Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Hip Replacement and TSA

I am a retired soldier and disabled veteran. I recently underwent an operation for a hip replacement. Needless to say it triggers the metal detector.

TSA asks me if I have metal implants. That is a rather personal medical question. It doesn't matter if I answer Yes or No, I'm going to get patted down so why ask?

(I travel around 50,000 miles a year on business)

They ask because they are trying to determine the reason you triggered the detector.

Of course you are free to refuse to answer if you so choose.

They ask because they are trying to determine the reason you triggered the detector.

Of course you are free to refuse to answer if you so choose.

That raises two questions:

(1) Why ask if both honest and dishonest answers are accepted (TSA has no way to verify), and

2) Why ask if the actions taken after the answer is given are exactly the same?

(2) Why ask if the actions taken after the answer is given are exactly the same?
They won't be, though. If a person says they triggered the metal detector because of an implant, there's no point in wasting everybody's time by suggesting that they look for forgotten metal and try again.

My mom goes through TSA with a hip replacement.

She fits the stereotypical hip replacement person given she
is 84 and that all flights are booked with assistance so she
presents at TSA in a wheelchair.

She doesn't need a wheelchair for mobility... however, the
assistance makes it easier for her to make connecting flights
a big airports... such as DTW.

She gets through TSA fine. The last time they were checking
here out when she comments "...its not like I'm a terrorist...".

I'm cringing at that comment figuring oh boy more intensive
search here we go... but no they just laughed and waved her
through.

They ask because they are trying to determine the reason you triggered the detector.

Of course you are free to refuse to answer if you so choose.

Why ask? They're going to molest him either way. Besides, odds are he didn't really trigger the detector, but the randomizing anomaly producer did.

Regardless, a passenger's medical history is NONE of their business.

They won't be, though. If a person says they triggered the metal detector because of an implant, there's no point in wasting everybody's time by suggesting that they look for forgotten metal and try again.


The answer should have no bearing on the conduct of the screening. The person alarmed and that has to be resolved.

Asking personal questions in no way moves the security ball forward.

Asking personal questions in no way moves the security ball forward.

Neither does patting down people with hip replacements. Or 99.99999999% of all other travelers, for that matter.

How about a good, proactive security system, based on intelligence gathering and actual risk management?

Neither does patting down people with hip replacements. Or 99.99999999% of all other travelers, for that matter.

How about a good, proactive security system, based on intelligence gathering and actual risk management?

I totally agree with you.

What TSA is doing is not security. Rubbing peoples crotches, sticking their hands in our pants, or insisting that we step into a Strip Search Machine is not helping the TSA case when TSA allows most airport workers entrance to the secure area with no screening of any kind.

In my opinion WTMD and carry on bag xray should be the screening that most people receive with more in-depth screening if there are unresolved alarms.

The answer should have no bearing on the conduct of the screening. The person alarmed and that has to be resolved.
Sure. But what does that have to do with what I said? Of course, the alarm has to be resolved. But it can be helpful to give a hint as to how to proceed. In the most common case, the passenger forgot about some metal. So the first procedure is to ask the passenger to check for metal and try again. But if the alarm is due to an implant, there's no point in wasting anybody's time with that step.

In general, it seems quite reasonable to me for the passenger to be involved in a discussion of the various possible ways of resolving an alarm, so long as all options would properly resolve it. I'm surprised that you seem to be against letting the passenger have options.

But if the alarm is due to an implant, there's no point in wasting anybody's time with that step.

And when the clerk demands proof of the implant, says the implant card is forged, and demands to see the scar?

What then?

In the most common case, the passenger forgot about some metal. So the first procedure is to ask the passenger to check for metal and try again.

The first procedure is actually to grope their genitals to make sure the "forgotten metal" isn't hidden there. I've never been allowed to try again after checking for metal.

And when the clerk demands proof of the implant, says the implant card is forged, and demands to see the scar?

What then?
Obviously, the card is useless and any person who alarms the WTMD needs a pat-down. Yet again, the only value in asking the question is to skip the step of having the passenger go through the WTMD multiple times. If the person lies, no harm done since all that's happened due to that lie is that time will have been saved.

Obviously, the card is useless and any person who alarms the WTMD needs a pat-down. Yet again, the only value in asking the question is to skip the step of having the passenger go through the WTMD multiple times. If the person lies, no harm done since all that's happened due to that lie is that time will have been saved.

And yet, in my experience with otherwise sane, non-US, non-TSA airport security (Australia, Europe, Asia), the sequence goes like this:
RadioGirl, with metal hip, alarms WTMD.
Security guard: "You..."
RG (cutting to the chase): "I have a metal hip" *points to side where implant is.*
Security: "Go back and take your shoes off."
RG: "It's not my shoes, I have a metal hip."
Security: "You need to take your shoes off and go through again. And make sure there's no metal in your pockets. Do you have a cell phone in your pocket? Have you removed your keys?"
RG: "It's not my shoes, it's not a cell phone, I have a bloody. metal. hip." ("You #*&@ing. moron.") *Takes shoes off, goes through WTMD again, alarms again.*
Security: "Okay wait here I'll get someone to pat you down." *or does patdown herself if female.*

So show me where telling them what caused the alarm has saved time, compared to just saying "duh I don't know, maybe it's the zipper on my jeans or my bra or something."

For goalie: new Australian version of the above is that I say "it's very difficult for me to remove my shoes and put them on again while standing; I'm sure you can swab them instead." Mostly works.

AUH version: After alarm, security guy standing behind the WTMD says "you need to go to that line over there." Points towards the airside region of the adjacent checkpoint line. There's no obvious "line" over there, just people exiting the parallel checkpoint. "Where?" I asked, but Mr Security has his back to me, motioning the next person through the WTMD. RadioBloke hands me my carryon bags and off we go. :D

Obviously, the card is useless

Obviously.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm

It is recommended (but not required) that individuals with a pacemaker carry a Pacemaker Identification Card (ID) when going through airport security. Show the Security Officer your pacemaker ID, if you have one, and ask the Security Officer to conduct a pat-down inspection rather than having you walk-through the metal detector or be handwanded.

...and yet TSA employees when presented with such a card are dumbfounded by the novel idea that they actually have a procedure to deal with these situations.

(And it's not safe to assume that even a Pacemaker ID is useful at a TSA checkpoint, nor any other sort of medical condition identifier, because the TSA employees will insist that whatever they're doing is "correct" no matter what the "out-of-date" TSA website says on the topic.)

And when the clerk demands proof of the implant, says the implant card is forged, and demands to see the scar?

What then?

The scar proves nothing other than that surgery took place.

It still does not resolve the alarm as to the actual cause.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/why-we-do-what-we-do-additional.html

The scar proves nothing other than that surgery took place.

Exactly. And yet TSA employees still demand to see scars, demand that bandages be removed, and assorted other antisocial behaviours.

It still does not resolve the alarm as to the actual cause.

It'd be a nice first step if the TSA moved on from "deliberate humiliation" into "resolving alarms."

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/why-we-do-what-we-do-additional.html

Exactly. And if you show that to a TSA employee, they'll tell you "That's from 2008. It's outdated, and we have different (more humiliating) procedures to follow now. If you don't like it, don't fly."

Well, I have a scar that looks like a knee replacement, but was really for a torn quadriceps tendon. No metal in there. I wonder what havoc I could cause if I went through the checkpoint wearing shorts? They might think their magic machine is broken and evacuate the airport.

Sure. But what does that have to do with what I said? Of course, the alarm has to be resolved. But it can be helpful to give a hint as to how to proceed. In the most common case, the passenger forgot about some metal. So the first procedure is to ask the passenger to check for metal and try again. But if the alarm is due to an implant, there's no point in wasting anybody's time with that step.

In general, it seems quite reasonable to me for the passenger to be involved in a discussion of the various possible ways of resolving an alarm, so long as all options would properly resolve it. I'm surprised that you seem to be against letting the passenger have options.

And when the clerk demands proof of the implant, says the implant card is forged, and demands to see the scar?

What then?

Obviously, the card is useless and any person who alarms the WTMD needs a pat-down. Yet again, the only value in asking the question is to skip the step of having the passenger go through the WTMD multiple times. If the person lies, no harm done since all that's happened due to that lie is that time will have been saved.

The most stoooooooopid part of this entire conversation is that, prior to the deployment of AIT, WTMD alarms were resolved with Hand Held Metal Detectors (The Wand). But since the wand was forcibly retired after Scope and Grope was deployed, the ONLY way to resolve WTMD alarms now is with a full body rubdown with genital contact (which TSA laughably calls a "pat-down").

What was the motivation for ridiculous idea of actually taking away one of the most useful tools in security screening, one which only cost a few hundred bucks per unit instead of a few hundred thousand, and could be used by almost anyone, with no special training? I haven't the foggiest...

The most stoooooooopid part of this entire conversation is that, prior to the deployment of AIT, WTMD alarms were resolved with Hand Held Metal Detectors (The Wand). But since the wand was forcibly retired after Scope and Grope was deployed, the ONLY way to resolve WTMD alarms now is with a full body rubdown with genital contact (which TSA laughably calls a "pat-down").

What was the motivation for ridiculous idea of actually taking away one of the most useful tools in security screening, one which only cost a few hundred bucks per unit instead of a few hundred thousand, and could be used by almost anyone, with no special training? I haven't the foggiest...

It can't find drugs!


It could find a detonator though.

The OPs question made me remember something from my opt out experiences that I never really thought about before. I've always thought it rather absurd that when I opt out of the NoS I'm often directed around - not through - the WTMD. Yet when I am getting the spiel from the groper they ask me if I have any metal implants. Why would that matter if I haven't gone through the WTMD? What difference does it make at that point?

The scar proves nothing other than that surgery took place.

It still does not resolve the alarm as to the actual cause.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/why-we-do-what-we-do-additional.html

If you have a scar it must mean you have a bomb implanted in your leg. :p

ok, show of hands... how many scars do we bear that are NOT due to surgical interventions?

<still counting>

How about a good, proactive security system, based on intelligence gathering and actual risk management?
Like Secure Flight (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/), TSA PreCheck (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/escreening.shtm), and the Behavior Detection programs (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm)?

What was the motivation for ridiculous idea of actually taking away one of the most useful tools in security screening, one which only cost a few hundred bucks per unit instead of a few hundred thousand, and could be used by almost anyone, with no special training? I haven't the foggiest...

TSA has a history of doing things, buying things, and making up policies that don't work.

The HHMD and WTMD both work very well so TSA has eliminated the HHMD and severely restricted the use of the WTMD.

Doing stupid things is par for the course at TSA.