Essentially, that argument went out the window when TSA stopped requiring pat downs, bootie removal and diaper checks of babes in arms and allowed children under 12 and old folks to keep their shoes on. I'm certain, however, that TSA has quotas for "classes" of travelers to get a good groping. I would also suspect that the screener who performed this procedure on a very elderly gentleman got some black marks on his record for not being aggressive enough in his search - but at least they didn't try to make the gentleman stand up and walk like Lazarus. At least, not that we know of.

So, just for clarity, your stated opinion is that TSA should not screen for anything that has NOT consistently been used against commercial aviation?

Just to give you a sourcing, I do not know if the individual in the chair was elderly, or any other information about them - but last year we reported about a gun concealed in a wheelchair.

How was that gun found - by groping the person in the chair?

Place your bets here
 

Taking bets now on whether "enhanced disability training" will ever take place for TSA screeners.

It will be conducted at the 'academy' and those who get the training will not be line TSOs, it will be likely STSOs, and only those who are the boss's favorites. The idea, of course, will be that they will go back and share what they've learned with the screeners who grope, but it never works that way.

Hmm. I certainly didn't get that out of that post. Not at all.

TSA has had TSOs go rogue many more times than it has found guns in wheelchairs. Strange that TSOs still don't get screened regularly.

Does that mean that your stated opinion is that TSA should not screen TSOs for anything that has NOT consistently been used against commercial aviation?

You screen pax for drugs and money as well as medical nitro pills and explosives. Why aren't TSOs also screened regularly for money and drugs? Particularly because if they're doping on the job, it probably explains why screeners keep rubbing genitals and letting loaded weapons through.

Not at all. You're either misinterpreting what I said or deliberately misconstruing it.

My stated opinion is that TSA should be expending the majority of its efforts on screening for the MOST LIKELY threat vectors, and expending the least amount of effort on the least likely threat vectors. And, you know, zero efforts on threat vectors with zero statistical or practical likelihood of success.

Wowsers. TSA found *a* gun. Based on the most recently available test results, at the same time, they missed nine more. Kudos to TSA!

Meanwhile, TSA is also expending a tremendous amount of effort and resources to hunt down and destroy errant bottles of water, on the false and ridiculous assumption that bottles of water could be used to smuggle liquid explosives (or their constituents) onto a plane - effort and resources that could and should be expended on interdicting guns and actual explosives. You know, so they could maybe bring that success rate up to fifteen percent, or, dare we dream, twenty-five!

We have extensive training on how to work with people with disabilities. It covers disabilities that are obvious, as well as disabilities that are not readily apparent. We also have individuals that are chosen to be Passenger Support Specialists, in order to more efficiently assist folks with disabilities to get into the checkpoint, get themselves and their items screened, and to even help them get their stuff back together and on their way. Many airports hold specialized events to offer segments of the disabled communities to come to the airport, and get an idea of what to expect when they are going to travel. At my airport, we do Wings for Autism events every year, and every year we have families that come and learn how to better help their family members with Autism, as well as help US to learn how to adapt and work with them. That skill set translates to other segments of the disabled community. Each year we have recurrent training for our entire workforce pertaining to people with disabilities. TSA (and I personally) take this aspect of our training and engagement of passengers very seriously. I am always open to suggestions to forward in order to help people with disabilities.

I am already on record as being quite all right with TSOs screening into work - the only thing I have done is point out that if we add that to the infrastructure needs, it will require some expansions and some increased costs.

TSA does not screen for drugs. we screen for WEI - if during the course of searching for WEI, we happen to discover something that appears to be illegal/illicit in nature, we are to contact the local LEOs. TSA has testing processes in place to screen the workforce in order to prevent "doping".

That is the whole reason I asked that question for clarity.

The problem with creating carve outs (meaning reduced levels of screening without some form of vetting), is you increase the likelihood of the use of that vector. If we institute a no pat-down rule for individuals in wheelchairs, or a greatly reduced version of the pat-down for individuals in wheelchairs, it becomes a much more viable option. Using airplanes as missiles had a statistical zero percent ratio of success between WWII and 9/11. It was not something that we truly considered at a national policy level. Liquid Explosives is a statistical zero vector, but we screen for it because it is a viable delivery method (I know, you guys here have tons of folks that say differently, DHS and other security groups say it is a viable delivery method - we could argue over it for days, but it is policy because currently the US Government experts say it is viable). In the US, the common thought process among people that I know is that no plane will be taken over by someone with a knife or gun or box cutter - however, they are still considered dangerous items, and we screen for them (again, I was all for the adjustment a couple of years ago to allow pocket knives, but it was not to be). I am not saying that people in wheelchairs are going to start smuggling bombs on planes en masse if we change the rules, however, the idea would become much more attractive to groups/individuals bent on destruction. TSA/DHS clearly outline that many of their policies are based upon intel, and current threat trends in the world, it would be supremely arrogant, and short sighted to ignore these vectors here, because people that intend to do harm to this Country, are only a flight/boat ride away, or worse yet, a few clicks on the computer away. I do not always agree with the decisions TSA/DHS make, or the processes they put in place to mitigate the threat, but they are fairly consistent in their articulations on why they make those moves/changes - intel, worldwide trends, etc.

Apparently, Congress disagrees with you:

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/h...15hr302eah.pdf

Sounds to me like Congresspeople have received more than a few complaints about the screening of passengers with disabilities and is trying to take some action, in spite of what happens at your airport.

That does not mean that we do not do extensive training. It means that Congress doesn't think we are doing a good enough job, or that we need to change some of the training that we are doing. We still do a boatload of training to work with people that have disabilities, and how to adapt and adjust to try and accommodate them as best we can.

Completely aside from the amount of training we do, I welcome any and all input, suggestions and/or demands that Congress may give to us in order to improve the way we do things. If we can develop better ways to work with any of our passengers, I welcome that feedback. I want the experience for all of our passengers to be seamless. I also want our passengers with disabilities to feel like we are trying to work with them during the screening process, and that we are working to give them as much help as we possibly can. Anything that can help us improve.

I really do have to ask two questions in the interest of clarifying your remarks:

1. Do you really believe that "Congress" (specifically, your authorizing committee) thinks this is all about the quality of your training?
2. Do you really think that Congress offers "input and suggestions" that you, individually and as an agency, are free to ignore?

My head is spinning...

1. According to the way the system is "supposed" to work, yes. Of course, YMMV.
2. I actually set that off as an aside, I welcome feedback and suggestions from anywhere, especially if it is constructive.

Personal opinions:
1. Sadly, it is all to often about politics and optics. I would welcome Congressional direction based upon collaborative study of the situation and current intel. A common ground approach usually yields the best result.
2. I think that there are many things that are sent down from Congress and other governmental structures that are non-binding (which technically makes them suggestions), and the agencies tend to make an attempt to address the core issues using these suggestions as much as possible, but again, YMMV.

Please do sit down, before you fall and injure yourself, a spinning head is nothing to be cavalier about. ;)

Ref "Personal opinion" #2 : You really do need to spend time with the TSA legislative affairs people. Congress simply doesn't provide "nonbinding suggestions." I'm sure that DHS, like other federal agencies, has a short course in legislative affairs. Most also have opportunities for employees to spend a few days with congressional staff in a "shadowing" mode. You would do well to apply for these programs.

Congress also does not provide a great deal of information in a binding format. The vast majority of interactions with Congress that have an impact on the way agencies do the job is in Bills. They give specific instruction on what is to happen, but not always the little details that make up how something actually happens (this is a broad statement, not intended to encompass all things that Congress passes). I have yet to see Congress send down anything in writing that says "TSA will conduct X screening process in this exact way". The vast majority of changes that I have seen the organization make at Congressional suggestion have actually been when they stump on follow-up to something like an IG report or similar finding. I welcome additional information and would love to spend some time with the legislative affairs group (however, I do not live in DC, I live in NC). In your experience, how has Congress had a direct impact (other than bringing pressure to bear on the leadership) on the specifics of individual screening processes?

So you feel you can ignore the law they pass in good conscience, because it's vague? Or implement it as you see fit? Or ignore the plain intent of the law which is to get the TSA to respect the dignity of passengers more than they currently do? Clearly Congress sees this a very big problem or they wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to pass a law for it. The TSA can't take this law as an endorsement by any means that "we're doing all right, nothing to change much here".

I think that you are completely misunderstanding my position here. Lemme splain...

1. I make absolutely no policy decisions for TSA.
2. I have zero input on policy decisions for TSA.

I am pointing out a common sense regular citizen view of how these laws operate (whether this is right or wrong, is a completely different conversation, and these are simply my opinions based upon how I see things working).

Congress passes a law, the law outlines the vision or basics of what Congress wants to happen. The segment of the government tasked with implementing the new law define the specifics required - this is not a 100% statement, it is simply how things work in most cases I have seen. I have never seen a bill that gives the specific ways that TSA is to perform the daily activities required to accomplish the mission - if you have that kind of a bill, or segment of a bill, or tacked on rider for a bill that explains how we are to do the specific parts of the job, I will gladly read it, and re-assess my position if there is new information that changes my perception of how things work.

So, to answer your questions above:

1. I don't make policy.
2. I don't make policy.
3. I don't make policy.
4. I don't make policy.
5. I never said that TSA indicated "we're doing all right, nothing to change much here" - My point is that in most cases, TSA does not receive specific feedback or defined processes to implement (as part of a bill), therefore the HQ component defines what they believe Congress means with regulations. I am certain that there is guidance or direction from the sitting administration on what direction they would like to see in terms of policy, but Congress does not pass a bill that says "the pat-downs will be conducted in this way" and then provide a step by step process (at least, I am unable to find a bill that states it, I am always open to new information). These bills say something along the lines of "Congress would like to see you treat passengers with more respect" and then they provide some vague guidance on what they mean, and then HQ generates new training or SOP changes to fit.