TMM1982

Yup but they need to comply with all security protocol while doing so. Being disabled or handicapped is not an excuse to NOT comply with federal regulations.

chollie

Very true.

A 4-year-old with Down's Syndrome has a right to travel by air. That 4-year-old will be expected to comply with all federal regulations. That child will require the assistance and guidance of his/her caregiver.

If the child gets confused, makes a break for it, and TSA/LE refuse to allow the caregiver to assist in any way (including advising TSA/LE on the child's limitations and how best to communicate with the child), who is at fault?

TMM1982

The conversation of who's fault it is doesn't interest me in your hypothetical. The 4 year old's parents need to grab the 4 year old, bring him/her back, restrain them, while TSA does what it needs to do.

Children and/or handicapped people are NOT exempt from following federal regulations.

chollie

My hypothetical is very similar to this situation. The 'child' was unable to understand what was happening and what was expected of her. Her mother was prevented from assisting in any way: grabbing, bringing her back, restraining her - or even talking to her to calm her down and de-escalate the situation so screening could be completed.

TSA/LE policies are at fault.

gooselee

Bolding above is mine. In the case being discussed in this thread, which chollie is referencing, is not a hypothetical. The caretaker (her mother) attempted to assist/communicate/etc. and either TSA or the police prevented the mother from assisting.

Even if we allow that the caregiver must take full responsibility for the person with a disability, having that responsibility still requires the relevant security authorities to allow said caregiver to, y'know, take care of their child/relative/friend.

Your statement that this is all on the shoulders of the caretaker is like saying someone who got injured in a car accident while wearing a seatbelt is the only one at fault even if the carmaker installed faulty belt anchors and airbags. In that case, there's a perfectly reasonable assumption that carmaker has installed safety equipment that will actually do its job correctly, and a reasonable level of responsibility/blame on the carmaker if their safety equipment fails to do its job properly.

TMM1982

What 4 year old child are you referring to? I've not read about any parent not being able to restrain their own 4 year old at TSA.

petaluma1

I would hope you, sir, are never blessed with a child with developmental disabilities because you have a lot to learn. Your scenario just ain't the way it works.

Boggie Dog

That's not what your statement was about that I responded to. You have changed the parameters.

gooselee

Replace 4-year old child with 18-year old girl with disabilities.

Now imagine you are that woman's mother/father/caretaker, who is travelling with her specifically to assist her through all aspects of her travel experience, are trying to get to her to comfort and/or restrain her, and a TSA employee is physically blocking you from doing so while also trying to lead her to an area where she is even further away from you.

TMM1982

My guess is that TSA treats an 18 year old differently than a 4 year old.

TMM1982

And you have a lot to learn. Airport security trumps any and all needs of the disabled.

Boggie Dog

Perhaps it's the manner in which that trump card is being played that is the problem.

gooselee

Fine. You're still responsible for this 18 year old with disabilities, as their caretaker who has accompanied them on this trip.

In your infinite wisdom, what would you do?

No. By that measure, anyone with a walker or wheelchair or liquid medication over 3 oz. should never be allowed through airport security.

If you truly believe the statement you just made, and all of its implications, then this conversation is over.

petaluma1

You are wrong yet again. Tom Sawyer comes to mind.

theddo

A 4 year old with Down's Syndrome does not have a right to travel by air. The right to travel have never been extended that far, and indeed the no-fly lists indicate the federal government wouldn't wish it to.