jkhuggins

Idle speculation here ... I suspect that there is a rule that forbids TSAs from discussing anything regarding the scope of their training.

gsoltso

There is a great deal in this post that I can not refute.

Procedures and policies should be completely mundane they are known so well - at least the nuts and bolts of it, some of the bells and whistles may take a bit of referencing in order to make certain you are clear on something, but the process and your responsibilities within it should be the basics.

Our management comes on the floor fairly regularly, and not much of anything changes when they are there. I have also seen this at PHX, RDU and CLT as well, so it is more regular than you might think.

No employee should be more worried about correcting someone on their rank than they are about resolving the challenge that is presented - that is a pillar of professionalism.

There is no reason to berate passengers, period. Communicate with them, give advisements to a group if need be, but you don't have to yell to do so. The only time to yell at a passenger is in a safety situation (watch out for the acme anvil falling towards your head!). I get much better results by simply listening and communicating with the person - regardless of the outcome (meaning whether I am able to resolve the situation to the satisfaction of the passenger or not).

Boggie Dog

The shoes off policy propagated quickly but the shoes on the belt policy fell flat on its face and once again demonstrated that TSA screeners couldn't buy a clue.

Boggie Dog

Not arguing that point. TSA has labeled just about everything as SSI.

Talking about training on detecting explosives or other weapons could very well be SSI.

Saying if a person has training on determining how much LGA medicine a person is permitted doesn't fall into that questionable SSI category to my mind. As I said it is just a TSA cop out to avoid having to justify questionable policies.

Caradoc

The excuse given for "shoes on the belt or shoes in the bin" was that the operators of the X-ray devices were trained one way or the other and were incapable of homogenizing their "screening techniques."

Just like the "bins on the long axis or bins on the short axis" debacle.

What this tells us is that either the TSA's "training" is horribly inconsistent, or the people receiving the training are horribly untrainable, or both.

But it doesn't change the simple fact that when the TSA wants to propagate information, it is possible to do so.

chollie

A couple points.

You have mentioned in the past bulletins(?) about things like NEXUS, that the information was (supposed to be) distributed and, based on your experience, there was no excuse for entire checkpoints and managers pretending not to know about NEXUS.

You mention vaguely remembering something about SSI restrictions on canes/walking sticks. The DEN TSO was quite clear that there are current, very specific, non-public restrictions in place. Since that TSO has already exposed the fact that those restrictions do exist, I have to wonder about your answer. It's one of the rare times you didn't say "It's SOP, but it's SSI". It sounds to me like if that actor took his walking stick to GSO right now, it would be 'screener judgment' whether or not you confiscated it.

It is inexcusable that even a trained, experienced, 'good apple' TSO will just make something up when deciding whether or not to confiscate a pax walking stick at the checkpoint. That means that there's no way the pax will know in advance whether or not his/her walking stick fits acceptable criteria at a particular checkpoint, because the information is SSI. Worse, at the checkpoint, the TSOs have no immediate access to the SSI information to verify exactly whether or not the walking stick violates those standards.

In other words, we're back to the rules being whatever a particular screener says they are. We're not talking about embedded knives or nonsense like that - in DEN, we're talking specific weight and length criteria that are kept secret from the public - and that are only 'vague' memories in the minds of 'good apple' TSOs, with no way to access current SSI information on the matter at the checkpoint. Seriously, <deleted>, you think that's acceptable?

So if that pax calls the TSA hotline and says "can I take my walking stick on board", he will be told "there are length and weight and appearance criteria that are SSI. As long as the stick doesn't violate those criteria, you will be OK. Some TSOs will be vague on what those criteria are. Good luck."

You missed my bigger point about the guy at LAX. OK, give TSA the best defense: the guy never slipped up at work around his co-workers, he never slipped up with other pax (or complaints were made and ignored, or pax attempted to provide complaints but found the process intimidating and gave up).

What you didn't address is why, after the complaint had been made (only after it hit the media, something I know you deplore - but it's clear it wouldn't have been addressed otherwise) - why, after the complaint was made, went viral, was upheld, guy was suspended - why not an updated background check? That check would have clearly revealed cause for keeping an eye on him. His webpage and book were out there for the world to see.

You mention seeing visible management at PHX. Let me tell you, management is visible at T2, and that management does tell pax that if they are physically unable to assume and hold the position in the BSX, that makes them an 'OPT OUT' (they insist on using those words), the grope will be accompanied by a full bag search and swab.

Management on the floor doesn't necessarily mean management doing anything more than scoping out hot pax and jacking their jaws with TSOs. It does not mean knowledgeable, engaged, focused management. (Presumably you've forgotten the focused and engaged and punitive and retaliatory manager at PHX who detained Stacy Amato about breast milk procedures, and subsequently told his staff to continue the incorrect practices. That was exposed on a subsequent trip when she was accompanied by a TSA rep who witnessed the incorrect procedure still in place).

chollie

+1

It is not just the amount of medication. TSA confiscated my nitro pills at the checkpoint because the ban on exp**osive material is absolute.

Boggie Dog

A TSA screener who confiscated this medicine should have been charged with theft.

I hope you took the time to challenge this idiot.

chollie

Nope.

I wanted to fly that day and I didn't want to take the time to file feedback that requires my personal information because I didn't want to be added to a watch list.

I now carry my meds everywhere (as ordered by my physician) except when I'm flying somewhere. There are no exemptions for this med on the webpage, apparently none in the SSI SOP.

They were 'discovered' during the mandatory complete bag check and swab that accompanied my 'involuntary medical opt-out' grope. The screener unpacked everything, examined each item, read each label.

gsoltso

The minds that regulate and monitor what is SSI and whether or not we can talk about it and certain subjects is not yours. I would love to do more disclosure about some things, but it simply is not how TSA is doing business - and that is HQs decision to make.

Bins long V short is a simple space issue here, if they are run through longways, fewer bins can sit on the exit belt, and that can gum up the AIT exit and by extension other areas inside the checkpoint.

That is correct, the same goes for Global Entry and a bunch of other IDs I hear reports of some locations denying as a valid ID - completely inexcusable.

I mentioned it as vaguely, because it was like 9 years ago (seriously), and it changed shortly afterward (say within 6 months). I am not aware of any size/length limitations on walking sticks/canes at this point, I have also not seen any information on size/length information added to the information page for travelers at TSA.GOV. I do not know where that info came from, but I am unaware of it at this point (and for the record, I have seen folks bring some big walking sticks through).

They may have been in the process of updating his background check when the guy snapped. There may have been other situations in play as well - we simply don't know everything that was going on between this guy and the TSA group he worked for, he may even have been slated for termination prior to his resignation or, the resignation may have been forced... There are any number of things that may have been in play that we are unaware of. They may even have had him designated as someone to "keep an eye on", and that led to the situation that ended up with him in jail. We could speculate about it all day, but we simply don't have the information needed to make an intelligent comment about it.

(I don't deplore that things are in the media specifically, I mostly deplore that a situation occurred that required something to be published. Mostly I deplore when a TSA employee goes outside of the SOP/regs and winds up with a newsie talking about it - because the TSA employee should not have been outside the SOP/regs to begin with)

I am not literate enough to comment on the AIT process, as I have not had the training for it, and I have just enough knowledge to get myself in trouble if I talk about it (I don't operate the AITs, we have them here, but my position does not operate that equipment). The only thing I can find at the site is the following - http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-informat...metal-detector Sadly, that does not give information that addresses what you are mentioning specifically. I would contact TSACares and see what answer they give you about that specific situation, and maybe you can get better info from them. Sorry I am unable to help you further on that one.

Management does not always mean scoping hot passengers and jaw jacking with TSOs either. I have seen our managers actively manage and participate in our checkpoints, especially during rush times. We have some that run bins, help keep the rotations going, work positions they are certified/qualified for - admittedly, they are not in our checkpoints the entire shift, but they are fairly active in our floor operations (at least on my shift I can't speak for shifts I haven't worked). When I was in PHX (keep in mind, it was for about 2 weeks), they had specific managers that were truly engaged with some of the checkpoints I worked in, they were doing the same things, actively helping out and even helping passengers that needed it. I did not see the lack of engagement or disinterested interactions that some may have. My parents went through PHX a couple of years ago on SW, and they said they had a great experience and trust me, my parents will hold me accountable for any untoward actions they experience.

I have not forgotten about Stacy Armato, and I have indicated before that things should have been handled much better, and proper redress should have been applied.

Boggie Dog

I won't fault you for not reporting this abuse but I do feel it fairly well sums up more of what is wrong with TSA.

When the public is afraid or concerned over reporting issues with a government agency then there are much bigger problems afoot.

TSA is rotten from the foundation to the highest point of its roof.

gsoltso

Missed this earlier, I have never even heard of that happening until now. Please tell me you filed a complaint and contacted the local TSA office as well. Nitro pills come through almost every checkpoint everyday, there is no prohibition on them, nor is there limitation on them that I am aware of. The TSOs that took the nitro pills were wrong.

Caradoc

And even now we see that the TSA can't get their Land-Of-Make-Believe explanations aligned when it comes to making excuses for their own discrepancies.

WillCAD

Agreed, that's why TSA management created this (illegal IMHO) ridiculous non-classified classification of info. However, not every TSO who says thay can't talk about SSI is doing so to avoid personal embarassment, or even to avoid embarassing the agency; sometimes they do so because to reveal SSI in a public forum, particularly one like this which we know is being monitored by TSA, would result in his termination and possible prosecution.

Heck, they prosecuted a FAM for revealing something that wasn't SSI by retroactively declaring it SSI (violating the Ex Post Facto clause of the US Constitution, Article I Section 9 Clause 3); I'm sure that any TSO who revealed SSI on FlyerTalk would be out on his butt before the "Thank you for posting" screen went away.

Well, your mind works logically, but the minds of the government stooges who created the TSA SOP manual and SSI policy don't work by the same logic as ours. In their paranoid War on Terror delusions, ANYTHING at all about TSA procedures, training, or decision-making processes could be used by A Terrorist to "Game the System" and figure out a way to smuggle enough explosives aboard a plane in a carry-on to cause another 9/11.

I remember whan you posted about that, and I remember doing a bunch of research online to find any instances at all of nitro meds - pills or patches - being even the least little bit explosive, even in large amounts. And I didn't find any; in fact, I found lots of medical sites debunking that ridiculous theory, and quite a few sites detailing experiments done with nitro pills and patches to see if an explosive reaction could be generated with them. None succeeded.

Nitro pills and patches are simply NOT explosive. At all. Ever. They're meds, nothing more.

Caradoc

It seems to me that any number of TSA "screeners" should be charged with theft *and* "practicing medicine without a license."

Of course, "medicine" is only one of the many fields in which we see TSA employees offering advice for which they are entirely unqualified to speak.