You're giving him grief for complaining about women being made to show screeners their naked breasts??

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...83&postcount=7

Do you maybe want to reconsider your position?

Sounds to me that this happened late in the evening. I'm guessing that because of the fact that the very same screener screened your friend the second time around which suggests that a skeleton crew was manning the checkpoint. The good news here is that it will be easy for the Federal Security Director, or FSD, to narrow down the names of who was working that night.

I suggest that your friend write a letter to the FSD of that airport. Addressing the letter to: "FSD, TSA c/o ____Airport" along with the airport address should get it into the right hands if he is unable to find the correct address.

The tone of the letter shouldn't be accusatory; instead, it should stick to the facts of what happened and be as detailed as possible (terminal, airline, date, times, descriptions of persons involved, chronological sequence of events, etc.). It is important to highlight the fact that no explanation was offered and that he was ordered to lower his trousers (if that's how it happened; not doubting you but don't want to unduly influence you neither).

I suggest a copy of that letter be furnished to his employer as well and annotated in the original letter to the FSD (just put CF: and the name of the airline employer at the end of the letter just below the signature). This will accomplish two things: it will let the FSD know that this is an airline employee issue that has the airline director's attention as well; and it will allow the airline director the opportunity to follow up on this complaint directly with the FSD. I'm certain that this matter is of great interest to the airline director not only for his employees but for how his passengers are also treatedl.

You are entitled to be treated with dignity by TSA screeners. If there is any request that appears out of the ordinary, you are entitled to an explanation. You should never feel intimidated to the point of not speaking up when you feel you are being abused or mistreated by a screener.

The only thing I caution you or anyone else who complains is to leave emotional content out of the complaint; it makes it difficult for the FSD to sort out the facts and take appropriate action. What I mean by that is calling TSA screeners jackbooted thugs or describing their procedures as Gestapo-like. All that does is stir up more emotions and makes it difficult to define the problem and subsequently solve it. It's okay to include that he felt humiliated or bullied; that's different because it adds context and perspective. You want to win the FSD's understanding in your letter not put him (or her) on the defensive with inflammatory remarks. I mention this because people tend to write "heat-seekers" which may satisfy the brief emotional need of "telling someone off" but do very little to correct the wrong and prevent the exact same thing from happening to yet another passenger.

If you don't mind, please let me know how this turns out.

The OP to this whole thread has nothing but anecdotal evidence that any of this occured. The terms that are spread through this forum do not have any legit meaning. They are very narrow minded, opinionated inflammatory remarks designed only to raise the ire of other people. Who are you to say that the policies that piss you off are incredibly stupid? Are you some kind of self proclaimed expert?

I have to admit that I have a hard time with the "secret" part. Having handled real classified information for over 20 years while in the military, the SSI provision TSA has always prompts a giggle from me.

The procedures I've described in this web site in response to various threads are the exact same things I would explain to a passenger during checkpoint or checked baggage screening. A lot of this can be openly discussed with the public because we are required to explain these things during screening. However, there are also things we are not permitted to discuss that pertain to the classic operations security, or OPSEC, areas of operational vulnerabilities and weaknesses. For those who have military backgrounds, this should pass the common-sense test. For those without military backgrounds, there's really no way to explain it to you.

You have a right to ask for an explanation of why you are being screened or why a certain procedure is being conducted, and TSA screeners are obligated to give you that explanation. Oftentimes, it's frequent flyers who either rush screeners or who condition screeners to skip the explanations. As a result, screeners don't always explain procedures to every passenger. That, in my book, is sloppy screening, and I don't allow my screeners to get into that habit.

Technically, it is a breast exam. It was related to examining the breast area.

Thank you very much Bart. I will print a copy of your reply and give it to my friend when he returns. If and when he decides to pursue this as he was inclined to, I will be sure to let you know.
You are right on about later in the evening, he was trying for night flights to South America. As for the tone of the letter, as he is an airline purser he is used to deal himself with rude and obnoxious passengers( he is a 20 year veteran) factual reports is what he is accustomed to. You are very right about emotional outbursts being counterproductive in these situations.

This one event was very unusual and the behavior he encountered was truly puzzling. He understands the need for security and as a rule he does not mind and does not question the rationale for it- thats the way it is and he deals with it daily.
The irony here is that in his position, he is ON THE SAME SIDE as the TSA!!!!!
It is in his best interest that screeening be done in an efficient manner! But as he stated after this experience, there is a proper and professional way to do this and to talk to people....

Excuse me? Anecdotal evidence? This is an account directly from the witness, as told to a friend. This is an internet bulletin board. What do you want, video evidence along with pictures? Please. When you TSA-ers go into denial like this it only harms your cause.

One of the recurrent themes from TSA personnel on this site is that the screener did not follow SOP and we only have the passenger's word that this is what happened. Two responses.

1) For all of the money budgeted to TSA, the hiring and training processes should result in standardization. Uniform policy and procedures was one of the reasons advanced for federalizing screeners at checkpoints. Between the shoe carnival, pat-downs, and searches, many screeners deviate widely from what is allegedly SOP. "The screener should not have done that..." sounds like a broken record to apologize for an organization that promises "World Class Service".

2) Video recording devices should be installed at passenger and luggage checkpoints to corroborate both screeners and passengers. Somehow, I doubt that this will happen for several reasons, such as fiscal constraints.

First, Thanks to Bart for providing some very informative info. But since I work best with the KISS theory (keep it simple, stupid) let's make it simple.

A. When faced with a problem , call a supervisor.

B. If the Supervisor does not clear the problem, ask for a complaint form.

THAT"S IT!!!! Your choices then become GIVE IN or GO HOME!!!!

I'm sorry if I offend anyone but we have a BROKEN system with NO RESPONSIBILITY, and NO REMEDY when we have problems. My 2cents.

Not so fast. First of all, you generally have two types of posts from passengers in this forum: those who disagree with the very concept of screening and view any security measure as an affront to individual liberty and civil rights and those who accept the reality of airport security but are genuinely interested in finding out why something happened to them at a particular checkpoint. The nature of this website is to address passenger issues and concerns; very few posts address the good things that happen to people; they mostly tend to address the negative experiences. In other words, I don't see very many posts from passengers who make complimentary comments about their screening experiences. You can deduce from this that either people tend to ignore the positive because, after all, there's really nothing to add when something occurs as it's supposed to happen; or you can deduce that there's nothing positive to say. I think the real answer is more towards the middle and leaning towards the human tendency to complain rather than compliment. And that's okay until you come along and try to jump to a broad conclusion with the statement you just made.

I understand that the system is not fixed and there are many problems that still need to be addressed. Standardization certainly ranks right up there, and, for what it's worth, it frustrates me, too. It would certainly make my life easier if you knew exactly what to expect when you came through my checkpoint as I'm sure it would make yours easier to know that you can expect the exact same thing when you go through another airport security checkpoint.

I disagree with your comment that screening varies widely. I will agree that it is inconsistent to the point that some checkpoints will ask you to remove a pair of shoes and another will allow you to enter with the exact same pair of shoes worn. This is a legitimate area of concern where TSA has to do a better job of working off of the same sheet of music. However, contrary to your claim, I would venture to say that TSA checkpoints generally follow the same guidelines across the board. I will agree with you up to a certain point that procedures need to be similar, but I think it is naive and unrealistic to expect them to be the exact same. If you insist on this, then I have no choice but to assume you've never worked in security. There has to be some latitude for certain situations; however, the principle should still remain consistent.

My participation in this forum is to help clarify discrepancies as well as inform passengers of what they can do to prevent abuses. If you want to call me apologetic, go right ahead. You lose a lot of points in my book with that type of narrow-minded thinking and we can agree to not respond to each other's posts from this point on. You can continue to type your anti-TSA rhetoric to your heart's content and I will limit my discussion to those who are genuinely interested in civil discourse.

I fully agree with you on this one point for many reasons. In the baggage pods, it will certainly help catch those who are stealing from passengers and offer strong evidence for decisive action. I fully support this. At the passenger checkpoints, it will also help in a variety of ways for both passengers and screeners, but I'm looking at this more from a security perspective than anything else. I think airports should spend the money required for this type of technology. However, the fiscal constraints you're referring to are exacerbated by public demands for the walk-thru ETD-type portals or "puffers" to alleviate you of the inconvenience of having to remove your shoes. I think the money would be spent more wisely and with greater returns in the video and audio surveillance systems you suggested than with the puffers. There's only x-amount of dollars in the budget and I certainly am no advocate of increasing taxes; we each pay enough already, no need to keep feeding that monster until we see some return in our investment.

I've been around the block too many times to buy into that "world class security" PR BS. It looks good on mission statements and makes for great posters to motivate and inspire employees and customers alike. But it takes true leadership to make any organization successful, and TSA, just like any other organization, has its fair share of turkeys and very few eagles. You can always find something wrong if you look for it; that's the easy part and what a great majority of people tend to do. Very few people welcome challenges head-on or choose the difficult decision over the popular one.

This is better than the Doll House; touching is allowed during the TSA breast exams.

Yes, and I gladly obliged the female's request.

I agree that all airports should have video surveillance of the checkpoints and baggage pods. My airport has started to screen baggage behind the counter at NWA as an experiment to see how it would work and the majority of the screeners requested that a camera be installed as a protection against false claims. I say false claims because as far as I know we haven't had a problem with screener theft but there have been a couple of times that the video cameras at the checkpoint helped clear screeners that were accused of theft or damage of property. And these cameras are monitored by the airport police who really aren't our best buddies if you know what I mean.

Bart,
I for one always appreciate your serious answers. They are always well thought out and provide us with inside information on the goings on at the TSA and your particular security line.
Thanks for the insight!
Keep it up. Don't get down on us travelers. We sometimes get frustrated.

As I enjoy your contributions, I'll say "not so fast" too.

You claim that people here are either in Camp A or Camp B. Sorry to inform you but individuals here are not living in a world of false dilemmas such as the one intrinsic to your view. People are mostly "menu" people, taking a little bit of this, a little bit of that, none of that, a lot of that, etc.

The problem with your assumption/conclusion above (and your words that follow) is that alot of people post positive comments about their travel experiences vis-a-vis certain hotels, hotel brands, airlines, alliances, etc.

[Maybe there's something "special" about the TSA?]

False dilemma logic again and one that ignores the nature of FT as a whole, where people routinely make choices based on comments here that are all over the spectrum of "positive", "neutral", "negative", "mixed", etc.

I think the human tendency is to be content or silenced into submission unless danger lurks or something is being taken from them particularly.

We have "standardization" issues "rank[ing] right up there", but then we have you making an assertion that screening does not vary widely. However, it's apparent to many FTers, especially those with the most experience at "crossing the checkpoint" that the process does vary and vary routinely. It varies from airport to airport, from screener to screener, from time to time.