TSA’s “layered” approach to security and what it means to you

The Transportation Security Administration’s campaign to confuse airline passengers has intensified. After posting a revised statement and Q&A about Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to its Web site yesterday that essentially said nothing, travelers are expressing frustration with the agency that’s supposed to safeguard America’s transportation systems.

“Ridiculous!” says Jean How, a retiree from Holbrook, NY. “Rather than correct the problem, the TSA is simply doing a CYA procedure and instituting the most dumb and irrational procedure anyone has come up with to date.”

The TSA appears to have backed off from its first security directive and is now allowing passengers on inbound international flights to stand up less than an hour before landing (but saying passengers “need to abide by crewmember instruction”), permitting in-flight entertainment devices and other electronics to be turned back on, but also adding additional checkpoints, according to sources who have seen the revised directive.

But that’s not the real story. American travelers are far more concerned about what security precautions will be taken domestically — and there, we have little to go on except the TSA’s vague security-speak. Here’s how it addresses the issue on its site:

TSA has a layered approach to security that allows us to surge resources as needed on a daily basis. We have the ability to quickly implement additional screening measures including explosive detection canine teams, law enforcement officers, gate screening, behavior detection and other measures both seen and unseen. Passengers should not expect to see the same thing at every airport.


What does that mean?

So far, most passengers haven’t noticed any big changes. No longer lines. No extra security checks.

It’s as if nothing has happened.

One of the few exceptions was an observation from reader Kevin Stuart Murray, who dropped his parents and grandparents off at Baltimore airport yesterday. “In the gate area there were TSA people doing random search and pat-downs of people,” he told me. “I expected this, because when I flew out of Albuquerque to Baltimore last Jan. for Obama’s inauguration, they were doing random checks of people.”

I haven’t seen any security directives that address domestic flights, but if there’s anyone out there who is aware of such an order, please let me know.

Meantime, it’s apparent that TSA’s “layered” approach to security has created layers of confusion for air travelers. Some passengers are confusing the international security requirements with the domestic ones. Others think the older security directive remains in place, when, in fact, it’s been rescinded. Most are just plain confused.

All we can do at this point is laugh about it. I recommend Jared Blank’s fictitious TSA press release and Andy Borowitz’s spoof on terrorist ID cards.

Confused, too? Send me an email and we’ll commiserate.

Update (11:15 a.m.): From an airline insider. TSA’s “silly rules” have been lifted on inbound international flights.

- IFE, wireless internet and moving maps are no longer needing to be disabled.

- Passengers are no longer required to remain seated within one hour of landing at a US airport when leaving an airport outside the US.

- Passengers are now able to have blankets, pillows on their laps and they can access their carry-on luggage inflight in the last hour.

  • Caren

    I would really prefer to hear that they were improving the capability of security checkpoints to detect the type of explosive used in this attack – better swipes, air sniffers, dogs, etc. Yes, even if a dog has to sniff everyone’s backside at check-in – that’s at least better than security theater!

  • GREGGsTRAVEL

    Why hasn’t it been suggested to re-check all inbound passengers at their connecting airports from all flights originating outside the USA and Europe? Our security process is not the issue, it is the lack of security at the originating airports outside these two regions……..

  • Steve

    I’m glad to see that the silly and useless “security” measures like prohibiting people from reading a book during the last hour of flight and disabling maps (what, a terrorist who smuggles a bomb on board is going to decide not to detonate it because he’s not sure of the plane’s location?) have been removed. Clearly the focus should be on preventing someone from getting a bomb onboard in the first place, and whatever measures are necessary to ensure that are fine with me. I have no problem with stricter security when it serves a purpose.

  • Duke Nukem

    Basically, it all comes down to this: Janet Napolitano is an idiot, and the TSA as a whole is an idiot. If you don’t believe me, just go to an airport and take a look at your friendly neighborhood TSA agent…not exactly the brightest star in the sky, eh?

  • Scott

    It’s all still security theater. None of this makes us safer. It protects us from the last attack and does nothing to stop future attacks. I am sure that if that bomb went off in Times Square at the right time of day there would have been as much carnage as could have occurred on the plane, but there is no security screening to walk down 7th avenue. We should take all of the money that is spent to make us feel safer at the airport and spend it on linguists, data gathering and good old fashioned police work.

  • Bryan

    *sigh* What explosive? The dude _set himself on fire_. Anything that makes a popping noise is not going to have enough force to seriously damage anything on a plane.. TSA should realize that the fact that the worst this guy could do was set himself on fire means that the current security procedures are working.

    Heck, there are a hundred ways I could set myself on fire on a plane, all of them easy to get past security. I could even theoretically burn a hole right through the plane by mixing two completely legitimate allowable substances. Wouldn’t be a big hole, since I’m only allowed 1.5oz of liquids, more proof that the current restrictions are working.

  • Phil

    I am sure it must be embarrassing for the government to have once again ignored important intelligence information after being told by his own family that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was someone to be watched. The TSA response serves to refocus public attention away from Homeland Security and deflect responsibility for the major screw-up. It now is the fault of the traveling public who want to access their carry-on or need to use the bathroom prior to landing or who want to use their e-reader or iPod toward the end of the flight and we must be properly disciplined. Had all screening policies current at the time of the terrorist attempt been followed this attack would have been prevented. The government should address the real security lapse and not spend millions making already difficult travel more difficult for those who try to cooperate with the system. But who listens to me?

  • Sarah

    The solution was never to stop what happened on board but to stop him from getting onboard in the first place. Putting restrictions on what people can do onboard will do absolutely nothing if the terrorists are allowed to get onboard a plane in the first place. Even if they couldn’t detect the explosives (which is scary enough), there were enough red flags about this guy in the larger immigration system that he shouldn’t have been able to get on the plane regardless. If they can require extra scrutiny for five year olds with the same name as someone on the do not fly list, how can someone with that many terrorist connections breeze right onto the plane with a US Visa? I know that some locations and airlines have a not getting up for one hour rule anyway (Israel for example), but to use it as a knee jerk solution that doesn’t solve the real problem at hand was a big blunder for TSA.

  • Jaime

    “Why hasn’t it been suggested to re-check all inbound passengers at their connecting airports from all flights originating outside the USA and Europe?”

    They already do. The last two times I’ve flown internationally – this past October and in 2007 – on my way home I had to pick up my luggage, go through customs, and go through security once more before I could catch the domestic leg of my flight. (I’ve never had a layover in Europe, so I’m not sure how they operate.)

    I don’t believe there *was* a connecting flight in this case; it had come directly from Amsterdam, so the responsibility lies with AMS and also Nigeria, his journey’s point of origin.

  • Ames

    The one time I have been “screened” on a through flight was in Dakar. Security people came onto the plane and required all through passengers to identiby their carryon bags to be sure no bags were unclaimed. I think they glanced at our boarding passes, made some chit chat which may have been profiling rather than just niceties. This was about two years ago. If this can be done in Senegal, which is not usually regarded as one of the most secure airports, then the rest of us are missing opportunities.
    911 was called a “failure of imagination” I think we need to start thinking much further out of the box and get into the mindset of a gamer. Architects and engineers frequently do this sort of exercise as part of their design education – how could I accomplish some task in a different way? Start getting creative. The bad guys will, why can’t we think ahead of them instead of just react after?

  • Barfield

    People who want to fly on airplanes should be required to show that they do not carry dangerous items on their persons. It is as simple as that. The only thing that is distracts us from this simple truth are prudish social scruples which arose in times long past. Until we are willing to take a 21st century approach to 21st century problems, we and our freedom will be at the mercy of those willing to take advantage of our self-imposed limitations.

    All the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody get on the plane with the means of doing harm.

  • cmm

    have a US Marshall on every flight leaving the US. Have a US Marshall inspect all baggage at the counter, in the baggage room, on the baggage roundabout. Arm everyone on a secure/safe list with tasers as they walk onto the plane over the age of 30 and remove them when they leave the plane. Have the US Marshall on the plane give “safe” instructions on the use of a taser and perhaps the spelling, since we all know where the exits are and how to pretend we’ll survive a water landing over land. Inquire NRA members if they are current and hand them a gun as they get on the plane. LOL.

  • Carver

    @Barfield

    Of course, what is a dangerous item? There are tons of “harmless” compounds that become dangerous when mixed with others.

  • Tre

    cmm: Didn’t Archie Bunker say something similar? (I’m paraphrasing from memory) “If you gave everybody a gun as they got on the plane, then nobody could hold up the plane.” Makes sense. If you know everybody else can open up a can of whoop-a$$ on ya, you sit tight and don’t do anything stupid.

  • Mary

    Tell me what you’d make of this:

    In the Madison, WI airport, (and who knows how many others?), on the podium of the TSA agent who checks your boarding pass & ID before you enter the security line, there’s a little laminated list taped to that podium. A list of countries. All Middle Eastern countries.

    I didn’t have the nerve to ask, but my assumption regarding that list was that if either:
    (a) you originated from any of those countries, based on your ID and/or boarding pass, or
    (b) you were traveling to any of those countries,
    you would most likely be automatically pulled from the line for an extra search, pat-down, explosive screen, full body scan, what-have-you.

    That bothered me. Isn’t that profiling? Isn’t that considered wrong and perhaps even illegal?

    However, I know that following the attempted Christmas Day attack, Amsterdam is now performing heightened security screens on all individuals flying into the U.S., and I must admit I agree with that decision.

    It’s a sticky issue, isn’t it?

  • Clif

    I flew back to DC from Paris yesterday on Air France. All the US flights were departing from a separate area of the terminal and to gain access you had to show your passport again, and then undergo a full body pat down and search of hand luggage (which was limited to one piece).

    It was a lengthy process, but our flight was delayed for a mechanical reason, not security (though this undoubtedly gave people more time to make it to the gate).

    But the absolute most interesting thing about it, is the completely different attitude of the French staff to security than the TSA. They were, unfailingly, polite (in multiple languages) and treated everyone with absolute courtesy, and patience. The gentleman manning the X ray machine was positively charming and helpful. I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of all this when most cargo still isn’t screened, but it did show that if we have to go through this whole rigmarole, it can be done with courtesy.

  • Barfield

    @ Carver

    Among the items that people normally carry, there are not so many things that, mixed with other things, could bring down a plane. Whatever items there are, they’re dangerous and should be banned.

    But let’s not lose focus. People are being put at risk of dying because of a delirious fixation that some of us have with genitals, a standard feature of every human body. We’ve either got to get over it or else decide that “modesty” is a cause worth dying for.

  • http://yahoo.com Lisa Safari

    I’d like to know why america’s TSA is the target for what happened Xmas day isn’t it Amsterdam that droped the ball. Since 911 and the TSA was put in place we have not had any U.S. incidents everything that has happened has happened from outside the country. Where the security is lax and more freedom shouldn’t we be consentrating on the other countries and not so much on the great work that our TSA here in america is doing in fact I heard that TSA employees are so well trained that they may be taking over other federal positions like federal buildings etc. Thanks Lisa Safari

  • http://www.air-savings.com sonny chatrath

    Wouldn’t it be nice if other countries made their airports more secure? Nigeria, and most other airports in Africa, and other parts of the world do not have the kind of security we currently have in place here in the US, and in Europe. The problem starts outside the US, and even though most of the culprits are apprehended before they can do the deed, it is a scary thing to see so many crack-pots trying the same stupid stunt. And I have been saying all along, what was said on CNN two days ago, if they can sneak drugs into this country, then anything is possible. With so many airlines flying from so many different airports to the US either non-stop, or via Europe it is pretty difficult for Law Enforcement to do anything about it. I can promise you if a couple of people are denied boarding, then we will read about profiling, and racism etc in this country. Let’s take some lessons from the Israelis they seem to be doing this right.

  • http://cargoinsurance.com cargoinsurance

    Thanks for sharing your views!!!