Originally Posted by chollie (Post 14788592)

Shame on you, TSORon. That non-reply was worthy of BB, but I expected better of you.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 14788592)

However, I have read repeatedly that once a passenger enters the checkpoint, they do NOT have the option of changing their mind partway through the exercise and leaving. They must (and I believe courts upheld this) complete the screening. For example: as I understand it, if my bag alarms and you want to search it, I do NOT have the option to say 'forget it, give me my bag, I'm out of here' and leave. TSA may complete its process and decide not to allow me into the sterile area, or I may complete the process and decide I don't want to fly after all, but I am not allowed to interrupt the process and leave.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 14788592)

Your statement about the passenger saying 'no' and being allowed to leave doesn't ring true. Further, in that situation, there's no alternative way to satisfy the screening requirements, ie, if a passenger opts out of the WBI, then finds out it involves a full-body frisk, I suppose the passenger could ask to be sent to the WBI after all, But in the case of an involuntary medical opt-out (ie, passenger can not assume and hold the position), the full-body frisk is the only option.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 14788592)

You indicated that some of what I described shouldn't be happening. Another TSO has posted that in some cases visual resolution will be necessary. I was surprised because in the incident involving the woman with pierced nipples, she was willing to submit to visual resolution but told TSA SOP didn't permit it. If I have a bulky surgical bandage over a very painful incision that should not be subjected to pressure, I understand all the 'bla-bla-bla' (don't waste space cuttting-and-pasting parts of the TSA mission statement here) about passenger safety. When presented with this situation (the wound site must be cleared, pressure is extremely painful and could even rupture an incision), another TSO referred to visual inspection, ie, remove the dressing so you can be sure there's nothing under it and apply the necessary degree of pressure or handling to the dressing itself to make sure it's not concealing anything. I don't know what the processes involve to resolve something like this is - I'm sure they are SSI, although eventually they'll become public because you will resolve this issues somehow - for the safety of all of us.

Originally Posted by InkUnderNails (Post 14787952)

I think what he may be saying, and I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I think it boils down to this:

"We will do what we want, whether you like it or not and if you refuse, which you certainly can, you will not fly today. It is your choice."

So see, they are not deciding if you can fly or not. You are.

Originally Posted by rgfloor (Post 14789280)

All of the rhetoric, arguing, etc, is just so much BS. What InkUN's said is the bottom line. The TSA explanations and talk is just fluff or lard to try and make the public feel better. Unfortunately 98% of the self loading cargo (passengers) buy into the nonsense.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 14789169)

Did I say that after saying “no” that you would be allowed to leave? After beginning screening? I don’t remember saying that. In any case we won’t nail you to the floor or tackle you if you do try to leave. We leave that kind of stuff to the LEO’s.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 14789169)

Interesting. How long are we going to “what if”? :confused: There are ways of clearing a bandage such as you describe without putting any pressure on it. AIT systems being one. There are others as well, but if you want to get through screening you can’t say “NO” to all of them. At some point along the “NO” chain of events we are not going to be able to meet the required level of screening and you will not be allowed into the sterile area.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 14788467)

I can’t go into the specifics of screening procedure, but I can tell you that portions of the scenario you present should not be happening at a TSA checkpoint.

OK, here is the overview. Every passenger boarding an aircraft must be screened to a specific degree. For PWD’s (Persons with Disabilities) we have procedures on how to meet that specific level of screening. Methods vary depending on the type of disability, but the level of screening remains the same. That level of screening must be met for every single passenger.

We are going to do our very best not to cause a passenger any physical pain, but there may be times when it is unavoidable and the passenger must make a choice at that point about which is more important. It is also important that the passenger assist us in telling us about pain areas or areas where special concern must be taken. In the case of someone who cannot communicate, their assistant must tell us.

Our responsibilities are not just to the passenger in front of us, but to all of the passengers collectively. When they get on an aircraft they know that every other passenger has been through the same level of screening that they have.



I had a feeling that you were raised elsewhere. Different backgrounds, different outlooks.

We have several methods of screening for painful areas. We will use the best we have trying to get you through to your flight. But please understand that I am not allowed to speak about specific procedures or methods.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 14789297)

Maybe they know something you dont.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 14787639)

But this is the USA, and here the rules are formed based upon what is understood to be the overall basic morals of the nation.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 14788467)

We are going to do our very best not to cause a passenger any physical pain, but there may be times when it is unavoidable and the passenger must make a choice at that point about which is more important.

Originally Posted by tanja (Post 14786401)

I agree to 100 %. My "stuff" has/and are only chared witha few selected people.
I never have or have I been raised to share it with strangers.
I was always told that if somebody touch you , report it to a grown up or police.
I am not that desperate that I need starngers to touch me.

And I have certainly never/ ever thought that I have to be touched to travel.

I think this is so personal area that TSA and Co. should be ashammed that they even do it.
I have grandkids. And if they were to be touched their parents would have reallty problems with that.
And so would I.



In my case it would not calm/ help me by explaning to me what you are during a pat down on my privates.

I do know what it is. I also have friends that work/have worked in security.
And they all say that pat-downs that exists now is very insulting. And that they object to it.
So sorry It doesnt do anything for me at all.
Security yes but not like this.

You do even know how rude the majority of TSA are?
They are bullies without any respect at all.

Like I said earlier I have no problem with taking of my clothes in a private screening but being touched YES.
I was told that they (you) dont want to see my naked body just touch it!
Do you even understand how perverted that sounds?

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 14786658)

gsoltso, thanks for your reply.

Will everyone be required to train to do these patdowns? I ask because there have been a couple reports of long waits because a trained female TSO wasn't available. I don't know if that means fewer women opt out or fewer women TSOs have been trained.

Does a TSO have the option of declining this duty?

Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott (Post 14786767)

Gsoltso, I am asking you this question directly now.

I am sure you have read my previous posts about my concerns about my laptop being stolen from the x-ray machine if I have to go through the NOS and lose sight of my personal property.

So answer my question, don’t ignore it, what is the TSA policy about passengers demanding to keep their personal possessions in sight when going through the NOS.

Post the policy now, if there is none, then tell me so I know what I am up against when I complain to a supervisor about losing sight of my possessions.

Mr. Elliott

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 14794307)

When a passenger purchases a ticket there is an agreement that the passenger understands they have to undergo the screening at the checkpoint,

Originally Posted by gsoltso

Let me pose a different point of view to you, do you understand how perverted it can sound to a large number of people that I know that you would prefer to show your naked body to some total strangers rather than be patter down for a security clearance procedure?

Originally Posted by RichardKenner (Post 14794506)

Yes, but there's a serious problem here. When you get into the issue of "consent", you mean "informed consent". Sure, when I buy a ticket, I'm consenting to a "search" in a general sense, but what exactly am I consenting to? There are several problems here:

(1) The details of the nature of the search is SSI, so I can't be told what I'm supposedly consenting to.

(2) Even if the search details weren't SSI, the procedures can be changed at will, so any consent I gave at the time of ticket purchase would be for the procedures in effect at that time.

As a practical matter, I think we can all agree that the consent includes going through a WTMD and putting bags through x-ray. A large majority of people understand that it includes consent for a complete physical search of bags, but unless everybody does, I'm not sure you can argue that there's even consent for that.

But as to search of a person, there's a huge amount of ambiguity on what's been "consented" to. Certainly a person hasn't consented to a body cavity search or a strip search. I think most people would know that they're consenting to some sort of a patdown, but most won't know the details (and, see above, they're changing). So it's really hard to make the "consent" argument in much of this.


Here I'm confused. The question related to procedures for insuring that passenger's property is in their view at all times. There are no security implications there (everybody understands that passengers can't have physical access to their property before screening is complete and why), so what's SSI about that?

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 14794307)

Let me pose a different point of view to you, do you understand how perverted it can sound to a large number of people that I know that you would prefer to show your naked body to some total strangers rather than be patter down for a security clearance procedure? I think in your case there is a cultural or personal conflict with being touched - and that is ok! We all have things that are important to us for whatever reason (be it religious, cultural, personal, injury, etc). I believe in your case it would have to be something the onsite Supervisor or Manager would have to make a call on how the situation would proceed. When a passenger purchases a ticket there is an agreement that the passenger understands they have to undergo the screening at the checkpoint, so your situation would probably be handled above my paygrade. I am sorry that I do not have a better answer for you.



I really can't give specifics on what is required of the TSOs, but I can tell you some of the training I have recieved. The absence of a female TSO at your checkpoint could have been a number of situations - a TSO could have been away to use the restroom, on break, they all could have been involved in something else pertaining to work, there could be an injury that took a TSO away from the checkpoint, there could have been an illness that caused a call out, or there could have been a shortage of females at that location due to staffing.

I am not certain about the declining of the duty - I have never heard of that happening, but I am not certain that I have seen anything specifically stating that. It is not a situation I have ever run into, but I would think it would be frowned upon heavily (my opinion only).



Mr. Elliott,

1) I can not post policy that is not public knowledge on this site, so I can't post the actual verbiage on here explaining the current protocols that fall under SSI headings.

2) Do not try and TELL me what to do. The next time you try to order me to do something, I will completely ignore your post from here on. The way you posted is rude and I will not respond if you direct something to me in like kind again.

3) If I were traveling and were sent to another section of the checkpoint for additional screening, my items would go with me before I moved. Is that the kind of answer you were looking for?

Originally Posted by RichardKenner (Post 14794506)

Yes, but there's a serious problem here. When you get into the issue of "consent", you mean "informed consent". Sure, when I buy a ticket, I'm consenting to a "search" in a general sense, but what exactly am I consenting to? There are several problems here:
...
But as to search of a person, there's a huge amount of ambiguity on what's been "consented" to. Certainly a person hasn't consented to a body cavity search or a strip search. I think most people would know that they're consenting to some sort of a patdown, but most won't know the details (and, see above, they're changing). So it's really hard to make the "consent" argument in much of this.

Originally Posted by mozgytog (Post 14794583)

You think it sounds 'perverted' for someone to not want to have their genitals groped by a TSA employee as a precondition for boarding an airplane when that person has done nothing more suspicious than purchase a ticket?

Your employer is the one who has put us in a position of choosing whether we are viewed naked or have our genitals groped, and in fact your employer is the one who wants people to choose en masse to be seen naked rather than patted down.

After all, they're the ones pushing us to have our nude photos taken by attempting to make it so humiliating and degrading to opt out that we'll all give in. It's your employer whose clear preference is for us to 'show [our] naked bod[ies] to strangers' rather than be patted down.

So, does it still sound 'perverted'?

Originally Posted by tanja (Post 14794702)

But if a person chooses to take of their clothes instead of being touched. Then they can considered as you are perverted. Very odd and dubbel morals.