You are correct, and that is actually what should happen. Now does it always, of course not. People who work in many different agencies often do not do what they should. You know this.

But yes, if there is an alarm, say ETD of an electronic, the TSA employee should inform the passenger what has happened, and what will now happen.

No, I think the claim was made that people should be told in advance of the limits of things they might be required to do, not told at the time of the alarm.

Welcome...

But let me explain this: ALL screening is a classic Hobson's Choice. For example, there are passengers who do not want their bags sent through x-ray or searched by hand, but want the bag placed on the plane. Yes, I have had passengers tell me this on multiple occasions, so this is not a theoretical situation. So in a very real sense ALL screening (even if YOU were to set up a screening process) would be a DY...T issue.

So, seriously, what do you do when a person tells you they don't want their bag screened in any way, but want it on the plane? Please answer that?

I think you misunderstand.

Everyone should know these things before screening starts.

Doober, your now on the ignore list too. I feel better already ;)

Either way, I'm now happy about the situation.

Add: Phil and I have had a run in before ... and he twisted words, refused to accept what was said (as if I hadn't said it at all). Others on this site, who are no friends of TSA, even started to get onto Phil about how he was arguing. One critic of TSA on this site even told Phil what he was doing was "sick". I remember that exact descriptive word.

You may think he makes valid points. I know otherwise. And I won't be dragged into a deliberately dimwitted conversation with him again. The first one was my fault for letting it go on for page after page after page. No more. :)

Considering how different people are, how unique situations can be, I do not think that would be possible. Nor when screening is established that allows flexibility can such a process exist. What would be better, I believe, is a list detailing what can NOT happen during the process.

Except that such a list would never be exhaustive ... and some TSOs would believe that the list was a complete description of their limits.

Please let me give you a specific scenario, and then ask a specific question. BTW, this scenario is based on what I have heard from first hand accounts on this forum and (in part) what the OP posted.

Scenario: Passenger is "scanned" (whether it be AIT or WTMD) and and either an alarm or an anomoly happens, which results in a pat down. (either SPD or TPD) The EDT is positive, so the passenger is asked to follow the screener (TSO/LTSO/STSO) into a private room. Then the passenger asks A. "Why am I required to go to a private room?" B. "What did the test show?" and C. "What are you going to do to me in the private room?"

Question: Is the TSO/LTSO/STSO required to answer those questions before taking the passenger to the private room?

Please answer to the greatest extent possible without spilling any SSI out of the bag, and please let me know if you need me to be more specific.

Thanks!

Now who's playing at semantics? Hobson's choice, Morton's Fork, False Dilemma? Take your pick. ;)

I could offer you a script to answer that question but you'll have your own already. IMO that's no more germane to this thread than my asking you the same question from the perspective of friends afraid to fly because of what they might experience at the checkpoint - "What should I tell them?" Besides, you're working at the operational rather than the policy-making level, aren't you?

It's like our recent back-and-forth about the "pat-down" expression as used by the TSA. You write that "TSA has NEVER done a pat down..." I link to examples of the TSA describing them as pat-downs, but you have no power to change the description, even if you came to believe that the TSA is deliberately misusing it.

The overall issue IMO is larger than the opinions of either of us - what a preponderance of the population considers reasonable or unreasonable TSA policies. On that, only time will tell.

Your explanations about the operational aspects are really interesting, and I do appreciate them. ^

That's why I prefer to use as standard a term for anything as I can and to avoid some of the terms commonly used on this forum because they're more likely to confuse things than clarify them.

I agree. I can't accept "pat-down" as a standard term just because the TSA uses it. The TSA IMO is deliberately misleading the public by using it for the more invasive checkpoint procedure, which has been described as akin to a "custodial search" or "full search."

This isn't just semantics; it's the question of whether or not an administrative search administered wholesale is reasonable when it's more invasive than a Terry Stop pat-down frisk.

The most objective way I could describe it would be "so-called pat-down."

SATTSO please answer my questions


Can a RPD be done in public?

Can a RPD be filmed?

If the answer to either the above is no could you please explain why.

Thanks

TSA Response with apologies to Alfred, Lord Tennyson:

Yours is not to question why

Yours is but to do or fly.

So now I invite anyone here to answer the question I asked: What do you do when someone presents a bag, says it can not be screened in any way, but they want it on the plane?