The TSO didn't press on my neck (fortunately), probably because I had removed the dressing. It was pretty ugly, gross actually, but thankfully the TSO (who was making 'icky' faces) seemed OK with visually clearing it (we didn't discuss it), and fortunately, I wore a low tank top under my shirt. I removed my shirt after I got (again) directed to the NoS and put it on the belt. I still got the neckline grope, but because it was a tanktop, it didn't get too close to my neck.

I am quite confident that if I had left the dressing in place, it wouldn't have mattered whether or not I said it was a sensitive area (areas covered by dressings leaking blood often are sensitive, I would imagine). If I hadn't removed the dressing, I am sure that the TSO would have felt it necessary to press on the dressing to make sure there was nothing concealed in it. After all, I guess I could put something nasty in a dressing, add fake blood and tape it to my body, right?

Both times I was very worried that the groper would automatically touch my exposed wound without thinking, but fortunately that didn't happen. I'm sorry for the pax that saw me and appeared grossed out, but it was better than the alternative.

I understand what you're saying, Chollie, and I agree with you, up to a point.

But the truth is that your used wound dressing still qualifies as medical waste. It should NOT have been placed on the belt or in bins where other pax place their possessions; if you were not going to re-apply it, it should have been thrown in the trash, and if you had intended to re-apply it, it should not have been placed on the belt or in bins where pax routinely place filthy shoes. Toxic lawn chemicals and animal excrement are just two of the many wonderful things that those shoes may have been in contact with...

All I'm saying is, infected or not, it's medical waste and should never be placed in any kind of contact with pax belongings. YOU may know that your blood is clean and infection-free, but the TSOs don't know that, and this is one instance where I think a true Abundance of Caution ought to win out - you don't put peoples' blood in contact with other peoples' possessions! Hello, TSO! Ever hear of blood-bourne illnesses like AIDS and hepatitis!

And if any TSOs touched the dressing, I certainly hope they changed their gloved immediately afterward. Though, that may be expecting too much from a group who sometimes uses the bathroom and doesn't change their gloves...

Or bursts colostomy and urostomy bags with impunity. Or tells passengers that their doctors are clueless. Et cetera.

TSA employees can barely be trusted not to pee on the floor, let alone demonstrate a basic understanding of personal hygiene or the fundamentals of biology. If they had that knowledge and understanding, they'd be qualified for real jobs.

Why not? People put their NASTY shoes in those same bins instead of on the belt.

'People'?

Last couple times I flew out of SEA, I put my shoes on the belt and the TSO belt monitor picked them up and put them in the bin.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but be prepared. I have trouble with one leg that requires special support (non metalic for flight days) Suffice it to say in my experience 8 out of 10x TSA will want to examine the area. Be sure they replace their gloves in your site. They have even gone so far as to request I remove the wrap, which so far I have successfully avoided. And know you'll most likely be raising your pant leg above the knee.

A belated 'welcome to FT', Cheryl.

Thank you for chiming in, and sorry that you have to go through that. I'm saddened however that so few people report experiences here anymore, and that the responses tend to be like on page 1 that it won't be an issue.

It MAY, and it HAS been an issue for many of us, many times over. Telling posters that it won't isn't fair and doesn't help them to prepare for what may well happen.

Here's an example of the varied experiences with medically necessary liquid:

From a non-American traveller:
and then someone follows chollie's suggestion to call the 'TSA cares line':

The part of 'TSA Cares' that I emphasize is not talking to a phone jockey who will just read what is on the forever 'out-of-date' website (which does not apply to individual FSD requirements, agent interpretation, individual checkpoints).

I emphasize the part about asking for a CSM to meet you at the checkpoint and escort you through. 'TSA Cares' is supposed to do that. I've posted elsewhere about the one instance where something like this happened - Stacey Amato was challenged at a checkpoint (again, after the agents had supposedly been 're-trained' but still didn't get it). The agent who challenged her was NOT going to back down...until the CSM stepped forward, identified herself and apparently had enough clout to force the agent to follow proper procedure.

My nephew tried this last week at SEA. His three and a half year old son is fed through a G tube in his tummy on special formula. Past TSA experiences ranged from annoying to outright awful. Having a CSM on hand made the whole thing tolerable. I wasn't there, so I can't report specifics, but my nephew gives it a big thumbs up.

I'm not suggesting that your recommendation is off base. But I think that most people would call, and if they encounter what that poster did, they may not pursue it further, or they make think that they did what they were told to do.

It's not surprising that TSA recommends calling, but in this case the person doesn't achieve any result and may not know to ask for a CSM. They were told to call the number; they called, and that was the result. I believe that person was using an airport in TN; another poster who reported problems uses PDX.

I don't think TSA necessarily wants people availing themselves of this 'service' - if they did, there would be a CSM on hand at all times and pax with 'special concerns' would automatically be advised of their right to ask for CSM assistance. Ditto with the phone call to TSA Cares - the pax should routinely be advised that a CSM can be made available.

I can only think of two reasons for the 72 hours notice: 1) the CSM is not readily available and 2) TSA intends to do a background check and probably make a report on any pax requesting TSA Cares CSM assistance at the checkpoint.

Nevertheless, it would appear that there's a chance to get someone who is possibly 'outside' the normal checkpoint chain-of-command to at least witness what happens at the checkpoint. It may deter over-zealous TSOs/LTSOs/STSOs from overtly punitive actions - that in itself is a step in the right direction.

Now it's quite possible that the CSM isn't really concerned about the pax experience or TSOs following SOP (whatever it happens to be at the moment), but the CSM may be an attempt to avoid embarrassing items in the news about pax mistreatment. This is, after all, the real reason why TSA suddenly decided that pax <12 and >75 can have repeat scans in an attempt to avoid gropes. The public is much more likely to get upset, call/write to Congress, etc, if a video or story surfaces about a child or an elderly person getting groped and mishandled. I think that's what is really going on with TSA Cares - image protection.

In a truly well-run organization, the position wouldn't be necessary. However, if a CSM can improve my checkpoint experience (meaning 'ensure that I am treated with something close to the respect that I should always receive and protect me from punitive TSO actions'), then regardless of motive, we should take advantage of it.

Now I certainly think there are FSDs who will not be on board with this (BOS comes to mind) - pax may show up at the checkpoint and find that the CSM is mysteriously 'unavailable', but a LTSO or STSO is ready to rubber stamp whatever goes down. But we do now have Stacey Armato's experience and the post above, two tiny data points, that suggest it might be an avenue worth pursuing.

I agree with all of the above, but the issue appears to be with the 'gatekeeper' answering the TSA Cares line. If they don't think that the item or situation is an issue, they may not refer the caller any further, or arrange for a CSM. In this case, the woman was left right where she started; confused about the TSA website and with conflicting information and experiences.

I also understand that TSA may not want to offer a CSM in every case as it is most likely a staffing/labour/availability issue, but if someone was given that number BY a TSA staffer, and calls with an issue, and isn't referred further, the system is broken.

Agree.

I think part of the issue is to know before you make the call that you are going to insist that you need a CSM based on prior bad experiences.

This is also one of the rare times I might follow up with personal contact to one's senator/representative, pointing out what is offered (CSM), explaining that it is being denied, and asking for assistance. Sometimes an aide will actually take on something like this on behalf of a constituent.

Of course, that's not an option for those from overseas who are kind or brave enough to bring their much-needed currencies and selves to our shores.

I'm personally embarrassed that our treatment of others is so out-of-keeping with the treatment other countries give me when I pass through their checkpoints. I can only point out that such treatment is not reserved just for 'furriners' - us citizens have to put up with it too (and we bear the further indignity of knowing that we pay for our treatment with our tax dollars).