TSA Supervisor @ SEA "You cannot refuse" AIT...
 

The traveler informs an officer he would prefer not to remove his shoes. The officer calls a Supervisor. The Supervisor ask about the AIT.

The Supervisor states:

"If you are able to stand up, you will go through there. You cannot refuse that [AIT] screening."

and "If you are able to do this, this is the process" {pointing at the AIT}

and "The only ones who don't get to go through here, are the ones unable to do it."

The situation gets worse when the TSA personnel begin to cross the line concerning medical conditions. The supervisor states:

Can you do this? {lifts arms above his head} Is there something wrong with your arms.


A manager arrived and was told "I am unable" and "If I was I would refuse". Manager states the individual is "opting out". Presumably a pat-down was conducted.

Traveler's first mistake: "I prefer not to remove my shoes."

Should have been "I cannot and will not remove my shoes."

Did anyone else notice that the TSA sprung this on the citizenry while Congress was in recess?

From what we read, some people are more successful than others with a medical opt-out. I've never tried it, but will do it if the NOS becomes mandatory for real. I realize that you are subject to the whims and reasoning ability of the particular group of clerks you encounter on a given day, but there must be a way to publish a checklist or of exact things to say or not say when doing a medical opt-out. "Prefer not" versus "I cannot" are good examples.

Then, there are the best practices for basic acting skills. You don't want to show up with your arm in a sling, be successful, and then proceed to throw your bag over your shoulder when you take it from the rollers. I think a successful medical opt out is a combination of saying the right things and winning an Academy award.

Whenever I don't get Pre-Check (50% of the time now), I just say "I cannot raise my arm" and go through the metal detector. Sometime with a hand swab, usually nothing.

Are you a paid Pre Checker? I'm betting you are not.

If anyone tells you language doesn't matter, we have the TSA as an example where language matters. Word choice and other semantic games are a critical skillset when dealing with the legions of pretty little Napoleons in government service. It certainly is relevant when not wanting to be subjected to TSA's strip-search machines.

That depends on if you are dealing with someone who distinguishes between "I am physically incapable of assuming and holding the position" and "I am physically able but I choose not to assume the position".

Of course, the only reason such a distinction ever existed in the first place is because TSA sought to punish those who 'opt out' with retaliation and delay while avoiding the embarrassment of harassing John McCain (or other war casualties) because they are physically unable to perform.

IME, many TSOs refuse to acknowledge the difference between 'can not' and 'will not'. PHX T2 TSOs and supervisors are particularly adamant: when you point out that you have a physical limitation that prevents you from complying with their order, they get right in your face and repeat, loudly, "then you are an opt-out".

They must have been trained to speak very loudly, so loudly that sometime the spittle flies (not a good look). I'm sure they don't do it to be demeaning to the pax; some overpaid trainer probably assured them that anyone who balks at the NoS must be hard of hearing or have language comprehension issues, both of which are best addressed by speaking loudly (and wetly).

The individual was in a wheelchair and repeatedly stated he was "unable" to assume the AIT position. He even stated to a Manager he was "unable".

Interesting that a new policy that was claimed to only affect a very few has within two weeks been extended to anyone who ops out?

The "you shall not refuse" was directed at someone who, as I understand it, the TSA said was unlikely to be subject to the mandatory AIT.

The point is that TSA is claiming limited impact of anyone from this change. But the fact of the matter is that TSA has removed the ability to Opt Out for everyone and we are starting to see that policy change at the check points.

Here is what TSA put in writing.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...a-32-d-ait.pdf


This whole PIA is so openly worded that TSA can do anything they like for any reason or no reason. The implication is clear that TSA is moving away from WTMD use entirely. This PIA is just another slide down the slope.

I take this to mean that TSA is stating that they can not adequately screen people in wheelchairs, because there's no current way for people in wheel chairs to be forced to use the AIT.

Since TSO discretion can now decide whether or not a pax can be forced to use the AIT to fly, TSA is acknowledging that HQ does not believe the gropes are as reliable as the AIT - and TSA no longer needs to pretend that there is such a thing as a 'medical' exemption from the AIT.

I think this is all leading up to the inevitable removal of the magnetometers entirely. Those who can not assume and hold the position in the NoS - unable to stand still unassisted, unable to hold arms above head - will be forced to use the AIT supplemented by a grope - full body, if need be.

The person in question was me.

Yes, I was in a wheelchair the whole time. Yes, for legit reasons. When I reach the bins, you can see me put in my two (collapsed) walking sticks (wrapped in reflective white and red tape) and my (collapsed, sheathed) Ambutech white & red guide cane.

And the video is up. Action w/ STSO begins at ~16:40 in.

It'll be featuring prominently in a filing in my 1st Circuit case soon.

Haven't watched the whole video but already have a question.

The video has a date stamp of 15/12/11. Is that accurate?

No. See description, corroborated by a brief glance at my smartphone (which was on Mountain Time, vs Seattle's Pacific Time) just before I put it in the tray.

The timestamp is burned in by the device.