TSA Incident Report - ORD 10.10.2006

[mattjw916 2]

Quote

Nope. Per the TSA's policies (arrived at after consultation with USPA) they can require that the reserve be opened and inspected.

The reserve does not need to be opened to determine the possible presence of explosives. Any combination of x-ray+swab+puffer is more than sufficient. The fact that the TSA agent was misinformed that an AAD contains "an explosive device" was what I was referring to. I know what the letter says, I travel more than you.

Anyone who deals with the TSA on a weekly basis is more than aware of the consistent inconsistency of their security polices from terminal to terminal.

Examples of TSA ignorance regarding parachutes I have personally experienced:

-A TSA agent tried to tell me that my AAD uses a CO2 cartridge.
-A TSA agent tried to tell me that every jumper has a "jumper card" and it's required.
-A TSA agent told me parachutes aren't allowed (I had to involve several levels of supervisors before I was allowed to pass.)
-A TSA agent told me my AAD contained "explosives" and was not allowed. (Also required supervisor intervention)

...and those are just the ones I remember.

I successfully talked my way out of having my rig opened everytime.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[Reginald 0]

Quote

Any combination of x-ray+swab+puffer is more than sufficient.

In your mind but you are not responsible for the safety of a few hundred people on an airplane. If they choose to open it they have the right regardless of what you think is sufficient.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the TSA is a bunch of fools but that does not change the fact they can open a rig if they so choose. A traveler's only right is to be present at the time.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[mattjw916 2]

The point is that _visually_ inspecting the control unit is not going to show you anything more than a black box with a couple cables coming out of it. An x-ray is far more detailed.

The TSA agent and whether he was technically allowed to open the reserve is not the issue. The issue is that he based his need to physically inspect the Cypres control unit on something his buddy told him. AFAIK that is not TSA SOP.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[DSE 3]

Quote

Hmmm... not sure if there's really enough info here to make the "belligerent" call or not... look at it this way though... bang on the TSA gate agents all you want, I do to, but they've got a pretty serious responsibility on their hands. Think about it... if another airliner goes is hijacked by terrorists, crashed or blown up, bet your ass you'll see the security footage of the purpatrators going through security and getting waived on by the TSA agents... if I were a TSA agent, I wouldn't want to see myself on the 11 o'clock news like that.

Good Info.

ZigZag, I've *always* respected your posts, but give me a f@#$! break. "Thousands Standing Around" and Bushland Insecurity "have a serious responsibility???" No, they don't. It's ludicrous at best to assume so. Loss of baggage, baggage theft, arrests, incidents, and general traveller difficulty has risen more than 2000% in the past 3 years. TSA currently has a backlog of more than 24 million dollars in stolen or lost items. There is nothing "responsible" about them. I don't think they can even think far enough ahead to consider the 11 o'clock news. Seriously.
Most are inadequately trained, my wife is responsible for the first and second hiring tiers at the TSA, and there is nothing serious or intelligent about any part of the process for the lower ranks. Period. "Can you speak English? (sorta) "Can you see colors? (sometimes) "Are you capable of creative thought sequencing? (Yes...which means you're not hirable, seriously, they can test OUT of being hired for being too smart) "Do you have a criminal record? (If it's a misdemeanor, it can be waived)

I've traveled with my rig on several occasions, and while it's not *always* a PITA, it usually is. Especially when you're dealing with exceptionally busy airports. Getting out of PHX for instance, is easy, probably due to Eloy. Getting out of Ontario is easy. Probably because of Perris/Elsinore. Getting out of LAX is a bitch. SLC is used to me, so it's not a big thing.
One bit of advice, get a new Cypres card. Laminate it. Carry the TSA letter with you at all times, I pack one in the pack tray and my computer bag. I've also started sending it through checked baggage in a locked container. It's *much* easier. Just be absolutely sure your Cypres is off.
Carry the letter from the USPA. Let them know that the FAA governs the repacking of the reserve.

[sundevil777 93]

>>I've also started sending it through checked baggage in a locked container. It's *much* easier. Just be absolutely sure your Cypres is off.
__________________
The cargo compartments are pressurized exactly the same as the cabin. If there is a depressurization, both areas will be affected.

I had a TSA idiot tell me that the TSA policy letter I showed him had been superseeded by a new policy requiring both main and reserve to be removed completely in order to take it as carry-on.

Of course he was full of shit and was not willing to show me that policy.

It is amazing that they told the original poster that he could also not take check in his rig without also unpacking everything. That is really bullshit, plus, once you left the security screening area to go back to the ticket counter to check your bag, unless they follow you they would not be able to enforce their bullshit requirement.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DSE 3]

Quote

>>I've also started sending it through checked baggage in a locked container. It's *much* easier. Just be absolutely sure your Cypres is off.
__________________
The cargo compartments are pressurized exactly the same as the cabin. If there is a depressurization, both areas will be affected.
.

I mention Cypres off not because of pressurization issues, but if they re-screen your bag, they can see that it's on, allegedly. Which means they're concerned about you remotely triggering the device.

[gravitational 0]

Quote

Has Airtec released a higher-resolution x-ray image of a rig with a Cypres? The tiny little compressed image has always bothered me and I can see how it would bother a TSA agent.

I'll let you know when I get the new one. I would assume so. SSK was very quick to respond this morning as was USPA. Kudos to both.

------
Michael

[gravitational 0]

Quote

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the TSA did nothing wrong from what I can tell.

I believe you missed this comment from the original post then:

Quote

the supervisor advised me that he had a roommate ‘way back when’ that jumped and he was convinced that the Cypres contained an explosive device because that’s what his roommate told him.

simply put, the supervisor was not educated as he should have been about the gear. If they want to swab, go for it - same as they have the other 2 (looked them up) times I flew with my rig and passed thru security at ORD, or the countless other times I've done the same thing thru ORD in years past.
Unfortunately, there was no one in the group of TSA people that had said they'd ever seen a parachute go thru security before and the supervisor I dealt with said that there had never been one carried thru security before at ORD.

------
Michael

[gravitational 0]

Quote

I successfully talked my way out of having my rig opened everytime.

surrounded by 20 or so TSA people and two of Chicago's finest, I don't think I was going to ultimately win this battle on the first attempt.

------
Michael

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

roommate ‘way back when’ that jumped

"way back when" the Sentinels did contain a charge to move the pins out of the cones. I guess it didn't dawn on him that things might have changed in the last 25 or so years

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mattjw916 2]

Quote

Quote

I successfully talked my way out of having my rig opened everytime.

surrounded by 20 or so TSA people and two of Chicago's finest, I don't think I was going to ultimately win this battle on the first attempt.

I guess it was "show and tell" day at school... It's amazing how much inadvertent attention a rig can get.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[gravitational 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I successfully talked my way out of having my rig opened everytime.

surrounded by 20 or so TSA people and two of Chicago's finest, I don't think I was going to ultimately win this battle on the first attempt.

I guess it was "show and tell" day at school... It's amazing how much inadvertent attention a rig can get.

They did bring out the digital camera for future. I didn't stick around for their 'glory' party later congratulating the super that made me open the reserve...I was busy searching the TSA site and firing off an email to USPA.

------
Michael

[champu 1]

Quote

I don't have a problem with the TSA asking me to open my rig. I don't think that they should be prevented from thouroghly inspecting anything that is loaded on the plane. If it is known that a parachute gets to pass without inspection, then those that would do us harm could use this against us.

I agree with this in principle, however...

Quote

The officer only made me take the main out and was thinking about the reserve but I talked him out of it.

Quote

I successfully talked my way out of having my rig opened every time.

Talked them out of it? What good does giving them the right to have you open your reserve if they're going to get talked out of it?

TSA Agent [scratching back of head] > "I uh... need you to open your reserve."

Skydiver [waving hand slowly at TSA Agent] > "You don't need to see the inside of my reserve."

TSA Agent [eyes now dialated] > "I don't need to see the inside of your reserve."

Get a game plan for inspecting rigs together (preferably one that doesn't involve opening the reserve) and stick to it with some backbone. Individual discretion is a recipe for disaster.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

DSE,

I didn't say the TSA was good at what they do... I was just trying to say that what they're tasked with doing is very important.

I get on airliners (not jump planes) anywhere from a dozen to two dozen times a year for work - travel and I don't want some terrorist or criminal getting on an aircraft with something they shouldn't that would aid them in doing harm... or some ignorant putz that thinks its okay carry on their Coleman stove full of white gas, leaf blower and full drum set...

To be honest with y'all... I've never traveled with my rig on an airliner... let alone done so post Sept 11th... personally, I'd either buy or borrow a hard sided case and check it, ship it, or decide to drive a few days to not have to deal with taking my rig as a carry on. I realize that doesn't work in a lot of cases... but stampin' your feet and holdin' your breath in front of a bunch of TSA Security Checkpoint weenies ain't going to get your very far either.

[billvon 2,400]

>The reserve does not need to be opened to determine the possible presence of explosives.

They may disagree; you are not a reliable source of information for them, since you will generally be the guy carrying the thing on board.

But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you think that shampoo can't blow up, or that you don't have to open a reserve to see if there are explosives, or that your philips screwdriver can't possibly be any more dangerous than that other guy's souvenir Eiffel tower. What they say goes, and specifically what they say IN WRITING goes 100%. And they say you may need to open your reserve. If they ask you to, you do it or you don't get on the plane. End of story.

The situation we are in is actually a pretty clear one. This isn't some poorly-defined standard they have; it's written down on paper and available to everyone. So you can decide beforehand if you want to take the chance.

>I successfully talked my way out of having my rig opened everytime.

That's great; you've been lucky so far. You may not always be. Decide now if that's OK with you.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Quote

roommate ‘way back when’ that jumped

"way back when" the Sentinels did contain a charge to move the pins out of the cones. I guess it didn't dawn on him that things might have changed in the last 25 or so years

Wendy W.

Sentinel! What's that??

[Reginald 0]

Quote

Quote

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the TSA did nothing wrong from what I can tell.

I believe you missed this comment from the original post then:

Quote

the supervisor advised me that he had a roommate ‘way back when’ that jumped and he was convinced that the Cypres contained an explosive device because that’s what his roommate told him.

simply put, the supervisor was not educated as he should have been about the gear. If they want to swab, go for it - same as they have the other 2 (looked them up) times I flew with my rig and passed thru security at ORD, or the countless other times I've done the same thing thru ORD in years past.
Unfortunately, there was no one in the group of TSA people that had said they'd ever seen a parachute go thru security before and the supervisor I dealt with said that there had never been one carried thru security before at ORD.

No I got the original post. I think you are still missing the point. It is not the TSA’s job to understand skydiving gear. It is their job to make sure you don’t get on the plane with a bomb. If they think they can meet that objective with a swab on the outside then fine. If they think they need to open it up and swab the inside than that is there prerogative. There are no guidelines for what they should do other than convince themselves that you don’t have a bomb. They have the right to open and inspect the gear, which they did, if they think it meets their needs to make sure you don’t have a bomb. You only have the right to be present while they do it. Different agents will require different levels of evidence to make the decision they have to make.

And let’s be honest here a Cypres looks like a bomb! It’s a big battery pack with wires running out of it! Add to it there is a big lump of material it runs to. I’m surprised we skydivers get through security as easily as we do in general.

All that said it did really suck to be you that day and you have my sympathy.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[mattjw916 2]

Quote

The situation we are in is actually a pretty clear one. This isn't some poorly-defined standard they have; it's written down on paper and available to everyone. So you can decide beforehand if you want to take the chance

They may disgree, but they'd be wrong. Physically touching or staring at an AAD control unit does nothing to enhance aviation security and the premise for doing so was not based on TSA training.

You obviously haven't read any of the threads on the frequent flyer forums if you think that just because there is a policy that: a) the TSA is properly trained b) that they comprehend the training c) that they even posses the mental facilities to understand how a parachute system functions and why an AAD is or isn't a threat.

It's clear you don't fly much. The TSA are well-known for making up "rules" on the spot and claiming they can't show you the "rule" because it is "secret". That is separate from the fact they are often rude and yell at passengers needlessly.

Now, alternatively you can check your rig and risk it being tampered with _without_ anyone being present. Wait you say, you can lock the bag with a TSA approved lock so only the TSA can touch it vs. any nosy baggage handler. The TSA often cuts the "approved" locks off anyway and often damages the luggage in the process. There is a clear policy about locked luggage which is "available to everyone" as you say but there are a myriad of cases where the TSA cuts up luggage to get inside even though the proper locks were being used. So much for following SOP.

Please remove the rose-colored glasses you are wearing and face the reality of the pathetic state of airport security.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[Remster 24]

Quote

It's clear you don't fly much. The TSA are well-known for making up "rules" on the spot and claiming they can't show you the "rule" because it is "secret". That is separate from the fact they are often rude and yell at passengers needlessly.

And its clear you havent taken the time to read the letter from the TSA written with the USPA that clearly states they can have you open the reserve tray.

Remster

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

It's clear you don't fly much. The TSA are well-known for making up "rules" on the spot and claiming they can't show you the "rule" because it is "secret". That is separate from the fact they are often rude and yell at passengers needlessly.

The fact remains that regardless of the TSA agent's motivation for opening the rig (what his buddy told him "back in the day") the TSA did follow its own rules by opening the rig.

Does it suck for gravitational? Hell yeah. Does it perhaps warrant discussion/reeducation/awareness efforts by Airtec / USPA? Absolutely.

I travel a lot and I travel with my rig a lot. I know full well how inconsistently the various regulations are enforced. I, too, have done a number of educational sessions for TSA personnel at airports around the country. I have had to talk a TSA supervisor "down from the ledge" when she wanted to open my reserve to see the AAD unit. I pulled out the TSA letter, and she pointed to the part that said that they could open it with me there to inspect. I had to admit that she had me there. Fortunately, she ultimately agreed that a swab of the outside of the rig was sufficient to convince her that I wasn't carrying a bomb.

So... TSA policy? Probably flawed.
TSA application of that policy? Definitely flawed or at least inconsistent.

This case? A by-the-book application of the existing policy.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 2,400]

>They may disgree, but they'd be wrong. Physically touching or staring
> at an AAD control unit does nothing to enhance aviation security and
> the premise for doing so was not based on TSA training.

No, they are correct. And if they listened during their TSA training, they know they are authorized to open the reserve to inspect it.

You are confusing what you think you know with what the rules are. Let's take an example -

Two summers ago we spent two weeks aboard an american airlines MD-80 doing everything we could to interfere with the aircraft's navigation systems using cellphones. We took 50 cellphones, hacked them to transmit at full power (which normally they never do) and ran test-flight profiles. Autolands, high altitude, low altitude, unusual attitudes. No interference, beyond one case where the forward lavatory smoke detector beeped once when the phone was right next to it.

Now, I could claim with great authority that cellphones do NOT interfere with american airlines MD-80's. What do you think would happen if they told me to turn my cellphone off, and I said "Silly flight attendants, I have proven that there can be no possible interference with flight controls, and I will continue talking on my phone during takeoff and landing, thank you very much" ?

I would be as right as you are. Those silly flight attendants are NOT enhancing anyone's safety by making me turn my cellphone off. And if I pressed the issue, would end up in as much trouble as you are. Because IT DOESN'T MATTER that cellphones do or don't interfere with flight controls - what matters (to them) is that their rules say turn them off. And they are in charge.

Will they change the rules? Perhaps they will someday; perhaps based on tests like ours. But until they do, they call the shots.

And TSA's rules say they can open your reserve. End of story.

>It's clear you don't fly much.

You a funny guy!

>Now, alternatively you can check your rig and risk it being
>tampered with _without_ anyone being present.

That's correct. So choose which you prefer. I usually check my rig, and have had no problems on either domestic or international flights. But it is a potential issue. On a few occasions, when I absolutely had to get the rig there, I shipped it via FedEx. Expensive but they are damn good.

>Please remove the rose-colored glasses you are wearing and face
>the reality of the pathetic state of airport security.

Airport security is pretty pathetic. But if you try to "stand up" to those TSA guys who want to open your rig, be prepared to discover whether their enforcement arm works. (It does.)

[druvaughn 0]

I agree that there is way too much inconsistency in the TSA handling of the issue...

I fly regularly from LGA to MYR... At LGA I rarely get a second look and almost always get in line with the same screener (same flight each time I travel)... He remarked to one woman who hadn't ever seen a rig, "Did you miss parachute day at training"... He always takes care but most of the others just let me go.

At MYR, they always, always, do a swab test and make me take the rig out of my travel bag (which it is in alone) and have had the same woman let me go one day, and hassle the crap out of me 3 weeks later acting like she has never seen a parachute before...

They do have a thankless job and get constantly hassled...we are stuck with that state of affairs for some time.

I would appreciate a bit more consistency for that warm fuzzy feeling, and I am certain they would like friendlier people going through security... A two way street... (I am in no way implying you weren't friendly - sounds like you were - and cooperative - same - , I was just trying to see daily life from their perspective)...

Safe travels...
Dru

-
-
"Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical."

[gravitational 0]

Quote

Quote

It's clear you don't fly much. The TSA are well-known for making up "rules" on the spot and claiming they can't show you the "rule" because it is "secret". That is separate from the fact they are often rude and yell at passengers needlessly.

And its clear you havent taken the time to read the letter from the TSA written with the USPA that clearly states they can have you open the reserve tray.

The overall point in this situation that I want to convey is that the TSA super was not educated well enough to deal with the situation and did not want to look up the procedure as we evident by his 'first hand knowledge' of AADs having an explosive device in them.
I have since chatted with a TSA super at my home airport in Denver. She stated that the materials they have are inadequate in giving guidance on what to do. The best education that she said they've had was you and me as we go thru security and educate the screeners a bit more each time we travel.
Remaining calm is also a good thing.

------
Michael

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

The best education that she said they've had was you and me as we go thru security and educate the screeners a bit more each time we travel.
Remaining calm is also a good thing.

Yup, I think that's the best thing we all (especially those of us who travel frequently) can do to help the situation. With turnover in TSA, we may only make a small dent, but at least it's something. Being rude and indignant isn't going to help the situation and it might make it worse. Fact is, we are required, if we want to travel on commercial airlines these days, to jump through the hoops whether we agree with the hoops or not.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[gravitational 0]

Quote

Yup, I think that's the best thing we all (especially those of us who travel frequently) can do to help the situation. With turnover in TSA, we may only make a small dent, but at least it's something. Being rude and indignant isn't going to help the situation and it might make it worse. Fact is, we are required, if we want to travel on commercial airlines these days, to jump through the hoops whether we agree with the hoops or not.

I only get mad when they give my seat up when I've been on the road longer than I want to be.

------
Michael