"The TSA is not allowed to touch any private parts, nor are they allowed to look at any private parts, but all metal detector alarms must be cleared. If a man alarms in the nipple area, the screener can simply pat him down since a man’s nipples are not considered a sensitive area, but if a woman alarms, the TSA asks the woman to exit the checkpoint and remove the jewelry. If she cannot remove the jewelry, the sherrifs have to be called because only they are authorized to do sensitive area pat downs. If THIS happens, then an incident report has to be filled out and the supervisor has to get permission from the airport manager. It takes a long time and the person might miss their flight. It’s just easier if they take the jewelry out, get rescreened, and go. "
I know a TSA and he says that we Americans can be right put out to be screened while foreigners are generally okay with it. They comprehend the effort to prevent larger stories–like say, airplanes blowing up and passengers trying to take over the driving.
All too soon we forget.
Pack your carryon neatly and empty your pockets. FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, I could deal with a woman doing a quick patdown if I had to. If I had such rings, which I don’t. I wouldn’t like it, though. It’s not like I’ve ever seen explosive body jewelry.
I’m not blaming your wife for the silly rules, but it still seems just…well, silly and counterproductive and a waste of time. Confiscating knives and such items, okay. I have absolutely no problem with that. But so much of what happens at the checkpoints just screams, “We’re doing this so that you think we’re actually doing something.”
Please note that when I fly, I keep my opinions of the procedures to myself and just go along with it, because I have to get to where I’m going. The fact that I have to shut up and put up with the occasional serious pettiness irritates me, but I guess I’m stuck. (I also think that if anybody does try to hijack a plane in the US 9/11 stype again the passengers will jump them and the attempting hijacker will be lucky to get away from them alive.)
My dad keeps bugging me to sign up, since he works at the airport for another organization.
But I’ve heard a lot of negative things about working for TSA, the most easily verifiable being their extremely high turnover. I’ve worked for enough bad bosses and in enough bad situations that I have no desire to work for a(nother) place with exceedingly high turnover.
Can you tell me your wife’s view of this? What causes it?
"I’ve not ever had a problem with bad bosses or bad coworkers, but being constantly griped at by passengers is very stressful.
The insurance and pay are great for what it is, and if you want a part time job with benefits, this is it.
Also, a lot of people use this as a way to get into other Gov’t jobs, like Customs or Border Patrol or ICE. That may account for some of the turnover."
She didn’t mention this, but she has mentioned before that, at her airport at least, the great majority of TSAs are part-timers. This gives me the impression that a higher turnover rate is to be expected–part-timers are not going to be as invested in the job as a career than would be full-timers. However, for some reason I haven’t understood, my wife does not have the same impression–she does not think the high rate of part-timers has much to do with the high turnover rate. So take that as you will.
“Because this is America and we have important personal freedoms, very few would subject themselves to the kind of screening that would really be necessary to guarantee complete safety. So we do what the public will allow.”
Aside from Frylock: You would have no problem letting them take a look, but can you imagine the outcry if this were a rule everyone had to follow? And even if it were voluntary, can you imagine the potential for accusations of abuse? But maybe this is IMHO or GD material…
And again from my wife: “I could become numb to seeing bare breasts, but vaginal or clitoris piercings? Or guys looking at penis piercings?” And she shudders.
I was told in a psychology class that the X-ray screening device display will insert bombs, weapons, etc. to stave off monotony. Apparently, the percentage of misses decreases as the target frequency increases; and the decrease in false negatives (contraband getting through) is well worth the cost of an increase in false positives (longer wait times). This explains why bags sometimes have to be screened twice, or when there are hiccups in the flow of traffic.
I actually make a point of telling the TSA agents I come into contact with “Hey, I appreciate the job you guys are doing. Thanks”. Do they get that a lot?
She is not entirely sure about the rationale (she is not sure if the reason that was given to you is the reason) but yes, the display system does insert false positives, and yes, this does often cause hiccups in the flow of baggage traffic.
What if something is not removable? I can see how someone might have surgical metal somewhere in their hips/pelvis that could not be resolved without removing one’s pants? Are they doomed to a search by the sheriff every time they fly? (And if not-- then doesn’t that makes the whole policy completely pointless?. Terrorists would lie. The poor dude with a prince albert wouldn’t.)
I went through security 4 times in three different airports with a big plastic brace that beeped because it was full of metal. I was asked if I could remove it-- I said no, they swabbed it for explosives, and sent me on my way.
(I will say that with the glaring exception of Newark Airport, the TSA people were extremely kind and gentle with me. The Newark people behaved as if I was the first disabled person they’d ever seen.)
The problem of course is that the alarm might not be from the ring. There might be some other piece of metal setting off the alarm and the ring is just getting the attention. Now, I understand that with portable metal detectors one can zero in pretty closely, but the principle is still there.
Does she think the TSA is just a bit over the top ridiculous? I am referring to:
laptops must be removed from cases (except xrays see right through cases)
shoes off (seemingly a huge waste of time)
all coats/sweaters off (same)
no toothpaste.
I have traveled extensively all over the world and in the last year or so have been through airports in UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Hong Kong, Thailand, India, Germany, Czech Republic, Switzerland, and the US.
Only in the US did I have to do the above (except in Geneva and Prague where I had to put my laptop through separately). I felt the same level of safety on all flights… even the flights to/from Yemen where 50% of the passengers had traditional Yemeni daggers on their person.
I for one very much try to avoid traveling through the US if I can avoid it because of the hassle.
“The case is not the problem, its all the stuff they pack into their cases that’s the problem. Books, power cords, wads of coins. If the case is packed full of stuff, we can’t tell what’s the laptop and what’s not. We want to see the laptop.”
“The shoe bomber. Also, people don’t know whether they have metal in their shoes, so telling people they only need to take their shoes off if they have metal turns out to be counter-productive. It’s faster just to have everyone take them off.”
“We need to see the contours of the body for visual inspection.”
“No toothpaste is not one of the rules. If you’re referring to no liquids or gels over 3.4 ounces, that’s because of the British bomb plot two years ago.”
“They don’t have to go to the Sheriff, because the hip is not a sensitive area. If it’s placed exactly so that the alarm goes off at the genital area, then they would have to be visually inspected. (The TSA would check the clothes themselves.) The only time I’ve ever heard of somebody alarming in the crotch area where it wasn’t a piercing was some guy who didn’t know why it was alarming. It turned out to be the theft deterrent tag inside the crotch of his pants.”
I understand all of this, but only the US seems paranoid about it. Nowhere else in the world is so strict… and planes are not being attacked anywhere in the world.
In the EU they have the same liquids/gels rule, but I can get on a flight in Uganda, transit Dubai, Bangkok, Hong Kong and land in San Francisco with a 12 oz bottle of water, a laptop that was never screened outside its case, and never have to remove my shoes. It just seems like a lot of show to me in the US.
Have they caught any bombs in shoes, laptops or explosive toothpaste?
I just don’t feel any safer getting on an Atlanta to San Francisco flight as I do getting on a Kampala to Dubai flight (as long as it is Emirates! ), and the latter is not a huge hassle.
), and the latter is not a huge hassle.