DC publication POLITICO is out with an article on a TSA proposal to allow passengers from certain airports to board their flights without screening. Instead, these passengers would be screened when their flight lands.
“TSA’s latest effort to make air travel more efficient would have let passengers board flights at some small airports without being screened for threats like guns or explosives.”
Thankfully, this proposal has been shelved as the article goes on to note. Apparently, some members of Congress heard about the plan and shot it down before it ever had a chance to take off.
My Take on TSA Screening After Your Flight
While I don’t like the idea personally, I’ll at least applaud TSA for thinking outside of the box. This policy, if enacted, would only apply to a small number of low traffic airports that are served by small aircraft. While the risks from such an operation might be lower than…..let’s say not screening a 747 full of passengers from a major airport, it just seems too fraught with unknown risks to be considered in my opinion. It seems that nefarious individuals might try and exploit one of these “low risk” airports as an entry way into the larger air transportation system. Even if passengers (and I assume) luggage are checked upon arrival at a major airport, this just doesn’t feel right. Granted, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a passenger on the no-fly list, or one who is being “watched” in some other manner might be prevented from boarding, but I just don’t think the public would go for this. And neither will the TSA apparently.
What do you think about this security idea?
-MJ, April 26, 2016
We used to do this in the U.S. at very small, rural airports. It’s called reverse screening. The passengers are not screened prior to boarding a turboprop (usually only 9 seats) at rural airports. The screening then occurs prior to the passengers entering the next airport, which in must cases was a small, non-hub commercial service airport. If I recall correctly, reverse screen was used in Montana. I believe the rational was based on very small aircraft flying over sparsely populated areas.
They actually do this in some airports. In Vieques, there is no security to speak off. But once you land in San Juan, they spit out outside of security to be screened if you are entering the airport.
Given the reported record of security at Israel airports, might the TSA study and adapt those measures. Oh wait, the TSA must assume anyone, including a nun, can be a terrorist. Oh well, the public did learn this week that breast milk should go in the check luggage.
In a post tomorrow I point out this actually does make sense, but the reasons why would never make the light of day in the rush to grandstand. Just like when TSA wanted to stop spending resources looking for golf clubs and focus on explosives, there was an outcry and they had to keep golf clubs banned. There’s limited resources. It’s tough to staff these outstations. And there is never going to be a terrorist who thinks it makes any sense whatsoever to take down a prop plane nowhere near media. So you make sure when folks getting are off… Read more »
I’ll look forward to reading your take on it, Gary. Like I mentioned in the post, I actually applaud them for thinking outside of the box even if I don’t necessarily agree with idea. I could probably be persuaded that this might work if I were privy to their plans, but I don’t ever see it happening…. at least not any time soon. There’s that grandstanding thing you mentioned.
It made me scratch my head and say HUH? Sure, smaller airports and smaller aircraft are less likely to be a risk, but you kind of have to wonder……no screening at tiny airport, fly into big airport, connect without being screened, and somewhere before arrival at say, JFK or LAX or where ever, the aircraft is brought down on purpose?
Glad they put this idea on the shelf….back to the drawing board there TSA….