Security Debrief

You incorrectly assume this incident happened last week. The article ran last week. In the article, it says the incident happened in March, which is 11 months ago.

If something happened 11 months ago, and TSA had no record of a complaint filed, there would be no way to pull video or check work logs to see what happened and who was involved. Any passenger who goes through something like that should work to have it addressed at the airport and if it isn't, they should file a complaint so that upper management is aware and can take appropriate action.

You note that you are a physically disabled flyer, so I can completely understand how you look at this. However, I'd like to throw out another way to look at this topic.

Two Chechyan women who appeared to be pregnant actually had bombs strapped to their bodies and blew up planes.

In South America, a disabled man in a wheelchair was allowed to bypass security because of his disability, and subsequently hijacked a plane with the hand grenades he snuck on board.

In 2009, a man in a wheelchair went through the U.S. checkpoint with a couple of pounds of cocaine strapped to his body with duct tape. He hoped to use the premise of a disability to get the drugs through.

Also in 2009, a passenger was caught with a cast made completely of drugs.

TSA officers have also caught prosthetic limbs full of drugs or with prohibited items hidden in them.

Officers have found knives hidden in baby carriers and canes, a machete hidden in wheelchair, a gun in a diaper bag, and sharp items hidden in casts.

We live in a world when sometimes, things are not always how they seem. You know you're disabled, but the officer doesn't know you. And they've had enough experiences to know to question everything, because his/her ultimate job is to keep bombs off of planes.

It is very unfortunate that terrorists and others will take advantage of things like disabilities, but over and over they do.

You also seem to think that ongoing security measures are knee jerk reactions to single incidents, which is not true. Passengers don't take their shoes off because of Richard Reid. Passengers take their shoes off at checkpoints because intel and operational experience shows that terrorists continue to try to use shoes to smuggle things through the checkpoints, like knives and other prohibited items.

In the case of liquids rules, the foiled UK plot involved a pre-assembled liquid bombs designed to look like a sealed, new drink bottle. They were designed to get around current technology. The ongoing liquids rules are in place until technology can appropraitely screen for them and mitigate the threat. Otherwise, it would leave a vulnerablility someone could exploit.

The current screening methodology IS risk-based screening. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, and no one group can be given a pass, even if it pulls at heartstrings. If you say old people shouldn't be screened as thoroughly as younger people, it will drive terrorists there. If you pick an ethnic or religious group to profile, you drive terrorists to another type of person. Give a terrorist a loophole and they'll drive right on through – with disastrous consequences.

I’d first like to say that your post regarding this issue was both informative and refreshing. I was unaware that this had taken place, and I also found it quite troubling that this small child endured such grueling airport security screening. It is obvious that your sensitivity to disabled passengers has weighed into this matter significantly, as you mentioned that you yourself are physically disabled. More striking though was not just your personal experience with flying as a disabled individual, but your three suggestions in order to improve airport security screening. In regards to your first proposition for ameliorating airport security, I agree that disciplinary action against the at-fault screeners should take place. TSA has clear guidelines and regulations for dealing with disabled children and those rules were violated by security officers. In Ryan’s case, because of his immobility, security screeners are supposed to “conduct a pat-down search of your child while he/she remains in their mobility aid,” according to TSA rules, rather than insisting in the removal of the mobility aid. In addition to this, TSA states that the parent/guardian of a disabled child should inform security officers of the extent of the child’s disabilities or whether the child “needs to be carried through the metal detector by the parent/guardian.” TSA clearly violated the very standards that it is meant to uphold and I also do believe that the at-fault security officers should be penalized, though maybe not fired, given that it is their duty to know their own limitations.

In addition to your first proposal, I concur with the second as well. The lack of administration between the officers performing the screenings and the TSA’s “boots on the ground” is most definitely a problem. Aside from the security officers on site, there was no one to be held accountable or to refute the way in which the officers were conducting the search on Ryan Thomas. It was not as though Ryan’s parents could request to speak with the supervisor, or dispute the requests made by screeners to remove the child’s mobility aid and have him pass through the detector alone. The boots on the ground breached their own regulations and this lack of infrastructure between “higher ups” and the security officers did not help Ryan’s situation. Regarding your final proposal, I believe it is a hard call. It is unfortunate that like you said, because of Richard Reid, we must remove our shoes to pass through security or that liquid more than 3.4 ounces is prohibited. While the majority of traveling passengers are not terrorists and have no business blowing up a plane with bombs in their shoes, the TSA security officers must now consider all forms of potential threat. We can never assume that based on someone’s age, ethnicity or physical disabilities that they are not capable of posing a security threat. Though I do agree that more time should be spent on those who “actually pose a serious risk,” it is not always easy to spot those who may or may not pose that very risk. Since your last recommendation for improving security in airports had me slightly stumped, I would like to know what you believe should be assessed in these hearings held by Congress. If the difference between “total screening versus risk-based screening” were assessed by Congress, do you believe it could help prevent another Ryan Thomas situation in the future? We walk a very fine line between protecting our nation’s borders and invading the personal rights of our citizens, though in your opinion, which way is the scale likely to tip in the future?