Friday, February 27, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 53 Loaded Firearms, a Modified Laptop, an Airbag, and More

Loaded firearm discovered in carry-on bag at Ontario (ONT).


59 Firearms Discovered This Week Of the 59 firearms, 53 were loaded and 20 had rounds chambered.

Modified Laptop at FLL - This modified laptop appeared as a potential threat item on the X-ray monitor, and a result, the airport incurred a 49 minute evacuation of the checked baggage screening area while explosive detection professionals cleared the item. In addition to packing electronics properly to avoid a delay during screening, we recommend that you pack laptop computers and other valuables in your carry-on baggage.
 
Modified laptop discovered at Ft. Lauderdale (FLL).
Airbag discovered at Sacramento (SMF).
Airbag - An airbag was discovered in a carry-on bag in Sacramento (SMF). According to the FAA Office of Security and Hazardous Material, airbag actuators are on the list of hazardous materials and are prohibited from transport aboard passenger aircraft. Read more info on why airbags are prohibited here. 

Artfully Concealed Prohibited Items – Artfully concealed is a term used to describe an item that was intentionally hidden. It could be anything from a knife sewn into the lining of a bag to a sword hidden inside of a walking cane. If a concealed prohibited item is discovered in your bag or on your body, you could be cited and possibly arrested by law enforcement. Here is an example from this week where an artfully concealed item was found by our officers.

  • A folding knife was detected inside the battery compartment of a flashlight in a carry-on bag at Minneapolis - St. Paul (MSP).

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 respond to resolve the alarm. Even if they are novelty items, you are prohibited from bringing them on the aircraft.  Read here on why inert items cause problems. 

L-R: Inert grenades discovered in carry-on bags at LAX & LAS
Clockwise from top left: Punching Weapon (CHS), Throwing Knives (ORD), Throwing Star (MCO), M-80 Fireworks (TUS), Brass Knuckle Cellphone Case (ALB)

Miscellaneous Prohibited Items In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly, 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.

Stun Guns - 11 stun guns were discovered this week in carry-on bags. Two were discovered at Dallas Love (DAL), and the remainder were discovered at Baltimore (BWI), Burbank (BUR), Chicago Midway (MDW), Fayetteville (FAY), Gulfport (GPT), Gunnison (GUC), Kansas City (MCI), Reno (RNO), and San Francisco (SFO).

Ammunition – When packed properly, ammunition can be transported in your checked baggage, but it is never permissible to pack ammo in your carry-on bag.

Clockwise from top left corner, firearms discovered in carry-on bags at: BNA, CMH, MSY & BIL
Clockwise from top left corner, firearms discovered in carry-on bags at: RNO, LAS, STL, ATL, JAX & HRL
L-R: Firearms discovered in carry-on bags at:ORF & LAS
59 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 59 firearms, 53 were loaded and 20 had rounds chambered.
*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.

Read our 2014 Year in Review post! If you haven’t read them yet, make sure you check out our year in review posts for 2011, 2012 and 2013

Follow @TSABlogTeam on Twitter and Instagram!

Bob Burns

TSA Blog Team

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

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

"In addition to packing electronics properly (insert link to web page with this content) to avoid a delay during screening, we recommend that you pack laptop computers and other valuables in checked baggage."

NO WAY, NO HOW! GOOD GOD,I'D BE JUST HANDING OVER MY LIFE! MY COMPUTER STAYS WITH ME AT ALL TIMES!

Jean said...

"In addition to packing electronics properly (insert link to web page with this content) to avoid a delay during screening, we recommend that you pack laptop computers and other valuables in checked baggage."

I would NEVER put my computer in checked baggage! I'd be handing you my life to be stolen and tossed around. Never, never!

Anonymous said...

TSA is contradicting themselves: the "packing tip" page clearly states "Do not pack jewelry, cash, computers, electronics, or fragile items in your checked baggage." I also believe the airline agent asked if there are no vaulables or fragile items in my checked baggage when I flew recently. This article suggests "to avoid a delay during screening, we recommend that you pack laptop computers and other valuables in checked baggage." I don't think it's a good idea to leave laptops in checked baggage for various reasons.

Anonymous said...

"In addition to packing electronics properly (insert link to web page with this content) to avoid a delay during screening …"

Oops, someone fell asleep while copying and pasting content into this week's police log, I mean blog post.

Anonymous said...

"Modified laptop?"

All I see is a phone and maybe an external hard drive, connected by USB cables, taped to the laptop's case.

Of course the stupidity here is that a traveler trusted TSOs and baggage handlers not to steal his laptop in checked baggage.

RB said...

In addition to packing electronics properly (insert link to web page with this content) to avoid a delay during screening, we recommend that you pack laptop computers and other valuables in checked baggage.

Really? You aresuggesting that we pack valuable electronics in check baggage where TSA or other sticky fingers can walk off with a cart load of goodies to fence. No only no but heck no.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that you recommend we put laptops in checked baggage. The airline suggests we do not. The only time i checked a delicate electronic device ( small printer for laptop) to not cause a delay at security it was destroyed in baggage. I now carry it on and always take it out of the bag and apologize for delay but I cannot keep replacing it.

rds said...

Are these people arrested. If so what is the outcome?w

Jay said...

It's nice to see some of the objects we have found.

Jas said...

Good work guys, it's nice to know that these weapons didn't make it on to the planes.

Bob Burns (TSA Blog Team) said...

My apologies for the incorrect information. It was supposed to read "carry-on" bags. It is recommended that you pack valuables and expensive electronics in your carry-on bags.

Thanks,

Bob Burns -TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

"All I see is a phone and maybe an external hard drive, connected by USB cables, taped to the laptop's case."

And this shows that you have no business armchair quarterbacking the TSA when you're ignorant of the job that they do.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Still nothing from the surrender- boxes? I can't call them nudie scanners anymore because that term really upsets the intern.

And still with the things being confiscated that aren't a threat to aviation. You posted quiet plainly that those items were inert so why dd you take them?

TSORon said...

Anonumous said...
[[NO WAY, NO HOW! GOOD GOD,I'D BE JUST HANDING OVER MY LIFE! MY COMPUTER STAYS WITH ME AT ALL TIMES!]]

And here is a perfect example of a passenger making the decision for themselves. Well done Anon. Personally, I keep mine with me as well, I dont mind the extra screening time.

Anonymous said...

Wow.

Bobby can respond VERY quickly to criticisms of his (apparently mis-typed) directions to put laptop computers in checked baggage.

But he still won't respond to the fact that a TSA supervisor at PHL blatantly committed perjury as part of his TSA duties-- using taxpayer money to commit a crime.

Not only that, but Bobby refuses to allow comments through the moderation queue that NAME the criminal TSA supervisor. He's also delaying any comments that even ASK about the perjury-- but letting through pro-TSA comments like clockwork.

Good to know you're shielding criminals and blatantly engaging in non-viewpoint-neutral moderation, Bobby. If there's one principle America stands for, it's that "liberty and justice for all" doesn't apply when the TSA is involved, right?

Anonymous said...


As always, absolutely nothing you needed your slow, invasive, and ineffective naked body scanners to detect. Meanwhile, how many people suffered physical searches thanks to false alarms on these useless machines?

Why are Curtis Burns and West Cooper unwilling to address, let alone answer, that question?

How many weeks has it been since you last trumpeted something dangerous you found with the naked body scanners?

RB said...

" Anonymous said...Wow.Bobby can respond VERY quickly to criticisms of his (apparently mis-typed) directions to put laptop computers in checked baggage.But he still won't respond to the fact that a TSA supervisor at PHL blatantly committed perjury as part of his TSA duties-- using taxpayer money to commit a crime."
*********************
Bobbie doesn't need to respond on this point.

TSA has stated time and time again that TSA has ethics standards.

The case of the TSA supervisor filing a false police report and then comitting perjury in a court of law without any action being taken against him helps us understand just where TSA ethics standards fall, and that would be lower than sub-standard.

TSA 's silence tells us all we need to know.

Anonymous said...

Why is the laptop included? It was a completely harmless device to which your agency overreacted. That's on you, not the innocent traveler whose laptop was completely harmless.

Anonymous said...

As always Anon, your slow, invasive and inneffective comments about body scanners. Change the tune.

Anonymous said...

"All I see is a phone and maybe an external hard drive, connected by USB cables, taped to the laptop's case."

and what TSA or anyone with some very basic understanding of how a terror organization may think sees is a posible bomb, a possible test to see what the xray or screeners will see.
You see, terror groups will run tests on TSA to see if items can get past security. If they do, they expose w weakness in teh system that may be exploited later. They will test on a small scale. If successful, they test on a larger scale and then larger again. If caught, its no big deal. Taping a cell phone to a computer is not a crime, thus no arrest. But the reality is, it could very well be a terrorist threat and perhaps due to its failure, thousands of lives may have been saved. There is just no way to know. But clearly, people who post here have all the answers because you are all experts in terrorism im sure. You seem to be under the impression that terrorist attacks are not a concern. Fact is, terror groups are watching us very closley. Us being Americans. They are very patient. They are in no hurry to attack. They probably are at American airports every day watching, looking for weaknesses and continued lapses and paterns. When they see a consistant patern, they will exploit it. They will attack. Thy even publish a propaganda magizine that tells other terrorist how to make bombs, breach security and how TSA equipment works. They encourage attacks. Dont be so niave to think we are safe from terrorist.

Anonymous said...

Will TSA comment on the applicability of the article at http://www.salon.com/2012/08/15/the_sham_terrorism_expert_industry/ with respect to TSA's mission and the true risk of a terror attack on the US aviation system?

Susan Richart said...

"They probably are at American airports every day watching, looking for weaknesses and continued lapses and paterns."

Please, do you really believe that? Even if it were true, then an attack would have come years ago since the TSA is so transparent and its employees are certainly not the cream of the crop.

As someone has said "...The threat community stays in business by copying each others' threats and by never meeting a threat they didn't like..."

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...You see, terror groups will run tests on TSA to see if items can get past security.

Then how come there haven't been any terrorists arrested at an airport while trying to test the TSA?

Anonymous said...

"As always Anon, your slow, invasive and inneffective comments about body scanners. Change the tune."

Why does a simple question that TSA's bloggers are too cowardly to answer upset you so, I wonder?

Anonymous said...

Then how come there haven't been any terrorists arrested at an airport while trying to test the TSA?


Really? Do I need to answer this for you? What crime was commited? If they bring a laptop with a clock taped to it and it looks like a bomb in the xray, what crime did he commit? If they bring an inert grenade, its a local law enforcment issue. Maybe they do get arrested, I dont know. Do I think terrorist are testing TSA's systems? Absolutly. Only a fool would bellieve we are safe from terror attacks. As I have said before, even if the 9-11 hijackers had been caught at the checkpoint, their box cutter taken, nobody would have known that the worlds largest terror attack had just been prevented. It is entirely possible that another even larger attack has been prevented by TSA. There is just no way to know.

Anonymous said...

"As always Anon, your slow, invasive and inneffective comments about body scanners. Change the tune."

Why does a simple question that TSA's bloggers are too cowardly to answer upset you so, I wonder?

Its like asking if your father beats your mother less now. It is impossible to answer an inacurate misleading question. Its so absurd a question nobody takes it serious.

Anonymous said...

"Its like asking if your father beats your mother less now. It is impossible to answer an inacurate misleading question. Its so absurd a question nobody takes it serious."

The question is neither inaccurate nor misleading. Every single day, there are many, many people who are patted-down or otherwise physically searched because the naked body scanners produce false positives. Why is it inaccurate or misleading to ask TSA how many people have to undergo these physical searches thanks to their use of slow, invasive, and ineffective screening technology?

This is a simple and legitimate question about how well TSA's primary screening technology works. And no one from TSA has the guts or the honesty to answer, address, or acknowledge it.

Why do you think this simple, legitimate question is so scary to Curtis Burns and West Cooper?

Susan Richart said...

"This is a simple and legitimate question about how well TSA's primary screening technology works."

In fact the GAO has asked the TSA to do a study on false alarms on the scanners and the TSA refuses to do so.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

SSSS for Some Reason said...

"... It is entirely possible that another even larger attack has been prevented by TSA. There is just no way to know."

So that would mean it is equally possible that *hasn't* been an another attempted attack. There is just no way to know.

Oh, and your assertion that the September 11th attackers could have been stopped just by taking their nox cutters..... laughable at best. MOnths and months of planning, training, organizing and then 'shoot, they took away our little knives... back to the cave guys, we gotta start over.'

Anonymous said...

The question is neither inaccurate nor misleading. Every single day, there are many, many people who are patted-down or otherwise physically searched because the naked body scanners produce false positives. we all know they arent naked body scanners. they dont produce false negitives. They are designed to detect anomolies. it is a machine. it has no way to know if it is a tic tac or a firecracker. Why is it inaccurate or misleading to ask TSA how many people have to undergo these physical searches thanks to their use of slow, invasive, and ineffective screening technology? they are neither invasive nor inneffective. Slow is a matter of opinion.

This is a simple and legitimate question about how well TSA's primary screening technology works. And no one from TSA has the guts or the honesty to answer, address, or acknowledge it. You want them to argue YOUR opinion? sounds silly to me.

Why do you think this simple, legitimate question is so scary to Curtis Burns and West Cooper? its not scary, its just rediculous and not a valid or relevant question.Perhaps ask a question that makes sense and leave out the editorial aspect. You want to know how many people had a patdown as a result of AIT screeing? ask just that. My guess is there are no records as it is pretty irrelevant. If the machine alarms on one person 10 times, does not mean there were 10 pat downs. these really are common sense answers.

tomeegee said...

I was one of those pre-selected for the TSA Pre program. My wife is now a member via sign up. When I complete our reservations, she has a Known Traveler Number, I do not. My Pecheck status just comes up on my ticket. Will I ever receive a number? Or is there a way to know my number?

Anonymous said...

"I have two masters degrees" said:

"...You see, terror groups will run tests on TSA to see if items can get past security. If they do, they expose w weakness in teh system that may be exploited later. They will test on a small scale. If successful, they test on a larger scale and then larger again..."

Do you ever post anything that is actually a fact and not the product of your imagination?

On what basis do you presume to tell us how terror groups think and act? Have you, for example, interviewed sufficient terrorists to be able to offer an informed opinion of how a terror group thinks? If so, congrats. Legitimate researchers don't have access to so many terrorists willing to talk in detail about their organizations.

But regardless of any qualifications that you care to invent, your position is illogical. You wrote, "When they see a consistant patern, they will exploit it. They will attack." So why haven't there been any terror attempts/attacks taking advantage of the gaping holes that have existed in TSA's procedures for years (e.g., bombs in body cavities, bombs smuggled in by employees and crew, bombs in cargo, bombs smuggled past naked body scanners via the Jon Corbett method, and bombs concealed on children and the elderly)? Why haven't terror groups bombed TSA checkpoints? That's a real vulnerability. Coordinated attacks on TSA checkpoints would kill commercial air travel in the US and spread fear at light speed.

"Taping a cell phone to a computer is not a crime, thus no arrest. But the reality is, it could very well be a terrorist threat and perhaps due to its failure, thousands of lives may have been saved..."

"Could very well be?" You are still making things up! I can carry a phone and a computer separately on board and tape them together once I'm in my seat. By your reasoning, I could very well be a terrorist threat. I guess you get a gold star for virtually saving thousands of lives.

And what "thousands" anyway? If a bomb is successfully detonated on a plane, how do you figure that there will be "thousands" of deaths? Nobody's hijacking commercial jets and using them as guided missiles again. We have locked cockpit doors. We have passengers and crew who will fight back (not including you).

Anonymous said...

Why does a simple question that TSA's bloggers are too cowardly to answer upset you so, I wonder?

Its like asking if your father beats your mother less now. It is impossible to answer an inacurate misleading question. Its so absurd a question nobody takes it serious.


Speaking of beatings, gaslighting is a common technique of emotional abusers.

Anonymous said...

Oh Mr Annon, you have such a simple mind. Let me try to educate you on things many learn early in life...

"I have two masters degrees" said:

"...You see, terror groups will run tests on TSA to see if items can get past security. If they do, they expose w weakness in the system that may be exploited later. They will test on a small scale. If successful, they test on a larger scale and then larger again..."

Do you ever post anything that is actually a fact and not the product of your imagination? yes, all the time,

On what basis do you presume to tell us how terror groups think and act? Have you, for example, interviewed sufficient terrorists to be able to offer an informed opinion of how a terror group thinks? think for a minute... What would you do if you were a terroroist? If so, congrats. Legitimate researchers don't have access to so many terrorists willing to talk in detail about their organizations. well, really they do

But regardless of any qualifications that you care to invent, your position is illogical. You wrote, "When they see a consistant patern, they will exploit it. They will attack." So why haven't there been any terror attempts/attacks taking advantage of the gaping holes that have existed in TSA's procedures for years (e.g., bombs in body cavities, bombs smuggled in by employees and crew, bombs in cargo, bombs smuggled past naked body scanners via the Jon Corbett method, and bombs concealed on children and the elderly)? huh, and people wonder why the elderly and children are screened. Good job. You answered 2 questions at once. Why haven't terror groups bombed TSA checkpoints? maybe they will That's a real vulnerability. Coordinated attacks on TSA checkpoints would kill commercial air travel in the US and spread fear at light speed.

"Taping a cell phone to a computer is not a crime, thus no arrest. But the reality is, it could very well be a terrorist threat my bad, should have said TEST and perhaps due to its failure, thousands of lives may have been saved..."

"Could very well be?" You are still making things up! I can carry a phone and a computer separately on board and tape them together once I'm in my seat. By your reasoning, I could very well be a terrorist threat. I guess you get a gold star for virtually saving thousands of lives.

And what "thousands" anyway? If a bomb is successfully detonated on a plane, how do you figure that there will be "thousands" of deaths? generally there are more than one plane in the air..I think. Nobody's hijacking commercial jets and using them as guided missiles again. We have locked cockpit doors. We have passengers and crew who will fight back (not including you). non of which have been tested in a real situation, perhaps due to the success of TSA. Please dont assume I wouldnt fight back. You know nothing about me.

Anonymous said...

"we all know they arent naked body scanners. they dont produce false negitives. They are designed to detect anomolies. it is a machine. it has no way to know if it is a tic tac or a firecracker."

They generate an image of people's naked bodies by scanning them; that is the very definition of a naked body scanner. And they produce a roughly 100% false positive rate, since they alarm frequently but never on anything dangerous. Smart security would recognize that as a sign that the naked body scanners are overly sensitive and do more harm than good - but no one's ever accured TSA of being smart.

"they are neither invasive nor inneffective. Slow is a matter of opinion."

Nonsense. They detect harmless and private medial devices - that makes them invasive - and nothing they detect is dangerous - that makes them ineffective. And they take much longer than a simple, noninvasive, effective WTMD, making them slow.

"You want them to argue YOUR opinion? sounds silly to me."

No, I want them to tell us how many false positives resulting in physical searches the naked body scanners cause every week. None of that involves my opinion, and it's strange that you think it does.

"its not scary, its just rediculous and not a valid or relevant question.Perhaps ask a question that makes sense and leave out the editorial aspect. You want to know how many people had a patdown as a result of AIT screeing? ask just that. My guess is there are no records as it is pretty irrelevant. If the machine alarms on one person 10 times, does not mean there were 10 pat downs. these really are common sense answers."

Nothing you've written is common sense; indeed, much of it barely qualifies as English. A professional organization would collect data on its technology and share that data with the public.

Susan Richart said...

"they dont produce false negitives" write our allegedly Mensa member who is again neglecting spell check.

The GAO thinks otherwise.

"In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which conducted the audit, determined that TSA does not track AIT false alarm rates and does not track pat-down rates. “This could lead to inefficiencies and excess cost,”

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Susan Richart said...

"its not scary, its just rediculous and not a valid or relevant question.Perhaps ask a question that makes sense and leave out the editorial aspect."

Perhaps you should take your own advice and just give us facts without your misspelled editorial comments, Mr. Mensa-man.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Why does a simple question that TSA's bloggers are too cowardly to answer upset you so, I wonder?

Its like asking if your father beats your mother less now. It is impossible to answer an inacurate misleading question. Its so absurd a question nobody takes it serious.

Speaking of beatings, gaslighting is a common technique of emotional abusers.

March 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM

Gaslighting, a technique used by the TSA Blog.

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
"we all know they arent naked body scanners."

Read the RFPs. A requested feature was that they can not only store, but also transmit, the underlying image. Software takes that image and creates the Gumby image, but the underlying image is still there.

"they dont produce false negitives."

Umm... A false negative is an item that makes it past that shouldn't. So, you either mean false positives, in which case, a false positive is something detected that is not WEI, and you are simply playing word games. If you really mean false negative, then you're claiming that the machines detect 100% of threat items. There are videos online proving otherwise.

"They are designed to detect anomolies."

Then they are exceeding the administrative search allowance carved out by SCOTUS, as they are only allowed to look for WEI.

"they are neither invasive nor inneffective. Slow is a matter of opinion."

In your own words, they cannot tell the difference between a tic tac and a firecracker, so they cannot tell the difference between threat and non-threat, ie, they are ineffective. Also, they have a huge blind spot which has been demonstrated, ie, they are ineffective. Also, they are demonstrably slower than WTMDs, so no, it is not a matter of opinion.

"You want them to argue YOUR opinion? sounds silly to me."

No, we want someone to acknowledge these FACTS instead of playing word games.

"its not scary, its just rediculous and not a valid or relevant question.Perhaps ask a question that makes sense and leave out the editorial aspect."

The question is completely valid AND relevant. Is there an editorial slant to the way it's worded? Perhaps. But your reply is FULL of editorial slant as well.

"You want to know how many people had a patdown as a result of AIT screeing?"

Yes.

"ask just that."

We have been. So has the GAO. Just because you don't like the way it's worded doesn't mean we haven't.


"My guess is there are no records as it is pretty irrelevant."

You'd think a government agency would start tracking this statistic if the GAO thinks it's relevant.

Anonymous said...

I was taking students on a trip. One of them had a plastic water bottle with a little water left in it. It was caught. No problem, he drank the water. Then the rest of us waited while he was directed to go through the entire security process again, back to the end of the line with that bottle. Which he did. The bottle went through the x-ray and he went through the scanner...again. The crowd was clearly sympathetic and one helpful passenger in a gesture of kindness, picked up the bottle and handed it to him. TSA made both of them go through the security process again. I was wishing I had videoed the entire grotesque event.

Spectacles like that do WHAT to enhance the status of TSA? They sure do nothing for security. Does TSA really want this kind of drama? Why?

My most recent personal interaction? I had sensitive high speed film in an x-ray-proof bag. Coming back from the delivery, TSA pulls that bag out of my carryon and asks about it. I explained. They wanted to know why it was empty? I explained that I was returning from the delivery. They explained that because it was x-ray proof, they had to inspect it separately from the bag. No problem. Guess what? They put that same x-ray proof bag that they couldn't see through using the x-rays...back through the x-ray machine again. You think they saw anything the second time around?
This kind of thoughtless nonsense enhances neither the security of air travel, nor the reputation of TSA.

Please....start thinking about these things. Please.

I will post this as anonymous because I don't want to become the target of even more of this kind of nonsense. Please.

Anonymous said...

Susan wrote, "Perhaps you should take your own advice and just give us facts without your misspelled editorial comments, Mr. Mensa-man."

Wow Susan you wrote that yourself?

- unintelligent
- childish personal attack
- no critical thought demonstrated

Wait! Of course you did.

RB said...

"You want to know how many people had a patdown as a result of AIT screeing?"

Yes. "ask just that."

We have been. So has the GAO. Just because you don't like the way it's worded doesn't mean we haven't.

"My guess is there are no records as it is pretty irrelevant."

You'd think a government agency would start tracking this statistic if the GAO thinks it's relevant.March 13, 2015 at 1:20 AM

****************************
I can report that I have had my bare, visible, and exposed neck patted down by TSA due to WBI screening.

If that isn't a case of WBI false positive there will never be one.

tomeegee said...

So I guess this blog is for rants and not getting basic questions answered?

SSSS for Some Reason said...

tomeegee said...
So I guess this blog is for rants and not getting basic questions answered?

Pretty much.

The TSA won't answer some questions because its super-secret-information (SSI).

The TSA can't answer some questions because there is both a legal team AND a narrative that must be maintained.

And the TSA, as a matter of practice, doesn't use this forum for a conversation but there are several employees who will answer some questions. As to the validity of those answers.... up to you to decide.

Anonymous said...

tomeegee said...
So I guess this blog is for rants and not getting basic questions answered?

March 15, 2015 at 3:01 PM


Only because Blogger Bob has refused to address questions and in some cases where he did he was less than truthful.

This blog is in the shape it is because the TSA Bloggers can't operate a blog just as the rest of TSA cannot effectively operate airport security screening operations.

Wintermute said...

Blogger RB said...

"I can report that I have had my bare, visible, and exposed neck patted down by TSA due to WBI screening.

"If that isn't a case of WBI false positive there will never be one."

Nah... You're apparently an anomaly... You know... someone willing to think for themselves instead of blindly following... Those are anomalies these days...

Anonymous said...

Please dont assume I wouldnt fight back. You know nothing about me.

I admit I know nothing about any of you either but I would fight back on the plane even though I comply with everything at the checkpoint, which btw doesnt have "naked" body scanners no matter how many times you say it does.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...which btw doesnt have "naked" body scanners...

Naked : Adjective (of a person or part of the body) without clothes. synonyms: nude, bare, in the nude, stark naked, having nothing on, stripped, unclothed, undressed;

Scanner : Noun a device for examining, reading, or monitoring something, in particular.

So a Naked Scanner would be something that can see you naked, can examine you as if you were naked.

The scanners can see -through- your clothes to 'detect anomalies' you may be concealing beneath your clothing.

That sounds like by every definition they are, in fact, Naked Scanners.

Anonymous said...

Bob,
I don't know about the other readers of this blog, but when I'm looking at the table of weapons found at various airports, I always look for my familiar local airport codes, to see what was found at the airports that I usually fly through. If you click on the Airport Code heading in the spreadsheet column (live version, not posted version), you could probably sort the table by Airport Code, rather than by date, and post that sorted list to the blog. Actually, you did post it sorted by Airport Code one time, which was great, although it's usually done by date. Just a thought, to make the info more meaningful to the reader.