An airline captain passing through the security gate was challenged by the alarm being triggered. He...

Narrative:

I needed to be searched at security again. Again the screener did not seem to understand the meaning of a private search. I had to make this known and then seek out the supervisor to get this search done. Supervisor agreed and entered the privacy 'booth.' I followed to find it full of equipment with no room for me to enter beyond the opening. There were no other observers present. And by entering first, she had any small amount of privacy afforded rather than I. She indicated for me to raise my arms for the search. I questioned that she was considering a contact frisk. I had to tell her she was not allowed to touch me but only use a wand. She then told me they did not have a wand. Thinking I must have misunderstood this, I confirmed she was saying she did not have a wand at the station. Confirmed, I told her she still did not have the right to touch me and I would go to other concourse if I could not have a proper search there. She did not disagree. I left the booth and went back through the arch. At this point she reached for my luggage and kit bag, telling me to leave it there. I told her I was not about to leave my equipment unsecured but would take it with me. She did not object. All of this was in full view of several passenger and crew who could not avoid sensing something was wrong as you must leave the area through the arch and against the flow. I also was able to again pass other security in the same exact state I was stopped at first location, but with no alarms being triggered. Given the demonstrated lack of procedure by the personnel at original concourse, perhaps they are compensating by having what equipment they do have set at too sensitive a level. This assumes they are at least operating the equipment correctly. I find it surprising that not only is some equipment missing, but that supervisors are not aware of the proper procedures for conducting a search. Given the importance of proper screenings, I would suggest in the interest of safety that concourse personnel be better trained and equipped.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRLINE CAPT PASSING THROUGH THE SECURITY GATE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ALARM BEING TRIGGERED. HE CITES A TOO HIGH SENSITIVITY SETTING AND POOR TRAINING OF THE OPERATORS WITH AN ATTEMPTED HAND SEARCH OF HIS PERSON AT MIA, FL.

Narrative: I NEEDED TO BE SEARCHED AT SECURITY AGAIN. AGAIN THE SCREENER DID NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF A PVT SEARCH. I HAD TO MAKE THIS KNOWN AND THEN SEEK OUT THE SUPVR TO GET THIS SEARCH DONE. SUPVR AGREED AND ENTERED THE PRIVACY 'BOOTH.' I FOLLOWED TO FIND IT FULL OF EQUIP WITH NO ROOM FOR ME TO ENTER BEYOND THE OPENING. THERE WERE NO OTHER OBSERVERS PRESENT. AND BY ENTERING FIRST, SHE HAD ANY SMALL AMOUNT OF PRIVACY AFFORDED RATHER THAN I. SHE INDICATED FOR ME TO RAISE MY ARMS FOR THE SEARCH. I QUESTIONED THAT SHE WAS CONSIDERING A CONTACT FRISK. I HAD TO TELL HER SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH ME BUT ONLY USE A WAND. SHE THEN TOLD ME THEY DID NOT HAVE A WAND. THINKING I MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THIS, I CONFIRMED SHE WAS SAYING SHE DID NOT HAVE A WAND AT THE STATION. CONFIRMED, I TOLD HER SHE STILL DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH ME AND I WOULD GO TO OTHER CONCOURSE IF I COULD NOT HAVE A PROPER SEARCH THERE. SHE DID NOT DISAGREE. I LEFT THE BOOTH AND WENT BACK THROUGH THE ARCH. AT THIS POINT SHE REACHED FOR MY LUGGAGE AND KIT BAG, TELLING ME TO LEAVE IT THERE. I TOLD HER I WAS NOT ABOUT TO LEAVE MY EQUIP UNSECURED BUT WOULD TAKE IT WITH ME. SHE DID NOT OBJECT. ALL OF THIS WAS IN FULL VIEW OF SEVERAL PAX AND CREW WHO COULD NOT AVOID SENSING SOMETHING WAS WRONG AS YOU MUST LEAVE THE AREA THROUGH THE ARCH AND AGAINST THE FLOW. I ALSO WAS ABLE TO AGAIN PASS OTHER SECURITY IN THE SAME EXACT STATE I WAS STOPPED AT FIRST LOCATION, BUT WITH NO ALARMS BEING TRIGGERED. GIVEN THE DEMONSTRATED LACK OF PROC BY THE PERSONNEL AT ORIGINAL CONCOURSE, PERHAPS THEY ARE COMPENSATING BY HAVING WHAT EQUIP THEY DO HAVE SET AT TOO SENSITIVE A LEVEL. THIS ASSUMES THEY ARE AT LEAST OPERATING THE EQUIP CORRECTLY. I FIND IT SURPRISING THAT NOT ONLY IS SOME EQUIP MISSING, BUT THAT SUPVRS ARE NOT AWARE OF THE PROPER PROCS FOR CONDUCTING A SEARCH. GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER SCREENINGS, I WOULD SUGGEST IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY THAT CONCOURSE PERSONNEL BE BETTER TRAINED AND EQUIPPED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	474796
Time
Date	200005
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mia.airport
State Reference	FL
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	474796
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	other personnel other
Qualification	other other : +
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : security 3
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airport
Primary Problem	Airport

An airline captain passing through the security gate was challenged by the alarm being triggered. He cites a too high sensitivity setting and poor training of the operators with an attempted hand search of his person at mia, fl.