Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

TSA denies screening for young boy with pacemaker

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA denies screening for young boy with pacemaker

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 24, 2016, 1:01 pm
  #46  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
The ETD test is proven unreliable due to excessive false alarms. (I term the alarm false when no contraband is found) When a test alarms on common products such as body lotions then the test proves nothing.
It proves that those common items are made of things that the machine was programmed to look for. Maybe future technology will allow for better programming.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
So what things might a young boy encounter that would possibly alarm ETD?
He's a heart patient. Nitroglycerin medication comes to mind.


Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Yet the screeners still moved their focus from the person who did alarm to a person who did not alarm. I don't see how that meets the "Risk Based Screening" objective. If the kid was a mule then wouldn't the mother take extra precaution to not contaminate herself?

The final question, what percentage of 9 year old boys, with flights originating in the U.S., are found to be carrying weapons of any sort?

Real "Risk Based Screening" would have an answer for that question
You answered your own question. The percentage of terrorist 9 year olds on American soil is pretty slim. I'm pretty sure that the Israelis wouldn't have ignored him if a similar situation occurred at one of their own checkpoints. If there wasn't risk screening, the boy would have been frisked. Is that what you'd rather have?
Batmanuel is offline  
Old Aug 24, 2016, 1:30 pm
  #47  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
Originally Posted by Batmanuel
It proves that those common items are made of things that the machine was programmed to look for. Maybe future technology will allow for better programming.
ETD prove absolutely nothing as far as true threats go. The devices should be removed.

He's a heart patient. Nitroglycerin medication comes to mind.
We have a FTer who uses Nitro medicine. Perhaps they could chime in and tell us if they have ever alarmed the ETD for that substance.

You answered your own question. The percentage of terrorist 9 year olds on American soil is pretty slim. I'm pretty sure that the Israelis wouldn't have ignored him if a similar situation occurred at one of their own checkpoints. If there wasn't risk screening, the boy would have been frisked. Is that what you'd rather have?
No, I did not answer the question. Neither did you and I'm going to guess that TSA can't answer it either.

Pat downs based on the results of ETD should be banned, at least until a reliable device is reprogrammed or built that only alarms on true threats. Medical Nitro, lawn fertilizer residue on shoes, Clear Care contact lens solutions, hand lotions, and such other items are not security threats.

Doing a pat down on some person because another individual alarmed is senseless and the practice should be ended.

TSA is focused on doing the wrong things.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Aug 24, 2016, 6:09 pm
  #48  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Bob Burns and the Blog have spoken.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2016/08/tsa-myth...-year-old.html

After screening, the mother and her son were escorted to their gate by American Airlines personnel, where they boarded and completed their scheduled flight.
If screening of these two was unremarkable as the blog seems to indicate, why were they escorted to their flight by AA personnel?
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Aug 24, 2016, 7:56 pm
  #49  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
TSA's piece says,

"There have been some reports that a nine-year-old child with a pacemaker was prevented from flying home because TSA thought his pacemaker was a bomb."

I don't think being prevented from flying was the complaint. TSA once again just tries to muddy the water instead of having an honest discussion of what actually happened.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Aug 24, 2016, 10:54 pm
  #50  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Originally Posted by Batmanuel
Explosive residue is sticky. If the kid was traveling with or was handling explosives, it would have been everywhere. Testing the bag and traveling companion would have resulted in even more alarms and more scrutiny.

Walking on fertilizer or working in a gunpowder-heavy industry might get you a false alarm for nitrates, and using certain colognes or hand lotions might get you another for nitroglycerin. Should the solution be eliminating all those tests altogether? Just because someone with ashy elbows wants to pre-lube before security instead of after?

Kind of ironic to complain about them "ignoring the threat", (a 9 y/o kid), as that's a direct result of other complaints. Everyone was up in arms about TSA screening grannies and children. Now they have alternatives, and people are still complaining.

It really doesn't matter what TSA does, so long as the rules only apply to everyone else.
We are complaining because the procedure makes no sense.

ETD alarm = grope somebody makes no sense at all, yet that's the way it seems to work.

We have run into this once--ETD (contaminated patch, they couldn't get a reaction from anything in it) on my wife's rollaboard. We had already identified it as hers and it contained some clearly feminine things. Yet we were asked who was to get the grope.

Either check the person whose bag it is or check everyone if the ownership isn't clear. Don't check a volunteer, that makes the whole thing worthless.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 5:36 am
  #51  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
http://theantimedia.org/agents-terrorize-boy-pacemaker/

Witness Gwenette Bradley:

“It was very traumatic for her, and I really felt bad for her,” she said. Bradley observed that Bergstrom had provided paperwork to the TSA agents, but even as she presented the necessary documents, the authorities showed her no sympathy. Rather, she says, they encircled her, refused to speak directly to her, and whispered to each other. “They all just talked among themselves like she wasn’t there. And I thought what in the world would possess them to do that? It just wasn’t necessary at all.”
That's a great way to demean someone and I suspect just like the swarming, it's something taught by TSA as a means of control.

~~

ETA: Perhaps video is needed of this incident, or a copy of TSA's report. The Blog article makes it sound like their transit of the checkpoint took only a brief time whereas mom says it took over an hour.

Last edited by petaluma1; Aug 25, 2016 at 6:30 am
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 5:46 am
  #52  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
We are complaining because the procedure makes no sense.

ETD alarm = grope somebody makes no sense at all, yet that's the way it seems to work.

We have run into this once--ETD (contaminated patch, they couldn't get a reaction from anything in it) on my wife's rollaboard. We had already identified it as hers and it contained some clearly feminine things. Yet we were asked who was to get the grope.

Either check the person whose bag it is or check everyone if the ownership isn't clear. Don't check a volunteer, that makes the whole thing worthless.
I've seen people volunteer to be the proverbial fall-guy who takes one for the gipper and allows themselves to be touched in place of another. The TSA accepts this stuff. The clownish nature of the show in the name of security would be less evident if the TSA didn't have this kind of approach. That said, I've seen somewhat akin ridiculousness at some UK and Canadian airport screening checkpoints.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 10:35 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Originally Posted by Batmanuel
Inside scoop from someone that works there:

Son bypasses metal detector because of his condition, and was offered the same specialized screening they're used to. (5-second hand test)

Machine alarms on test, and the mom and all their bags had to get extra screening. (nothing extra is done to the son)

Mom gets pissed off that she has to get pat down, and refuses to cooperate. Yells and screams that this isn't what happens at other airports, etc.

Mom's behavior gets the son upset, and he starts crying. Tells his mom to stop.

TSA calls for backup as tantrum continues, in the form of managers, police, etc.

Mom eventually complies and vows revenge.
Perfectly plausible sequence of events. In fact, I'd call it at least as plausible as the mother's account.

Also plausible is the idea that when the kid's ETD alarmed, the TSOs involved immediately escalated to a full hand search of all bags and a mandatory pat-down of at least one adult in the party (since the party had only one adult, she was elected).

And most plausible was that the TSOs involved have such poor training regarding the care and proper use of the ETD machine and its associated paraphernalia, and so little understanding of the concepts of residue transfer and cross-contaimination, that nobody ever had the thought to re-test the kid with different TSO with fresh gloves on a different machine to see if they could reproduce the alarm, or if it was a one-time glitch caused by dirty gloves, contaminated swabs, or an out-of-calibration machine.

Originally Posted by Batmanuel
Explosive residue is sticky. If the kid was traveling with or was handling explosives, it would have been everywhere. Testing the bag and traveling companion would have resulted in even more alarms and more scrutiny.

Walking on fertilizer or working in a gunpowder-heavy industry might get you a false alarm for nitrates, and using certain colognes or hand lotions might get you another for nitroglycerin. Should the solution be eliminating all those tests altogether? Just because someone with ashy elbows wants to pre-lube before security instead of after?

Kind of ironic to complain about them "ignoring the threat", (a 9 y/o kid), as that's a direct result of other complaints. Everyone was up in arms about TSA screening grannies and children. Now they have alternatives, and people are still complaining.

It really doesn't matter what TSA does, so long as the rules only apply to everyone else.
It really doesn't matter what the rules are, TSA applies them differently to every person depending on how much they like the person and what kind of mood the TSOs are in at the time.

Originally Posted by Batmanuel
It proves that those common items are made of things that the machine was programmed to look for. Maybe future technology will allow for better programming.

He's a heart patient. Nitroglycerin medication comes to mind.

You answered your own question. The percentage of terrorist 9 year olds on American soil is pretty slim. I'm pretty sure that the Israelis wouldn't have ignored him if a similar situation occurred at one of their own checkpoints. If there wasn't risk screening, the boy would have been frisked. Is that what you'd rather have?
Better programming of the machine will not compensate for poorly-trained incompetent operators who use the machine badly, have no clue what cross-contamination and residue transfer mean, and make no effort to resolve an alarm with minimally invasive means but immediately escalate to invasive, humiliating, and/or abusive methodology. Because they don't know any better, nor do they care at all.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 10:51 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by Batmanuel
Right, because everyone will agree that it's much better to pat down the 9 year old with a disability instead.
And yet, TSA, within it published guidelines, could have easily spoken to the mother and child about using the AIT. It is apparent from the mothers facebook post that they are amenable to using the "other machine" instead of the metal detector.
gingersnaps is offline  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 1:13 pm
  #55  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
Originally Posted by WillCAD

And most plausible was that the TSOs involved have such poor training regarding the care and proper use of the ETD machine and its associated paraphernalia, and so little understanding of the concepts of residue transfer and cross-contaimination, that nobody ever had the thought to re-test the kid with different TSO with fresh gloves on a different machine to see if they could reproduce the alarm, or if it was a one-time glitch caused by dirty gloves, contaminated swabs, or an out-of-calibration machine.
I have witnessed a screener taking a swab that was lying on the table where the ETD was located then using that swap to test an item. No idea how long it had been laying on top of the table or how many testing cycles it had been through.

The only 100% way to use a ETD swab would be to remove it from the storage container, test the new swab before use, swab the item, then test for contamination.

Even then the target envelope is too wide to render useful results.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 1:20 pm
  #56  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I have witnessed a screener taking a swab that was lying on the table where the ETD was located then using that swap to test an item. No idea how long it had been laying on top of the table or how many testing cycles it had been through.

The only 100% way to use a ETD swab would be to remove it from the storage container, test the new swab before use, swab the item, then test for contamination.

Even then the target envelope is too wide to render useful results.
If your purpose is to have a test with high Sensitivity, the TSA wants high Specificity. False positives doesn't matter.
theddo is offline  
Old Aug 25, 2016, 2:18 pm
  #57  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
Originally Posted by theddo
If your purpose is to have a test with high Sensitivity, the TSA wants high Specificity. False positives doesn't matter.
Contaminated testing media certainly matters. Exactly how would a False Positive not matter? Every result indicating contraband requires more time and manpower to resolve. Only TSA would think such doesn't matter!


Don't think this link has been posted here. This article goes into great detail as to what happened at PHX and this family and is a good read.

http://theantimedia.org/agents-terrorize-boy-pacemaker/

Eventually, Bergstrom was told that all of her items had to be screened because her bags had triggered the security alarm during screening, an assertion Bergstrom disputes.
Typical TSA attempt to shift focus and change their story.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Aug 26, 2016, 7:44 am
  #58  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Originally Posted by petaluma1
http://theantimedia.org/agents-terrorize-boy-pacemaker/

Witness Gwenette Bradley:



That's a great way to demean someone and I suspect just like the swarming, it's something taught by TSA as a means of control.

~~

ETA: Perhaps video is needed of this incident, or a copy of TSA's report. The Blog article makes it sound like their transit of the checkpoint took only a brief time whereas mom says it took over an hour.
The ace-in-the-hole this time is that there is an actual non-stakeholder witness who has spoken up in defense of the victims. The TSA can't ignore it or simply just personally attack the victim with any credibility. The best they can hope for is that the election gets all the headlines and this story will go down quietly without the public outrage it deserves.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Aug 26, 2016, 7:58 am
  #59  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
If that airports FSD was on scene and allowed these events to happen then the first step should be the immediate dismissal of that FSD.

Then start working down the Chain of Command and start chopping out dead wood as needed.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Aug 26, 2016, 8:34 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Contaminated testing media certainly matters. Exactly how would a False Positive not matter? Every result indicating contraband requires more time and manpower to resolve. Only TSA would think such doesn't matter!
The TSA is charged with being right when they say someone isn't carrying weapons. They do a poor job of that, but that's what they are supposed to do. Their supervisiors thus accordingly accept a higher rate of false positives than false negatives.

If you have opinions on that you should probably contact your senator or congressman. I have a feeling not many would have the position "lets increase the amount of weapons smuggled through the TSA to reduce wait times" wouldn't fare well come election time.

And that's what it boils down to. The TSOs are public employees, if they have more work that means longer wait times for you and doesn't make any difference for them.
theddo is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.