Thursday, November 7, 2013


TSA Contraband Inspections














                Several weeks ago I wrote about the Department of Public Safety at the University of Southern California in regards to their inefficient use of time barking orders at students and faculty, TSA seems to be cut from the same cloth. However, while The Hapless Blogger wasn’t able to get past the use of “Gestapo,” perhaps the use of another agency with a less offensive title will be more sensitive towards his tastes.
             One of the first memories that comes to mind when I think of the TSA was when I was going through LAX security at the age of 12. I removed my jacket and shoes, and placed my bag into the dark box-like cave on the conveyor belt. As I passed through the metal detector, my jacket had caught one TSA agent's attention, and he was on it like a bad rash. As I walked over to oversee his concern, he began to jiggle his hand down each pocket. Eventually to my surprise, he pulled out my beloved Swiss Army pocketknife. He examined the device, and informed me it would have to be confiscated. As he dropped it into a large blue bucket, I walked away devastated.
            Today, non-locking pocket knives with 1-3” blades are allowed to be taken on airplanes. However, I do not see knifes or bludgeoning devices as huge risks to air plane travel. Overall their search and confiscation is a waste of time towards addressing safety. If you look back to why many of the hijackers succeeded on 9/11, it was because they were able to break into the cockpit. Since 9/11, cockpit doors have been substantially fortified and are locked throughout the flight. Unfortunately, the US government felt that more had to be done to ease American concerns, and that seizing threatening devices and conducting full body searches would really ramp up the safety of American flights.
            Unfortunately, TSA agents are not addressing the problem. If someone wants to cut or stab someone, they will most likely be able to smuggle the device through TSA which has been proven with multiple failed tests or makeshift other devices like broken off steel luggage handles or electronics to do the same. That being said, knifes or spear-like devices will most likely not open current cockpit doors or damage the aircraft. In that sense, a person with a sharp object would have to partake in hand-to-hand combat with 300 passengers to kill everyone on board, unlikely to say the least.
            The TSA needs to clarify its purpose. If it exists to prevent plane high jacking or massive losses of life, it should solely focus on incendiary devices.  The detonation of an explosive device is the only threat to breaking the cockpit doors or compromising the integrity of the airplane. That being said, random body searches or questioning has proven ineffective in catching the "terrorist" which will be one out of a million. A TSA focusing on bomb detection can narrow down never ending list of prohibited items of what agents are looking for and leave room for bomb-detection devices and practices in their budgets.
           

5 comments:

  1. Interesting point. I definitely agree that the TSA is at times inefficient, and random security screenings are more of a nuisance than an actual safeguard against a serious threat. It seems logical for the TSA to direct their resources toward preventing more large-scale attacks, but on the other hand, I don't know how I feel about sitting next to someone on a plane who may or may not have "knifes or bludgeoning devices" on them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I flew out of LAX last weekend to SFO and experienced the inconsistency when dealing with TSA. When departing I was able to bring multiple liquids (out side of the standard zip lock bag) across security, as well as accidentally carrying nail polish in my pocket and a butter knife in my backpack (left over from slicing an apple the previous day). I was surprised at the relaxed security procedure especially after the tragic shooting that occurred at LAX the week prior.

    I disagree that focus should shift from smaller concerns like knives towards larger threats like bombs. Chelsea has a point, I also do not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who may or may not have knives of bludgeoning devices. However, I do think that TSA should reexamine their practices and fill in the inconsistencies that exist in their procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You mention that you do not see “knives or bludgeoning devices as huge risks to airplane travel.” I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one. Your reason for this assessment is that on 9/11, hijackers succeeded because they were able to break into cockpits which you believe is no longer possible today. Here’s a scenario: a crazy guy takes out his Swiss Army knife, with regulation 1-3 inch blade, and threatens to take a flight attendants life if the captain doesn’t’ open up the cockpit door. Sounds like a real dilemma, and it doesn’t matter how strong the door is. What really matters is the captain’s mental strength, and in a human moment he might acquiesce to the terrorist’s demand. Knives have no place on airplanes – period. If you want to file your nails, bring a nail file and check the knife. It’s that simple. The TSA doesn’t need to “clarify its purpose” – they’re there to protect the flying public. The only people that need purpose clarification are lawmakers who – for some reason beyond comprehension – are intellectually regressing and allowing dangerous items back on planes in a post-9/11 world.
    —Hapless Blogger

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right that a knife couldn't threaten the lives of 300 passengers, but it could put one person's life in danger. Searching for smaller weapons might appear to be inefficient, but I will endure a longer line and search for more safety.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TSA serves one purpose: to ensure the safety of passengers and the overall security of the nation by checking every passenger. Perhaps they have gone overboard with it, you may be right, but I think most everyone would agree that their lives are not anything they want to play risks with. Of course there are always times of inconsistency or when items get past the test when they shouldn't have, but if the question is inconsistency is enough to rid the whole system, the answer is of course no. As far as the invasive pat down policies go, I think TSA has been doing much better with that.

    ReplyDelete