Originally Posted by
chollie
Kind of splitting hairs, aren't you? And I was just trying to understand, not play word games. So a passenger who has opted out of WBI for medical reasons (unable to assume and hold the position) who has a dressing on a wound that shouldn't be handled harshly can realize there's no way to satisfy screening requirements (remember, I said in my original post someone who had to medically opt-out of WBI - a wheelchair pax, for instance). So passenger realizes the only way to satisfy screening requirements (drum roll, please: for the safety of all!) without undue pain and/or risk of infection. Passenger says 'no'.
I didn’t think of it as hair splitting. It was as forthright an answer as I could give to the question asked. Now that you have clarified a bit I can give a better answer.
We have procedures for dealing with wheelchair bound passengers. We see them all the time and they fly, all the time. There are also several ways to clear a wound dressing, but again I can’t get into specifics.
If a passenger is so egregiously injured that they cannot be touched, they cannot undergo AIT screening, or that they cannot undergo WTMD screening, most likely they are not going to be at the airport anyway. For that one in a million who do anyway, they take the chance that they will not be able to get through screening.
There is another option though. I cannot speak as to how effective it might be in getting someone with all these issues through screening but I have seen it used once or twice. Call the TSA CSM for your airport and discuss the issues with them. They “may” be able to come up with alternatives or specific directives on how to get the passenger to their flight.
Originally Posted by
chollie
So the part you didn't answer before (and I asked in good faith, I feel that you replied in a misleading manner) was that after I say 'no', you summon LEOs to process me out of the area since there's no viable way to complete the screening process.
If one knows that they cannot complete the screening process, then they should not start. If one does not know but finds out in the middle of the process then we have a procedure in place for getting that person back out of the checkpoint without exposing the sterile area. Our calling a LEO does not mean that someone is going to jail, its just another part of procedure that we are required to follow.
Originally Posted by
chollie
I get all that. In your earlier answer, heavily padded with TSA fluff (where did I say I doubted your mission or the importance thereof), you said that ultimately someone may effectively say 'no' - as with someone who has a surgical dressing and can't assume and hold the WBI position. Other TSOs have acknowledged that 'bulk' has to be resolved. The underwear bomber's 'bulk' is the justification for cupping and squeezing balls. Surgical dressings can be soft and bulky, obviously capable of concealing something.
Sorry, I don’t do AIT screening, but I cannot think of a situation where a TSO is going to be required to “cup a passengers testicles”. [polite]I am of the opinion that those folks claiming such are stretching the truth quite a bit.[/polite]
Originally Posted by
tanja
I do respect that you cant talk about certain things. But I am still very concerned. What would you do with my granson who cant communicate at all except with the closest family. He will not understand plus he would bite strangers.
LOL, wouldn’t be the first kid to bite me. Obviously he cant fly by himself, he is going to need someone to escort him and I can assume given what you say that it will be someone who knows him well and whom he knows well. Given that, special needs children (I have 6 of my own, so this is an area where I can speak with confidence) require some preparation for the checkpoint experience. I could go into an entire lengthy explanation on what I would do, but it might be best if you consult a professional in your local area. His doctor, therapist, psychologist, etc..
Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
That's not what I was taught when I went to school! I learned that this nation was founded by people who specifically rejected the "tyranny of the majority" and recognized the diversity of all religious and moral views and that no law or regulation of the government can give any more weight to one such moral system over any other.
200 years have passed since then. Just how much of our world do you think the founding fathers would recognize and be able to deal with?
Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
I want to make sure that I understood the above correctly. Are you saying that there are circumstances (I understand that you can't be specific about what those circumstances might be) where a person may required to have pain inflicted on them in order for them to fly and that this may be done to a disabled person because of their disability?
Ahh, I feel you trying to back me into a corner here. Buzzzzz, no score for you, thank you very much for playing our game. Be sure to pick up your parting prize as you go out the door.
After more than 3 decades of airport security, and nearly 8 years at this level, people know the basics of what’s going to happen at the checkpoint. There should be no real surprises, after all we have the internet, the TSA web site, places like Flyertalk and other web sites dedicated to the traveling public, a whole plethora of information available to you the passenger. If you are surprised by what happens at the checkpoint then you didn’t prepare.
No, its not
because of their disability, its because of their
decision.