Caradoc

I wholeheartedly agree. Especially the ones who claim to disagree with policy, but carry it out anyway. "Quisling" springs to mind.

petaluma1

A bit OT, but there was an article in either the NY Times or WaPo within the last week, that discussed the adverse impact that "zero tolerance" is having on school children. Many institutions are taking notice and re-thinking such policies as well as the negative impact of a police presence in schools on a daily basis.

Boggie Dog

Not part of this discussion but zero tolerance programs ran by idiots results in idiotic results. Take for example this 6 year old boy suspended from school for kissing a girl on the hand. Looks like TSA can mine this school district for TSA screeners.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...nsion/3963813/

artemis

I think it's safe to say that ANY program run by an idiot results in idiotic results. Very few things in this world are idiot-proof!

artemis

I'm sure this is part of the problem, yes. But I think a bigger part of the problem is that many of the front-line screeners seem to be "the rules are the rules" types, but who don't seem to have any actual UNDERSTANDING of the rules or any ability to actually think (let alone exercise reasonable judgement). Hence the confiscation of purses with gun-shaped designed on their side, 2" plastic toys, light saber canes, and other such non-existent "threats."

Caradoc

That might be part of the problem, but there are certainly TSA employees who use "the rules are the rules" strictly as a punitive measure when travelers fail to show them proper obeisance while transiting the TSA "checkpoint."

chollie

And then we have a 'good apple' TSO who says that based on the information we have, this toy should not have been confiscated.

Except...it turns out that our 'good apple' TSO, who does usually seem to make an effort to be up-to-date on SOP, is wrong. According to the TSA spokesperson addressing the incident, the confiscation was appropriate and in keeping with long-standing zero tolerance TSA policy. <deleted> has mis-read or mis-interpreted that policy.

(Slightly OT, but I suspect this is why you (<deleted>) have never provided promised follow-up on the appropriateness of confiscation of medical nitro ('heart') pills - it's because TSA does, in fact, have a zero tolerance policy and if these pills are encountered during a search, they must be confiscated).

Slightly OT: I would really like to know if the TSO also confiscated the holster. There is absolutely no reason why she should have, since the holster presents no threat, and it's quite a stretch to say the holster's 'gun-like' shape falls under TSA's zero tolerance guidelines.

OTOH, if she intends to keep this little firearm for herself, she would want the holster.

petaluma1

The sock puppet gun incident made our local early a.m. news today, better late than never. The anchors had difficulty controlling their laughter, especially when reporting the part about the screener's comment ‘If I held it up to your neck, you wouldn’t know if it was real or not.'

gsoltso

Sorry I missed this earlier. I will stand by my comments about the toy gun, if it does not appear to be a realistic replica (read that to mean similar enough to fool the average person into beleiving it is a serious weapon), and it is not a threat item (meaning it can actually fire projectiles) - then it can go. That is what has been put out in my training since I got here, and it is how I have operated with items like this since I got here. I will simply have to disagree with their decision (of course, that will have absolutely no impact on much of anything, so YMMV).

I have not responded to you on the Nitro pills question, because I have gotten no further information other than "Medicinal items are to be allowed by following the publicly posted regulations" which is the exact same information you are able to read at TSA.gov. I have not given up on getting some clarification, but they do not traditionally list specific medicines (well, actually I have not seen specifics listed except for sharps, etc for diabetic passengers). This is actually somewhat understandable due to the copious amounts of medicine available, to include a lot of homeopathics along with actual prescription medicines. I have not forgotten about this, I simply do not have a specific response back at this time.

InkUnderNails

Please understand how difficult this makes life through the check point for us. If you can not find specific answers about specific "marginal" items, how are we to ever know if we will be stopped and harassed or even have our items confiscated? Going through the checkpoint should not involve a level of uncertainty that can be compared to pulling levers at Las Vegas.

gsoltso

I can't disagree with this observation or the level of confusion and frustration it generates. I have long preached that there should be regulations posted as clear as possible as much as possible, as that level of transparency makes things simpler for the traveling public. Clear rules also make it easier on the TSOs to operate the checkpoint, as they have clear guidelines that they can advise passengers on and operate by. If the regulations were more clearly defined, incidents like this would be much less frequent.

Carl Johnson

But clerk <deleted>, the regulations are clearly defined, right? Isn't what happened that a clerk was too lazy to read and understand the rules and then instead of firing her, management pretended that the rule was so vague as to encompass an obvious toy as a prohibited item? Tell me, has a clerk ever been fired for being too lazy to learn the rules? Has a clerk ever been fired for ignoring the rules? Has a clerk ever been fired for retaliating against a passenger? What happened to the clerks who falsely imprisoned Stacey Armato in retaliation for wanting them to follow the rules?

Has a clerk ever been fired for lying?

Basically, has a TSA clerk ever been fired for failing to perform the job in a competent, respectful manner (when the failing didn't involve being arrested or being exposed on national television for stealing passenger property)?

The key to "ambiguous" regulations is firing clerks for violating clearly unambiguous regulations. If that were to happen, the regulations would get a lot less "ambiguous".

chollie

You seem to contradict this in your prior post.

TSA HQ made it abundantly clear that there is a very strict zero-tolerance policy on anything remotely like a weapon. This point was re-iterated to explain why the confiscation of the sock monkey's weapon was entirely appropriate and in keeping with SOP.

This strict policy also makes it very very easy for TSOs - the guidelines can't get much simpler and clearer than 'zero tolerance'. They may be lacking in common sense and have little to do with aviation safety, but they are clear.

With all due respect (and you are due much respect), I have to assume that HQ's statement better reflects what will happen and what is supposed to happen at the checkpoint than your own common sense approach. Unless I am flying out of GSO, I will ensure that every t-shirt, book cover, stuffed animal and keychain I carry is suitably 'dis-armed' and that I am not carrying the meds my doctor has told me to have on my person or readily accessible at all times.

You cite the website rule saying medicinal items are allowed (with few specific exceptions). You could just as easily also cite the website rule saying no explosive substances are allowed (with zero exceptions).

I encountered a TSO (and several echelons of superiors) who made it clear that 'zero tolerance' means 'zero tolerance', particularly with nitro, regardless of form, quantity or purpose. Those folks were following the rules just like the TSO who disarmed the sock monkey was following the rules (HQ verified that).

Caradoc

I doubt it. At least one should have been fired for claiming photography was "illegal" by now.

gsoltso

It was just a re-statement of the same thing, sorry it muddied the water!

Zero-tolerance is just fine, however, if you have a zero tolerance rule, it has to be crystal clear on how it is going to operate. The posted regulations indicate realistic replicas, personally, I do not find a 2" toy gun that does not have a break down/ability to be loaded as realistic. The same with squirt guns in neon colors that are clear enough to see through, plastic toy swords and any number of other items that I have seen reported as not being allowed to go. I can articulate why I would have let this item go, and apply the posted rules, explaining why this item should not have been bothered with. This is the problem you run into when you have zero tolerance programs with loosely defined or "all encompassing" statements that are anything but. My definition of realistic may be different than the definition of someone in LGA or LAX or DFW, and that is not how it should be - at least, not how I would have it (of course, if it were up to me, knives and several other things on the prohib list would be allowed as well, so what do I know). I have spoken with other employees nationwide about this, and have found none that would have done more than examine the item to make certain there is no threat, and then put it back in Rooster Monkburns holster (seriously, folks from CA, IL, IN, NY, GA, OH, DC, FL and MO all said essentially the same thing I did, examine it and let it go).

I am sorry that you have encountered folks working for TSA that do not understand that Nitro has been an accepted medical use item since long before any of us were here. I have no other information to pput out right now except what is on the TSA pages. The problem I have is this is another zero tolerance rule that does not have clear definitions attached to it, (from what you have said others told you, and some of what I have seen myself in the posted information) it says no nitroglycerine allowed at all, but nitro pills are a completely different formulation than the explosive. It is a medical item - that alone bears some closer examination and specific rule mention for the medicinal version, add on top of that the fact that this is (in many cases) a life or death altering medical item, it deserves specific mention and allowances. I mean, we have special mention for diabetes supplies (of course, it is more widespread in its use, but that is irrelevant), special mention for folks with assistive devices, children, and any other number of reasons, why is this not specifically addressed to rememdy situations like you have had? I am still pursuing that, but I am a low rung on the corporate ladder, so I am unsure of how much I will be able to pull off.

Thank you for the respect comments, it is nice to hear!