Friday, January 20, 2012

TSA Week In Review: “Brush” With Death?

Knives, inert grenade, drugs concealed in game console.
“Brush” with Death?: A nonmetallic brush-dagger was found at Lynchburg (LYH) in carry-on bag. This brush would not only tease your hair, it would frighten it! A hair raising experience if you will… 

Not Just One, But Eight: You can imagine the officer’s surprise when a man walked up to them at the travel document checking area and stated “I have eight bombs on me.” The police report stated that the passenger “may” have been intoxicated. 

Another Grenade: Last week was grenade-free, but alas, an inert grenade was discovered during checked baggage screening at Tucson (TUS) resulting in an evacuated baggage area. 

Attempt To “Game” Checked Baggage: 1.5 lbs. of methamphetamines were discovered concealed in a game console and a DVR during checked baggage screening at Los Angeles (LAX). We’re not looking for drugs, but 1.5 lbs of anything other than electronics stuffed in an electronic item will raise some red flags. 

Everything Is Bigger in Texas: The toast and the knives… A 12” Bowie knife was discovered in a carry-on bag along with four other knives in Austin (AUS). 

Close Shave?: A 3” straight razor was found concealed in the lining of a backpack in Buffalo (BUF). 

Miscellaneous Prohibited Items: In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly, our officers also found stun guns, kubatons, brass knuckles, knives, knives, and more knives, firearm components, ammunition, and a blackjack. 

9 loaded guns.
Firearms: Our officers found 24 loaded firearms and 2 unloaded firearms in carry-on baggage since I posted last Friday. Here’s a rundown of the 26 firearms our officers kept off of airplanes this week: 

1/13: STL – Unloaded .380 – BFL – Loaded .40 w/ Round Chambered – DFW – Loaded 9mm – OMA – Loaded 9mm – BNA – Loaded .380 
1/14: SFB – Loaded .40 
1/16: IAD – Loaded 9mm w/ Round Chambered – PIT – Loaded .380 w/ Round Chambered – TUL – Loaded .22 w/ Round Chambered – SMF – Loaded .380 -  EWN – Loaded .40 w/ Round Chambered – DEN – Unloaded .357 – FLL – Loaded .357 – ATL – Loaded 9mm  
1/17: BNA – Loaded .380 – STL – Loaded .357 – IND – Loaded 9mm w/ Round Chambered – IAH – Loaded 9mm – DAL – Loaded .40 w/ Round Chambered 
1/18: BHM – Loaded .22 w/ Round Chambered – Loaded .380 – DFW – Loaded .38 inside a carry-on bag was taken too soon by a passenger and made its way past security. The passenger and the bag containing the gun were located prior to takeoff.  
1/19: CLT – Loaded .380 w/ Round Chambered – RDU – Loaded .22 – BWI – Loaded .380 – ATL – Loaded 9mm 

You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline. You can go here for more details on how to properly travel with your firearms. We also look for explosives and bomb components as well, but thankfully those are extremely rare and we're happy to keep it that way.

Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the throughput is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items in their bag. That’s why it’s important to double check your luggage before you get to the airport.

 Including checkpoint and checked baggage screening, TSA has 20 layers of security both visible and invisible to the public. Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack. In combination their security value is multiplied, creating a much stronger, formidable system. A terrorist who has to overcome multiple security layers in order to carry out an attack is more likely to be pre-empted, deterred, or to fail during the attempt.  

Blogger Bob Burns 
TSA Blog Team
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob said:
DFW – Loaded .38 inside a carry-on bag was taken too soon by a passenger and made its way past security. The passenger and the bag containing the gun were located prior to takeoff.

What? a .38 made it past security? Maybe a little too much focus on cupcakes at the checkpoint.

Art said...

It must be really fun working there and watching these people get busted. I'm wondering how they try to explain some of the things they try to bring aboard.

Anonymous said...

@Anomymous: Maybe we should just get rid of security so those who think it should not be there will be happy, then you and all the other people who do not like it can board the plane with people who want to carry guns, attack innocent people, and use an airplane as a guided missle to attack other targets in America. Would you board a plane knowing there is no security in place to ensure the safety of the traveling public? Would you live in a city who's citizens refuse to have a law enforcement department?

Anonymous said...

The firearm at DFW which made it passed security actually made it passed security. Apparently, this little old lady is faster than your agents and/or screening procedures???

RB said...

Can TSA really call the Gun incident at DFW as a "Find".

TSA screeners allowed a loaded weapon past the checkpoint, the weapon made it onto an airplane that had time to push back from the gate.

One and One Half Hours after TSA Screening before the person was located. Just a few minutes more and the airplane would have been airborne.

It seems that someone must be reviewing x ray images after screening takes place.

Regardless I chalk this one up as a TSA FAIL!

Anonymous said...

The TSA NEVER mentions INTENT in relation to the weapons or other items that they confiscate. By the TSA's logic, every one of the hundreds of millions of Americans that own firearms are ALSO terrorists, right? Let's face facts, the people that the TSA stops are NOT intending to harm anyone. The TSA simply uses this information as propaganda.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe we should just get rid of security so those who think it should not be there will be happy, then you and all the other people who do not like it can board the plane with people who want to carry guns, attack innocent people, and use an airplane as a guided missle to attack other targets in America."

Has the TSA found any people who intended to attack innocent people? I haven't heard of that occurring. Have you?

It may also ruin your day to know that you're surrounded by people who "carry guns" every day, in the supermarket, movie theaters, shopping malls and any number of other venues. Why are aircraft different? No hijacker is going to gain control of an airplane ever again with a gun or any other method.

" Would you board a plane knowing there is no security in place to ensure the safety of the traveling public?"

Why do you assume that the alternative to TSA security theater for the masses is no security? Intelligent, professional security would involve profiling passengers and explosive technology. It would also involve much tighter security regarding access to airport SIDAs. If the travelling public knew how poorly secured major airports are, they'd see TSA's activities as what they are: Theater for the masses.

Would you live in a city who's citizens refuse to have a law enforcement department?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Would you board a plane knowing there is no security in place to ensure the safety of the traveling public?"

You present a false choice. It isn't a choice between the current TSA practices and no security at all.

How about sensible security that has some evidence that it is actually effective and doesn't unnecessarily violate the rights of the passengers?

The current TSA circus is not working and is not keeping anyone safe. It's the 21st century version of the Maginot Line.

Jim Huggins said...

So ... every week, we get a posting of all TSA's "successes" during the week ... and then most the posters here (myself included) feel obligated to post about TSA's failures.

Like, for example, the TSO in MIA who was arrested for stealing two iPads out of a passenger's luggage.

Or the 65-year-old woman who walked through a TSA checkpoint at DFW with a loaded handgun --- and was only arrested 90 minutes later, after she'd already boarded her aircraft.

Bob ... would it be too much to ask that you give TSA's public failures at least as much attention here as you give its "successes"?

TSORon said...

RB said...
[[Can TSA really call the Gun incident at DFW as a "Find".]]

Yes RB, it can. Here are some facts for you: DFW is one of the largest and busiest airports in the world (not an excuse, a fact). Less than a minute after it was determined that there was a firearm in the bag the checkpoint was closed and the search began.


[[TSA screeners allowed a loaded weapon past the checkpoint, the weapon made it onto an airplane that had time to push back from the gate.]]

Several factors went into that, including that it’s not so easy to determine which bag belongs to whom at a busy checkpoint, which is one of the reasons why we often ask “Who’s bag is this?” Couple that with an initial misidentification of who’s bag it was and you get a time lag between knowing its missing and finding the person who has it.


[[One and One Half Hours after TSA Screening before the person was located. Just a few minutes more and the airplane would have been airborne.]]

During which a full search of the terminal, and several other terminals as I understand it, was conducted looking for at first the wrong person, and then the right person (video recordings are a great tool). But your right, that aircraft was very close to getting airborne before the location of the weapon was determined. Quite a few factors went into that, not just the failure of the X-ray TSO to follow procedure.


[[It seems that someone must be reviewing x ray images after screening takes place.

Regardless I chalk this one up as a TSA FAIL!]]

Not an accurate representation of the incident, sorry RB but you missed the train on that one. The X-ray TSO didn’t follow SOP, and neither of us know why. But you can chalk this up to whatever you like, sun spots would be just as likely as your suppositions here. Fact is that a single individual didn’t follow procedure and a prohibited firearm nearly got airborne. No excuses, a TSO failed, not TSA. The difference is vaster than you seem to comprehend.

Anonymous said...

TSA is security. That is why they check every person. No one is exempt from screening. TSA looks for those people that are intending on attacking us, therefore you check everyone. If Im checking parts to make sure there ready to go on a car do you think I would just pick out one or two and let the other ones go just because I think there ok. No, You look at them anyways and check those parts to.

Anonymous said...

I wouldnt want a gun on a plane I was on. People sometimes act, others panic.

TSORon said...

Anonymous said...
[[The TSA NEVER mentions INTENT in relation to the weapons or other items that they confiscate. By the TSA's logic, every one of the hundreds of millions of Americans that own firearms are ALSO terrorists, right? Let's face facts, the people that the TSA stops are NOT intending to harm anyone. The TSA simply uses this information as propaganda.]]

Intent for the TSA is not a relevant factor. We are not a law enforcement agency, nor are we prosecutors. In a court of law “Intent” has a great deal of meaning, but not on the checkpoint. Simple possession is our concern.

Intent is a very difficult thing to determine, even for an experienced LEO or prosecutor, in nearly all cases. Even the TSA’s BDO’s have nothing to do with “intent”, it’s not something they are looking for.

The idea that you know the passengers “intent” is erroneous. You have no direct knowledge of the incident in question, nor any incident of its kind unless you personally have been caught with a firearm on a checkpoint somewhere, and even then only you would have known your intent, everyone else would only have been guessing.

Anonymous said...

Its so funny to look at this site sometimes and see what people write about TSO's. When you hear about a TSO that did something wrong its blamed on every single TSO in every single airport. Its a good thing, the person or people you work for every day dont feel the same way you did, or you would be fired because your co-worker stole something. I think you get my point!

Anonymous said...

I think TSO's do a good job. I wouldn't want some of you that write everything against TSO's doing it. You wouldn't check anything. Everything would be ok. Or maybe you would pick and choose who should be searched and who shouldn't.

TSORon said...

Jim Huggins said...
[[Bob ... would it be too much to ask that you give TSA's public failures at least as much attention here as you give its "successes"?]]

The incidents you are concerned about are ongoing investigations Jim. TSA can’t comment on them without the approval of quite a few agencies. That approval takes time, and in the case of criminal actions could take a VERY long time, if ever. Commenting on them in an open forum could have detrimental effects on those cases, possibly even to the point of allowing criminal actions to go unprosecuted because of contaminating the case. Nor is it TSA’s place to comment on criminal cases (IMO) until guilt or innocence is determined. Again, not something that TSA does, we have courts for that.

Anonymous said...

And as always, not a single instance of anyone intending harm to anyone. Bob, why can't you tell the truth?

tramky said...

Knives?! Oh my god, what will we do? What WILL we do?!!! I have 20 knives in my kitchen and carry one in my pants pocket all the time. I used to have another one of those pocketknives, but it was confiscated/stolen by TSA at SFO after years of carrying it through TSA checkpoints--even had at least two TSA agents prior to the SFO occasion look at it and HAND IT BACK TO ME! $32 down the TSA toilet. I still resent it and want it back.

Inert grenade--you mean a highly-designed paperweight?! Oh, my god, what WILL we do?!

As for the meth, once you've determined that it is NOT an explosive it should have been undisturbed, as should the passenger. Dealing with that is up to OTHER agencies, not TSA. But TSA is, in fact, the ultimate search-and-seizure agency for ALL Federal & state agencies. And forget about the U.S. Constitution.

tramky said...

Why is TSA referring discoveries of drugs to other agencies? The Justice Department refuses to enforce Federal marijuana sale & possession laws, which is precisely why several states--notably California--have enormous illegal drug trafficking operations that were voted on & passed by state legislators, no less. Those state legislators--every one who voted in FAVOR of the medical marijuana 'clinics' or whatever,should be arrested, tried & convicted for conspiracy to sell & profit from the sale of prohibited drugs.

How much marijuana does TSA claim to discover & refer to law enforcement? How much at California airports?

tramky said...

I love the comments that armed hijackers of a plane would no longer be able to commandeer a commercial airliner. Oh, really?! The TSA renders EVERYONE--except the terrorists or nutcases who would make different arrangements to get firearms on board--defenseless. What group of unarmed, defenseless passengers is going to overcome a couple of Muslim jihadist terrorists armed with Uzis that got on board with the food & beverage supply?

Consider Columbine High School, where only those who were gun free died at the hands of the nutcase students (who then shot themselves to consummate the massive murder/suicide), while several cadres of police agencies waited outside, hunkered down behind steel vehicles and concrete walls waiting for the shooting to stop. Consider the fiasco at Virginia Tech. The horror of the Amish girls who were slaughtered by the nutcase. Gun-free zones all, like commercial passenger aircraft.

People who acquiesce to defenselessness will, sooner or later, suffer consequences. In the end we are individual human beings with no real connection to anything or anyone. You are alive as an individual, or you are not. You protect yourself, or you depend on others to protect you. But those others have NO vested interest in YOUR life. Look at the Italian cruise ship fiasco. If you are comforted by authorities patting you on the head and telling you that everything will be all right, well, good luck with that.

JoJo said...

Anonymous said...
@Anomymous: Maybe we should just get rid of security so those who think it should not be there will be happy, then you and all the other people who do not like it can board the plane with people who want to carry guns, attack innocent people, and use an airplane as a guided missle to attack other targets in America. Would you board a plane knowing there is no security in place to ensure the safety of the traveling public? Would you live in a city who's citizens refuse to have a law enforcement department?

There it is, ladies and gentlemen! The strawman argument at its finest! A protest against current security procedures DOES NOT equate into someone wanting no security, but that point is easier to attack so you pretend that's what your opponent's stance is.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said

"Not an accurate representation of the incident, sorry RB but you missed the train on that one. The X-ray TSO didn’t follow SOP, and neither of us know why. But you can chalk this up to whatever you like, sun spots would be just as likely as your suppositions here. Fact is that a single individual didn’t follow procedure and a prohibited firearm nearly got airborne. No excuses, a TSO failed, not TSA. The difference is vaster than you seem to comprehend."

I'm sorry, but the logic used in this post is specious at best. What TSORon appears to be saying is that if an individual TSO fails to follow procedures and allows a "prohibited item" (TM) through security then that is the fault of the TSO and not the TSA. But, the TSO is working as an agent of the TSA, and is empowered by the TSA in order to perform the functions of a Transportation Security Officer. You cannot separate the two.
TSORon suggests that when a TSO fails, it is the fault of the individual, but weekly postings suggest that when a TSO succeeds in finding a "prohibited item" (TM)
- harmful or not - that is is proof of the efficacy of the TSA.
There is a seeming dichotomy inherent in this line of reasoning; one one hand, any failure is the sole fault of the TSO; yet one the other hand, any success belongs not to the TSO but to the TSA in total. It actually appears as though the TSA is marginalizing and/or victimizing their own employees with this line of reasoning. Is this really what you meant to suggest TSORon?

While we're on the subject, you make a valid point in favor of the individuals expressing outrage against the TSA. Your claim that the failure is the result of the individual, and not the organization, can be returned to you as such: 9/11, the call to arms for the TSA, was also the result of a small group of individuals, and not the public at large, yet the TSA continues to be suspicious of the public at large, violating their rights, their privacy, their dignity and their property at will, all while acknowledging that the larger group is not responsible for the errors of the subgroup within its ranks.
In summation, the TSA did, indeed, fail - the difference between the TSO and TSA is, at least in the public's eyes, far smaller than you seem to comprehend, going so far as to be negligible in most cases.

Anonymous said...

"What group of unarmed, defenseless passengers is going to overcome a couple of Muslim jihadist terrorists armed with Uzis that got on board with the food & beverage supply?"

The passengers of UA 93 did.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
"The incidents you are concerned about are ongoing investigations Jim. TSA can’t comment on them without the approval of quite a few agencies."

That only covers a sub-set of the cases referred to.

I doubt that the TSA misses where weapons wer brought through TSA security are resulting in legal prosecution.

Anonymous said...

"The incidents you are concerned about are ongoing investigations Jim. TSA can’t comment on them without the approval of quite a few agencies. "

Nonsense. The TSA can comment on virtually anything it cares to. Why would you believe such a thing? What agencies do you think have sign-off authority over the TSA? More importantly, who told you this? Assuming this isn't the product of the poster's fertile imagination, it's quite a convenient excuse isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Its so funny to look at this site sometimes and see what people write about TSO's. When you hear about a TSO that did something wrong its blamed on every single TSO in every single airport. Its a good thing, the person or people you work for every day dont feel the same way you did, or you would be fired because your co-worker stole something. I think you get my point!"

But that is the exact attitude that the TSA has toward all passengers. A few passengers tried to do something bad, so every passenger must be treated as a criminal.

I also think its reasonable for people to be concerned if the TSA hiring practices can't seem to weed-out criminals. We are expected to trust them with our valuables. This isn't against all the individual employees but against the organization.

Anonymous said...

"I think TSO's do a good job. I wouldn't want some of you that write everything against TSO's doing it. You wouldn't check anything. Everything would be ok. Or maybe you would pick and choose who should be searched and who shouldn't."

Possibly the most eloquent defense of the TSA yet.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"TSA is security. That is why they check every person. No one is exempt from screening."

Want to bet on that?

The TSA is not inspecting ever person and every item that passes into the secure area.

Anonymous said...

"Intent for the TSA is not a relevant factor. We are not a law enforcement agency, nor are we prosecutors."

A very good description of how poorly designed the TSA's system of security is designed.

"In a court of law “Intent” has a great deal of meaning, but not on the checkpoint. Simple possession is our concern. "

In all human endevours, intent is key. "Possession" is a *very* poor standard for security.

"Intent is a very difficult thing to determine, even for an experienced LEO or prosecutor, in nearly all cases."

Nonsense. It is typically one of the easist elements to demonstrate.

"Even the TSA’s BDO’s have nothing to do with “intent”, it’s not something they are looking for. "

Which is why the BDO program has been reviewed by experts and found to be of no security value at all.

"The idea that you know the passengers “intent” is erroneous. "

The original poster never claimed to know intent. It is demonstrably provable, however, that the TSA has likely never recovered contraband from a passenger who harbored ill intent.

"You have no direct knowledge of the incident in question, nor any incident of its kind unless you personally have been caught with a firearm on a checkpoint somewhere, and even then only you would have known your intent, everyone else would only have been guessing."

How would the poster being caught with a firearm help him/her know the intent of the passenger(s) in question?

I know you're trying to help the image of the TSA, Ron, but your posts have the opposite effect.

Anonymous said...

"Its a good thing, the person or people you work for every day dont feel the same way you did, or you would be fired because your co-worker stole something."

My "coworkers" don't have the government sanction to go through my luggage without me being present, do they?

I'm more concerned about the TSOs who use that authority to strip-search elderly women, to force colostomy patients to expose their colostomy bags and similar misconduct.

Anonymous said...

"TSA is security. That is why they check every person. No one is exempt from screening."

Absolutely false. Hundreds of government officials are exempt from scrrening. Where did you get the idea that no one is exempt?

"TSA looks for those people that are intending on attacking us, therefore you check everyone."

Not according to the TSA. The TSA says it is looking for contraband, not people.

"If Im checking parts to make sure there ready to go on a car do you think I would just pick out one or two and let the other ones go just because I think there ok. "

Typically, 100% inspection is not performed for mass-produced parts, meaning that you are likely driving in a car in which all the parts have not been inspected! I'd stop driving immediately disassemble your car and inspect ALL the parts before you drive another mile. It's the only way to be safe. If you lack the skills necessary to inspect all the parts, don't worry - the TSA lacks the skill to ably conduct security as well.

(screenshot captured since the blog team has returned to deleting post that easily meet the published standards)

Anonymous said...

"Not an accurate representation of the incident, sorry RB but you missed the train on that one. The X-ray TSO didn’t follow SOP, and neither of us know why. "

The poster wasn't trying to represent the event, just the outcome. That the TSO failed to follow SOP is entirely the point.

Sorry, Ron, but TSA fail is completely accurate.

Anonymous said...

"TSA is security. That is why they check every person. No one is exempt from screening."

From Salon.com (and entirely consistent with my experience as an airline pilot):

Baggage handlers, by the way, do not have to pass through airport security. Not before 9/11, and not since. They, like almost all tarmac workers, are subject only to occasional, random TSA checks.

The same is true for mechanics who maintain the aircraft.

The TSA admits that explosives are the true threat. Both mechanics and baggage handlers would be in ideal situations to plant such a device - contrary to popular opinion, the cabin of an airplane is a poor place to damage an aircraft - in an area that would be ruinous to continued flight.

Feeling any better about security?

(Screenshot captured)

Anonymous said...

Wow. Another week without a single threat that was both legitimately dangerous, AND would not have been detected with pre-9/11 screening.

What a waste of time and money.

How many terrorists has the TSA captured? Is it still zero? Ya, it's still zero.

Jim Huggins said...

TSORon writes: The incidents you are concerned about are ongoing investigations Jim. TSA can’t comment on them without the approval of quite a few agencies.

And yet, TSA feels quite free to comment on "ongoing investigations" when TSA is on the side of the prosecution, not the defense. It has no problem celebrating the arrest of passengers caught with weapons, freely announcing its own role in turning those passengers over to local authorities. Yet when one of its own is arrested, it somehow can't speak at all. Awfully convenient, that. [sigh]

MRFLIGHT said...

seriously all these anonymous comments that say "how many terrorist has tsa caught, its ZERO"

that is a very dumb argument, TSA does not have many fans and i understand why but this argument is just dumb. TSA role is to protect the aircraft and the passangers. SO catching terrorist is not really in there job description now is it?

There mandate is to protect the aircraft and passengers on board. TSA will never catch a terrorist will they? prob not because if someone does try to bring something on, it is not TSA responsibility to find out if said person is a terrorist is it? that my friend belongs to the justice department and the FBI.

No one likes TSA but come up with some better credible arguments then " ooooh TSA has never caught a terrorist"

This used to be a good forum to ask questions, now its just the dumb statements being said every day

RB said...

TSORon said...
RB said...
[[Can TSA really call the Gun incident at DFW as a "Find".]]

Yes RB, it can. Here are some facts for you: DFW is one of the largest and busiest airports in the world (not an excuse, a fact). Less than a minute after it was determined that there was a firearm in the bag the checkpoint was closed and the search began.


[[TSA screeners allowed a loaded weapon past the checkpoint, the weapon made it onto an airplane that had time to push back from the gate.]]

Several factors went into that, including that it’s not so easy to determine which bag belongs to whom at a busy checkpoint, which is one of the reasons why we often ask “Who’s bag is this?” Couple that with an initial misidentification of who’s bag it was and you get a time lag between knowing its missing and finding the person who has it.


[[One and One Half Hours after TSA Screening before the person was located. Just a few minutes more and the airplane would have been airborne.]]

During which a full search of the terminal, and several other terminals as I understand it, was conducted looking for at first the wrong person, and then the right person (video recordings are a great tool). But your right, that aircraft was very close to getting airborne before the location of the weapon was determined. Quite a few factors went into that, not just the failure of the X-ray TSO to follow procedure.


[[It seems that someone must be reviewing x ray images after screening takes place.

Regardless I chalk this one up as a TSA FAIL!]]

Not an accurate representation of the incident, sorry RB but you missed the train on that one. The X-ray TSO didn’t follow SOP, and neither of us know why. But you can chalk this up to whatever you like, sun spots would be just as likely as your suppositions here. Fact is that a single individual didn’t follow procedure and a prohibited firearm nearly got airborne. No excuses, a TSO failed, not TSA. The difference is vaster than you seem to comprehend.

January 21, 2012 1:20 PM
..........................

Ron, you can try justifying why this incident happened but the facts remain as follows:

1. A lady with a handgun in her belongings was screened by TSA.

2. The lady exited the checkpoint and entered the secure area with her handgun.

3. The lady boarded her aircraft with the handgun and the aircraft pushed back for departure.

4. The aircraft was called back to the gate and the lady was taken into custody one and one half hours after the initial screening.

There is no way in the world to call this a TSA success.

In fact this incident was a complete failure of passenger screening by TSA employees.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and at DFW TSA that link is apparently not strong at all.

TSA FAIL CONFIRMED!

Anonymous said...

"@Anomymous: Maybe we should just get rid of security so those who think it should not be there will be happy, then you and all the other people who do not like it can board the plane with people who want to carry guns, attack innocent people, and use an airplane as a guided missle to attack other targets in America. Would you board a plane knowing there is no security in place to ensure the safety of the traveling public? Would you live in a city who's citizens refuse to have a law enforcement department?"

As a previous poster responded, your argument is a false choice. I will make my argument with your last question.

No, I would not live in a city where there was no law enforcement department. I would also not live in a city that allowed their law enforcement department to conduct invasive suspicionless searches as a condition of living in that city. Would you live in a city where you can be detained and searched without cause?

Not Scared of Terrorists

Anonymous said...

"if said person is a terrorist is it? that my friend belongs to the justice department and the FBI"

Ok, my friend, has TSA ever referred anyone that the FBI determined was a threat?

Because that, my friend, is the entire point, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

"This used to be a good forum to ask questions, now its just the dumb statements being said every day"

It's a blog, so either you get used to people making statments - you made one - and a forum for asking questions.

Sadly, it has never been a good forum for having questions answered.

Scott said...

I'm surprised they found the blade in Buffalo, since they are too busy there escorting Drug Dealers through security.

Anonymous said...

Give me a break! The TSA's job is to protect the flying public from terrorists! Not from various guns, knifes, and other such things that were on flights aplenty before the TSA ever came around.

If the TSA cannot even catch one single terrorists despite all it's security screening I say abolish it!

We don't need TSA to protect us from what was never a problem before the TSA was ever created!

Carlos

Anonymous said...

MRFLIGHT,

Since you think the question, "How many terrorists have the TSA caught?" is a dumb argument, then do you also think the question "How many lives has the TSA saved?" is also dumb?

I am confident that the DHS and TSA feel my question is not worthy of an answer as I have asked it repeatedly over the last year and a half without them answering, or even acknowledging the question.

Not Scared of Terrorists

Jim Huggins said...


Sadly, it has never been a good forum for having questions answered.


It used to be better for that purpose. There was a time when the blog used to ask the public for questions, and then provide answers ...

TSA Wants You! Send Us Your Top 5 Questions

Answers To Your Top 10 Questions

Yet Another ID Post ... With Some Answers To Your Questions

Regrettably, it's been 2.5 years since those posts.

SSSS for some reason said...

Three simple questions for your Blogger Bob....

First, were the people who had these prohibited items arrested by local Law Enforcement?

Second, of those arrests, how many have been convicted of being terrorists with the intent to destroy an aircraft?

Third, are you reporting these items now because the instances of prohibited items are increasing? I mean, are *more* people trying to carry razor blades and handguns onto aircraft than just a few years ago?

Anonymous said...

Nice list of items. Unforgettably the list does not include any terrorists.

Anonymous said...

"Nice list of items. Unforgettably the list does not include any terrorists."

Very true. More to the point, none of the items presented a threat to aviation security.

Anonymous said...

SSSS for some reason said...
"Third, are you reporting these items now because the instances of prohibited items are increasing? I mean, are *more* people trying to carry razor blades and handguns onto aircraft than just a few years ago?"

No, they are reporting them because criticisms of the TSA are increasing. It's all about public relations and trying to justify their jobs.

Andrew said...

I don't understand why some people find the need to have a weapon on them while flying? it just blows my mind. The post even mentions that they can leave it in their checked baggage as long as they declare it. I marvel at the stupidity of people...

Solarthermie said...

This is what I have been searching in quite a few web pages and I ultimately identified it right here. Wonderful post. I am so impressed. Could under no circumstances imagine of these a point is attainable with it…I imagine you have a excellent information in particular while dealings with these kinds of topics.

Anonymous said...

TSA is a criminal agency. You invade our privacy and you have never actually caught any real terrorist. It's obvious what a joke this agency is when they brag about finding a FAKE grenade. GOOD JOB GUYS you have done nothing for anybody!!!

kieu choe said...

This is what I have been searching in quite a few web pages and I ultimately identified it right here. Wonderful post. I am so impressed. Could under no circumstances imagine of these a point is attainable with it…I imagine you have a excellent information in particular while dealings with these kinds of topics.

beptucaocap said...

This is what I have been searching in quite a few web pages and I ultimately identified it right here. Wonderful post. I am so impressed. Could under no circumstances imagine of these a point is attainable with it…I imagine you have a excellent information in particular while dealings with these kinds of topics.