Originally Posted by GUWonder

And more weapons on federal employees at the airports would just make for more of a dog and pony show than is already the case.

Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean

Now, in fairness, he didn't say the patdown was unchanged. He said that part is unchanged.



See? And he's correct.

The only thing different about the pat-down from 10/20/2002-10/31/2010 to 11/1/2010 (or thereabouts) is the addition of the screening of the inside of the leg. Which is, to say (literally, given that this is explained and offered with a hands-off demonstration prior to the beginning of the pat-down), placing one hand on the hip and the other on the inner-thigh. Previously, from that point, we went straight down the leg. Now, the hand on the thigh rises until it can't easily go any further (i.e.: "Until it meets resistance." "Resistance" isn't a body part. You can't put your hand through a steel door because it meets resistance there, too) then go down.

Everything else? Aside from us using a sliding motion instead of the old "crush and feel" technique, it hasn't changed. Not a bit.

However, GSO, I can answer that question by pointing out someone else who already answered the question.



That's the only reason. Previously, the only people to get Full-Body Pat-Downs were the folks who had pacemakers and cochlear implants other WTMD-sensitive devices, and those people in wheelchairs who couldn't stand for a couple of minutes for a wanding.

Then, when Pistole ordered the wands to be mothballed and created the Standard Pat-Down, suddenly everyone who had knee implants, who opted out of the WBI, who wore suspenders, who didn't remember their cell phone was in their sock � suddenly, all of these people are getting the pat-down.

Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean

Probably because GSO and myself are more tactful and polite than to do something like that? Besides, I never imply anyone's lying for the same reason I can't comment on anything related to the AIT � I'm not there. For all I know, some TSO did grab a lady's breast and give it a grip, squeeze, and row. It could happen, and the most I can or will say is that the TSO involved shouldn't be employed by the TSA after that point.



Obviously. But, like I pointed out to someone else in another thread, I can only speak to what happens in Huntsville. I saw that SATTSO told someone in one thread that his iPad has to be removed from carry-on bags and be put through the x-ray separately. Clearly, this is an SAT thing. We in HSV go by the baseline rule from TSA, in that they can stay inside so long as we can still reasonably screen the bag in spite of its presence (or, in other words, that it and everything else in the bag doesn't create a cluttered mess through which nothing else can be seen).



I've said the same thing.

Originally Posted by nachtnebel

This precisely is the crap you need to stop. that is offensive. We are not perps being sent through a custodial search.

Yes, but that is a major change as the sliding is highly offensive. You need to stop it and go back to what people have been doing for decades. We are not perps, for pete's sake!

Originally Posted by gsoltso

1st, excellent post!


2nd, Agreed, that is the larger prod for more outrage. I think the problem lies in folks:

1) Being selected for additional screening more often (but still hovering around 3-5% total interaction depending on which set of numbers you go by).
2) The fact that many people going through the AIT have anomalies on them requiring followup screening.
3) A minute percentage of TSOs doing something not in the SOP (I truly have no percentage on this, because there are no reliable statistics).
4) Folks that find the screening offensive for personal reasons and exaggerate their claims (again, this will probably be a minute percentage, but there is no reliable information to quote for it).

I am not certain that removing the HHMD was a good decision, but I understand what they are heading at, the pat down will detect things that the HHMD will miss - namely WEI made of non metallic substances.

Originally Posted by gsoltso

Absolutely true, which is why I indicate that if the TSO does things by the SOP, there is no sexual assault. I can't comment reliably about things I do not have firsthand knowledge of.



So, sliding along the contours of the body areas identified for search is more offensive than squeezing that particular area repeatedly in the bend/feel and crush method? The sliding has less physical impact on the passenger (as you are not pushing and prodding them, you are merely following the contours seeking to find something that is not supposed to be there), and is also more linear as well as taking less time in general (based on personal experience, I can't speak for HSV, but for me it takes less time). Why would sliding be more offensive than patting down?

Originally Posted by gsoltso

1) Being selected for additional screening more often (but still hovering around 3-5% total interaction depending on which set of numbers you go by).

Originally Posted by gsoltso

1st, excellent post!


2nd, Agreed, that is the larger prod for more outrage. I think the problem lies in folks:

1) Being selected for additional screening more often (but still hovering around 3-5% total interaction depending on which set of numbers you go by).
2) The fact that many people going through the AIT have anomalies on them requiring followup screening.
3) A minute percentage of TSOs doing something not in the SOP (I truly have no percentage on this, because there are no reliable statistics).
4) Folks that find the screening offensive for personal reasons and exaggerate their claims (again, this will probably be a minute percentage, but there is no reliable information to quote for it).

I am not certain that removing the HHMD was a good decision, but I understand what they are heading at, the pat down will detect things that the HHMD will miss - namely WEI made of non metallic substances.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog

Do you discount that some will find the screening offensive for personal reasons and not exaggerate their claims?

I find it objectionable that you seem to default to the traveler exaggerating their claims while discounting that TSA might actually be the problem.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog

Do you discount that some will find the screening offensive for personal reasons and not exaggerate their claims?

I find it objectionable that you seem to default to the traveler exaggerating their claims while discounting that TSA might actually be the problem.

Originally Posted by exbayern

I tend to be sceptical in general or at least filter much of what I read online, especially on various fora. There is a thread here now where I doubt that the situation really occurred as reported, for example. It isn't the first time I have questioned what was posted.

I realise that our beliefs, experiences, etc colour how we may report a situation, but I also believe that not everyone embellishes or exaggerates what they report.

The reality is that with an agency as large and diverse as TSA, with the current hiring and training process, not ever screener will be perfect every minute of the day. At least some of these stories must occur as reported, and not every photo or video can have been altered to display bias.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog

Do you discount that some will find the screening offensive for personal reasons and not exaggerate their claims?

I find it objectionable that you seem to default to the traveler exaggerating their claims while discounting that TSA might actually be the problem.

Originally Posted by jtodd

That is always their fallback M.O, claim the criminal, er citizen/pax, is lying, and if that doesn't work, lie themselves. Two very easy examples, Phil Mocek's case, and the recent filming of the lady at ORD, where the innocent citizen filming the event was lied to about photos not permitted.

Originally Posted by exbayern

I tend to be sceptical in general or at least filter much of what I read online, especially on various fora. There is a thread here now where I doubt that the situation really occurred as reported, for example. It isn't the first time I have questioned what was posted.

I realise that our beliefs, experiences, etc colour how we may report a situation, but I also believe that not everyone embellishes or exaggerates what they report.

The reality is that with an agency as large and diverse as TSA, with the current hiring and training process, not ever screener will be perfect every minute of the day. At least some of these stories must occur as reported, and not every photo or video can have been altered to display bias.

Originally Posted by jtodd

That is always their fallback M.O, claim the criminal, er citizen/pax, is lying, and if that doesn't work, lie themselves. Two very easy examples, Phil Mocek's case, and the recent filming of the lady at ORD, where the innocent citizen filming the event was lied to about photos not permitted.

Originally Posted by gsoltso

Not my fall back position at all, simply recognizing a reality that accounts for a minute portion of the voices out there.

Originally Posted by gsoltso

I mentioned that a "minute portion" of the folks would be exaggerating. If you find the touching offensive at face value, your arguments would be different than someone that was patted down, per SOP and stated they had their breast twisted or squeezed (or a similarly phrased comment). If someone is stating something happened that is against SOP, there are two options - it happened the way they described and the TSO is wrong and should be addressed per regulations, OR the passenger inflated the claim to get more sympathy. I do not have all of the facts in many of the claims I have read here, so I do not claim anything specific, I was merely recognizing that this has happened before and will most likely continue to happen - albeit in very small numbers.



Not my fall back position at all, simply recognizing a reality that accounts for a minute portion of the voices out there.