Step (0): Find a pharmacy willing to indulge you!

:D

As a different experience, I've had scripts filled in China, Hong Kong and Israel and they just dispensed the stuff without any labels at all. So a lot of the world is left in the dark, so to speak.

That's what voodoo paper strips are for! (Unless they have another test, which is quite possible based on the number of vendors that always have something newer and better than the last guy to swindle to the tax payer out of more $$).

I'm missing something here. If a liquid is a medical necessity, that means that the passenger will be harmed by not having the liquid available. The fact that it "fails" a so-called "test" (the details of which we are not permitted to know) doesn't change the fact that it's a medical necessity. Once an item is declared to be a necessity, it's no longer sufficient for the TSA to say it might be a threat to aviation, it can only be prevented from traveling if the TSO determines it is a threat to aviation. This is especially true if "the test" involved the kind of ETD that generates a false-positive in numerous ways. I have no problem with using a "screening" test to see if the item needs further testing, but denying an item based just on such solely a screening test is a violation of the Americans with Disability Act and could subject the TSO to civil and criminal charges if the passenger was harmed due to the denial (and possible even if they weren't). Note that the TSA letter to persons with disabilities didn't say that it will be allowed only if it doesn't "fail a test", but that it will allowed "after it's been screened". That's consistent with the law: the shorter version that you posted isn't.

The part I bolded is inexcusable. Because the TSA decides it doesn't want to follow SOP due not having the time to do so is not a valid excuse. If that would occur to me, I would ensure that the time spent by TSA in discussing with me their failure to follow SOP would greatly exceed the time it would have taken to test the liquid. :mad:

“Claiming” something is a medical necessity and it actually being one are two different things.

We as TSO’s have no way of determining if it is such. What we can determine is if it contains a prohibited substance, by testing it. We don’t have a full lab available to us, and even if we did the time it takes to make such a determination will quite honestly make the passenger miss their flight. Prohibited substances are not allowed onboard commercial aircraft in passenger carryon luggage. There are ways to get them on by different methods, but I am not an expert in this area.

Contact solution bottles specifically have been used in the past as part of a terrorist plot to destroy an aircraft. Claiming that what is in one as a medical necessity sounds like the perfect way to get a prohibited substance past security, which is why we test.

As for the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law requires that we make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities, not that we kow-tow to their every demand. TSA makes such accommodations, but we must also balance the safety of the other passengers with the needs of the disabled. That’s why we have procedures for this type of thing.

Are you under the impression that the SOP is an absolute black and white directive that demands total compliance?

I'm surprised that you find your ignorance such a comfort that you refuse to discard it. The SOP is an evolving document, it gives us leaway in many areas because the job demands it. TSA and its employee's must be flexible to the situation, and a black and white document such as you envision would be counter to that need.

Serious question here ... which is going to sound snippy, which is why I'm starting with the disclaimer ...

What happens when a TSO's "intuition" tells him/her that "everyone who looks like an [insert ethnicity here] is suspicious"? Doesn't that start to create problems that, for all intents and purposes, end up becoming racial profiling?

People give their eyes a rest with regular frame glasses. Couldnt you just do that during the flight?

So then what do you do if I claim something is medically necessary? I can claim a bottle of water is a medical necessity; I can claim contact solution is a medical necessity; I can also a 120 mL bottle of Rx medicine is a medical necessity.

In the case of the water, I doubt a TSO will buy it. In the case of contact solution, it seems that it will be allowed unless a supervisor tells you that you "don't have the time". In the case of the Rx medicine, I seriously doubt it would not be allowed in any case, even if the checkpoint were busy. So at some point, the TSO does have to make a judgment, right? If I claimed that a bottle of water was a medical necessity, would that just be accepted and would it be tested, or would there be some debate in the matter and a common-sense judgment?

What is the test (a vague description, eg. ETD, paper strips, etc)?

Your security expertise doesn't extend to that?

Was that part of the London plan, or another one?

The interplay of the ADA and ACCA are interesting in terms of ground services in an airport vs. those offered by an airline. In any event, I think that safety and assistance devices are interesting; a disabled person can bring a cane through the checkpoint, but if an able person attempted to bring a very similar item (like a pool cue) that would not be allowed.

What is inexcusable is what I stated previously. Because the TSA has time constraints, the passenger suffers and loses medically necessary property due to the TSA's incompetence when the documentation states that is permitted. The TSA all too often does what is expedient for the TSA and ignores the needs of the passenger. Let me know where it states that the SOP doesn't have to be followed because of "time constraints." :rolleyes:

In threads that ask about liquid exemption, you always suggest alternatives that don't require the use of the liquid exemption:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: "[Is c]ontact lens solution 'medically necessary'?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: "[Can I carry on a liquid p]rescription exceeding 4 ounces, without label"
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...out-label.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: "OTC [liquid] medication - what is allowed?"
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...t-allowed.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You constantly suggest unnecessary alternatives in response to simple questions as to whether something will be allowed through the checkpoint or not. Why is that? Do you have something against the liquid exemption?

There is no "exemption". Liquids are the one thing that is strictly controlled! Why do I need to explain something like that.

Right. So you have to assume that is it. But I'm talking about the case where it can be determined after-the-fact (e.g., in court) that it actually is medically-necessary.

If you don't have sufficient tools to do your job within the bounds of the law, you need to get them.

Sure, but see below.

Agreed. It was in "Bojinka", right?

I would consider allowing the person to fly without risking their life to be a "reasonable accommodation" and not "kow-towing to their every demand", wouldn't you?

The issue here are items that "fail the test" but are not "prohibited substances". I think the law is clear: these must be allowed on board the aircraft.

Let me give you an example. A diabetic is a hunter and goes on a hunting trip with friends. They're all very ardent hunters and load their own ammunition. So gunpowder residue gets into everything. The diabetic hunter now goes to fly home. He hasn't broken any laws, but you test his insulin with an ETD and it comes back positive. Now what? Having measurable amounts of gunpowder residue on insulin neither makes it a prohibited item nor makes it any less of a medical necessity. How could you legally prohibit that from coming on a plane?

Even worse, suppose you give that diabetic a hard time about it and convince him "it's a short flight" and he can put it in his checked baggage and it'll be OK (because he's the type that submits to authority). Unknown to you and him, though, there are thunderstorms in his destination area and the flight takes delay after delay. He goes into diabetic coma on the airplane, but the thunderstorms mean that by the time the pilot is able to find a safe place to divert, the passenger's dead. Since there's no legal basis to prevent the insulin from coming on board (it's not a prohibited substance and detailed testing of the insulin in the checked bag proves that), I believe you would be held civilly (and possible criminally) liable for that person's death.

You mean the safety of the disabled. The problem in the case of medical necessity is that there is no "safe" option. Either decision, if made incorrectly, can cost somebody their life. If you mistakenly believe that a diabetic's insulin is a prohibited item and force them to check it, they can die. If you allow a terrorist posing as a diabetic to bring onboard a liquid explosive, other passengers may die.

So you can't argue that one choice is the "safer" one. That means that you cannot claim an exception to the ADA on safety grounds.

Now, sure, I agree that contact lens solution isn't insulin, but if you have somebody that's immune-compromised (e.g., an HIV patient), not taking care of contact lenses can cause life-threatening illness. And you can't simply say "then wear eyeglasses" because the person might not be able to afford eyeglasses: in this country, we don't put poor people's lives at risk just because they're poor.

As you said, you have no way of determining what's "medically necessary" or not, but I can think of numerous cases where the absence of a liquid that isn't necessary to you or I could cause a cascade or events that could threaten somebody's life. The bottom line is again that there is no safe choice. Prohibiting an object that's claimed to be a medical necessity from an aircraft can threaten somebody's life. As can allowing it.

I'm having trouble here. How is a contact lens wearer disabled? Contacts are just a convenience substitute for normal glasses like I wear.

And for some people, eyeglasses do not correct vision as well as contact lenses.

Suggesting that someone 'just wear eyeglasses' is just like suggesting that someone with liquid medication 'just take pills instead'.

Your point would be?

For many, contacts are an optional convenience; for some, they are not. Neither you, nor TSA personnel, are qualified to evaluate medical necessity.

Also, many people wear contacts exclusively and do not own eyeglasses. Why should they assume the cost and inconvenience of getting eyeglasses fitted specifically for air travel once or twice a year, when their normal contact lens supplies present absolutely no danger to the aircraft or fellow passengers? :confused: