RadioGirl

Let's be very clear: your HQ didn't create the hotline because they thought there was a problem with screening people with disabilities. They created the hotline so they could claim they were "doing something" about a bad run of extremely bad PR.
And again I ask: HOW? Even if the hotline person (in DC or Bangalore or whatever) calls the airport after the passenger has been screened to find out how it went, do you really imagine that the person at the airport is going to say "we made her take her underwear off and stole her wallet"? The person at the end of the phone line in Bangalore has no independent information about what happened, and no authority to 'enforce compliance." They're just a voice, no better than the TSA website.
If screeners are currently unable to properly, respectfully, sensitively screen passengers with disabilities even though, as BB tells us, they've all been extensively trained (and evidence is that they can't), getting a phone call from a hotline to tell them how to do it one more time is unlikely to help. Having a passenger who - having called the hotline - knows more about it than they do is not going to help.
You're only thinking about the airport end. This will require hiring more people to staff the call centre for the hotline.

Go read this story: Wendy Thomson's account This is an amputee who started calling the airport ahead of time, printed out the website, submitted to the MMW scanner, but kept getting her chest felt up because of an amputated leg. Don't write it off as "things were different back then" - the same sort of people work at TSA, the same attitude prevails. Why should we expect any change?

gsoltso

I have posted before, there is no reason to interfere with someone taking video or photos, unless they are interfering with the screening process or taking imagery of the screens on the equipment. If it is a case of interfering, they should be asked to step to an area where they are no longer interfering, and left alone. If they are filming the screens, we ask them to stop and refer to LEO if there is a problem past that. I have no reason whatsoever to walk over and interfere with someone taking video or pics - and it should be the same nationwide.

gsoltso

I agree that bad press will put more pressure on HQ to do something about things. I hope that some renewed focus can be applied here and resolve some of the problems that we have seen.

If the person(s) in this communication chain do what they are supposed to do, and coordinate, there will be fewer problems simply because the TSOs are more aware of the situation. If I have been notified ahead of time, I have the chance to prepare for it, and it can bring more awareness in general. We shouldn't treat anyone "better" than anyone else, however we should give assistance to those that need it. This is a chance to make more TSOs aware and enforce compliance. It could also give us another opportunity to provide feedback - if I coordinate ahead of time, and the passenger does not get the assistance they need, then it gives you a starting point to fix that.

We do get fairly extensive training on how to perform the screening on folks with disabilities. The one thing I keep coming back to is "ask the person what you can do to help them". It is a simple question, and if you listen it makes the whole scenario much simpler. Communication with passengers is the biggest component that seems to be lacking. If we communicate with passengers better, things can move smoother for them. If you get the TSOs used to communicating with passengers with special needs, it translates to other passengers. I can't argue that we are doing a perfect job of getting the TSOs to communicate effectively with the traveling public at large, however in my personal expereince, we do a fairly good job here.

Agreed that there will have to be some positions created at the hotline level, perhaps they can minimize that by using existing personnel or parsing it out amongst a group of existing personnel, but that would not be optimum based on the spirit of what this is trying to accomplish. The airport level is something that can be resolved fairly easily, as long as they put the right people in these positions.

I do my best to not try and use the "it was different then" card, it truly serves no purpose - what has happened, has happened, we need to learn from past mistakes or challenges and move forward better prepared and better educated about the process, and fix what is wrong. I think that if we do a better job of communicating fewer situations like the one involving Wendy Thomson will happen, and we can work on fixing it before it happens again.

RichardKenner

What's the legal basis for preventing anybody from filming anything that's in clear public view? My understanding of First Amendment law on the topic is that if I can see something, I can photograph it. Can you point to a case that takes a contrary position? If the public isn't supposed to photograph what's on a certain screen, I believe the law requires that the checkpoint be constructed in such a way that they can't see the screen.

Boggie Dog

I think it is important to understand the larger issue. For starters no one is questioning how you as an individual conducts yourself while doing your job. But you do not make up the whole of TSA. There is ample evidence demonstrating that overall TSA is not training its employees well or TSA is not monitoring the performance of employees. Saying that training has been provided in a certain area does not indicate learning by the trainees. That takes follow-up by managers.


How hard is it for HQ to send out a memo to all FSD's saying to stop interfering with people taking pictures? Or how hard is it for HQ to send out a memo stressing which ID's are on the list? If such is happening then there is a breakdown in the local management chains all across the country.

Issues with photography, ID cards, abuse of travelers while being screened, not to mention the issues with TSA employees acting outside the law all point to a failure of leadership. Bad leadership impacts each and every employee, good or bad, up and down the line and TSA has bad leadership in spades.


edit to add:

Another example of a TSA Supervisor not knowing policy, either that or TSA has been dishonest with the public.

It is clear to me that TSA has a systemic problem and has done little or nothing to correct what is happening.


http://www.pixiq.com/article/tsa-cal...eckpoint-in-dc


December 29, 2011 @ 6:32PM
TSA Calls Cops On Me For Video Recording Checkpoint In D.C.

MrsGraupel

What if the passenger advocates were FAA employees? Have them train and stay current with TSA, but their chain of command is the FAA. There are already FAA management at airports, so no recreating that and it would be in line with the FAA mission promoting air travel.

They would be independent of the TSA - a little like the check and balance of the NTSB on the FAA in other aspects of aviation.

Boggie Dog

The advocate needs to be outside of DHS/TSA.

I think it should be a joint venture employee working for the airport and airlines. This person should be available on very short notice to present themselves at any checkpoint to resolve issues not just take information. This might require more than one advocate at many airports.

jkhuggins

And herein lies the Catch-22.

If the advocate works outside of DHS/TSA, then when a conflict occurs between a passenger and a TSO, the TSO has no obligation whatsoever to follow the directions of the advocate.

If the advocate works inside of DHS/TSA, with authority to direct the TSOs to change their behavior, then the advocate is not truly an independent advocate.

chollie

To be effective, an advocate needs 1) knowledge of the SOP and 2) authority over the TSO.

I certainly think (1) is feasible - it's no different than vetting someone and allowing them access to confidential material.

(2) is another matter entirely.

Sadly, the only DHS folks who will object to this are those who are themselves problems. If an advocate can bring a level of accountability to the organization, that should be seen as a positive by everyone, TSO and pax.

A DHS/TSA employee who sees accountability as a threat is a DHS/TSA employee who should be fired.

doober

I am certain the "thought" process here was, and will continue to be, "this person could be trying to mislead us by saying she has a prosthetic leg, therefore we will search her chest area, because that's where the bomb will be hidden."

RadioGirl

(Emphasis mine). With respect - because I'm willing to believe that you personally, and perhaps those at your checkpoint/airport are doing this reasonably well - all those "If"s boil down to:

"IF we know the correct procedure and IF we communicate with the passenger and IF we follow the right procedure for the passenger, then problems will go away."

If those things were happening NOW, the high-profile incidents wouldn't have happened in the first place. For screeners/checkpoints/airports who are already doing those things, the hotline is unnecessary. For screeners/checkpoints/airports where they can't manage those three things (cf Thomas Sawyer or Sharon Cissna or Cathy Bossi or Ryan Thomas or Lenore Zimmerman or Wendy Thomson etc), the hotline is just more policy to be ignored.

The Wendy Thomson story, in particular, demonstrates this. She came prepared to say "I have an artificial leg", she called airports ahead of time, she printed the TSA website page. That is, she took every possible action that a passenger could take to communicate with the screeners about the best way to screen her. Did the screeners (multiple airports, multiple screeners, including supervisors) respond by communicating and listening to her and treating her with respect and sensitivity? No, as doober suggests, they acted as if she must be hiding something on her upper body and groped her chest area repeatedly. She was ultimately reduced to removing the leg and hopping through the WTMD. Does that sound like anyone was "communicating" or asking "the person what you can do to help them"? She used the MMW which indicated something on her right thigh, so sure enough, they groped her CHEST again.

Seriously, no "hotline advice" is going to fix that kind of stupid.

RichardKenner

True, but I think that oversimplifies the situation. The only way that all of those things can happen consistently is if there's an agency-wide mandate to make it happen along with testing. Such a mandate would need to be nearly as strong as that to keep WEI off aircraft. Unless and until that happens, I think these incidents are inevitable.

InkUnderNails

I will agree that that is one way those things can happen consistently. The other is to make people accountable for their actions. Supervisors and trainers should be accountable for those the supervise and train. Front line employees should only be accountable in those areas for which they have had training. If they are assigned tasks for which they have not been trained, see supervisor accountability above.

The only agency wide mandate needed is that they will punish those not following practice. And those supervising them. And those that trained them. Period. Suspension without pay pending review. Back pay if cleared. Door hits their butt on the way out and they get their personal items in a box after escort to the door if not. Take the cheap badge and the cost of uniforms out of their final pay if not returned. Supervisors and trainers lose a stripe or two and go back to the front line. You know, like folks in the private sector are treated.

gsoltso

I understand that most folks here wouldn't question me about personal performance because they haven't been through my checkpoints, however, I keep mentioning it not necessarily to convince you guys, but to reinforce that there is simply no excuse for unprofessional behavior. We can do it here (we are not perfect, so I include for the most part in those statements), why can other places with more funding, and higher profiles NOT do it? There is no excuse for not knowing the rules on photography, they are in the training, they are in the SOP, they are even posted online at a few .gov sites - with a minimum of reading, it takes about 45 seconds to read the rules and grasp them. I am with you that the lack of awarness on photography rules is unacceptable.

I can't disagree with you about the communication factors at all, it is a big set of "ifs". I am just flabbergasted by the lack of communication as reported in several forums. If you are faced with a situation and you are uncertain of what to do, there is no shame in asking for:

1) help
2) how to assist someone
3) a coworker what is the best process they have used

It is a fairly simple process and it lets me as a TSO do what I can to help that person through and get them on their way (whther they have sepcial needs or not).

goalie

Bolding mine: Yet Be afraid, be very very afraid