The only thing tracked is the number of opt outs for the patdown. Now if the passenger opts out of both, then there is some further talking to. But if you just opt out of the AIT, only a count is tracked.

I am sorry to hear that she was upset, however, if this happened in mid-october the new pat downs were not in place yet. As I have said, there was a previous pat down that is basically the same thing, with a few changes, to the new standard procedure. The type of pat down she received is one that had been used for 8 years.

Does that also include people who request a pat down in lieu of going through the metal detector? Some of us with medical conditions that would set off the body scanner but not the metal detector have decided that our privacy is better protected (less clues to the condtition among fellow travelers) by opting out no matter which machine we go through. TSA's tips for passengers with disabilities can always request a private screening instead of the body scanner or the metal detector.

Their toning it down for the holidays so that they can keep the support of the sheeple

I would argue that this is NOT what the people want. It's what they've been TOLD they want by TPTB.

We already have risk, and the NoS and pat-downs really don't change those numbers. I have a really hard time believing I am /statistically/ any safer with 3% of passengers going through the NoS and 1% of passengers being subjected to a pat-down than I am with all passengers going through the WTMD and only being selected for more aggressive measures if they alarm.

Can you point me to the studies that show otherwise?

I don't know what many want - I know what I want. The least invasive restrictions possible that still hold a benefit. That, IMO, is the WTMD. Puffers, if they would use those. Dogs are ok too. Anyone who can't make it past those measures without alarming should have a reasonable further search.

What if a USAir pilot is coopted or coerced into taking down Iberian Air equipment? He or she brings whatever contraband into the sterile area and hands it off to an accomplice who makes it cleanly into the sterile area, who then takes it aboard the Iberian Air flight.

Their OWN plane is safe - but that doesn't preclude them from being an accomplice in bringing down someone else's. Isn't that a concern?

Why should airline and TSA employees be exempt?

But that's not what we have. What we have is an expensive boondoggle that does nothing to make us any safer, but does much to remove and infringe our rights.

It's clear that the level of patdown is extremely dependent on the TSO you get. Not everyone is getting a full-on groin check, and I suspect that the really serious frisks come from TSOs on a power trip or TSOs pissed about having to do it. The problem is that some people receive a gentle pat down & then wonder what the fuss is about.

The issue to me that anything so invasive is going to be abused, especially if it's used often (more chances for abuse). No one can tell me a TSO isn't going to try to sneak a phone into the screening room one day, and some TSOs are going to go deeper & do more grabbing during pat downs that they really do humiliate or hurt people.

I suggest that you read the posts from LeeAnne in the opt out thread to read what happened to her elderly mother. Even if it was the 'old' pat down or the 'new' pat down what happened to her twice was simply wrong.

just double checked, it was 1st week in November

what do you have to say about her reaction to the full grope? SOS, I'm sure (same old .. .you know).:rolleyes:

Thank you for being willing to discuss things on here with us.

My main objection is that, as you said in another post, there is no way to make this 100% perfect. I feel that pat-downs that include breasts and genitals (even if it's quick and professional instead of a "grope") or imaging of those areas is going too far in the direction of trying to make it 100% perfect.

Especially if the touching of those areas is supposed to be quick and professional instead of an outright touch, it seems the main point of the pat-down since the gloves are placed into a machine to detect explosives is not as much to feel for powdered explosive envelopes in underwear, but instead to try to get residue of such explosives if they existed onto gloves.

Is there a reason why other, less invasive, methods have not been attempted? For example, dogs are more sensitive than machines. They would not need to sniff every area on the body, and likely would alert even on explosives in a body cavity. Yes, this might mean more false positives for people like me who are firearms owners who go to the range several times a week. A pat-down after a dog alerted would be much more in line, in my opinion, with constitutional requirements that a search be reasonable -- reasonable suspicion has been established with the dog alerting.

If its just the WTMD, no, it is not tracked.

Im not sure exactly what your saying about private screenings though. They are available for anyone, regardless of disability/medical condition or not. And no one has to go through the WTMD or AIT, the pat down can be done - in public or private.

Other less invasive pat down procedures have been tried - and there is a horrible record of prohibited items getting through. Believe it or not, this pat down was actually in the works for some time (think 2009) and through testing - such as Red Team - has a high success rate of catching prohibited items. Yet it too is not perfect. There are parts of the body not touched with this pat down, despite what the media reports.

As far as dogs to sniff for explosives, I think they are great, but I have now learned far from perfect. I was talking to one man in a canine unit, and he told me that one dog became sick, which clogged up his sinus, and passed that on to half the dogs in the unit. He said at that point those dogs are useless. And on top of that, he said they can do a great job when well, but have a high false alarm rate, and still only a success rate not even close to 100%. I have to take his word for it, as I have no experience working with dogs like that. Was he correct? I do not know.

Sorry to make this so short, but I have to go. I will be back later.

Bingo. +1. Although as far as dogs it should be remembered that some of us have serious allergies to them. Even the slightest contact or proximity to a German Shepard will give me a severe asthma attack every single time. Poodles or other non-shedding less allergenic dogs should be trained for a sniffer program. Or maybe clean shaving the dogs on a daily basis would work if for some reason the usual K9 dogs had to be used. I don't know why we don't use more dogs in our airport security. They really are very, very good at what they do and a lot cheaper than hi-tech machines.

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad everybody has that choice, as I suppose people could object to metal detectors or AIT on many grounds that are not health related..

I do not fly all that often. I just found out you could always request a pat down. Where do I opt out of going through the metal detector and request a pat down? Is it at the x Ray machine or when I enter the line?.

Here is what I am saying. I have a colostomy. It always sets off the scanners, so they are a waste my time. If I get pointed there, I opt out.

.And I have heard other patients saying they have been asked about the bulge if they go through the metal detector when their bag is full. Further, one trip I took was with professional acquiantances. I breezed through the metal detector at one airport but nearly ended up in the body scanner line at the other. The differences would inevitably lead to friendly questions like "why did you fail the scanner?" If I opt out at both, I can tell them I have a medical device. They will probably think I have a pacemaker...much less stigmatizing than a colostomy!

Also, can ostomy patients refuse the offer of a private screening and have the display and test procedure done in public? I don't get it, but some people do not want to go to the private screening. And if having such a sensitive test done in public makes them feel better, then it should be allowed.

Edited to add: I think the display and test procedure is, sadly, needed and is fair, respectful and humane. Tens of thousands of patients have probably had it done. There has been exactly one TSA-induced leak, which was clearly caused by an officer who was not following procedures.

.

According to the 341st training squadron at Lackland, 98% success rate.

What is the success rate & false alarm rate of the NoS? How many explosives has it detected? How many secondary searches have they indicated that resulted in no finding?

I'd rather have the dogs. They don't infringe on my rights.

Did SATTSO every reply to the question about changing gloves between gropings? I don't think he/she did.
I expect to see some lawsuits later on by the flying public who contract infections due to this disgustingly dirty procedure. It is a very serious public health issue as well as personal rights issues. I think that should be the next approach used to decrease this new policy.
I certainly plan on bringing my own disposable and CLEAN gloves before permitting a pat down. And stored gloves in their pockets are not clean at all-it needs to come out of a box. Pockets are one of the dirtiest places on clothing.
Nonlatex gloves are easily bought at most drug stores,Walmart, and health supply stores.
Can't and won't do the NOS due to sensitive medical equipment that I wear.
One way you can tell those gloves have been on someone's hands for a while is that your hands sweat under these gloves and the skin of the wearer is readily visible. Ewwww.

Because TSA is dealing with the backlash on a divide-and-conquer basis, cutting deals with splinter groups. This makes the everyboy's-a-potential-terrorist line they've been using impossible to defend. You're a threat until your cohort makes a deal with TSA, then you're not such a threat anymore.

In part. What I think we really want is some consistent reason or strategy behind security protocols. When TSA says on Monday that all airline personnel must be screened, then on Tuesday those same people are trusted and exempt, it's vulnerable to the charge that it's just making things up as it goes along. That's verifiable enough on the front end, where we see TSOs making up rules and "freelance" procedures all the time. But it looks like that same attitude goes all the way to the top. If you're going to have a rule, have a rule. I went through security at SEA around 445a last week and there were backscatter devices at every checkpoint, but none were turned on. So what's the point, then? Isn't the message that you can smuggle something through if you get up early? It's ridiculous.

TSA's biggest problem is lack of command and control, and no will or ability to enforce standard procedures at the front lines.

The two really frightening things about TSA are the apparent unstrategic improvisation at the top... and the fact that the ground-level TSO you encounter can apparently do anything he or she wants... grab your genitals, fondle your daughter, go through your wallet, steal your toiletries, make you disrobe, grab your boarding pass... and you can't do anything about it.

For a few minutes you are totally at the mercy of a freelance operator who may or may not be a good egg... or a sociopathic maniac. We've all seen both.