eyecue

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...after-we-asked

Boggie Dog

I think the bigger message is in how long TSA took to fufill a FOIA request, 7 Years, 7 Months. 29 Days.

People should be prosecutted for such.

cfischer

agreed. Guess it took them that long to 'clean up' all the records

Yoshi212

TSA/DHS and many other gov't agencies could care less what a court or law requires of them. Unless their funding is compromised by Congress they'll continue doing what they want, when they want to people. And Congress won't do anything that looks antiterrorism for fear of smear campaigns to unseat them without having a cushy lobbying job set up. I may sound jaded but it's the status quo.

My FOIA request to TSA took 14 months and got a response saying all data was SSI. I had requested information about what qualifies for medical liquid exemptions and packing/labeling requirements. They couldn't even say that medical liquids had a quantity exemption.

Transpacificflyer

I have a feeling that your question to the TSA was not a simple as you make it out to be.

The TSA posts information on its website that addresses the issue for pax who are required to travel with medicine in liquid form. The information provided is quite broad and ranges from medical devices, to ice packs, to the volume allowed. Transporting the substances as cargo is well documented and the regulations, classifications and protocols to be followed are public knowledge.

A medical product liquid includes a wide range of substances, some of which are classified as bio hazardous, or flammable, or dangerous goods. These goods are addressed by multiple regulations some of which over lap. If you are asking in respect to the transport of prescribed medications that are to be transported in hand baggage, then it is no big mystery. Liquids in excess of the standard limit are allowed. The requirement for labeling is the same as the general carrying of a prescribed medication. The original prescribing script is to be affixed to the product. This provides the name of the physician, the dispensing pharmacy, appropriate DIN and registration numbers, an identification of the product and the amount. What is not allowed are flammables in excess of the existing regulations. Nor are controlled toxic substances allowed. For example a large bottle of shampoo for head lice is deemed a medical liquid. However, it contains pesticide in a quantity that exceeds the basic limit for personal use. This product should not be allowed in the cabin. Blood products are classified as biologics. They must be packed appropriately in accordance to the published regulations. Some substances which can be prescribed such as steroids are trouble spots. There is a well documented problem with travelers coming from Thailand who attempt to either conceal the products in their checked bags or to pass the product in carry on luggage as an acceptable drug. In this case there are FDA regulations that take precedence over TSA regulations, particularly as they relate to approved products. If the medical substance is not approved in the USA, or subject to dispensation either under special circumstance prescription or clinical trial use, then the product cannot be transported even if the amounts are small.

Boggie Dog

Can you give us a pointer to the TSA pages that contain the information you stated above?

Thanks.

Yoshi212

I'm a clinical pharmacist by trade and a consultant by businesses...the questions I asked were at times broad and others specific. TSA used their coverall of SSI to just block it all. My followups were also blocked via SSI even though the information I actually requested was not SSI and ultimately released to me when I involved my attorney and then congressman. This is not a technique solely used by the TSA but has been used by various gov't agencies as a way to scare off those with limited resources. The TSA and DHS get numerous information requests but they are still governed by the laws and must abide by them. If they fail that is not my problem and they cannot and should not use the protection of SSI.

Transpacificflyer

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/special-procedures

Under the section disabilities and medical conditions. The page covers the issue of personal carry on.
If the issue is one of cargo, then each airline has its procedures and manual.
It's not a "state secret".

In respect to labeling and documentation, the standard pharma regulations apply. Drugs must be in their dispensing container with the script documentation attached.

petaluma1

And how does TSA know the drugs in the container match the script documentation? They don't.

Does TSA require that every single bottle of a liquid script be opened for testing?

KRSW

TSA doesn't know a real weapon from a fart blaster

Why would you expect them to know anything, let alone keep aircraft safe?

Boggie Dog

Not to defend TSA but the Fart Blaster was taken by TSA's UK counterparts.

This Buzz Lightyear "Flip Grip" toy gripper is TSA's contribution to keeping the world safe from toys.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/1...d-like-weapon/


TSA even put out a statement justifying the TSA screeners idiotic action.

Why should anyone put any faith in TSA's ability to understand exactly what a "real" threat is if this is an example of TSA corporate culture?

Exactly how stupid does TSA need be before the public says enough is enough?

chollie

The statement you quoted tells you exactly why my nitro pills were confiscated and why they could still be confiscated at any checkpoint today and TSA will defend the confiscation.

Paging <deleted>: I've got two conflicting statements from HQ - which one do you think I should listen to when I am deciding whether or not to take a chance and pack my nitro pills? (Actually, one is an official statement and the other is just a blog post).

Yoshi212

This is typical gov't blah blah if it's broke who cares we don't have to fix it mentality. Doesn't matter if the procedure doesn't make sense it's the procedure.
“TSA officers are charged with protecting passengers and making final judgments on which items are permitted on aircraft. In our review of this situation, the officer’s decision complied with approved procedures. We recently reinforced that training on the procedures with every front line TSA officer. TSA officers have the discretion to deny passage of an item if they cannot definitively rule out that the item could be used as a weapon, or perceived to be a weapon, including replica weapons."

Boggie Dog

Your Nitro pills were confiscated because the TSA workers at that airport were so poorly trained that they did not know that medical nitro is not explosive.

Again, a demonstration of TSA's lack of ability to understand real threats from things that are no threat.

I doubt <deleted> will be back anytime soon, I asked him to show the words that say medical nitro is allowed.

chollie

<deleted> tries. I don't blame him for trying, but I do fault him for suggesting things that might get lurkers on this site in trouble.

Suggesting that a blog post is binding at the checkpoint does everyone a disservice. I believe that he truly believes that he would not have confiscated the pills. Unfortunately, multiple people, including some at higher pay grades than <deleted>, made a different decision and to this day, nothing on the website contradicts that decision.

People lurking on this site wondering about the likelihood of nitro pills or other meds being confiscated deserve to understand that the website guarantees only that 'screener discretion' is the final word.

They need to understand that what happens when <deleted> at GSO is your screener is not necessarily what happens with thousands of other screeners at hundreds of other airports every day. They need to understand that yes, 'consistent inconsistency' and 'screener discretion' really do mean that a TSO, backed by LTSOs, STSOs and a suit, can confiscate meds at the checkpoint and there is nothing a pax can do about it. They need to understand that because of 'consistent inconsistency' and 'screener discretion', the website is only a suggestion and does not necessarily reflect what the checkpoint rules actually are.

Because my meds were classified as an explosive substance, I am not even sure I would have been allowed to finish screening and exit the sterile area and airport with them.

If I had had the benefit of knowing in advance that my pills could be confiscated solely at 'screener discretion', I would not have taken them with me that day - after all, I wasn't flying out of GSO and even if I were, if <deleted> wasn't my screener, they still could have gotten confiscated. I might have naively tried to research the website, found an answer that made no sense (nitro pills are not liquid, TSA!), and naively assumed that since the whole world knows you can't explode nitro pills, I had nothing to worry about.

Anyone suggesting I should rely on the blog post of known liars regarding nitro pills should remember: we had a TSO spokesperson posting here briefly and trying to help. He specifically told us that the 'name game' was no longer being practiced and he asked for specifics if any of us encountered it. Surprisingly (or not), it was an HQ guy forgetting that in the real world, 'screener discretion' is the final word, and it has since emerged that the 'name game' is still alive and well at certain airports, HQ notwithstanding.