Friday, August 1, 2014

TSA Week in Review – 38 Firearms Discovered This Week (32 Loaded)

38 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 38 firearms, 32 were loaded and 12 had rounds chambered. See more photos at the bottom of this post. 

Artfully Concealed Prohibited Items – It is important to examine your bags prior to traveling to ensure prohibited items are not inside. If a prohibited item is discovered in your bag or on your body, you could be cited and possibly arrested by local law enforcement. 

Inert Ordnance and Grenades etc. – We continue to find inert grenades and other weaponry on a weekly basis. Please keep in mind that if an item looks like a real bomb, grenade, mine, etc., it is prohibited. When these items are found at a checkpoint or in checked baggage, they can cause significant delays because the explosives detection professionals must resolve the alarm to determine the level of threat. Even if they are novelty items, you cannot bring them on a plane.  Read here on why inert items cause problems. 

Miscellaneous Prohibited Items In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly, our officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.

Firearms Discovered This Week in Carry-On Bags

Loaded firearm discovered in carry-on bag at Charlotte (CLT)

Loaded firearm discovered in carry-on bag at Charlotte (CLT)
Two loaded firearms found in carry-on bags at Atlanta (ATL)
Two loaded firearms found in carry-on bags at Atlanta (ATL)
Loaded firearm, with seven rounds, one chambered found at San Antonio (SAT)
  Loaded firearm, with seven rounds, one chambered found at San Antonio (SAT)
Firearms found in carry-on bags at Houston (IAH)
Firearms found in carry-on bags at Houston (IAH)


*In order to provide a timely weekly update, this data is compiled from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly from what is reported in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will be actual numbers and not estimates.

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. Firearm possession laws vary by state and locality. Travelers should familiarize themselves with state and local firearm laws for each point of travel prior to departure.

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 line is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. The passenger can face a penalty as high as $7,500. 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.

If you haven’t seen it yet, make sure you check out our TSA Blog Year in Review for 2013. You can also check out 2011 & 2012 as well.

Follow @TSABlogTeam on Twitter and Instagram!


If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.

Ollie Cooperwood,   
(Filling in for the incomparable Bob Burns)
TSA Media Team

50 comments:

RB said...

So 11,200,000 travels this week and all TSA found was 32 guns. Do you want to do the math on the percentage of guns found or should I? Taxpayers are paying in excess of $8 billion each year for TSA to find roughly .0000028571% of passengers with a gun. TSA is spending millions of dollars on Electronic Strip Search Machines that TSA proves each week are just not needed.

TSA should be defunded untill all security steps are proven to not only be necessary but effective.

Why are taxpayers being forced to fund the TSA blog that routinely violates citizens Rights to Free Speech?

jim dawn said...

So are you saying you caught 38 terrorist this week?

Chris Boyce said...

Well done, Bobbie. You've managed to figure out a way to completely fill the page with all sorts of pictures of guns and bullets so any previous posts and the unanswered questions are completely wiped out from anybody's awareness. I'm sure Assistant Secretary Canipe authorized a cash award or time off.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

You know, you guys are finding thirty-ish firearms per week every week.

Yet you aren't getting anywhere near that many arrests per week.

Why would that be?

Anonymous said...

I'd be really embarrassed to even admit to owning some of the hardware the TSA's been finding in carry-on baggage. Come on, folks. It's real simple. Pack it properly. Declare it as an 'Item.' And keep it. Who in their right mind carries anything made by Kel-Tec in any condition, let alone Condition One?

Susan Richart said...

'Cept, Chris Boyce, it wasn't Bob this week. It was one Ollie Cooperwood who was filling in for the "incomparable Bob Burns" who managed to accomplish the task.


screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Eastern Sunset said...

So Ollie Cooperwood has a last name, and appears to be a real person. What about "Emily" and "Bessie," the guest blotters brought in to blot about "women stuff?"

Are they real people? Are they TSA employees?

Do you think bringing in these alleged "women" to push your anti-women agenda will make it more palatable?

Odd how few questions have been answered about the ridiculous liquids ban and how the TSA treats pregnant women and mothers.

Also odd that Ollie cut and pasted text from previous blotter posts, but gets full credit. Maybe because he sucked up to Bob?

C'mon, Ollie couldn't even format the blotter right and pushed "Emily's" and "Bessie's" blotters off the front page and further into oblivion!

Anonymous said...

If I was flying on one of the flights that a loaded gun was destine for, I'd be very grateful for the work that TSA does! Terrorist related or not, a loaded gun discharging on a plane full of people is a recipie for disaster. I simply don't understand why people "waste" their time reading this blog when all they have is negative comments to make. They must have a lot of spare time on their hands. Sure, lets just stop Search Machines and pat downs and x-ray machines and open up our friendly skies to all sorts of mayhem. I say way to go TSA... I applaud your efforts and say that 38 tradgedies were potenially avoided this week. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Another week, another total lack of any dangerous objects found by TSA's slow, invasive, dangerous naked body scanners.

Meanwhile, how many false alarms resulting in needless "pat-downs" were caused by the continued use of naked body scanners?

How many false alarms from your oversensitive ETD swabbing? How many people had to endure secretive "resolution pat-downs" by TSA thanks to these false alarms?

Why do Curtis Burns, West Cooper, and Ollie Cooperwood refuse to acknowledge, let alone answer, these legitimate questions about the performance of TSA's screening protocols?

Anonymous said...

I don't see any knives on here. Did you finally stop confiscating them because no one is taking over a plane with a knife anymore? Those credit card knives seem like they wouldn't make that good of a weapon anyway. I think the scissors and knitting needles that are permitted have better potential as weapons.

Anonymous said...

Hate to be the math major RB, but your calculations were correct until you put the percentage sign behind the answer. Here's a number that's even smaller than yours--the percentage of airline captains who what you armed in the back of their airplane. I flew in the Air Force with a lot of them and still maintain friendships with them. I think most of us, even the die-hard NRA members, agree that checking weapons legally and correctly is the way to go.

Anonymous said...

I continue to wait for some justification for active duty military being included in pre-check, but not retired military or holders of current DoD or LE background investigations. military retirees have at least 20 years documented service to this Nation, pretty much proving their lack of risk. both DoD and LE background investigations should reveal any risk factors. active duty military do not, necessarily, have a background check or any significant length of service. neither citizenship nor a background investigation is required to enlist in the military, in fact there are likely illegal immigrants serving. if it is really about safety, then why are potentially unscreened non-citizens allowed through? sounds like it is just pandering to an admirable group to get PR, not adjusting the rules to ease screening on those who present a lower likelihood of threat.
Let me be clear: pre-911 screening should be the norm. it is all that is required, now that cockpit doors have been reinforced and locked, and flight crews and passengers know that the rules have changed and passivity=death. however, if we are going to continue this massive waste of tax dollars on security theatre, at least have _some_ of the rules make sense.

Susan Richart said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Sure, lets just stop Search Machines and pat downs and x-ray machines and open up our friendly skies to all sorts of mayhem."

Once again, no one is suggesting that all screening be done away with. What thinking people want is a return to pre-9/11 screening, baggage x-ray and WTMD and use of HHMD to resolve any WTMD alarms. Sparse use of ETD swabbing and no "private room" screening for an ETD alarm. Most of all, an end to humiliating full-body gropes.

Your flight would be just as safe, if not even safer, than it is today.

screen shot/DHS OIG Statement

GSOLTSO said...

jim dawn sez - "So are you saying you caught 38 terrorist this week?"

Nope.

SSSS sez - "Yet you aren't getting anywhere near that many arrests per week.

Why would that be?"

When we discover a prohibited firearm, the local LEOs are contacted and assume control of the weapon from that point forward. TSA does not prosecute or decide whether any charges are applied, that is at the sole discretion of the local LEOs.

Anon sez - "Come on, folks. It's real simple. Pack it properly. Declare it as an 'Item.' And keep it. Who in their right mind carries anything made by Kel-Tec in any condition, let alone Condition One?"

Your advisements on how to transport firearms is spot on, as for the Kel-Tec - many fine people carry/own a Kel-Tec for a number of reasons.

Eastern Sunset sez - "Are they real people? Are they TSA employees?"

Yes. Yes.

Anon sez - " Keep up the good work!"

Thanks, we will certainly try!

Anon sez - "
I don't see any knives on here. Did you finally stop confiscating them because no one is taking over a plane with a knife anymore?"

The knives are not always going to be featured in the weekly reports. Some of them are published, especially when we are trying to raise awareness about particular items (such as the recent run of CC knives we have seen). I can guarantee you that some prohibited knives were discovered this week. Just for the record, we do not confiscate things. In the case of a pocket knife or some other knife that is not illegal, the owner is presented with options on what to do with the item. The final option with a knife is to voluntarily surrender it to TSA at the checkpoint.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

When I fly, which is about 20 times per year, I don't want some random lunatic with a gun on plane. I know the odds are remote but if the TSA wasn't there, I wouldn't fly and then I wouldn't have a well paying job. This tax payer doesn't mind paying for this peace of mind. Keep up the good work TSA.

Anonymous said...

West, you know full well that official TSA spokespersons have used the term confiscate to describe the taking of personal possessions from travelers so please don't try to convince your readers otherwise.

Anonymous said...

West, why are you ignoring repeated questions about false positives on the naked body scanners and on trace detection?

Anonymous said...

"...I applaud your efforts and say that 38 tradgedies were potenially avoided this week."

Why stop at 38 "potential" tragedies? Let's include all of the travelers who tried to bring dangerous large bottles of water and shampoo through the checkpoint as "potential" wreakers of tragedies, too!

TSA, please provide an independently reviewable study demonstrating that the risk presented by liquids in a 100mL+ container is a risk that is significant enough to justify searching travelers for and confiscating said liquids.

Anonymous said...

I question TSA here as much as anybody, but the constant attempts to demean blotter staff (e.g., referring to "Bobby" instead of "Bob") do not bolster some posters' credibility.

Now feel free to call me a TSA employee or TSApologist based on no facts whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

What is the status of the case in which the fake screener patted down women in a private screening room at the airport in San Francisco? How does TSA have authority over this case, given that investigations of public intoxication and sexual assault are not within TSA's purview? If what happened in the private screening room was sexual assault and/or illegal detention, how are TSA procedures in the private screening room not considered sexual assault and/or illegal detention as well?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
If I was flying on one of the flights that a loaded gun was destine for, I'd be very grateful for the work that TSA does! Terrorist related or not, a loaded gun discharging on a plane full of people is a recipie for disaster. I simply don't understand why people "waste" their time reading this blog when all they have is negative comments to make. They must have a lot of spare time on their hands. Sure, lets just stop Search Machines and pat downs and x-ray machines and open up our friendly skies to all sorts of mayhem. I say way to go TSA... I applaud your efforts and say that 38 tradgedies were potenially avoided this week. Keep up the good work!
----------------------------------
except that it is not 'good work' and no tragedies were averted. based on the latest publicly repeased data, at least 2 guns made it through screening for every one that was stopped. there were no tragedies despite that simple fact. none of those 38 folks were planning any violence or acts of terror. we know this because if they were, they would not have been stopped by the TSA - this has happened before, and TSA did jack. this is nothing but theatre, and does not make any of us safer.

RB said...

Anonymous said...

Hate to be the math major RB, but your calculations were correct until you put the percentage sign behind the answer. Here's a number that's even smaller than yours--the percentage of airline captains who what you armed in the back of their airplane. I flew in the Air Force with a lot of them and still maintain friendships with them. I think most of us, even the die-hard NRA members, agree that checking weapons legally and correctly is the way to go.

August 4, 2014 at 10:43 AM
----------------------------
You are correct Anon. I went back and checked my calculation on a proper calculator.

The correct number of people found with guns was .00028571428% of all travelers for that given week.

Regardless, paying TSA upwards of EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR for what is being done is ridiculous. The skills required for this type work is aT best minimum wage level and does not require the administrative infrastructure buildup that TSA has implemented.

Nor do we need multiple warehouses near DFW loaded down with equipment that TSA bought and either had no need for or that just doesn't work.

I believe that the public deserves a full accounting of TSA policies & practices with proof that demonstrates effectiveness.

We need to know how much money TSA has squandered on worthless equipment. How much money continues to be wasted on a proven ineffective BDO program. And we deserve to know how senior TSA employees are accounting for taxpayer funds seeing how many types of equipment have just disappeared from TSA checkpoints.

Who has been held accountable for buying useless equipment?

TSA how much longer before the results of the NFPRM for the Whole Body Strip Search Machines is released? It's been over a year since public comments have closed.


GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "West, you know full well that official TSA spokespersons have used the term confiscate to describe the taking of personal possessions from travelers so please don't try to convince your readers otherwise."

The wording and options have not changed since I began working for TSA (10 years ago). I can not control what other folks say (or in many cases, what other outlets say that folks say), but the options are presented for items with a small window of exception. The window of exception would be the items that require TSA to give the item to local LEOs. Items that are given over to the local LEOs may indeed be "confiscated", but that would be a decision made by the local LEOs, not TSA. TSA offers a variety of options on items that are not allowed through the checkpoint, one can go outside and place the item in question back in a car, mail it to themselves, give it to an individual that is not flying, place the item in their checked luggage (an option that is dependent on the airlines cooperation), or dispose of it in some other fashion outside of security. As a last resort, the individual passenger can voluntarily abandon an item to the checkpoint TSA staff for disposal. These are the options that have been available since I began working here, and are still the current option available to passengers (with the exception of items that must be given over to the LEOs) that have prohibited items discovered during screening.

Anon sez - "Now feel free to call me a TSA employee or TSApologist based on no facts whatsoever."

Those monikers are pretty much given to anyone that agrees with anything (in part or in whole) that TSA does.

West
TSA Blog Team

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "West, you know full well that official TSA spokespersons have used the term confiscate to describe the taking of personal possessions from travelers so please don't try to convince your readers otherwise."

The wording and options have not changed since I began working for TSA (10 years ago). I can not control what other folks say (or in many cases, what other outlets say that folks say), but the options are presented for items with a small window of exception. The window of exception would be the items that require TSA to give the item to local LEOs. Items that are given over to the local LEOs may indeed be "confiscated", but that would be a decision made by the local LEOs, not TSA. TSA offers a variety of options on items that are not allowed through the checkpoint, one can go outside and place the item in question back in a car, mail it to themselves, give it to an individual that is not flying, place the item in their checked luggage (an option that is dependent on the airlines cooperation), or dispose of it in some other fashion outside of security. As a last resort, the individual passenger can voluntarily abandon an item to the checkpoint TSA staff for disposal. These are the options that have been available since I began working here, and are still the current option available to passengers (with the exception of items that must be given over to the LEOs) that have prohibited items discovered during screening.

Anon sez - "Now feel free to call me a TSA employee or TSApologist based on no facts whatsoever."

Those monikers are pretty much given to anyone that agrees with anything (in part or in whole) that TSA does.

West
TSA Blog Team

August 5, 2014 at 10:58 AM
......................
OK West please explain the process to me.

I enter the screening area and once I do I must complete screening and cannot just turn around and exit.

During screening an item is found that cannot be taken into the sterile area.

You say I have options to either check the item, return it to my vehicle, mail it, etc., yet I cannot leave the screening area until screening is completed but I can't complete screening because I have a prohibited item.

Do I really have any other choice but to have the item taken from me?

And I agree with the comment, many TSA officials have used the word confiscate in their communications with the public. And for all practical purposes that is exactly what happens.

Case in point, I was going through screening at SLC when the xray operater screening carry on itmes moved a bag, opened it, removed a can of shave cream and then tossed that can straight into the trash. The traveler was not given any choices on what to do with the item.

That is confiscation West and I suggest that is the more typical way things are done by TSA than for any of the other so-called options.

GSOLTSO said...

RB sez - "OK West please explain the process to me."

When you enter, you go through screening like normal, if a prohibited item is found, you then depart the screening area and use whichever option you wish to. 99% of the time, you have completed the screening with the exception of what the item was found on/in. Once the item is removed from that bag and screening is completed, the TSO can escort you and the item in question from the screening area so you are able to use whichever option you prefer. This has been the same at every airport I have worked, and the ones I have traveled through and had the time to observe.

So, to distill it down:

1. Enter screening and process through.

2. Prohibited item is found.

3. You and the rest of your items complete screening.

4. If you wish to take the prohibited item and send it, check it, give it, place it in your car or any other option available to you outside of screening, you and your items/gear are escorted out of the checkpoint area and the prohibited item is given to you once you are out of the sterile/checkpoint area.

That is the essential process that has been in place for at least 10 years.

Please keep in mind that certain prohibited items require the intervention of LEOs, and the options in that situation are entirely up to those LEOs.

West
TSA Blog Team

Susan Richart said...

STOP weaseling, West, please just stop!

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Susan Richart said...

And then go through the screening process all over again - one little item you neglected to mention, West.

Where's my most post prior to this one? Censored because I told West to STOP with the Mustela words?

screen shot/DHS OIG statement.

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...
RB sez - "OK West please explain the process to me."

When you enter, you go through screening like normal, if a prohibited item is found, you then depart the screening area and use whichever option you wish to. 99% of the time, you have completed the screening with the exception of what the item was found on/in. Once the item is removed from that bag and screening is completed, the TSO can escort you and the item in question from the screening area so you are able to use whichever option you prefer. This has been the same at every airport I have worked, and the ones I have traveled through and had the time to observe.

So, to distill it down:

1. Enter screening and process through.

2. Prohibited item is found.

3. You and the rest of your items complete screening.

4. If you wish to take the prohibited item and send it, check it, give it, place it in your car or any other option available to you outside of screening, you and your items/gear are escorted out of the checkpoint area and the prohibited item is given to you once you are out of the sterile/checkpoint area.

That is the essential process that has been in place for at least 10 years.

Please keep in mind that certain prohibited items require the intervention of LEOs, and the options in that situation are entirely up to those LEOs.

West
TSA Blog Team

August 5, 2014 at 12:47 PM

.................
If I was found to have a weapon in my carry on who would hold that weapon until police arrive, the traveler or TSA?

IF TSA holds it that is in fact a confiscation and sets up claims of detention which TSA is prohibited from doing.

Seems TSA is trying to have it both ways.

Susan Richart said...

BTW, I thought the TSA had proclaimed they were not going to watch us through social media. I guess TSA forgot that they said that:

"The Transportation Security Administration requires a turn-key, transportation security -specific, Enhanced Domain Awareness (EDA) to generate observation reports. The EDA service is open source media monitoring, social network monitoring analysis and awareness integration."

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

O K West, you gave us an rundown of what SHOULD happen, but what if it does not? What recourse has the traveler if this procedure not followed, and what does the clerk get for not doing it correctly?

Nick O. said...

West, screeners have in the past and continue to confiscate non-weapons and not let or explain to passengers that they can keep their private property.

For example, the lady who had her 2" sock monkey toy gun seized because the screener was so certain it was a scary threat.

Another example, the lady who had her $75 perfume confiscated because a screener wanted it, under the pathetic excuse that a roundish bottle "looked like a grenade in the xray machine."

The lady (do you see a pattern here?) who had her grandchild's wooden toy gun taken and was not allowed to leave the screening area or keep it.

Forcing people to risk missing their flights or check even more luggage to keep an item IS confiscating it because both options cost a lot of money, putting people under financial duress.

Putting people under financial duress or threatening then with further harassment and assault unless they let a government actor seize private property IS confiscation.

As for the calling out of TSAnonymous employees and TSApologists, the shoe fits a lot of the positive comments here, West, and you know it. Occasionally, a random positive commenter may be given that label incorrectly, but "in an abundance of caution," the label is often used. Since the guy you actually bothered to reply to has obviously read and commented enough to have been given that label, without further proof he is not a TSA employee, family member, friend, or overall strong supporter of the DHS or the TSA, the label stands.

Odd that he sees being thought of as a TSA employee or supporter as an insult.

RB said...

What happens to a TSA employee who confiscates Medical Nitroglycerin medicine from a traveler?

You claim that there is no TSA prohibition against Medical Nitroglycerin, although have yet to demonstrate that claim, but multiple reports of TSA screeners confiscating lifesaving medicine have been made.

Shouldn't these TSA employees be held accountable for improper application of TSA screening procedures and face severe discipline?

Anonymous said...

Nick O. and others--why would the TSA need to read its own blog? They already know what they found. There is a lot of airline, airport, law enforcement, contractor, etc., personnel who read this blog weekly. We work with TSA employees daily, but we are obviously not federal employees. Just because we understand the threat and agree with current screening procedures doesn't make us TSA clones. I am an Airport Security Coordinator--one of the many tasks I accomplish. Google it if you want to know what that is. Stop the baseless accusations. You sound like conservatives but act like liberals.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back, Mr. Airport Security Director. Do all employees who work in the "secure" area at your airport go through TSA security each time they come to work? If not, why not? You and the rest of the employees at any airport are the biggest threat to the security of aircraft.

Anonymous said...

"When I fly, which is about 20 times per year, I don't want some random lunatic with a gun on plane. I know the odds are remote but if the TSA wasn't there, I wouldn't fly and then I wouldn't have a well paying job. This tax payer doesn't mind paying for this peace of mind. Keep up the good work TSA."

You miss the point. Guns can be readily found using the baggage x-ray and walk-through metal detector that have been around for decades. TSA critics are not saying that we should get rid of the baggage x-ray and the metal detectors. Rather, TSA critics question the use of technologies such as the whole body imagers (which are overly invasive at best) and policies/procedures such as the prohibition on certain quantities of liquids. The point is that TSA has overstepped by implementing invasive, expensive, and questionably accurate technologies and procedures at great cost to taxpayers (financially and in terms of basic human rights) without providing data or studies that the public and independent experts can review and comment on.

Nick O. said...

Yes, welcome back Mr. "Airport Security Coordinator." You haven't publicly admitted who you are for a year now. Have you not been commenting, or have you not been reading this blotter site? You know, the one you find so critical to do your job?

Mr. ASC said, "You sound like conservatives but act like liberals."

Why are you politicizing a non-partisan issue, i.e. the ineffective and intrusive policies and procedures of the TSA?

Political activity while at a public service job, using public property (computer, network, office) and/or representing yourself as a public servant is forbidden by most (all?) local and state governments, and must be for the federal government too.

Mr. ASC also said, "Just because we understand the threat and agree with current screening procedures doesn't make us TSA clones."

If you truly are an "Airport Security Coordinator," then you should know that there is no threat. Didn't the TSA tell you that they admitted in a court of law that there are no terrorist groups threatening US flights?

Don't you know that the chance of a terrorist act on a US flight is so remote that is practically zero?

Don't you know that there are no practical or viable methods of using the Die Hard 3 scenario of mixing liquid explosives while on a plane?

No one, except you, has called anyone a "TSA clone" recently...or maybe ever. Search this blog and all of its comments to find proof of recent labeling of someone as a "TSA clone." Otherwise, you are doing exactly what you accuse TSA critics of...

When Mr. ASC said, "Stop making baseless accusations."

Please explain how questioning the TSA about actual incidents and facts are "baseless." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

*screenshot*

Anonymous said...

I was going to answer you with the line from Top Gun, but my wife said it would be better if I just tell you that I firmly believe that the TSA doesn't want me debating security procedures in an open forum where the bad guys can see it. I understand and agree with their policy and I hope you can to. Let me calm your fears about me being a threat to security. I've spent almost my entire adult life defending the Constitution, which entailed several security clearance background checks. I don't really think you should be losing any sleep over me. You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of angst built up against the TSA guys running this blog. They're just trying to give the public the information they need to move smoothly and efficiently through the security checkpoint. Let's get the information out there so passengers stop bring prohibited items to the screening point and grinding things to a halt. I guess I don't understand why you all are so negative against Bob when he's only trying to speed up the screening process. I'm all for that because I can't go home until all the flights are gone, so I guess I'm a little selfish in that. BTW--my father would be very upset with you with the way you addressed me. He teared-up when I pinned on LTC but unfortunately both parents passed on before the last one.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Nick O. and others--why would the TSA need to read its own blog? They already know what they found. There is a lot of airline, airport, law enforcement, contractor, etc., personnel who read this blog weekly. We work with TSA employees daily, but we are obviously not federal employees. Just because we understand the threat and agree with current screening procedures doesn't make us TSA clones. I am an Airport Security Coordinator--one of the many tasks I accomplish. Google it if you want to know what that is. Stop the baseless accusations. You sound like conservatives but act like liberals.

August 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM
.............
Pretty big claim to say that everyone involved in airport security agrees with TSA.

How about showing some proof of that claim or is it perhaps just you, Mr. Airport Security Director, that agrees with TSA?

Exactly what does an Airport Security Director do?

You have no authority over TSA, TSA approves the Airport Security Plan, and unless you are law enforcement I don't see how you have much say over airport cops.

GSOLTSO said...

Susan R sez - "STOP weaseling, West, please just stop!"

Is that a new dance?

Susan R also sez - "And then go through the screening process all over again - one little item you neglected to mention, West.

Where's my most post prior to this one? Censored because I told West to STOP with the Mustela words?"

Anytime a passenger leaves the screening/sterile area to the public side, they must undergo screening again to enter. This rule has been in place since the beginnning of TSA.

See above for your previous comment - also, I would like to point out (again) that the blog is not moderated 24/7, meaning it may take a bit for posts to show up. What have you got against Mustelidae - or is it only a certain subset (as I have not heard you decrying badgers, wolverines or otters here yet)?

Anon sez - "O K West, you gave us an rundown of what SHOULD happen, but what if it does not? What recourse has the traveler if this procedure not followed, and what does the clerk get for not doing it correctly?"

If you feel the options have not been presented to you properly, or you feel that the TSO is not following the proper procedures, the next step is to request a supervisor. As for what happens with the TSO that does not get things right, it can vary based upon the situation.

Nick O sez - "As for the calling out of TSAnonymous employees and TSApologists, the shoe fits a lot of the positive comments here, West, and you know it."

The only thing I know for certain about anonymous comments, is that many of the regulars here automatically label other Anons (and not in a positive tone most times). I have no clue who the Anons are (positive or negative commentary), and I do not care. What I care about, is that these people continue to comment about how they feel - either agreeing with TSA, agreeing with you, agreeing with others that post here, or any combination of agreement/disagreement. So, please continue to provide your feedback, and I solicit the others that comment here to continue providing feedback - however they feel about what they are reading here.

Anon sez - "They're just trying to give the public the information they need to move smoothly and efficiently through the security checkpoint. Let's get the information out there so passengers stop bring prohibited items to the screening point and grinding things to a halt."

We appreciate the understanding, and this is the essential reason we post much of the stuff we do - to further awareness and to try and prevent passengers from having challenges. We appreciate feedback from all people, and hope you will post again. Completely unrelated side question - was your rise in the ranks capped at Full Bird or did you go higher?

West
TSA Blog Team

Susan Richart said...

"Anonymous said...

I was going to answer you with the line from Top Gun, but my wife said it would be better if I just tell you that I firmly believe that the TSA doesn't want me debating security procedures in an open forum where the bad guys can see it..."

Are you Mr. Airport Security Director? And to whom are you addressing your blather?

I certainly hope that you don't believe that the TSA's "security procedures" are that much of a secret.

As for the rest of your comments, it seems that the TSA isn't doing such a good job on "getting the word out" as more and more weapons are found each year in spite of this blog.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Susan Richart said...

As for your comments addressed to me, West, stop trying to be cute. You know full well what the term "weaseling" means. Besides which, we have been through this before.

Your original comment about leaving the screening line in order to abandon a prohibited item did not make it clear that one would have to go through screening all over again.

A novice could take your comment to mean that he/she could just waltz on off to their flight as they had already completed screening once.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

"You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of angst built up against the TSA guys running this blog."

Are you trying to say that anybody who questions TSA is a threat?

Anonymous said...

OK West, What if the supervisor backs up the clerk who was wrong what then?Please do not say to continue up the chain as you will see each backing the other up.There should be no variance based on the situation as the rules are written by the T.S.A. and should be followed as we have to. One more thing, When are you going to answer a question as asked?

Nick O. said...

West, you said, "I have no clue who the Anons are (positive or negative commentary), and I do not care."

So we can take this as confirmation that the TSA blotter team allows TSA employees to post anonymously and not identify themselves as TSA employees when posting on this blotter.

Despite the fact that this is unethical behavior as outlined by many government agencies' social media policy across the US.

Despite the fact that these anonymous TSA employees deride, insult, and demean people who are critical of the TSA, in violation of this blotter's own comment policy.

Despite the fact that allowing TSA employees to post anonymously and pretend to be part of the general citizenry and not government employees is misleading and increases the level of distrust the public feels towards the TSA.

It's all okay with you, West, and your blotter team buddies.

You're right, West. You do not care, which is why you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

*screenshot*

GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "Are you trying to say that anybody who questions TSA is a threat?"

I think that you may be reading a bit too much into that comment. It simply sounded like an observation, based on the way some of the comments are written.

Nick O sez - "So we can take this as confirmation that the TSA blotter team allows TSA employees to post anonymously and not identify themselves as TSA employees when posting on this blotter."

You can take this as confirmation that anonymous comments submitted to the blog are posted as anonymous regardless of the person submitting it. Which is the whole purpose behind allowing anonymous commentary.

You do realize that there are comments that are the opposite of what you are indicating as well. There are several comments from people that are obviously not employees, that indicate they are. The point I am making, is that commentary posted here is allowed under your chosen handle if you wish, or anonymously if you wish.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I was going to answer you with the line from Top Gun,
--------------------------------
racking my brain and still can't figure out which line you think is appropriate to the situation ...
---------------------------------
but my wife said it would be better if I just tell you that I firmly believe that the TSA doesn't want me debating security procedures in an open forum where the bad guys can see it.
--------------------------------
this is one of the most substative reason that so many of us seriously question whether there are any actual security practitioners at TSA. real security experts have repeatedly debunked the effectiveness of 'secrecy as security'. it doesn't work and makes things harder for the good guys. if everyone is on the same sheet, it is easier to spot things that are wrong.
--------------------------------
I understand and agree with their policy and I hope you can to.
--------------------------------
see above. I disagree, and so does most of the security community.
--------------------------------
Let me calm your fears about me being a threat to security. I've spent almost my entire adult life defending the Constitution, which entailed several security clearance background checks. I don't really think you should be losing any sleep over me.
--------------------------------
I've been over the thread 3 times, and I can't find any indication that a commenter thought of you as a threat. an unthinking drone, perhaps. one unwilling to question the obvious flaws in the system. not a threat.
---------------------------------
You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of angst built up against the TSA guys running this blog. They're just trying to give the public the information they need to move smoothly and efficiently through the security checkpoint. Let's get the information out there so passengers stop bring prohibited items to the screening point and grinding things to a halt. I guess I don't understand why you all are so negative against Bob when he's only trying to speed up the screening process.
---------------------------------
the angst may relate to the habit of the bloggers to only selectively answer questions, and then only answer selectively. there is excellent reason to have a certain amount of angst regarding any organization with secret rules, lists, and procedures, and with no effective appeal or independent review of their actions, purchases, or decisions. at least there is in a free society.
----------------------------------
I'm all for that because I can't go home until all the flights are gone, so I guess I'm a little selfish in that.
---------------------------------
fair enough. the return to pre-911 procedures and clear publishing of rules, lists and procedures should get you home on time pretty much every day. that's what you should be looking to happen.
----------------------------------
BTW--my father would be very upset with you with the way you addressed me. He teared-up when I pinned on LTC but unfortunately both parents passed on before the last one.

August 8, 2014 at 9:17 AM
---------------------------------
again, I have been through the thread 3 times, and I can find nowhere that the commenter referred to you or addressed you in any manner that should make your father upset. is it that he didn't call you 'Colonel'? we're both retired, and don't need to use our rank anymore.

Nick O. said...

West, are you saying you can tell when an Anonymous person isn't a TSA employee when he claims he is, but you are unable to tell when a TSA employee posts anonymously that he is a TSA employee?

You've strained logic to the breaking point.

GSOLTSO said...

Nick O sez - "West, are you saying you can tell when an Anonymous person isn't a TSA employee when he claims he is, but you are unable to tell when a TSA employee posts anonymously that he is a TSA employee?

You've strained logic to the breaking point."

I did not say that, although in *some* cases it would be probable to pick those comments out of the multitude here - based solely on information contained and jargon/language used).

I merely employed basic logic and the law of averages. It stands to reason that some of the comments indicating employment are not actually employees. Like some of the comments indicating they are a passenger are not truly passengers, but someone simply saying they are. Like some of the complaints published in the media are not true as they are posted.

Again, the point I am making is that anonymous posters, are anonymous regardless of labels anyone else puts on them - which is the purpose behind allowing anonymous commentary.

West
TSA Blog Team

Nick O. said...

And you have yet to say, West, why this blotter and why its moderators and why the TSA allows its govt employees to be so unethical and unprofessional as to post anonymously on this blotter and pretend to be part of the traveling public.

Care to explain?

Nick O. said...

12 days have passed.. Guess West does not want to explain. Nice that at his level (2 or 3 striper screener), he gets to make those decisions and represent the entire TSA in such a shameful manner.