Practical Travel Safety Issues - TSA and dogs

A month ago TSA informed me there is a new policy. Since I have a service dog, TSA is required to swab my hands (TWO hands) for explosive dust and drugs. How dumb is that?:mad:
Also TSA said anyone who is traveling with a dog is required to have its hands swabbed for explosive dust and drugs.

I assume you mean swab your hands? The latest bulletin from GDUI talks about this.

http://www.gdui.org/

I know they are in contact w/ TSA about new rules and regulations and do a lot of advocacy work so you might check with them if there is any new info on this policy.

Good luck.

A month ago TSA informed me there is a new policy. Since I have a service dog, TSA is required to swamp my hands (TWO hands) for explosive dust and drugs. How dumb is that?:mad:
Also TSA said anyone who is traveling with a dog is required to have its hands swamp for explosive dust and drugs.

I mean S-W-A-B. baahahaha my typo..

Actually TSA has beeing doing this with medical devices such as insulin pumps for quite some time. The policy change was initiated as the result of concerns raised by advocates and the same thing applies to service dogs.

It's not dumb at all and functions very well. Rather than having the swab touch the medical device or service animal, the swab only touches your hands. The experts agree that if there were any explosives attached to the device/animal, the handler's hands would show trace amounts.

Why are these folks getting swabbed 100% of the time, when people without medical devices or service animals are not swabbed 100% of the time? Seems discriminatory to me.

Why are these folks getting swabbed 100% of the time, when people without medical devices or service animals are not swabbed 100% of the time? Seems discriminatory to me.
It's not even remotely discriminatory. The hand swab replaces the swab of the device which is necessary because the device doesn't go through the x-ray. Pax is free to run a device through the x-ray, but almost all manufacturers recomend against it.

It's not even remotely discriminatory. The hand swab replaces the swab of the device which is necessary because the device doesn't go through the x-ray. Pax is free to run a device through the x-ray, but almost all manufacturers recomend against it.

And what about those with service dogs? All of their possessions go through the x-ray, but they get hand swabbed anyway.

And what about those with service dogs? All of their possessions go through the x-ray, but they get hand swabbed anyway.

OP is right, although I can't find a link. It was in the news very recently - something about intel indicating that the bad guys have been talking about implanting nastiness in animals - hence the stepped-up security of any kind of animal going on board, pets or service animals.

And what about those with service dogs? All of their possessions go through the x-ray, but they get hand swabbed anyway.

The dog doesn't go through x-ray or the imager, only the WTMD. The policy is a response to a threat of devices being placed in the dog.

It's particularly a pain when flying with a connection, if the animal needs to be relieved. Except for the few airports with pet areas air side, you have to go ground side and get screened/swabbed again. On the plus side, every checkpoint I've gone through with my dog has been very efficient and professional about the swab.

Actually TSA has beeing doing this with medical devices such as insulin pumps for quite some time. The policy change was initiated as the result of concerns raised by advocates and the same thing applies to service dogs.

It's not dumb at all and functions very well. Rather than having the swab touch the medical device or service animal, the swab only touches your hands. The experts agree that if there were any explosives attached to the device/animal, the handler's hands would show trace amounts.
Are there specific medical devices being targeted for these swab-downs? I've flown several times this year with my (relatively) new CPAP, and I've never once been flagged for any kind of secondary for either myself or the device.

http://answerpot.com/showthread.php?3473484-Information+on+Additional+TSA+Screening+Process+fo r+Service+Dog+Handlers


from GDUI

So if the owner swabs clean but the dog alarms, does the dog get a backroom strip search?

BTW, thanks for finding a reference squeakr. I know this is a very recent initiative based on specific intel, but I couldn't seem to find anything out there.

And what about those with service dogs? All of their possessions go through the x-ray, but they get hand swabbed anyway.
You apparently don't travel with either a medical device or a service animal. In the past, it was the medical device or service animal which was swabbed. But, patient advocates protested to DHS (TSA) that this was problematic for a delicate device and disturbing to the service animal. From those complaints, the system of swabbing the pax's hands so that neither the Officer nor the swab device (simply a stick with a piece of cloth clipped to it) actually touch the device or the animal.

This generally takes 30-45 seconds.

You apparently don't travel with either a medical device or a service animal. In the past, it was the medical device or service animal which was swabbed. But, patient advocates protested to DHS (TSA) that this was problematic for a delicate device and disturbing to the service animal. From those complaints, the system of swabbing the pax's hands so that neither the Officer nor the swab device (simply a stick with a piece of cloth clipped to it) actually touch the device or the animal.

This generally takes 30-45 seconds.

This clearly depends on the airport.

I've seen plenty of swabbing, but I have never seen the kind of device you are describing in use (although properly used, it might reduce the potential false positives generated by a groper fumbling around with the swabs with dirty gloves).

This clearly depends on the airport.

I've seen plenty of swabbing, but I have never seen the kind of device you are describing in use (although properly used, it might reduce the potential false positives generated by a groper fumbling around with the swabs with dirty gloves).
I can't say that I travel through every airport in the USA, but even the smaller ones now have an EOD machine which takes the swab off a plastic stick held by the Officer. The Officer's hands never come in contact with the swab.

I can't say that I travel through every airport in the USA, but even the smaller ones now have an EOD machine which takes the swab off a plastic stick held by the Officer. The Officer's hands never come in contact with the swab.


No sign of it at PHX T4 a week ago. Swab was held by the officer during swabbing. Perhaps the swab was transferred to a stick after the swabbing when the TSO's body was between me and the machine. Perhaps they had just run out of plastic sticks, or perhaps the stick technology hasn't migrated there yet.

You are right, in this instance the screener's hands didn't come in direct contact with the swab because they were gloved.

No sign of it at PHX T4 a week ago. Swab was held by the officer during swabbing. Perhaps the swab was transferred to a stick after the swabbing when the TSO's body was between me and the machine. Perhaps they had just run out of plastic sticks, or perhaps the stick technology hasn't migrated there yet.

You are right, in this instance the screener's hands didn't come in direct contact with the swab because they were gloved.
I've seen both - some airports have the little stick thing, others don't. IME, a majority of airports do NOT have the stick/swab.

A month ago TSA informed me there is a new policy. Since I have a service dog, TSA is required to swab my hands (TWO hands) for explosive dust and drugs. How dumb is that?:mad:
Also TSA said anyone who is traveling with a dog is required to have its hands swabbed for explosive dust and drugs.

1. Our systems are not programed to detect "drugs". Explosives yes, drugs no. Simple.

2. As for the reason for the swabbing in the first place, see answer one.

1. Our systems are not programed to detect "drugs". Explosives yes, drugs no. Simple.


What published evidence is there to back up that statement?

What published evidence is there to back up that statement?
OK, now I'm confused - you're coming down on TSORon for admitting TSA's equipment isn't the magical device many clerks claim it to be?

As far as evidence...isn't the process called "Explosives Trace Detection"?

OK, now I'm confused - you're coming down on TSORon for admitting TSA's equipment isn't the magical device many clerks claim it to be?

As far as evidence...isn't the process called "Explosives Trace Detection"?

That's the name that TSA uses for it, but like so many names that TSA uses, it's actually a misleading euphemism. The actual name for the test is "chemical trace detection". It tests for the presence of specific chemicals.

In the case of the CTD used as part of airport screening, the chemicals it tests for are chemicals that are common constituents of common explosives, such as glycerine. Unfortunately, glycerine is also a constituent of many soaps and hand lotions, so the test will come up positive if you have been exposed to one of those.

In other words, you're not being tested for traces of explosives, you're being tested for traces of glycerine (along with other chemicals). This is why a positive test result will not automatically result in your arrest or denial of flight - because the test doesn't determine whether you've been exposed to explosives, it only determines whether you've been exposed to glycerine (or one of several other chemicals). Since glycerine is part of several explosives, a positive test means you might have been exposed to explosives, and you're simply given a more thorough physical search to find out if you're carrying any.

However, if the machine which tests the swabs were also testing for, say, THC, the active chemical in cannabis, the test would come up positive and the physical search would be triggered. Oops, false positive, you aren't carrying explosives - but is that a joint in your carry-on? Okay, you're under arrest. And the TSOs who operate the CTD machine wouldn't even need to know that the machine is looking for THC if it were programmed to say "glycerine" when it tested positive for THC.

Same thing applies to chemicals tested for in various field tests for stuff like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, or other drugs.

OK, now I'm confused - you're coming down on TSORon for admitting TSA's equipment isn't the magical device many clerks claim it to be?

As far as evidence...isn't the process called "Explosives Trace Detection"?

The device is a chemical trace detector. It can be recalibrated to detect additional substances, including traces of the components of drugs. The magical device can, in fact, be used for other things besides the precursors of explosives (it doesn't test for explosives directly - which is why a walk across recently fertilized grass can trigger a "positive".... or why hand lotions that contain glycerine can trigger a "positive").