GSO has 2 checkpoints, each checkpoint with 3 lanes, and processes around 1 million passengers a year, maybe a bit more than that this year, we are currently up about 10% across the board.

FAY has one checkpoint, one lane, and probably do around 200-250k passengers a year.

RDU has 2 terminals, with one main checkpoint in each terminal. Approximately 20 lanes in one terminal, and 6 lanes in the other terminal. They process approximately 11 million + passengers a year.

I have also worked stints at MIA, PHX, LAX and CLT of at least a couple of weeks, on the line. I have never seen or heard of anyone even questioning medical nitro - the rules are clear, and any TSO that says/does otherwise is wrong.

*The following is my opinion, not statements from TSA* Except what you are writing is merely your opinion. When Congress passes a bill, and it is signed into law with something as vague as "treat passengers with more respect" and no identifiers or guidelines to follow, it is left to the individuals in the policy making sections to provide a determination and adjust as they understand the law. This is the problem with vagaries in law, when you dont say what you want, you get what you get. I am 100% certain that the senior leadership of TSA do not sit down and bat about ideas on how to circumvent laws. I am equally 100% certain that the head shed do not want to sit in front of Congress and he batted about like a cat toy. I think that TSA policy makers have made decisions based upon what the laws tell them, combined with intel int direction from the Administration - and I believe they have done so to the best of their abilities given the vagaries ofnthe law, and the info from intel. TSA *tries* to strike a balanced security posture, protecting the travelling public as well as possible, while being as minimally invasive as possible. Sometimes those two goals are at odds with each other, and adjustments are required.

One problem with picking up a phone and calling Congress, is that there are over 600 members, and thousands of staff - each with their own idea of what to do. I would love it being that simple, but in application, it is never that way. If Congress would quantify what they mean by "Respect" it would be exponentially more easy, but without a specific quantification or explanation of what they mean, this will continue to happen. What you think would be more respectful, would be different than what others think would be respectful.

I disagree, I think TSA does not ignore as many things as you seem to think. In many cases, I think tuat TSA does what it can, with what it has, and then winds up getting the short end of the stick when something high profile happens (whether it is TSAs fault or not).

In 2017, DEN handled over 61 million pax - and mishandled Amy Van Dyken, wheelchair-bound former Olympic swimmer.

In 2017, PHX handled almost 44 million pax.

Additionally, it's naive to pretend that you personally witnessed even a tiny fraction of the number of handicapped pax passing through all checkpoints when you were on duty at a particular airport. In the case of DEN and PHX, it isn't even physically possible to view all checkpoint activity at one time.

Please quite posting misinformation about medical nitroglycerine. According to the TSA website, which is the only information available to the public, it is still up to the individual screener to decide whether or not my medical nitroglycerine tabs are allowed or confiscated. Additionally, it is clear on the website that no screener has to explain why an item is being confiscated.

It is your personal opinion that the pills should not be confiscated, but it is not your agency's official opinion and it is not documented that way.

So is your position that working at any airport that processes less than 44 million a year is not a viable airport?

I sense a trend here. People really like to try and pit *their* words in other peoples commentary. I never claimed I witnessed any specific percentage of anything. What I said was that personally, I have never seen, nor heard of things like many describe here happen - to include groping.

The official position of TSA on medical nitroglycerin in every published article, and every online tool tells passengers that they can take nitro in carry on bags, and/or in checked bags. Additionally, I have never seen, nor heard of anyone (outside of online comments) having their nitro taken. It is not the policy of TSA to restrict passengers from carrying (or using) their medical nitro.

Every official reference to medical nitroglycerine in any form includes the warning that the final say rests with the individual screener. Nothing in the blog is or ever was binding at the checkpoint. I find it hard to believe a single TSO made up a fake 'rule' about explosive substances and it went all the way up to a suit and no one said 'hey, there is no such rule'.

The fact that you have not witnessed something does not mean that it did not happen. Even TSA admitted that a screener at DEN worked with a partner to manipulate the NoS on attractive male pax. You may not have witnessed it, but it did happen or TSA would never have admitted it.

You may have never witnessed a wheelchair-bound pax being mistreated, but DEN TSA agreed that their guy mistreated Amy Van Dyken.

If you think that if you don't personally witness something, it never happened, then perhaps you should have a word with HQ, because it appears they think otherwise.

The official position is that the screener can decide to prohibit anything they want to.

And probably only because Ms. Van Dyken is well known.

Anything, any time and for any reason, even "just because".

GSO's passenger load is displayed here with data through September 2018. Based on my math GSO's annual passenger loads are slightly under 1 million passengers and passenger loads are down a bit for this year, possibly due to hurricane Florence. Do note that these numbers include charters which may not count towards TSA screening numbers.

Screening of disabled and special needs passengers has been an issue for TSA for years. Special panels and other efforts to better accommodate these passengers have been taken with little to show for those efforts. The same unacceptable things continue to happen. I can't explain why this is, perhaps TSA can. I would include women who are breast feeding and families with young children into the group of special needs passengers as it seems TSA just can't consistently screen this group without issues. Over the years TSA has had issues with ostomy products, prosthetics, incontinence and sanitary items, baby food, and the list goes on and on. My personal experience in this area was being told to remove an after surgery back brace by a TSA screener, which I think is contrary to TSA''s published information.

The bottom line, regardless of the good intent of TSA management, a screening experience is no better than the individual TSA screener and their chain of command. We have seen far to many cases of TSA TSO's, LTSO's, STSO's and TSA Suits backing up screeners when it is clear the screeners are flat out wrong. The case of Stacey Armato is one example. Not only did TSA fail to properly screen her breast milk (more than once), they also held Stacey hostage for over an hour making her miss her flight, and, as has been seen in the video of that incident a TSA Suit is on scene and did not intervene to set matters right. To really top if off TSA called police on Stacey for no reason. Another case is FT poster Chollie who had life saving medication "CONFISCATED" and then threatened by TSA. These are just two examples, the list goes on and on and are not limited to select airports large or small. TSA cannot be unaware of these issues but if they are then TSA's problems are far greater than I believe they are.

I appreciate and would like to take the information given by gsoltso here on FT as being 100% correct but the available evidence just does not support that position. I truly wish it did.

Again, trying to put your words into my commentary is misreading at best, disingenuous at worst. I wrote quite clearly, and have never indicated that I do not believe that things do not happen - I merely require proof before conviction.

I can not go back and change what happened to you, but I can explain ad nauseum that any TSO that does not allow medical nitro to come through is wrong.

I would like to take this chance to remind anyone experiencing something they think is wrong or outside of the SOP to contact TSA.

You don't think TSA's own admission that Amy Van Dyken, paralyzed wheelchair pax, was mistreated at DEN and that a TSA investigator verified that two TSOs were manipulating the NoS to target selected males for sexual assaults is 'proof'?

You never witnessed any of this conduct personally at any of the few checkpoints you have worked at. Do you doubt TSA HQ's admission that these things happened?

I still struggle to understand how you can reconcile TSA's own website, which states that medical nitroglycerine is generally allowed UNLESS a screener decides otherwise with your on-going assertion that any screener who confiscates medical nitro is 'wrong'.

I can't give a good example now, but in the past we have heard that certain rules weren't TSA rules, they were rules TSA enforced on behalf of other government agencies - perhaps like the rules on lithium batteries. I was told that nitroglycerine is a banned substance in any quantity or form. I suspect this is true, but it is either an FAA regulation against explosive materials or it is an SSI rule and you are not at liberty to admit that here.

It doesn't matter, however. The screener who confiscated my pills and the LTSO, STSOs, and suit who backed the screener up were all following the rule as stated on TSA's website. If that is wrong, then I think TSA has another issue. Frankly, I find it upsetting when a TSO posts information that not only contradicts TSA's official public rule on the matter, but actually says that the rule posted on the website is 'wrong' and so were the TSOs, LTSO, STSOs and suit who followed the website rules.

This reminds me of a standard (and offensive) TSO line when questioned about a confiscation: "The website is wrong/out-of-date". I haven't heard that or DY...T in a while.

With this kind of confusion, no wonder disabled pax have no idea what to expect.

TSA can determine who a person is in just a few minutes should they present without ID yet cannot supply passengers with a means to challenge a checkpoint issue unless they have months or years to wait which by then the issue is moot. As far as I am concerned that is completely unacceptable and demonstrates to passengers exactly how little concern TSA has for the flying public.

Can you explain how a passenger will know if something is outside of SOP, like a pat down, when we have absolutely no access to that information?

Has TSA policy changed on the screening employee having final say if an item is allowed or not?

Here is TSA's website as of today. Note the sentence in italics.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...99c3361a0a.jpg

Once again, you are attempting to place your words into my commentary, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. I never said a single word about Van Dyken. In the past, I have freely admitted when the organization comes out stating they were wrong. In the case of Van Dyken, the organization says they were wrong, therefore, they were wrong. There have been other cases of this happening. I merely stated that in my experience, I had never seen nor heard it. I do not count claims online that are unverified or that do not have proof, because they are just that, unverified. When things have supporting information, I evaluate it and make statements accordingly. Just because someone makes a claim online, it does not mean that it is true - there have been cases of folks posting claims that are simply not true against TSA in the past.

I am clear on medical nitro, because the organization has a history of making pretty clear statements on it. At least a couple of times the organization has made the statement that medical nitro is a treatment that has never been prohibited. The site currently says that medical nitro is allowed in carry on and checked bags - very clearly. Pair those two things up, and it is clear, the organization does not confiscate or prevent medical nitro as a policy. Any TSO that steps outside of that, is wrong. I have not disputed your claim, or any claim without proof to the contrary, however, I can not step to the opposite side and take an unverified comment as fact either. I can support the individual making the claim by providing them the chance to file a complaint with the organization, outside of that, I am unable to make much more happen. I can also release findings if the organization publishes them, but if they do not, I have nothing more to give.

You keep dancing around the obvious and playing word games.

Are you saying that the statement below, italicized on the TSA website for emphasis, is not TSA policy?

Are you saying that any TSO who confiscates medical nitro and points to this rule on the OFFICIAL TSA website is wrong?

Twice in the past (at least) TSA has made the specific statement that medical nitro is indeed medical, and has never been prohibited. You can read for yourself here and here. I am telling you the organizations own words in its own publications - "Nitroglycerin tablets and spray (used to treat episodes of angina in people who have coronary artery disease) are permitted and have never been prohibited". I would recommend that you type in a series of items, and notice that the phrase you have posted never goes away, it is static on that page and is there when things like insulin, pills, pill cutters and any other medical device/medicine that you enter give a result. There are certain scenarios where any item can be prohibited, but there are other conditions that must be met first. What those conditions are, falls into the SSI category and I can not discuss it in a public forum - however, I can tell you that the organization has publicly stated the following multiple times "Nitroglycerin tablets and spray are permitted and never have been prohibited".

This is the reason I am able to maintain the position that I do, because the organization has consistently messaged that nitro is allowed.

Taking a break from our semi-annual fight over medical nitroglycerin, and moving us back towards the topic ...

I do not speak on behalf of TSA, but I can offer an opinion as to why this happens.

Speaking as an educator, a few obvious issues spring to mind.

• Just because a teacher says something doesn't mean that the student learned it. Education has to happen repeatedly, in a variety of contexts, in order for learning to occur. Whether TSA is engaged in those sorts of repeated educational activities is unknown to me.
• Every organization experiences staffing turnovers. (I think I've seen statistics here that suggest TSA has "higher than average" turnover, but I can't point to specific data.) This means that one never has "educated" everyone on the staff, as there are always new people coming along who need to learn.
• Probably most importantly ... the number of people with disabilities that TSA screens every day may be large numerically, but is probably small as a percentage of total traffic. Being educated on how to handle the special cases is important; however, even if properly conducted, if a given TSO doesn't put that knowledge to use right away, that knowledge can be forgotten. It's easier to remember how to screen for the things that you see every hour of every day; it's harder to remember how to screen for the things you might see at most once a week (if that often).