Well, you know, it's a 'young' agency, it takes time to develop over-priced cr*p training videos and even more time to get the work force to put their cellphones down and sign off on having watched the videos, and the whole transgender thing - well, an average checkpoint TSO handles hundreds or thousands of pax daily, yet most TSOs don't even know what LGBT or 'transgender' means.

BTW, TSA prides itself on a diversified work force.

Besides, everyone knows that transgenders are just attention-seeking trouble-makers who go to the airport with nothing on their minds except making problems for gropers.

Something that I noticed recently is that TSA has changed what it says on the TSA FAQ page on how transgendered people are screened in the last couple of weeks.

I can't prove it but until recently the FAQ stated that people would be screened by the gender shown on their ID. It now says that the screening will be done by how the person presents at the checkpoint.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequentl...al_screening_4

Looks to me that TSA was not screening per information provided to the public and has made a quick change to do a little CYA.

edit to add:

In the thread about the transgender person who believes they were abused by TSA I posted this remark from the TSA.gov webpage. Evidence that TSA quietly changed its quidance.

Good catch!

First, thank you for the kind comments.

Second, those employees are the bane of my existence. It serves exactly zero purpose to be confrontational or overbearing. The goal *should* be professional and courteous at all times - no exceptions... especially when dealing with a passenger that is being less than cooperative. If a passenger is being verbally abusive, that does not faze me in the least, as long as I can finish the screening procedure(s) that are required to allow them access to the sterile area, they can say whatever they wish (friendly reminder, not everyone is the same as me, including local LEOs in some cases, so YMMV). I have zero tolerance for employees being unprofessional or impolite - but then again, I am a front line employee, so my impact is limited in the larger scope of things.

this thread has gone off topic. Again. It WAS about light hearted TSA people, not about their policies or procedures.

Are BDO's doing actual screenings of passengers property and persons now?

This is flyertalk.

The only threads that last this long and don't go offtopic are those without a specific topic in the first place.

Well, then tell a story about light-hearted TSA clerks.

I was about to tell one but then I realized that the OP wanted light-hearted TSA stories, not light-fingered TSA stories.

I have a couple light-hearted security checkpoint stories, but none of them took place at a US airport.

You are welcome!

I am glad that they are the bane of your existence too, part of the issue I would think is that there are not enough in management witnessing some of your fellow employees being unprofessional or impolite or if they do witness it, it "seems" like they (management) do not do anything about it of any meaning, again to be clear, that is what it seems. I have personally witnessed the same female TSA Employee at a smaller airport be unprofessional and impolite going on 8 years now and she has been promoted over the years to a three stripe employee.

Contrast that with today, I saw the Paramedic/Part-Time TSA Employee (I have referenced above) at the Airport (first time that I have run into him at the airport) and we kidded around and had a laugh or two, it was nice and made the process much more tolerable.

Light Hearted TSA Employees make the entire experience far better, the guy behind had a laugh too and I would wager the experience was better for him as well.

It has said that (screening as gender presented) for a number of years.

Hold it. Hold everything!

Do you have to prove that you are transgendered or is a claim to that status sufficient?

There are transgender lesbians.

There are transgender/transsexual people who may not fall into some simple split of being either entirely homosexual or entirely heterosexual.

If you want "it"/"everything" held, there is probably a service available for that at some price. TSA charges what, at least $5 per trip? But they usually wear gloves and don't want to provide barehand service on bared private parts -- at least in the publicly-viewable parts of the screening checkpoint.

The guidance at TSA.gov has been changed since the latest incident with the screening of a transgender.

Earlier guidance:

It was changed to this:

I once went through airport security in Upstate NY wearing a Red Sox jersey.... "New rules just went into effect madam, I'm afraid your shirt isn't allowed through security. We have a solution though, if we place some pinstripes on there and cover RED SOX with YANKEES, it will be compliant"

As an Oriole fan, I can certainly appreciate the humor in a Yankees fan busting the chops of a Sox fan. But such jokes are still unprofessional and inappropriate in an on-duty TSO.

Nothing like a preemptive strike on a potential lawsuit...

Like the Security Theater Authority cares?

Precisely. If it's inappropriate for passengers to tell jokes at a checkpoint, to the point that there is official signage telling that to passengers, then it's inappropriate for TSOs to tell jokes as well.

deleted

Yet TSA can't (or will not) change the ambigous language stating if nitro medicines are allowed.

It's not ambiguous at all - medications are allowed, including medically necessary liquids.

Explosives are prohibited.

Medical nitro (in all of its forms) is not an explosive.

However, some moron in a TSA costume prohibited Chollie from taking his nitro through because he was under the idiotic delusion that nitro medications are explosives. This is not true, has never been true, and is an urban myth on the level of the guy who woke up in a bath tub of ice with a kidney missing. Yet the TSO not only forced him to dispose of his life-saving medication before transiting the c/p, the moron was also backed up by his moron supervisor when Chollie protested.

This is the level of intelligence evident in the average TSO - they actually think that medical nitro is an explosive. They probably think that the nitro explodes in the body to get the heart started after a heart attack (it's actually a vasodilator which opens blood vessels to improve blood flow). And although it's stated on the TSA blog somewhere that medical nitro is permitted, Chollie has been so spooked by the experience that he has never again tried to carry his nitro with him.

The language for medical nitro given on the TSA "Can I Bring" website is about larger quanties of medical LGA's. At no point is guidance given that clearly states that medical nitro is permitted.

But I do believe that any taking of these type items is from the scary word 'nitroglycerin' and lack of understanding by the highly trained TSA screener.

It's hardly surprising that some TSOs hear 'nitro' and freak out. (There has been at least one other reported instance of nitro pill confiscation that I have read about).

After all, it took a while before some of them started understanding that the 'glycerin' in some lotions and soaps is a harmless substance and not part of evil 'nitro-glycerin'.

It's like getting in trouble because you work for a TV station and you show up at the checkpoint wearing a t-shirt with 'TNT' on it.

The blog has a note about nitro pills and patches, but 1) it is a blog post, not binding at the checkpoint and 2) it includes the lie that the pills/patches have never been prohibited.

Doesn't it seem odd that TSA can (possibly at <deleted>'s urging) put in a blog post about the matter but still can't update the website to clearly state that medical nitro is allowed in pill or patch form, instead of linking to a clearly inapplicable answer about medical LGAs.

I don't know how many times I have to say it before TSA gets it: my nitro pills were not confiscated because they were a medicine, they were confiscated because they are on an SSI list of prohibited substances.

Did you get the names of the morons? You can't get them fired if nobody knows who they are.

(If someone attempted to take prescription medication from me, I'd offer them one chance to return it, then start screaming for the police and demand they be charged with illegal possession of prescription drugs.)

As I recall, didn't the TSO simply keep repeating, "No explosives, no exceptions"? So we don't really know for sure that nitro is on the SSI list of prohibited items. Anything is possible, but I tend to doubt that such an important life-saving medication could be banned, even secretly, based on a ridiculous urban myth.

Of course, we're talking about TSA, so...

I can believe that nitroglycerine (explosive) is on some SSI list of banned substances (like the C4 that inexplicably passed inspection at one airport).

I know nothing about the explosive 'nitro' - I don't even know if is a liquid or solid. I do know that a raft of people who should have known better decided that 'nitro' in any form or quantity for any purpose is prohibited. TSA is clearly still confused about the matter, because the website addresses medical nitro under the LGA rules. To the best of my knowledge, medical nitro only comes in pill and patch form.

Not unlike the over-reaction some people experienced when a swab test alarmed on lotion or soap residue. It was a known issue, but some TSOs still pretended like they were on to the 'big catch' and acted accordingly.

I am fairly certain that a topical nitroglycerin cream is also available. Now that would certainly cause our highly trained TSA screeners to panic. A tube of Nitro (medicine) would likely cause a checkpoint closure given the skill level of the typical TSA screener.

I still suggest that you take a small number of your pills packed properly in the supplied container with you on future flights. That way you don't risk you entire supply but can see if perhaps TSA has managed to pass the word that medical nitro is not prohibited.

I know you are concerned about what TSA has said to you in the past but they cannot do anything negative to you if you are only carrying medicine that is yours and is properly labeled.

Should they try you will have an excellent opportunity to increase your retirement nest egg.

I would never travel without medicines that might be a lifesaver.

Boggie, if you had been there that day and accused like I was and threatened like I was, you would understand. I was told that any future 'problem' would result in my being put on a watch list.

A data point: my entire supply is never more than 15 pills - that's how they are dispensed, in a tiny (much smaller than your baby finger) glass bottle inside a regular pill bottle (big enough to hold the label).

I realize it's extremely likely I would ever be caught. The pills were only discovered during a very detailed (read everything, swab everything) bag search. My pills didn't alarm the swab (he didn't open the bottle and swab the internal contents) - he read the label and gasp! - discovered my 'artfully concealed' contraband in its clearly labelled prescription bottle.

Medicine and medical restrictions had nothing to do with it (according to TSA). They reacted the same way Texas TSOs did to seeing clearly labelled, government issue C4 in a veteran's bag. No way, no how, ain't gonna pass.

If it was so simple and clearcut as we all think it should be, then why does TSA refuse to update the website? We have been told before on this board that the blog is voluntary, un-moderated, unofficial and non-binding at the checkpoint. TSA has clearly deliberately chosen to not update the website to reflect the fact that medical nitro is not always an LGA (I have never heard of it in any form except pills and patches). And of course, the guy who was behind the blog update conveniently no longer works for TSA.....

I understand you were threatened but I also believe that TSA was wrong, possibly criminally wrong, in their actions. They can't just put you on a watch list for doing something that is perfectly legal. Even TSA says what you were doing was ok.

Will you never fly with your lifesaving medicine again?

I don't wear your shoes but I would make it a point in challenging TSA on this point. I would start with a complaint to the DHS OIG with a copy to both of your Senators. I would even consider filing a complaint with the ADA. http://www.ada.gov/filing_complaint.htm

I would routinely take the pills, although perhaps only a bare minimum, and hope that TSA would do something stupid again and if they did I would file a complaint with the local police then and there. I would try to involve the TSM for that terminal and get as many names as possible and then I would contact the consumer advocate from a local TV station. A news spot, "TSA tries to kill passengers" more at 6 PM would do more to fix this than anything else.

You were not in the wrong to take your medicine. You have every right to do so. Don't let these TSA GED Commando's put you in a position of not having your medicine when it is needed.

I only know what I see on TV, in movies, and in documentaries, but AFAIK, explosive nitro is a highly volatile liquid, sensitive to physical disturbance. Shake it, and boom.

I am not 100% certain - and I'm too scared of the NSA to Google it - but I believe that dynamite contains nitroglycerin, but soaked into multiple layers of paper, making it much more stable. But that comes from a movie, so it could be utter hogwash.

I know that medical nitro comes in a liquid spray form, as well as pills and patches. I don't know if the spray is topical or ingestable, though. Everyone in my family who has ever used medical nitro has had the pills. Heck, I have one of those metal nitro pill tubes on my own keychain, even though I've never needed the med - it was my grandfather's, and I've had it on my keychain ever since he passed away in 1997. It just reminds me of him, whenever I look at it.

If I were in your position, I would probably do as Boogie Dog suggests. However, it's your decision and you need to do what's best for YOU, which isn't necessarily what would be best for me if I were in your position.

I know what it's like to choose differently than the majority of FTers; I despise the NoS, but I never opt out, because the idea of a pat down makes my skin crawl. I never opted out even when they had the perv box, and now that the machine uses ATR and makes no image, I have no philosophical objection to it, other than its abysmal rate of false positives and potential for false negatives.

So I support you on not taking your nitro pills, even though I disagree with the decision. It's yours to make. I just hope that one day soon you won't be forced to make that decision any more.

Absolutely agree that Chollie has to make the call whether to carry life saving meds with them or not when traveling.

But, and it is a big but, not taking them because some TSA screener threatened to put them on some list is a non-starter. Isn't going to happen and even if they tried Chollie would win the war if it came to that.

Everything is on Chollie's side in this matter and not on TSA's side.

In an attempt to keep this thread on-topic:

At TPA a mid-50s TSO at the x-ray machine barked "You don't have enough batteries sir!" to which I replied "I'll try harder next time to bring a sufficient amount!"

It was my hurricane go-bag, which had all sorts of electronics & battery packs in it. Probably had at least 48 AA batteries alone.

/Still wish the TSA would become more professional. I've never encountered barking, blue-shirts, tin-stars, water police, shoe carnivals at federal buildings or military installations.

I think that there are some Professional (or at least want to be as Professional as Possible) TSA Employees, they are just hampered by the rules/regs of their employer and that is a lot of the problem right there.

There are also some Light Hearted Ones and that to me says something that I have believed all along, people are people and some are going to be power trippers and some are going to be jerks and some are going to just go through the motions and some are going to be Professional and some are going to be Light Hearted, as that is the nature of us, human beings.

My preference would be for TSA to be more light hearted as an Agency, is that in the cards? I highly doubt it, but it would be nice.

I recently, came across a really nice TSA Employee and I was impressed at how she really worked to be as nice and helpful as possible. She spoke at least three different languages (that I heard) and instead of doing the usual keep yelling to the person who does not speak English until hopefully she/he understands, she spoke softly and tried if she could to speak to them in their language.

It was impressive because it is not how I have witnessed TSA Employees in the past deal with passengers who do not speak English, every other time it would seem the defacto process was to yell at the person who does not speak Englishn until they hopefully understood or either another passenger, airline employee or some other airport worked could translate. It was different because it was Professional and I complimented her on it and she said something that stuck in my mind. I would hope that if my Grandparents who do not speak English were to come to a checkpoint like this one someone would try and communicate with them in their language if they could, not just yell at them in English, so I do the same for others as I would like for my Grandparents

She remembered that we are PEOPLE and not all would be bad apples, she treated each and everyone of us with respect and while I may not agree with how TSA does this or that, I do feel that being respectful should be part of the equation. My few negative run ins with TSA, I always feel like I am being treated like a would be bad apple, rather than just another person.

Coming back around, if TSA had the mantra of the people being screened are just average ordinary people and not under suspicion (i.e. we are all not bad apples), than being light hearted could be a two way street, as opposed to right now where the passengers note light hearted TSA Employees, but we ourselves find it hard to be light hearted at a checkpoint because everything we say can bring about negative consequences or at least negative responses from TSA Employee.

As usual, just my two cents.

Most of the TSA incidents we read about are brought about by TSA screeners doing things that are just plain stupid and you can't fix stupid.

Agreed it is stupidity, but IMHO I think part of the stupidity can be explained beyond just stupidity.

In the case of the TSA Employee who swabbed my car and did not take nicely that I was unconcerned with why he was swabbing my car and his distaste for my comment about the car being dirty anyway and if he wanted he could also wash it as well swab it, I think part of the reason for his stupidity in the way he handle the entire situation was because he felt that I was simply another person to be suspicion of and that I (as well as anybody else) could be the next bad apple, vs. just some guy parking his car at the airport.

Clearly the entire process of swabbing my car seems stupid to me, but leaving alone for the moment, IMHO if he did not see me as a potential bad apple, he might have laughed along with me, rather than said, "Sir, Security is not a Laughing Matter".

I do not know, maybe I am wrong, would not be the first time and surly will not be the last, but I feel that stupidity while a good descriptor does not answer the entire question.

Regardless, there are good TSA Employees, some who are even light hearted, but I feel that part of them being "good" or light hearted is that they understand (either because they have not drank the kool-aide or for whatever reason) that we (the flying public) are people just like them and not some pariah or the next would be bad actor ready to do harm to the flying public.

"But Security Theater is a joke."

I get that, I see it as theater, you see it as theater, some portion of society as a whole sees it as theater, but I would wager the Employees who have drank the kool-aid see it as necessary and important to ensure that they are preventing would be bad apples from doing bad things.

If the same dude was told to swab cars in the parking lot, but he knew it was just a job for the sake of theater (using that description) and treated the people he came in contact with as just average people, not potential would be bad apples, the act of swabbing cars can still seem or maybe even is stupid, but the TSA Employee can do his job without acting like he is about to actually catch someone.

IMHO, if he were more light hearted and was willing to laugh with the people he came in contact with, the experience while still smelling of Security Theater might just get a roll eyes rather than leaving a lasting memory of another bad impression of the TSA Front-line Employees.

I get it too and don't disagree that TSA likely ( I have my doubts) has some good, honest, hardworking people.

I think TSA calling itself a counter-terrorism agency, which is really a reach for airport passenger screeners, is a large part of the problem.

Mom and Pop heading off to Vegas are not terrorist, should not be considered terrorist, and should not be treated like potential terrorist. They are also not in prison and should not be treated like they are under arrest. They are not in military boot camp and don't need to be treated like they are.

TSA's silly reliance on SSI to hide the disgusting things they do at checkpoints needs to end.

If your going to feel my "resistance" at least have the backbone to call it what it is, a penis, or other appropriately named body part. I don't need TSA to hide behind polite speak in order to avoid accountability.

If TSA is going to deploy technology at least be honest enough to demonstrate that it has been independently tested and is effective in its role.

TSA screeners are not LEO's. Don't try to make people believe otherwise.

A little effort on building goodwill from the top of TSA down to today's new hire might help change the public's negative perception of TSA and its employees.

Finally, if a TSA screener is a criminal and is caught doing something of a criminal nature while on the job I think the public has every right to know what the person did and exactly what TSA did in response. The individuals privacy should be a secondary concern.

Finally, act like a responsible government agency should act. TSA knew of the screener who was assaulting passengers at Denver and didn't do anything. TSA could have acted sooner but didn't. TSA could have pursued legal charges but did not. And this is just one example. TSA knew that Stacey Armato was illegally held hostage at a TSA checkpoint but as far as I know no legal actions were ever taken against the TSA employees involved. Another case, Phil Mocek, TSA employees gave false reports to police. Phil fought and won the case at great personal expense and it was evident that the TSA employees lied to police yet nothing ever was done to the TSA employees. And in my own case the FLL FSD refused to investigate an attempted theft by a TSA screener. Instead I was told that we have to expect more invasive actions by TSA.

So yeah, I suspect that TSA has some good people the problem is knowing which ones!

Sometimes things are broken beyond repair or the cost of repair is just not economical.

TSA is such a case!