| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Most fake bombs missed by TSA screeners |
| 2007-10-18 |
| Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY. OK, but how many nail files did they find? Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows. They could do a much better job if they were allowed to join the SEIU At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco. Private companies cheat. The report looks only at those three airports, using them as case studies to understand how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to stop terrorists from carrying bombs through checkpoints. That is not the purpose of the program. It is designed to employ the unemployable. 'EXPLOSIVES' IN CARRY-ONS Contraband carried by undercover agents posing as passengers at airport checkpoints: • Bomb residue on shoelaces • Detonator and explosives hidden in briefcase lining • Inert explosives inside CD players • Fake dynamite and timer in toiletry kit • Phony plastic explosive and battery inside hollowed-out book • Inert explosives and detonator in back support concealed by clothing |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #3 It's like the great Doug Stanhope said (to paraphrase): "They can't keep knives out of prisons and there they look in you a$$." We do the best we can do at prevention at the gates, but maybe it's time to just take a bit of responsibility on the part of people who fly to look out for their own safety. |
| Posted by: KenAnglan 2007-10-18 23:33 |
| #2 Oops! Please ignore the strikeout thru "management". Think Underline.... |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2007-10-18 18:59 |
| #1 These are bomb components. Those can be exponentially harder to spot, especially when disguised. But the headline sure sells a lot of dead trees. Just bless your pointly little stars that YOU don't have to scan for those bomb parts. That job is thankless, boring and would drive me out of my gourd. If you think otherwise, apply for one of those positions and report back to us in a year. I suspect that the sucess rate in the past was based on "whole" or "complete" devices and that the new trials are mostly components that can be re-assembled in flight. The two tests are NOT the same. At some time there will be automated scanning that may improve the hits but I would be surprised if it is "perfect". Don't always blame the worker as it isn't always their fault. Policy, training (including recurrent training), equipment and proper staffing of the screening sites are all |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2007-10-18 18:55 |