This week in TSA history starting January 1, 2016
Mar 10, 2016, 7:58 am
#91
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
The publicly (if unintentionally) available May 2008 SOP (revision 3, June 2008 implementation date) explicitly states nitroglycerine pills are permitted both in checked luggage and to pass through a checkpoint.
It is, ahem, highly unlikely this specific information has been changed in subsequent versions of the SOP.
The SOP is still designated SSI and therefore certain individuals are prohibited from disseminating any information in the document. I wish I could share with you even something as basic as just the page number on which information about nitroglycerine is addressed but, alas, I cannot.
Mar 10, 2016, 8:53 am
#92
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
The publicly (if unintentionally) available May 2008 SOP (revision 3, June 2008 implementation date) explicitly states nitroglycerine pills are permitted both in checked luggage and to pass through a checkpoint.
It is, ahem, highly unlikely this specific information has been changed in subsequent versions of the SOP.
The SOP is still designated SSI and therefore certain individuals are prohibited from disseminating any information in the document. I wish I could share with you even something as basic as just the page number on which information about nitroglycerine is addressed but, alas, I cannot.
It is, ahem, highly unlikely this specific information has been changed in subsequent versions of the SOP.
The SOP is still designated SSI and therefore certain individuals are prohibited from disseminating any information in the document. I wish I could share with you even something as basic as just the page number on which information about nitroglycerine is addressed but, alas, I cannot.
1) if I had mentioned seeing that document and the info about nitro pills at the checkpoint, I am certain I would not have been allowed to fly that day - and I still would have had my pills confiscated.
2) the information publicly available to me and other pax on the website does not support nitro pills. Blog posts are not binding at the checkpoint, and the other post regarding nitro pills links to information about medical liquids, not solid pills.
3) my pills were not confiscated under a medical rule, they were confiscated (allegedly) because they were a 100% banned substance.
4) anything in the SSI SOP can still be over-ridden at the checkpoint by 'screener discretion'.
Last edited by chollie; Mar 10, 2016 at 9:23 am
Mar 10, 2016, 9:28 am
#93
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
The publicly (if unintentionally) available May 2008 SOP (revision 3, June 2008 implementation date) explicitly states nitroglycerine pills are permitted both in checked luggage and to pass through a checkpoint.
It is, ahem, highly unlikely this specific information has been changed in subsequent versions of the SOP.
The SOP is still designated SSI and therefore certain individuals are prohibited from disseminating any information in the document. I wish I could share with you even something as basic as just the page number on which information about nitroglycerine is addressed but, alas, I cannot.
It is, ahem, highly unlikely this specific information has been changed in subsequent versions of the SOP.
The SOP is still designated SSI and therefore certain individuals are prohibited from disseminating any information in the document. I wish I could share with you even something as basic as just the page number on which information about nitroglycerine is addressed but, alas, I cannot.
There is absolutely no reason to place a SSI label on the question if certain heart medications are allowed just as there is no reason to let front line screeners decide how much of any medicine is an adequate amount.
TSA has a legal responsibility to notify travelers if an item is permitted or not and in this case have failed to meet that obligation. That makes every single TSA employee responsible and at fault.
Mar 10, 2016, 9:32 am
#94
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
A similar issue is being discussed on @AskTSA right now, only the topic is a father carrying breast milk for a child.
AskTSA contradicts the website and recent reported checkpoint experiences where screeners challenged the amount of breast milk. As one poster notes, it doesn't matter what the website or AskTSA says: TSOs will exercise their 'screener discretion' and tell you that "we don't do it that way here".
Interestingly, @AskTSA leaves the discussion unresolved. Way to go, TSA - a traveller with a honest question about a matter that TSA can't seem to understand - breast milk - and is not able to get a straight answer.
Just another example of TSA's famed 'consistent inconsistency'?
AskTSA contradicts the website and recent reported checkpoint experiences where screeners challenged the amount of breast milk. As one poster notes, it doesn't matter what the website or AskTSA says: TSOs will exercise their 'screener discretion' and tell you that "we don't do it that way here".
Interestingly, @AskTSA leaves the discussion unresolved. Way to go, TSA - a traveller with a honest question about a matter that TSA can't seem to understand - breast milk - and is not able to get a straight answer.
Just another example of TSA's famed 'consistent inconsistency'?
Last edited by chollie; Mar 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm
Mar 10, 2016, 3:19 pm
#95
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
A similar issue is being discussed on @AskTSA right now, only the topic is a father carrying breast milk for a child.
AskTSA contradicts the website and recent reported checkpoint experiences where screeners challenged the amount of breast milk. As one poster notes, it doesn't matter what the website or AskTSA says: TSOs will exercise their 'screener discretion' and tell you that "we don't do it that way here".
Interestingly, @AskTSA leaves the discussion unresolved. Way to go, TSA - a traveller with a honest question about a matter that TSA can't seem to understand - breast milk - and is not able to get a straight answer.
Just another example of TSA's famed 'consistent inconsistency'?
AskTSA contradicts the website and recent reported checkpoint experiences where screeners challenged the amount of breast milk. As one poster notes, it doesn't matter what the website or AskTSA says: TSOs will exercise their 'screener discretion' and tell you that "we don't do it that way here".
Interestingly, @AskTSA leaves the discussion unresolved. Way to go, TSA - a traveller with a honest question about a matter that TSA can't seem to understand - breast milk - and is not able to get a straight answer.
Just another example of TSA's famed 'consistent inconsistency'?
Mar 10, 2016, 3:41 pm
#98
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
As well, Lisa Farbstein TSA spokes...., will also block you on her government twitter account if you write something she doesn't agree with
Mar 10, 2016, 6:47 pm
#99
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Mar 11, 2016, 6:27 am
#100
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
BTW, Lisa Farbstein STILL has the photo of the knife with identifying information on her Twitter page. I guess she feels she is immune from having comply with certain laws.
Mar 12, 2016, 7:25 am
#101
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
(bolding mine)
I didn't encounter a color-blind TSO. I encountered a TSO, backed by LTSOs, STSOs and a suit, who all agreed on the interpretation of the SSI rules about banned substances. You are the only one who has suggested that, hypothetically, you might not have confiscated the pills. You do not even know that everyone at GSO would interpret the rules the same way.
@AskTSA re-iterated the single most important non-SSI rule: any item can be confiscated at any time at a screener's discretion.
@AskTSA did not suggest that if you think the screener is way out of line, you should ask for a second opinion. @AskTSA makes it pretty clear that screener discretion trumps all rules, those available to the public and the secret SSI rules.
Yes, asking for an FSD or a TSM is unrealistic - those people have no interest in individual pax or their issues. IIRC, neither the FSD, a-FSD or TSM were available the day Rand Paul was detained by TSA.
Hardly surprising there are failures at the checkpoint - those failures are directly related to all those AWOL upper ranks who are off golfing or at conferences while the checkpoints run themselves.
It is important not to post nonsense that some folks will take seriously. Posting that nitro pills are always allowed when in fact the website does not support this does a big disservice to folks who come here in search of the information that TSA should provide but does not.
It's also important to post the limits of information. You can speak about your personal checkpoint experiences - all TSOs and pax can. You can not say with assurance what will happen at other checkpoints or what happens at your own when you are not personally working. You can not, for example, say with certainty that no one at GSO would interpret the nitro rules the way multiple people did at another airport. You speak for yourself and I think it's important for lurkers and infrequent fliers to realize that.
I originally came to this forum to lurk for the same reason as many other travellers: I was looking for reliable information and informational experiences. I already knew that, in common with other shady operators, TSA's website had nothing to do with the reality.
I hope your participation in TSA social media out-reach doesn't include associating yourself with the travesty called @AskTSA.
I don't know how it came up on their radar, but my very rarely-flying, very conservative co-workers are in an uproar about it - the waste of taxpayers money plus the deliberately hostile and insulting replies. It's like you (TSA HQ) have distilled years of bile and lies from the blog into a more compact format. Do you really think replying to a tweet with a photo complaining about a two-hour wait in line should be answered with a reminder that it's spring break? Particularly when it's clear from the photo that there are no 'spring break' kids in the Pre line?
Does someone at HQ really want TSA to be the most-hated, least-respected, worst-morale federal agency?
I didn't encounter a color-blind TSO. I encountered a TSO, backed by LTSOs, STSOs and a suit, who all agreed on the interpretation of the SSI rules about banned substances. You are the only one who has suggested that, hypothetically, you might not have confiscated the pills. You do not even know that everyone at GSO would interpret the rules the same way.
@AskTSA re-iterated the single most important non-SSI rule: any item can be confiscated at any time at a screener's discretion.
@AskTSA did not suggest that if you think the screener is way out of line, you should ask for a second opinion. @AskTSA makes it pretty clear that screener discretion trumps all rules, those available to the public and the secret SSI rules.
Yes, asking for an FSD or a TSM is unrealistic - those people have no interest in individual pax or their issues. IIRC, neither the FSD, a-FSD or TSM were available the day Rand Paul was detained by TSA.
Hardly surprising there are failures at the checkpoint - those failures are directly related to all those AWOL upper ranks who are off golfing or at conferences while the checkpoints run themselves.
It is important not to post nonsense that some folks will take seriously. Posting that nitro pills are always allowed when in fact the website does not support this does a big disservice to folks who come here in search of the information that TSA should provide but does not.
It's also important to post the limits of information. You can speak about your personal checkpoint experiences - all TSOs and pax can. You can not say with assurance what will happen at other checkpoints or what happens at your own when you are not personally working. You can not, for example, say with certainty that no one at GSO would interpret the nitro rules the way multiple people did at another airport. You speak for yourself and I think it's important for lurkers and infrequent fliers to realize that.
I originally came to this forum to lurk for the same reason as many other travellers: I was looking for reliable information and informational experiences. I already knew that, in common with other shady operators, TSA's website had nothing to do with the reality.
I hope your participation in TSA social media out-reach doesn't include associating yourself with the travesty called @AskTSA.
I don't know how it came up on their radar, but my very rarely-flying, very conservative co-workers are in an uproar about it - the waste of taxpayers money plus the deliberately hostile and insulting replies. It's like you (TSA HQ) have distilled years of bile and lies from the blog into a more compact format. Do you really think replying to a tweet with a photo complaining about a two-hour wait in line should be answered with a reminder that it's spring break? Particularly when it's clear from the photo that there are no 'spring break' kids in the Pre line?
Does someone at HQ really want TSA to be the most-hated, least-respected, worst-morale federal agency?
Unfortunately, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. West is smart enough to know his posts here are monitored and he's smart enough to choose his words carefully.
Had someone posted on here that I had, in fact, died or been left profoundly disabled because my pills were confiscated at the checkpoint and not available when I needed them on the flight, I'm sure West would be quick to point out that if I had just flown out of GSO when he was working, I would have been able to keep my pills.
Had someone posted on here that I had, in fact, died or been left profoundly disabled because my pills were confiscated at the checkpoint and not available when I needed them on the flight, I'm sure West would be quick to point out that if I had just flown out of GSO when he was working, I would have been able to keep my pills.
(Emphasis mine).
Chollie's problem with the (apparently deliberate) TSA confusion over essential medication is a bigger issue that this, but all the same, this "language barrier" rubbish is ridiculous.
I have been (many times) through airport security in Bangkok, where I (and most of the other people in line) don't speak the local language, yet there was no delay because of a "language barrier". Same at Singapore. Hong Kong. Zurich. Rome. Tokyo. Osaka. Sao Paolo. Budapest. Amsterdam. Frankfurt. Munich. Milan. Abu Dhabi. Dubai. Never ever ever seen a problem at these security checkpoint due to language problems.
See, non-US international airports figured out decades ago that being an "international airport" carried a tiny risk that there might, occasionally, be passengers from other countries who therefore don't speak the local language. (Shocking, I know.) They therefore took steps to have signs with pictures to demonstrate the checkpoint rules, and hired staff who, if they can't speak the passenger's language, at least could work effectively to make themselves understood. (Hint: speaking English really loud and really slow is NOT the solution.) One enormous part of this is that the rules are consistent from airport to airport, checkpoint to checkpoint, passenger to passenger, so passengers with any experience or even those who can watch the passengers in front of them in line have a pretty good idea what to expect. Yeah, I know that would demolish the whole "inconsistency" thing that TSA uses to cover its inability to train staff properly.
Apparently (but not surprisingly) LAX hasn't figured this out any of this yet. Not sure other US so-called international airports are any better.
Chollie's problem with the (apparently deliberate) TSA confusion over essential medication is a bigger issue that this, but all the same, this "language barrier" rubbish is ridiculous.
I have been (many times) through airport security in Bangkok, where I (and most of the other people in line) don't speak the local language, yet there was no delay because of a "language barrier". Same at Singapore. Hong Kong. Zurich. Rome. Tokyo. Osaka. Sao Paolo. Budapest. Amsterdam. Frankfurt. Munich. Milan. Abu Dhabi. Dubai. Never ever ever seen a problem at these security checkpoint due to language problems.
See, non-US international airports figured out decades ago that being an "international airport" carried a tiny risk that there might, occasionally, be passengers from other countries who therefore don't speak the local language. (Shocking, I know.) They therefore took steps to have signs with pictures to demonstrate the checkpoint rules, and hired staff who, if they can't speak the passenger's language, at least could work effectively to make themselves understood. (Hint: speaking English really loud and really slow is NOT the solution.) One enormous part of this is that the rules are consistent from airport to airport, checkpoint to checkpoint, passenger to passenger, so passengers with any experience or even those who can watch the passengers in front of them in line have a pretty good idea what to expect. Yeah, I know that would demolish the whole "inconsistency" thing that TSA uses to cover its inability to train staff properly.
Apparently (but not surprisingly) LAX hasn't figured this out any of this yet. Not sure other US so-called international airports are any better.
Last edited by TWA884; Mar 12, 2016 at 8:00 am Reason: Fix BB Code
Mar 12, 2016, 7:49 am
#102
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
I never said that the things mentioned here do not happen, merely that I have never seen situations like I have seen described here. I am of what happens nationwide, I am also aware of what is in the media - I have merely stated that I do not understand not following SOP, and that I have not seen many of the things described here.
I have stated without fail that any TSO/LTSO/STSO/TSM that disallows medications (and specifically nitro in any of the medical formats), is wrong - no modifiers, no hedge, no wishy washy language - they are wrong.
A trip through is either a positive, neutral or negative (bad) experience, and I do not qualify having medicine of any kind not allowed as a positive or neutral. If Chollie had died as a result, I would have pointed out the comments online, and I would have been sad, because Chollie is generally a good sort with some pretty nice commentary. Further, in my mind, it would have been a tragedy of the first order, because it would have been unnecessary.
That is a bit mean spirited, especially since I have agreed with you about nitro in any format since I found out about your not getting through with it.
Language barriers can make things difficult just about anywhere. The place I saw the most impact was in Bradley International terminal at LAX. Rudimentary miming and hand signals only resolve certain parts of the communication issues - it would be great if we had designated language specialist (which is actually a program at TSA, there just are not nearly enough to be prepared for every possible situation) at each checkpoint, but that is unrealistic. One other thing to keep in mind, this was about 10 years ago when I was at LAX, so things may be completely different nowadays.
I have stated without fail that any TSO/LTSO/STSO/TSM that disallows medications (and specifically nitro in any of the medical formats), is wrong - no modifiers, no hedge, no wishy washy language - they are wrong.
A trip through is either a positive, neutral or negative (bad) experience, and I do not qualify having medicine of any kind not allowed as a positive or neutral. If Chollie had died as a result, I would have pointed out the comments online, and I would have been sad, because Chollie is generally a good sort with some pretty nice commentary. Further, in my mind, it would have been a tragedy of the first order, because it would have been unnecessary.
Unfortunately, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. West is smart enough to know his posts here are monitored and he's smart enough to choose his words carefully.
Had someone posted on here that I had, in fact, died or been left profoundly disabled because my pills were confiscated at the checkpoint and not available when I needed them on the flight, I'm sure West would be quick to point out that if I had just flown out of GSO when he was working, I would have been able to keep my pills.
Had someone posted on here that I had, in fact, died or been left profoundly disabled because my pills were confiscated at the checkpoint and not available when I needed them on the flight, I'm sure West would be quick to point out that if I had just flown out of GSO when he was working, I would have been able to keep my pills.
Language barriers can make things difficult just about anywhere. The place I saw the most impact was in Bradley International terminal at LAX. Rudimentary miming and hand signals only resolve certain parts of the communication issues - it would be great if we had designated language specialist (which is actually a program at TSA, there just are not nearly enough to be prepared for every possible situation) at each checkpoint, but that is unrealistic. One other thing to keep in mind, this was about 10 years ago when I was at LAX, so things may be completely different nowadays.
Last edited by TWA884; Mar 12, 2016 at 8:04 am Reason: Fix BB Code
Mar 12, 2016, 8:12 am
#103
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,652
TSA Travel Tips - Traveling With Medication
One of the more popular questions we get from travelers is: “Can I travel with my medication.” The answer is yes, with some qualifiers. Here are a few tips that you might find helpful.
<snip>
<snip>
- Nitroglycerin tablets and spray (used to treat episodes of angina in people who have coronary artery disease) are permitted and have never been prohibited.
Mar 12, 2016, 8:40 am
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
From the TSA Blog (Sept 5, 2014):
We also know that TSA Blog posts are not official position statements and are none binding on TSA screeners. For that matter even official TSA policy statements are none binding on TSA screeners since any one of them can deny any item, for any or no reason, at any time, and the traveler has no recourse.
.
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Mar 12, 2016 at 9:52 am Reason: Removed part of comment
Mar 12, 2016, 8:56 am
#105
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,652
I am aware of this but this language is not supported by the language returned when the TSA "CAN I BRING" tool is used found at https://www.tsa.gov/.
When I type in "nitro pills", "nitroglycerin pills" or "nitroglycerin patch", I get the message that those are allowed ("Check or Carry-on").
When just "nitroglycerin" is typed, the response is "Not Permitted."