TransWorldSTL From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 568 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
Quote: Paul Mason, Chief of Police at Lambert, said police were called to the concourse around 6:20 p.m. after airport screeners found a prohibited item in a bag.
When airport police and TSA security officers arrived a few minutes later, the individual and the bag were gone. Mason said the item appeared to be a double-barreled derringer handgun.
I'm confused... If the TSA saw a double-barreled handgun in the x-ray machine, why exactly would they allow the person AND the bag to just continue on his/her way, without even getting a good description of the bag's owner?!!?! (On the news report, the police chief told the news anchors that the TSA was unable to get a good description of the person, so they couldn't find him/her)..
BigJimFX From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2444 times:
So the airlines and Pax are reimbursed for their inconvenience by who? This is ridiculous. If this were to happen at a major hub airport, the entire system could be backlogged for hours with gate holds and ATC holds. Don't these people realize how important their job is supposed to be?
Necigrad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Personally, Im just glad they dealt with it happening. Regardless of how it happened, they dealt with it. Ordering an aircraft to divert s a big decision and they stepped up and made it. This isn't the first time that's happened either. Things do happen. Sometimes it's something unique, sometimes it's carelessness, but they do happen. And yes I'm being intentially vague.
ZschocheImages From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
Security in STL is kind of sloppy as compared to other airports. They have kind of slipped in past years as the airport has gotten smaller and smaller.
On the same note, it is sad to fly into St. Louis now-a-days. Empty gates, AA MD-80's. Everytime I am there I just picture STL in its glory days of 747-100's, L-1011's and the sea of red and white.
PHLJJS From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
This is why thier should be at least one airport LEO at the checkpoint at all times. If that had been the case, this never would have happened. In most airports, LEO's have been removed from the checkpoints to save money. Also, the current rules should be changed to allow TSA to physically detain someone who commits this type of infraction. Currently, we are not allowed to detain someone and are supposed to let just let them walk off if they choose too and try to follow them and keep them in sight until a LEO arrives. Complete nonsense!! One or two minor changes to the SOP and this and future incidents would never happen.
Spartanmjf From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 464 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
Quoting ZschocheImages (Reply 4):
On the same note, it is sad to fly into St. Louis now-a-days. Empty gates, AA MD-80's. Everytime I am there I just picture STL in its glory days of 747-100's, L-1011's and the sea of red and white.
Or even better, in a sea of Ozark green and white!
ZschocheImages From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
Quoting Spartanmjf (Reply 6): Or even better, in a sea of Ozark green and white!
Good call, I forgot about that. Ozark was a little bit before my day.
Skyexramper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Pure stupidity! If they saw what looked like a gun, why didn't they just stop the x-ray scanner with the bag inside and the person would mostly have been the one just about to enter the metal detector. How hard is it to do a monkey's job.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4680 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
BigJimFX From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
Quoting PHLJJS (Reply 5): Also, the current rules should be changed to allow TSA to physically detain someone who commits this type of infraction. Currently, we are not allowed to detain someone and are supposed to let just let them walk off if they choose too and try to follow them and keep them in sight until a LEO arrives.
Ok I'm going to tread lightly because I used to date a TSA girl and I am kinda in the same boat. (Not having actual enforcement authority) A lot of airport police treat calls from TSA and others to be secondary and tend to drag ass and not take it seriously. One would think that when a situation like this arises that One wouldn't loose his job by doing the right thing. Although it happens more often than not. Not to mention that following someone with a gun is something WELL above my pay-grade.
PHLJJS From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 10): Ok I'm going to tread lightly because I used to date a TSA girl and I am kinda in the same boat. (Not having actual enforcement authority) A lot of airport police treat calls from TSA and others to be secondary and tend to drag ass and not take it seriously. One would think that when a situation like this arises that One wouldn't loose his job by doing the right thing. Although it happens more often than not. Not to mention that following someone with a gun is something WELL above my pay-grade.
This is one reason why we need a LEO at the checkpoint at all times. They won't have the option to "drag ass." They would be right there and have no choice, but to take action. I see it daily. It takes 10 minutes or more to get a LEO to the checkpoint. Sometimes they will walk right past you because they were not assigned to the job. There are some great officers at PHL who if the assigned LEO hasn't arrived at the checkpoint, will respond and get involved until the assigned LEO gets there. More than a couple times I've had a traffic cop or K-9 cop come in to get coffee and had him asked if Officer **** got there yet and got involved in a situation while waiting for the cop who was dispatched.
Spartanmjf From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 464 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2141 times:
TransWorldSTL From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 568 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 10): A lot of airport police treat calls from TSA and others to be secondary and tend to drag ass and not take it seriously.
Yes, but even if the TSA doesn't have the authority to detain someone, they could have stopped the Xray machine, and told the person the metal detector had malfunctioned or something, and wanded him, etc.. If it's a situation such as a gun, it shouldn't take very long for Airport Police to arrive... This situation happened at the A concourse checkpoint, and if memory serves me correctly, the police office is right down the way by one of the exits.. Not far at all.
Necigrad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
Depending on the airport size different respone times are required. If you want the response times try looking them up. I don't know if they're "need to know" or not, and I'm not gonna be the one to share them. Just because the police office is right down the hall doesn't mean anything. Most of the time during the day there aren't many, if any at all, officers in the substation at McCarran (LAS). They're all out and about.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 10): Quoting PHLJJS (Reply 5):
Also, the current rules should be changed to allow TSA to physically detain someone who commits this type of infraction. Currently, we are not allowed to detain someone and are supposed to let just let them walk off if they choose too and try to follow them and keep them in sight until a LEO arrives.
Ok I'm going to tread lightly because I used to date a TSA girl and I am kinda in the same boat. (Not having actual enforcement authority) A lot of airport police treat calls from TSA and others to be secondary and tend to drag ass and not take it seriously. One would think that when a situation like this arises that One wouldn't loose his job by doing the right thing. Although it happens more often than not. Not to mention that following someone with a gun is something WELL above my pay-grade.
Same here. No more Federal Police officers at the security check due to cost reasons. The actual bagggage check is being carried out by a private security company in the name of the Federal Police, but even the armed members of the security company standing watch have no police authority to detain somebody, since, not being police officers, they just have the same rights as any citizen. Their guns are only for self defense and for the defense of their unarmed colleagues. I think at least one real police officer will have to be present at each check point at any time.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2236 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
TSA isn't the only thing that's screwed up at STL. The whole place is a mess.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
MD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2623 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1778 times:
Considering all the "security breaches" posted here, with no corresponding hijackings or airborne shootings, it appears the TSA is adept at detecting innocent firearms carried by law-abiding citizens.
Necigrad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1705 times:
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 17): it appears the TSA is adept at detecting innocent firearms carried by law-abiding citizens.
They're not law abiding citizens. If you bring a gun through security, unless you are authorised, you deserve even little inconvience, detainment, and/or ridicule you get. even if the TSA screws up, you're still at least equally at fault. As you grab your weapon to leave, you're probably thinking "Do I have everything I need? Tickets? Toothbrush?". there's absolutly no excuse for "accidentally" being a firearm through.
The only bright side to the idiots that do bring their guns through is that when it's missed by the TSA (which is FAR less common then people think, and a minisule portion of what they do catch) nothing bad has happened.
MD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2623 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1671 times:
My point is that there ARE people who do manage to get their handguns through security.....and none to my recollection have used their gun to affect the flight in any way. We are detecting the firearms of those who are of least (perhaps zero) risk.
That is why we need to refocus security on what is really important, preventing the people most likely to use weapons in flight from boarding an airliner, not simply preventing the weapon's presence.
TPAnx From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
A few years ago, another gentleman and I were pulled aside for wanding after setting off the metal detector at Reagan. We both stood around for at least five minutes while the security types tried to FIND the wand..then argued as to who left it where they found it, where it should have been, and who was
responsible for putting it back when they were finished with it. No one was paying the slightest attention to the two of us...who could have been at the furthest gate by the time the bickering stopped.
And a question. Who sets the sensitivity on the metal detectors--and to what standard? My glasses alone will start the beeps at TPA..glasses, coins and belt buckle didn't make a sound at BOS...
TPAnx
Necigrad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1581 times:
Quoting TPAnx (Reply 20): Who sets the sensitivity on the metal detectors--and to what standard?
Before the TSA came about, the FAA did. As long as a specified test object set it off it was good, though the FAA did changes the settings to more sensetive occasionally for randomness. Now the TSA uses some system of their own. And the standard is not appropriate at all for this board. One could reasonably conclude that it must be sensitive enough to detect any prohibited item possible.
ADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
First off the bag should have been kept inside the x-ray where the pax could not get it.
Secondly.... If TSA doesn't have the authority to detain, do they have the authority to not let you pass through or do a secondary screening?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 568 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
