I think there is a third type of passenger, one who wants security to be effective. I wouldn't mind taking shoes off, removing jackets, etc. if I knew that this was somehow making us more secure. I think we can all agree that many of the security measures in place today (and Feb 15 with the new ban on lighters) are not doing anything to make us safer, rather it's a big waste of time and money.

aloha bart, i have a question for you. what methods does tsa have in place for an article 15 procedure for screeners? i would hope that there is one in some form or another. i also would like to think that if a screener is not doing his/her job correctly, that they either mesure up or face a prospect of a job loss. mahalo.

Sorry to butt in but I have some experiences to share on this.
So far, I have seen 3 different procedures:

1. Documentation into the screeners official personnel file (OPF). Screener is retrained on deficiencies and returned to duty.
2. Screener placed on administrative while the legal department and FSD staff determine if the offense is grounds for termination. Sometimes, the process is lengthy. The end result is either documentation into the OPF or termination.
3. Screener is terminated immediately. This has to be a severe offense in which the screener could not be able to dispute.

When the decision to terminate is considered, the FSD staff and legal department have to make sure that all their ducks are in a row. Some folks that were terminated were in fact reinstated months later after appeals and were entitled to back pay for time lost, to include vacation and sick time as well as all other benefits.

This isn't Quoted TSA policy. It's solely what I have witnessed during my 3 years with TSA.

Being someone that was once in the medical field (Army Medical Corps), I am familiar with what an actual breast exam incurs. I've never been in favor of the procedures of clearing the breast area, but it is in no way a breast exam. It's simply screening the areas surrounding the breast for prohibited items. With all the screeners I have talked with about this procedure, I have yet to find any that happily agree with it. Many said they'll do it and not think anything of it. Others said they don't like it, but they'll do it. I don't particularly enjoy having my hands on a gentleman's inner thigh, but for now, it has to be done (when absolutely necessary, not at will).

I can understand why such terminology such as breast exams and gropings are used in screening. I'm sure it's easier to say breast exam than to say something like screening the breast area. But after a while, it does become quite frustrating when the terms are used solely as an inflammatory manner.

And I do have to say to Bart...you have done an amazing job at explaining the issues with the folks here. There were other TSA'ers here that finally had enough of the bashing and quit. Even I had to take a vacation from the site do to my increasing frustrations. Many times I wanted to comment, but I knew I would post something that was more emotional in nature than professional.

It's a breast exam even if it's not a breast exam of the variety used for medical purposes. I too have some understanding of what happens when there is a medical breast exam. I also recognize that not all breast exams relate to medicine.

The term "breast exam" is not monopolized by the medical field.

What's the objective of the TSA-version of the breast exam? To attempt to validate that the breast area/breasts are not concealing prohibited items, right?

If you feel that it's a breast exam, then so be it. Call it a breast exam.

The TSA objective behind the "breast exam" is to resolve the alarm made by the hand wand. True, the previous change contradicts this, since it no longer took an alarm to warrant the pat-down. But that was originaly and is now the objective behind it.

OK. Good information.

So in your experience with TSA, would a screener instructing a pax to take his pants off be ground for termination? In my opinion it should be grounds for your option #3.

If so, what evidence would be required? Video of the mooning? (not going to happen because private screening areas aren't videotaped in my understanding) Word of the passenger? (not likely to be believed because screener will deny requiring pax to take off pants and say pax overreacted) Screener dumb enough to admit to it? (unlikely) Second screener as witness? (unlikely screeners will tattle)

Maybe witness by a LEO? Can I request that a LEO be a witness to my private screening if it ever occurs? Sounds like a good idea.

Perhaps the word hearsay is better?

Why are you people complaining? This is all happening for your own good. It's all carefully designed to stop terrorism and preserve freedom, while enhancing the quality of democracy. The security employees provide a service for the travelling public. If you object to their procedures and/or don't bend over properly, you can choose to not fly, in which case you will be safe in the knowledge that no evildoer will ever manage to get on a plane because, as we all know, terrorists have always attacked civilian airplanes and nothing else, ever.
If they manage to do it, though, our democratically elected governments will attack a string of countries that may or may not support them. Now, that 'll teach them!

I understand your skepticism. In our society today, it's not unheard of that the people who work under the public trust will abuse that trust by covering up mistakes or even abuses. While it's naive to assume that everyone is trustworthy, even those who have undergone the scrutiny of a background investigation, it's just as naive to assume that no one has the integrity and strength of moral character to do the right thing.

In this specific situation, a good leader will evaluate the circumstances to determine whether or not the screener acted in good faith even though significantly deviating from screening protocol or if the screener deliberately intended to humiliate the passenger. Also have to consider any history of similar complaints or documented trends which will influence whether or not this was simply a well-intentioned but poorly executed mistake or if this particular screener is deliberately abusing the public trust. I'm sure you would agree that due process, credible evidence and even-tempered justice applies to screeners just as it would anyone else.

No doubt there's a serious problem here that needs the FSD's full attention. I hope that the passenger initiates the complaint process to at least correct whatever misperception exists at that particular checkpoint and at most, if there is an abusive screener there, to either discipline or terminate that screener, depending on what the evidence reveals. I would hope that you're wrong that there would be a cover-up, but we've already experienced such things in our lifetimes in the White House, so it's an ugly reality that we're forced to deal with.

graraps,

It's good to hear from another patriot. We're a rare breed around here. But you forgot one important point: The United States is literally crawling with terrorists! I see them every day. When I got off my train this morning in NY, I think at least 20 of my fellow travelers were terrorists. I wanted to report them to 800-NJT-TIPS, like they tell me every time my train pulls into NY, but I figured those wily terrorists would be gone before the police arrived. One day some other patriot like us is going to solve this problem by attacking the terrorists himself. That'll be a great day in America, won't it?

We are all members of the TSA! We have to hang together or hang separately! Fight the terrorists wherever you see them!

Bruce (a patriot!)

Well as we all know, with President Bush at the helm of our country, we will no longer have to kiss the hand of any dictator or live with any foreign regime that we don't like. My patriotic opinion is that we must comply with all security measures--anyone who doesn't is behaving like an ...!

I just heard a report on the radio about the number of items left at the Jacksonville Airport after the Super Bowl - not illegal items, but things like watches.

According to this report, video taping of security is what helps the TSA get lost items back to their owners.

Now, if this is to be believed, somehow the TSA must be able to associate a name with the video and then with the forgotten item. Yes?

I heard the report a second time, but there was no comment from the TSA spokesperson about how lost items were going to be returned to their rightful owners.

Either the first report was inaccurate or somebody got the second half of the report squashed.

I'm not in that portion of the business here at TSA so I cannot say precisely. Speaking on a personal nature, I would have the screener on administrative leave pending an investigation. I've had an incident at the checkpoint where a man, assumably under the influence of alcohol, claimed he was instructed to remove his pants. What had happened was that the belt alarmed and he immediately removed his pants. The look of panic on the screener was priceless. We still pick on him about it. The screener never got a word out after the hand wand alarmed. Luckily, we had another screener and a passenger as witnesses. There was no disciplinary actions taken, but he received a bad reputation for that.

I have seen incidents where other screeners where called in to give their side of the story and they didn't cover for the screener in question.

If in fact the screener instructed the passenger to remove their pants, then yes, in my opinion, they should be terminated. That's going well over the line.