Friday, November 6, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 61 Firearms Discovered, Bag Catches Fire at Anchorage, and More


61 firearms were discovered this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 61 firearms discovered, 54 were loaded and 18 had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured here were discovered this week. See a complete list below.

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 onboard the aircraft. Two inert grenades were discovered this week in checked bags at Denver (DEN - Pictured), and New Orleans (MSY).

Seven Knives in Carry-on: These seven knives were discovered in a carry-on bag at New York (JFK). While knives of any size are prohibited in carry-on bags, they may be transported in checked baggage.

40 Pounds of Marijuana: While resolving an alarm on a checked bag, TSA officers discovered 40 pounds of marijuana at Phoenix (PHX). While we are looking primarily for explosive devices, it’s difficult not to see 80 pounds of it. When discovered, contraband is reported to local law enforcement.

Concealed Items: Two concealed items were discovered this week. A belt buckle knife was discovered at Las Vegas (LAS), and a cane sword was discovered at Portland (PDX). Knives are always prohibited in carry-on bags, and concealed knives can lead to arrest and fines.

Checked bag catches fire at Anchorage: A checked bag at Anchorage (ANC) ignited on a conveyor belt after strike-anywhere fire-starters self-ignited due to vibrations on the conveyor belt combined with the way they were packaged. In addition to fire-starters, strike-anywhere matches are prohibited as well.
Clockwise from the top, these items were discovered at BOI, DEN, HNL, JFK, BWI, DTW and BWI
In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly in carry-on bags, our officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, stun guns, small pocketknives and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.

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.

*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.

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 Social Media Team

64 comments:

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?

flapdoodle1 said...

as an old guy with implants, I always ask for the millimeter wave scanner. It's fast and non-intrusive. Avoids lots of pat-downs. If a TSA sees my old body, nude... fine with me! But -- the pics I've looked aren't all that revealing

RB said...

"While we are looking primarily for explosive devices, it’s difficult not to see 80 pounds of it."

If TSA screeners are looking for anything other than WEI then I suggest they are exceeding all bounds of an Administrative Search and should have all search privileges revoked.

Anonymous said...

Still no comment on Shadi Petosky and the abysmal, harassing treatment she received from the TSA.

I'd hate for Bobby and West, as people charged with engaging with the public, to you know, actually engage with the public. That would require them to do their jobs, and expecting competence or performance from the TSA is patently unreasonable.

Anonymous said...

The real headline should be...61 Firearms didn't hurt a fly!!

What is remarkable about the numbers of firearms being discovered by TSA...is that if the prospective passengers intended harm, they'd be using the firearms long before they got to the head of the security lines.

Week after week, we read of these DISCOVERIES by TSA...and yet, not a one has been used to harm anyone. Or, at least as far as documented in the TSA Weekly Review, even to threaten anyone.

I'll concede that we don't want any/all passengers to be carrying firearms, knives or other weapons onto commercial planes--it would only take one round at the wrong time, in the wrong place, to take down an entire plane.

But with TSA discovering 50 or so firearms a week...and none have been used to hurt anyone, much less do any harm or damage at airports...I'd guess that most of these firearms were simply forgotten in luggage by honest, legal firearms owners, and/or concealed carry permit owners.

Just asking that we keep the "threat" in perspective. Far more likely that one of these firearms is eventually used in defense of innocent lives, than that they'll ever end up using in a hijacking.

Have a good day,

Jim

GSOLTSO said...

flapdoodle sez - "as an old guy with implants, I always ask for the millimeter wave scanner. It's fast and non-intrusive. Avoids lots of pat-downs. If a TSA sees my old body, nude... fine with me! But -- the pics I've looked aren't all that revealing"

We appreciate the sentiments, but there are no nude images to view anymore. The MMW systems found in TSA checkpoints now use a software system called Automated Target Recognition (or ATR for short). The images seen are a generic cut-out type of image, and a yellow box is superimposed over the cut-out image to notify the TSOs of any areas containing something that may be a possible threat. So, to review, the MMW ATR shows a gingerbread person type of cutout, that superimposes yellow boxes where the machine "sees" something that needs to be cleared. The areas that alarm, are then cleared by the TSOs in the checkpoint area.

RB sez - "If TSA screeners are looking for anything other than WEI then I suggest they are exceeding all bounds of an Administrative Search and should have all search privileges revoked."

TSOs do not search specifically for marijuana, however, when it is detected via xray, it has to be cleared as possible threats. If illegal items (such as marijuana) are discovered while the TSOs are clearing the bag of possible threats, then the local LEOs are notified and take over the situation (as well as determining the final disposition regarding arrest/citations/etc).

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Yes, the majority of the guns found are "forgotten" that they had them in there, and quite a few have the proper concealed/carry permits. However, most airports have declared themselves "gun free" places, and they are illegal on the premises. Also, they have never been allowed since TSA was established. TSA does not confiscate any of them, they are turned over to the local authorities, and they make the determination as to what the disposition of the firearm. As to the "replica" items found, while I understand it is a replica/novelty item, what if someone actually tries to use it to threaten the plane/passengers? Do you think that someone will ask "Hey, can I see that a bit closer so I can see if it is real?". Just love reading the same haters and naysayers who's only intelligence is to be able to copy and paste every week. You know who you are!

Anonymous said...

" So, to review, the MMW ATR shows a gingerbread person type of cutout, that superimposes yellow boxes where the machine "sees" something that needs to be cleared. The areas that alarm, are then cleared by the TSOs in the checkpoint area."

How many of these alarms have ever resulted in the detection of something dangerous that would not have been detected by a walk-through metal detector? And how many result in needless physical searches? Is it not true that things like pleats, sweat, plackets, and buttons lead to alarms? Why do you use a technology with such a high failure rate for primary screening?

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...

RB sez - "If TSA screeners are looking for anything other than WEI then I suggest they are exceeding all bounds of an Administrative Search and should have all search privileges revoked.

"TSOs do not search specifically for marijuana, however, when it is detected via xray, it has to be cleared as possible threats. If illegal items (such as marijuana) are discovered while the TSOs are clearing the bag of possible threats, then the local LEOs are notified and take over the situation (as well as determining the final disposition regarding arrest/citations/etc).

West TSA Blog Team November 8, 2015 at 5:57 AM


So TSA screening devices cannot tell the difference between WEI and marijuana?

That has to be the case based on your statement or TSA is in fact searching specifically for drugs.

What else do these expensive machines not detect?

Leonard Silva said...

If there is the most remote possibility that you can forget for one second where your firearm is, then you have no business owning one.

Anonymous said...

Was it 80 pounds of marijuana, or 40 pounds? Bobby seems to be waffling on this point-- the header says 40 pounds, the text says 40 pounds, but then Bobby says it's hard to miss 80 pounds...

So which is it?

GSOLTSO said...

GSOLTSO sez above - "TSOs do not search specifically for marijuana, however, when it is detected via xray, it has to be cleared as possible threats."

This is a terrible sentence, that should not have been posted, as it is entirely incorrect - the original sentence was "TSOs do not specifically search for marijuana, however, when seen on the xray, it could be determined to be a possible threat and has to be cleared". Somewhere in the process of posting earlier, I seem to have cut and pasted the wrong thing. Sorry for the confusion.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

You still haven't addressed the fact that the TSA is apparently unable to tell the difference between "40" and "80"...

RB said...

http://news.yahoo.com/rep-adam-schiff-airport-security-test-tsa-fail-180523114.html


"This is a problem here at home. When we test the TSA, they fail," Schiff told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos today on "This Week." "And I think we really need to step up our security here." Schiff, D-California, is the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees components of agencies including the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security"

Perhaps TSA should stop searching for drugs and try to lean how to detect real threat items. Screening airport workers would be a step forward too.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Bobby, West-- you actually fixed some of your broken links!

It only took a few WEEKS for you to do what any other blogger with a shred of competence could have done in 15 minutes.

Congratulations on an almost adequate job!

Anonymous said...

Recycling photos again... still.... seriously. It has been pointed out to you how many times and still you try and fluff up your blotter post by reusing photos from weeks before? If we can't count on you to get something as as simple as photographs rights how can we can we trust you to get something as important as security corect?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for everything you do!

Susan Richart said...

"Was it 80 pounds of marijuana, or 40 pounds? Bobby seems to be waffling on this point-- the header says 40 pounds, the text says 40 pounds, but then Bobby says it's hard to miss 80 pounds..."

Bobby took the header and added the text to get 80 pounds.

A fine example of the sloppiness of the TSA.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The real headline should be...61 Firearms didn't hurt a fly!!

What is remarkable about the numbers of firearms being discovered by TSA...is that if the prospective passengers intended harm, they'd be using the firearms long before they got to the head of the security lines.

Week after week, we read of these DISCOVERIES by TSA...and yet, not a one has been used to harm anyone. Or, at least as far as documented in the TSA Weekly Review, even to threaten anyone.

I'll concede that we don't want any/all passengers to be carrying firearms, knives or other weapons onto commercial planes--it would only take one round at the wrong time, in the wrong place, to take down an entire plane.

But with TSA discovering 50 or so firearms a week...and none have been used to hurt anyone, much less do any harm or damage at airports...I'd guess that most of these firearms were simply forgotten in luggage by honest, legal firearms owners, and/or concealed carry permit owners.

Just asking that we keep the "threat" in perspective. Far more likely that one of these firearms is eventually used in defense of innocent lives, than that they'll ever end up using in a hijacking.

Have a good day,

Jim

November 7, 2015 at 6:23 PM
------------------------------------------------
Jim,
thanks for your sensible and logical comments, but I would like to add that TSA misses around 19 for every one they find. that means that not only were there 61 firearms found in screening that didn't hurt a fly, there were likely upward of 1100 that made it onto the aircraft, and STILL didn't hurt a fly!!!

Anonymous said...

And how many result in needless physical searches? Is it not true that things like pleats, sweat, plackets, and buttons lead to alarms? Why do you use a technology with such a high failure rate for primary screening?

People seem to forget ( I think more like ignore) the fact that these machines do not detect guns, knives, bombs or anything for that matter. They detect anomalies. Things that are different from the norm. And thus I would think that pleats and buttons and perhaps even sweat could be detected as they are not always "normal." That does not equate to a "false positive" not does it equate to a needless pat down. Ever heard the phrase, "trust but verify?" I would say the machines are doing exactly what they should be and are designed to do.

Anonymous said...

Blogger flapdoodle1 said...
as an old guy with implants, I always ask for the millimeter wave scanner. It's fast and non-intrusive. Avoids lots of pat-downs. If a TSA sees my old body, nude... fine with me! But -- the pics I've looked aren't all that revealing

November 6, 2015 at 11:09 PM
---------------------------------------------------------

That's great that the scanner works better for you. As a diabetic with an insulin pump that the manufacturer says to not go through the scanners because they can damage the pump, the scanners are awful. I get a full body, invasive, pat down almost every time I fly. I also get a lot of attitude from the TSA workers when I tell them that I can't go through the scanners because of the pump manufacturer's warning. I would get Pre Check, but I have seen the Pre Check lines closed lately and people in the Pre Check lines still getting sent to the body scanners.

RB said...

Left out of the story.

The bag that caught fire at ANC, was that before TSA Security or after?

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...

"TSOs do not specifically search for marijuana, however, when seen on the xray, it could be determined to be a possible threat and has to be cleared".

November 8, 2015 at 1:25 PM

....................
West you are confirming that TSA can see marijuana on x-ray and are calling for a bag search if it is seen.

That clearly is a search for drugs and violates the limited Administrative Search doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Yes, the majority of the guns found are "forgotten" that they had them in there, and quite a few have the proper concealed/carry permits. However, most airports have declared themselves "gun free" places, and they are illegal on the premises. Also, they have never been allowed since TSA was established. TSA does not confiscate any of them, they are turned over to the local authorities, and they make the determination as to what the disposition of the firearm. As to the "replica" items found, while I understand it is a replica/novelty item, what if someone actually tries to use it to threaten the plane/passengers? Do you think that someone will ask "Hey, can I see that a bit closer so I can see if it is real?". Just love reading the same haters and naysayers who's only intelligence is to be able to copy and paste every week. You know who you are!

Actually passengers and carry-ons started getting screened in 1973.

Anonymous said...

It's becoming difficult to tell: are you censoring comments that comply with policy, or are you simply too lazy to do your jobs by posting those comments?

RB said...

I'd hate for Bobby and West, as people charged with engaging with the public, to you know, actually engage with the public. That would require them to do their jobs, and expecting competence or performance from the TSA is patently unreasonable.

November 7, 2015 at 10:40 AM

...........................

I really don't think it is fair that you don't give full credit to TSA Blogger Lynn whose only purpose here appears to be having her name listed as one of TSA's Bloggers.

Lynn (Blogger, Commenter & Moderator)

Anonymous said...

"And thus I would think that pleats and buttons and perhaps even sweat could be detected as they are not always "normal." That does not equate to a "false positive" not does it equate to a needless pat down."

It's not normal to sweat? It's not normal to have buttons on one's clothing? TSA's body scanners are far more invasive and sensitive than we need for sensible security proportionate to the actual threat to aviation. How many physical searches for harmless, common items would be too many? And why do you think TSA and its bloggers are too gutless to tell us how many needless patdowns result from the scanners' false positives?

GSOLTSO said...

RB sez - "West you are confirming that TSA can see marijuana on x-ray and are calling for a bag search if it is seen.

That clearly is a search for drugs and violates the limited Administrative Search doctrine."

I am most certainly confirming that an item inside a bag can be seen with the xray. Marijuana inside of a bag would be seen, just like a bag of sugar in a bag would be seen, or a block of cheese in a bag would be seen... I could do this all day, the point is, that those items can appear similar to other items, like WEI. When the xray operator sees something that appears similar to WEI and they are unable to clear that item as presenting no threat, then a bag check is called. Nothing more to it than that - no standing order to search baggage specifically for marijuana, no SOP directive to search baggage specifically for marijuana (checkpoint or checked bags).

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Still no answer on the question of how much pot they actually found, and the blog entry remains unclear. Is Bobby so incompetent at math that he can't tell when two numbers are different?

Also, you're still censoring valid, policy-compliant comments that point out your blog's HORRIBLE accessibility problems.

Anonymous said...

West says:

I am most certainly confirming that an item inside a bag can be seen with the xray.

Nice job! You didn't actually answer the question, but you still managed to sound condescending and dismissive. That's some quality public relations, right there.

Did you have to get media relations training for that, West, or does arrogant hostility come naturally to you?

Anonymous said...

Still refusing to allow valid, policy-compliant comments.

Still refusing to take any steps toward accessibility and usability for low-vision visitors (seriously, the gun-count-as-garish-JPEG thing is a joke).

Still refusing to address the Shadi Petosky situation.

Still refusing to explain how 40 pounds of marijuana became 80 pounds.

Still refusing to say "thanks" for pointing out some major flaws in your site that could have led to serious image problems for the TSA (if the @TSABlogTeam account had been taken over by a more risqué user, you could have had a real scandal on your hands).

I wonder how much money the TSA could save by hiring a software developer to spend 10 minutes writing a shell script that provides more functionality than Bobby and West...

RB said...

Anonymous said...Recycling photos again... still.... seriously. It has been pointed out to you how many times and still you try and fluff up your blotter post by reusing photos from weeks before? If we can't count on you to get something as as simple as photographs rights how can we can we trust you to get something as important as security corect?November 8, 2015 at 9:10 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If TSA screeners are only catching 5% of target test items it's pretty clear that they don't do security correctly.

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...RB sez - "West you are confirming that TSA can see marijuana on x-ray and are calling for a bag search if it is seen.That clearly is a search for drugs and violates the limited Administrative Search doctrine."I am most certainly confirming that an item inside a bag can be seen with the xray. Marijuana inside of a bag would be seen, just like a bag of sugar in a bag would be seen, or a block of cheese in a bag would be seen... I could do this all day, the point is, that those items can appear similar to other items, like WEI. When the xray operator sees something that appears similar to WEI and they are unable to clear that item as presenting no threat, then a bag check is called. Nothing more to it than that - no standing order to search baggage specifically for marijuana, no SOP directive to search baggage specifically for marijuana (checkpoint or checked bags). WestTSA Blog TeamNovember 10, 2015 at 12:58 PM

So are bag checks called for bags of sugar or just for bags of marijuana? Based on your explanation above how can anything be cleared by x-ray with certainty unless the machine has discrimination capabilities?

Anonymous said...

I am most certainly confirming that an item inside a bag can be seen with the xray. Marijuana inside of a bag would be seen, just like a bag of sugar in a bag would be seen, or a block of cheese in a bag would be seen... I could do this all day, the point is, that those items can appear similar to other items, like WEI. When the xray operator sees something that appears similar to WEI and they are unable to clear that item as presenting no threat, then a bag check is called. Nothing more to it than that - no standing order to search baggage specifically for marijuana, no SOP directive to search baggage specifically for marijuana (checkpoint or checked bags).

you see what is going on here. Trying to trick you into saying that TSA identifies an object as marijuana and searches the bag because of it. We all know that is false. This happened to me at a cruise port I was at on vacation. The person in front of me had his pot inside of his sunglass case in an attempt to hide it and get it on the ship. Because the "item" was out of the ordinary (something other than glasses in a glasses case) they checked the bag and found the weed. They weren't looking for weed, they just happened to find it. TSA isn't looking for wed either. But if they find something that is unidentifiable, they may call a bag check and it turns out to be weed.

Susan Richart said...

RE: the fiasco in Miami earlier this week:

"'Officers' determined he posed no threat and he was released."

http://khqa.com/news/nation-world/tsa-security-lapses-point-to-management-training-failures-experts-say

How could he be "released" when TSA is not allowed to detain?

Susan Richart said...

Methinks TSA employees Mike England and David Castelveter need to get their stories straight:

England: “TSA will also continue to offer expedited screening to certain travelers who have been pre-screened by TSA canines, a practice known as “Managed Inclusion I.”

Castelveter: "David Castelveter, Deputy Assistant Administrator of TSA’s Office of Strategic Communications & Public Affairs, called TMR to share that TSA will be rolling out Managed Inclusion III, a version of the program that will use canines to screen some travelers and allow them into the PreCheck lines."

Which is it, Managed Inclusion I or Managed Inclusion III?

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the entire TSA, from top to bottom. No one seems to know what they are doing.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Bold Posting Intern said.... "People seem to forget ( I think more like ignore) the fact that these machines do not detect guns, knives, bombs or anything for that matter. They detect anomalies. Things that are different from the norm. And thus I would think that pleats and buttons and perhaps even sweat could be detected as they are not always "normal." That does not equate to a "false positive" not does it equate to a needless pat down. Ever heard the phrase, "trust but verify?" I would say the machines are doing exactly what they should be and are designed to do.

Look at you trying to be the final arbiter of what is an is not "normal."

And look at you trying to do some serious mental gymnastics to try and bend reality to fit your expectation. Pleats and buttons aren't 'normal?' Really? Some of the very first clothes human kind wore were little more than pleated cloth. Some of the very earliest methods of 'closing' garments was with buttons. And you think these things are the rarity that should trigger an 'anomaly' in the nudie-scanners?

You get in the radiation box, I'm not stopping you.

I, however, absolutely will not, ever, under any circumstances, ever get into the nudie-scanner. I get enough exposure to ionizing radiation in my regular life so why should I have to get exposed to more just because I choose to fly to grandma's house instead of driving?

And just give up already on the false-positive argument. You can't win it because words have meaning and the meanings don't align with your argument in any way.

Annabelle Smyth said...

Good post. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

I just want to share a story with those of you who never have a kind word or anything positive to say about TSA or TSA officers. Today while at the Airport, I saw a young female passenger flying out. I heard her tell one of the TSA officers she was on her way to rehab in Texas and hadn't eaten in days. She was in tears. After being treated very professionally by the TSA officer, she left. Shortly there after I saw this same girl at one of the shops attempting to buy a candy bar. Turns out she has no money. A TSA officer saw what was going on and knew her story. He pulled his personal credit card out of his pocket and bought her 4 candy bars and a bottle of water. The officers only request of her, "fight as hard as you can to beat this." With that she walked away and boarded her flight.
My point is, so many people here are fast to criticize officers and you forget that most of them are people just like you and I. Sure they have a different job but they have feelings, families, a heart and compassion just like the rest of us. Feel free to be critical of the agency, but it does not need to be personal. Some TSA officers are wonderful people. I saw this first hand today and I commend this officer. Now, back to your regularly scheduled drama.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for a clarification on just how much marijuana was confiscated. Can Bobby tell the difference between 40 pounds of something and 80 pounds of something? Can West actually respond to the question? If so, can West give an answer that isn't dripping with condescension toward the very people who pay his salary?

Adrian said...

In the announcement this week of three TSA contractors being charged with drug smuggling at an SFO checkpoint, there's this bit:

"The defendant operating or overseeing the x-ray machine either knew the carry-on baggage contained narcotics, viewed images that suggested the need for secondary inspection, or both. Nevertheless, in each instance, the defendant responsible for the x-ray machine failed to call for a secondary screening of the baggage or alert law enforcement or a supervisor to the presence of suspected narcotics."
[http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-san-francisco-international-airport-security-screeners-charged-fraud-and]

The wording there seems to be deliberately cagey.

If an x-ray TSO knows that a bag contains narcotics but sees no evidence of WEI, is that TSO required to call for a secondary inspection of that bag?

If yes, then the TSO clearly would be exceeding the bounds of an administrative search for weapons.

If no, then why is this part of the allegation?

It seems the only "correct" answer from TSA would be that narcotics and WEI are indistinguishable in an x-ray. Is that actually true?

And even if it is, if the TSO "knows" the suspicious item on the x-ray is narcotics then they "know" it's not WEI, and thus there's no need to call for a secondary inspection in order to check for weapons. If they are required to notify law enforcement about the narcotics, then that seems outside the bounds of an administrative search for weapons and threats to aviation.

I get the charges to conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics, and, if true, they should be prosecuted for that.

But these fraud charges are practically an admission that the TSA has been stretching the truth every time they claimed that big drug finds were incidental to clearing bags for WEI.

Anonymous said...

"... A checked bag at Anchorage (ANC) ignited on a conveyor belt after strike-anywhere fire-starters self-ignited due to vibrations on the conveyor belt combined with the way they were packaged."

Hmmm..... how do they ship those things to the stores without them catching fire? Just wondering.....

Blog Zombie said...

Your Photo very dangerous, just waw... amazing gun

Anonymous said...

Ah, West and Bobby are once again too lazy to post the weekly round up. Good job, boys!

In the meantime, here's a wonderful op-ed in the Boston Globe, in which former TSA head Kip Hawley is quoted as saying that the TSA's utter incompetence is a "national embarrassment" and that the relationship between the TSA and the traveling public is "too poisonous to be sustained".

Anonymous said...

Four days, no comments posted. A number of my comments were probably censored because I pointed out that accessibility for disabled people on this site is TERRIBLE, and West runs two blogs that scream hysterically about the grave national security threats posed by disabled people. We wouldn't want disabled terrorists to be able to read the TSA blog, would we, West?

Seriously, Admiral Neffenger: pull the plug on this sad and pathetic operation.

Anonymous said...

10:40 on Saturday, and y'all still haven't posted this week's round up.

The downtime would be understandable if Bobby were using the extra time to make sure pictures of guns weren't being re-used, but it's clear he's too lazy (or incompetent) to even do that.

Why exactly is taxpayer money being used to feed and water the TSA Blog Team, again?

ZoomToLies said...

How big is the actual item in that photo of the *inert grenade*? Is it smaller than an actual grenade, therefore not *realistic*?

Bob is known to enlarge photos or zoom in on tiny (1 in x 2 in) perfume bottles to make them look larger than their actual size.

Anonymous said...

5:00 on Saturday. Still no weekly post, and no comments approved in 4 days.

The TSA Blog Team: almost as effective and efficient as the REST of the TSA!

Anonymous said...

West, you have said in the past that if a screener sees a weapon in a bag, they don't touch it. They instead call for real law enforcement.

Why is this screener holding a "grenade" and a gun? http://news.asiantown.net/r/44901/tsa-seized-firearms-at-u-s-airports-last-year-most-were-loaded

Anonymous said...

Looks like your new boss, West & Bob, is doubling down on "passengers are the enemy" and "TSA needs to spend even more tax dollars."

Why don't you post this information on this blog?

"...Mission Essentials Training

Given the importance of training to our mission, I would like to elaborate on TSA’s approach to training following the OIG covert testing results. It is critical that we train out these failures so we do not repeat the mistakes, including those which could have catastrophic consequences. We have trained the specifics of the failures to virtually every frontline member and leader of TSA.

This training, referred to as “Mission Essentials --Threat Mitigation,” builds our workforce understanding of the link among intelligence, technology and the procedures they perform. The training advances our new value proposition by (1) providing a detailed intelligence briefing on the current threat; (2) discussing passenger tactics and techniques that may be used to dissuade the TSOs from thoroughly performing their screening duties and what counter measures they can employ; (3) reviewing recent procedural changes for screening individuals who present themselves as having a disability; (4) practicing pat-down procedures with the goal of finding components of improvised explosive devices; and (5) exploring the capabilities and limitations of the checkpoint equipment and how the TSO can by following proper procedures. I have been encouraged to see our TSOs embracing the principles of Mission Essentials training.

Through this training, our employees are being taught how to respond to social engineering – techniques used by passengers seeking to manipulate our screening workforce and avoid regular processes. As I meet with these employees in my travels to airports throughout the country, I have heard repeatedly how valuable they find this mission critical information. As such, I have charged TSA’s senior leaders to plan to send all new-hire TSOs to the TSA Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA, for TSO-basic training beginning in January 2016. Most of our major counterterrorism partners in security and law enforcement send their employees through similar type academies to ensure a laser-focus on mission, and we should as well..."

Anonymous said...

Sunday morning and we're still waiting for Friday's "Weekly Roundup".

I have to wonder why Bobby and West even bother at this point. Is there anybody in the TSA who is genuinely oblivious enough to think that this blog actually serves a useful purpose, or that Bobby and West perform any sort of positive, meaningful outreach to the traveling public? If so, please post his or her e-mail address; I know of a Nigerian prince who needs that person's assistance with some financial dealings...

Greg said...

It’s nice that TSA provides this information for travelers. It seems like an incredibly high number of firearms for one week. With all the PR that TSA puts out about what is legal and what is not, it’s hard to believe that people think they can get this through. Some of it is accidental of course, but it seems a lot of it is people “testing” the system.

Anonymous said...

So, either TSA has decided to end the weekly charade (I hope, I hope, I hope) or Bob is off fighting terrorists.

Anonymous said...

West, are both you and Bob ill? No posts in over a week and no comments approved in days.

Anonymous said...

No blog post or notification in over a week. No comment approved since mid last week. No Tweets for four days. Last Instagram was a lame puppy post four days ago.

What gives, TSA?

flapdoodle1 said...

My own view is that TSA is doing pretty well. The folk who are running this blog included.

Anonymous said...

"My point is, so many people here are fast to criticize officers and you forget that most of them are people just like you and I."

And the actions you describe are commendable. But do those actions excuse groping children's genitals?

RB said...

flapdoodle1 said...My own view is that TSA is doing pretty well. The folk who are running this blog included.November 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM
----------------------
Your standards for "doing pretty well" must be predicated on very low standards.

flapdoodle1 said...

ALSO - It's actually good news that TSA is finding weapons. This keeps them on their toes. Lots of terrorists will be discouraged by how good TSA is.. If they don't even try to board planes, that's a good thing by my lights, YMMV

Anonymous said...

Please, please, PLEASE let this mean that Admiral Neffenger is pulling the plug on this pathetic operation...

Anonymous said...

"People seem to forget ( I think more like ignore) the fact that these machines do not detect guns, knives, bombs or anything for that matter. They detect anomalies. Things that are different from the norm. And thus I would think that pleats and buttons and perhaps even sweat could be detected as they are not always "normal." That does not equate to a "false positive" not does it equate to a needless pat down."

If your screening technology things completely normal things like buttons and pleats are "anomalies" that need to be physically cleared, your screening technology is too sensitive to do anyone any good. And of course, thanks to TSA's weekly police blotter posts, we know that the naked body scanners have never, ever, ever found anything dangerous that a metal detector wouldn't have. Right, Curtis and West?

Shana Castellanos said...

Honest, legal firearm owners should not be "forgetting" a firearm. They ought to be responsible for that power. If a person isn't responsible enough to remember where their firearm is at all times, they shouldn't have one

Shana Castellanos said...

Exactly.

hasan said...

thank you