Friday, March 27, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 44 Loaded Firearms, Smoke Grenade, a Belt Buckle Knife, and More

This loaded firearm was discovered in a carry-on bag at HOU.
This loaded firearm was discovered in a carry-on bag at HOU.
53 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 53 firearms, 44 were loaded and 24 had rounds chambered.
     
Live Smoke Grenade (LAS), Cologne Grenades (TPA & DEN), Firework Grenade (SFO)
Live Smoke Grenade (LAS), Cologne Grenades (TPA & DEN), Firework Grenade (SFO)
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. 

  • Three replica grenades were discovered this week. Two were grenade-shaped cologne bottles discovered in carry-on bags at Denver (DEN) and Tampa (TPA). The third was a hot sauce container designed to look like a flash-bang grenade. It was discovered in a carry-on bag at Chicago O’Hare (ORD).
  • A grenade shaped homemade firework was discovered in a carry-on bag at San Francisco (SFO)
  • A live smoke grenade was discovered in a checked bag at Las Vegas (LAS).

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 are some examples from this week where artfully concealed items were discovered by our officers.
  • A four-inch belt buckle knife was discovered in a carry-on bag at New York Kennedy (JFK).
Belt Buckle Knife (JFK)
Belt Buckle Knife (JFK)

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.
 
Knife (JFK), Fireworks (BOI), Rifle/Torch Lighter (PBG), Spiked Kubotan and Mustachioed Pepper Spray (BUR)
Knife (JFK), Fireworks (BOI), Rifle/Torch Lighter (PBG), Spiked Kubotan and Mustachioed Pepper Spray (BUR)

All of these items were discovered in a passenger's carry-on bag at MCI: Ammunition, Knife, Tactical Spike, and Pepper Spray
All of these items were discovered in a passenger's carry-on bag at MCI: Ammunition, Knife, Tactical Spike, and Pepper Spray

Stun Guns - 18 stun guns were discovered this week in carry-on bags. Three were discovered at Portland (PDX), two at Denver (DEN), two at Las Vegas (LAS), two at San Francisco (SFO), and the remainder at Atlanta (ATL), Austin (AUS), Charlotte (CLT), Chicago Midway (MDW), Dallas Love (DAL), Memphis (MEM), New York LaGuardia (LGA), Salt Lake City (SLC), and San Juan (SJU).

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, firearms discovered at: IND, PHX, TYS, BNA, and AUS
Clockwise from top left, firearms discovered at: IND, PHX, TYS, BNA, and AUS

Clockwise from top, firearms discovered at: CVG, LAS, SDF, and ATL
Clockwise from top, firearms discovered at: CVG, LAS, SDF, and ATL

Clockwise from top left, firearms discovered at:MDW, OAJ, TPA, and PHF
Clockwise from top left, firearms discovered at:MDW, OAJ, TPA, and PHF

Top - Bottom, firearms discovered at MEM, and ATL
Top - Bottom, firearms discovered at MEM, and ATL



53 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 53 firearms, 44 were loaded and 24 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.

 

75 comments:

SSSS for Some Reason said...

"...Cologne Grenades "

And bottles of Colgne can't fly why?

Oh, putting your pictures into a collage format doesn't mean we can't see you are recycling them again. Still.

@SkyWayManAz said...

Reading you had to release some info on your SPOT program due to an ACLU lawsuit. It seems I am clearly guilty of behavior that emboldens your screeners to be abusive towards me. Before you guys were more open about bulky clothing being considered a threat it never occurred to me I was yelled at for wearing a sweater in winter. Even after I caught on and took my sweater off while waiting in line it didn’t seem to help but I guess I was already flagged by then. At any rate for years, even before 9/11, I would double check to make sure metal was out of my pockets. Now I check to make sure everything is out of all of my pockets. That patting down of my own self to be courteous and keep the line moving appears to be rewarded by flagging me as a threat. It seems to be ok to be rude, nasty and shout at someone who is a threat after all. So it really is my own fault after all I'm yelled at, who knew?

Btw loved reading how almanacs are still one of your pet peeves. Most cell phones already come with apps that fall into that category. There’s a certain app already preloaded on my phone that will tell me when the sun rises in Cupertino. Besides having aviation charts my tablet has the nautical almanac loaded onto it. Maybe if I carried the paper one I’d have missed a few flights by now. That sort of suspicious behavior must be why a nautical sextant hasn't made it onto the "Can I bring it?" list one way or the other. I've submitted it for inclusion half a dozen times over the last few years. I figured maybe you guys were still trying to figure out if it is spelled with three X’s but maybe it is far more sinister than a smart phone GPS chip.

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...

When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?

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. now you're even allowing college kids (kaydets) to endure more reasonable screening, but those who served and sacrificed for 20+ have to take their bloody shoes and belts off!!

Susan Richart said...

No comments approved? Is that because the majority of comments are about the leaked SPOT list and the blogsters are sticking their heads in the sand in order to avoid addressing said SuperSecretInformation document listing the signs the BD"O"s look for in identifying "terrorists" - of which they've not found one.

After reading it, I can understand why the OIG declared the program not worth the paper it is written on.

But it would be great fun to go to an airport and play games with the list.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Wonder if German Co-Pilot flight yokes will be banned - they seem pretty deadly. Seriously though, may a new FAA policy will require an armed Air Marshall to enter the cockpit when either a pilor or co-pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason (bathroom break, etc).

Anonymous said...

For the past several months, this post has been seen.

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?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok Buddy, enough is enough.
1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan.
2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point.
3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it.
4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see.
5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets.
6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them.
This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life.

Anonymous said...

Do you search for the drugs because the behavoral detection TSA officers think that having the drugs means that you are a terrorist? Please say yes so that people here will stop saying that drugs are not a danger to aplane.

Anonymous said...

Three full days and not one comment has been posted. One could get the impression that you TSA types don't really want to hear from the public.

GSOLTSO said...

RB sez - "When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?"

What happens with a firearm after the discovery is entirely up to the local LEOs. Once a TSO discovers it, they notify the local LEOs, they respond and take over the situation.

West
TSA Blog Team

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...
RB sez - "When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?"

What happens with a firearm after the discovery is entirely up to the local LEOs. Once a TSO discovers it, they notify the local LEOs, they respond and take over the situation.

West
TSA Blog Team

March 31, 2015 at 11:17 AM

..................
If the traveler is not given the opportunity to leave the area then the gun is in fact confiscated.

Puts to rest once and for all the claim that TSA never confiscates anything.

And if LEO's are the only ones to have custody of the weapon how is it that many of the pictures we see on the TSA Blog have documents with TSA on them?

Anonymous said...

Ok Buddy, enough is enough.
1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan.
2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point.
3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it.
4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see.
5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets.
6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them.
This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life.

March 30, 2015 at 3:00 PM
..................
What authority do you bring to the table that allows you to answer TSA questions and to be the final say of what questions, that have never been addressed, can be asked?

Anonymous said...

When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?

it becomes a law enforcemnt issue.Not TSA

Anonymous said...

Why is it the same 3 or 4 peopel week after week after week asking the same cut and paste questions?
Really? Your questions are childish, rediculous and irrelevant. They are not based on fact or reality. Do you really have nothing better to do? It reminds me of my 4 year old...why? why? why? enough allready

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...

Ok Buddy, enough is enough.
1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan.
2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point.
3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it.
4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see.
5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets.
6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them.
This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life.

+++++++++++++++

In reverse order:

6 - You now admit to working for the TSA. There is no other possibility for you to claim this the answer once and for all.

5 - False alarms - while your answer is grammatically correct that the machine alarms and it is up to the Agents to determine what the alarm is. The correct term is a False Positive because the system alarmed on something that wasn't prohibited.

4 - It absolutely IS a Naked Scanner. It looks through clothes to see what is underneath. I don't know about you but I am naked underneath my clothes. The naked scanner doesn't show the naked scan, it shows the so-called 'gumby figure' but that is not what the machine is seeing, only what the machine is showing. And why are you so worked up about what the machine is called anyway? Is calling it a naked scanner too close to the truth to make you comfortable or something? We've already established you work for the TSA so maybe your supervisors are upset with you for not being able to control the narrative better.

3 - You said it... 'under your clothes.' If that isn't a naked scanner I don't know what is.

2 - They are most certainly invasive. My doctor doesn't even ask me to strip naked for my annual physical but the TSA expects me to do so just to fly to grandmother's house.

1 - The machine may only take thee seconds to scan, but when you have to scan people twice or more the three seconds add up. Add to that the time to see where the Gumby Figure shows the problem and the pat down that ensues, you have a very slow system. I remember going through one particular airport standing in the security line about 15 minutes before the naked scanner was installed and then standing in line for over an hour after the naked scanner was installed. Sure that is only one airport, but at the time it represented 50% of the airports I traveled through so it was/is a big deal.

Seriously, why does this bother you so much? No one is forcing you to read the comments no matter how repetitive they may seem to you. Unless, like I said last time, your job as an agent in the TSA is to read the comments.

Anonymous said...

1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan.

They take much longer than "3 seconds," much longer than a WTMD, and require passengers to remove many items of clothing before scanning, because the machines are so limited.

2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point.

Actually, they require partial disrobing and generate a naked picture of the person being scanned. That's the very definition of invasive.

3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it.

And yet they have never found anything dangerous, and cannot distinguish between a handkerchief and a handgun, or an explosive and an ostomoy bag. That's not effective technology, that's oversensitive technology.

4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see.

That genderless figure is a rendering of the nude image the machine generates.

5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets.

If the naked body scanners consistently alarm on things that are not dangerous, that's a false alarm.

6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them.

In point of fact, neither Curtis Burns nor West Cooper nor any other TSA blogger has ever addressed these questions, let alone answered them.

This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life.

Thanks, but I'll keep asking until someone from TSA answers them. I'm sorry my asking perfectly legitimate questions upsets you so much. Why do these perfectly legitimate questions upset you so much?

Anonymous said...

West, why do you ignore the question about false alarms even while you answer other questions? Why are you afraid to answer that question?

Anonymous said...

RB said...
When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?

March 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM
-------------------
Wow RB, Finally running out of intelligent questions?

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...

"Ok Buddy, enough is enough."

Not if this continues to be ignored.

"1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan."

Which is much slower than a WTMD, so yes, slow is an apt description.

"2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point."

They reveal what's under clothing. Is being strip searched not invasive now?

"3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it."

And they have a huge blind spot, which has been demonstrated. TSA has ~70% failure rate. Must be a new definition of "effective" I wasn't aware of.

"4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see."

The image that is displayed is harmless, yes. But read the original request for proposals. The requirements were a machine that could not only store, but also transmit, the underlying (naked) image that is taken before the software renders an image which is harmless. So yes, they are still naked body scanners, with a software layer on top to confuse people into naively thinking they are not.

"5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets."

If it is not on the questionably prohibited item list and the machine alarms, it is a false alarm. Your word games do not change that.

"6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them."

Point us to where, exactly, any of these questions have been answered by either of those two individuals... Unless they are posing as random TSAnons, then you can't because they haven't. Random TSAnons such as yourself have, but your answers are full of inaccuracies and wordplay.

"This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life."

So, are you Burns or West? Because that's who we are awaiting an answer from. If that offends you, skip over the question when it is asked again.

Anonymous said...

RB said, "When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?"

That's up to local law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Anon said, "may a new FAA policy will require an armed Air Marshall to enter the cockpit when either a pilor or co-pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason (bathroom break, etc)."

Great idea....point out the FAM to all onboard.

Anonymous said...

SSSS said, "And bottles of Colgne can't fly why?" Stop asking rhetorical questions you know the answer to.

Or perhaps you really think it'd be OK to point a toy gun at a police officer?

Anonymous said...

As always, absolutely nothing you needed your slow,( opinion) invasive,.(opinion) and ineffective (opinion)naked body scanners (false) to detect. Meanwhile, how many people suffered physical searches thanks to false alarms on these useless (opinion) machines? Nobody "suffered" and there are no "false positives". Machines are alarming on something.

Why are Curtis Burns and West Cooper unwilling to address, let alone answer, that question? because you cannot answer to someones OPINION. and your rediculous question is based on YOUR OPINION, not on fact. When will you stop asking such a rediculous question and actually expecting an answer?

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

Ok Buddy, enough is enough.
1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan.
2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point.
3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it.
4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see.
5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets.
6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them.
This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life. well said, but deaf ears. This guy is just angry and board.

GSOLTSO said...

RB sez - "Puts to rest once and for all the claim that TSA never confiscates anything.

And if LEO's are the only ones to have custody of the weapon how is it that many of the pictures we see on the TSA Blog have documents with TSA on them?"

Actually, the answer is the same as it has been - the disposition of the weapon is entirely up to the local LEOs, TSA has no control over what happens with the weapon.

As for the pictures you see, the answer is fairly obvious, the STSO stages an area for display and imaging, the LEO places the items in the staged area, the STSO takes the picture, and finally the LEO takes the item away for final disposition.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

West Cooper, does your appearance in this thread mean that you're finally going to answer the legitimate questions about false positives on the naked body scanners?

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
SSSS said, "And bottles of Colgne can't fly why?" Stop asking rhetorical questions you know the answer to.

Or perhaps you really think it'd be OK to point a toy gun at a police officer?

That particular bottle of cologne, the one that looks like a grenade, is only three ounces big. So if it was in the magic zippy bag why would it have to be voluntarily surrendered?

And what craziness are you trying to distract us with asking about police officers?

RB said...

Anonymous said...
RB said...
When TSA screeners find a handgun is the passenger given the opportunity to leave the checkpoint in order to take the gun home or is it confiscated?

March 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM
-------------------
Wow RB, Finally running out of intelligent questions?

March 31, 2015 at 2:38 PM
---------------------
I find to understand why you call my question not intelligent.

Having a firearm in the United States is a Constitutionally protected right. Secondly, TSA claims they never confiscate anything but in the case of firearms or other weapons that doesn't appear to be the truth. TSA doesn't give the weapon back so the traveler can take care of it so that is defacto "confiscation".

And lastly I have always been taught that there are no stupid questions so I will continue to ask questions as I see fit. I certainly see no need to have my questions pre-approved by the likes of you Anon.

Anonymous said...

There is one Anon poster here who posts under various styles, sometimes bold, sometimes not who readily identifies them self as being the same poster.

Who can spot the give away?

TSORon said...

RB said...
[[I find to understand why you call my question not intelligent.]]

Actually RB, I think its one of the best questions you have asked to date. Unfortunately you are having difficulty with the answer. I'd like to help, but Wes has tried and you still have problems with the answer. But, in the interest of getting more great quesitons from you I will provide this: Once the TSA calls LEO's and they arrive, they are in charge of the situation, not TSA. They make the decisions, not TSO's. They follow the laws that prevail in that location (each state is different after all), and they make their decisions based upon their experience, the available information, and the law. TSA is not responsible for their decisions, nor do we want to be.

Wintermute said...

Bold TSAnonymous said...

" because you cannot answer to someones OPINION. and your rediculous question is based on YOUR OPINION, not on fact. When will you stop asking such a rediculous question and actually expecting an answer?"

Actually, as I pointed out before (if you had bothered to check for any replies), the question is based on facts. It is your misinformed opinion that it is based on opinion. Since you cannot argue the facts, you are attempting to make them appear to be opinion.

RB said...

TSORon said...
RB said...
[[I find to understand why you call my question not intelligent.]]

Actually RB, I think its one of the best questions you have asked to date. Unfortunately you are having difficulty with the answer. I'd like to help, but Wes has tried and you still have problems with the answer. But, in the interest of getting more great quesitons from you I will provide this: Once the TSA calls LEO's and they arrive, they are in charge of the situation, not TSA. They make the decisions, not TSO's. They follow the laws that prevail in that location (each state is different after all), and they make their decisions based upon their experience, the available information, and the law. TSA is not responsible for their decisions, nor do we want to be.

April 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM

.............
Don't really care what you think TSORon. As I recall you built quiet the reputation of being wrong most of the time when you posted at Flyertalk.

The main point of this is that we have established that TSA does in fact confiscate.

We could look at this with other items confiscated by TSA.

Sometime back the TSA Blog trotted out a picture of a confiscated Jimmy Choo perfume bottle because according to TSA it looked like a grenade. Of course that is a total and complete lie, it looked like a faceted nearly clear glass bottle. If this item was not returned to the traveler to be disposed of in some manner after TSA made the boneheaded decision to not allow the perfume then it was clearly confiscated and not by local law enforcement but by TSA.

So let's stop this nonsense that TSA does not confiscate anything. That is just not true.

Anonymous said...

Actually, as I pointed out before (if you had bothered to check for any replies), the question is based on facts. It is your misinformed opinion that it is based on opinion. Since you cannot argue the facts, you are attempting to make them appear to be opinion.
well, no not really. Its your opionion that the machines are slow, your opinion they are envasive and you opinion that they are inneffective. It is also your opinion that hey have false positives and your opinion that anyone suffered. But we can talk abou tthat all day long. The fact is, you know the answers and you're playing a childish game of symatics trying to sound like you have a clue what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Don't really care what you think TSORon. As I recall you built quiet the reputation of being wrong most of the time when you posted at Flyertalk.

The main point of this is that we have established that TSA does in fact confiscate.(no, you have)

We could look at this with other items confiscated by TSA. ( such as?)
Sometime back the TSA Blog trotted out a picture of a confiscated Jimmy Choo perfume bottle because according to TSA it looked like a grenade. Of course that is a total and complete lie, it looked like a faceted nearly clear glass bottle. If this item was not returned to the traveler to be disposed of in some manner after TSA made the boneheaded decision to not allow the perfume then it was clearly confiscated and not by local law enforcement but by TSA.

So let's stop this nonsense that TSA does not confiscate anything. That is just not true.
see, this is why so many questions go unasnwered. People have allready made up their minds that they know the answer. If you give them the facts, they dispute them. If people want answers, ask the questions. But to say the answer is wrong, continuously is the definition of insanity. TSA does not confiscate anything. The disposal of items is left to the passenger. They can take it outside the checkpoint, give it to someone who is not traveling with them, check it under the plane or abandon it with TSA. If they choose to abandon it, it is not "confiscated." it was the owners choice.

Anonymous said...

The arrogance displayed by TSORon is totally unacceptable. However, it does bring to the fore one reason why the TSA is looked upon with such disdain by so many travelers.

screen shot

Anonymous said...

Whether the TSA claims not to confiscate or not, given that the general public are treated as if it does and get the impression that it does, to all intents and purposes it does.

I'd would like to see figures for how much water is confiscated, either by the TSA itself or by oversees groups who have to confiscate water bought air side on the US's behalf. At the very least it is a very environmentally unfriendly organisation.

Anonymous said...

RB wrote: "As I recall you built quiet the reputation of being wrong most of the time when you posted at Flyertalk."

IIRC, he earned a great nickname because of his many erroneous statements.

screen shot

Susan Richart said...

“All we’re permitted to do is confiscate the weapon and call law enforcement agents, who then will take custody of it and determine whether or not you’re arrested,” said Mr. Castelveter, who is part of the security agency’s effort to notify local news media to aggressively publicize reports of guns and other prohibited weapons being found at checkpoints.

""We just keep track of the confiscations, because the police don’t always keep us apprised of what happens,” Castelveter said. ”We don’t pay attention to the arrest unless it turns into an indictment and we have an agent give testimony in a trial.”

""All have been confiscated from travelers screened at TSA checkpoints, Lisa Farbstein, TSA spokeswoman at the airport, said Thursday afternoon."

When individuals far higher up than the level of "screener" in your agency use the term "confiscate", why is it that some of you are so pig-headed as to refuse to accept that your agency "confiscates" items from travelers?

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

RB said, "TSA doesn't give the weapon back so the traveler can take care of it so that is defacto "confiscation".

Firearms are turned over to local law enforcement. Any "confiscation" rests with them, not TSA.

Anonymous said...

Winter said, "Actually...the question is based on facts. It is your misinformed opinion that it is based on opinion. Since you cannot argue the facts, you are attempting to make them appear to be opinion."

Is this written in English?

Anonymous said...

RB said, "So let's stop this nonsense that TSA does not confiscate anything."

A) Why do passengers continue to bring prohibited items to the checkpoint in the first place?

B) Unless required to turn over to Law Enforcement (firearms, ammunition etc...) TSA gives passengers options to keep their prohibited items. If you choose to voluntarily abandon your property, that's on you, not TSA - regardless of semantics.

C) refer back to A

RB said...

Anonymous said...
RB said, "So let's stop this nonsense that TSA does not confiscate anything."

A) Why do passengers continue to bring prohibited items to the checkpoint in the first place? B) Unless required to turn over to Law Enforcement (firearms, ammunition etc...) TSA gives passengers options to keep their prohibited items. If you choose to voluntarily abandon your property, that's on you, not TSA - regardless of semantics.C) refer back to A

April 5, 2015 at 1:25 AM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
So the Jimmy Choo perfume was not confiscated? Tell that to the lady that had it stolen from her by TSA screeners. It was either confiscated or stolen, you pick which.

Susan Richart said...

" Anonymous said...

Winter said, "Actually...the question is based on facts. It is your misinformed opinion that it is based on opinion. Since you cannot argue the facts, you are attempting to make them appear to be opinion."

Is this written in English?"

Yes, it is written in English. You just can't comprehend what it is saying.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
Winter said, "Actually...the question is based on facts. It is your misinformed opinion that it is based on opinion. Since you cannot argue the facts, you are attempting to make them appear to be opinion."

Is this written in English?


Hmmm... Three reasons I could see for posting this.

1) You have no valid argument, thus resort to personal attacks.

2) You are an internet troll attempting to get a rise out of me.

3) You have an issue with grammar and are legitimately unable to parse perfectly reasonable English.

Since the first two clearly violate the rules against personal attacks, one must logically conclude the third. Or do you have another excuse for your poor attempt at insulting me?

Anonymous said...

TSAnonymous said...

"well, no not really. Its your opionion that the machines are slow,"

Fact: They are slower that WTMDs.

"your opinion they are envasive"

Fact: They can see through your clothing. They are invasive.

"and you opinion that they are inneffective."

Fact: They have a huge blind spot. They are ineffective.

"It is also your opinion that hey have false positives"

Fact: They alarm on items which are not threats to aviation, nor on the questionable prohibited items list. Fact: They alarm on folds of cloth and bare skin. Fact: The GAO wants a report on the false positive rate. Your word games do not impress me,

"and your opinion that anyone suffered."

Fact: People have had aggressive pat-downs as a result of a false positive. They have suffered.

"But we can talk abou tthat all day long. The fact is, you know the answers"

Fact: No one has answered the question, so I do not know the answer as to how many false positives. Or, to play your word games, how many non-prohibited anomalies have there been resulted in unnecessary pat-downs? As much as you hate it, it IS a valid question.

"and you're playing a childish game of symatics trying to sound like you have a clue what you are talking about."

Fact: Personal attacks are not allowed on this blog, yet you just made one. Fact: You are the one playing word games. I could make a guess as to why, but that may be viewed as a personal attack, and I won't stoop to your level.

Wintermute said...

TSAnonymous incorrectly asserted...

"TSA does not confiscate anything"

If a passenger brings a firearm through a checkpoint and it is caught, local law enforcement is called. Who has control and custody of said firearm until they get there?

Anonymous said...

RB said, "Tell that to the lady that had it stolen from her by TSA"

Or let's ask the lady why she didn't accept any of the options offered her to keep her grenade perfume.

Anonymous said...

Winter asks, "If a passenger brings a firearm through a checkpoint and it is caught, local law enforcement is called. Who has control and custody of said firearm until they get there?"

TSA controls it and Law Enforcement seizes it. Now look up the definition of confiscate and get back to us.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
RB said, "Tell that to the lady that had it stolen from her by TSA"

Or let's ask the lady why she didn't accept any of the options offered her to keep her grenade perfume.

April 6, 2015 at 9:52 PM
.....................
It wasn't a "Grenade Perfume".

It was a faceted glass bottle.

I realize that most TSA employees can't grasp the concept of something being faceted but that is all it was.

It should have never been a concern.

Anonymous said...

Merriam-Webster definition of "confiscate":

: to take (something) away from someone especially as punishment or to enforce the law or rules

TSA confiscates to enforce its rules.

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
Winter asks, "If a passenger brings a firearm through a checkpoint and it is caught, local law enforcement is called. Who has control and custody of said firearm until they get there?"

TSA controls it and Law Enforcement seizes it. Now look up the definition of confiscate and get back to us.


Law enforcement is not there yet to seize it, so TSA has, in effect, confiscated it until law enforcement arrives. Now, can we dispense with the word games, please?

Anonymous said...

Winter, RB, and Susan....

By law, Officers have to turn certain prohibited items over to Law Enforcement (LE). Final disposition rests with LE, not TSA. Stop subsidizing misinformation.

For other prohibited items, passengers are given a variety of options to maintain possession. Only when a passenger chooses to voluntarily surrender their item(s) does TSA ever agree to take possession.

So, Susan and RBs insecurities aside: Read the signs in line, follow the rules, and don't bring prohibited items to the checkpoint. If you have an item which is questionable or have any concerns; ensure you talk to a supervisor before you place your bag(s) into an x-ray machine and getting through security will be a non-issue for those who want it to be.

Susan Richart said...

Anonymous wrote:

"For other prohibited items, passengers are given a variety of options to maintain possession. Only when a passenger chooses to voluntarily surrender their item(s) does TSA ever agree to take possession."

Only in a perfect world.

Most of the time the TSA just takes stuff and tosses in the bucket. If screeners took the time to give the spiel to every single passenger, lines would be so long as to be untenable for the airlines and passengers alike. I have seen it happen on more than one occasion.

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...

”By law, Officers have to turn certain prohibited items over to Law Enforcement (LE). Final disposition rests with LE, not TSA. Stop subsidizing misinformation."

I am not "subsidizing misinformation," I am cutting through the word games. To say the TSA doesn't confiscate is a blatant falsehood. Thank you for helping to establish that.

For the record, I do not have a problem with prohibited items being confiscated. I have a problem with TSA claiming they aren't. I also have a problem with a large percentage of the items being on the list to begin with.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Winter, RB, and Susan....

By law, Officers have to turn certain prohibited items over to Law Enforcement (LE). Final disposition rests with LE, not TSA. Stop subsidizing misinformation.

For other prohibited items, passengers are given a variety of options to maintain possession. Only when a passenger chooses to voluntarily surrender their item(s) does TSA ever agree to take possession.

So, Susan and RBs insecurities aside: Read the signs in line, follow the rules, and don't bring prohibited items to the checkpoint. If you have an item which is questionable or have any concerns; ensure you talk to a supervisor before you place your bag(s) into an x-ray machine and getting through security will be a non-issue for those who want it to be.

April 10, 2015 at 1:31 AM
.........................
What law?

Susan Richart said...

Wintermute wrote:

"For the record, I do not have a problem with prohibited items being confiscated. I have a problem with TSA claiming they aren't. I also have a problem with a large percentage of the items being on the list to begin with."

Two thumbs up to each statement.

BTW, Anonymous, what "insecurities" are you talking about? The lack of security actually provided by the TSA?

TSORon said...

RB said…
[[Don't really care what you think TSORon. As I recall you built quiet the reputation of being wrong most of the time when you posted at Flyertalk.]]

I’m sorry you can’t take a compliment. As for right or wrong, well you have your opinion. Mine of course is going to be different.

You said “it looked like a faceted nearly clear glass bottle”, omitting the fact that it was also in the shape of a grenade. Pretty much “replica’s” are not allowed, that has been made very clear for a long time. It has also been pretty clear that people don’t really give much thought to what they are packing before boarding a commercial flight, and that they do not read the signs or hear the overhead announcements telling them that certain things are prohibited, both of which come before one approaches a TSA checkpoint. In other words, they are given plenty of warning before screening, yet we still get knives and guns and other prohibited items every day. And in every case they are given three choices of what they can do with the item (with the exception of a small number of items that require LEO involvement). That their situation gives them little choice in how to handle their mistake is not the fault of TSA. So why not let people be responsible for their own actions rather than blame us.

RB said...

TSORon said..

.RB said…[[Don't really care what you think TSORon. As I recall you built quiet the reputation of being wrong most of the time when you posted at Flyertalk.]]
-------
I’m sorry you can’t take a compliment. As for right or wrong, well you have your opinion. Mine of course is going to be different.

And for you TSA screeners, the definition of a replica is "an exact reproduction" . So tell me again how a Jimmy Choo perfume bottle fits that definition when trying to call it a grenade?

You said “it looked like a faceted nearly clear glass bottle”, omitting the fact that it was also in the shape of a grenade.

Pretty much “replica’s” are not allowed, that has been made very clear for a long time. It has also been pretty clear that people don’t really give much thought to what they are packing before boarding a commercial flight, and that they do not read the signs or hear the overhead announcements telling them that certain things are prohibited, both of which come before one approaches a TSA checkpoint. In other words, they are given plenty of warning before screening, yet we still get knives and guns and other prohibited items every day. And in every case they are given three choices of what they can do with the item (with the exception of a small number of items that require LEO involvement). That their situation gives them little choice in how to handle their mistake is not the fault of TSA. So why not let people be responsible for their own actions rather than blame us.
---------------

Again it is clear that you TSA people do not understand what "replica" actually means.

A Jimmy Choo perfume bottle is not a replica of a grenade. Even if it has the pineapple shape it is clear enough to see through, or be sniffed telling even the least intelligent screener the nature of the item.

Modern grenades can be found in both ball and cylinder shapes. Should all round or can shaped items be confiscated by TSA screeners

----------

SSSS for Some Reason said...

TSORon said... Pretty much “replica’s” are not allowed

~~~~~~~~

And that is the question you and the rest of the TSA keep dancing around and not answering.

Why are replica's not allowed?

Why would a clear glass bottle be prohibited just because it is molded to be faceted like a grenade? What 'old lady' is going to 'freak out' mid-flight when someone 'drops it out of their carry-on?' It is a CLEAR GLASS BOTTLE! It isn't a replica by any definition of the word nor by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to security.

Anonymous said...

"Ok Buddy, enough is enough."

Not if this continues to be ignored.

"1. The machines are not slow. They take 3 seconds to scan."

Which is much slower than a WTMD, so yes, slow is an apt description.

slower and slow are two different words. Because something is slower does ot by default make it slow. Very misleading terminalogy. Agenda perhaps?

"2. They are not invasive. They are not invading you at any point."

They reveal what's under clothing. Is being strip searched not invasive now?

No, they really dont.They use non penetraiting millimeter waves to identify anomolies.

"3. The machines are very effective; they use radio waves to detect objects under your clothing. If you have something there, the machine will find it."

And they have a huge blind spot, which has been demonstrated. TSA has ~70% failure rate. Must be a new definition of "effective" I wasn't aware of.
your still confusing the current machines with the outdated and retired back scatter machines.

"4. IT IS NOT A NAKED BODY SCANNER!!!!!!! There is a genderless figure that anyone can see."

The image that is displayed is harmless, yes. But read the original request for proposals. The requirements were a machine that could not only store, but also transmit, the underlying (naked) image that is taken before the software renders an image which is harmless. So yes, they are still naked body scanners, with a software layer on top to confuse people into naively thinking they are not.

No images can be taken, stored or transmitted. The original backscatter machines could take xrays. They request was to then convert those xray images into genderless figuers. That could not happen effectivly so those machines were removed and repolaced with the current scanners. So no, they are not naked body scanners

"5. There are no false alarms. The machine finds something every time. It just most likely is something that is not prohibited. For instance the person did not take out EVERYTHING from his/her pockets."

If it is not on the questionably prohibited item list and the machine alarms, it is a false alarm. Your word games do not change that.

you could not possibly program a machine to tell the differenc between a tic tac and a detonator. A tube of chapstick or a large firecracker. It just isnt possible. The machines are designed to detect anomolies. It is up to the officer to identify the object. When the machine identifies an anomoly, that is a positive result.But you allready knew that...you just like word games.

"6. Mr. Burns and Mr. Cooper have answered you questions, you just refuse to accept them."

Point us to where, exactly, any of these questions have been answered by either of those two individuals... Unless they are posing as random TSAnons, then you can't because they haven't. Random TSAnons such as yourself have, but your answers are full of inaccuracies and wordplay.

"This is the answer once and for all. STOP ASKING and get on with your life."

So, are you Burns or West? Because that's who we are awaiting an answer from. If that offends you, skip over the question when it is asked again.

Anonymous said...

TSOron said:
So why not let people be responsible for their own actions rather than blame us.

because people today, inculding a few that post on this blog would rather focus on being a victim. The world must revolve around them. Its like my son when he was 7 years old. He got introuble at school. I asked him why. He said he was in trouble for saying he loved the American flag. Blaming the teacher for being mean and unAmerican.On the surface you would believe him. But upon further investigation, he did say that. But he shouted it during silent reading time when everyone was told to be silent. Pass the blame, reword the story and make the other out to be wrong. I know for a fact you guys do not "confiscate" anything. Many have explaied the process but a few on here still insist that you do. Of course it dpoesnt help when your spoke people use that word. Isnt it funny how when the spokes people make a comment that supports the opinions of the nay sayers, its gospil. But if those same spokes people said something contrary to the belives of the nay sayers, they would be lying? Agenda. Its all about the agenda. They arent looking for answers. They have recieved those several times. They want someone to tell them they are right on all accounts which cant happen, because they arent. So they will continue to ask, looking for an answer that isnt there.

Susan Richart said...

Your comment of 4/11/15 at 5:06 p.m., Ronnie, is indicative of all that is wrong with the TSA and that you have drunk well of its Kool-Aid.

A "replica" is a close or exact copy of an item. A glass perfume bottle does not meet that definition. Neither does a gun-shaped decoration on a purse nor a puppet's 1" accessory.

I posit that the TSA has declared such items verboten not because the public might be frightened of them, but because many screeners lack the common sense to determine what is a "replica" and what is not. Therefore, TSA has lowered the standards to the lowest common demonination, which is its screeners' inability to know what is real, what isn't, and what looks like it might be real.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Many of you folks need to "GET A LIFE"!!!Move on, take a hobby, get a rewarding job, take a walk in the park. Security is here to stay, period. Your obsession with TSA and security protocol is so over the top it has become atypical of a neurotic persona. Security screening is everywhere and it is a terrific idea before you get to 40,000 feet. Don't you think?

Anonymous said...

TSAnonymous falsely asserted...

"slower and slow are two different words. Because something is slower does ot by default make it slow. Very misleading terminalogy. Agenda perhaps? "

Slow is relative. The standard I'm using is WTMD. If it's slower than that, it's slow. You can define slow as 27 hours. Someone else can define is as 1 millisecond. I don't care. My definition is based the previous primary screening method, so it makes sense. For you to define "slow" differently shows your agenda.

"No, they really dont.They use non penetraiting millimeter waves to identify anomolies. "

Which means, they see through clothes.

"your still confusing the current machines with the outdated and retired back scatter machines."

Actually, I'm not. The blind spot on the newer machines has been demonstrated as well.

"No images can be taken, stored or transmitted."

Read the RFPs. This feature was requested by the TSA.

"The original backscatter machines could take xrays. They request was to then convert those xray images into genderless figuers. That could not happen effectivly so those machines were removed and repolaced with the current scanners. So no, they are not naked body scanners "

You do understand that both X-Ray and MMW are radio waves, correct, just at different frequencies? Do you have any idea how the different frequencies propagate, and how both sets of machines "detect anomolies?"

"you could not possibly program a machine to tell the differenc between a tic tac and a detonator. A tube of chapstick or a large firecracker. It just isnt possible. The machines are designed to detect anomolies. It is up to the officer to identify the object. When the machine identifies an anomoly, that is a positive result.But you allready knew that...you just like word games. "

Funny, coming from someone playing word games. OK. Let's dispense with whether an object is on the prohibited items list (which is an entirely different issue) and focus on folds of cloth and bare skin. These machines have alarmed on both. Surely bare skin is a false positive. Also, if there are no false positives, why is the GAO interested in the number of them as well?

Point us to where, exactly, any of these questions have been answered by either of those two individuals... Unless they are posing as random TSAnons, then you can't because they haven't. Random TSAnons such as yourself have, but your answers are full of inaccuracies and wordplay.

...

So, are you Burns or West? Because that's who we are awaiting an answer from. If that offends you, skip over the question when it is asked again.


Still waiting. Where has either Burns or West answered these questions?

Anonymous said...

Susan in her abviously non-bias OPINION stated:

I posit that the TSA has declared such items verboten not because the public might be frightened of them, but because many screeners lack the common sense to determine what is a "replica" and what is not. Therefore, TSA has lowered the standards to the lowest common demonination, which is its screeners' inability to know what is real, what isn't, and what looks like it might be real.

Susan, it is very clear that you have an agenda. now based on your opinion it sems you want security to change. what makes you an expart on security? what makes you an expert on determining what officers are thinking? how can you say what you say with any level of accuracy?
a survey once showed that over 25% of TSA officers have a millitary background. A large number have law enforcemnt backgrounds. A large number posses college degrees. A large number are retired professionals. in the history of TSA you may have heard of 100 cases of TSA officers doing wrong. Lets fo out on a big limb and say you have heard of 500 confirmed cases of TSA officers doing wrong. That would be less than 1% of the work force. I wouldl argue the number is far less than the 1%.
My point is, TSA officers are hard working people trying to make an honest living. you dont have to like TSA policies, I have a problem with several of them myself. But stop blaming the officers. they do not make the rules.
Has a small percentage made errors in judgement? of course. But unlike any police agency, fire agency or hospital, not one singel TSA error has resulted in an injury or death and certainly not to a terror attack. Grow up, stop being angry at the officers. it just really shows how reediculoous and misplaced your problems really are. And stop trying to think you know what they are thinking.
unless of course as many have suspected, you were in their shoes so you do know what they were thinking...

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
Many of you folks need to "GET A LIFE"!!!Move on, take a hobby, get a rewarding job, take a walk in the park.

Not a personal attack directly, but it should be looked into

Security is here to stay, period.

Please point out where any of the regular contributors to these conversations has asked for there to be *no* security.

Your obsession with TSA and security protocol is so over the top it has become atypical of a neurotic persona.

You know you don't have to read the comments, don't you? I mean you aren't be forced to be a TSA cheerleader.

Or are you? Blink three times if you are being held against your will

Security screening is everywhere and it is a terrific idea before you get to 40,000 feet. Don't you think?

It is. We still aren't quite sure why the security has to be provided by the TSA. You guys aren't really that good at your job, overall I mean. Your Agency costs almost double what private security cost before you invented yourself. And you guys seem less than half as effective at finding stuff since even your own testing procedures indicate as high as a 70% miss rate.

Anonymous said...

Why have all of the attacking comments, especially the April 14 9:56am screed by a TSAnonymous, been allowed through moderation, West?

TSORon said...

SSSS for Some Reason said...

[[Why are replica's not allowed?]]

The easy answer is that they resemble a prohibited item. Replicas pose a threat to commercial aviation because the mere threat of violence is enough to cause a panic, which is a very bad idea inside of a flying commercial aircraft. People get hurt all the time because of panic, some are killed. Can you tell with 100% confidence the difference between a realistic replica and the actual thing without personally handling it? I know that there are times when I cannot, toy makers are getting real good at replicating firearms and other destructive devices.

I remember in the 1980’s when I was stationed overseas a member of my flight bought a plastic model of an M-16. Once together we compared it to the one’s we carried every day to work, and unless one handled the two you couldn’t tell which was which. One a toy made of plastic and non-functional, and the other a real fully automatic (select fire) firearm. The toy could even take the real M-16 magazines, with or without rounds in it.

This is why, in answer to your question. I hope that helps.

SSS for some reason said...

TSORon said...
SSSS for Some Reason said...

[[Why are replica's not allowed?]]

The easy answer is that they resemble a prohibited item.

So? I understand an airsoft pistol could be mistaken for a real firearm. But a cologne bottle? Really?

Replicas pose a threat to commercial aviation because the mere threat of violence is enough to cause a panic, which is a very bad idea inside of a flying commercial aircraft.

Do you really think so little of the travelling public that they will break out in a panic at the mere sight of a prohibited item?

And if we are so prone to panicked mobs why isn't there a riot in the security line when your agents hold up whatever prohibited item in plain view of everyone else in line?


People get hurt all the time because of panic, some are killed.

Google disagrees with you as there are almost no reports of panicked mobs in the streets, or anywhere else for that matter, resulting in injuries or deaths. Perhaps you could ask your bosses to declassify some of that information and you could share it with the rest of the class.

Can you tell with 100% confidence the difference between a realistic replica and the actual thing without personally handling it?

Why would it matter if *I* can tell the difference. It is *your* job to do that, not mine. And regardless of whose job it is why would you try and play word-twisting games by saying 100% of the time? You guys, the ones who are supposed to be in charge of all this, don't even get it 100% of the time so why would you ever try and hold us to a standard that you yourselves don't get anywhere near meeting?

And! All the posts here on this blog quite plainly say 'inert grenades' so it is obvious you can tell the difference between paperweight and danger so why are you still voluntarily surrendering these things from the passengers?

Anonymous said...

Ron,

You gave ONE example of a realistic replica. This does nothing to explain why a glass perfume bottle and a 1” toy are not allowed, as neither fits the definition of "realistic," unless your screeners cannot tell the difference on visual inspection.

Colm Barry said...

I am still astonished at how week after week this continues unabated. I wonder: is everyone who tries to board a plane e.g. with a stun gun or a belt buckle knife banned "for life" or any period at all? (Then eventually the reservoir of new offenders should dry out.) Or are they so harshly fined that they will remember "next time"? If so, repeat offenses should be rare. Or do I take it that each time one such item is detected and confiscated (and I am sure you get better at that by the day, so that offenders can hardly think "trying their luck" is a sensible proposition?!), that each time one scoundrel is taken out, at least one comes back to life hydra-head-like?

softpedia said...

mm, I wonder: is everyone who tries to board a plane e.g. with a stun gun or a belt buckle knife banned "for life" or any period at all? (Then eventually the reservoir of new offenders should dry out.) Or are they so harshly fined that they will remember "next time"? If so, repeat offenses should be rare. Or do I take it that each time one such item is detected and confiscated (and I am sure you get better at that by the day, so that offenders can hardly think "trying their luck" is a sensible proposition?!), that each time one scoundrel is taken out, at least one comes back to life hydra-head-like?

Killadriver said...

Therefore, TSA has lowered the standards to the lowest common demonination, which is its screeners' inability to know what is real, what isn't, and what looks like it might be real.
Nice dude for sharing the article.

aiy said...

may a new FAA policy will require an armed Air Marshall to enter the cockpit when either a pilot or co-pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason.

sabo said...

For other prohibited items, passengers are given a variety of options to maintain possession. Only when a passenger chooses to voluntarily surrender their item(s) does TSA ever agree to take possession.