TSA induced panic attacks
 

Before the checkpoint, I had a full blown panic attack. In this instance my heart beat at a very strange rythym. :(

After a looooong day of travel, as I was about to board the final leg, two TSAs stood after the gate, on the walkway to the plane, and put on blue gloves. One snapped them.

Just from that, I had a full blown panic attack. :(

Just sharing...

Didn't one of the people claiming to be a TSA employee here lie about how they're "trained" not to do that?

I had TSA induced insomnia for months after the groping started, around November 2010. I was a very frequent flyer before that. I slowly started sleeping better when I started taking Amtrak.

The symptoms of TSA trauma are, imagine that, quite similar to the symptoms of sexual assault trauma: fear, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, difficulties in relationships, nightmares, flashbacks, nausea, depression. After the TSA abused me, I was never the same person again.

I still haven't been able to quit flying entirely, but I wish I could. It hurts, it really does, to hear John Pistole say that women experiencing sexual assault trauma are complaining about "an inconvenience". He's truly an inhuman monster.

I hate this crap as much or more than anyone here but what gets me through this is to just think in x amount of time I'll be at x doing x & having fun & they will still be back at a dismal checkpoint grouping people:td:

Works for me:) Give it a try.

I had it happen not too long ago in Cleveland. I dropped my keys as I was getting in line. A TSA agent snapped at me for "not looking after my belongings" as I bent down to pick them up. Then I lost my usual calm demeanor and started trembling. As I got in the MMW scanner, the agent said, "Jesus Christ, stop shaking!" I would have liked to have turned him in, but I wanted to get as far away from that checkpoint as possible to collect myself.

Looking back, it wasn't really a pathological panic attack. I was being attacked in a verbal and psychological sense. My own visible anxiety was a normal, adaptive, human response.

There are so many reasons why the TSA consciously or subconsciously elicits anxiety. There are crowds of other passengers, so there is already a sense of claustrophobia and social anxiety. Many of the staff can be rude, demeaning, and inappropriate. There is the sense of being judged "guilty until proven innocent." And there are many metaphors to the Holocaust: guards talking about "selectees," a guard deciding "which line" to will be sent, and involuntary radiation and immodesty.

In other words, a "panic" response is actually normal.

Preventing this reaction is difficult. It requires a lot of work. I drug myself with benzodiazepines, which sort of helps. I choose lines carefully, and verify tsastatus.net. I also do whatever I can to distract myself: think of a song, a movie plot, anything I can think through in my head. If there are cute babies in the line, I always stop and say hello. I'll still be profoundly anxious, but these measures help.

I can't not fly (Sorry about the double negative.) So I work to tell myself, "I speak up, I write to the legislators, written an op-ed in the newspaper, but I also recognize that I cannot control the TSA. I have to deal with some form of acceptance."

I made the mistake of talking with a shrink about it. He gave me an, "anything for security" response, and talked about how grateful he was to be pulled out of line and get frisked in public. This is not a man I would trust.

Somehow, somewhere, I dream that there are TSA administrators and staff with compassion, who realize that they are inflicting an undue level of stress and suffering to many. I like to think that just one staff member or official recognizes that the TSA's behavior is damaging and painful.

Wishful thinking.

There are numerous passages among the patdown complaints from November/December 2010 released recently that describe the serious psychological effects of patdowns. Mats, OP, and others, you are not alone - yes, trauma and distress are completely normal reactions to the TSA's despicable assaults.

Caution: triggers. Read more here: http://tsanewsblog.com/5927/news/pat...nd-flashbacks/

There is a lot of denial among shrinks about this problem, I think. It's not all shrinks, though. Your guy was out of line, talking out of his own denial, ignoring your distress. I wouldn't give up on it, and maybe try a woman next time.

Your normal avenues of defense and response are blocked. Normally, faced with violence, unpleasantness, assault or threat thereof, you might:

Fight back, verbally or physically.
Scream.
Walk or run away from an assailant or agressive person.
Call for help.
Walk out of the place.

Here, you can't. You could in theory walk out, but it would be after a huge confrontation, under threat, with no help, to no help waiting, and would be impractical if you need to reach a far destination especially one that's over water.

You're helpless. And this helplessness in face of assault is backed by the law and condoned by society. A blue gloved hand can touch you there and you cannot protest.

Well put, littlesheep.

When one is under assault physically or psychologically, the "flight or fight" response is an autonomic function from the hypothalamus. It is extremely difficult to modulate one's affect, behavior, and inner thoughts when these human instincts must be suppressed.

thank you for posting this. I am having panic attacks and anxiety often in the airports now. it's real. It's taking a huge toll on me.

I had a panic attack after my last TSA experience, just after I got through the checkpoint. It was so horrible that I honestly thought I was going to die in the airport and wouldn't let my husband leave my side for ages. Luckily we always arrive pretty early for flights so I had time to get over it and was fine by the time it came to boarding the plane. But it left me pretty shaken and spoiled the start of my holiday.

I am now terrified of going through an airport in case the same thing happens again. Unfortunately we have to fly in less than two weeks - we moved to the US before the xrays/gropes, but now our visas are about to run out and we have to leave :( Absolutely dreading it and it's the same airport/terminal as the last one which makes it worse (I was fine flying back from my holiday - Kona airport is very different to LAX!)

I have nightmares caused by physical pain which is the result of a lifelong chronic illness. The night before I have a flight from a US airport, the pain nightmares invariably involve the TSA (perhaps as a result of two actual incidents in the past where they caused me so much pain that I almost fainted, and I have a high pain threshold)

I fly at least once a week in 'rest of world' and never have those dreams about screeners in other countries and don't have those dreams the night before I fly from other countries.

It is interesting. I myself have anxiety about many things in life but never about TSA. I am not a psychologist, but I assume such mental responses exhibited by previous posters (e.g., panick attacks) may arise from catastrophising the encounter with the TSA prior to the actual encounter. Unfortunately, it seems that this sub-forum only "helps" people work themselves up when it comes to dealing with the TSA, thus increasing their anxiety further.

Just to clarify things: I dislike the TSA just as the majority on this forum, and I request pat-downs if the time permits. It just happens that TSA encounters do not induce physiological "fight-or-flight" response in me.

I would recommend the OP and others suffering from the TSA-induced anxiety to consult with your psychologist. This type of anxiety can be treated by the same methods that any other forms of anxiety are treated.

Thanks for the advice. I'm a doc myself. The correct treatment for this condition, apart from ameliorating the symptoms the usual way one would with panic attacks, is removal of the underlying cause - the TSA in its current form.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I totally agree with you. People are over medicated as it is.The only way to handle a panic attack is to get rid of what causes it.

Plus then they will have another issue on their hands. Trying to get medication through the check points.

Plus I think we should not have to be medicated to fly. That is stupid, insane, and so on.

I do not have panic attacks either, but I sympathize with those that do. I do have royally PO'ed attacks, if that counts.

What is that?

Lame humor.

Let's say: Aggrieved and aggravated to the point of great distraction and verging on irrepressible anger. And royally (as in hugely) so.

Not lame at all. More honest.

TSA is :td::td::td::td::td::td::td::td::td::td::td::td

I have long said that this board and certain posters have turned people off the 'anti-TSA' message; numerous people I know and who I find quite intelligent have read here and been turned off by the hyperbole from some posters, as well as the tone. Sometimes the tinfoil hat view of those who are anti-TSA is reinforced by TS&S and some of the more frequent posters.

Having said that, however, I know that for some people panic attacks are a very real situation.

I consider myself rational and post in a measured fashion, but also try and present what may happen to people based on my own experiences. I often say 'hope for the best, but prepare for the worst' and believe that having factual information is important.

But I agree with you that there are some posters here who seem to enjoy fanning flames and posting hyperbole over fact. It's really a shame.

On an internet forum? No way.

Panic attacks are a silent problem. Unless you have to speak in public, you're probably the only one who knows you're having one.

Colostomy bags are a private problem.

Insulin pumps are a private problem.

If people actually made a fuss every time their privacy was invaded - if every single person whose private medical problem was invaded by the TSA or whose body was touched in an unseemly fashion were to weep out loud - many more people would notice.

What's happening is a conspiracy of silence. Between the desire to get it over with, embarrassment, fear, machismo, cowing to authority, calculating your odds of a successful protests (zero), whatever the operating mechanism is, most people who are invaded do not voice their discomfort.

As for the onlookers, there's the discomfort of seeing someone else assaulted, the natural instinct being to avert your eyes when something embarrassing happens to someone else. There's wanting to make your own flight and fear of retaliation if you try to intervene. Add to that the fact that many won't believe that this stuff happens or are deluded to believe it serves some greater good. At the end of the day, we remain silent IRL, and let the TSA travesty go on.

This internet forum is one of the few places we can talk about it.

I absolutely agree, and so long as it is discussed calmly and rationally (as in your OP), we may have more people come on side and understand that this is an issue.

But some of the posts here were so over the top in the past year or two were so over the top that I believe that the discussion was lost in the hyperbole promoted by some posters.

I know several FTers who wandered over here and read some of the posts and decided that this was the loonybin (their words). I used to think that this was the tinfoil hat gang, until I overlooked some posts and posters and read the relevant and factual information.

Again, panic attacks are very real. The experiences of many people here are real, and often posted in a factual manner. But some people do seem to enjoy hyperbole, and it is sad to me that the real issues and real experiences are often overshadowed by that hyperbole.

We have an important message to deliver, but the message is being drowned out. :(

I hope you don't mind that I snipped your post but I wanted to address this point in particular. Panic attacks are something I've never witnessed at work and swabbing hands that patted insulin pumps is, what's the word?, status quo? I've never seen a passenger object or be bothered by it that I can recall. I wanted to address the act of screening someone's medical device and how it can affect them emotionally. I wanted to present the question of where is the line between screening a device and not invading someone's privacy or causing them distress and how do we find this line? As a TSO I see the need to screen devices; I read intel briefings and I read the news and I understand the need to screen something such as a colostomy bag because it could be faked and such. As a human being, I also see the need for privacy and discretion as well as the need for compassion and humanity. How does a TSO such as myself reconcile the two? It's like saying one believes in both Darwinism and Christianity and that the two are reconcilable. That's the way I feel about this issue. I feel that the need to follow the SOP and do my job to the letter AND the need to use compassion and discretion are reconcilable. A few weeks ago I was called to go to private screening to screen a woman's colostomy bag that had of course been flagged by our gumby software on the AIT. It was a simple matter of her patting the bag over her clothing and me swabbing her hands, but it still bothered her. I stayed with her and talked for a bit, explained the need for the screening and empathized with her, and listened to what she had to say. She cried a little which really bothered me because I hate to see someone sad especially when I know that I'm essentially the cause of the sadness. I couldn't help but place an arm around her shoulder and give her a good side hug. Out of line, I know, but damn I'm human and comforting someone is my first instinct. She could had thrown off my arm and said to not touch her and it would have been my own fault but the hug and sympathy seemed to help. She explained that the bag was fairly new, she was having trouble adjusting, and to then get pulled aside because of it was a reminder of her struggles. I asked her, "So we basically added 'insult to injury,' yes?" and she agreed. We talked some some more and I hope she felt better when she left to go to her gate. Which brings me back to: How do we screen situations like this and avoid the "insult to injury" factor?

If you don't see anything wrong with forcing someone to go to a private room alone, then I don't think that I can explain to you the issue. Nor is it about someone being 'sad'.

And if you had dared to try and hug me I would have definitely have lodged a complaint.

As to how to screen, I have said many times that the TSA needs to take lessons from other countries, but is too arrogant to do so.

How can you keep a job that makes innocent people cry?

I honestly don't know why the private room was needed because it was a simple over the clothing pat and I didn't even need to touch her apart from swabbing her hands. I'm figuring, based on how she was feeling about the situation, that she must have asked for privacy. But from talking at length with her and listening - really listening to what she had to say - I really do think it was because it saddened her. It saddened her because it was a reminder of what she'd overcome to get where she was physically and emotionally.

That certainly would have been within your rights and if that had happened then I wouldn't have objected. I would have acknowledged my mistake and taken my punishment. Like I said, I'm only human.

I'm sad to say I haven't been to any other countries, but I have learned a ton reading here - which is why I joined this forum many years ago - I definitely see your point. There must be a happy medium somewhere and I hope TSA finds it soon.

You seem very cavalier and accepting of the practices of your employer. Again, if you cannot see why any of this is wrong, we cannot explain it to you.

You are in a position of power and authority, and took someone into a private room and then embraced them. There are a number of things that could be said about it, but it was frankly incredibly foolish on your part. I suggest that you don't do such a thing again if you don't want to put yourself in jeopardy.

You can try and spin it that you are a warm and caring person, but it doesn't change the fact that it was completely inappropriate.

That's the first time it had happened to me and it sucked. Really. Sucked. I felt like crap. I love my job because I believe in the point behind it but I do believe reform is badly needed. I will do my job because if I don't, someone else will and they may not have the compassion and caring that I have. I don't want to make people cry and usually I don't. My day is usually full of laughing and joking with the passengers, making them feel wanted and important and trying to make the checkpoint experience as good as it possibly can be. I don't pass judgement on people, and I certainly don't retaliate. Of course, when I get those who just want to be left alone, I honor their wishes. I want traveling through our checkpoint to just be a minor blip on their radar of the day, not a traumatic experience to be prepared for. Some of the stories I read on here sadden me greatly and some make me downright angry. That's why this particular screening bothered me so much. Screening a colostomy bag is something that has to be done and I used as much decorum and tact as I use in everything I do. So I hated seeing her distressed over this. That why I posed my original question. You folks on this board travel way more than I have or ever hope to. Based on the confines of what the SOP says we have to do, how do we find the line to deal with a sensitive screening like this without distressing the passenger? Is there anything I could have said or done, that allowed me to still do my job, but yet made the screening easier for her?

Like you, I snipped a bunch so I could address a singular point.

You seem like a really nice and compassionate person. I appreciate that. You may not be cut from the right cloth to be a TSO. However, that is not the reason for my reply.

The system in which you work takes a person that has already been the subject of a difficult situation and submits them to even greater distress just because there is a possibility that a medical device they are using, one that is of an embarrassing nature to many people, may be "faked" as you say. You have a responsibility under your SOP to ascertain that it is real so that you can clear this person to complete the lawful contract they have made to purchase air travel on a common carrier.

Here is the problem with that. Until you can give her clearance to enter the sterile area, she is now both medically distressed and under a cloud of suspicion as a person with criminal intent.

It is a matter of perspective that we have discussed here many times. Hopefully you will understand this distinction. I will try to frame it as simply as possible. The process of air security used to be one in which the primary assumption was that everyone that entered the checkpoint was without nefarious intent, and it was the job of the screening process to identify those that may not be safe to proceed. Now, the assumption is that everyone that enters the checkpoint is under suspicion of criminal intent until the screening process can prove that they are not.

While the distinction may seem trivial, it is far from it. In the first instance, we need only come as our normal everyday selves. We wear what we normally wear, act as we normally act and have with us the things of life that we will have in any other situation in which you may find us outside of the checkpoint.

The second is quite different. We now must be concerned that what we normally are does not reinforce or multiply the suspicion that is inherent in the process. We must carefully analyze the everyday things that we carry or possess to assure that they also do not support the suspicions that we are under. We even must be concerned of the things we say, even those that are relatively benign in any other situation other than at the CP.

Where do you draw the line? You have no control over the line. It is positioned for you and any ability that you may have to move it only moves it around within a broken framework of everyone is a suspect that must be cleared.

Only your management can redraw the line and they have deliberately chosen where they want it. It is the insult added to injury that we endure just to travel for vacation, to work, to visit family or whatever the reason is today. You said it yourself. You have been taught to assume that medical devices can be faked and you must prove it is not. Our lives, and yours, would be much simpler if system were to assume that they were legitimate medical devices and that the screening would look for evidence that it is not.

I do hope I don't come off as cavalier, because I'm not. I acknowledge that our practices need improved to say the least but I am limited to doing what I have to do. Losing my job does no one any favors.

I know. You are absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong. If it helps it was a quick one-armed side hug and *not a full embrace, but the fact that I was wrong still remains. I'm usually very good at "watching my p's and q's" but this was a moment of weakness on my part. By this point the screening was over and I need to remember the whole perception of the uniform. Getting into trouble over comforting someone is certainly not on my list of things to do and I do have to remind myself that even though I don't have the "respect my authority" attitude, my uniform alone assigns that authority to me. It's just very hard for me to dampen down my human side sometimes.

I am a warm and caring person, but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate I'm afraid. That's why I want to know if there's a way I could have made the screening easier on her. I know the after screening hug was bad and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but I did because I wanted you all to know I was serious about my query.

I think my compassion actually makes me a better TSO, but that may just be me. :D

Exactly! That is exactly the problem I discovered here!

Oh yes, I see exactly what you're saying. In the past, checkpoint passage was of an "innocent until proven guilty" mentality, whereas nowadays, it's managed to segue completely into the "guilty until shown otherwise" vein. I always try to let people know that I don't think of them as "bad people," even if patdowns or handswabbing or bag checks are involved. They're not "bad," they're just caught up in rules and regulations and until the time said rules and regulations change, I'm stuck enforcing them. I'm not saying a "bad" person won't come through at some point, but I have to believe that proper screening will find him/her and not a "You're not bad? Prove it!" deal.

I hate to think that the line is this concrete. I want people to feel safe and secure, not scared of us or saddened by our pointed screening of their disabilities.

I really really like how you worded that. Particularly with the part, "assume that they were legitimate medical devices and that the screening would look for evidence that it is not." That would be a great way to avoid the sadness that my screening caused this woman. But how? Speaking just in the realm of a colostomy bag, how would we be able to screen in this fashion? What evidence would be needed? Hypothetically of course, no one needs to come up with specifics unless they want. I guess that's my biggest issue, and that's something that's out of my hands, which is that our actual screening methods need revisited and revamped. (But for those in management who are reading this - I will continue to screen per the SOP while I wait for reform.)

If you had a colostomy bag, or an insulin pump, would you expect a guard at the entrance to the supermarket, hair salon, dentist or hospital to paw at it, or would you expect to go about your life with your privacy, medical info and respect intact? When you get dressed in the morning, do you go about town expecting people to put their hands on your genitals and caress your breasts?

Now, why is it that you think the normal expectations of a normal human being, to go about their life unmolested, with their dignity intact, have to be thrown by the wayside when they need to fly?

How would you feel if your dentist groped your breasts and genitals or asked to see and examine your colostomy bag? How would you feel if the guard at the entrance to the hospital, where you're going for a check up with your surgeon or endocrinologist, groped your genitals and massaged your colostomy bag?

Why do you think it's acceptable for you or any other non medical person to do this to anyone? Or for any person, including a doctor, to invade and touch another person in the manner, except in the context of medical treatment, with their full consent?

Not to sound harsh, but I doubt it is the first time you made a passenger cry, just maybe the first time you saw it. I doubt the screeners that I've interacted with thought they made me cry. I would NEVER let them see it.

You ask the best way to comfort someone? Don't talk to them beyond what is needed. We're not there to chat or to like you...you are invading our very personal space. Just get it over with and let me leave and don't make me pretend to like being around you - like ripping off a band-aid. Again, nothing personal, but it's not my job as a passenger to make you feel better about what your job requires.

Do you really believe that your employer's "Intel?" You do know that what you are getting is designed to make you believe that you are doing something useful - the TSA never saw a threat it didn't like and want to twist to it's own advantage..

I would expect to go about my life as usual, no doubt.

The difference is that you don't get body scanned when you go to the supermarket, the salon, the dentist or hospital (ok, well,maybe the hospital), whereas you do get scanned at the airport. Once you get scanned, the item shows up. Then what? It's an object hidden under clothing. (With good reason of course.) How should we handle it?

Of course I'd be damn well pissed off, but until congress mandates we get body scanned before entering such places, we're just sensationalizing the issue.

This is exactly the line I'm trying to find. On the one hand, if I were the one with the colostomy bag (damn that empathy of mine again), I would not like it "dealt with" or addressed in anyway. BUT, when operating under parameters we are operating under, once an unidentified object comes to light, it needs to be addressed. Like a poster before you said (sorry I forgot your name offhand), this issue is that we have to assume nefarious intent even when there ultimately is none. Even though the "invading" and touching was nothing more than swabbing her hands the reason behind it was her bag, so it's all the same in her eyes.

I've wondered about this since. Gosh, I sincerely hope not, but I'll never know. All I can do is press on and keep trying.

That is very good advice. I don't want anyone to make me feel good about my job, what I want is to make people feel, if not good, then at least secure. I think what I'll do is start focusing more on my body language, especially post patdown and post bag check. I'm curious to see if I habitually linger and talk/reassure, whatever but most importantly, I'm thinking about your comment, "Just get it over with and let me leave and don't make me pretend to like being around you." I'm going to watch myself over the next few days and see where I stand. Do I walk away immediately? Do I chat and help repack? Do I inadvertently give the impression of blocking egress from the checkpoint or do I automatically step to the side? I'm curious now. Yes that helps with post screening but unfortunately it doesn't help with the, "how do I make screening easier?" query.

You know, not to sound too "big brother"ish, if our intel came strictly from our own department, I'd wonder sometimes. The reason I do pay attention is because the vast majority of our intel comes from police departments from all over the country and from other countries too. We get info from everything from ICE, CBP, and FBI down to local yokel "we caught this dude in a traffic stop what do ya know?" stuff. When you add that to the stuff anyone can find on the internet. We actually see pictures of the dude with the fake beer belly, the dude with the exotic birds taped to his legs, the drugs under the wig, etc. Go ahead, google it; no ssi here. True, our mandate doesn't involve drug runners or smugglers, but the philosophy is, if you can hide something there you can hide explosives there and no one here can say our mandate doesn't involve searching for explosives.

It is really quite simple.

1. Eliminate the use of the scanners as primary screening.
   
2. WTMD and random ETD. Bag procedures unchanged.
   
3. Allow passenger to self-clear. Remove items from pockets and walk back through.
   
4. Scan option only on verified alarm. (Verified as in double checked against a known control sample and bring back the HHMD.)
   
5. Offer option of scan or pat down to resolve alarm.

Passenger enters the area assumed to be fine. Only after the alarm is generated does an invasive search (virtual or hands-on) occur. A body search should only be done in the instance of found evidence, not to find evidence.

myrgril After reading your posts you do seem very sincere. You also seem like some one who belongs in a much better position than working as a tso. Honestly & no disrespect meant I couldn't do your job for any amount of money. No way I could go home knowing that I make a living "feeling people up".

When I fly I treat the tso the way I'm treated, that's how I roll. I also do not want to talk or have any thing to do with them that I don't have to. Just get it over with then I can go have a Starbucks:) I'm loaded with stress until I'm through the cp.