Originally Posted by
chollie
You don't think TSA's own admission that Amy Van Dyken, paralyzed wheelchair pax, was mistreated at DEN and that a TSA investigator verified that two TSOs were manipulating the NoS to target selected males for sexual assaults is 'proof'?
You never witnessed any of this conduct personally at any of the few checkpoints you have worked at. Do you doubt TSA HQ's admission that these things happened?
I still struggle to understand how you can reconcile TSA's own website, which states that medical nitroglycerine is generally allowed UNLESS a screener decides otherwise with your on-going assertion that any screener who confiscates medical nitro is 'wrong'.
I can't give a good example now, but in the past we have heard that certain rules weren't TSA rules, they were rules TSA enforced on behalf of other government agencies - perhaps like the rules on lithium batteries. I was told that nitroglycerine is a banned substance in any quantity or form. I suspect this is true, but it is either an FAA regulation against explosive materials or it is an SSI rule and you are not at liberty to admit that here.
It doesn't matter, however. The screener who confiscated my pills and the LTSO, STSOs, and suit who backed the screener up were all following the rule as stated on TSA's website. If that is wrong, then I think TSA has another issue. Frankly, I find it upsetting when a TSO posts information that not only contradicts TSA's official public rule on the matter, but actually says that the rule posted on the website is 'wrong' and so were the TSOs, LTSO, STSOs and suit who followed the website rules.
This reminds me of a standard (and offensive) TSO line when questioned about a confiscation: "The website is wrong/out-of-date". I haven't heard that or DY...T in a while.
With this kind of confusion, no wonder disabled pax have no idea what to expect.
Once again, you are attempting to place your words into my commentary, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. I never said a single word about Van Dyken. In the past, I have freely admitted when the organization comes out stating they were wrong. In the case of Van Dyken, the organization says they were wrong, therefore, they were wrong. There have been other cases of this happening. I merely stated that in my experience, I had never seen nor heard it. I do not count claims online that are unverified or that do not have proof, because they are just that, unverified. When things have supporting information, I evaluate it and make statements accordingly. Just because someone makes a claim online, it does not mean that it is true - there have been cases of folks posting claims that are simply not true against TSA in the past.
I am clear on medical nitro, because the organization has a history of making pretty clear statements on it. At least a couple of times the organization has made the statement that medical nitro is a treatment that has never been prohibited. The site currently says that medical nitro is allowed in carry on and checked bags - very clearly. Pair those two things up, and it is clear, the
organization does not confiscate or prevent medical nitro as a policy.
Any TSO that steps outside of that,
is wrong. I have not disputed your claim, or any claim without proof to the contrary, however, I can not step to the opposite side and take an unverified comment as fact either. I can support the individual making the claim by providing them the chance to file a complaint with the organization, outside of that, I am unable to make much more happen. I can also release findings if the organization publishes them, but if they do not, I have nothing more to give.