Cancer Patients Abused by TSA [merged threads]
Oct 10, 2012, 3:50 pm
#61
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 175
Since that is your home airport, could you please help jog my memory? MCI is set up like TXL (WHY anyone would want to copy an airport like that is beyond me, but both are similar in design)
At MCI, is there anywhere in/around the screening area for a private screening? I would never accept a private screening, but in my situation the manager offered that up as an option. But then when he tried to help me to get myself back in order again the only place to do that at the UA screening/gate area was in the women's restroom at the gate. (He escorted me there and then stood outside waiting for me)
At least one comment insinuated that if the passenger was so sensitive that she should request a private screening. But is that even an option at that airport?
At MCI, is there anywhere in/around the screening area for a private screening? I would never accept a private screening, but in my situation the manager offered that up as an option. But then when he tried to help me to get myself back in order again the only place to do that at the UA screening/gate area was in the women's restroom at the gate. (He escorted me there and then stood outside waiting for me)
At least one comment insinuated that if the passenger was so sensitive that she should request a private screening. But is that even an option at that airport?
Oct 10, 2012, 5:21 pm
#62
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,967
MCI consists of 3 semi circular terminals. The distance between curb and gate, is only about 75 feet. if they have private rooms it must only consist of a frosted glass cubicle. I will check the next time I am there. The terminal design works if you have ambulatory issues, but room for land and airside services are terrible.
I vaguely recall that they may have had a cubicle, and at that time it may have just been fabric or portable, and not an actual 'room'. The manager was trying to find me somewhere private and he suggested the washroom as opposed to a 'private room'.
At times they can be even worse as they have to out TSA the TSA to keep their contract
Last edited by exbayern; Oct 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Oct 11, 2012, 1:40 am
#63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,790
Here's a voice of reason and intelligence...
if it will insure the safety of innocent Americans, I will take a public pat down prior to boarding a plane, its called taking one for the team, My heart goes out to this women, and im glad she beat cancer, but the PUBLICS safety must come first, just like the women that complined and tried to sue the state because she had to take her vail off for her drivers license picture, claiming it violated her religous beliefs, it was up to her to get a license, just like it was up to this lady to fly instead of driving.
Oct 12, 2012, 7:58 pm
#64
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: RDU
Posts: 5,239
Can someone help me understand this? How is the screening that the cancer survivor went through different than the "pat down" that is happening to more people these days? Is it the touching of the breasts that is different?
Oct 12, 2012, 8:24 pm
#65
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 490
It is not necessarily a different "pat-down" than others might be subject to, merely that it is more likely that a cancer survivor transiting an AIT checkpoint might be identified as one with "anomalies" that need to be resolved through a "hands-on" rub-down procedure prior to each and any attempt to board a commercial flight due to scar tissues, unusual breast shapes, prosthetics, etal than the "average" female trying to board a commercial flight whilst wearing an underwire support garment. In other words, a cancer survivor may be treated as a potential risk to transportation for all eternity merely for having survived. This is not the same experience of "more people these days" which you reference.
Oct 12, 2012, 8:29 pm
#66
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 171
For the breast cancer survivor, the difference was that even though she was willing to go through the body scanner, her mastectomy scars were flagged as an anomaly and triggered a breast patdown of the sort that most people can avoid if they are willing to get radiated. I love, love her response to this mess: "I'm not an anomaly. I'm the reality of breast cancer just like those other 2.9 million women are, and I think that we deserve better when we go through airport screening. We deserve to have TSA screeners who know what they're looking at."
Feb 10, 2014, 2:46 pm
#69
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
“He’s Wearing a Diaper!”: TSA Agent Humiliates Cancer Victim
Not another cancer victim!!!???? Seems so. Overlooking the source for now, here is the story.
“He’s Wearing a Diaper!”: TSA Agent Humiliates Cancer Victim
“He’s Wearing a Diaper!”: TSA Agent Humiliates Cancer Victim
The man was told that “further review” of his diaper was required before being led into a back room with four TSA screeners who kept asking the man if he had liquid in his pants, seemingly unable to grasp the meaning of the term “incontinent”.
After the man was forced to repeatedly explain that he had wet his pants due to his medical condition, TSA screeners subjected him to another pat down before asking the man to “drop his pants” so that they could see the “suspicious padding” around his waist.
After the man was forced to repeatedly explain that he had wet his pants due to his medical condition, TSA screeners subjected him to another pat down before asking the man to “drop his pants” so that they could see the “suspicious padding” around his waist.
Feb 10, 2014, 3:23 pm
#70
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
From the article:
Huh? No, the liquids rule is not what this stems from! It stems from the TSA's explicit violation of individual privacy, expecially as it relates to medical condition(s), via the Nakid-O-Scopes.
The incident stems out of the TSA’s ridiculous rule which bans carry on liquids that are not presented for inspection in a clear bag, a policy that has been slammed as absurd and pointless.
Feb 10, 2014, 3:44 pm
#71
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
“After he emerged from the scanner the TSA officer (a female) asked if he was carrying liquids in his clothing. He explained his condition and what had happened. In the past, it was embarrassing enough for him to just tell a TSA employee that I was wearing an adult incontinence garment but now he was also announcing that he had wet himself.)
Feb 10, 2014, 3:56 pm
#72
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Quite truthfully, I don't quite accept the above. The MMW isn't going to "see" liquids although it might sense the incontinence product. I have no doubt that some over-zealous screener(s) went overboard but surely they have people from babies to adults come through with wet diapers every day - do they send them all off to the private room to remove those diapers? I doubt it.
We have had stories posted on this forum of pax who had "anomolies" show up due to perspiration and/or wet clothing caused by weather conditions (i.e., rain or snow).
Of course, if the pax went through the WTMD, they would not be flagged for a pat *rub* down.
Feb 10, 2014, 4:02 pm
#73
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
I have no doubt that the NoS will see wet incontinence products as an "anomoly" every time, which would necessitate a pat *rub* down and possibly a "Private Room" screening to "resolve" said "anomoly." (Cute TSA terminology, right?)
We have had stories posted on this forum of pax who had "anomolies" show up due to perspiration and/or wet clothing caused by weather conditions (i.e., rain or snow).
Of course, if the pax went through the WTMD, they would not be flagged for a pat *rub* down.
We have had stories posted on this forum of pax who had "anomolies" show up due to perspiration and/or wet clothing caused by weather conditions (i.e., rain or snow).
Of course, if the pax went through the WTMD, they would not be flagged for a pat *rub* down.
Feb 10, 2014, 4:24 pm
#74
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
