• Report: #191341

Complaint Review: TSA

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Sat, May 13, 2006
  • Updated: Wed, October 27, 2010

  • Reported By:Bakersfield California
TSA
601 12TH STREET SOUTH ARLINGTON, Virginia U.S.A.

TSA TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PASSENGER RIPPED OFF TWICE ON SAME DAY BY TSA Ripoff ARLINGTON Virginia

*UPDATE Employee: It's your responsibility to check the rules

*UPDATE Employee: TSO

*Consumer Suggestion: I Was Ripped off By Them Too..and NOT PERMITTED TO FILE A CLAIM OR COMPLAIN!

*Author of original report: The TSA Never Fails To Fail...

*Author of original report: The TSA Never Fails To Fail...

*Author of original report: The TSA Never Fails To Fail...

*Consumer Comment: From Austin, Texas to Maryland..The Not so friendly skies

*Consumer Comment: Honda generator. HazMat classification

*Consumer Comment: Robert, your point is very valid

*Consumer Comment: Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

*Consumer Comment: Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

*Consumer Comment: Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

*Consumer Comment: Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

*Consumer Suggestion: An expensive lesson.

*Consumer Comment: TSA clearly states........

*Consumer Comment: I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

*Consumer Comment: I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

*Consumer Comment: I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

*Consumer Comment: I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

*Author of original report: (T.S.A.) Organized Crime At Its Best...

*Consumer Suggestion: FAA literature.

*Consumer Comment: It is on the FAA website

*Author of original report: Again, If The Law Was In Fact Broken, Where Is The Supporting Documentation???

*Consumer Comment: From the FAA Brochure

*Consumer Comment: From the FAA Brochure

*Consumer Comment: From the FAA Brochure

*Consumer Comment: From the FAA Brochure

*Consumer Suggestion: Should have asked first

*Author of original report: Still Classified as Robbed by The T.S.A.

*Consumer Comment: TSA is correct

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

On 12/23/05 LAX/TSA inspected and removed my brand new EU1000 Honda Generator from my checked in luggage. I filed a claim with TSA only to get a response that stated, Any hazardous material confiscated will not be returned to the passenger. Basically TSA is stating that my Brand new generator was HAZMAT.

For twenty years I shipped and received chemicals, electronic and mechanical equipment, for Computer Sciences Raytheon under the Department of Defense, (U.S.Air Force), I have the certification, and training in identifying, and handling of HAZMAT items.
The EU1000 Honda Generator is classified as a power tool, not HAZMAT.

The TSA has created a poor excuse for my stolen or lost equipment due to their negligence.

Conductive reasoning would indicate, if a common thief stole the generator, the thief would have taken the other power tools that were in the same piece of luggage.
Interesting enough is the fact that LAX/TSA lost my Dell laptop on the same day.

I am seeking legal support to recover my Honda Generator or the value of what it will cost me to replace it.
Taking into consideration TSA's methods of forced entry into already unlocked pieces of luggage, I do not believe I'm the only person that has a case against them.

I understand TSA has a great responsibility, this responsibility should not allow them to be above the law, or less responsible for the job that has been entrusted to them. As part of the D.O.T. they should have a quality control system that protects the property of the little people, such as myself.

Robbed By the TSA, Robert ******

Robert
Bakersfield, California
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/13/2006 10:04 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/TSA/ARLINGTON-Virginia-22202-4220/TSA-TRANSPORTATION-SECURITY-ADMINISTRATION-PASSENGER-RIPPED-OFF-TWICE-ON-SAME-DAY-BY-TSA-R-191341. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on TSA

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 30Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 UPDATE Employee

It's your responsibility to check the rules

AUTHOR: LJR - (United States of America)

  You mentioned that you used to ship chemicals and such for over 20 years, well times have changed, especially since 911.  When you are shipping something that is uncommon, and a generator isn't a common item, it's up to you to find out if it can be actually be put on the plane.  First you need to either look it up on the airlines website or call them, and second you need to check with TSA.  These are two completely different organizations and you have to meet the rules of both.  I noticed you said it was removed from your suitcase? Does this mean you had taken it out of it's original package, if so that was the first mistake.  Also when TSA screens a bag the do a swipe on it and let the ETD determine if there is any trace of an explosive material (such as gasoline or oil). If it does show any trace then the bag can and in most cases will be stopped from being put on the plane.  Bottom line is it's up to you to find out all the rules. TSA does not have the time to discuss every rule they have to enforce.  And I say enforce because they do not make the laws, they only enforce them for your protection and everyone else on the plane.
  As for who should pay for your item?  Who knows?  Once the bag is screened it leaves the TSA officers hands and the airline usually take care of it from there.  TSA just informs the airline that the bag can not be loaded and then the airline usually takes the bag and puts it in a holding area.  

  I just don;t see a claim here.  It sounds like TSA was doing their job but you failed to look up the rules and follow them. Sorry but I would say your out of luck.  Next time log onto the computer or pick up a phone, it will save you a lot of trouble and money.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 UPDATE Employee

TSO

AUTHOR: Rhiannon - (U.S.A.)

Just because you checked your bag with the airline doesn't mean that TSA was the one who took your belongings! You still have baggage handlers, cleaning crew, mechanics, skycaps, etc. who STILL have access to YOUR bags!!! If you don't put a TSA approved lock you have NO proof it was TSA who took your belongings.

Before you check your bag buy a TSA approved lock. If it is cut off you can either assume an TSA officer couldn't locate the correct key or someone else got into your bag. FILE A CLAIM at that point! If you have no TSA approved lock than no offense but your bag is fair game to any employee who has clearance to be in the back working.

TSA only screens your bag to make sure it is safe to be under the plain. After that point, you have a skycap who will help move oversized bags, baggage handlers moving them to the cars to to the plain, and than another baggage handler taking it off the car and putting it onto the plane. So before you jump to blame TSA, think about who else can get to your bag.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Suggestion

I Was Ripped off By Them Too..and NOT PERMITTED TO FILE A CLAIM OR COMPLAIN!

AUTHOR: Helene - (U.S.A.)

I went to a Homeland Security training class given by a security contract that is a US government subcontractor A FEW YEARS BACK. I had to fly from TX to Baltimore, Maryland.

When I went to reclaim my luggage in Maryland, I noticed that a pair of dress shoes,a pair of Air Jordans,two designer sweatsuits, a CD player,some rather expensive perfume were GONE along with about 50 CDs I had brought along and kept in my luggage in one of those storage books.

And my laptop computer had a huge place on the corner where it had apparently been dropped or slammed against the wall and the screen was broken. All of the accessory discs were smashed or gone.Someone had also slit the linings of all of my luggage as well.

I had no idea who to complain to at the time.

After I arrived back, I tried to complain at the Texas Airport and was told that I woudl be placed on the Do Not Fly list as a terrorists and I could be arrested. I took them at their word.

AND THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP US SAFE?

I will take the bus next time.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

The TSA Never Fails To Fail...

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

In June of 2006, my wife and family took a trip back home to visit family..
To make a long story short,,,,
The history of TSA has again demostrated their overstuffed, overfunded, image by demostrating their complete lack of security as demostrated by 20 to 30 percent of my family's belongings being stolen while in the possession of the Airlines..
I know the typical response by the TSA is to conveinently deny it's ability to control anything that goes over the control lines of the Airlines, and,,, It's easier for them to say," We Are Not Authorized " then to actually fulfill what these Millions if not Billions of Our Tax Dollars are being designated to do...
Instead of being required to redundatly show my passport to a dozen TSA reps. after I passed the Strip and X-ray Security check point.
Shouldn't some of these redundant Check Point Personel Be utilized behind the Airlines lines where the actual crimes are taking place????
Obviously a very evident problem still exist!!!
Don't Give Us Anymore Worthless Excuses, or Unconstructive Critizism!!
PUT THE >S< BACK INTO THE T.S.A. AND DO YOUR JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RIPPED OFF AGAIN, ROBERT V.........

P.S. Any unconstructive responses will be classified as unworthy of a response....
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Author of original report

The TSA Never Fails To Fail...

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

In June of 2006, my wife and family took a trip back home to visit family..
To make a long story short,,,,
The history of TSA has again demostrated their overstuffed, overfunded, image by demostrating their complete lack of security as demostrated by 20 to 30 percent of my family's belongings being stolen while in the possession of the Airlines..
I know the typical response by the TSA is to conveinently deny it's ability to control anything that goes over the control lines of the Airlines, and,,, It's easier for them to say," We Are Not Authorized " then to actually fulfill what these Millions if not Billions of Our Tax Dollars are being designated to do...
Instead of being required to redundatly show my passport to a dozen TSA reps. after I passed the Strip and X-ray Security check point.
Shouldn't some of these redundant Check Point Personel Be utilized behind the Airlines lines where the actual crimes are taking place????
Obviously a very evident problem still exist!!!
Don't Give Us Anymore Worthless Excuses, or Unconstructive Critizism!!
PUT THE >S< BACK INTO THE T.S.A. AND DO YOUR JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RIPPED OFF AGAIN, ROBERT V.........

P.S. Any unconstructive responses will be classified as unworthy of a response....
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Author of original report

The TSA Never Fails To Fail...

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

In June of 2006, my wife and family took a trip back home to visit family..
To make a long story short,,,,
The history of TSA has again demostrated their overstuffed, overfunded, image by demostrating their complete lack of security as demostrated by 20 to 30 percent of my family's belongings being stolen while in the possession of the Airlines..
I know the typical response by the TSA is to conveinently deny it's ability to control anything that goes over the control lines of the Airlines, and,,, It's easier for them to say," We Are Not Authorized " then to actually fulfill what these Millions if not Billions of Our Tax Dollars are being designated to do...
Instead of being required to redundatly show my passport to a dozen TSA reps. after I passed the Strip and X-ray Security check point.
Shouldn't some of these redundant Check Point Personel Be utilized behind the Airlines lines where the actual crimes are taking place????
Obviously a very evident problem still exist!!!
Don't Give Us Anymore Worthless Excuses, or Unconstructive Critizism!!
PUT THE >S< BACK INTO THE T.S.A. AND DO YOUR JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RIPPED OFF AGAIN, ROBERT V.........

P.S. Any unconstructive responses will be classified as unworthy of a response....
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

From Austin, Texas to Maryland..The Not so friendly skies

AUTHOR: Helene - (U.S.A.)

I took a flight last year from Austin, TX to Maryland for a job interview.

The potential employer paid for my ticket and apparently he had done so in a manner than flagged me to be pulled aside as a terrorist suspect.

I am a white woman, in my mid 50s with a limp and I am a "terrorist." I didn't have to do the strip search but I was embarrassed with the TSA people YELLING at me and I promised myself to NEVER FLY COMMERCIAL AGAIN!

In the process, several items were confiscated from my luggage that I checked and they were:

My personal CD player that I put in my bag in case something happened to the one I was listening to in the airport was apparently confiscated. Sure enough, they thought that one "might have been a bomb" and smashed it on the floor of the Bergstrom International Airport. I didn' t have a CD in it. They searched my small CD wallet but gave it back.

My pair of brand new duty pumps were confiscated along with a new watch ( a Timex, none the less, I guess it was supposed to have been a detonator), a package of new underwear ( the briefs for women that you can buy at Walmart) and five pairs of black military socks and two sets of sweats. I didn't find that out until I got to Maryland.

Where do you go to complain?
Where did the Jews go to complain when they arrived at Auschwitcz or Dachau and found their luggage gone entirely. Somehow, there was a hole in one of my bags as big as a silver dollar like it had been burned with a laser or somehing.

On the return flight, there was a white yuppie male with what appeared to be cocain crystals around his nose in the seat next to me listening to an iPod that was pumping pain. That thing was loud and it was playing insipid, loud rock (?) music(????) and I wondered how in the HELL did he ever managed to get his iPod onto the plane without it being knocked out of his hand and being labelled as a "bomb" or other weapon of mass destruction and the entire plane was being "serenaded " with it. A lady complained and the damn freak stood up and said "I LIKE to share!" I ignored him, feeling discriminated against and rather angry at the TSA because I had had things taken from me that in no way could they justify as weapons of mass destruction or anything else. They also took a nearly -new pair of my running shoes at the airport on the way back...

Why do I feel like I am living in dangerous times?
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Consumer Comment

Honda generator. HazMat classification

AUTHOR: Axel - (U.S.A.)

It is a misconception, that a Honda generator is exempt from the Hazardous Material regulations when being transported in commerce (e.g. by airlines). The proper classification is UN 3166 Engines, internal combustion, flammable liquid powered, Class 9. Very easy to find in 49 CFR 172.101.

The argument that it is brand new and never used is incorrect, as it has been tested, and fuel residues might have been retained.

This classification applies to a lot of "common" items like a gasoline-powered chainsaw and other items.

Furthermore, this item is not on the list of exempted check-in or carry-on items for crew or passengers see http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/aircarrier_info/media/updated%20illustrated%20chart%20June%202005.pdf.

TSA publishes a list of what can go and what cannot go, but this list is far from complete when it comes to Hazardous Material / Dangerous Goods (see http://www.tsa.gov/assets/doc/Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc

Offering Dangerous Goods in checked-in luggage without declaring it (everything in compliance with regulations incl. packing, marking, labeling and documenting) can/does result in administrative action from FAA/DOT/TSA.
Shipping items like these and not having encountered any objection before does not mean that it it authorized.

With all the ongoing screenings and checks of luggage (any kind) and a more systematic approach to enforcement, the traveller must make him/herself more knowledgabel of what can go and what cannot go.

HazMat regulations (domestic and international) are a complex affair, but it can be learned. And there are differences between US domestic and international regulations.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

Robert, your point is very valid

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

The information is not easily located by the average person. You have to search for it, going from the TSA website, to the FAA website and even when you reach the FAA website the prohibition of this item is not categorized correctly. This is simply a matter of doing a poor job of building the website.

As for your questions, if you want answers you should submit them in writing to both the TSA and the FAA as a FOIA request. They will be compelled to give you answers under the law.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Consumer Comment

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.
Your claim in regards to the presumably evident documentation concerning restrictions on the aforementioned equipment has led me to investigate, and see if in fact these particular items are evidently accessible to the public eye through the FAA..
Interestingly enough the FAA leads right back to the TSA regarding such prohibited items, in the following order:
1. faa.gov/ > FAA web site
2. faa.gov/passengers/
>Passengers Tab @ Top of Page
3. tsa.gov/public/display?theme=177
>Prohibited Items - under Flying Safe
4.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >T.S.A.
5.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >Prohibited Items List
>>>> Again no mention of gas powered tools in the Tool Category !!!

Conductive reasoning would not lead air travelers to look for Prohibited Items in the Preparing to Fly column, when in fact it is on the same page listed directly below under Flying Safe as "Prohibited items".

This can be interpreted as a lack of organizational skills on the FAA's part, or a money making scheme/ deception by the indirect acquisition of equipment and merchandise from passengers,,, As I Have Become A Victim Of..

Just about all US government agencies and contractors are required to be ISO compliant regarding all documentation materials; especially rules, and regulations.
These types of documents are required to have a primary record of documentation, a Form Identification, and Revision Date, if revised, all of course leading to accountability.
The T.S.A. should not be an exception to the rule.
Therefore,,, I Am Asking The Same Questions AGAIN

1.Where are these regulations regarding the equipment in question? Officially.
2.When did these regulations become a record for public access? Officially.
3.When if applicable was the last documented revision of such regulations? Officially.
4.And of course, Why are these types of items Not in the T.S.A. web site?
Since obviously all airline prohibited items researched lead to the T.S.A. web site.
Your so-called public policies seem to be as slippery and elusive as TSA's practices in non-accountability, and deniability of confiscated items
Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

Suggestion/Question
Wouldn't it be a more practical to utilize and make available a Search Engine in the correct category regarding the issue of Prohibited/Hazardous items not allowed???
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.
Your claim in regards to the presumably evident documentation concerning restrictions on the aforementioned equipment has led me to investigate, and see if in fact these particular items are evidently accessible to the public eye through the FAA..
Interestingly enough the FAA leads right back to the TSA regarding such prohibited items, in the following order:
1. faa.gov/ > FAA web site
2. faa.gov/passengers/
>Passengers Tab @ Top of Page
3. tsa.gov/public/display?theme=177
>Prohibited Items - under Flying Safe
4.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >T.S.A.
5.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >Prohibited Items List
>>>> Again no mention of gas powered tools in the Tool Category !!!

Conductive reasoning would not lead air travelers to look for Prohibited Items in the Preparing to Fly column, when in fact it is on the same page listed directly below under Flying Safe as "Prohibited items".

This can be interpreted as a lack of organizational skills on the FAA's part, or a money making scheme/ deception by the indirect acquisition of equipment and merchandise from passengers,,, As I Have Become A Victim Of..

Just about all US government agencies and contractors are required to be ISO compliant regarding all documentation materials; especially rules, and regulations.
These types of documents are required to have a primary record of documentation, a Form Identification, and Revision Date, if revised, all of course leading to accountability.
The T.S.A. should not be an exception to the rule.
Therefore,,, I Am Asking The Same Questions AGAIN

1.Where are these regulations regarding the equipment in question? Officially.
2.When did these regulations become a record for public access? Officially.
3.When if applicable was the last documented revision of such regulations? Officially.
4.And of course, Why are these types of items Not in the T.S.A. web site?
Since obviously all airline prohibited items researched lead to the T.S.A. web site.
Your so-called public policies seem to be as slippery and elusive as TSA's practices in non-accountability, and deniability of confiscated items
Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

Suggestion/Question
Wouldn't it be a more practical to utilize and make available a Search Engine in the correct category regarding the issue of Prohibited/Hazardous items not allowed???
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 Consumer Comment

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.
Your claim in regards to the presumably evident documentation concerning restrictions on the aforementioned equipment has led me to investigate, and see if in fact these particular items are evidently accessible to the public eye through the FAA..
Interestingly enough the FAA leads right back to the TSA regarding such prohibited items, in the following order:
1. faa.gov/ > FAA web site
2. faa.gov/passengers/
>Passengers Tab @ Top of Page
3. tsa.gov/public/display?theme=177
>Prohibited Items - under Flying Safe
4.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >T.S.A.
5.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >Prohibited Items List
>>>> Again no mention of gas powered tools in the Tool Category !!!

Conductive reasoning would not lead air travelers to look for Prohibited Items in the Preparing to Fly column, when in fact it is on the same page listed directly below under Flying Safe as "Prohibited items".

This can be interpreted as a lack of organizational skills on the FAA's part, or a money making scheme/ deception by the indirect acquisition of equipment and merchandise from passengers,,, As I Have Become A Victim Of..

Just about all US government agencies and contractors are required to be ISO compliant regarding all documentation materials; especially rules, and regulations.
These types of documents are required to have a primary record of documentation, a Form Identification, and Revision Date, if revised, all of course leading to accountability.
The T.S.A. should not be an exception to the rule.
Therefore,,, I Am Asking The Same Questions AGAIN

1.Where are these regulations regarding the equipment in question? Officially.
2.When did these regulations become a record for public access? Officially.
3.When if applicable was the last documented revision of such regulations? Officially.
4.And of course, Why are these types of items Not in the T.S.A. web site?
Since obviously all airline prohibited items researched lead to the T.S.A. web site.
Your so-called public policies seem to be as slippery and elusive as TSA's practices in non-accountability, and deniability of confiscated items
Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

Suggestion/Question
Wouldn't it be a more practical to utilize and make available a Search Engine in the correct category regarding the issue of Prohibited/Hazardous items not allowed???
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#13 Consumer Comment

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.
Your claim in regards to the presumably evident documentation concerning restrictions on the aforementioned equipment has led me to investigate, and see if in fact these particular items are evidently accessible to the public eye through the FAA..
Interestingly enough the FAA leads right back to the TSA regarding such prohibited items, in the following order:
1. faa.gov/ > FAA web site
2. faa.gov/passengers/
>Passengers Tab @ Top of Page
3. tsa.gov/public/display?theme=177
>Prohibited Items - under Flying Safe
4.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >T.S.A.
5.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc >Prohibited Items List
>>>> Again no mention of gas powered tools in the Tool Category !!!

Conductive reasoning would not lead air travelers to look for Prohibited Items in the Preparing to Fly column, when in fact it is on the same page listed directly below under Flying Safe as "Prohibited items".

This can be interpreted as a lack of organizational skills on the FAA's part, or a money making scheme/ deception by the indirect acquisition of equipment and merchandise from passengers,,, As I Have Become A Victim Of..

Just about all US government agencies and contractors are required to be ISO compliant regarding all documentation materials; especially rules, and regulations.
These types of documents are required to have a primary record of documentation, a Form Identification, and Revision Date, if revised, all of course leading to accountability.
The T.S.A. should not be an exception to the rule.
Therefore,,, I Am Asking The Same Questions AGAIN

1.Where are these regulations regarding the equipment in question? Officially.
2.When did these regulations become a record for public access? Officially.
3.When if applicable was the last documented revision of such regulations? Officially.
4.And of course, Why are these types of items Not in the T.S.A. web site?
Since obviously all airline prohibited items researched lead to the T.S.A. web site.
Your so-called public policies seem to be as slippery and elusive as TSA's practices in non-accountability, and deniability of confiscated items
Still Classified As: RIPPED OFF BY THE T.S.A.

Suggestion/Question
Wouldn't it be a more practical to utilize and make available a Search Engine in the correct category regarding the issue of Prohibited/Hazardous items not allowed???
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Consumer Suggestion

An expensive lesson.

AUTHOR: Mike - (U.S.A.)

The FAA policy is that "gasoline powered power tools" cannot be checked or carried on a commercial airline. The policy does not call for consideration of whether any gasoline or oil is actually present. The tool ITSELF is a prohibited item. Remember that logic and reason NEED NOT APPLY here. It is POLICY.

Unfortunately you did not know that, and thus ended up (hopefully) learning an expensive lesson.

I agree with the government not returning such confiscated items. Otherwise people would try to sneak all kinds of stuff in knowing they risk nothing if it gets caught.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#15 Consumer Comment

TSA clearly states........

AUTHOR: Scott - (U.S.A.)

The TSA website clearly states that

" Items that are voluntarily abandoned or confiscated by a law enforcement officer cannot be recovered and will not be returned to you. Property claims for these items will also be denied by TSA. "

They also give you options on what to do with prohibited items

" If permitted by the TSO or law enforcement officer, you may be allowed to: consult with the airlines for possible assistance in placing the prohibited item in checked baggage; withdraw with the item from the screening checkpoint at that time; make other arrangements for the item, such as taking it to your car or mailing it to yourself; or, voluntarily abandon the item. "
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#16 Consumer Comment

I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

I fully agree that the TSA should be held accountable for the disposition of high value items. I would not be suprised for an instant if there is a paper trail of exactly what they did with the generator. It was most likely sent for auction.

From a USA Today article:

"Nobody has totaled it up, but the business of disposing of or reselling items banned by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration appears to be valued in the millions of dollars a year. After a traveler leaves behind a banned item a hunting knife, say it can follow a strange and convoluted journey to a new owner. That journey often involves a pass through state or local government ownership, and a posting on eBay.

State surplus property offices get first crack at the items, but if they're not equipped to handle them or decide to take a pass, giant contractor Science Application International collects and discards them under a five-year, $17 million government contract."
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#17 Consumer Comment

I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

I fully agree that the TSA should be held accountable for the disposition of high value items. I would not be suprised for an instant if there is a paper trail of exactly what they did with the generator. It was most likely sent for auction.

From a USA Today article:

"Nobody has totaled it up, but the business of disposing of or reselling items banned by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration appears to be valued in the millions of dollars a year. After a traveler leaves behind a banned item a hunting knife, say it can follow a strange and convoluted journey to a new owner. That journey often involves a pass through state or local government ownership, and a posting on eBay.

State surplus property offices get first crack at the items, but if they're not equipped to handle them or decide to take a pass, giant contractor Science Application International collects and discards them under a five-year, $17 million government contract."
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#18 Consumer Comment

I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

I fully agree that the TSA should be held accountable for the disposition of high value items. I would not be suprised for an instant if there is a paper trail of exactly what they did with the generator. It was most likely sent for auction.

From a USA Today article:

"Nobody has totaled it up, but the business of disposing of or reselling items banned by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration appears to be valued in the millions of dollars a year. After a traveler leaves behind a banned item a hunting knife, say it can follow a strange and convoluted journey to a new owner. That journey often involves a pass through state or local government ownership, and a posting on eBay.

State surplus property offices get first crack at the items, but if they're not equipped to handle them or decide to take a pass, giant contractor Science Application International collects and discards them under a five-year, $17 million government contract."
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#19 Consumer Comment

I fully agree that they shoud be held accountable

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

I fully agree that the TSA should be held accountable for the disposition of high value items. I would not be suprised for an instant if there is a paper trail of exactly what they did with the generator. It was most likely sent for auction.

From a USA Today article:

"Nobody has totaled it up, but the business of disposing of or reselling items banned by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration appears to be valued in the millions of dollars a year. After a traveler leaves behind a banned item a hunting knife, say it can follow a strange and convoluted journey to a new owner. That journey often involves a pass through state or local government ownership, and a posting on eBay.

State surplus property offices get first crack at the items, but if they're not equipped to handle them or decide to take a pass, giant contractor Science Application International collects and discards them under a five-year, $17 million government contract."
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#20 Author of original report

(T.S.A.) Organized Crime At Its Best...

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Are You Good Enough to Answer The Following?
If the policy of the FAA, TSA, and all US agencies involved, agree that the aforementioned generator/inverter could not be shipped, then what is the dollar value limit of such confiscated items, before their value and presence warrants accountability, by the T.S.A. for the owners of such equipment?
Does the TSA/FAA expect the public to dismiss the loss of high, valued items as if they should not have existed, based on an Assumed Hazmat Condition??? Sounds Like Above the Law To Me,,, Or Worst

The majority of most local and federal law enforcement have the responsibility to document and account for all items seized...
Is the public expected to dismiss this responsibility just because they are the TSA?
If the TSA removes high dollar equipment on the ASSUMTION that Hazmats are present, and as policy dictates that the items need not be accounted for, conductive reasoning would indicate the equipment items can be taken by TSA personnel without any consequences of accountability Sounds Like Being Robbed To Me !!!


History reveals that the Mafia holds the same policy for non-accountability of seized property, as the TSA
Still Classified As Robbed By The T.S.A. (Twisted Security Administration)
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#21 Consumer Suggestion

FAA literature.

AUTHOR: Mike - (U.S.A.)

The quote by "Aafes" is directly from the two page FAA brochure "Is it Safe?" which is found as a pdf on the FAA.gov web site. I'm pretty sure I've seen it posted in airports as well.

Interestingly though there is also a more detailed ten page brochure from the FAA called "Hazardous Materials Carried by Passengers and Crew Members." It does not mention gasoline powered equipment at all, leading to the impression that it may be legal to fly.

So as happens often, mixed and conflicting messages from our government. You have also encountered poorly trained and/or incompetent people at every turn; for any frequent traveller that is not news.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#22 Consumer Comment

It is on the FAA website

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

It is on the FAA Website. At the top of their page is a "Passengers" link. I found this information by reviewing the TSA Permitted/prohibited items brochure I noticed this link under the "Dangerous items" chart:

Note: There are other hazardous materials that are regulated by the FAA. This information is summarized at faa.gov, click on Passengers, then Preparing to Fly. The reference is in very small print, and should be more prevalent, or better yet the information should simply be printed on the TSA brochure to begin with.

You stated you labeled the item as: "This item does not contain any hazardous material", and I believe this was actually what you believed. However, according to the FAA the item itself was considered prohibited/hazardous. The TSA is required to follow these guidelines and acted appropriately.

You indicated you had previously transported a similar item with no problem. It is likely the first TSA screener simply did not regard the item as hazardous due to your tagging or simply did not follow the established guidelines.

Was the law broken? Perhaps. As follows from DOT regulations:

Accordingly, if a passenger's carry-on
baggage or checked baggage contains a hazardous material that does not comply with Federal hazardous materials transportation law or the
HMR, and the passenger has tendered the baggage to screening personnel at an airport security screening checkpoint, passed through the checkpoint with the baggage (including items on his/her person), or offered it to the carrier, the
passenger may be subject to civil or criminal penalties under Federal hazardous materials transportation law, the HMR, or any other applicable laws or regulations.

Would they prosecute you? Not likely.

Lack of accountability. If you are referring to where your generator is I believe they should at least be able to provide you with a disposition, and further, although not their policy, allow you the opportunity to retrieve the item. Currently these items are either donated, sold at government auctions or destroyed.

Simply put, there was no ripoff here. The TSA did its job. You may not consider the policy fair, but it remains that the screener performed as required.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#23 Author of original report

Again, If The Law Was In Fact Broken, Where Is The Supporting Documentation???

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Response:

If what you have indicated from the FAA is a documented fact, the question comes to mind, "Why isn't it in the listing of prohibited items on the TSA internet site? Nor is it on the AA internet site ?". I have reviewed both on numerous occasions and as yet not seen any reference to prohibited gasoline powered equipment, only the supportive chemicals themselves. And where does it indicate that the FAA should be referenced as the primary prohibited items listing?

Since the TSA listing of such items is vague at best, perhaps it is in the best interest of the TSA, and commercial airlines to direct future travelers inquiring about such items to the FAA,,, after all how many travelers would you approximate actually refer to the FAA for the listing of prohibited items before embarking on a commercial flight.

This lack of conductive information from what should be the most common source (TSA) is obviously a problem, as any lack of information source is.

When I was in the process of checking in my luggage at AA, my suitcase was opened and inspected by an AA employee before it was put on the conveyer, the AA employee noticed the tag attached to the item which read: THIS ITEM DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, SIGNED BY: myself, with my address, home phone, and cell phone numbers, the AA employee did not indicate this was a problem, he then proceeded to put a labeled tape on the suitcase which read, AA Baggage.

An attached tag is common practice from working with the DOT for the DOD, and has become common practice in both the professional and private aspects of the numerous times I have traveled by air with tools and equipment.

As far as my experience with Emergency Engineering Tasks, only a small percentage were able to deploy by military transport, in most cases these tasks required immediate support by the common use of commercial air lines. ETR Launches do not wait for the next available military transport when an emergency repair action is warranted.

Additional note: This was the second generator of such, that I purchased, the first was purchased in FL. and transported in the same suitcase by commercial airlines to my place of residence and work location, Antigua Air Station West Indies.

Prior to such transport of this particular type of equipment it is S.O.P. to completely evacuate all potentially hazardous materials by pressurized air, wicking, and long term venting/draining, as per U.S. Air Force T.O.'s..
Basically your common household sewing machine contains more lubricant than my transported generators did.

Still the fact remains that the item was not accounted for, regardless of whether it was confiscated or not.

Negligence by the TSA is clearly indicated by the following facts:

1. The lack of accountability, and supportive documentation for what was Assumed to be Hazmat. How Is It Possible To Classify An Item That Cannot Be Accounted For ???

2. The lack of information by the TSA to publish what should be a general indication in the prohibited items listing under the tools classification for All travelers to reference.
You are not required to check with the maritime services prior to traveling on a ship.
Where is it indicated a airline passenger should consult with the FAA prior to travel.

I would be very interested to see where such regulations regarding these particular types of items (gasoline powered tools) are commonly located for All travelers to reference...
In addition I would like to see when such revisions for the aforementioned classification of such equipment was established.

In order to make an accusation that insufficient research was the cause of the problem; you first need to have made such information accessible through common channels that the general public generally can refer to. Why should the TSA Not Be One Of Them???

Air Travelers have been transporting gas powered hobby equipment for decades to Air and boat shows around the world. My generator was no exception.

The TSA has created a non-supportive response to cover what is most likely to be a case of human error on their part.

Again, If The Law Was In Fact Broken, Where Is The Supporting Documentation???
After all we are not talking about a can of hair spay here?

Still Classified as Robbed by the TSA...
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#24 Consumer Comment

From the FAA Brochure

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

From the FAA Brochure - Is it safe - What to pack, what to leave back:

Other hazardous materials -

Dry ice, gasoline-powered tools, wet-cell
batteries, camping equipment with fuel,
radioactive materials (except limited quantities), poisons, infectious substances.

Note: Gasoline powered tools. The FAA prohibits the item from being carried aboard the aircraft as carry on or in checked luggage. TSA screeners are subject to FAA guidelines and acted appropriately. While you may be aware of instances in which they checked for the actual presence of hazardous substances in gasoline powered tools it is not reasonable to expect this to occur as the flight has a schedule to keep.

As for this being allowed in your experience while with the DOD you know full well that the military is often subject to different standards and regulations, especially in "emergency engineering level repair missions."

Most gasoline powered generators are shipped from the manufacturer with motor oil added. Even in the absence of gasoline in a brand new engine it is likely motor oil was present. Motor oil is flammable and a hazard to flight.

You do not have to abandon the item. If the item was confiscated the TSA will not return it or honor your claim.

While you may not feel their actions were appropriate the TSA screeners followed FAA guidelines as the generator is SPEFICALLY prohibited. There is no ripoff here, simply a lack of advance research on your part regarding transportation of this item.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#25 Consumer Comment

From the FAA Brochure

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

From the FAA Brochure - Is it safe - What to pack, what to leave back:

Other hazardous materials -

Dry ice, gasoline-powered tools, wet-cell
batteries, camping equipment with fuel,
radioactive materials (except limited quantities), poisons, infectious substances.

Note: Gasoline powered tools. The FAA prohibits the item from being carried aboard the aircraft as carry on or in checked luggage. TSA screeners are subject to FAA guidelines and acted appropriately. While you may be aware of instances in which they checked for the actual presence of hazardous substances in gasoline powered tools it is not reasonable to expect this to occur as the flight has a schedule to keep.

As for this being allowed in your experience while with the DOD you know full well that the military is often subject to different standards and regulations, especially in "emergency engineering level repair missions."

Most gasoline powered generators are shipped from the manufacturer with motor oil added. Even in the absence of gasoline in a brand new engine it is likely motor oil was present. Motor oil is flammable and a hazard to flight.

You do not have to abandon the item. If the item was confiscated the TSA will not return it or honor your claim.

While you may not feel their actions were appropriate the TSA screeners followed FAA guidelines as the generator is SPEFICALLY prohibited. There is no ripoff here, simply a lack of advance research on your part regarding transportation of this item.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#26 Consumer Comment

From the FAA Brochure

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

From the FAA Brochure - Is it safe - What to pack, what to leave back:

Other hazardous materials -

Dry ice, gasoline-powered tools, wet-cell
batteries, camping equipment with fuel,
radioactive materials (except limited quantities), poisons, infectious substances.

Note: Gasoline powered tools. The FAA prohibits the item from being carried aboard the aircraft as carry on or in checked luggage. TSA screeners are subject to FAA guidelines and acted appropriately. While you may be aware of instances in which they checked for the actual presence of hazardous substances in gasoline powered tools it is not reasonable to expect this to occur as the flight has a schedule to keep.

As for this being allowed in your experience while with the DOD you know full well that the military is often subject to different standards and regulations, especially in "emergency engineering level repair missions."

Most gasoline powered generators are shipped from the manufacturer with motor oil added. Even in the absence of gasoline in a brand new engine it is likely motor oil was present. Motor oil is flammable and a hazard to flight.

You do not have to abandon the item. If the item was confiscated the TSA will not return it or honor your claim.

While you may not feel their actions were appropriate the TSA screeners followed FAA guidelines as the generator is SPEFICALLY prohibited. There is no ripoff here, simply a lack of advance research on your part regarding transportation of this item.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#27 Consumer Comment

From the FAA Brochure

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

From the FAA Brochure - Is it safe - What to pack, what to leave back:

Other hazardous materials -

Dry ice, gasoline-powered tools, wet-cell
batteries, camping equipment with fuel,
radioactive materials (except limited quantities), poisons, infectious substances.

Note: Gasoline powered tools. The FAA prohibits the item from being carried aboard the aircraft as carry on or in checked luggage. TSA screeners are subject to FAA guidelines and acted appropriately. While you may be aware of instances in which they checked for the actual presence of hazardous substances in gasoline powered tools it is not reasonable to expect this to occur as the flight has a schedule to keep.

As for this being allowed in your experience while with the DOD you know full well that the military is often subject to different standards and regulations, especially in "emergency engineering level repair missions."

Most gasoline powered generators are shipped from the manufacturer with motor oil added. Even in the absence of gasoline in a brand new engine it is likely motor oil was present. Motor oil is flammable and a hazard to flight.

You do not have to abandon the item. If the item was confiscated the TSA will not return it or honor your claim.

While you may not feel their actions were appropriate the TSA screeners followed FAA guidelines as the generator is SPEFICALLY prohibited. There is no ripoff here, simply a lack of advance research on your part regarding transportation of this item.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#28 Consumer Suggestion

Should have asked first

AUTHOR: Mike - (U.S.A.)

That's a very unusual item to put in luggage. "Aafes" is exactly right that the TSA is not going to determine if it contains any gasoline or not. It is not their job. When an item is potentially dangerous they will reject it. You needed to clear it first and possibly fill out some paperwork, etc.

Even if brand new the factory usually has fueled them up for testing and then emptied most of the gasoline out. But even a tiny amount of gasoline can form an explosive situation in a confined space. If I were on that plane I'd be glad it wasn't in the cargo hold.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#29 Author of original report

Still Classified as Robbed by The T.S.A.

AUTHOR: Robert V - (U.S.A.)

Response:
Where does it state in the TSA list of restricted items you cannot check in gasoline power tools devoid of Hazmats ? Or for that matter any gas powered items, for an example: items such as hobby gas powered cars, planes, rockets, and or boats.

Being in the service of the D.O.D. for better than twenty years I can recall a multitude of emergency engineering level repair missions, national and international that required our engineers to pack gasoline powered equipment devoid of all Hazmats. And yes there were a few incidents when the equipment was in question, especially after 911, the final result usually turned up a negative on the presence of Hazmats, and the equipment was returned.

I cannot concur with what seems to be your opinion on TSA not being responsible for determining if Hazmats are present or not, an item cannot be assumed to be or containing hazmat, it either does or does not contain hazmats, and the process of determination will conclude if it is in fact hazardous, from sewing machine oil to plastic explosives.

The history of the TSA clearly indicates that it has seized, tested and made such determinations as to suspect the presence hazardous materials.
Your additional information on Hazmats was not necessary; I am very familiar with the MSDS and the many sources from which they derive.

As to shipping of this item, it was far more practical to carry this item along with my other power tools, than to take a chance sending them to a third world country (The D.R.) by mail, and paying 100% duty, or more to get them checked out of customs, if the tools made the trip at all.

And just for the record, I reported the item missing to AA when I reached the D.R., and to the TSA upon my return to the U.S., at no time can this item ever have been classified abandoned.

If it in fact it was determined to contain hazardous material, I understand that I would have been subject to prosecution, no determination was ever brought to my attention.
Interesting enough is the fact that the TSA made a conclusion without ever locating the item, as it was reported missing.

STILL CLASSIFIED: ROBBED BY THE TSA(Twisted Security Administration)
Their record speaks for itself?
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#30 Consumer Comment

TSA is correct

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

TSA was correct. You sought to transport a gasoline powered generator on a commercial airline. TSA would not know, nor is it their responsibility to determine if there was gasoline present in the fuel tank or not, at the very least the engine had oil in it from the manufacturer.

USDOT Hazmat information:

Class 3: Flammable liquids.
Division 3.1 Flashpoint below -18oC (0oF)
Division 3.2 Flashpoint -18oC and above, but less than 23oC (73oF)
Division 3.3 Flashpoint 23oC and up to 61oC (141oF)

If you needed this item you should have shipped it seperate from your flight. TSA adheres to FAA rules in regards to hazardous material. As for returning or paying you back for the item:

Items that are voluntarily abandoned or confiscated by a law enforcement officer cannot be recovered and will not be returned to you. Property claims for these items will also be denied by TSA.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC


Ripoff Report Legal Directory