Practical Travel Safety Issues - How to avoid being separated from your luggage during an opt-out?

I used to fly all the time, and I've had my own battles with the TSA over the years. A few years ago, I'd had enough and transferred into a job title where I no longer have to travel. I've been enjoying avoiding the TSA.

Until this weekend. I had to fly AUS->JFK and back again. I knew AUS had finally installed the pornoscanners, though they seem to be the new sort that only uses the gumby image. JFK uses the old style.

What I wasn't prepared for was the additional hassle. Lines at AUS have increased at least 100% since these devices were installed. I can't remember security taking longer than half an hour except on special days, this was just a run-of-the-mill Thursday and it still took an hour.

I digress. My biggest concern was that at both airports when I opted out, I was immediately separated from luggage and placed in an area where I could no longer view my luggage. Moving where I could see it absolutely enraged the TSA agents in Austin and they took their sweet time waiting for someone to come over and grope me. I watched at least one guy try to walk off with my luggage before my girlfriend (who got through first and quicker) stopped them. It would have been a nightmare had I been traveling alone. The supervisor took the attitude of, "guess you shouldn't opt out then."

Similar things happened at JFK except I got through quicker and the GF and I coordinated so that one of us was able to keep an eye on things at all times. Still no idea how I should handle it in the future.

What am I supposed to do? They tell me to never leave my bags unattended, then force me to do so if I want to skip having nudie pictures taken of myself.

I was immediately separated from luggage and placed in an area where I could no longer view my luggage. Moving where I could see it absolutely enraged the TSA agents in Austin and they took their sweet time waiting for someone to come over and grope me. I watched at least one guy try to walk off with my luggage before my girlfriend (who got through first and quicker) stopped them. It would have been a nightmare had I been traveling alone. The supervisor took the attitude of, "guess you shouldn't opt out then."

The TSA's own website says to insist that you be able to see your luggage at all times. I always opt out, and if I can't see my belongings, I tell the TSO as much, then tell them that I'm moving over a few feet to where I can, and then I do so. Don't make it a question, just state your intentions and do it. If the TSO freaks out because you moved three feet to the left, tough dookie for them. And if I were to observe someone trying to steal my luggage off the line, TSA be damned, I'm running over there and taking them down myself.

The "guess you shouldn't opt out then" attitude is totally unacceptable. While the actions involved with an opt-out frequently are punitive in nature, they're not supposed to be. If that line is a direct quote, you should have asked for a three-striper (an actual supervisor--many two-stripers will refer to themselves as the "supervisor") immediately. If you were already dealing with someone wearing three stripes, take a look at their ID, address them by name and number (two reasons: one, it helps you remember their number, and two, it REALLY drives them nuts), and tell them that you would like a comment card. They're not supposed to refuse to give you one, but occasionally one will. If that happens, tell them that you expect either a comment card or the FSD to be presented to you within the next 30 seconds. That also gets a great reaction. :D

Also, absolutely opt out at JFK. They use backscatter x-ray scanners as opposed to the (theoretically) safer MMW technology that AUS has.

Recently at JFK (Terminal 1) when I opted out, the TSA person made a point of saying we would wait until my carry-on bag (and jacket, etc.) had gone through the X-ray machine before moving off for the groping. He then collected all my stuff and asked me whether there was anything else coming through. It was all very professional and courteous.

When I calmly and politely told the TSA worker at LAX that I would need to stand where I could see my things, he rolled his eyes in a really exaggerated way and then announced to the others in a loud voice "We've got another crazy here." I had one at ORD get immediately belligerent. He literally shoved his face up to mine and started a routine about what do you think, we're thiefs? That's the type of behavior you can expect; doesn't really instill a lot of confidence in me that they know what their focus should be.

I had a run-in at DFW last week for the same reason. When I moved three feet over where I could see my belongings the screener went nuts and threatened to send me back outside and stand in line again. I wish I could have taken a picture of his face when I asked him if his reason for separating me from my belongings was to make it easier for the other screeners to steal my stuff.

If you know you are going to opt out and watching your bag may be a problem, just put a big bottle of water right on top just under the lid and seal it up with cable ties. They will watch it for you. When they open it say, "Oops, forgot that was in there."

The TSA's own website says to insist that you be able to see your luggage at all times. I always opt out, and if I can't see my belongings, I tell the TSO as much, then tell them that I'm moving over a few feet to where I can, and then I do so. Don't make it a question, just state your intentions and do it. If the TSO freaks out because you moved three feet to the left, tough dookie for them. And if I were to observe someone trying to steal my luggage off the line, TSA be damned, I'm running over there and taking them down myself.

Exactly. While I've never needed to do it that's how I would handle it. I'm keeping my luggage in view, if that puts me somewhere other than where they want me, too bad.

Also, absolutely opt out at JFK. They use backscatter x-ray scanners as opposed to the (theoretically) safer MMW technology that AUS has.

MMW doesn't bother me. I find the evidence of danger from low frequency stuff very lacking.

I was told at LAX
"sir if you opt out, you give up your right to see your belongings"

I said, ok, I ll just check that with a supervisor when we're done...

The low-rank continued with something about if its busy, it can happen, blah blah... I wasnt interested in more conversation.

As an aside, saw my first opt-out at LAX. 1 in 100,000 sheeple.

I was told at LAX
"sir if you opt out, you give up your right to see your belongings"

I said, ok, I ll just check that with a supervisor when we're done...

The low-rank continued with something about if its busy, it can happen, blah blah... I wasnt interested in more conversation.

As an aside, saw my first opt-out at LAX. 1 in 100,000 sheeple.

Did they try to force the opt-out through the scanners anyway? Had that happen to me twice there, where after opting out I've been instructed to go through the BKSX before my pat-down. Fun times arguing that point with LAX's particularly sorry excuses for TSA screeners.

Also, being told that opting out involves giving up the right to see belongings would prompt me to ask for a LEO to come over and watch them, because the TSOs are clearly planning to commit theft.

Just insist that you keep your things in view. The vast majority of TSA employees I've encountered seem to know the drill and acquiesce when I tell them I want to keep an eye on my things.

Last week in SEA, the lady told me to stand to the side where I couldn't see my things coming out of the xray. I moved over and said I'd like to stand here so I can see my bags. She pushed back, so I pushed back. As she didn't want to deal with my polite self (and I was polite), she just let me go on the other side of the gate. A few seconds later, a male TSA employee came over, asked me which bags were mine, collected them, and placed them on a table right in front of me as I was being patted down.

Lesson - don't act helpless. If anything, they generally don't want to deal with you and will just give in. It helps to be civil, if not polite. Being belligerent just primes them to treat you poorly.

Lesson - don't act helpless. If anything, they generally don't want to deal with you and will just give in. It helps to be civil, if not polite. Being belligerent just primes them to treat you poorly.Correct. If you can't see your stuff, simply refuse to "assume the position" for the grope. Impasse.

Correct. If you can't see your stuff, simply refuse to "assume the position" for the grope. Impasse.

Lesson - don't act helpless. If anything, they generally don't want to deal with you and will just give in. It helps to be civil, if not polite. Being belligerent just primes them to treat you poorly.
I treat people with the same level of respect that they treat me. That includes TSOs. Any interaction with them starts out pleasant on my part, and if they return the feeling, we're not going to have any problems. If I'm told to stand somewhere that I can't see my belongings, I'm going to move so that I can see my belongings. If they respond by acknowledging that, or even by ignoring me, that's the end of the conversation. It's when they feel the need to make a scene of it by yelling, shrieking, howling, screaming for divine intervention, whatever, that I ask for a supervisor. You'd be amazed how quickly a one-striper goes berserk when you ask for a supervisor, and you'd be equally amazed how quickly a two-striper with a bad attitude goes berserk when, after he's sat there and continued to insist that his screener was in the right by telling you not to move three feet to your left, you tell him that you asked for a supervisor and you want a supervisor, not a lead.

Treat others as you want to be treated. If screeners insist on treating me like a two-year-old, guess what? I insist on treating them like a disapproving parent.

Correct. If you can't see your stuff, simply refuse to "assume the position" for the grope. Impasse.

Not an impasse at all, as you're refusing to submit to screening at that point, and a supervisor with a God complex can have you escorted off the property.

..... Lines at AUS have increased at least 100% since these devices were installed. I can't remember security taking longer than half an hour except on special days, this was just a run-of-the-mill Thursday and it still took an hour. ... Maybe, ... but this probably was a "special day",
smack in the middle of AUS's biggest festival of the year.
All the TV stations were running warnings to get there 2 hours early.

.. Maybe, ... but this probably was a "special day",
smack in the middle of AUS's biggest festival of the year.
All the TV stations were running warnings to get there 2 hours early.
A special day for arrivals, sure. For departures, not so much. Other than the TSA lines, it didn't seem any busier than any other day I've been there. I have to fly out again before long, I'll see if the long lines hold true.

I may be on the wrong side of the consensus here, but I do NOT ask and I do not let them tell me where to stand unless it is a place where I can see my stuff.

I move myself to where I can watch my stuff. I do not move to place that in any way will violate the integrity of the process, but I will move to a place where I can see my stuff. They can scream and yell and coerce and threat. I do not care. I become a statue that can only say one thing: "Your SOP says that I must be able to keep my belongings in my sight. If you have a problem with that you need to get a supervisor and and LEO. I can see them fine right here."

I may have to test this on Friday. I saw they have the BSX here at BDL. UGH!

Not an impasse at all, as you're refusing to submit to screening at that point, and a supervisor with a God complex can have you escorted off the property.Only if they will not retrieve your belongings. They will.

I digress. My biggest concern was that at both airports when I opted out, I was immediately separated from luggage and placed in an area where I could no longer view my luggage. Moving where I could see it absolutely enraged the TSA agents in Austin and they took their sweet time waiting for someone to come over and grope me. I watched at least one guy try to walk off with my luggage before my girlfriend (who got through first and quicker) stopped them. It would have been a nightmare had I been traveling alone. The supervisor took the attitude of, "guess you shouldn't opt out then."

Similar things happened at JFK except I got through quicker and the GF and I coordinated so that one of us was able to keep an eye on things at all times. Still no idea how I should handle it in the future.

What am I supposed to do? They tell me to never leave my bags unattended, then force me to do so if I want to skip having nudie pictures taken of myself.

Austin has a real problem with this and other retaliation. I simply avoid it any more, using either SAT or driving to DFW depending on where I'm headed. By the time you deal with the TERM DELETED BY MODERATOR , the longer lines with the strip-search machines, and the "we're at war with citizens" attitude, as well as the flight time, DFW isn't that much further.

I may be on the wrong side of the consensus here, but I do ask and I do not let them tell me where to stand unless it is a place where I can see my stuff.

I move myself to where I can watch my stuff. I do not move to place that in any way will violate the integrity of the process, but I will move to a place where I can see my stuff. They can scream and yell and coerce and threat. I do not care. I become a statue that can only say one thing: "Your SOP says that I must be able to keep my belongings in my sight. If you have a problem with that you need to get a supervisor and and LEO. I can see them fine right here."


Likewise. I usually get an objection (including one who fussed that I was standing in front of the WTMD and didn't like it one bit when I told her that they weren't using it so I wasn't blocking anything).

I had one at ORD get immediately belligerent. He literally shoved his face up to mine and started a routine about what do you think, we're thiefs?

We don't need to think it. There is more than enough evidence to prove they are!

And if one asked me that I'd tell them so.

Also, it's usualy the people who object loudest about not being thiefs, who ARE the thiefs. The regular people know it's being resonably cautious.

Only if they will not retrieve your belongings. They will.

Ofcourse, if you wait till they bring it over it'll be half empty by then.

No, the only thing to do is move to where you can see your stuff. If they object, call for a LEO imedeatley.

I have edited my post 16 above to add a very important word that I left out.

That said, when I opt out of the BSX or the non-ATR MMW, I do not just say "I opt out." I say, "I opt out and I need to be able to see my belongings. I will move to a place where I can and if that is a problem get your supervisor and an LEO as your SOP requires that I keep visual contact with my belongings." And then I do.

Do they get huffy? Usually. Do I care? No.

I have edited my post 16 above to add a very important word that I left out.

That said, when I opt out of the BSX or the non-ATR MMW, I do not just say "I opt out." I say, "I opt out and I need to be able to see my belongings. I will move to a place where I can and if that is a problem get your supervisor and an LEO as your SOP requires that I keep visual contact with my belongings." And then I do.

Do they get huffy? Usually. Do I care? No.
That's kind of a harsh way to start the conversation, though. Goes back to mutual respect--if your interaction with a normally level-headed TSO starts out that way, it's not going to get any better. Start out by being the bigger man/woman and showing them courtesy while being firm on your intentions. If someone were to walk into my office and immediately threaten to summon my boss and a LEO, I'd have an attitude too.

That's kind of a harsh way to start the conversation, though. Goes back to mutual respect--if your interaction with a normally level-headed TSO starts out that way, it's not going to get any better. Start out by being the bigger man/woman and showing them courtesy while being firm on your intentions. If someone were to walk into my office and immediately threaten to summon my boss and a LEO, I'd have an attitude too.

I really do not care if they get an attitude. I want them to do their job within the guidelines laid out for them. When they find I know them, it makes them less likely to cop an attitude.

I say it nicely and with a smile. If they take it wrong they should not be working in a job that deals with the public. It is not a threat. They have the opportunity to do their job within defined guidelines and I am giving them the opportunity to do so while at the same time letting them know I know the limits of their authority and am not cowed into submission of their blue uniform and tin badge. They need to know the repercussions of their decision. It is their choice to escalate or say, "You are quite correct, sir. Please feel free to do what you need to do to watch your belongings."

By the way, mutual respect has no application at the CP. They do not respect me and I reciprocate. I can still be nice and deal with them in a businesslike manner. It is not a social event. Their own procedures create an adversarial relationship.

Finally, if you and I were in the process of a difficult business negotiation, the first thing I would do is lay out the ground rules as I understand them and suggest if you disagree, that you might indeed need to get someone that had the authority to act if you do not. If you take that wrong, then I would make no apology. I very often end up in very difficult situations to resolve involving multiple competing interests across departments or even companies. It is hard to do without a firm understanding of the responsibilities and limits laid out at the onset of the process.

At the CP, I am not there not there to be nice or make friends. I am there to successfully move through a process that is fraught with potential legal repercussions and loss of considerable valuable property.

That's kind of a harsh way to start the conversation, though. Goes back to mutual respect--if your interaction with a normally level-headed TSO starts out that way, it's not going to get any better. Start out by being the bigger man/woman and showing them courtesy while being firm on your intentions. If someone were to walk into my office and immediately threaten to summon my boss and a LEO, I'd have an attitude too.

Yeah, I wouldn't start out hostile. Act like you assume they'll do it right, only make an issue if they don't.

Yeah, I wouldn't start out hostile. Act like you assume they'll do it right, only make an issue if they don't.

I am not hostile. I state the situation. It is very difficult to write words in an internet forum while including the attitude with which they are said. I can do hostile, but this is not the place. It is also not the place to concede what little power of negotiation that one has. The purpose of the statement, said in a non-hostile statement of fact, is to establish my understanding of the situation with the TSO. If what I state is a true representation of the situation, then the TSO should have no problem with that. If one starts the encounter in a subservient manner, it is very difficult to regain the high ground.

Again, it is not a social situation. I am not there to make friends and have no interest in doing so. It is a process involving potential legal liability and the protection of over $15,000 of difficult to replace electronics. Both the TSO and I have responsibilities to do the process correctly. I simply want them to know immediately that I am aware of their responsibilities as well as they are and that deviation from their own standard will get no toleration from me.

Many of the interactions that go horribly wrong are due to the passenger beginning the process in an attitude of submission, trying to be friendly and compliant, or hoping that the TSO will do the right thing and giving over complete authority to them. I simply do not begin that way.

Over 400 TSA Officers and employees have been arrested and charged with crimes against the passengers they serve. Don't let a con-artist TSO act "belligerent" while he's stealing your stuff.

Secure your stuff as best as possible and watch it like a hawk. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I always opt-out, and I always insist on watching my stuff.

There's another place where the TSA likes to steal: When they pick up a bag for a re-scan, that's a place where they steal things. Like this TSO who would steal cash out of passenger wallets using that technique. (http://shinybadge.com/2012/03/aloha-hawaiian-tsa-agent-arrested-for-stealing-money-from-passenger/) Those few seconds behind the scanner are enough for them to get your things.

The TSA has proven itself to be a criminal enterprise. The TSA used to release statistics. As of 2008, the TSA admitted to 200 arrests for theft alone. (Here's the story on their own website (http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/tsa-our-officers-public-and-theft.html).) (They aren't counting here the ones arrested for child rape (http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child_rape_charge_rocks_tsa_logan_employee _pats_down_air_travelers_at_scan_stations), or dealing heroin (http://shinybadge.com/2012/03/tsa-agent-arrested-for-dealing-heroin-in-uniform-near-an-elementary-school/).)

You are dealing with a proven criminal organization, according to their own website! Watch your bags like a hawk!

I just point out at the moment they tell me where to stand that I will go where I need to surely see my belongings, in a friendly, but concerned tone. If they resist, I remind them that is there policy and are welcome to get me the supervisor! That is usually with a firm tone. If they block my view or someone else does, I move so I can see the end of the belt, usually stepping to the side a little, if I have to. Even if it bothers them. I don't get upset. I try to appear what think is friendly, but firm about my rights, and their procedure.

Finally, if you and I were in the process of a difficult business negotiation, the first thing I would do is lay out the ground rules as I understand them and suggest if you disagree, that you might indeed need to get someone that had the authority to act if you do not. If you take that wrong, then I would make no apology. I very often end up in very difficult situations to resolve involving multiple competing interests across departments or even companies. It is hard to do without a firm understanding of the responsibilities and limits laid out at the onset of the process.
You and I would not do well in a difficult business negotiation. If that were someone's first comment to me (and I'm the head negotiator for the deals I'm involved in at my company), my response would be to get up, hand them a business card, and tell them to call me back when they're interested in handling this like an adult instead of making insulting comments from the get-go.

I am not hostile. I state the situation. It is very difficult to write words in an internet forum while including the attitude with which they are said.
I agree with you there. The red flag for me is saying it all at once. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I opt out, and I need to be somewhere that I can see my belongings." That's a simple statement of fact that's not aggressive at all, and it lays the groundwork for you to escalate if the screener refuses your request. There's nothing wrong with the second statement being, "Your SOP says I need to be able to see my belongings, and I'm moving to where I can. If that's an issue, call your supervisor and a LEO," I just wouldn't start out with that. Remember, the screener has no actual authority, but they can retaliate by making sure that your life is a living hell getting through that checkpoint, and there's nothing you can do about it other than file a comment card, which goes into the TSA's circular file.

FWIW, I flew out of AUS a week and a half ago, 3/8, at around 1. I did get to skip the main line thanks to my first class pass, but I noticed the lines were significantly longer than usual (I assumed due to the scanners, as well.)

After opting-out (per my norm), they actually opened up the little side plastic gate separating the metal detector line from the backscatter line, moved me through, scanned my stuff, and automatically picked it up and brought it over to me at the chairs. I didn't even have to ask, so that was nice.

However, I couldn't help but laugh when I realized that after my patdown was completed (by a kid who couldn't have been more than 18) that they never wanded/scanned me at all. By bypassing the metal detector to get me to the patdown area, I figure they sacrificed the only real defense (besides the passengers) airlines have these days. Still can't believe that the only security check I got was a patdown from an awkward 18 year old (for reference...I'm a 23 year old male.)

You and I would not do well in a difficult business negotiation. If that were someone's first comment to me (and I'm the head negotiator for the deals I'm involved in at my company), my response would be to get up, hand them a business card, and tell them to call me back when they're interested in handling this like an adult instead of making insulting comments from the get-go.




First, what comments that I made were insulting?

I have thought about this today, and I have moved towards your position a bit. Yes, the splitting of the remarks into separate comments is preferable, but it may not be possible. In my specific case there are limiting factors. I am significantly hearing impaired, and questions and answers at the checkpoint are often impossible. I often can not communicate in a two-way fashion in a noisy area.

And, I would like to play off of your office analogy because it was a good one.

When we step into the checkpoint we indeed step into their "office" as you put it. However, we are there for a specific reason and they have a specific number of ways to handle our immediate presence. They can send us to the WTMD, the scanner, or a random pat down. They have that discretion.

An opt out, on the other hand, is not within their discretion and asking for one creates the adversarial relationship. The words said by me to accompany that are intended to clarify the situation as I understand it.

Let's suppose that in your job you deal with customers or vendors or whatever. You have within your discretion three distinct ways of dealing with them. Let's say it is a vendor. You tell the vendor that he is to do a certain thing to complete the process. He objects and states his preference, a perfectly legitimate one, but not one that is within your discretion to offer. It is also one that requires you to hand the vendor off to other people, several people perhaps, and will involve more time and resources. It disrupts the process flow and creates a bottleneck. The organization is not readily prepared to handle this change. You may balk. The vendor then asks for your supervisor as he knows he may ask for this process. That is the effect of an opt out.

As to whether we could do well in a business negotiation, I think we would be fine. You would be better prepared than the average TSO, I would not be expecting a belittlement or harassment, you would not be in a position to steal my stuff while I am not looking, and we each would have forwarded open documents of the process to each other so that we were in complete understanding of what to expect, and where to begin. Quite unlike the CP.

Also a bit different: I do not negotiate deals. I participate in the detection of problems and communicate the causes and corrections. Often that cause is across the table from me.

I am not hostile. I state the situation.

Threatening to call the police is always going to be seen as a hostile comment. It doesn't matter what the situation is, mentioning that you might summon the cops is going to ensure that the TSO takes a hostile attitude toward you even if he/she wouldn't have otherwise.

If there are any problems, then by all means do what you have to do. But when people act like a jerk for no reason, TSOs start assuming that all passengers who opt out are like that, and start treating them accordingly. I know you probably don't care, but that's the reality.

Threatening to call the police is always going to be seen as a hostile comment. It doesn't matter what the situation is, mentioning that you might summon the cops is going to ensure that the TSO takes a hostile attitude toward you even if he/she wouldn't have otherwise.

If there are any problems, then by all means do what you have to do. But when people act like a jerk for no reason, TSOs start assuming that all passengers who opt out are like that, and start treating them accordingly. I know you probably don't care, but that's the reality.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I am not threatening to call an LEO. I am asking the TSO to call one if they have an objection to my seeing my belongings. It is their option. Let me see my belongings or get a supervisor and and LEO. His choice. Period. I DO NOT want a supervisor or an LEO. I want him to follow SOP.

this is a REALLY important issue. Many of us who opt out want to know from others what works and what might not when trying to keep our belongings within sight. So please keep the cross talk to a minimum....I'd really like the thread to stay here with practical info.

thanks

squeakr

co Mod TS/S

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I am not threatening to call an LEO. I am asking the TSO to call one if they have an objection to my seeing my belongings.

Yes, I know what you said, but when you are talking to someone in person, the two are going to sound the same. The TSO is not going to hear every word you say and analyze it using the kind of "reading comprehension skills" that people on this forum use to read your post. Once you mention "law enforcement officer", most normal people are going to assume that you are threatening to call one, even if that isn't actually what you said.

There have been a couple of cases when I have had to request to stand somewhere where I could see my belongings. I have always done it politely, and never had a problem. I would not hesitate to firmly refer to the SOP and ask for a supervisor or LEO if necessary, but it has never been necessary.

I see no point in using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. I keep the sledgehammer prepared if it is needed.

this is a REALLY important issue. Many of us who opt out want to know from others what works and what might not when trying to keep our belongings within sight. So please keep the cross talk to a minimum....I'd really like the thread to stay here with practical info.

thanks

squeakr

co Mod TS/S

"I opt out."
"Stand right here. MALE ASSIST!"
"I cannot see my belongings. I am moving X feet to my left/right so that I am able to, and then will not move again until instructed to do so."

I always politely ask for an LEO whenever the TSA refuses to follow their published policy. I don't see it as threatening. However, most of the time the TSA doesn't bring over an LEO. They send over a supervisor who misrepresents himself as one by saying "I can help you" when I ask if he's a LEO.

I can't underscore the importance of keeping the bags in your sight and making sure no monkey-business occurs. This is an organization, after all, that plants fake bags of cocaine in passengers bags (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/tsa-student-prank-airport_n_434299.html)just to give them a good scare.

They have proven themselves to be malicious criminals.

There have been a couple of cases when I have had to request to stand somewhere where I could see my belongings. I have always done it politely, and never had a problem. I would not hesitate to firmly refer to the SOP and ask for a supervisor or LEO if necessary, but it has never been necessary.

You've been fortunate. Every opt-out in which I've been directed to a location I can't see my belongings, at least two of the following have happened:
• being told it is unnecessary for me to maintain visual contact
• being told "we don't let you do that"
• being bodily blocked from seeing my belongings by one or more
screeners (most of them are taller than I)
• the screener I am conversing with directing another to rescreen my bags

If I do have to move to see my bags, usually I explain in a neutral tone that (depending on airport) their own PA loop/signage/website specifically directs pax to maintain contact with bags at all times and (when present) threatens penalties for not doing so. Responses have been "I don't care," "That's not true here" (presumably meaning the cp) and "That's not important."

Some screeners have asked or taken efforts to assure I could see my bags, and responded pleasantly to my thanks for doing so. That happens about 1/4 of the time.

• the screener I am conversing with directing another to rescreen my bags



And you're wise to be on alert if they need to rescreen the bags. This is a technique that a Lead TSA Officer in Hawaii, Dawn Nikole Keka, used to steal cash out of passengers bags. The few seconds that she had in in her hand when moving back to the front of the scanner was enough for her.

Recently at JFK (Terminal 1) when I opted out, the TSA person made a point of saying we would wait until my carry-on bag (and jacket, etc.) had gone through the X-ray machine before moving off for the groping. He then collected all my stuff and asked me whether there was anything else coming through. It was all very professional and courteous.
Which is the experience 90% of the time.

Problem is, it's the other 10% where you lose your stuff.

Always keep your belongings in sight. Don't let them enter the xray machine until your groper arrives.

Which is the experience 90% of the time.

Problem is, it's the other 10% where you lose your stuff.

Always keep your belongings in sight. Don't let them enter the xray machine until your groper arrives.

Often one does not know if they will need to opt out until their stuff is in the xray.

I am not hostile. I state the situation. It is very difficult to write words in an internet forum while including the attitude with which they are said. I can do hostile, but this is not the place. It is also not the place to concede what little power of negotiation that one has. The purpose of the statement, said in a non-hostile statement of fact, is to establish my understanding of the situation with the TSO. If what I state is a true representation of the situation, then the TSO should have no problem with that. If one starts the encounter in a subservient manner, it is very difficult to regain the high ground.



What you describe sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable, efficient and appropriate way to initiate the process.

I draw the analogy to my 20+ years of umpiring. A good pre-game conference in a neutral, businesslike tone can set everyone to the same level of expectations very quickly. There is nothing hostile about it. If a coach in a game setting or a TSO at the screening location wants to take offense to a simple, calm statement of intent, then the problem is his.

I'm considering printing up some cards with a few stock statements for such situations as opting out and reading from them or simply handing it to the TSO. The latter ensures that there can be no misinterpretation of the tone of my voice.

And you're wise to be on alert if they need to rescreen the bags. This is a technique that a Lead TSA Officer in Hawaii, Dawn Nikole Keka, used to steal cash out of passengers bags. The few seconds that she had in in her hand when moving back to the front of the scanner was enough for her.

Happened to me a few years ago in BOS. Unfortunately, by the time I realized what had happened it was way too late.

Yesterday at BDL the TSO actually asked me to face the conveyor belt with my stuff saying that he needed me to keep an eye on my stuff.

Yesterday at BDL the TSO actually asked me to face the conveyor belt with my stuff saying that he needed me to keep an eye on my stuff.

Today at BDL, the BSX was roped off and I got the WTMD. Good fortune strikes occasionally.

However, I did not realize that I had to re-show my BP at the WTMD. The TDC may have told me, but I can not hear, so I put it away in my carry on. The line monitor may have asked for it but I did not hear her either and I walked through the WTMD and proceeded to my bag, which, of course, had been pulled for screening. The other bag, the one with the BP, was still in the machine. She came over and finally I understood that she needed to see the BP. I said it was just OKed by the TDC. I got it out she looked at it and said it was fine. Of course it was fine it was just approved by the TDC. I went to my bag check still seething about this nonsensical requirement, and he explained it was for my safety. (The following is paraphrased but pretty close.)

"Do you not trust your own TDC?"

"It is a double check."

"And checking it in the first place provides what level of security?"

"So that the person on the BP matches the ID."

"The second checker did not confirm the ID, just that the TDC had squiggled it. How is that security?"

"It is for your safety."

"It is still a stupid policy."

Yeah, I did put my BP in the bag too. They asked for it but I opted out anyway. So, they did not need the BP after that.

Today at BDL, the BSX was roped off and I got the WTMD. Good fortune strikes occasionally.

However, I did not realize that I had to re-show my BP at the WTMD. The TDC may have told me, but I can not hear, so I put it away in my carry on. The line monitor may have asked for it but I did not hear her either and I walked through the WTMD and proceeded to my bag, which, of course, had been pulled for screening. The other bag, the one with the BP, was still in the machine. She came over and finally I understood that she needed to see the BP. I said it was just OKed by the TDC. I got it out she looked at it and said it was fine. Of course it was fine it was just approved by the TDC. I went to my bag check still seething about this nonsensical requirement, and he explained it was for my safety. (The following is paraphrased but pretty close.)

"Do you not trust your own TDC?"

"It is a double check."

"And checking it in the first place provides what level of security?"

"So that the person on the BP matches the ID."

"The second checker did not confirm the ID, just that the TDC had squiggled it. How is that security?"

"It is for your safety."

"It is still a stupid policy."

I had the fortune of flying through BDL for the better part of a year last year, and agree that there is no point to checking the BP again after the WMTD. BDL also is the only airport I've been to that makes you take out your liquids still.

The way to get around the BP is to say "electronic" (as in mobile boarding pass), and magically, you are safe.

One time at DCA I opted out, had a long wait, and my possessions went out of my sight. At that point a TSO cam through with trays. After she was done, I very directly said to her that my possessions were no longer in sight and requested she to secure them (especially as my laptop was covered by another bin). Another TSO tried to direct her to do something else. She said that she had been requested to secure my items and she was going to do so.

The whole time a TSO stood there with his thumb up his butt. After another 5 minutes he finally did my pat (after clean gloves - never know where his hands had been).

At this point if I have zero chance for SDOO, I have decided my possessions will not go through the x-ray until a TSO is present to do my pat down. I have not had to test this process yet.

Often one does not know if they will need to opt out until their stuff is in the xray.
I guess that is a risk of the SDOO. If keeping belongings in sight is a real concern, that might not be a game to play. Gotta ask ahead of time guaranteeing a grope.

I guess that is a risk of the SDOO. If keeping belongings in sight is a real concern, that might not be a game to play. Gotta ask ahead of time guaranteeing a grope.

Not just the SDOO. After holding onto my carry-on until until the WTMD was ready, I was stopped to let six VIPs of some sort through. It wasn't terribly busy (probably why no elite line), so I yelled over to the screeners on the far side to please not let my laptop fall off the end. One of them pulled its bin and set it aside somewhere, then politely handed it back to me untouched after I finally was allowed through, as though taking due care of pax' belongings were perfectly normal. :eek::) Wish I could remember which airport. Smaller one which hadn't got NoS yet, maybe RDM, EUG or EAT.

What are some creative, secure ways to safely send a wallet through the x-ray when choosing not to be screened by that technology?

I've thought of TSA locks within a bag. Ziplock within ziplock within ziplock. Though usually I just use a jacket pocket stuffed deep in a bag.

I guess I should be more concerned with small electronics...I like setting my phone's alarm within two minutes of me entering the checkpoint at its loudest setting, that always gives me an idea of where the tray is through the process.

What are some creative, secure ways to safely send a wallet through the x-ray when choosing not to be screened by that technology?

I've thought of TSA locks within a bag. Ziplock within ziplock within ziplock. Though usually I just use a jacket pocket stuffed deep in a bag.

I guess I should be more concerned with small electronics...I like setting my phone's alarm within two minutes of me entering the checkpoint at its loudest setting, that always gives me an idea of where the tray is through the process.

Use a *NON*-TSA lock on whatever contains your valuables. You're there, there's no requirement for TSA locks.

I guess I should be more concerned with small electronics...I like setting my phone's alarm within two minutes of me entering the checkpoint at its loudest setting, that always gives me an idea of where the tray is through the process.
That wouldn't cause a nervous breakdown if it went off... :p

What are some creative, secure ways to safely send a wallet through the x-ray when choosing not to be screened by that technology?

Having had screeners count my folding money and examine my credit cards long enough memorize them, I now padlock everything but photo ID inside the carryon. If my trip requires a lot of documentation, I also separate it beyond one location, just as I would against any other type of pickpockets. Once (only once) I was told that my wallet's thickness was "suspicious on the x-ray." While I doubt this, now I avoid giving them that excuse, either.

...I like setting my phone's alarm within two minutes of me entering the checkpoint at its loudest setting, that always gives me an idea of where the tray is through the process.

^:p Oh, thank you, I like this. As TJBender suggests, "whoopwhoop" alarms might send them over the edge. John Philip Sousa's "Liberty Bell March" (aka the Monty Python theme) might be doubly appropriate. Or some dialogue from 1984. Or...

For the most part I'm not much for ceremony, but should I ever hear the Star Spangled Banner during a grope, I will not be remaining in the surrender position while it plays.

Use a *NON*-TSA lock on whatever contains your valuables. You're there, there's no requirement for TSA locks.

Oh yeah!!! Duh! Why have a TSA lock, when they're the thieves I'm trying to defend the bag against. Thanks.

Had a round of "you can't stand there" from the Screener today when opting out at IAD. I gave him 5 seconds then demanded a supervisor (he hadn't even called the opt-out). Supe came and told me I had to move where I couldn't see my stuff, he relented when I point out that it was their own procedure.

Took 2-3 minutes for the groper to finish a non-work-related conversation with another, then another minute or two to put gloves on.

Can anyone share a link that shows exactly where the TSA website says we should keep our luggage in sight? Would like to keep on my phone just in case...

Going through ORD term 3 checkpoint 6 in April.. I opted out... screener positioned himself in a way to obstruct my view of the carryon x-ray... they got me for $500.00 cash and $1850 in travelers checks.... I had the monies in a sealed envelope in the bottom of my carryon... now am having a very difficult time tryiing to get my checks refunded.. Talking to AE customer service in India is a exercise in futility ! The individual in India said quote " you should put yor money in your pocket " Thanks AE....

Going through ORD term 3 checkpoint 6 in April.. I opted out... screener positioned himself in a way to obstruct my view of the carryon x-ray... they got me for $500.00 cash and $1850 in travelers checks.... I had the monies in a sealed envelope in the bottom of my carryon... now am having a very difficult time tryiing to get my checks refunded.. Talking to AE customer service in India is a exercise in futility ! The individual in India said quote " you should put yor money in your pocket " Thanks AE....
Might not be helpful now, but you should have filed a complaint with TSA and also requested a copy of the video from the date/time/location of your screening through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Can anyone share a link that shows exactly where the TSA website says we should keep our luggage in sight? Would like to keep on my phone just in case...

My pleasure to oblige. (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/claims/protect.shtm)

My pleasure to oblige. (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/claims/protect.shtm)

Thanks!

My pleasure to oblige. (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/claims/protect.shtm)

Well done. Thanks for this.

Hi Everyone,
Fantastic info, Thanks so much.

On 3-20-12, InkUnderNails wrote:
"Your SOP says that I must be able to keep my belongings in my sight. If you have a problem with that you need to get a supervisor and and LEO. I can see them fine right here."

What's an SOP & an LEO?

Also, could someone cite the Section of TSA regs which say "keep my belongings in my sight"?

What the heck has happened to this nation?
Our 4th Amendment Rights? It's really horrible.

Amen, reamworks!

20/20 did a show on TSA thefts & many, many people have posted about this.

What has happened to this country?
If ya have to fly somewhere for work, family, vacation, you're faced with 2 choices: radiation or molestation. On top of that, then TSA steals your stuff.

What the h*ll happened to my America? Maybe I should opt-out of here, but where to go?
sorry for the rant.





Over 400 TSA Officers and employees have been arrested and charged with crimes against the passengers they serve. Don't let a con-artist TSO act "belligerent" while he's stealing your stuff.

Secure your stuff as best as possible and watch it like a hawk. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I always opt-out, and I always insist on watching my stuff.

There's another place where the TSA likes to steal: When they pick up a bag for a re-scan, that's a place where they steal things. Like this TSO who would steal cash out of passenger wallets using that technique. (http://shinybadge.com/2012/03/aloha-hawaiian-tsa-agent-arrested-for-stealing-money-from-passenger/) Those few seconds behind the scanner are enough for them to get your things.

The TSA has proven itself to be a criminal enterprise. The TSA used to release statistics. As of 2008, the TSA admitted to 200 arrests for theft alone. (Here's the story on their own website (http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/tsa-our-officers-public-and-theft.html).) (They aren't counting here the ones arrested for child rape (http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child_rape_charge_rocks_tsa_logan_employee _pats_down_air_travelers_at_scan_stations), or dealing heroin (http://shinybadge.com/2012/03/tsa-agent-arrested-for-dealing-heroin-in-uniform-near-an-elementary-school/).)

You are dealing with a proven criminal organization, according to their own website! Watch your bags like a hawk!

Hi Everyone,
Fantastic info, Thanks so much.

On 3-20-12, InkUnderNails wrote:
"Your SOP says that I must be able to keep my belongings in my sight. If you have a problem with that you need to get a supervisor and and LEO. I can see them fine right here."

What's an SOP & an LEO?

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure.
LEO = Law Enforcement Officer.

What the heck has happened to this nation?
Our 4th Amendment Rights? It's really horrible.

We repealed the Fourth when we elected Bush back in 2000.

Hadn't planned on it - hadn't even though about it but for some reason, when it was my turn, I Opted Out at HNL. Sigh...not sure it's worth it to do it again.

1) Waited over 5 minutes until they got some one.
2) The older lady at that told me to stand there got uptight when I moved to see my stuff
3) After several other people proceeded through and I repeated that I could not see my stuff, she told the other TSA to get my stuff. He said not to bother since if he did, they would have to run it through again. When another TSA agent brought over a bin, it was not even my stuff...
4) The person that finally came to do my pat down was in training...had to be instructed step by step
5) I stupidly did not elect for private pat down - was ooggled the whole time like a criminal...
6) Got yelled at again after I thought it was over and moved...was told I had to stand still until the glove ritual stuff was over. What the heck is that for anyway?

Like I said...not sure if it was worth the hassle

Hadn't planned on it - hadn't even though about it but for some reason, when it was my turn, I Opted Out at HNL. Sigh...not sure it's worth it to do it again...

My worst opt out experience by far was at HNL early in 2011. A cranky lady told me I had no right to keep my belongings in view if I opted out. I was on my best behavior too. Then another woman who did my pat down physically hurt me -- she was very rough. I'd never had that happen before (or since) and was so shocked that I just froze. If it happened again I hope I'd recover quickly enough to ask for the supervisor.

I'm sorry to hear that HNL has't shaped up since then.

Hadn't planned on it - hadn't even though about it but for some reason, when it was my turn, I Opted Out at HNL. Sigh...not sure it's worth it to do it again.

1) Waited over 5 minutes until they got some one.
2) The older lady at that told me to stand there got uptight when I moved to see my stuff
3) After several other people proceeded through and I repeated that I could not see my stuff, she told the other TSA to get my stuff. He said not to bother since if he did, they would have to run it through again. When another TSA agent brought over a bin, it was not even my stuff...
4) The person that finally came to do my pat down was in training...had to be instructed step by step
5) I stupidly did not elect for private pat down - was ooggled the whole time like a criminal...
6) Got yelled at again after I thought it was over and moved...was told I had to stand still until the glove ritual stuff was over. What the heck is that for anyway?

Like I said...not sure if it was worth the hassle

1) Always keep your laptop and liquids in your carryon if you have them. This triggers a bag check and requires you being there in front of the bags for them to search them. Gropers often magically appear.
2) Too bad, not your problem.
3) Refer to #1 and #2.
4) Just look up and think of England.
5) Let your fellow citizens know the idiocy of the TSA.
6) Not your problem. They're running their gloves through their nitrate sniffing machines that have a 100% false positive rate. At least you didn't get one of those.

Hit the bar right after the groping. ;)

1) Always keep your laptop and liquids in your carryon if you have them. This triggers a bag check and requires you being there in front of the bags for them to search them. Gropers often magically appear.

Not in my experience. I've seen them paw through bags when the victi... er... traveler is not present. This is particularly true when one requests a grope.

My pleasure to oblige. (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/claims/protect.shtm)

Link just directs to the TSA site - not anyplace where they say you should keep your luggage in view. Can you update please?

Not in my experience. I've seen them paw through bags when the victi... er... traveler is not present. This is particularly true when one requests a grope.

A supervisor in PHX told me that they have the right to inspect my belongings at any time and they are not obligated to inform me or to allow me to keep the bags in my sight. (They went through the unlocked pockets of my bags behind my back).

. (They went through the unlocked pockets of my bags behind my back).
Looking for something to steal.

Not in my experience. I've seen them paw through bags when the victi... er... traveler is not present. This is particularly true when one requests a grope.

I got pulled aside for a bag check at HNL in December. Something looked funny on the xray. They called me over, asked permission to open my bag. Asked if I had anything sharp before they put their hands in. Rummaged around a bit and I said 'if you tell me what you think you saw, I will tell you what it is'. Turns out it was a stud finder I had taken down as I had to hang some towel bars at my place there. It looked funny on the xray. They asked me what it was and I said a stud finder. They had no clue what that was (really? I am a girl and I know - struck me as weird) so I had to explain what it was and what it was used for. They swabbed it and sent me on my way. In hindsight, it probably looked strange to them. They were polite the entire time.

I should also add to the above that I am disabled and use a cane to walk. I can't assume the position so no NoS. No grope as they were more interested in the stud finder in my bag. Maybe I should carry it with me all the time ;)