Passenger with broken wrist denied boarding due to "explosive residue"
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Passenger with broken wrist denied boarding due to "explosive residue"
Passenger with broken wrist blocked at Lambert after cast allege - KMOV.com
Sunday night, she slipped outside her hotel and broke her wrist. She was treated at DePaul Hospital and got a cast for her broken bone.
But when she tried to go through security at Lambert Monday morning, a machine detected "explosive residue" on her cast.
They wanted me to unwrap it and when they got to the thick cast part where my broken arm was just underneath it, then they said I should probably stop, Alerding said. But there's nothing I can do at that point and they kicked me out.
But when she tried to go through security at Lambert Monday morning, a machine detected "explosive residue" on her cast.
They wanted me to unwrap it and when they got to the thick cast part where my broken arm was just underneath it, then they said I should probably stop, Alerding said. But there's nothing I can do at that point and they kicked me out.
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
I found this sentence in the article somewhat informative:
How often have we heard of screeners requiring passengers to remove boots from injured ankles and then walk through either the WTMD or MMW?
A spokesperson for the TSA says agents cannot tell someone to remove a cast in screening but if alarms are repeatedly tripped, they can't clear the passenger to fly.
#5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
I really hope there is some sort of legal claim regarding treatment of a (temporarily) disabled passenger here. ADA amendments and court rulings have been more favorable for temporary disabilities recently IIRC.
#6
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
I hope so also. From the frequency of these reports over the years, it is evident that TSA has no ability whatsoever to screen these types of passengers. TSA basically either has to waive their screening or deny this entire class of passengers the right to move about the country.
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Does anyone have a better option for screening the cast once it alarms? Unwrapping it is a bad idea, but if it alarms the (notoriously over-inclusive ETD machine), what can the screeners do to rule out the presence of explosives? I don't like the conclusion of this story better than anyone who has posted in this thread, but I'm not sure I have a better solution that wouldn't allow a cast made of explosives to fly.
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Does anyone have a better option for screening the cast once it alarms? Unwrapping it is a bad idea, but if it alarms the (notoriously over-inclusive ETD machine), what can the screeners do to rule out the presence of explosives? I don't like the conclusion of this story better than anyone who has posted in this thread, but I'm not sure I have a better solution that wouldn't allow a cast made of explosives to fly.
#9
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
I hope so also. From the frequency of these reports over the years, it is evident that TSA has no ability whatsoever to screen these types of passengers. TSA basically either has to waive their screening or deny this entire class of passengers the right to move about the country.
Does anyone have a better option for screening the cast once it alarms? Unwrapping it is a bad idea, but if it alarms the (notoriously over-inclusive ETD machine), what can the screeners do to rule out the presence of explosives? I don't like the conclusion of this story better than anyone who has posted in this thread, but I'm not sure I have a better solution that wouldn't allow a cast made of explosives to fly.
The burden of proof must be on TSA to prove that the item is a threat not on the passenger to prove that their person/property is not a threat. ETD alarm is clearly not probable cause for an arrest given the false positive rate. Banning a passenger based on an ETD alarm and nothing else sounds like a traffic cop charging a person with DUI based on smelling alcohol in a parked car with no breath test, blood test, impaired driving, or other evidence of DUI.
I agree this creates a real-life dilemma as posted by Ari, but TSA put itself in this position and is responsible for finding a resolution. Off the top of my head, options would be having an actual explosives expert visually examine the cast (maybe over video conference), screen the passenger for "paraphernalia" (i.e., detonator), or [gasp] taking the risk that a middle-aged American female plant-biology professor flying from a technical conference back to her university is actually suffering from a broken arm and not a suicidal terrorist mastermind. Say what you will about profiling based on various controversial and non-controversial criteria, but the totality of the circumstances should be considered before banning an American citizen from traveling.
(*I would allow a temporary exception of no longer than 90-days if a "new" threat was discovered, but no more. No 12-year water ban. No long-term laptop ban.)
#10
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: IAH
Programs: UA
Posts: 595
Can anyone speak to the quantitative abilities of these screening devices? Can they detect "magnitudes" of anything? Or is it just detected / not detected? Can they differentiate between a trace detection, or a pure explosive material? (I'm probably answering my own question here.)
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Recently having two surgical procedures, I was amazed at the number of times the nursing staff washed their hands or used an anti-bacterial product before touching me. I could imagine the wrap she had on the cast being "soaked" in glycerin or some other chemical that tested as "explosive."
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Can anyone speak to the quantitative abilities of these screening devices? Can they detect "magnitudes" of anything? Or is it just detected / not detected? Can they differentiate between a trace detection, or a pure explosive material? (I'm probably answering my own question here.)
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Recently having two surgical procedures, I was amazed at the number of times the nursing staff washed their hands or used an anti-bacterial product before touching me. I could imagine the wrap she had on the cast being "soaked" in glycerin or some other chemical that tested as "explosive."
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Can anyone speak to the quantitative abilities of these screening devices? Can they detect "magnitudes" of anything? Or is it just detected / not detected? Can they differentiate between a trace detection, or a pure explosive material? (I'm probably answering my own question here.)
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526