FliesWay2Much

No, only humans as the collection of pictures demonstrates.

petaluma1

Further, we have proof that TSA employees, in Jon's case, three of them either don't know the policy or were lying to Jon.

Is Neffenger's "training academy" going to overcome that?

Affection

I believe you are correct that these employees were mistaken as to policy, but it should be clarified that a TSM is not really a "low level employee." Chances are, she was the highest ranking TSA employee in the airport at the time. That's very much a problem.

--Jon

Boggie Dog

If the performance and knowledge of TSA's TSM employees is looked at as a whole I think one could believe that they are no better trained or know policy better than a first day hire. Look what happened in the Amato case, Beirfeldt, and to others over the years. TSM's have been involved or at least present in each situation.

Carl Johnson

I think the point was that a TSM is "low-level" in that they don't set policy and so their pronouncements don't override stated policy. It is, though, a disgrace that a TSM either doesn't know the policy or was lying about it.

chollie

What makes you think they haven't already been to the 'academy'?

It seems to me that if you wanted to send 42000 people to an 'academy', 200 at a time, you would start with the higher level employees. They've been there longer, so they're more likely not to take the boondoggle and quit.

I would be very surprised if the STSO hasn't already been to the 'academy'. There's no reason to think 'academy' training is going to change the number one TSA rule: 'screener discretion'.

This STSO and TSM exercised their 'screener discretion' to decide what the rules regarding photography are.

chollie

The TSM and STSO know the policy.

The only policy you need to know to work for TSA is 'screener discretion'.

The TSM and STSO exercised 'screener discretion' to decide that photographing the dog was a significant threat to aviation safety.

It's possible they were enforcing a direct order handed down from the FSD, but that seems a trifle unlikely.

petaluma1

TSA hasn't yet started to send old timers to the academy as they need all their spots for new recruits. With the attrition rate among screeners, I truly doubt TSA will ever get around to sending current employees for more training. Or, they will send one or two per class.

There is no "screener discretion" in a Constitutional matter.

Boggie Dog

There is until that discretion is challenged in a court that decides in the favor of the citizen.

chollie

Good grief. So the new folks go to the 'academy', come back, and get re-trained by overseers and senior employees who still adhere to 'screener discretion' and whatever the local rules are. Six weeks after being back, the new hire will have forgotten everything s/he learned at the 'academy' and will be back to doing it the way it's always been done.



We have had reports of more than one TSO/LTSO/STSO/suit exercising their right to make up the rules by telling people that the checkpoint is a Constitution-free zone.

I'm not aware of any court decisions telling them they are wrong. As Rand Paul found out, TSA can and will detain even a US Senator if they feel like it, Constitution be da*ned.

petaluma1

I said that at the time I first learned of the "academy."

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/26243125-post95.html

Regarding Constitution, the TSA has put in writing that photography is allowed. That these 3 particular employees said otherwise indicates they are not properly trained or they were lying. I choose the latter.

chollie

I missed that part about the 'academy'. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Like a kid getting his MBA and telling the CEO of his new job how things should be done. Sure, that's the way it always works, right?

I think TSA has always maintained carve-outs about some parts of the screening process - the xray screens, or, in Phil Mocek's case, the ridiculous prohibition against photographing a form you have just been required to fill out with your personal information.

And, as we all know, TSA has an unchallenged (in court) very liberal interpretation of what constitutes 'interfering with the screening process'. I'm sure they've got at least one paid 'expert' handler who will testify that cameras upset his sniffer dogs so much that they can't work.

petaluma1

I've got one of those things from TSA that tells me that I can't share the information because it's SSI. I wonder what I did with it. When I find it, I'll share it.

eyecue

Just keep in mind that court ruling about
3 months ago that said the first amendment right to photograph any law enforcement is not allowed UNLESS you are also engaged in something else that constitutes free speech. So if you are not protesting, you cannot photograph anyone and use that excuse. I don't recall what level court this ruling was in and it might be lower but the pendulum could be starting to swing the other way. I wont say that I am for it but it may be coming.

Maxwell Smart

Ummmmm......

With some rare exceptions (e.g., FAM), TSA screeners are NOT law enforcement.