|
Jiro Kage posted:I also cannot pass polygraphs for some reason - 6 separate polygraphs and all said I was lying on a different question. I have no idea why, but there is nothing I can do about it. I would take NCIS in a heartbeat if I could make it in. Are you sure they aren't just telling you this? I'm pretty sure one tactic they use is to tell you that you failed in hopes you will 'come clean' about something. I mean if they think you truly failed would they kept you actively working?
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Isn't a polygraph about as effective as a ouija board?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:Are you sure they aren't just telling you this? I'm pretty sure one tactic they use is to tell you that you failed in hopes you will 'come clean' about something. I mean if they think you truly failed would they kept you actively working? I'm actually pretty sure because I happened to know a few people that worked inside the agencies that pulled my results. Then reports were "inconclusive", which technically means that they can't fail you, but I guess the rules are so fuzzy that they can do whatever they want. A lot of guys from my agency were getting inconclusives and being rejected, so I kinda think they might not want us for some reason. I don't really know, but it was most definitely the polygraph. quote:Isn't a polygraph about as effective as a ouija board? Anything that fails to screen out sociopaths and psychopaths but keep out good candidates is a broken rear end technique.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Jiro Kage posted:Anything that fails to screen out sociopaths and psychopaths but keep out good candidates is a broken rear end technique. There is a good reason polygraphs aren't admissible as court evidence anymore. Why federal agencies still rely on them, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Lareine posted:There is a good reason polygraphs aren't admissible as court evidence anymore. Why federal agencies still rely on them, I don't know. Same reason the newspaper still has horoscopes in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
They are a useful interrogation tool, not a useful truth determining tool. So, basically no better than the copier in The Wire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Lareine posted:There is a good reason polygraphs aren't admissible as court evidence anymore. Why federal agencies still rely on them, I don't know. Partially because it gives them the ability to cut people from the hiring process at will since they aren't required to provide results. Partially because they actually have a pretty strong lobbying section through FLEOA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:They are a useful interrogation tool, not a useful truth determining tool. So, basically no better than the copier in The Wire. I love any excuse to post this scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
I love that fact that that scene was apparently based on real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
I'm not surprised. My last polygraph went two hours late and the guy kept saying " You have to give me something to justify this result!" I kept saying there WAS nothing because I had told him the truth, but he kept coming back to it. Finally, I sighed, stood up and said that I had a plane to catch, and since I wasn't lying I could either make something up to tell him so I can leave, or he just had to fail me on the spot because I had nothing to tell him. It came back inconclusive as all the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Jiro Kage posted:Anything that fails to screen out sociopaths and psychopaths but keep out good candidates is a broken rear end technique. That's not completely true about sociopaths and psychopaths or anyone else that knows techniques for passing. If you're a sociopath you can still get caught if the questions get you to the point where it's about you going to prison or whatever punishment because that can raise the stress levels even though you can get by the ones that ask if you did something or not. You just have to have someone that knows what they're doing when giving the interview. I'm tried to simplify this as best I could because it's not at all cut and dry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:You just have to have someone that knows what they're doing when giving the interview. Polygraphs can detect lying at slightly better than chance when looking at the general population, but the evidence is pretty firm that they can be gamed, even with experienced practitioners at the wheel. The fact that you can catch people on occasion doesn't excuse the high numbers of false positives and false negatives. It's appalling that numerous government agencies use polygraphs and pretend they're useful for anything more than a carnival trick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Hey OP, I currently work in a field that has overlap with VIPR and FAMs and I had considered going over to the FAM side so thanks for confirming that it's nearly as lovely as the rest of DHS. There is so, SO much potential and money that is not being used well. I agree that emerging models that are all about pre-screening is key and Neffinger (the new TSA administrator) has some very common-sense ideas. For instance, he's mostly gotten rid of Managed Inclusion at TSA checkpoints because it was obvious that herding thousands of people through expidited screening for paper-thin reasons was only to serve efficiency models and not actual screening. The entire agency needs a very serious overhaul. My friends on that side have said for years that they were going to get a proper academy but it sounds like the higher ups know that a significant percentage of the workforce would wash out and they couldn't hire replacements fast enough. The change that is necessary will be very painful but better for everyone. Do you guys remember those machines that would fire air at you to allegedly check for explosives? I heard the agency wasted tens of millions of dollars on tech that they knew didn't work because some senator got a kickback from the manufacturer. Not sure how much of that is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:
Pretty sure it's the same IMS in the Itemiser and Sabre, just instead of sampling a wipe it's counting on air puffs to dislodge particles and suck them into the sensor. If anything I'd expect it to be slightly worse than the Itemiser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:Do you guys remember those machines that would fire air at you to allegedly check for explosives? I heard the agency wasted tens of millions of dollars on tech that they knew didn't work because some senator got a kickback from the manufacturer. Not sure how much of that is true. The version I heard was that it was the full body xray scanners and it was the head of the TSA (or DHS?) that was getting kickbacks for pushing it. Also no one bothered to check to see if they actually worked cause they just took him at his word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:Hey OP, I currently work in a field that has overlap with VIPR and FAMs and I had considered going over to the FAM side so thanks for confirming that it's nearly as lovely as the rest of DHS. Cool! VIPR was a great gig, but only partially because they gave me free reign to develop a program we were supposed to, but not actually doing, into a full fledged daily part of VIPR. The TSA actually more or less took away the FAM training center in Atlantic city. There used to be a large building right next to the ranges where there was classroom training, a gym, the airplane cockpit simulators, and the instructor offices. The TSA took that over, got rid of all the FAM stuff, and is using it for ???????. At least they didn't throw away the fantastic ranges that they had there. The story was that it was an attempt to tie themselves in with the FAMS tighter because the attempt to separate them from the TSA was gaining a significant amount of traction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:but the evidence is pretty firm that they can be gamed, even with experienced practitioners at the wheel. And I didn't mean that at all. Like I said, I was only talking about one situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Are there any airlines that you particularly liked or disliked working on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Is there a FAMS-like agency for passenger ships? Sure, you can't ram a cruise ship into tall buildings, but the passengers could still be shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
People can get shot anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are there any airlines that you particularly liked or disliked working on? The flight attendants and people that ran southwest were fantastic. They pretty much gave us carte blanche to do procedures however we wanted. I flew United most of the time, and that was totally hit and miss. I think most of the flight attendants there were pretty jaded due to their administration treating them like garbage. At least, that's the impression I got from most of them. Hawaiian airlines had the nicest planes and very nice flight attendants also, as did Virgin airlines in general. I think the one I disliked the most was American because most of the flight attendants there seemed very snooty, but that was a pretty rare trip for me on an American flight. I heard Spirit airlines used to give our guys poo poo because they would try to charge them for talking to the gate agent, which simply would not happen. quote:Is there a FAMS-like agency for passenger ships? Sure, you can't ram a cruise ship into tall buildings, but the passengers could still be shot. Well, remember keeping passengers from being shot is not the #1 mission. The #1 mission is to prevent an airliner from becoming a cruise missile in a downtown metropolitan area. That being said, I don't know if there is any agreement in place for ships like the Tokyo convention, which lays out rules and regulations for passenger aircraft. I would imagine if anyone had jurisdiction on this it would be the Coast Guard but only inside territorial waters or US flagged vessels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Jiro Kage posted:The flight attendants and people that ran southwest were fantastic. They pretty much gave us carte blanche to do procedures however we wanted. I flew United most of the time, and that was totally hit and miss. I think most of the flight attendants there were pretty jaded due to their administration treating them like garbage. At least, that's the impression I got from most of them. Hawaiian airlines had the nicest planes and very nice flight attendants also, as did Virgin airlines in general. I think the one I disliked the most was American because most of the flight attendants there seemed very snooty, but that was a pretty rare trip for me on an American flight. I heard Spirit airlines used to give our guys poo poo because they would try to charge them for talking to the gate agent, which simply would not happen. Don't answer this if you can't, obviously, but did you ever work on an Air Canada flight? For some reason, they keep getting all kinds of awards for service, but as a frequent customer, I certainly don't think they deserve it. What is it I'm not seeing? United was way better, because at least I didn't have the nagging feeling that the F/As literally wanted me to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
The Lufthansa crew always amazed me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Do flight attendant uniforms do anything for you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Don't answer this if you can't, obviously, but did you ever work on an Air Canada flight? For some reason, they keep getting all kinds of awards for service, but as a frequent customer, I certainly don't think they deserve it. What is it I'm not seeing? United was way better, because at least I didn't have the nagging feeling that the F/As literally wanted me to suffer. I think you just haven't flown United enough. Granted, I only flew AirCanada once, but I was connecting through the Toronto Christmas Ice storms a few years back and they got me a hotel room. That's worth an award in my book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Lareine posted:There is a good reason polygraphs aren't admissible as court evidence anymore. Why federal agencies still rely on them, I don't know. I just had a polygraph recently for my clearance and they basically use it to see if they need to do a deeper dive or not. Someone who fails the poo poo out of one generally either gets their life extra looked at or failed out. Per posted:Is there a FAMS-like agency for passenger ships? Sure, you can't ram a cruise ship into tall buildings, but the passengers could still be shot. passenger ships are generally handled by navies but don't carry weapons. They do have the giant water hoses for pirates however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Per posted:Is there a FAMS-like agency for passenger ships? Sure, you can't ram a cruise ship into tall buildings, but the passengers could still be shot. You could have an incident like Speed 2 happen or more realistically, blow it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
You've mentioned blowing your cover a few times, but how serious does something need to be for you to step up? Any guidelines, formal or informal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Don't answer this if you can't, obviously, but did you ever work on an Air Canada flight? A united states air marshal doesn't work on other country's airlines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:A united states air marshal doesn't work on other country's airlines. Hmm, I thought they might have if they were arriving in the US regardless of the aircraft's registration or operator. I heard this morning, though, not only does Canada have its own "sky marshals," but apparently Air Canada is in the process of throwing a hissy fit about having to cover their expenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Hmm, I thought they might have if they were arriving in the US regardless of the aircraft's registration or operator. I heard this morning, though, not only does Canada have its own "sky marshals," but apparently Air Canada is in the process of throwing a hissy fit about having to cover their expenses. Heaven forbid they comp some flights to make their traveling experience safer for passengers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
That 3000 sqft chalet at Whistler isn't gonna pay for itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Heaven forbid they comp some flights to make their traveling experience safer for passengers. They claim that since marshals can pick any seat they want, and kick a customer out of it, they've had to pay up $100 million in less than 15 years in compensation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
I'm sure someone has already reminded Air Canada that they only still exist because the government keeps bailing them out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Nothing really to add other than Canada was pretty chill to US Air Marshals that were transiting there. It was one of the better places to go through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
When I was a gate agent I always liked the FAMs. Like you said on page one, there's a surprising amount of diversity of backgrounds. The last one I talked to was this super hipster guy, and before that I'd talked to guys that would dress super casual to be comfortable and blend in, and other guys who just looked like normal business dads, and other guys who looked like athletes, and so on. They all came off as ex-military, and would often bullshit with pilots (who were almost all ex-military) about where they were stationed or whatever. Compared to how miserable everyone in the TSA seemed, all the FAMs were pretty chill and usually just flashed the badge, asked how I was doing, and requested a heads up for the priority boarding. I hear you on how much you say it grinds on you, but maybe I just got lucky and interacted only with people who were just rounding out careers in government and didn't mind the bureaucracy as long as the payout was a sweet federal retirement package.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
This is all super interesting - thanks for sharing! As a fed who flies often I appreciate the work y'all do behind the scenes so that nothing happens in front of the scenes...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Was it your job to escort individual federal inmates traveling to a different prison/ court while they were on the plane, or did the marshalls with the division of corrections handle that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:Was it your job to escort individual federal inmates traveling to a different prison/ court while they were on the plane, or did the marshalls with the division of corrections handle that? US Marshals have their own planes for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Prisoner_and_Alien_Transportation_System
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Craptacular posted:US Marshals have their own planes for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Prisoner_and_Alien_Transportation_System I saw a movie about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:10
|
|