Atma wrote:

SpraCoalee wrote: Is the pat down and body search procedure different for women passengers? For us? A little bit, now you have to check under the breast, specifically the metal wire in the bra. A hand held metal detector will go off with it, so, to verify that its the wire and not something stuffed up in there, have to take the BACK of your hand, and make it into a knife hand and push up under the breast to ensure there are no foreign objects. The crotch check is the same, back of your hand up the inner thigh on both sides

This is how we did it in TSA, however a female can only be screened by a female screener, unless there is absolutely no time to find one -and- the woman gives consent to be screened by a male.

And yes, everything is done with the back of the hand in those areas.

I appreciate that link. Also, I wanted to share this: http://goo.gl/EtGLG ...it seems a lot of these stories are exaggerated.

Seriously, the screeners are just doing their jobs, and things are constantly changing. They're doing the best they can. If you're uncomfortable, you can always ask for a manager.

Also, little-known secret, you can request a pat down in a private area. You may have to wait, but if you're uncomfortable with a pat down in public, it's an option.

In my personal experience, I have very rarely met someone who was rude and abusive towards me, though I got a couple of irritated comments. Most frequent fliers know the procedure by now. The only time I personally got bitched out by someone was when I was doing a pat down of a flier in a wheelchair, they made a few comments about it (the person in the wheelchair had no problem, it was a random passerby).

I also once made a joke about sending a dog through the X-ray that was, admittedly, ill-advised. Man, do not joke about an old lady's doggie.

Since this has become the de facto TSA thread:
http://www.11points.com/Travel/11_Unusual_Security_Measures_Employed_By_the_TSA

A few notes on these:

#1 - Yes, there is an entire section dedicated to screening helper monkeys in the manual (as well as other helper animals such as seeing eye dogs). No, I've never saw a monkey at the checkpoint.

#2 - This is actually not the TSA's guideline, it's the DOT's. Alcohol 140 proof and above is officially considered Hazmat and can't be taken on a commercial flight. Also, you're limited to 5 liters of alcohol between 48 and 140 proof.

#4 - It's simply because an urn is a perfect place to hide something if you were so inclined. And even if the person carrying it were willing to do so, NOBODY is gonna want to sift through human remains to look for contraband.

#5, #6 - I was completely unaware of these limitations. My guess is, again, a brass instrument is a good place to hide something and can't easily be X-rayed (the machines used to scan checked baggage are much better at finding things prohibited in checked baggage, but not so good finding things prohibited in carry-on). String instruments are easier to clear. No fucking clue at all about the food.

#7 - Parachutes are actually an exception to the DOT prohibitions that don't let you bring compressed air on board (it's a pressure vessel). There are a few other exceptions (oxygen tanks being the biggest). There are also special rules for screening parachutes.

#8 - Oh, come on, this isn't unusual at all. It's a weapon. Stick it in checked baggage.

GPFontaine wrote:

"Flying commercial is a Bring Your Own Parachute situation." That is awesome. As if a parachute being worn onto a plane wouldn't create insane widespread panic.

I don't think they'd let you -wear- it on the plane (that would probably be the airline's call). But you're allowed to bring one.

GPFontaine wrote:

I am trying to figure out how legitimate this is... The articles below state the following: * Air marshals are being arrested faster than air marshals are making arrests. * In an average year air martials collectively make 4.2 arrests. * Based on program costs each arrest costs ~$200,000,000 http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/the_effectivene.html http://duncan.house.gov/2009/06/22062009.shtml

"Legitimate" as in "the facts are accurate"? Probably. "Legitimate" as in "An accurate way to measure the effectiveness of the air marshal program"? I don't think so.

Air marshals aren't on flights to arrest people. They're on flights to protect against the possibility of a "human-caused disaster". You need to measure their effectiveness against that metric, not how many drunk people they cuff in a year.

I'm not sure they are the best system for it, to be honest. You can pick an air marshal out easily, they're not on nearly enough flights, and really, alert passengers have done far more in stopping potential attacks than air marshals. I think armed pilots is a far more effective system (and yep, we have quite a few of those). You shouldn't measure it through "cost per arrest" is all.

I can't say much about missing the razor blades except that, well, the screeners -are- human, and there is so much emphasis on looking for guns and explosives sometimes blades do sneak by. Razor blades are very hard to see in certain orientations. Also, it's entirely possible Adam Savage got recognized and his bags just kinda got glanced at, though if you've ever seen Mythbusters this is probably a huge mistake (I'm willing to bet he sets off the explosives trace detector machine by sneezing in it's general area).