Security: It's There To Keep You Safe........Really
Published by Pokerwolf on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 9:21 AM.
Fake Bomb Eludes Airport Test - Times Union
Testing the system to look for holes is a good thing. It's called "quality assurance testing" in most cases, but in this case it's called "making sure people don't get killed" (that's the reason that was given for all of the airport security was set up, anyway). So, when something goes wrong with the system, management should state that they've failed the test or that they have problems to fix, right?
So, let me get this straight. The TSA doesn't discuss the results because it makes their people look bad. But, the test is designed to make their people fail, so they look bad when the public finds out that they failed a test anyway. Wouldn't the smart decision be to actually point out how well their people are doing instead? Do some sort of PR damage control? Or are they afraid that talking about how well their doing will actually show how many real mistakes they've made?
The unannounced inspection by TSA officials took place early last week. The airport's security measures failed in five of seven tests, most of the problems occurring at the passenger checkpoint, the sources said.
In one test, TSA inspectors hid the components of a fake bomb in carry-on luggage that also contained a bottle of water. Passengers are prohibited from carrying containers holding more than three ounces of liquids, gels or aerosols through airport checkpoints.
The screeners at Albany International confiscated the water bottle but missed the bomb. In all, the inspectors slipped four banned items through the main checkpoint during the test, sources said.
Testing the system to look for holes is a good thing. It's called "quality assurance testing" in most cases, but in this case it's called "making sure people don't get killed" (that's the reason that was given for all of the airport security was set up, anyway). So, when something goes wrong with the system, management should state that they've failed the test or that they have problems to fix, right?
Paul Varville, the TSA's security director at Albany International, could not be reached for comment.
Ann Davis, a TSA spokeswoman, declined to discuss the circumstances of the covert test at Albany International.
"We don't discuss the results because they tend to paint an inaccurate picture of the competency of our work force," she said. "The tests are designed to be incredibly difficult and TSA does anticipate a fair level of failure."
Screeners who flunk the test routinely receive immediate training on the mistakes to improve their detection skills, according to officials familiar with the spot checks.
So, let me get this straight. The TSA doesn't discuss the results because it makes their people look bad. But, the test is designed to make their people fail, so they look bad when the public finds out that they failed a test anyway. Wouldn't the smart decision be to actually point out how well their people are doing instead? Do some sort of PR damage control? Or are they afraid that talking about how well their doing will actually show how many real mistakes they've made?
