I agree with you that this would be nice & benefit everyone. But you'll never get what you're looking for here on FT.

There's a better chance of finding practical or informative answers here on FT than there is on the Blog.

Sorry, that's SSI.

My wife and I have gotten Pre-Check most of the time, without being enrolled in any Trusted Traveler programs. I've seen people on FT say that the practice is being scaled down, that it was to give travelers a taste of Pre-Check to encourage them to sign up with the program. I haven't seen any TSA statements on it, so is it true? Right now I'd think we get Pre-Check enough that we don't need to sign up for anything, and it would be advisable to have it publicized if it won't continue this way.

Could you please tell me why there are chairs after security for putting one's shoes back on, but no chairs prior to security for taking one shoes off? Also, why was my 83 year old dad required to take his shoes off when going through security at YYZ for entry into the US? Again, there was no chair for him to use, and the TSA agent demanded that he take his shoes off. We ended up sitting him up on the rollers that feed the bags into the X-ray machine and getting his shoes off that way. He was about to try and balance on one leg and take his shoes off - he would have fallen for sure.

Does the American TSA do screening at Canada for US-bound flights, or is it Canadian ATSA? It would seem to most likely be CATSA.

I think you are right, cmn.jcs. Now that I think about it, the security officers' uniforms were not TSA.

I have a serious suggestion, Ross, and also a question as to why it has never been done before.

I would like to see an always-current list of the FSD's and the various AFSD's assigned to each US airport, coupled with their local contact information, i.e. snail mail, phone number to their office, and email address. I'd like to see this kept on the TSA web site and kept up to date at all times, preferably including the date that each person begins their tenure in that post.

I cannot imagine that this information is SSI, since TSA actually puts out an official press release each time a new FSD is appointed, giving that FSD's background as part of the release.

I believe that FSD's would be against such a list, as it would probably result in a deluge of complaints going directly to them rather than to Washington. This is certainly a distinct possibility. However, given that every airport has different needs and may have customized procedures, it seems only logical that when someone has a question, suggestion, or complaint, that they be able to contact someone locally, rather than being forced to go through Washington DC, where an issue might get a boilerplate email response that doesn't solve the problem, and then be marked "resolved" despite it not being resolved.

It's not terribly difficult. All we want is to be able to talk to someone in between the local c/p and John Pistole himself, if you take my meaning. It may require establishing a second, publicly-releasable email account for each FSD/AFSD so their day-to-day inbox isn't swamped, but that will also allow their office staff to assist them with handling such correspondence, just as the staff assists with phone and snail mail correspondence and in-person inquiries already.

But before any of that can happen, we need to know who exactly is at the helm at each airport. I don't believe it's right that I'd have to submit a FOIA request and possibly wait for weeks for this information, only to have it become obsolete every time an AFSD is promoted or an FSD is transferred or retires.

I'll second that motion.

Where is Ross? Been a couple weeks since last post. Anyways why does tsa give passengers a difficult time for opting out of the body scanners and why isn't a sign prominently posted informing a passenger the right to opt out?

I've never been given a hard time - sometimes, they do make me wait annoyingly long. You'd think they'd be better prepared with staff

I almost never have a problem, and often have very pleasant (for TSA) officers doing my pat-down. But last week in FLL, they were downright rude. When I opted out, the officer told me to stand where I was (which was blocking the way of people who were not opting out) and then he did not say that he needed a female assist. So another officer yelled at me for blocking the way, and I still had to wait. When someone finally came, I indicated that I was who she came for, and got yelled at again. I don't go through FLL that often, but it wasn't my first time, and I have never experienced anything like this.

Well, this grand experiment lasted a week and a half. Back to our regularly scheduled programming in Fortress America.

Yeah, the last post he made anywhere on FT was July 9, seven days ago.

I'll cut him some slack and wait a few more days before I dump on him. He may be on vacation, or have an unexpected illness in the family, or simply be swamped with his other duties, all perfectly valid reasons for being away from FT for a week.

To be perfectly honest, I didn't expect Ross to stick around long. I was shocked down to my socks that he even participated in this community in an official capacity at all, and I have been surprised at even the small amount of information we have gotten from him.

But it was inevitable that this experiment would end, because what we really want, no press secretary or public relations person can ever give, in any organization - a real dialogue with the people who run the place, some organization transparency, and genuine accountability for those in the org who break the rules. Even the local FSDs have limited power for such things. The only one who could ever really do it is John Pistole, and he has zero interest in engaging or placating the general public. Heck, he doesn't even give a rodent's posterior about flipping off Congress itself.

But kudos to Ross for sticking it out as long as he did, and although we didn't get much out of him, I really think he made an honest, good-faith effort to answer questions. He was simply too constrained by his agency's idiotic CYA rules. Since he was here in an official capacity, he couldn't even really express any personal opinions, if he had any, which may have deviated from his agency's official lines.

Oh, well. Stuff happens, somebody's got to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?

I ran into a pair of power-tripping TSA employees at JAX this morning. They did not like me asking questions about the blue cards that JAX uses for PreCheck pax who end up in the non-PreCheck lane or questions about their system (if it is such) for letting random people use the WTMD instead of the NOS. This somehow led to a very unexpected display of power-tripping--unexpected because the TSA staff I have encountered have been largely pleasant and professional for at least the past year.

After my questions about the WTMD and blue cards, the one-striper in the pair of power-trippers decided to not call for my female assist. Nor did she call for one when I told her that I would not be sending my stuff through the baggage x-ray (as she ordered me to do) until my TSA escort was present. She was happy to call for a female assist for another pax several minutes later, however. That was a poor decision, as I had decided to start filming the checkpoint and I captured on film her retaliatory attempt to make me late for my flight. Before I started filming, the three-striper in the pair of power-trippers, perhaps set off by a conversation he had with the one-striper a few feet from me, employed all of the pax intimidation techniques to punish me for questioning authority: "Do you want to fly today?" "Do you want to get through security today?" "Do you want me to call the police?" "Would you rather have no security at all?" "Don't you remember 9/11?" He didn't care for my answers; he stomped off to the secure side. I later captured him on film chatting with a LEO (to intimidate me?) and then radioing his supervisor when he realized I was filming him. His supervisor was reasonable and professional, though he mentioned my filming of the checkpoint as something that had drawn his attention. He got a female assist for me right away, and he also arranged for me to talk to the checkpoint director (?) on the secure side. The checkpoint director was very apologetic about the whole incident.

I have not given up on FT, but it was a mix of the items you mentioned above. I know you have some outstanding questions, and will try to read through the posts I have missed over the last week.