Boggie Dog

TSA screeners are certified to know the procedures for each work station. The screener told the passenger to removed the harness from the dog. Doesn't matter if the screener knew the procedures or not, if someone else told him/her to ignore the procedures, or any other factor. It was still the individual TSA screener who told the person to remove the harness. That makes the screener responsible.

If the screener knew that removing the harness was not SOP then why didn't that screener call for a supervisor. Last factor and this is TSA wide, passengers have no way of knowing if what they are being told is correct or not. TSA hides every tiny bit of the screening process behind SSI. Each and every procedure that the public must comply with should be published so WE know what is being required is in fact correct.

I maintain that in this case the screener is personally at fault and should bear all cost associated with the lost dog and the replacement.

sunshinekid

Certifiction is not very relevant, if a practice is institutionalized by management. Again back to the settlement made to woman carrying breast milk, the screeners did not know what the procedures were and niether did the TSA manager.

SSI designation does not prohibit asking to speak to a supervisor or manager. And SSI designation does not releave a passenger of personal responsibility, it was the passenger responsibility to say "Is there an alternative, I am worried my animal friend might run away."

Boggie Dog

If a traveler doesn't follow the directions of a TSA screener they can be fined for Interfering with the Screening Process. TSA has SOP's that screeners are required to follow. If the screener fails to follow SOP then they are the ones at fault, as in this case.

The Breast Milk issue is an entirely separate matter. If you are thinking of Stacey Amato case she sued TSA and reached a settlement for $75,000 and changes in procedures. Bottom line TSA fouled up and it cost taxpayers a lot of money.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-n...eding-incident

Bottom line, if the TSA screeners don't follow SOP then they are in the wrong. End of story! Doesn't matter why they didn't follow SOP, just the fact that they did not. Ignorance of the SOP's is not a defense since the training records will demonstrate that they were fully qualified. Since TSA will not publish screening procedures for the public to review the public cannot be held liable for any improper screening, that lies directly at the feet of TSA and the individual TSA screener.

Given the simple fact that TSA has already admitted that the TSA screener did not follow SOP your argument falls flat on its face.

sunshinekid

It is the same issue. TSA personnel did not follow SOP and apparently did not know the SOP for the procedure.



I am not arguing that the screener was correct. I readily accept TSA's statement that the screener was wrong. However, we do not what TSA management at that airport dictates. We do not know what the Supervisor on duty at the of the incident dictates.
Do you believe that TSA Management would never deviate from the SOP?
Do you believe that every TSA supervisor is on the same page regarding commonly encountered issues at the checkpoint?
Do you believe TSA has abandoned its "focus on measures that emphasized reduced wait times"?

We have the same TSA that we had when Pistole was is in charge. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that TSA is not still operating under the motivation(s) that were attributed to its 95% failure rate. With that in mind, I can readily believe that TSA management or supervisors, or local organizational behavior deviates from SOP, and we never know until someone in TSA screws up so bad that National Media gets involved; as I believe is that case in this instance. So, yes, the screener was wrong. The screener, as indicated by TSA, thought he was being helpful (we do not know if his intent was to help the passenger avoid extra screening or if his intent was to help fellow screeners from having to work). The passenger bears liability for not expressing any concerns and not requesting alternatives.

chollie

I have seen nothing to indicate what the full exchange between unsupervised TSO and pax was. It is quite possible that when the TSO told the pax to remove the dog's gear, the pax questioned if that was a wise thing to do and was told that if she wanted to fly that day, she would comply with the TSO's orders.

It is also possible that the TSO handling her was actually an LTSO or STSO filling in. It is possible that TSA HQ is saying the TSO wanted to be helpful because TSA is certainly not going to say that the TSO was on a power trip, even if it was true. It's possible to ask for a supervisor and still be waiting 30 minutes later or to be told that no one is currently available.

You're doing an admirable job of trying to exonerate the TSO with very little factual data to go on. If TSA's own history is any indication, this was just another TSO exercising his 'discretion' as he saw fit.

Boggie Dog

We don't need to know what policy is or is not. The screener did the procedure wrong and caused a valuable animal to escape. If management is calling for improper methods then they too are at fault. I don't care where or on what TSA's focus is on, the SOP's are all that matters. It also doesn't matter if the screener was trying to be helpful, that simply is not reason to excuse his/her actions.

I just cannot accept placing any fault with the passenger. Anyone who has had the displeasure of transiting a TSA checkpoint knows how regimented some screeners can act along with heavy intimidation. Add on not knowing what is proper or not further removes the traveler from liability. There is every reason to not place blame on the victim.

petaluma1

chollie

Someone asked @ASKTSA about taking a cat through with a metal harness. @ASKTSA said the harness HAS to be removed for screening. No other information was given except to follow the screener's orders.

Slightly OT, but I've been seeing that lately - @ASKTSA ducks the answer and tells the pax that the screener will tell the pax what the rules are. That's an open admission by @ASKTSA that the rules are whatever any individual screener decides they are.

petaluma1

A cat isn't a service animal - however, no one should ever be required to remove something that is controlling the animal's movement.

chollie

I don't recall @ASKTSA suggesting that different rules apply for service animals.

What am I saying - the individual screeners determine what the rules are.

It struck me as funny that according to @ASKTSA, there is no way for a screener to clear a harness while it is on an animal.

Why wouldn't you clear the harness the same way you clear a piece of unremovable medical hardware on a person? Give the animal a two-minute frisk with special attention to its genitals and anus, test the swab, and if the swab passes, so does the animal.

FliesWay2Much

Our beloved cat is absolutely a "service animal" in every respect.

petaluma1

Oh, I so agree with that with respect to all animals - even when I want to open the door and toss them out on their ears when they are being so darned annoying.

petaluma1

Here's the TSA alleged SOP for traveling with small animals:

https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/20...her-small-pets

I have always said about @ASKTSA that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Boggie Dog

Doesn't that apply to all of TSA?

chollie

There is really only one rule: the screener has the final say.

About the only time a screener will be over-ridden by a higher-up is if the higher-up has a personal beef with the screener - never because the screener is wrong about the rules.