Boggie Dog

^^^

Great post!

chollie

Please review that thread. Another resident 'good apple' TSO posted that there are rules governing walking sticks/canes that are SSI - rules that govern weight and length. Either those rules are DEN-specific or no other airport the pax went through enforced or knew about them. It was a 'big' cane; he's a BIG man.

I get the random procedure, bla-bla, but under no circumstances, ever, (other than immediately after an incident when everyone's temporarily on high-alert), should those random procedures involve confiscation of an ordinarily permitted item because "that's the way we do it here" - particularly when the confiscation is based on rules not available to the public.

It's a taxpayer-funded, TSA-owned and moderated blog. If someone self-identifies as a TSO and posts inflammatory or inaccurate information, it is the moderator's responsibility to either disallow that post or to challenge and correct it. Whether or not it's a real TSO is immaterial. Beyond the world of FT, there are many people who see those comments and assume (understandably) that because the TSA moderator lets them stand, they represent attitudes and practices tolerated by TSA HQ.

Do you really think that if someone went on the official Boy Scouts blog, identified as a Scout Leader, and posted comments about looking at the boys in the shower, that those comments would be allowed to stand unchallenged? Or even to be displayed (unless someone really screwed up the moderation?)

chollie

gsoltso, you have posted that you'd like to see discussions focus on policy, not high-profile incidents.

The problem is, TSA HQ will not have discussions on policy, in part because HQ has defined policy as "SSI and whatever an individual FSD or TSO decides it is".

Take the complaint/feedback process. It's difficult, opaque, asks for information that is designed to intimidate people who complain (why do you need a copy of my BP/ID or my birth date/home address?) In Florida, a laptop is stolen at a checkpoint, a theft report is submitted. TV news waits two weeks without hearing anything from TSA before revealing details of the sting and the footage that was readily available to TSA. Who knows what else that TSO might have stolen in the intervening two weeks?

An LAX TDC was just arrested. He was suspended after telling a young teen to cover herself up. The only reason his actions were addressed was because her dad is a well-known blogger and the incident went viral. Read up on the guy - it sounds like he is a sort of Christian jihadist, and he's been this way for quite a while (he's even written a book about his ideas). I know his co-workers aren't going to say zip as long as he doesn't impact them; I also know that even if a pax managed to find a way to submit a complaint, it would have been dismissed. You know, the way warning signs from Nadal Hassan were dismissed - until too late.

Every time there's a high-profile example of an on-going abuse, you say you wish we could talk about policy instead. ??? What meaningful policy discussions have taken place at HQ after numerous complaints, including from an Alaska state senator, about TSO obsession with and abuse of breast cancer patients and survivors? As incidents continue, it's clear that no policy discussions are taking place, and in spite of everything, TSA considers this treatment acceptable. If it didn't, it would change policy and implement those changes.

TSA can implement changes quickly when it wants to - like the LGA changes, shoes off changes, punitive and retaliatory grope + mandatory full bag swab and check for anyone who can't or won't use the NoS.

The reason everyone focuses (and hopefully will continue to focus) on high-profile abuses is because they are evidence that the appropriate policy discussions are not taking place or necessary changes aren't being made or enforced. TSA has an official 'policy' in place of showing respect, following its own rules and treating all pax with respect and dignity. There's nothing to discuss about that policy, nothing to disagree on. It's the gap between the words and what actually happens at the checkpoint that will continue to dominate the discussion. TSA should start by following just that one policy to the letter - life would be a lot easier for everyone.

Caradoc

I find it very telling that the "shoes-off" change got propagated so fast when the average screener still says it's "illegal" to take photographs or video at the checkpoint.

Don't you?

chollie

I meant to include that in my post - it's another great example of how TSA can selectively implement sweeping changes across the board sometimes, and other times deliberately fail to do so.

gsoltso

I seem to vaguely recall a length requirement/standard when I first started working for TSA, but for as long as I can clearly recall, assistive devices have not had a length/weight standard that prevents them from being carried on board - at least, not to my knowledge.

I can't argue with that with the exception of a clear threat oriented usage of the item - such as modified to use for a different purpose.

I will do my best in the future to address incorrect data/facts from all posters in the future. I can not guarantee that I will get them all, but I will endeavor to try and address more than I have in the past.

I would love to see more discussion on the policy in the public forum and media. I would love to see more engagement from HQ with the press and public about policy, but I am a front liner - I am not privvy to all of the reasons they do not engage or publish information. That does not change the fact that I want to see more of it.

I would like to see more proactive work by our complaints group, but again, I am not privvy to all of the ongoings in their office, so I can neither defend nor accuse them of anything. I think we would be better served by focusing more on the complaint/redress system, but all I can do is hope that is forthcoming.

Yeah, the dude that was at LAX appears to have snapped, which is sad. I did my research on him, and the problem is, if he didn't step outside the rules at work (prior to or since his encounter with the young teen) then management is in a tough spot to get rid of him. I don't know what signs he exhibited, what sorts of activities he participated in at work that may have singled him out past a working mother of 3 that is very involved in the Catholic Church locally, or the local Jewish Synagogue, or the local Muslim centers, or any other numbers of the representative cultural blend that exists in LAX. He may have been very quiet at work, he may have been engaged with his coworkers and shared jokes and stories with them just like the majority of us do - or he may have walked around mumbling to himself and talking to posts - the point is, we do not know what signs he exhibited past the reported incidents.

I say I wish we could have discussions about policy because it would mean that we didn't have a knucklehead headlining Drudge for breaking the rules or getting arrested for some stupid reason, or because someone was accurately/innaccurately accused of something egregiously wrong.

I can't argue that we can't make pretty big changes quickly, I wish the focus was more widespread - this has changed, put it out to the workforce right now, and begin progressive discipline to enforce it - that is simple, straight forward and concise. Hopefully we will see more of that in the future.

I can not speak to the mistreatment at other locations, there is too much press for it to not happen at all, and not enough press to show a completely systemic break down. Too many people have neutral or positive experiences to indicate the systemic break that I have seen some claim. I can tell you we work pretty hard here at GSO to help those that need it (whether they are handicapped or not). We actively participate in the TSACares program, and the Wounded Warrior program (I personally have worked with both programs) providing assistance to passengers and their families as needed. I would like to see more press/information on who else participates nationwide in order to be better informed, but I don't see any press on these programs after the initial release - there is simply not much coverage of them at all outside of the specific groups that use them.

I also can not argue that if all TSOs were to show professionalism and courtesy to all that come through, that the experience would be 10 times better for all involved.

petaluma1

A good place to start would be the blog thread on medications by answering the questions regarding the qualification screeners have to determine how much medication is allowable for a flight.

gsoltso

Those answers will have to come from someone other than me, the only information I can give you is what has been published by the organization, and you can find that on the TSA page about flying with medications and in the post itself. I do not have the answers that you are seeking at this point. I do apologize that I am unable to help.

petaluma1

Are you or are you not trained to determine how much liquid medication is necessary for a passenger?

Yes or No would be fine.

WillCAD

This is one of those simple, straightforward questions that we want answers to - but since such matters are often covered in the SOP manual, which is SSI, he may not be able to give a straight answer. I can't come down on him for not answering straight if he's forbidden by the terms of his employment contract.

But the answer seems pretty obvious to me; TSA says that medically necessary liquids are permitted in "reasonable quantities". The term "reasonable quantities" is not defined. Because "reasonable quantities" is not strictly defined, it is open to interpretation, and because it's open to interpretation, the front-line TSO can pretty much interpret the term any way they want.

My guess is that they are not given any sort of guidelines or training in determining what constitutes "reasonable quantities" in any specific circumstance; rather, they are told to exercise their best judgement, and since each TSO's judgement is unique according to his temperment and life experience, "reasonable" is a moving target from c/p to c/p, day to day, TSO to TSO, and minue to minute.

Caradoc

Oh, come on. We all know that "SSI" is merely an excuse for the TSA to hide information that should embarrass anyone with a conscience.

Boggie Dog

I can sum up in a few sentences exactly what is wrong with TSA.

Lack of Leadership. Lack of Leadership.

The TSACares and Wounded Warrior programs demonstrate that lack of leadership. If individual TSA employees were doing there jobs and were properly supervised then those programs would not be needed.

Along with Lack of Leadership is Lack of Supervision.

I have told the story before of one of my screenings at LAS. The x ray operator was loudly berating passengers about how they packed their carry on bags. Not just one person but constantly and loudly complaining about how bags were packed. All of the more senior screeners were on a podium some distance from the actual screening lanes. My attempt to engage the supervisors after I cleared resulted in my being corrected on that supervisors title, no concern about the issue I was reporting.

The most beneficial management tool that I know of is "Management by Walking Around". Supervisors and higher ups need to get out of the office, be so common in work areas that no notice is taken to change behavior and observe how employees actually work.

Procedures and policies should be core skill requirements. At TSA I can easily state from observation that this is not required.

Reported issues with TSA screenings from around the country demonstrate that something is very wrong.

I go back to the analogy of a building with a bad foundation. As long as the foundation is faulty nothing else in the building can be fixed.

TSA has a faulty foundation.

gsoltso

I can not answer that, because (as mentioned above) it is SSI. I hate to have to use that phrase, but it is the simple truth.

That has always been one of my biggest disagreements with the current "intentional inconsistency" paradigm. I understand the basics of why it is considered an effective security measure by HQ, I have tons of training on why they use this process. I am pretty well steeped in security from experience throughout my life, and their theory is sound and they present logical points to establish it. All that being said, I am uncertain whether the tradeoff of challenges to the passengers and the workforce is worth it at this point. I also have to take into account that there is a ton more information at HQ and assorted intel groups that I am not exposed to, so there may be other compelling reasons for this system to be in place that would convince me different. So, I disagree, but I am open to more information that would continue to make the case to me. That being said, I have always stated that the experience in any given checkpoint should be basically the same regardless of geography or traffic (with minor variations, but essentially the same steps and process). Based upon things I read and hear, that is not always the case, and that disappoints me, as it makes the process much harder on passengers and by extension, the TSOs.

petaluma1

SSI = excuse for lack of responsibility on the part of the TSA.

Boggie Dog

I fail to see how stating that you are or are not trained to determine how much LGA medicine a person needs could be SSI.

It may be the truth but I see it as a TSA cop out and an easy way to avoid having to justify policies that make no sense (Lack of Leadership).

Some day a TSA screener is going to kill someone by confiscating medicine. I hope on that day that a TSA screener is arrested for murder, found guilty, and punished with a death penalty.

I notice that no answer to this question has been posted on the TSA blog, even one saying the answer is SSI. Backbone much TSA?