WillCAD

Medical nitro is NOT prohibited, no matter what some idiotic TSO may have told you in the past Cholie.

I know you had a bad experience with some TSOs who weren't smart enough to understand that human beings don't swallow actual explosives as medication, but that doesn't change the policy - medical nitro is NOT an explosive and cannot be made into an explosive, and is therefore not prohibited.

I don't know whether those changes were made in good faith or not, but I'm not surprised that when the FA union panicked over them, the entire set of changes were simply dropped. TSA has always had a sledge hammer, all-or-nothing approach to pretty much everything it does. The agency doesn't understand subtlety or gradiation, only binary Yes/No. It's policies are designed to eliminate any decisions from TSOs which might require critical thinking, since so many TSOs seem incapable of critical thinking, exercising good judgement, or treating the traveling public like human beings instead of walking diseases.

Caradoc

A friend of mine succinctly explained the TSA:

"When the only tool at your disposal is derp, every problem looks like potato."

chollie

You know and I know and any doctor worthy of the title knows that medical nitro pills aren't going to be converted into something dangerous to aviation. However, you will notice that there's no exception on the website and even <deleted> has failed to get a definitive 'OK' on the matter - because there isn't one. If the pills are recognized, they fall under the 'zero tolerance' policy. <deleted> might not agree with that, but he didn't agree with the confiscation of the sock monkey weapon - and HQ specifically addressed that matter and upheld the confiscation. My pills weren't taken because of one rogue TSO - multiple 'layers' of TSOs and suits were involved in upholding the decision.


TSA introduced the snow-globe exemption (although the last time I clicked a link to confiscated items, there were several snow-globes - all, presumably, bigger than a tennis ball - or victims of screener discretion). That was a one-off (and a peculiar one, IMHO, because it encouraged travelers to trust screener discretion, and we all know how well that can work out. "About the size of a tennis ball" leaves a lot of room for confiscation.

There was no reason not to introduce the 'package' of now-permitted items, minus the knives the FAs were freaking out about.

It does seem that someone is actually trying (again) to address the barking issue. Twice in the last six months, I have had a TSO, and most recently, a TDC, specifically say "I don't shout". There are still barkers around, but the noise level does seem to have dropped at some checkpoints.

ScatterX

This is good, but you lack of clarity in the implied solution. Searching for things "that cause problems" lacks clarity in the problem to be solved. It is incredibly important to delineate between real threats to aviation and "things the airlines just don't want on their planes" as well as understand the difference between what is prohibited and what is being searched for at the checkpoint. These are completely different things. There are many things that should be prohibited, but very few that should be included in routine searches.

For example:
I could go on and on...

If the airlines want something prohibited within their private business, they should pay to make that happen and employ the people that provide whatever security they want to make this happen. Government-operated checkpoints should never be used for the convenience or profit of private companies. @:-)

I agree and suggest that routine searches be conducted ONLY for things that are serious risks to aviation. Risks to the people on the plane should be treated the same as risks to people in any other public setting.

Consider that knives are actually LESS of a threat on a plane than they are in open spaces. A knife-wielding idiot who threatens people on a plane has extremely limited movement (limiting consequence). He will get his butt handed to him quickly. The same idiot running through the crowded ticket area could do much more damage as well as get away (increasing both likelihood and consequence). The same idiot in a dark movie theater could do far more damage.

Most people would not accept government-operated checkpoints looking for knives (or drugs, or alcohol, or bad smelling food, etc.) on the way into a movie theater or a mall. If the operator of these private business want to search people going in to their establishments, that is their prerogative. But they know their business would be adversely impacted by both the cost and customer's outrage.

We already have rules against stabbing people. We accept this risk for malls; we should accept the risk on airplanes too and stop spending insane amounts of money searching for and confiscating these items simply to protect airline employees. That is a responsibility of the airlines.

All activities related to anything "set by the airlines" should be directly conducted and paid for by said airlines. If a mall or theater wants security, they do it and pay for it. Same deal works for airlines.

gsoltso

It appears that we are pretty much in agreement. There is the common good argument that many can and will make for the use of governmental checkpoint operation (or at least for oversight - as well as many people that will make the converse argument) as it pertains to presenting a threat to the airplane (and to a lesser extent, those on the airplane) - but that is a different discussion and one way above my paygrade.

I think that the airlines reserve the right to add things that they specifically want prohibited, and actually agree that those items above what is determined for the governmental checks should be their own responsibility. There are already cases similar to this in play currently like the bag size allowed for carryon.

Drugs are the current challenge with the changes in laws nationwide, it will create more chances of folks from one area that are legally able to purchase and use drugs travelling to areas where they are still illegal. While TSA may discover drugs from time to time, it is not something we are specifically looking for - at least, that is what we are trained to do and how I personally operate. If it is found in the course of looking for a possible threat item, then we are required to notify local LEOs (see the recent stories about the pot infused foods discovered during screening in Colorado for an example of this in action - reportedly). Frankly, the entire process would be much simpler for all involved if the prohibs list were pared down to the basics - WEI.

So it appears that we are pretty much in agreement... how did that happen?

WillCAD

It just chaps my posterior that this happened to you, though, because we both know that not only is nitro medication completely harmless and inert, but the actions of these stupid - not ignorant, just plain STUPID - TSA employees actually put your life at risk.

My Dad also carries nitro pills, and I'm scared to death that the next time he flies, they'll be confiscated. Fortunately, he prefers to drive when he travels, as he enjoys road trips now that he's retired, but the next time he flies, I'll have to warn him about this possibility and have him hide the nitro away somewhere in his carryons where they won't get recognized.

ScatterX

Yup, sounds like we mostly agree.

I'm guessing you did not really mean to use the word simple, but maybe effective. Simple is not a goal that I've heard anyone seriously desire. We should be striving for reasonable, which includes things being necessary, effective, and the least intrusive means (which may include simple). Of course, different people will naturally have different ideas on what is reasonable. I would hope we all agree that we should debate and try to stop the doing of unreasonable things. @:-)

gsoltso

Maybe I should have phrased some of my statement with more clarity! Simple is actually part of what I would like, but more in terms of what people can expect and application of security. Security in an effective form will always be anything but simple, there is simply too much to take into account and plan for (at least on this scale), and the end goal of safety for those involved is a constantly moving target (as well as a shifting definition of safety for those involved!).

Striving for reasonable has been what I want in the first place, the public and HQ talking about policy - not some errant knucklehead doing something wrong or being unprofessional or doing something illegal. If we can generate that discussion, while limiting the other discussion (by simply not doing anything unprofessional, stupid or illegal), there is a much better chance for positive improvements to the process. Debate is quickly becoming a lost art, and while we may not agree on some things, the presentation of ideas and opinions can help formulate better decisions in the future. ^

Caradoc

Right up to the point of refusing to engage in the stupidity, anyway.

ScatterX

I'd like to believe that some believe they can change the system from within. I know that is not possible without them falling on their sword and going public with solid evidence of wholesale retaliation, corruption, fraud, waste, abuse, and cronyism. I won't hold my breath.

Quitting only means they will be replaced, likely by a better mindless-drone that does what he's told.

What is TSA doing to make this happen? It seems to me TSA's MO is to squelch any discussion/debate/inquiries/challenges.

It's not just an errant knucklehead. TSA's mission, approach, and fundamental practices are stupid and unprofessional. Groping is standard practice. Harassing and retaliation are common. Power-tripping clerks are everywhere. Confiscating water, cupcakes, fingernail files, and sock-monkey-toys is SOP. TSA defends these behaviors and whitewashes these events. They refuse to answer to their customers or provide a forum for debate. They refuse to allow independent review of the necessity and effectiveness of their actions.

TSA itself is unprofessional. So, I agree with you again. TSA should go away (stop being). Then we could have a great debate on how to start over. @:-)

chollie

Regarding items to be taken on board, the number one question should be (but isn't): could this item be used to take over the plane? (If you want go all McGyver, you could ask if the item could be used, in conjunction with other items brought through the checkpoint or in conjunction with items already available in the sterile area, to take over the plane).

If the answer is 'no', then there's likely no valid reason to confiscate the item.

In the relatively rare instance of a challenged substance (excessive cupcake frosting, for example), an ETD should resolve the situation, not confiscation.

Images of guns, arabic playing cards, sequential personal checks, nerf toys, light sabers, jars of peanut butter and heavily frosted cupcakes - none of these are going to allow a pax to take over an airplane.

That's the problem. TSA has completely lost focus. The mission is everything but ensuring that nothing enters the sterile area that can be used to take over an airplane.

PTravel

Hey, haven't seen you in a while. Nice to see you posting.

As usual, yours is a lone rational voice in a wilderness of paranoid bureaucracy. How do we get you promoted to some position where you can make policy?

ScatterX

TSA has a policy against promoting rational people. But it's SSI, to try to keep the public from figuring it out.

Caradoc

That's assuming the TSA ever had a focus beyond pretending to be "better" than private screening.

WillCAD

Actually, the focus shouldn't be on what could be used to take over (i.e. hijack) a plane; with locked and reinforced cockpit doors, the level of difficulty involved in hijacking is high enough to make it a non-starter for terrorists. And they knew it as soon as 9/11 happened, thanks to the brave souls on United 93.

The focus should instead be on 2 things, IMHO:

1) Things which could severely damage or destroy the aircraft itself
2) Things which could be used to incapacitate or kill large numbers of people abord the aircraft

#1, of course, includes explosives, potentially explosive items like pressurized gas canisters, incendiaries and accellerants (not matches and lighters), and... well, that's about all I can think of. Although, let's be fair, firearms do have this capacity in a roundabout way: shoot through the door or wall of the flight deck enough times, and you have a good chance of wounding or killing the flight crew, which would put the aircraft in serious jeopardy of crashing.

#2 includes toxic and caustic checmicals, and maybe biohazards (though I doubt that any biologics work fast enough to wipe out a planeload of people even over the duration of a transpac). Firearms, I believe, also fit this category, although their capacity for mass killing is limited by ammunition supply and the confines of the cabin.

Most of the stuff on TSA's prohibited items list is on there because it's reawwy, reawwy SCAWWY wooking, as opposed to its actual capabilities as a weapon.