"
I take from this article that TSA does not inspect all people or vehicles/equipment that enters the airport flight line/maintenance/operations areas.
Yet you screen my shoes and confiscate my commercially packaged bottle of water.
Seems to be a bit of a hole (the size of the pacific) in security here does it not?
Any respectable evildoer will figure this out.
February 24, 2008 10:49 AM
re: I am permitted 'Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches' in both my checked bag & carry-on baggage. Now, since most cutting shears are held together w/a simple screw,"
You can use your shive, correction, 7" total length or less screwdriver to remove the screw.
How about this, a woman can have a gel filled bra however I cannot have a gel insole in my shoes. My shoes are xrayed, is the bra?
Discrimmination base on gender?
I thought that was against US Federal Law!
Oh, thats right, TSA is above the law.
February 24, 2008 11:11 AM
I, for one, enjoyed this post. I think it's internet trolling in the poorest form to read people saying that it's PR. I appreciate that TSA is offering up this blog, I've enjoyed reading it so far, and it's explained some things to me in a way that (finally!) makes sense (and in a way that the security agents either don't have the time, the understanding, or the willingness to explain to me). Have you nothing better to do on a beautiful Sunday morning than throw negativity at TSA? What about planning your next trip?
I wish there was less security involved in air travel, personally. I think life involves risks -- there's no security check involved at the door when you go to the DMV, for instance, and you'll be there for at least as long as many domestic flights. That said, the government feels a need for greater air travel security and TSA provides it. Please don't criticize them for not only doing their job, but for trying to make their position as transparent as the law will allow through this blog.
And bloggers, keep up the good work! My only comment would be MORE POSTINGS!
February 24, 2008 11:12 AM
"people behaving badly on planes,
Just what does this have to do with the TSA?
You've been touting this in the "weekly report" for a while now and I have yet to understand why, other than the fact that a TSA screener (I simply refuse to call you "officers" because you are not) along with a LEO met the plane when it arrived at its destination.
It's a very sad state of affairs when you have to tout finding razor blades, "people behaving badly" and pot to try to impress the public that you're doing a fantastic job.
February 24, 2008 11:15 AM
To comment back to someone thinking drugs will not compromise the safe conduct of the flight. Drugs and alcohol are mind altering are they not? Depending on the person, drugs and alcohol may cause a person to act irrationally and cause a disturbance on the plane. This kind of stuff happens I am sure of it. So for the TSA to find drugs by mistake and then do something about it is a good practice. The TSA should continue to do this.
February 24, 2008 11:38 AM
Great. You captured some knives and guns. How did that keep me safe from terrorists? Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?
We're on a flight. Guy in seat 6C pulls out a razor blade from his book, stands up, brandishes it, and says, "I've got a razor blade, I'm taking control of this..." He never finished. Why? Because everyone in rows 5 through 7 inclusive just jumped him. He managed to cut one, but the rest restrained him and began pummeling him. Later that evening, in the hospital, the doctors figure it's just easier if they tattoo his feeding instructions on his head.
Scenario two. We're on a plane. Guy gets up with a gun and says he's taking over. People are a bit more scared. He runs up to the cockpit door and demands it be opened. Thinking back to what happened on 9/11, passengers in rows 1 through--well hell, all the way back to steerage class--get up and assault him. One of his shots pierces the fuselage, but since this isn't Hollywood, instead of the plane blowing out, a little dribble of air hisses out for the rest of the flight. His next shot hits a passenger, but then his neck is broken.
Now, I'm not saying I want guns on planes. No sir. And I'm glad you caught them. But do I believe for a second that any terrorism was prevented? Of course not.
As for the knives, well, let's just say I can render a soda can into a cutting instrument in about twenty seconds with my bare hands. I really wish you'd knock off your obsession with knives.
February 24, 2008 11:38 AM
@ txrus
You complain about security now about how most things do not make sense and such. Well if they wanted they could probably provide much better security but the public is not ready for that. You are not ready for that. You complain now and if the TSA had much more stern and strict procedures you would cry. Tell yourself this before you fly.. security could be alot worse than it is now.
February 24, 2008 11:42 AM
What do you mean "I think it's internet trolling in the poorest form to read people saying that it's PR"? THIS WHOLE BLOG IS A PR GIMMICK. Whether its primarily for internal or external PR could be debated, but its all PR. I'd ask what other government agencies are so under fire that they need to have a blog to attempt to justify their existence?
Sometime on 9/11 (God Bless UA93) the American response plan to hijacking changed. This has been the primary force behind the lack of further attempts. They know the rules have changed.
Once we locked the cockpit doors, the plane cannot be a missile. Its now just as safe as a bus or train (in fact safer if you look at accident statistics).
When will everyone learn that in a democracy we can't be totally safe from everything - unless you're willing to give up the democracy itself!
So please - feel free to look for weapons and true explosives - but joints, water, shampoo, razor blades, baby food, currency, gavels, and other stuff should be left alone.
February 24, 2008 12:01 PM
@ anonymous, Regardless of whether or not the flight is compromised federal law states that marijuana is "illegal" on a plane.
February 24, 2008 12:10 PM
I started traveling as part of my job back in 2000. At that time I carried a leatherman on board aircraft. When 9/11 ocurred I put it away before the ban on knives became official. The first Friday after 9/11 that air travel resumed I got up at 0430, turned on the TV and heard "this is the most people I've ever seen at O'hare," got undressed and returned to bed. I've been the subject of multiple searches first going into the concourse, then at each gate (interesting because I never left the concourse) and on one day I was searched 3X during connecting flights. Did this anger me? Yes. Was it professionally done? No. Roll the front of your pants down (done in public). After this happened several times I just unfastened my jeans and opened them for inspection. Much easier and faster. This resulted in threats of arrest (for what-showing my underwear?), not flying, etc. Greatfully someone figured out that the additional gate screens were ineffective, generated high levels of complaints and halted those screens.
Professional travelers want consistancy by TSA as to what we can and can't travel with in our carry-on luggage. I've seen people who obviously do little travel bring large containers of liquids to a TSA checkpoint (after walking past numerous signs in large print that tell them which items are prohibited past the checkpoint) vocally complain about the loss of those items. Also, when TSA employees rummage through the confiscated bin for goodies to take home with them I consider those who do that as nothing better than common theives since the original owners had no choice but to surrender those items.
One of the signs that really gets my ire up is the one that says "pack your carry on like this not like this." Who are you to tell me how to pack my bags? Your responsibility ends at the contents, not the way the items are packed. One of your coworkers wrote STUPID on side of a coworker's tool chest (in permanant marker) because it was difficult to search. TSA bought a new tool chest for him. You do have out of control TSA inspectors. You do have decent, caring inspectors. People remember the indignities heaped on them more than they do the acts of common courtesy by TSA staffers. That is human nature. Get poor service and upwards of 20 people will hear about it. Get good service and perhaps 6 people hear about it.
As to the knives, the aircrew secures the cockpit from inside. Pilots have been briefed and will turn a hijacking attempt into a vomit comet before landing. Other passengers will attack the hijacker. The American flying public won't let another 9/11 happen. I would fight a hijacker myself, using whatever was available.
Things have changed. When the threat level went from yellow to orange the only difference was the confiscation of liquids, difficulty in determining that 100ml is greater than 3 oz but equal to 3.4 oz (which often results in the 3.4 oz being removed). Inconsistancies result in anger by the traveling public towards whimsical/arbitrary made up on the spot rules.
How about charging realistic prices for water once we get past security? Yes, I know that airlines/airports have to make a profit, but over 100% profit on a bottle of water seems like price gouging especially when some airports lack water fountains.
Okay, you found some knives, guns, razor blades. I propose that much more than what you've found has flown given that nearly all of the airports failed the last unannounced test for explosives. The TSA staffers at O'hare actually appeared shocked when I said "don't take your inspection failures out on the traveling public. We weren't the cause of your failing." Apparently, the traveling public wasn't supposed to know about the recent test results.
February 24, 2008 12:16 PM
I'd love to know a little more about how the priest incident ended up.
Would the individual have been treated any differently if they were a religious leader of a different faith, with the razor blades in their own sacred text?
February 24, 2008 12:22 PM
@ anonymous, The TSO found the loaded handgun during a "random" vehicle search. The gate leading into the secure area is manned by civilian contractors(Not TSA)...So if the vehicle made it into the secure area it's the contractors fault that was manning the gate..The TSO that found the weapon deserves to be praised.
February 24, 2008 12:29 PM
TSO PHX said...
@ anonymous, Regardless of whether or not the flight is compromised federal law states that marijuana is "illegal" on a plane.
You job as a TSA employee is to keep a plane from being hijacked or used as a weapon. Period.
Under your concept ICE would not hesitate to pick up a suspect when notified by a local LEO agency that they have taken a person into custody that is not in the country legally. I'm sure you know that ICE often refuses to do so for any number of reasons. Selective enforcement?
Keep the weapons off the aircraft, no more!
February 24, 2008 3:43 PM
all its going to take is for someone on the plane to get stabbed and then guess who they'll blame. Oh sure right now they say stop harassing us about razor blades and knives. they should have a waiver all passengers (rather the negative liberals that post here) must sign at the gate. It'll state that TSA is not liable for your blame, when you have to play "HERO" on the flight because guns and knives are "not an issue". And the heroes will all receive a free "joint" at the end of the flight because TSA shouldn't bother with drugs either, since it is "beyond the scope of their search". OH PLEASE
February 24, 2008 3:51 PM
TSO PHX said...
re" @ anonymous, The TSO found the loaded handgun during a "random" vehicle search. The gate leading into the secure area is manned by civilian contractors(Not TSA)...So if the vehicle made it into the secure area it's the contractors fault that was manning the gate..The TSO that found the weapon deserves to be praised.
No aurgument that the TSO who found the weapon should be praised.
From there we will have to disagree.
Just because the TSA granted a contract for that function at that airport does not relieve the TSA from being responsible for the security function. Your agency is still responsible. The contract monitor failed to ensure that the contractor fulfilled their duties or possibly that the contract was deficient in its scope.
Your agency is by definition responsible for security at airports and some other mass transit facilities.
example-- I am a home builder. I sub-contract out to craftsmen. Overall I am still be responsible for the quality of the end product.
February 24, 2008 3:56 PM
re: Depending on the person, drugs and alcohol may cause a person to act irrationally and cause a disturbance on the plane.
Yes alcohol is a drug. Drugs should not be available on aircraft.
Can a plane be hijacked or made into a weapon with drugs?
TSA is suppose to stop hijacking or aircraft being made into weapons.
February 24, 2008 4:01 PM
Yes alcohol is a drug. Drugs should not be available on aircraft.
Can a plane be hijacked or made into a weapon with drugs?
-----------------------------
don't argue just for the sake of arguing. you said drugs should not be available on aircraft, so if TSA prevents it, leave it at that.
"TSA is suppose to stop hijacking or aircraft being made into weapons."
-thats where your wrong. have you actually read the other posts here? according to most, it is actually a part of the passengers job duty on the flight to "jump" and or "take down" the terrorist.
I have a suggestion:
how about all the complainers get on the SAME PAGE. should we really expect TSA to get it together, if the whiners cannot even complain consistently? lets not ask the impossible.
February 24, 2008 4:30 PM
Stabbed? Slashed? You can use an ink pen to do both of those. A #2 wooden pencil will do both of those. Improved weapons can cause serious wounds. Are they about to ban pencils and pens from aircraft? Probably not because no hijacker ever used those to commandeer an aircraft. TSA probably assesses risk vs reward for the bad guys and decided that the risks far outweigh the rewards.
February 24, 2008 4:41 PM
@ anonymous, TSA does not sub-contract. You are confusing what is the cities responsibility and what is TSAs responsibility. TSA is responsible for screening passengers and their belongings before they get on the plane.
The security guards strategically placed around the airport are not subcontracted or employed by TSA. They are either hired by the city or the airport. YOu will also see local law enforcement. Also,not hired by TSA.
February 24, 2008 4:49 PM
i too like posts like this. at least they're doing *something*. whether or not that something is actually useful is another story. perhaps i'm just drinking the kool-aid.
February 24, 2008 5:36 PM
@ Anonymous
"I have no issue with TSA keeping weapons off aircraft. My question, how did the person with the marijuana compromise the safe conduct of the flight they were taking?"
He didn't compromise the safety of the flight by carrying drugs, but he did break the law. When our security officers find drugs and other illegal items on passengers, they have to refer them to law enforcement. (That's because they're federal officers.) Once the handoff is made, and it's not our problem any longer.
What's interesting from our perspective isn't catching the drugs. Drugs aren't the issue. What's interesting to us is that the passenger's behavior at the checkpoint stood out from other passengers and got the security officer's attention, which led to the additional screening. At a time when anything can be a threat, it's important to look for people who want to do harm instead of only for the items they can use.
February 24, 2008 8:31 PM
Anonymous said on 24 Feb: "Great. You captured some knives and guns. How did that keep me safe from terrorists? Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?"
The delightful thing about this type of "experiment" is that the writer can make his presentation meet his requirment.
Okay, being the great american hero you are, when the bad guy pulls out his pistol you leap at him. Of course, you are immediately shot down. While you lie blocking the aisle with your screaming and bleeding, the bad guy grabs a small child and sticks his pistol muzzle in the child's ear. Shocked by the brutality of seeing you gunned down, afraid for the sake of the crying child, and unable to reach the bad guy quickly over your twitching body, the rest of the passengers hesitate, and once cowed, stay down.
Aren't fantasys fun?
February 24, 2008 8:58 PM
@ Sandra:
"people behaving badly on planes,
Just what does this have to do with the TSA?
If there's a disturbance on a plane, our Transportation Security Operations Center collects information on it. They are TSA's eyes and ears on the entire aviation system, looking for any issues that require attention. The operations center is in regular contact with the Federal Aviation Administration, FBI, other government agencies, local law enforcement, airports and airlines. It runs 24/7, and anytime a disturbance is reported, the operations center will report whether Federal Air Marshals or armed pilots trained by TSA (called Federal Flight Deck Officers)are onboard the plane.
The disturbances include arguments between passengers, passengers who assault flight attendants, passengers who lock themselves in airplane restrooms, and passengers who try to open the cockpit door - or even the cabin door. While most of these incidents are minor, having TSA eyes on the system at large ensures that if there's something out of the ordinary - or a trend of similar incidents -authorities can be put on alert.
Some disturbances get so bad that the pilot decides to land the plane before the final destination, and in that case, TSA personnel are often called to assist with any security issues. Our operations center may also coordinate with law enforcement to interview and/or arrest passengers.
February 24, 2008 9:30 PM
You know what the problem is ....
The public in general!
Everyone thinks they are better than everyone else and rules only apply to the other guy.
Get over yourself! You don't like the rules of flying .. Don't fly!
Plane and simple. Pun intended!
No one forces you to fly. And don't say your job does because you have choice's. You are just to lazy to make them and you want everyone else to make you happy!
It is a sad state (country) we live in with everyone wanting everything for nothing!
February 24, 2008 10:13 PM
Jack sez: first Friday after 9/11...
TSA wasn't around then. It showed up about Sep, at least here is MSP. Of course, to say that would make your rant less critical.
TSO-Joe
February 24, 2008 10:40 PM
TSO PHX said...
@ anonymous, Regardless of whether or not the flight is compromised federal law states that marijuana is "illegal" on a plane.
You job as a TSA employee is to keep a plane from being hijacked or used as a weapon. Period."
Go read what TSA lawyer wrote. If we find something illegal, we have turn it over to the cops. We are not looking for it, but if you're stupid enough to leave it out for us to find, you get to deal with the consequences. TSO-Joe
February 24, 2008 10:44 PM
Personally I wouldn't be flying anywhere if I knew what kinds of things security found before & after flights. It's kind of like fast-food I definitely don't want to know what all goes into it, just that I can eat and move on with the rest of my day. I don't like flying just about as much as I don't like flying. They both scare the daylights out of me. I'm just glad that there are people out there that are willing to work for TSA. Without them we would be in big trouble right now.
February 24, 2008 11:55 PM
It's amazing that people do stupid stuff like this, but I'm sure that you miss plenty of stuff because your screeners are worried about finding dangerous bottles of water instead.
February 25, 2008 3:34 AM
It's scary to think these people try to take dangerous weapons on planes. I wonder how many don't get caught.......
February 25, 2008 5:30 AM
do you guys know anything about the agents who posted the TSA Gangstaz video on youtube?
February 25, 2008 5:52 AM
Well whoopee! Let us know when you find some of those liquid explosives or bomb-filled laptops that couldn't be detected in the bag.
When it comes to guns and knives, people were stupid before the TSA. The only difference is that the firms doing the screening in the past didn't feel the need to congratulate themselves in the media about everything they found.
February 25, 2008 6:17 AM
screener joe:
The passengers are only going to hesitate for a moment. They're going to remember what happened on 9/11 and then realize that one dead child is better than a dead planeload of people along with whomever else is on the ground, and they're going to rush the guy with the gun, who has only so many bullets.
I believe this is often stated as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one."
Your fantasy is not plausible. Mine is. Hijackings in the US will never occur again, because the passengers won't put up with it. This has been demonstrated again and again, as anytime someone gets loopy aboard a flight, the passengers put the beatdown on them.
Confiscating knives is silly. Stopping guns, sure, but don't pretend that you're stopping terrorism with that.
February 25, 2008 6:33 AM
"people behaving badly on planes,
Just what does this have to do with the TSA?"
"If there's a disturbance on a plane, our Transportation Security Operations Center collects information on it...."
So this is part of your job. Now why do you feel you have to tell the world that you tracked 14 people making a disturbance on a plane? It's your job, do it.
When those of us in the corporate world do our jobs our employers don't normally use a blog to inform the world what we have done. It's our job, we do it.
When an organization has to set up a blog to let others know they have done their job, it is just a PR thing.
February 25, 2008 7:26 AM
@ Anonymous, When the day comes that you have to make a selfless sacrifice in order for other passengers to capture and take down a terrorist on a plane. Would you please come back here and report your story. Let us know if things really go down the way you describe and fantasize.
There are brave people in the world (on planes). There are also people who think they would be brave in a terrorfying situation only to later discover they are not. True heroes are rare. Most people lean toward self preservation.
February 25, 2008 8:30 AM
Guns and knives seem like the easy thing to find, How about finding the Explosives that have been missed by numerous airports when brought through to test security.
February 25, 2008 8:51 AM
I heard that the guy forgot he had it with him...
February 25, 2008 9:38 AM
@tso phx:
The lessons of 9-11 were pretty clear. During the attack the passengers on Flight 93, based solely on the information received from some in-air calls, were able to deduce that the terrorists were on a suicide mission, and that disobeying the terrorists as well as the established airline CONOPS to cooperate with the terrorists, was the correct thing to do.
Show me one example--just one--since 9/11, where someone attempted to hijack a plane, or bring it down by opening the emergency exit, or breach the cockpit, where the attacker wasn't set upon by fellow passengers. You can't, because there are no examples.
And as the poster pointed out, why bother confiscating knives, when one can make an excellent cutting tool out of a soda can?
Measures of performance that tabulate the number of seized knives are not the right metrics, because they don't tell us anything about attempted hijackings.
Seizing knives, and publishing the numbers does, however, achieve the goal of keeping the populace afraid. (They're confiscating knives, so they must be keeping me safe from all those evil-doers!) And, of course, it nicely accomplishes the terrorists' mission as well.
End the knife ban. It's silly. I want to be able to take my Leatherman tool with me when I travel (it's quite useful), but with the rampant theft as well as the extra time it tacks on the trip, I'm not checking bags.
Just say no to security theater.
February 25, 2008 10:52 AM
And just how many threatening liquids, aerosols, or gels did people try to carry aboard this weekend?
What is your detection rate? 80%? 51%, 99%? Embarassing and secret? (40%? 25%?)
If Al Qaeda was dumb enough to try 9/11 over again, you'd probably tell 16 of the 20 (that's 80% detection) hijackers to throw their knives in the trashcan, and wave them on through, and they'd pick up some nice shivs from their partners carrying scissors. The planes wouldn't fall out of the sky because the pilots would not let them into the cockpits and the passengers would knock them unconcious. Would TSA deserve credit for the save?
If you want people to take TSA seriously, you have to do more than act like Chicken Little and tell us how you've kept the sky from falling whenever you find acorns. I'm certain that TSA's detection process is not 100%, and that the 2,000,000 people you screen everyday are carrying significant quantities of prohibited items onto the planes to no ill effect.
TSA is not inspecting safety into the process by screening -- TSA is parading out a bunch of scary-looking false alarms and pretending they are saving us from death. Your warnings and hassles are a burden on society with no clear benefit.
Flying is safer than driving, and when the inconveniences and fears cause people to drive rather than fly, more people die:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March05/Sept11driving.pdf
People posting here as TSA agents advise people to drive rather than fly.
TSA is probably responsible for killing more people by causing them to drive than they could hope to save through screening.
Also, what is up with the multi-day moderation holds on comments? I've seen pro-TSA posts show up on threads long before my TSA-skeptical comments appear. Do you hold non-sheeplike posts for additional screening?
February 25, 2008 11:01 AM
NOT ARMS
PLEASE
February 25, 2008 11:03 AM
Boston Globe post regarding the TSA Blog.
February 25, 2008 12:42 PM
Nothing here suggests TSA is more than an employer of last resort. It has an added twist -- helping convince a sceptical public to embrace perpetual fearfulness. What's TSA's budget, USD$5 billion annually?
February 25, 2008 1:14 PM
Lynn,
Enough people have already told you what they think about your weekly statistics you post on your web site. I'll add to the opinions with one word: "pathetic".
In the interests of full disclosure, I dare you to add to your weekly body count with the following additional data:
1. More information about each of your victories. For example, how many of the fradulent documents were bar-hopping 18-20 year-old college students? How many were screeners who refused a perfectly legitimate government-issued picture ID (military ID, federal agency ID, etc).
2. How many of your victories had nothing to do with civil aviation security but were a result of the wide dragnet you've been allowed to set at an airport?
3. Now, here is the tough one: I dare you to develop statistics that compare your self-serving figures with security pre-9/11. Any statistician with a minimal amount of experience could take the figures over time of, for example, guns seized at checkpoints and normalize the raw numbers against a constant such as "guns-per-10,000 passengers" or something like that. My guess is that you have done this type of analysis and don't like the answer, which is why the analysis has never seen the light of day.
My hunch is that you would have the same results for each of the other categories Kippie likes to report every week.
Now, if you really wanted to be accountable to the people who pay your salaries, you would also cite these weekly statistics:
1. Number of screeners arrested for crimes committed while on the job.
2. Number of screeners fired per week for cause (could be different than the number arrested).
3. Number of complaints filed.
I'm open to other suggestions for statistics posting. It's important that the American people have the FULL TSA story, not just your self-serving spin.
David
February 25, 2008 3:02 PM
I'm not sure but would assume (yes, I know...) that items like box cutters and razor knives even though they have short blades will never be allowed back on an aitcraft simply because of 9/11. I'm sure the flight attendents' union would go nuts. With that said between hardened cockpit doors, FAMS, armed pilots, and the basis mental state of the flying public these days does anyone really think you would gain access to a cockpit with a box cutter, pocket knive, etc? If someone stood up and said they were taking over the plane and produced a box cutter in today's world it might be fun to watch the events that would ensue. I see posts here because people want to argue they can make a weapon from a pair of sissors...big deal. The point is they have to give some trust somewhere and yes, I can stab you with my knitting needles but will I take over an airplane.
For those who go off because of liquids and gels, I read things like "I see large barrels of them at the check points so they me be a real danger. No...they just can not go past that point. You can. The world is full of those who want to nit pick everything, always look for a lawsuit, and mostly feel rules are fine unless they interfear with me. I wait to see what happens if another event occurs....
February 25, 2008 3:25 PM
Baton Rouge TSO finds loaded gun - As a security professional (30 years, civilian, military, gov) why should anyone act surprised about a "hole". My questions to those who love to point out holes like no one has ever thought of that before are these:
1. How much of your money are you willing to pay to be 100% safe?
2.How much of your freedoms are you willing to give up to be 100% safe?
3. Do you really want to live in a world that is 100% safe.
The simple fact is that there are limited resourses and they all cost $$. You have to base all decisions off risk based decision making, i.e. am I better off checking those with direct access to an aircraft or do I focus on someone working at a project which has no direct access. You have wants and you have needs. Congress controls the purse and you have to bat 1000. I don't think I would want the job but I'm glad someone does.
February 25, 2008 3:34 PM
Stories such as this only serve to demonstrate the need to have a more robust way of preventing terror. If wheelchairs can be used to carry explosives as we have seen in Iraq, then any wheelchair, crutch, prosthetic device must be dismantled and searched at TSA stops. If drug mules can carry drugs in their body spaces, then all passengers must be searched for explosives and biological warfare agents by TSA agents.
It is time to get serious.
February 25, 2008 3:39 PM
@ anonymous, Honestly, let me be frank, your logic makes my head hurt. If no planes have gone down in the US from terror attacks since 9/11, how is it that TSA is not responsible for all those planes making it to their destinations safe daily?
Is it Luck?
The Terrorist have given up?
What?
I assure you people are arrested testing our security all the time. Terrorist have not given up they are just looking for that one moment, that one situation that they can exploit.
It's not uncommon for flights to have unruly passengers. It happens all the time. Flights are diverted, flights are returned to the gates. You are assuming that the person causing the disturbance on the plane was or is subdued by other passengers. On the contrary, the flight crew is quite capable of handling most situations. Not to mention the federal flight deck officers and the Federal Air Marshall's that are on the planes for passenger safety. These people aren't placed there because they like to ride. I have sent my share of Law Enforcement Officers to a gate to escort an unruly passenger off of a plane. In none of these situations has a passenger been responsible to subduing another passenger. The flight crew solely handled the situation.
Lets all hope and pray that no one ever has to again prove that they are a hero. No plane has gone down in the US since 9/11. I plan to do my part to help keep that streak going.
February 25, 2008 4:23 PM
PHX TSO,
Your statement that, "I assure you people are arrested testing our security all the time. Terrorist have not given up they are just looking for that one moment, that one situation that they can exploit." is pretty bold.
If that is the case with all of those arrests, I am sure you can point us to a few convictions of terrorists testing the system. After all convictions are part of the public records and I have yet to see the TSA tout such. If razor blades in a bible make the front page, I can't imagine why a terrorist wouldn't.
February 25, 2008 6:00 PM
phx tso:
I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. It really works. I've never been attacked by a tiger.
See the problem with your "logic". TSA has had zero to do with the non-hijackings of flights. It's all about the change in CONOPS since 9/11 (don't cooperate with terrorists).
Do you honestly believe that 9/11 occurred because bad guys snuck boxcutters on planes? No, it happened because flight crews were taught to be passive in the face of terrorism.
February 25, 2008 7:41 PM
Terrorist are already in the United States. They have been here for quite awhile. They didn’t just jump on a plane and arrive yesterday. I don’t doubt that more will be coming. The United States is not immune to the hate and devastation that is happening around the world. We have only been lucky. Terrorist groups are watching us and looking for our weaknesses. They are planning and plotting their next attack. They are testing our defenses. They are looking for the best way to cause the most devastation. When they figure it out, they will strike and innocent people will die. Those of you whining about TSA and the steps our government is taking to protect us will stand up and shout louder than you are now that our government didn’t do enough.
There have been 19 publicized thwarted terrorist attacks against US interests since 9/11. The latest was the 2007 JFK Airport plot. Our government is currently investigating terrorist activities within our borders. The proof that potential terrorists and criminals are testing airport security is clearly written on the TSA.gov website for all to see.
February 25, 2008 9:16 PM
TSO PHX: There's a difference between complaining that the government isn't doing enough and complaining that the government is doing the wrong things. If the next attack succeeds because they exploited a known hole in TSA's procedures, that's because the TSA was doing the wrong things (such as concentrating on a nonexistent and impossible threat in the War on Moisture). If, OTOH, they succeeded because they found a hole nobody had thought about, I, for one, won't complain: that, by definition, is impossible to prepare for.
The steps our government is taking to protect us are, by and large, nothing of the sort. That's the difference between security and security theater. The former is good. The latter is illegal, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong.
February 25, 2008 10:41 PM
I have been reading the comments on this blog for quite some time, and normally wouldn't waste my time responding however...
I do have one issue with all of you saying that TSA cant prove they have caught a single terrorist and blah blah blah.
Who is a terrorist exactly, what makes a terrorist. Should we only be looking at people with a criminal history?
I mean lets consider for a moment the loaded firearms found in carry on bags. Is it not possible, that one of those people had the intention of hijacking their flight? Seriously, think about it, a guy plans on trying it out, sees if he can sneak a gun by TSA and gets caught. His response is, oh well I forgot it was in my bag.
Can we prove that he had terrorist plans? No. Is it possible? yes I think so.
You cant ask TSA to prove they have thwarted a terrorist because in most cases there will never be enough evidence to prove that said person with a gun, knife, box cutter, had any such intention. Unfortunately when a person comes through "Terrorist" isn't stamped across their boarding pass or I.D. and a terrorist doesn't have to be someone who has any previous criminal record, to think so is naive.
I have so much more to say, but I have a feeling this comment will get lost in the chaff. asdf
February 26, 2008 5:28 AM
Oh, please, phx tso. Let's have a better link than "tsa.gov" to take us to the page on which you contend that "The proof that potential terrorists and criminals are testing airport security is clearly written on the TSA.gov website for all to see."
It's sure not on the first page of the site which is nothing more than chest beating to try to convince the public that the TSA is doing something of significance.
February 26, 2008 7:37 AM
TSO PHX: Really? You're going to trot out the 2007 JFK attack? Blowing up a fuel tank WOULD not have destroyed the airport, nor would it have put the public at risk. The airport was in no danger, because the pipelines from the tank wouldn't have exploded (no oxidizer).
This is exactly the problem with what DHS and the TSA are doing: you're getting all bent out of shape about plans that had ZERO chance of working, and then trotting them out as evidence of success (the Miami Seven, the guy who wanted to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, the London "magic liquid TATP plot).
Even on DHS's own web pages, you trot out as "successes" things that aren't. You've got a story about TSOs being given awards for not stealing (one of them found a bag of money and returned it to its rightful owner) and one at LAX who found an insane middle easterner who had a rock shoved inside a body cavity.
Please try again.
February 26, 2008 8:55 AM
@ Dave X
It took me awhile to get back to you on the masters thesis correlating the 9/11 attacks with the decline of people flying on planes and the increase of road fatalities.
I read the paper.
I agree with the premis that 9/11 caused a decrease in people flying and that these people chose alternate modes of transportation. Some chose to use the bus, some chose to use trains, some chose to use boats and some decided to stay home. And I'm thinkin some probably decided to walk. The paper doesn't mention these people.
There was an initial dramatic decline in air travel after 9/11however there has been a steady increase in people returning to flying since 9/11 inspite of the new rules for flying. There are more people flying today than than there was in 2005 which is when the latest version of this paper was made available to the public.
The data used in this paper is now old and outdated.
The paper although well written does not actually let you know how many road deaths were attributed to the person choosing not to fly. It only states that during the time that people chose not to fly there were more traffic fatalities. What percentage of those fatalities were caused by the drivers being sleepy? intoxicated? What percentage of the fatalities were people who actually decided to drive instead of fly? Were any of the fatalities people who chose not to fly? The paper doesn't answer these questions. Maybe the increase in fatalities happened simply because there are more vhicles on the road? More vehicles equals more fatalities. Maybe the people who chose not to fly chose other modes of travel that didn't include driving private vehicles.
February 26, 2008 9:36 AM
how many shoe bombs did you find? Let me guess...none. Stop the shoe business it is stupid.
February 26, 2008 10:20 AM
Thank god we are safe from the mad "shaving priest" I applaud you for getting these clean shaven priests and arresting them. I hope that father o'shavesalot is at gitmo so we can all feel safe.
February 26, 2008 10:25 AM
Meanwhile, at PDX,
The Oregonian reports Theft of guns uncovers breach in security.
The paper reports that there were 3 gun thefts from locked baggage in 2007 and none were recovered. TV stations in Seattle report the same problem and show airport employees unscreened carrying hockey bags in and out of the sterile security area.
February 26, 2008 11:45 AM
TSO PHX: Do you agree that flying is safer than driving?
I pointed to the preprint of the journal article by three professors because it showed a clear effect of increased traffic fatalities correlated with the shift in behavior from air travel to driving.
I do agree that there we have surpassed the pre-9/11 levels (BTS says we did that in 2004). However, the traffic has not completely rebounded. Before 9/11, the airline transportation was growing at about 5% per year since the 1970s. Had the 5% growth continued after 9/11, in 2006 we would have seen something like 17% more air travel volume than we've seen (data in here
We may have surpassed 9/11 traffic, but we haven't made air travel catch up to where we would have been.
Part of that deficit in air traffic is attributable to the economy, part to fear of terrorism, and part to the increased inconvenience of air travel.
None of the above points seem unreasonable to me.
Where I differ with TSA is that the inconvenience of TSA screening is insignificant. If you make 2,000,000 people per day take their shoes off, empty their pockets and do the hokey-pokey for 5 minutes, it has a significant cost. If you make 2,000,000 people show up at the airport 2 hours early for a flight rather than 1 hour early, it has a significant cost. If TSA tells people to drive if they don't like the TSA rules, it has a significant cost. And the paper shows those costs are measured in lives lost due to increased risk of people choosing other modes of transport.
I know that TSA thinks its infinite benefit is worth any cost, but I do not think that that is at all clear. For instance, if we doubled the resources we devote to TSA: had passengers show up 3 hours early for their flights, doubled TSA's budget, and made TSA inspect them twice as thoroughly, how much safer would it make us? Going by articles like those posted on this blog, would you have found another 5 incidents on Saturday? Would Mo write that you found 2 more guns and 2800 more knives per day? Would we have only half of the planes fall out of the sky as we do now?
Those aren't good measures of safety or effectiveness, and if those are all you've got for justifying TSA, don't expect respect.
February 26, 2008 12:33 PM
PHX TSO,
Just want to make sure you didn't miss the simple question I posed before. You stated that, "I assure you people are arrested testing our security all the time. Terrorist have not given up they are just looking for that one moment, that one situation that they can exploit."
I am still waiting for that list of the terrorists convicted based on those arrests. I doubt that I will see it. The reason -- because there have been no convictions of people testing airport security for terrorism purposes.
February 26, 2008 3:01 PM
OK folks: lots of circular debate going on here, but nobody's answered the big question satisfactorily:
Have we seen an honest-to-God terrorist or terrorist plot that tried to get through the passenger security checkpoint? Scary looking people don't count, drugs (even though I don't contest the government's responsibility to confiscate them) don't count. Check forgers sure don't count. And loaded guns might or might not count, since even Kip Hawley is quoted in an interview as saying that "these (people with guns) aren't terrorists, these people are just plain stupid. (Or words to that effect.)
So.....what's it going to be? We're all paying $6 Billion a year into the kitty for this effort. The net result of the effort is that it has made travel a living hell, a mockery of our Constitution and made the airlines a lot less than profitable. Arguably there are few terrorists stupid enough to challenge TSA, particularly when they could do something like try to blow up a fuel tank at an airport or at your friendly neighborhood refinery. (which doesn't have a darned thing to do with all the heated discussions about airport passenger boarding security.)
We ought to have some security and screening going on at the airport. we had it before 9/11, and we'll unfortunately need it forever. But for one, I'm unwilling to give up every cent I make a year, my civil liberties, and everything else to satisfy the paranoid and insatiable demands of a government that won't (or can't) tell me whether it's all even doing any good.
I know a lot of you screeners are hardworking and underpaid, but it doesn't diminish my point: we're all simply asking whether you're accomplishing your chartered purpose. I dare somebody to stick his neck out and tell me as a citizen that that's an unreasonable request. Go ahead....I dare you.
So has anybody seen someone that might pass as Mohammed Atta's distant cousin lately? And please don't insult our intelligence (pun intended) by telling us that all of this is classified.
Fred G.
February 26, 2008 4:10 PM
No terrorists have been caught in US airports lately because the terrorists already tried that particular route on 9/11. Where are the 3oz limits on fluids for bus and train and ship and subway passengers?
February 26, 2008 5:39 PM
@Dave X the first said:
And just how many threatening liquids, aerosols, or gels did people try to carry aboard this weekend?
You may want to check out this article, We blew hole in fuselage with mix of easily disguised liquids, in the Weekly Standard (UK).
Liquids do pose a real risk...
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
February 27, 2008 9:58 AM
I just came across this link, and wondered if it might be the handgun episode you mention. If so, it comes off as much more malicious in their telling, for some reason. I think thats unfortunate.
February 27, 2008 10:02 AM
Neil said...
@Dave X the first said:
And just how many threatening liquids, aerosols, or gels did people try to carry aboard this weekend?
You may want to check out this article, We blew hole in fuselage with mix of easily disguised liquids, in the Weekly Standard (UK).
Liquids do pose a real risk...
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
The problem is Neil, that Dave X doesn't want listen to anyone else, or check out other sources of information. He wants to constantly insist that TSA is killing people because they are forced to drive. He continually sites a report that has nothing to do with TSA. The report covers a time period before TSA was even created. Dave X either has a vested interest in disseminating this report or he's nothing more than a common internet troll.
I for one am thankful that TSA is on the job and that they can think out of the box enough to try these pilot programs. Keep up the good work.
For Dave X, I'd love to know where you work. It is obviously a utopia and all of the employees working there are top notch, cream of the crop employees.
February 27, 2008 10:55 AM
Thanks Niel, interesting article.
This part especially:
The test comes as a leading airport security expert Philip Baum tells the Dispatches programme tonight that much airport security is "theatre" that fails to address the real dangers.
Mr Baum, who edits the International Journal Of Aviation Security and has advised the Government, said airport X-rays and metal detectors were ineffective against many threats.
"I cannot cite a single example of a bomb being found using an airport X-ray machine alone," he said. "X-rays were introduced to identify dense metallic items, not bombs. If you've got a well-concealed bomb, it's possible to get that through many an X-ray machine."
Mr Baum described a deeply disturbing trial he had run for a European government. "We took a woman through 24 different airports. On her body were the complete components of an improvised explosive device," he said.
"At each of those airports, she alarmed the metal detector and was subject to a pat-down search on her body. But not a single item was identified in any of the 24 searches."
Kinda sounds like what has been said here so many times without a response from TSA. Security Theater!
February 27, 2008 11:40 AM
neil,
Dr. Alford, the subject of the article you've mentioned, has popped up before in the news. It would be disingenuous of me to imply that he's got a motivation to maintain liquids hysteria in order to sell his stuff to government agencies, so I won't.
In his previous writings (all available through google search), he has fixed on building bombs that use--and because I don't want to be accused of giving "terrists" bad ideas, despite the fact that you can google it yourself--a compound that rhymes with "mitroethane" and "mitromethane" with a substance that rhymes with "nyridine" as the other half. These are just chock-full-of nitrogenated goodness, and as such, are easily detected by ETD and ETP.
Note, also that "mitroethane" is pretty toxic and hard to handle.
Again, why go to all the trouble of messing about with liquids that are so easily detectable, when there's dozens more solid explosives available that are much less detectable? Especially since you need a detonator in either case.
February 27, 2008 12:29 PM