Friday, September 9, 2016

TSA Week in Review September 2nd - 8th

Discovered firearms image

TSA discovered 62 firearms this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 62 firearms discovered, 47 were loaded and 17 had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured were discovered in the last week. See a complete list below.



Discovered firearms image
These four unloaded firearms were discovered in a traveler's carry-on bag this week at Austin (AUS).
Discovered knives image
Clockwise from the top, these items were discovered at SYR, LAS, ANC, ORD, IAH, SYR and ORD.


Table for discovered firearms in carry-on bags list
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. 

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

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 2015 Year in Review post! If you haven’t read them yet, make sure you check out our year in review posts for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Follow @TSA on Twitter and Instagram! 

Bob Burns
TSA Social Media Team

38 comments:

RB said...

Certainly appears that TSA isn't making people worry to much.

Fix the TSA said...

Bob, you did a good job in not cutting off guns this week. I did notice, especially in the knives montage, that you cut off the portion of the image that could show a date written by the screener on the forms or paper they use to log when the item was found. It helps American taxpayers to have that information included in the photos you post.

Glad to see no toys, replicas, or inert objects are being touted as "good catches" this week.

Fix the TSA said...

Bob, you admitted to me that West can decide on his own whim what comments to allow and delete. You also admitted to me that the blog "comment policy" specifically allows you and West to suppress comments you don't like. Did you write the blog policy, Bob?

Your insistence that you can do whatever you want as a government employee on a government website is appaling. The "comment policy" is the poorest excuse for government suppression of American citizens' speech.

This blog has no oversight from TSA management. It is time to change that. I encourage all commenters here, pro or anti-TSA, to write to their representatives and TSA leadership, demanding more oversight and a fair blog policy that does not allow TSA employees to violate Americans' First Amendment rights.

*screenshot*

Chip and Andy said...

"...These four unloaded firearms were discovered in a traveler's carry-on bag this week at Austin "

And? Was he a terrorist? Was he planning on killing anyone? Did he get arrested by APD? Are the TSA going to fine him? And if so, how much?

Doober said...

Don't suppose you'd care to comment on this:

http://nationalpainreport.com/a-crps-patients-worst-nightmare-how-the-tsa-fails-to-properly-deal-with-disabilities-8831414.html#respond

The comment from Mog who claims to be a former TSA screener is especially interesting.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Garrett Moffitt said...

I wonder if the TSA knows that people ahve been carrying stuff like this onto a plane for decades. Or that nothing pictured here means any event would ahve taken place while in flight?


Boldly said...

Bob, you did a good job in not cutting off guns this week. I did notice, especially in the knives montage, that you cut off the portion of the image that could show a date written by the screener on the forms or paper they use to log when the item was found. It helps American taxpayers to have that information included in the photos you post.
You are one of only 7 people in the country that pay any attention to that. Nobody cares about dates and time stamps.

Boldly said...

I wonder if the TSA knows that people ahve been carrying stuff like this onto a plane for decades. Or that nothing pictured here means any event would ahve taken place while in flight?

how could you possibly know this? Did you interview everyone who brought these things into an airport? Did you ask them their intentions? What was their answer? Or perhaps you are just assuming...

Dr. Hapgood said...

Once again Bob offers us weekly statistics that add up only to a confusing message.

Officers around the country screened millions of passengers, and found a total of 62 firearms. Given the well-documented 95% failure rate of TSA screening, the reported numbers suggest that passengers carried 1,240 firearms onto airplanes last week. Fortunately, there were no reported discharges of firearms (intentional or otherwise) on airplanes, which means the TSA's failure to keep 1,178 firearms off of airplanes caused no harm this week.

Officers also possibly found some other hazardous sharp pointy objects, which Bob shows us in a scary photo montage. But he neglected to tell us how many of those objects were found, a number that, of course, would represent 5% of such objects carried by passengers last week. The undated photo montage neither provides that information nor verifies that the objects were found last week. Perhaps last week's number was too small to report?

The strange thing here is that the 9/11 terrorists used sharp pointy objects like these, rather than firearms, in the tragedy that led to the TSA's founding. One might therefore think the TSA would make a priority of reporting its success at interdicting these objects.

So what can we conclude from this report?

First, the number of threatening objects is minuscule. According to the FAA's passenger boarding statistics for 2015 (the latest available), there are a little more than 15 million "emplanements" per week at American airports. The TSA thus found firearms on 0.0004% of screened passengers. If we assume that number means 1,240 passengers actually carried firearms, the percentage increases to 0.0081%. (The FAA publishes the statistics in an Excel spreadsheet, which makes computing these numbers very simple.) Bob doesn't specify the number of sharp pointy objects, but the associated percentages are almost certainly much much smaller.

Yes, it's appropriate to insist that any percentage greater than zero is unacceptable. But that would be impossible in practice, even if the TSA did a lot better job than independent testing consistently indicates. Regardless, Bob's weekly numbers clearly show is that the risk of "contraband" is much lower than the TSA would like us to believe.

Second, all the items Bob reported are metal. That means technology in place before 9/11 (metal detectors, wands, and x-ray scanners) would have been adequate for competent screeners to find everything reported here. These reports are evidence that the cost and intrusiveness of the nude-o-scopes and pat-downs are not justified.

Bob could surely respond to this analysis with a reminder that he can only report unclassified information. He could then assure us that TSA screening reliably finds many other more truly sinister contraband each and every day; and that Advanced Imaging Technology and enhanced pat-downs have stopped several horrible plots and saved numerous lives. But of course, that's all he can say because all those details are classified, SSI, or otherwise unavailable for verification. So we'll have to trust him when he insists everything the TSA does is necessary and highly effective, and we should ignore any evidence to the contrary. Orwell called that "doublethink." The Bandini Company has another word for it.

Chip and Andy said...

Blogger Boldly said...
I wonder if the TSA knows that people ahve been carrying stuff like this onto a plane for decades. Or that nothing pictured here means any event would ahve taken place while in flight?

how could you possibly know this? Did you interview everyone who brought these things into an airport? Did you ask them their intentions? What was their answer? Or perhaps you are just assuming...


It is very easy to know this.... If any of the people who got by security with dangerous items had bad intentions we would have seen something on the evening newscast. No news means no bad guys. It's not a difficult thing to understand, I don't know why you think it would be necessary to interview everyone.

Wintermute said...

By your oen loging - How can you possibly know this? Have you interviewed everyone in the world to find their thoughts on timestamps?

Fix the TSA said...

Boldy, your opinion is that no one cares that government employees are lying and concealing information from the American public. You also have the opinion that no one cares about government waste of our tax dollars.

You are incorrect.

What's really funny is that you use a statement from me that is explaining to Bob how including information in photo helps American taxpayers to attack me and say "nobody cares."

The simple fact is that YOU don't want anyone to pay attention to errors, omissions, failures, lies, and even crimes by TSA employees.

Why is that? Why do you want the TSA to get away with lying and deceiving the public?

Wintermute said...

Wow, autocorrect... Should have read "By your own logic - How can you possibly know this? Have you interviewed everyone in the world to find their thoughts on timestamps?"

RB said...

TSA screeners miss 95% of threat items in tests and apparently TSA sniffer dogs aren't doing much better.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/NBC-5-Investigates-Records-Show-TSA-Funded-K-9-Teams-Failed-Annual-Tests-More-than-50-Times-at-Large-US-Airports-393493421.html

Records Show TSA Funded K-9 Teams Failed Annual Tests More Than 50 Times at Large U.S. Airports

"NBC 5 Investigates has learned several K-9 teams at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and Dallas Love Field Airport failed important certification tests that check how accurately they can detect explosives, calling into question whether those teams are training enough to stay at the top of their game and keep passengers safe."

Failure: TSA's Job One!


Boldly said...

Chip and Andy said...

It is very easy to know this.... If any of the people who got by security with dangerous items had bad intentions we would have seen something on the evening newscast. No news means no bad guys. It's not a difficult thing to understand, I don't know why you think it would be necessary to interview everyone.

Of course, if someone who got by security had bad intentions, assuming they followed through with their plan, we would know. But those who did not make it through security and had bad intentions, we would never know. The police don't ask them "did you have bad intentions" and even if they did, the answer would not be "yes I did." That is just ridiculous. For all we know, TSA has stopped several terror attacks. There is absolutely no way we could ever know.

Boldly said...

Blogger Fix the TSA said...
Boldy, your opinion is that no one cares that government employees are lying and concealing information from the American public. You also have the opinion that no one cares about government waste of our tax dollars. no, just 99.999% think the time stamp on a photo is not relevant and probably none existent in most cases.

You are incorrect.

What's really funny is that you use a statement from me that is explaining to Bob how including information in photo helps American taxpayers to attack me and say "nobody cares." not an attack at all, just an opinion.

The simple fact is that YOU don't want anyone to pay attention to errors, omissions, failures, lies, and even crimes by TSA employees. oh you are very wrong. I want everyone to know when they have done wrong. I just think you are nit picking something that is pretty irrelevant

Why is that? Why do you want the TSA to get away with lying and deceiving the public? absolutely not

Chip and Andy said...


Blogger Boldly said...[b] For all we know, TSA has stopped several terror attacks. There is absolutely no way we could ever know. [/b]

There hasn't been a terrorist attack on civilian aviation in this country since I started using my new toothpaste. I can't switch back to the old brand because then all the flyers would be at risk.

Look up cum hoc ergo propter hoc, its in the family of logical fallacy when it comes to debate techniques. We have TSA and we have no terrorist attacks. It is a logical fallacy to attribute one to the other when it is easily demonstrated that one can not prevent the other in any meaningful way. (Look up the 3-1-1 rules, it proves the point quite nicely)

The people stopped by screeners were not bad guys because they weren't arrested by local law enforcement. The people with stuff missed by the screeners were not bad guys because they did no harm even after being missed by screeners. If either case included actual bad guys we would have heard about it on the main stream media, not tossed off as a statistical bit of fluff on this blog.

Oh, and thank you for finally learning how to spell ridiculous. It was really annoying how badly you were getting it wrong all that time before.

Wintermute said...

How do you know 99.999 percent of people think it's irrelevant? Did you interview everyone who read it? That's the only way you could possibly know. If not, then YOU find it irrelevant and THINK others MIGHT as well. Yet you continue with yet another completely made-up statistic as if it were fact.

Wintermute said...

Actually, the way we know is because TSA bosses have testified before Congress that there are no terrorists targeting US commercial aviation. One cannot prevent something that is not occurring.

Doober said...

Chip and Andy wrote: "Oh, and thank you for finally learning how to spell ridiculous. It was really annoying how badly you were getting it wrong all that time before."

Something tells me that someone else is writing Boldy's responses as spelling and grammar have improved.

screen shot

Boldly said...

Wintermute said...
How do you know 99.999 percent of people think it's irrelevant? Did you interview everyone who read it? That's the only way you could possibly know. If not, then YOU find it irrelevant and THINK others MIGHT as well. Yet you continue with yet another completely made-up statistic as if it were fact.

Simple, I used the "logic" used so often here my the numerous posters. There are 2 people who care out of the millions and millions of people in the country. Doing the math, since millions have not complained, they must not care. I came up with somewhere around 99.9999...%

Boldly said...

Blogger Boldly said...[b] For all we know, TSA has stopped several terror attacks. There is absolutely no way we could ever know. [/b]

There hasn't been a terrorist attack on civilian aviation in this country since I started using my new toothpaste. I can't switch back to the old brand because then all the flyers would be at risk. oh you must feel so grown up now...

Look up cum hoc ergo propter hoc, its in the family of logical fallacy when it comes to debate techniques. We have TSA and we have no terrorist attacks. It is a logical fallacy to attribute one to the other when it is easily demonstrated that one can not prevent the other in any meaningful way. (Look up the 3-1-1 rules, it proves the point quite nicely) except that one directly correlates to the other. And the 311 rule makes perfect sense and is logical

The people stopped by screeners were not bad guys because they weren't arrested by local law enforcement. And everyone stopped by TSA is interviewed? The people with stuff missed by the screeners were not bad guys because they did no harm even after being missed by screeners. True If either case included actual bad guys we would have heard about it on the main stream media, not tossed off as a statistical bit of fluff on this blog. False, those stopped would have never been known. Nobody asked them if they are bad guys and they wouldn't offer the information. "gee, thanks for catching me with that gun. Good thing you did I was going to shoot people on the plane". Ya, not going to happen.

Oh, and thank you for finally learning how to spell ridiculous. It was really annoying how badly you were getting it wrong all that time before. Blogger Boldly said...[b] For all we know, TSA has stopped several terror attacks. There is absolutely no way we could ever know. you are welcome.

Boldly said...

Doober said...
Chip and Andy wrote: "Oh, and thank you for finally learning how to spell ridiculous. It was really annoying how badly you were getting it wrong all that time before."

Something tells me that someone else is writing Boldy's responses as spelling and grammar have improved.

ewwww, a potential scandal in the works....Is boldly secretly working with the NSA, NSA, CIA and CBS? Does he fly in a black helicopter? IS he really an undercover Russian spy trying to get secret information from the aluminum hat wearing posters? Stay tuned and find out...

Wintermute said...

Your logic is quite lacking, and does not account for the numerous people who A) see the complaint and agree, but say nothing because it's already being address, B) aren't even aware of the blog and are thus unaware it is happening, but would complain if they knew, and C) are generally apathetic to the situation. They care, just not enough to actually voice an opinion.

Those are just three situations that are likely occurring that prove your statistic is completely made up, and your "logic" is being applied after the fact. I'm sure there are others at well that would prove you wrong.

Wintermute said...

Why are insults being allowed on this blog? Oh, that's right! West has participated in this type of insult himself recently, therefore it's allowed. :/

Wintermute said...

And yet more insults...

Boldly said...

Doober said...
Chip and Andy wrote: "Oh, and thank you for finally learning how to spell ridiculous. It was really annoying how badly you were getting it wrong all that time before."

Something tells me that someone else is writing Boldy's responses as spelling and grammar have improved.

ewwww, a potential scandal in the works....Is boldly secretly working with the NSA, NSA, CIA and CBS? Does he fly in a black helicopter? IS he really an undercover Russian spy trying to get secret information from the aluminum hat wearing posters? Stay tuned and find out...

as long as you choose to be the spelling police, perhaps you could look at your own sentence structure. "all that time." Do you wash the windows on your glass house or just toss rocks at them?

Doober said...

"ewwww, a potential scandal in the works....Is boldly secretly working with the NSA, NSA, CIA and CBS? Does he fly in a black helicopter? IS he really an undercover Russian spy trying to get secret information from the aluminum hat wearing posters? Stay tuned and find out..."

Yet another nonsense response from the real Boldy.

Doober said...

Boldy wrote: "as long as you choose to be the spelling police, perhaps you could look at your own sentence structure. "all that time." Do you wash the windows on your glass house or just toss rocks at them?"

So who are you calling the "spelling police"? Me or Chip and Andy?

If you were so concerned with correct grammar, Boldy, you would know how to attribute others' words properly.

screen shot

GSOLTSO said...

Where did I insult someone?

West
TSA Blog Team

Wintermute said...

Are you acknowledging the above as insults? If not, then you will see your words as perfectly acceptable (though they're not, according to policy). If so, we did you allow them?

Boldly said...

If you were so concerned with correct grammar, Boldy, you would know how to attribute others' words properly.

not concerned at all. Just pointing out that one should make sure they are perfect before criticizing someone else lest they look like a fool. By the way, it was "chip and andy"

Wintermute said...

"What are we 17 now?"

Is that not an insult?

RB said...

Wintermute said...
"What are we 17 now?"

Is that not an insult?

October 3, 2016 at 12:28 AM
........................
You obviously noticed that TSA Blogger West hasn't owned up to posting this insult.

TSA & Integirty: Polar Opposites!

GSOLTSO said...

No, it was a question that could lead to an inference that the conversation was taking on a bit of a teenage feel. If I were to insult someone, it would be much more creative than that.

West
TSA Blog Team

Wintermute said...

Explains why certain insults are allowed.

RB said...

As the recipient of your personal attach West I reject your trying to back away from your remarks.

Your intent was perfectly clear and did violate the posting standards of this blog which are only used when it suits TSA purposes.

Wintermute said...

It was an insult. But it was made by you, so it was allowed.