|
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BB10; Kbd) AppleWebKit/537.35+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.2.1.2174 Mobile Safari/537.35+)
Originally Posted by halls120
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 23078568)
Ross -- Let me add that there are several of us who post here that have access to the same level of national security information that your bosses do. We read the same daily reports and analyses that your bosses read.
To expand upon Hall's comment in his first paragraph, there are several of us who regularly attend inter-agency meetings and working groups at a fairly high level in government. I can honestly say that your fellow TSA and DHS employees either frequently embarrass themselves in these meetings or simply do not constructively contribute. (The two big exceptions to this generalization are the Coast Guard and FEMA.) What we want is open and honest dialogue. I will assert that you cannot BS those of us who have "been there" and currently "are there." If you are going to do no better than the TSA blog or any of your other press drivel, which is generally insulting, you will have failed. Right off the bat, I simply cannot believe your assertion that you have never heard of the "name game." If you have been on FT as you state, you would have had to have been on Mars to not have read about it on FT. You've got a huge credibility issue right out of the blocks. Ross, you need to understand that Blogger Bob has no credibility here, like most of the TSA public spokespersons. I realize you are going to be limited on occasion as to what you can say, but if you go down the path blazed by Bob, you will fail. I truly hope you will succeed, but like Flies notes, if you are going to claim you've never heard of the name game.... But I do have a question for you. I routinely take the paper boarding pass that is scribbled upon when I enter the screening checkpoint, and I discard it before boarding, using either a fresh paper copy or the BP on my smart phone. When I use a "clean" BP, I have never been stopped at boarding. So what's the point of the scribbles? |
I've always thought the name game was all about keeping the TDC alert.
|
Originally Posted by abaheti
(Post 23077807)
Precisely my point. I'd hate to have people abuse his graciously taking on this task in between his normal job duties and personal life. Given it isn't a full time gig for him, we all need to be patient and hopefully a more structured process and FAQ and Wiki etc can be developed. His thread(s) are quickly going to be amongst the most watched and quoted on FT. On the plus side for Ross, dealing with all of us FT members may make him appreciate the Washing press corps! :-)
** A large part of the answer to this question, btw, is "because they're human". Just like every single one of you. I can guarantee that every critic of the TSA has made a mistake themselves. Now, let he who is without sin cast the first stone... |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 23079515)
I think you know the answer, although you might not want to hear it.
Then again, the TSA isn't exactly an institution enamored with logic or sense. If the corruption in Washington wants them to find an excuse to buy more machines from a lobbyist's friend, that'll take precedence over, y'know, safety and justice. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 23079395)
Other medical necessities are also denied, even when the rules state they are permitted.
|
Originally Posted by TSAPressSec
(Post 23072302)
Yes. We are going to expand the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) in TSA Pre✓™ at select checkpoints. However, the vast majority of passengers in TSA Pre✓™ will still be screened via a walk-through metal detector. This will primarily be rolled out at larger airports with more than one TSA Pre✓™ lane.
TSA Pre✓™ eligible passengers, who prefer to be screened via an AIT, will now have the opportunity to do so at these select checkpoints. Many passengers with joint replacements, prosthetics or other medical devices that would regularly alarm when passing through a walk-through metal detector often prefer this technology because it is quicker and less invasive than a pat-down. Unlike standard lanes, passengers will not be required to divest their shoes, light outerwear and/or belt in the AIT. Previously, if a passenger alarmed when passing through the walk-through metal detector after multiple passes, that passenger would be required to receive a pat-down. Passengers at these select TSA Pre✓™ checkpoints, where available, will now have the option of being screened via AIT, possibly precluding the need for a pat-down. And speaking of false alarms, when is the TSA going to Collect and Use AIT ATR Machine Data Before it Spends More on Program https://chsdemocrats.house.gov/press/index.asp?ID=864 and TSA faces challenges in managing its AIT program because it is not using all available data that it collects to inform its decisions. For example, TSA does not enforce compliance with its operational directive that requires each airport to conduct IED checkpoint drills each week, nor does it collect or use IED checkpoint drill data on SO performance. Additionally, TSA is not analyzing available data on the number of secondary screening pat-downs that SOs conduct when the system indicates that it has detected an anomaly, which could provide insight into the number of false alarms that occur in the field and the extent to which these alarms affect operational costs. And another article: http://www.hstoday.us/channels/dhs/s...udit-says.html |
Ross -
Here are a few very specific questions for you. If you need time to answer them or aren't allowed to, please respond saying so w/ an ETA or explanation, rather than not responding until you have clearance (because that looks like ignoring the question). 1. If presented with the pax's US passport, may a TSO / TDC demand that a pax present any secondary form of ID, for any reason? (Note: if the TDC suspects the passport is false, then they should probably be calling the police for felony violation of 18 USC §§ 1028, 1543, and/or 1544. Note that violating a safe conduct or passport is also a felony, under 18 USC § 1545.) 2. What is the SOP for screening someone who states that they are medically unable to hold their arms above their head as required for the AIT scanners, but are able to walk through a metal detector? Are they to be given WTMD + hand swab, full patdown, SSSS treatment, …? 3. The current TSA website states both that passengers may take medical liquids "in reasonable quantities". What is the SOP to determine how much liquid is "reasonable" for a given traveler to carry? What is the law authorizing TSA personnel to make a medical determination of this sort? 4. Does the TSA purport to have authority other than to conduct a search that is "no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly"? For instance, if TSA believes that someone is carrying 20 gallons of shampoo, but has no reason to believe that the shampoo is a weapon or explosive (e.g. the pax volunteers to have it tested, and if tested, it x-rays and ETD tests clean), what grounds if any does the TSA have to deny them boarding (together with their 20 gallons of shampoo)? (Note of course that this question is completely independent of whether the airline agrees to transport that. I'm asking about TSA rules, not private contracts.) Thank you in advance for answering, if you do. |
Originally Posted by bchaplin
(Post 23076168)
This may seem like a flip question, but it's not:
I recently convinced my stepfather, who is in his 70's and almost never flies, to take a plane rather than subjecting himself to a 2-day drive. I was really hoping it would go well, to convince him to do it again in the future, but unfortunately it was an overall difficult experience for him. Among other things, I was expecting he might get shunted into a TSA-Pre line due to his age, but instead he got randomly selected for additional screening! He has no criminal history, and except for military service a long time ago, he has never even traveled outside the U.S. I coached him on what to pack, so I'm sure he had no liquids, small knives or other prohibited items in his carry-on. I'm curious as to why this could have happened, and if there is anything I could have done to make the experience better for him. Do first-time or rare flyers get singled out for special treatment? I know you probably can't say much about the selection process for the different lines, but I thought I'd raise the question anyway. Mr. Pistole said he has heard the complaints about Precheck lanes getting clogged, and TSA has already decided to stop moving travelers 75 years of age and older into Precheck service, unless they are enrolled, because they sometimes can take 10 minutes to move through. As Precheck enrollment grows, the "managed inclusion" effort will be phased out, he said. Referring to the bolded phrase, perhaps the TSA Press Secretary will share with us how many people have actually paid their $85 to enroll in PreCheck. Seems to me it probably isn't many or else the TSA would be touting the number of people who have signed up. |
Originally Posted by TSAPressSec
(Post 23068962)
Hello, FlyerTalk. My name is Ross, and I am the press secretary for TSA in Washington, D.C. Look forward to chatting with you.-Ross
|
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 23081055)
Here are a few very specific questions for you.
If you need time to answer them or aren't allowed to, please respond saying so w/ an ETA or explanation, rather than not responding until you have clearance (because that looks like ignoring the question)... < snip snip snip > ...Thank you in advance for answering, if you do. Ever wonder why so many hospitality providers designate people to "work" FT, who quickly disappear and never return? I don't. |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 23081195)
I finally found the travelers over 75 statement:
No travelers over 75 Referring to the bolded phrase, perhaps the TSA Press Secretary will share with us how many people have actually paid their $85 to enroll in PreCheck. Seems to me it probably isn't many or else the TSA would be touting the number of people who have signed up. |
Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 23081801)
Well, I see the patented FlyerTalk red carpet is being rolled out... man, we sound like a difficult, contentious bunch of so-and-sos sometimes. Bear in mind that Ross is here on his own time, and apparently in good faith, and has stated he feels the TSA radio-silence policy is overdue for a change. A prosecutorial, skeptical tone in the very first inning is IMO highly ungenerous and inappropriate.
Ever wonder why so many hospitality providers designate people to "work" FT, who quickly disappear and never return? I don't. Most of the questions have been asked over and over again to no avail. Any ombudsman of any institution with a similar track record would be facing a similar response. Indeed, IMHO, the response he's getting here is far kinder than the response of TSA towards those who try to get answers on the blog. Far kinder than the responses most of us get when we try to understand craziness, rudeness and unpredictability at the checkpoint. One would think that there should be a resource available to provide a definitive answer on any situation at any time to anyone in the organization. Those answers should generally be made available to the American public. It's not reasonable to ask people to follow the rules while denying them access to the rules. I can think of three possible answers to any given question here: a clear, no double-talk answer that any first time traveler can understand, an "I'm not at liberty to discuss that", or "it depends, because...". (An inexcusable example of the latter: a DEN TSO said there are specific length/weight SSI rules governing walking sticks/canes that were invoked only at DEN to try to confiscate an elderly actor's 'light saber' walking stick. There's no reason this very specific information should be kept from the public). I wish him well; I'm sure his intentions are good, but I also have to agree with Halls and Flies: Blogger Bob's approach isn't going to cut it. If Ross's equivalent any where else in the world besides the US signed up here, do you think the reaction would be the same? If not, perhaps TSA should spend more time in its boondoggle jaunts to Europe learning from others instead of trying to force TSA standards on them. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 23081988)
The fault is with his employers. He's inheriting over a decade of frustration...
If Ross's equivalent any where else in the world besides the US signed up here, do you think the reaction would be the same? Yes, TSA operations are often irrational. FT can be irrational also. I dropped off the TS/S board a long time ago after some lunatic posted a passionate argument in favor of tracking down TSA employees in private life, harassing and ostracizing them, and suggesting that any resulting suicides would count as just moral victories. I want no part of that sort of reaction to a "decade of frustration," and I strongly suggest FT do its best to give Ross a civil reception, not the ten-cent Perry Mason interrogative treatment. |
Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 23082064)
We don't approve of screaming at United Airlines employees who are trying to do their best because we think their management is a gang of inept, value-destroying monsters. I think Ross should be afforded the same consideration.
Yes, TSA operations are often irrational. FT can be irrational also. I dropped off the TS/S board a long time ago after some lunatic posted a passionate argument in favor of tracking down TSA employees in private life, harassing and ostracizing them, and suggesting that any resulting suicides would count as just moral victories. I want no part of that sort of reaction to a "decade of frustration," and I strongly suggest FT do its best to give Ross a civil reception, not the ten-cent Perry Mason interrogative treatment. Both sides have to be frank and respectful. Respect doesn't just mean not screaming and ranting; it also means not insulting someone's intelligence. It is difficult to believe that someone who flies frequently and who has frequented this forum for quite a while has never even heard of the 'name game'. FT is one of the more civil forums around, even on its worst days, IMHO. I occasionally read comments in linked news stories, and frankly, sometimes I think those people are a disgrace to the human race. If they're representative of the public at large, we are in big trouble. I'm sure you, like me, occasionally encounter a poster who you consider offensive (there's one on OMNI right now trying to badger me into a response). You don't even need the ignore button. You can suggest that if the poster frames the questions in gentler language, you will be willing to respond. Overall, even at its worst, I think the quality of information and the level of discourse in this forum, even at its most heated and worst, still ranks far above the TSA HQ Blog - a blog that we flyers and taxpayers fund, a blog purportedly started precisely to engage and inform the public. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 23082174)
Both sides have to be frank and respectful. Respect doesn't just mean not screaming and ranting; it also means not insulting someone's intelligence. It is difficult to believe that someone who flies frequently and who has frequented this forum for quite a while has never even heard of the 'name game'.
...... Overall, even at its worst, I think the quality of information and the level of discourse in this forum, even at its most heated and worst, still ranks far above the TSA HQ Blog - a blog that we flyers and taxpayers fund, a blog purportedly started precisely to engage and inform the public. If TSA wants an honest, civil exchange of views - something I support - they need to stop misleading people when they ask logical questions about aspects of TSA procedures. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:32 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.