petaluma1

But was it TSA or just the FSD acting on his own? FSD's can initiate more intensive screening than the standard SOP and perhaps this was his way of trying to do that. "I'll get a law passed for my airport(s) that you will face a misdemeanor if you leave the screening line before we are finished with you."

I think this was the brainchild of one overbearing FSD and that it did not have the approval of TSA management.

JoeBas

I guess I'm extremely rare.

FliesWay2Much

Heck, it could been the brainchild of an individual clerk!

chollie

They can name the law after you.

ND Sol

It has been some time since we had that discussion, but I thought that an FSD couldn't do what is bolded. One reason is that the administrative search exception might be put at risk.

petaluma1

I am of the understanding, perhaps incorrect, that FSD's can loosen up on security but they can tighten up on it.

chollie

The administrative search exception is only put at risk if someone takes it to court and TSA loses, and even then, any judgment would only apply to the incident in question. At most, a memo would be sent out (and ignored) reminding screeners that their 'discretion' doesn't (officially) extend to violating administrative search procedures.

Otherwise, as petaluma1 noted, the FSD is free to increase security measures as s/he sees fit. At one time, one of the big Florida airports was briefly demanding two photo IDs at the TDC. On another occasion, SFO was requiring all electronics (including cords, accessories) to be removed by everyone. That one did actually get shutdown by HQ, but probably only because SFO was private security.

ND Sol

I think that there is a word missing in your statement.

I found the cite from the Screening Management SOP. I don't know if it has changed, but except in very limited circumstances, the FSD may not unilaterally change the TSA SOP to make it more restrictive. For example:

chollie

Your cite says nothing about making security stricter. It only covers the FSD's limited discretion to ease security.

Confused? Keep in mind, this is the same agency that says 1) nitro pills and other items are 'generally permitted' BUT 2) the screener has the final say on whether or not any item is allowed.

Gotta love the specific loophole created to allow FSDs to permit 'special' people to bypass security entirely.

1) Everyone should be screened. The 'special' individual is free to request a private screening. A member of the family or entourage can go through regular screening with the 'special' person's belongings.

2) Why should family members and entourage be permitted to piggy-back on the 'special' individual's fame? There is zero reason not to subject them to the same screening other pax receive. It's not like the offspring or friends of a 'special' public person have never gone rogue before.

I'm glad the rule made the distinction between 'elected official' and 'trustworthy person', since they are rarely the same.

ND Sol

I think that it can be both ways since the SOP states, "Situations may arise which merit a temporary, short-term deviation from established security procedures." The "established security procedures" are what are contained in the SOPs. What restriction would there otherwise be if an FSD decided on a whim to unilaterally and permanently require every passenger be subject to a full pat-down or that no liquids be permitted?

chollie

I gave two examples where FSDs did exactly that (added more stringent requirements). An FSD who does not support the Pre program has the ability to undermine the program by refusing to open or staff lanes or increasing the requirements for all paid participants (this happens regularly at LAX, where Pre pax in the Pre lane are still required to remove LGAs and laptops).

The PHX FSD has decided to implement a new form of Pre recently. Instead of a dedicated Pre belt, all Pre pax must show ID and rescan BP a second time, after the TDC and after their bags are on the belt. If they put their ID/BP in their bag, they are suddenly forced to remove shoes/belts/outwear/etc. to go through the NoS. If they have kept their ID/BP out, they are permitted to use the NoS. Because they're using the same belt, Pre pax have to remove laptops and LGAs. It's a mess, but the PHX FSD doesn't like the Pre program (even though there is a Pre enrollment center in the airport) and does not and will not fully support it.

Yes, an FSD most certainly could require every pax to get a full grope, and HQ would back him/her up publicly, likely on the grounds that it was a necessary response to a fictitious threat.

It shouldn't be a surprise. After all, screeners have enormous discretion. If you go to the TSA website and use the 'Can I bring?' tool or read the replies on 'Ask TSA', you will see that even necessary medical items are only 'generally' permitted - and all can be confiscated at the discretion of the screener, who always has the final say.

If a screener has the authority to confiscate nitro pills at his 'discretion', it should come as no surprise that an FSD has even greater 'discretion'.

BTW...FT's search function has never worked well for me. The business about FSDs being allowed to implement more stringent security measures, but not to relax rules, was posted here more than once in the past by 'resident' TSOs.

GUWonder

FSDs can do it, but to stick with it they need to make sure they have engaged in what the FSD and TSA HQ consider "adequate" measures. Adequate for what? Career protection comes to mind.

MSPeconomist

Response to post #9 above:

3) The everyone must be screened principle also applies to all airline employees, airport workers, and TSA employees.

kmersh

To be EXTREMELY CLEAR: I do not really know the applicable laws or really have a great understanding of security in general, I am a Physician not an expert in the Security Industry.

Recently, my Dad was going through a TSA checkpoint and TSA decided to take issue with a prescribed liquid medication.

The employee asked my Father when his last meal was and my Father honestly said my Wife and I ate lunch before going to the airport. The employee said the label says take 1 hour before breakfast, lunch and dinner and as you had lunch before coming to the airport and the flight is short, about an hour and landing well before dinner you can check this medication.

My Dad said I was under the impression that Prescribed Medication is exempt from the liquids band thus I could have it with me, in case my flight is delayed, etc. The TSA employee said that he had ultimate authority with regards to exemptions and he was not exempting this item.

My Dad is a Physician himself and said to the TSA Employee did you take a Residency in Gastroenterology prior to working for TSA as my Gastroenterologist felt I need this medication? The Agent said my Dad should not joke about security and he did not need a residency in medicine to know what is a necessitated exemption and what is not.

Ultimately a Supervisor was called and he did allow the Medication through, but does any TSA Employee, FSD or mere peon have the right to practice medicine without a license? Which is essentially what that TSA Employee did do, IMHO.

WillCAD

That's the crux of most of these discussions regarding medically necessary liquids - TSOs will often question travelers on their medical conditions, medicinal needs, and travel itinerary, in order to make a judgement on whether the liquid is medically necessary. This judgement should never be made by a TSO, because as you said, it amounts to practicing medicine without a license, particularly in cases where the TSOs ignorant opinion of what constitutes medically necessary directly contradicts an actual physician's instructions.

To be fair to the TSOs, though, most of them aren't trying to practice medicine without a license. They're actually trying to practice law enforcement without a license.