Helena Airport Manager Blocks TSA From Taking Full-Body Scanner

OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA recently announced that it would remove all of Rapiscan's X-ray body scanners from airports by June. As part of this effort, it is trying to move a millimeter-wave body scanner from the Helena, Montana airport to replace an X-ray unit at a busier airport. Strangely enough, they have encountered resistance from the Helena's Airport Manager, Ron Mercer. Last Thursday, workers came to remove the machine, but were prevented from doing so by airport officials. Why? Perhaps Mercer agrees with Cindi Martin, airport director at Montana's Glacier Park International Airport airport, who called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"

Comments

Think you may want to look at his logs

[crazyjj]

I'm thinking Ron may have been doing most unprofessional things at the scanner monitor. Perhaps ween him off the free peep show slowly.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Joce640k]

He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".

I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people, but know I don't want them in my airports.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[cayenne8]

Actually, when I go to fly, I do make sure to arrive in plenty of time ahead of flight....and when going through TSA if they don't wave me through the metal detector and instead make me go to the scanner, I refuse and politely ask for the pat down rather than be exposed to the 'radiation'.

The TSA agents have consistently told me there is no xray or radiation in these, but I smile and ask for the pat down.

It isn't any big deal so far...but I wish more people would do this as a slight form of protest. If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[jmrieger]

Think you misread the statement. They liked the machine because having it installed meant that TSA officers *didn't* have to do the enhanced pat-downs.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[houghi]

The scanners are not the problem. The patdowns are not the problem. The fact that these things are there is the problem.
Bullshit things like this airport logic are the problem.
The fact that almost nobody complains is the problem.
Another nice read from scientificamerican.com

The security theater and everything that comes with it is the real problem.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Drakonblayde]

Wrong scanner. This is the milimeter wave scanner that they're not wanting to be removed. The porn scanners are the ones being permanently removed, and they're pulling the milimeter wave scanners out of the smaller airports to replace the porn scanners they're yanking from the bigger airports.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, I do pretty much the same thing. I'm not trying to slow down the line (and I suggest you not either, since that actually qualifies as illegal now, if the TSA signage is to be believed). Rather, I just want to make it clear that this is a stupid requirement for air travel.

Once in Chicago I was waved through the metal detectors when I got to the end and said, "oh, no. I'm not going through that." Unfortunately, my home airport is Austin-Bergstrom International, which seems to be both terribly consistent and consistently terrible. First, they remind me that this is not an X-Ray scanner. (Don't care). Next, they yell opt-out down the chain five times as if this is completely unheard of, and try to figure out where to tell me to stand. I stand there for about 15 minutes before someone comes along to pull me back.

(This is when you usually see the other mostly-overlooked points of incompetence: the woman in the wheelchair who is asked if she can get up and walk "just 10 feet" through the scanner. The 12 year old girl who walks through, is scanned, and this is sent back through the line as the supervisor reminds the agent in front of the gate that "12 and under includes 12; she doesn't go through". Well, not a second time at least. She also didn't have to take off her shoes, but no one mentioned that. By the time they determine that the handicapped vet's prosthetic arm is not a grievous threat to air safety -- which only took about 5 minutes -- they managed to pull me back past the scanners.)

At this point I usually wait another 15 minutes. My wife has a lot lower tolerance for bullshit than I do. She used to opt out, but got sick of it. (Too bad. A simultaneous male/female opt out may as well be shutting down the airport. They have nowhere for two people to stand, and not personnel to do the job. For some reason, that is never their fault.) Anyway, by this time she's gone through the scanner, gotten her carry-on, and started to guard my carry-on that's just sitting in the bin where anybody can take it. The white woman milling about the secured area with no apparent reason to be there, rifling through apparently other people's bin doesn't raise an eyebrow. I just stick to my cattle chute -- the two-foot wide pair of rails with a gate, which is oddly only deep enough for one person at a time -- and watch the clock tick by.

After half an hour or so total, a blue shirt comes over to finally collect my things. I then get to decide whether I want to let the agent get half-way through the enhanced pat-down before I remind him I'm entitled to a private room, or if I get to remind him before he starts so he can sigh and say, "I was getting to that if you'd give me a minute." Sure you were, pal. Five more minutes pass while they try to find a second agent with time to kill to act as witness. Of course, the pat-own itself takes all of two minutes. They don't want to be doing it anymore than I want to suffer through it. That makes me feels a little better about it. Not confident in the process mind you, just glad that a small part of my annoyance is reflected and magnified. I'm also still waiting for the first time this makes me so late that I miss a flight to see how it goes over.

The sad part is I could probably do the trusted flier program -- Uncle Sam has my prints already -- if I traveled enough to justify the expense. The really sad part is that there is almost no chance of anyone using planes in an attack again, not because TSA is competent, but because it's been done. I'd worry more about someone poisoning Tylenol again than I would about them hijacking a jetliner.

So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The scanner "removed the need for the enhanced pat-down".

Anyone remember the times before the scanners? There were no enhanced pat-downs, those came with the security theater of scanners. It was just a metal detector and a pat-down was only when the metal detector beeped.

It seems we're at the point now where we don't question any more whether or not a security measure is useful (haven't seen any proof yet that the pat-down or the scanner are beneficial at all), but the debate is now only about which pointless "security" measure is the preferred method of wasting time and money.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Joce640k]

(haven't seen any proof yet that the pat-down or the scanner are beneficial at all), but the debate is now only about which pointless "security" measure is the preferred method of wasting time and money.

Clue: Bad stuff can fit up people's asses. It's how people smuggle drugs through airport security, it's how cellphones get into prisons (complete with chargers!), etc.

Anybody who's really determined can get a bomb on a 'plane using this method and nothing the TSA does will prevent it. I know it, you know it, Al Qaeda knows it, even the TSA knows it.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[OzPeter]

Anybody who's really determined can get a bomb on a 'plane using this method and nothing the TSA does will prevent it. I know it, you know it, Al Qaeda knows it, even the TSA knows it.

Anyone who is really interested in disrupting air travel won't even try to smuggle a bomb on a plane. All you need to do is set off a bomb (*) in the middle of the security theatre at a major airport (or for fun synchronized at 2 or 3 airports) and that will scare the US public shitless.

* Or you could even do what the IRA did in 1994 when they fired mortars at Heathrow airport.

I'm sorry, what?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.

Or you could just, you know, let people pass through the metal detectors.
You know, how all airports used to do, and smaller ones STILL do?

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked that people haven't exploited the lax security standards in other countries more. A few years ago, I was flying with a coworker from Mexico City to Detroit. My coworker walked through the metal detector and was not stopped, questioned, or examined in any way. Why is that significant you ask? Because he has a prosthetic leg. I mean, he walked through the metal detector with several guns worth of metal, and the Mexican security didn't even flinch. I'm not sure if they're always so lax, but I can bear witness to this. I know that you get scanned by the TSA once you land in the USA (if you are going on a connecting flight), but what would have stopped someone from hijacking the flight over the USA and doing something bad?

Fundamentally it's a matter of no one is actually trying to take over/blow up airplanes. That's the main thing that people on the more security side of the argument don't seem to understand.

It doesn't really matter how crappy your security is when no one is trying to penetrate your security.

Re:more money wasted

[characterZer0]

Money was not flushed down the drain. Money was directed to campaign contributors, friends, family, and other connected members of the political class by way of contracts for unnecessary equipment.

Misleading Headline

[pdbogen]

Wow. Misleading headline is horribly misleading. Quote from one of TFAs:

“We’re really disappointed that the TSA is removing them from our airport,” Martin said. “It is a great disservice to the flying public.
“People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.”

i.e., it's not the "removal of the scanner" that "removed the nead for the enhanced pat-down," as the headline deceptively implies. Rather, the scanner itself removed the need. However, as a seasoned frequent flier, I'm quite acquainted with the fact that security checkpoints that do not have body scanners are not subject to an "enhanced pat-down," as Martin implies in the article.

Re:more money wasted

[dkleinsc]

Actually, in the case of Rapiscan machines, one of the people that were going to profit from the decision was Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time that he was deciding whether to use them. No, nothing corrupt there.

Re:Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[wgoodman]

When they're putting on the glove, tell them to double bag it because you just got back from ______ and you're pretty sure there isn't even an English word yet for the horrific STD you picked up there.

Re:You know what else...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

"'removes the need for the enhanced pat-down?"

Telling the TSA to get the fuck out of your airport and re-installing private security with more common sense than your average peanut shell.

The only reason TSA is pervasive is because it is a government handout, replacing the measures they had in place before 9/11. IIRC, there is absolutely nothing preventing airports from replacing TSA with their own security.

When Texas threatened to make "invasive screening" a misdemeanor the TSA threatened to shut down all traffic out of Texas airports. I have no doubt that if an airport tried to expel the TSA and install private security that they'd do the same to that airport.

bevis and butthead now they should make a episode

[Joe_Dragon]

bevis and butthead now they should make a episode where they try to get jobs at the TSA.