Friday, May 22, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 53 Firearms, Inert Tank Projectile, and More

53 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 53 firearms, 42 were loaded and 17 had rounds chambered. This firearm was discovered in a carry-on bag at RDU.
53 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 53 firearms, 42 were loaded and 17 had rounds chambered. This firearm was discovered in a carry-on bag at RDU.
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.

  • An inert replica grenade was discovered in a carry-on bag at Newark (EWR). 
An inert anti-tank projectile was discovered in a checked bag at Tulsa (TUL).
An inert anti-tank projectile was discovered in a checked bag at Tulsa (TUL).
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 stun cane was discovered in a carry-on bag at Oklahoma City (OKC).
  • A credit card knife was detected under the insole of a shoe at San Antonio (SAT).
A D-size battery with a screw-off top was discovered at Tulsa (TUL). A small amount of marijuana was inside of the battery.
A D-size battery with a screw-off top was discovered at Tulsa (TUL). A small amount of marijuana was inside of the battery.
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.
 
A large selection of knives that were discovered in carry-on bags.
Counterclockwise from the top, these knives were discovered at IAH, ORF, SAN, MCO, ORD, ORD, IAH, PHX, LAX, SAN, and EWR.
Spear Gun (SLC), Bear Mace (SLC), Bottle Rockets (LAS), Nunchucks (OAK)

Daggers in zip-up folder (TUS), Knuckle Knife (MCO), Throwing Star (DAL), Throwing Knives (ORD)
Daggers in zip-up folder (TUS), Knuckle Knife (MCO), Throwing Star (DAL), Throwing Knives (ORD)

Several knives discovered in one bag.
All of these items were discovered in one carry-on bag at SLC.
Stun Guns - 26 stun guns were discovered in carry-on bags around the nation. Three were discovered at Dallas Love (DAL), two at Atlanta (ATL), two at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), two at Oklahoma City (OKC), two at Portland (PDX), and the remainder were discovered at Baltimore (BWI), Chicago O'Hare (ORD), Denver (DEN), Grand Junction (GJT), Kansas City (MCI), Lehigh Valley (ABE), Little Rock (LIT), Memphis (MEM), Milwaukee (MKE), New York Kennedy (JFK) , Raleigh-Durham (RDU), Richmond (RIC), Salt Lake City (SLC), San Francisco (SFO), and Seattle (SEA). 

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.





Firearms
Clockwise from top left, these loaded firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at ORD, BNA, EWN, MIA, MCI, ISN, and ABY.
Firearms
Clockwise from top left, these loaded firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at DAL, TUL, and MSY


53 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 53 firearms, 42 were loaded and 17 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 $11,000. 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 @TSA 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.

54 comments:

RB said...

Looks like TSA is once again conducting illegal searches for drugs.

Real shame that someone tried to carry their Desert Eagle .50 Cal Action Express. What a loss.
Who wants to be that it ends up in some TSA employees home? FSD, AFSD, or such.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

"...An inert replica grenade was discovered in a carry-on bag "

It is entirely appropriate that you inspected the inert grenade. How else are you going to know it is inert.

The real question is once it was determined to be inert, was it allowed to fly? If not, why not?

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...

2 comments posted somtime early on 5/24. I'm betting that more than 2 comments have been submitted. So what is TSA trying to hide?

Illegal censorshop by government employees. How can they ever be trusted?

Anonymous said...

INERT anti-tank projectile - not a threat, not a danger, not "scary" - was it confiscated?

GSOLTSO said...

RB sez - "Looks like TSA is once again conducting illegal searches for drugs.

Real shame that someone tried to carry their Desert Eagle .50 Cal Action Express. What a loss.
Who wants to be that it ends up in some TSA employees home? FSD, AFSD, or such."

No.

Not unless the LEO department that takes control of the item after it is reported sells it at an auction (which is not the case very often at all).

West
TSA Blog Team

Susan Richart said...

"RB said...

2 comments posted somtime early on 5/24. I'm betting that more than 2 comments have been submitted. So what is TSA trying to hide?

Illegal censorshop by government employees. How can they ever be trusted?

May 24, 2015 at 10:32 AM"

The reason is that West is very busy reading checking IP's and reading through links, etc. to make certain that no comments get through that use real words or shed a bad light on Melvin.

Gonna post this one, West?

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

JamesRay said...

I don't care what you call yourself, I read the blogs occasionally and its the same old thing: complain, complain, complain. I could spend my life trying to explain why TSA has the procedures and rules that are in place to these people and they just put their fingers in their ears and rattle: latle, latle, latle and keep complaining. I'm going to respond to a couple of things; even though they don't think logically or use common sense. Lets take the "INERT" weapons. They say if its proven "INERT" whats the harm in letting the passenger take it in their carry on bag? So suppose a bad guy gets on board pulls this look alike out, grabs a stewardess or another passenger and threatens to kill unless ......use your imagination as to what follows. The hostage does not know that look alike is "INERT". Now you got a bad situation. The rule is in place for a reason. The rules are stated online as to what is allowed and not. I've got to go for now,but I will be back. I've got more to say about some of your complaints. Before I go, let me say this: SINCE 911 THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER AIRPORT HIJACKING OF A PLANE, SO TSA MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. Instead of looking for something to complain about TSA, thank God for the success TSA has had in doing their job.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

JamesRay said...I'm going to respond to a couple of things; even though they don't think logically or use common sense.

Thank you for speaking down to us


Lets take the "INERT" weapons.

OK. Lets. This should be good!

They say if its proven "INERT" whats the harm in letting the passenger take it in their carry on bag?

So far so good. Inert ordinance could be used as a club or blunt object but little else

So suppose a bad guy gets on board

How did they get past the layer cake of security? Shouldn't a BDO or someone have stopped them before they boarded?

pulls this look alike out, grabs a stewardess or another passenger and threatens to kill unless ......use your imagination as to what follows. The hostage does not know that look alike is "INERT".

Except...... that line of imaginative thinking presumes that the passengers and crew don't trust the TSA to have done their job. If the TSA did their self described job and inspected all the items then the default assumption should be that anything the passengers, good or bad, whip out would be safe. If the TSA does their job then the passengers should be thinking that there is nothing in the hands of the passengers that should harm them. It should go something like this.... (bad passenger)This is a hijacking (while holding up a grenade). The crew and passengers say "Ha! TSA inspected that so it must be inert!" And then all the passengers beat the living daylights out of the attempted hijacker.

So the question still stands.... the items are determined to be inert so why are the prohibited from flying?

Anonymous said...

JamesRay said...
I don't care what you call yourself, I read the blogs occasionally and its the same old thing: complain, complain, complain. I could spend my life trying to explain why TSA has the procedures and rules that are in place to these people and they just put their fingers in their ears and rattle: latle, latle, latle and keep complaining. I'm going to respond to a couple of things; even though they don't think logically or use common sense. Lets take the "INERT" weapons. They say if its proven "INERT" whats the harm in letting the passenger take it in their carry on bag? So suppose a bad guy gets on board pulls this look alike out, grabs a stewardess or another passenger and threatens to kill unless ......use your imagination as to what follows. The hostage does not know that look alike is "INERT". Now you got a bad situation. The rule is in place for a reason. The rules are stated online as to what is allowed and not. I've got to go for now,but I will be back. I've got more to say about some of your complaints. Before I go, let me say this: SINCE 911 THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER AIRPORT HIJACKING OF A PLANE, SO TSA MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. Instead of looking for something to complain about TSA, thank God for the success TSA has had in doing their job.

James Ray, how dare you use logic and common sense. Dont you know these people are experts in someone elses feild? Since 9/11 and the implementation of hardened doors, there is no way to take a plane down. Since passengers now fight back, there is no way to take someone hostage. All threats to aviation security are gone. Since there have been no terror attacks on planes, that proves beyond a dought that the threat is gone, no thanks to TSA. Just ask the experts here...

Anonymous said...

Bold Posting Intern said "...Since 9/11 and the implementation of hardened doors,"

No attacks since TSA.

No attacks since Hardened Cockpit Doors.

That makes the hardened doors at least as effective as the TSA.

Anonymous said...

West and Bold Blotter Intern, which of you approved Bold's comment of May 25, 2015 at 10:47am?

Neither of you ever answer that question.

The timing of Bold's comments and the appearance of "approved" comments strongly suggest a correlation...almost as if Bold approves her and a few other comments after submitting her own misspelled attacks on American taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

What is your name, Bold Blotter Intern? What is your job title? What division of the TSA do you work for?

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+ are out of luck.

RB said...

The following question was posted asking for TSA to give some direction on the TSA policy discussed at
Medically Necessary Liquids, Gels and Aerosols
.

Since TSA has decided that the agency has the legal right to determine what constitutes a medical liquid and how much of that medical liquid I can travel with on any given flight, if at all, I think a response to my question should be given.

How many weeks will it take for me to post this exact question before TSA either answers the question or realizes that it is on very weak legal grounds to interfere with a persons medical treatment and rewrites not only the information at the link above but also changes its policies and Management Directives telling screeners they have no authority to interfere with a persons medical care?

"Exactly what quantity of a liquid medicine is reasonable for a flight from DFW to MIA?

The article linked to says that one must tell the TSO at the beginning of the "Screening Checkpoint Process" that we have "Medically Necessary Liquids". Would that be the TDC? That is the first TSA employee at the beginning of the Screening Checkpoint Process.

Exactly what training do frontline TSA screeners have that enables them to know what quantity of any particular liquid medicine is a reasonable quantity with no more information than length of flight?

These are questions are based on the information posted by TSA and specific instructions given to travelers.

May 22, 2015 at 9:55 PM"

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
What is your name, Bold Blotter Intern? What is your job title? What division of the TSA do you work for?

May 26, 2015 at 2:11 AM
...................
One of those unknown, or undisclosed, TSA people that have full access to the TSA blog that West spoke of?

They claim to have all the answers to it must be a TSA employee.

George Fredlund said...

I say thank you for your often thankless work. It is amazing that get the misinformed and snide comments here. You guys have been batting a thousand for a long time and you have become a victim of your own success. Keep Up The Good Work!

Anonymous said...

While I don't work at the Tulsa Airport, I think the better questions are how long did it take to determine the shell was inert, and did that person make their original flight? Seems they would be better questions than why can't we fly with potential explosives--that one is pretty much self-explanatory. I've watched the TSA's and LEO's clearing procedures, I would bet the answer is no, that person didn't make their original flight. So if you a kind of a person like me that likes to stick to a trip as planned, maybe it would be a good idea not to put something that potentially can go boom in either your carry on or checked baggage. I would think that most of us see that as rational, common sense thinking.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous of May 26 at 5:23pm, an inert, replica, or toy item shaped like a WEI cannot, by its very design, "go boom."

Susan Richart said...

To Anonymous who posted on May 26, 2015 at 5:23 PM:

Something that is inert, can't go boom.

Anonymous said...

West and Bold Blotter Intern, which of you approved Bold's comment of May 25, 2015 at 10:47am?

Neither of you ever answer that question.

The timing of Bold's comments and the appearance of "approved" comments strongly suggest a correlation...almost as if Bold approves her and a few other comments after submitting her own misspelled attacks on American taxpayers.

I have no affiliation with this or any other blog.

Anonymous said...

One of those unknown, or undisclosed, TSA people that have full access to the TSA blog that West spoke of?

They claim to have all the answers to it must be a TSA employee.

No, I just apply common sense.

Anonymous said...

This issue states that ammo is allowed in checked luggage if packaged properly. What are the criteria for proper packaging? I'm wondering because ammo is not permissable in the U.S. mail because it contains gunpowder so I'm surprised that it is permissable on a plane, even in the cargo area.
Thanks.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
One of those unknown, or undisclosed, TSA people that have full access to the TSA blog that West spoke of?

They claim to have all the answers to it must be a TSA employee.

No, I just apply common sense.


~~~~~~~~~~

Then please apply some of that common sense of yours and answer the Sixty-Four-Dollar question..... why is 6 ounces of a liquid bad, but split the exact same liquid into two smaller three ounce containers is becomes safe enough to travel (but only if it is contained in a quart-sized zippy bag).

You have all that common sense.... tell us the answer. Dazzle us.

Anonymous said...

So now, Bold Blotter Intern, you are claiming you are not a TSA employee and not an admin or moderator on this blog?

Are you related to or do you have any affiliation with any TSA employee or contractor?

Are you a government employee or contractor for any government agency?

How do you, Bold Blotter Intern, account for the constant approval of all of your posts, even those which violate blog policy, within hours or less of you submitting them, while other complimentary or critical comments sit for days in the queue?

GSOLTSO said...

Susan sez - "The reason is that West is very busy reading checking IP's and reading through links, etc. to make certain that no comments get through that use real words or shed a bad light on Melvin.

Gonna post this one, West?"

I have never looked up a single IP address while doing this work. I do click through all links to see what they link to, and if the link is not what it claims to be, then the comment is not posted - most commonly the links are spammy, other times they are broken links.

Oh, and, yes.

West
TSA Blog Team

GSOLTSO said...

George Fredlund sez - "I say thank you for your often thankless work. It is amazing that get the misinformed and snide comments here. You guys have been batting a thousand for a long time and you have become a victim of your own success. Keep Up The Good Work!"

Thank you for the kind words George!

Anon sez - "This issue states that ammo is allowed in checked luggage if packaged properly. What are the criteria for proper packaging? I'm wondering because ammo is not permissable in the U.S. mail because it contains gunpowder so I'm surprised that it is permissable on a plane, even in the cargo area.
Thanks."

From the TSA Firearms and Ammunition, the proper packaging is listed as follows:

"Travelers must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition."

Traditionally that meant the ammo must be transported in the manufacturers original packaging, but has shifted some over the years to allow after market transport items to be included as well.

West
TSA Blog Team

Susan Richart said...

West wrote: "I do click through all links to see what they link to, and if the link is not what it claims to be, then the comment is not posted - most commonly the links are spammy, other times they are broken links."

Then why didn't you post this, West, when it was first submitted about 14 days ago and re-submitted, via another Tiny URL, a few days after that?

http://tinyurl.com/l8dreha

Nothing spam there nor is it a broken link, nor does it violate the terms of the TOS.

Give us a break, you censor comments with perfectly fine links all the time.


screen shot/DHS OIG statement

RB said...

Question for the TSA Bloggers.

Do you people believe in the United States Constitution as Amended?

If you do then how can you justify your actions on this blog?

Susan Richart said...

Most interesting, West, considering that I submitted 4 or 5 comments, under various names and from various IPs, with links leading to my comment on the TSANews Blog and none of them was ever published.

But now you approve it. Most interesting indeed.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

RB said...

TSA was ordered by a Federal court to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act regarding the deployment of Whole body Imagers. TSA ignored that courts order for almost two years before conducting a period of public comment.

The comment period closed on June 25, 2013 and TSA has yet to produce a report on the comments as required under the law.

If anyone thinks TSA is interested in complying with the laws of America just look to this as an example of TSA thumbing its collective nose at America.

Anonymous said...

SSSS for Some Reason said...

So the question still stands.... the items are determined to be inert so why are the prohibited from flying?

i believe that the airlines have a say in this. remember when tsa wanted to allow pre-9/11 knife regulations aka 3" or smaller is ok? well the airlines specifically the flight attendents unions said no. so it did not go through. why are planes consistently diverted due to disruptive passengers if there is no threat to anyone? the airline has a hand in making these decisions.

Anonymous said...

SSSS for Some Reason said...
Then please apply some of that common sense of yours and answer the Sixty-Four-Dollar question..... why is 6 ounces of a liquid bad, but split the exact same liquid into two smaller three ounce containers is becomes safe enough to travel (but only if it is contained in a quart-sized zippy bag).

You have all that common sense.... tell us the answer. Dazzle us.

a better question(s) (probably not worth 64 dollars) is this ban has been going on for years, yes years, so why do people still bring this items with them? every time i travel i have noticed numerous signs clearly stating that they are not allowed and most of the time there is a tsa person giving announcements stating the same thing. why should it matter if it isnt allowed? of course it is allowed in your checked luggage so if you want to bring it, put it there. i believe that you can bring just abouot anything in your checked luggage.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
So now, Bold Blotter Intern, you are claiming you are not a TSA employee and not an admin or moderator on this blog?

Are you related to or do you have any affiliation with any TSA employee or contractor?

Are you a government employee or contractor for any government agency?

Is this 50 questions? There is a reason I, like you post as Anonymous. It matters not who I am. But, if you would like to post your name, address, cell number and email, Ill send you my name. ( I didnt think so)

How do you, Bold Blotter Intern, account for the constant approval of all of your posts, even those which violate blog policy, within hours or less of you submitting them, while other complimentary or critical comments sit for days in the queue?
I cannot account for anything the mod team does. I dont know them, have never met them, have no affiliation with them and cannot tell you why they do what they do. Nor do I care.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

"...this ban has been going on for years, yes years, so why do people still bring this items with them?"

Yes. The insane liquids policy has been bothering us for years. And in all those years no one has been able to answer what it is for, what it is supposed to protect us from, and how much money did the zippy-bag and small bottle manufacturers lobby spend on the TSA to get the rules passed.

And.... there are people in this world who have never used air travel before. This is the first trip through a TSA check point.

And.... there are people who only fly once a decade or so. The last time they saw TSA there wasn't this nonsense about 3 ounce bottles and zippy bags

And.... there are people who who only fly every few years.

And.... there are people who think, rightly so, that a bottle of water is OK everywhere else in the airport so what makes it so bad over there past the security checkpoint. What makes this single container of liquid so terrible, but then the exact same liquid is safe if poured into many smaller containers.

Seriously.... WTF is the 3-1-1 rule about and for? The liquid bomb is a myth, dangerous acids and the like can still be poured into small containers, and what makes the quart-sized zippy bag the standard? I can cram about 7 bottles into that size so why not just say 7 bottles max, or 5 bottles... what does the zippy bag have to do with anything? Why can't I use my own clear bag like I have for cosmetics?

TSA won't answer these questions, probable because they can't and they can't say they can't because then people might questions what other things they do that make no sense.

So that means the answer has to come from folks like our Bold posting Intern (seriously, dazzle us with your brilliant common sense) or any of the other TSA cheerleaders. Someone, anyone, please make an intelligent, or even slightly plausible, case for the 3-1-1 rule.

Anonymous said...

It appears my reply to you was deleted.

Anonymous said...

TSA won't answer these questions, probable because they can't and they can't say they can't because then people might questions what other things they do that make no sense.

So that means the answer has to come from folks like our Bold posting Intern (seriously, dazzle us with your brilliant common sense) or any of the other TSA cheerleaders. Someone, anyone, please make an intelligent, or even slightly plausible, case for the 3-1-1 rule.

the answer has come so many times. The fact is the only answer you will accept is " the rule is non-sense." however,that just isnt the case. The fact that you choose to not accept the answer does not mean it hasnt been given..time after time after time.

Anonymous said...

a better question(s) (probably not worth 64 dollars) is this ban has been going on for years, yes years, so why do people still bring this items with them? every time i travel i have noticed numerous signs clearly stating that they are not allowed and most of the time there is a tsa person giving announcements stating the same thing. why should it matter if it isnt allowed? of course it is allowed in your checked luggage so if you want to bring it, put it there. i believe that you can bring just abouot anything in your checked luggage.

imagine the money that could be saved if people would just follow simple rules. If people just packet properly, removed LGA from their bags, removed computers, took off thier shoes, took the cell phones out of their pockets...simple rules that everybody knows, TSA staff could be cut in half and wait times would go away. Screening would be a breeze. But people want to check their brains at the ticket counter, hope TSA doesnt see their large LGA, too lazy to take ou thtir computers, argue about simple rules...and we all pay for it. My 5 yr old could follow these rules better than most people I See in my travels.

RB said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"imagine the money that could be saved if people would just follow simple rules. If people just packet properly, removed LGA from their bags, removed computers, took off thier shoes, took the cell phones out of their pockets...simple rules that everybody knows, TSA staff could be cut in half and wait times would go away. Screening would be a breeze. But people want to check their brains at the ticket counter, hope TSA doesnt see their large LGA, too lazy to take ou thtir computers, argue about simple rules...and we all pay for it. My 5 yr old could follow these rules better than most people I See in my travels".

June 1, 2015 at 1:37 PM

So tells us, where can a person find all of the rules that must be followed at a TSA Checkpoint?

Anonymous said...

"The fact that you choose to not accept the answer does not mean it hasnt been given..time after time after time."

And yet, you can't point to a single place, anywhere in the history of this blog, where such an answer has actually been given. Funny, that.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
TSA won't answer these questions, probable because they can't and they can't say they can't because then people might questions what other things they do that make no sense.

So that means the answer has to come from folks like our Bold posting Intern (seriously, dazzle us with your brilliant common sense) or any of the other TSA cheerleaders. Someone, anyone, please make an intelligent, or even slightly plausible, case for the 3-1-1 rule.

the answer has come so many times

So then it should be real easy for you to post a link to any of the multiple times this question has been answered.

Anonymous said...

George Fredlund said...
You guys have been batting a thousand for a long time.

No.

They were batting .250 the last time the red team reported results. Now they're batting closer to .050 according to the most recent results.

"No attack since 9/11" doesn't mean anything. There was no attack before 9/11 either. 3 planes out of hundreds of millions does not warrant this kind of wasted resources.

Anonymous said...

Bold TSApologist, are you sure you don't work for the TSA? Your contempt for the traveling public is so TSA-like.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if the TSA didn't miss 95% of all weapons going through their vaunted screening areas: https://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-widespread-security-failures-us-110647463--abc-news-topstories.html

TSORon said...

SSSS for Some Reason said...
[[So then it should be real easy for you to post a link to any of the multiple times this question has been answered.]]

That has been done many times as well, but they are ignored as are any answers that the local nay-sayer’s don’t like. You and I both have been here to see them, this is just business as usual.

GSOLTSO said...

Just a reminder to our folks here. Please do not post your personal contact information in comments. If you wish to make them public, you can put them on your bio page at Blogger, but we will not post comments that include contact information such as private email addresses, phone numbers and the like. Thanks!

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

"That has been done many times as well, but they are ignored as are any answers that the local nay-sayer’s don’t like. You and I both have been here to see them, this is just business as usual."

Post one of these links. Just one. You can't do it, can you? Pathetic.

Susan Richart said...

Ronnie wrote: "That has been done many times as well, but they are ignored as are any answers that the local nay-sayer’s don’t like. You and I both have been here to see them, this is just business as usual."

Well then Ronnie, why don't YOU give us a link, or copy and paste the answer as it was given here on the blog by someone in an official capacity with the TSA. Or can't you do it either?

And by the way, we want a response from a person in an official capacity with the TSA, not someone, including yourself, who claims to know the answer or claims to work for the TSA. We want first name, last name, position at the TSA.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

6 days and no response. The silence speaks volumes.

screen shot

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Susan Richart said...And by the way, we want a response from a person in an official capacity with the TSA, {regarding the silly 3-1-1 rules} not someone, including yourself, who claims to know the answer or claims to work for the TSA. We want first name, last name, position at the TSA.

~~~~~~~~

Me personally? I would be happy with an answer from just about anyone regarding the silliness of the 3-1-1 rules. Anyone got an even slightly plausible explanation for what makes a 16 ounce bottle dangerous but five 3 ounce bottles of the same stuff safe?

People responding that I should look it up can hold their posts because I have been an active participant in this so-called conversation with the TSA for many years, more years than the 3-1-1 rule, so you and I both know there isn't anything to look up on this site.

People responding that the answer has been given already can hold their posts unless you are willing to include the link to the answer. Again, you and I both know it hasn't been answered or this question wouldn't keep being asked.

And while Mrs Richart would prefer an official answer, I am asking for anyone to offer up here a plausible answer to the question. Answer it here or provide a link to where it was answered before. Why is a single bottle of something bad, but many small bottles OK?

RB said...

Me personally? I would be happy with an answer from just about anyone regarding the silliness of the 3-1-1 rules. Anyone got an even slightly plausible explanation for what makes a 16 ounce bottle dangerous but five 3 ounce bottles of the same stuff safe?

People responding that I should look it up can hold their posts because I have been an active participant in this so-called conversation with the TSA for many years, more years than the 3-1-1 rule, so you and I both know there isn't anything to look up on this site.

People responding that the answer has been given already can hold their posts unless you are willing to include the link to the answer. Again, you and I both know it hasn't been answered or this question wouldn't keep being asked.

And while Mrs Richart would prefer an official answer, I am asking for anyone to offer up here a plausible answer to the question. Answer it here or provide a link to where it was answered before. Why is a single bottle of something bad, but many small bottles OK?

June 12, 2015 at 11:28 AM

..................
You have raised one of the two questions that TSA has refused to answer. I believe TSA refuses to answer because they can't knowing that any serious answer would be laughed at.

So we know that one of the questions, "why are several 100ml bottles of liquids safe but one liquid of the exact same quantity contained in one bottle is not safe", goes unanswered regardless of what some on this blog try to claim.

The second big question is TSA fetish for claiming that ID matters yet TSA screeners do nothing to compare ID's to any resource that would actually suggest a person is on a watch list. When asking TSA why they are checking ID the canned response is "ID matters" but TSA can't articulate why that is so when the person is still going to be screened thoroughly no matter who the ID supposedly identifies.

I think what we witness at TSA Checkpoints is poorly trained federal employees carrying out acts that were suggested in brainstorming sessions without any real consideration of why doing that act is a useful action.

Anonymous said...

14 days and counting waiting for a response.

Anonymous said...

Quoted:
"Anonymous said...
JamesRay said...
I don't care what you call yourself, I read the blogs occasionally and its the same old thing: complain, complain, complain. I could spend my life trying to explain why TSA has the procedures and rules that are in place to these people and they just put their fingers in their ears and rattle: latle, latle, latle and keep complaining. I'm going to respond to a couple of things; even though they don't think logically or use common sense. Lets take the "INERT" weapons. They say if its proven "INERT" whats the harm in letting the passenger take it in their carry on bag? So suppose a bad guy gets on board pulls this look alike out, grabs a stewardess or another passenger and threatens to kill unless ......use your imagination as to what follows. The hostage does not know that look alike is "INERT". Now you got a bad situation. The rule is in place for a reason. The rules are stated online as to what is allowed and not. I've got to go for now,but I will be back. I've got more to say about some of your complaints. Before I go, let me say this: SINCE 911 THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER AIRPORT HIJACKING OF A PLANE, SO TSA MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. Instead of looking for something to complain about TSA, thank God for the success TSA has had in doing their job.

James Ray, how dare you use logic and common sense. Dont you know these people are experts in someone elses feild? Since 9/11 and the implementation of hardened doors, there is no way to take a plane down. Since passengers now fight back, there is no way to take someone hostage. All threats to aviation security are gone. Since there have been no terror attacks on planes, that proves beyond a dought that the threat is gone, no thanks to TSA. Just ask the experts here...

May 25, 2015 at 10:47 AM"
----------------------------------------
From 2008 through 2014 there have been 24 Hijackings of commercial aircraft (look it up yourself since you obvioulsy won't believe me). During that period NONE occured within the US. Those planes included planes with hardened doors, pax fighting back, etc. By all logic that means TSA is working.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

From 2008 through 2014 there have been 24 Hijackings of commercial aircraft (look it up yourself since you obvioulsy won't believe me). During that period NONE occured within the US. Those planes included planes with hardened doors, pax fighting back, etc. By all logic that means TSA is working.

June 23, 2015 at 2:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
please cite your source. googling has led me to 5 failed attempts, and 2 that were successful only in terms of taking a few people hostage. in one case, the hijackers surrendered after 24 hours, and the other the police took the plane. in no case did the hijackers gain effective control of the plane in curcumstances where they could fly it (and use it as a weapon).