You give the impression of wanting to bring up worst-case scenarios.

Again, to what percentage of people going through the checkpoint does this occur?

I know at SAT, TSA has post most that you state in the area leading to TDC, and throughout the checkpoints. I know some of the signs read the passengers entire body may receive a pat down - and entire body to me means entire body. I have also seen this signage at other airports. To be clear, these are multiple signs. They are not collected together. Now will you find some airports where this is not post? Yes.

But Congress made 100% cargo screening mandatory and TSA has missed the dates of implementation on this repeatedly.

SATTSO

why do you address every post except the one with my questions.

Look, I don't care about body piercings or luggage screening.

Please answer my questions

I did not use that term and instead placed the traveler in full control of the situation and gave them responsibility for what happens next.

I have clearly stated over time that a pat down should not be the first means of screening, neither should a Strip Search Machine.

With that said if an alarm or cause for greater depth of screening is developed and the traveler knows what must be done, as in my advisement post, then again they are the ones making the call.

The difference is that I used plain words, I did not use terms like "resistance", but was clear what could happen and I don't think anything in what I wrote would allow a person to outwit TSA security practices.

edit to add: Do you see anything wrong with the way I am suggesting that TSA advise people about the screening process?

By definition TSA has NEVER done a pat down, if you want to get into semantics.

Oh, and for those who didn't read my response, to save my reputation I pointed out that I'd only observed quite a few pat-downs in my former career as a high-school vice-principal and principal. :p

So I can infer it's somewhere from 1% up to much smaller than 20-25%. I have no objection to a more invasive search of my carry-on if there's something that isn't initially resolved.

Maybe I should. I didn't object to TSA procedures until the most recent enhancements. I took off my shoes, I limited my liquids to three ounces, and look what happened. I now may have a choice between the X-Ray scanner or the "so-called pat-down," and I may end up undergoing both as SOP, not that "much smaller" percentage that you're talking about.

And, after 450 or more posts and your best efforts, we customers still don't seem to have a good idea of what we might have to undergo in that booth and what our rights are. :(

A very small percentage. But that is incidental. My point in bringing that up is all screening MUST be based upon a variation of DY... - a choice that must be made by the passenger - otherwise no screening should be done at all. DY... should never be used as a threat, nor denying entry through the checkpoint. It is simply an option. If screening identifies something that can not be eleminated as being a potential prohibited item or threat, then where ever that item may be, on a persons body or in their bag, should never be allowed into the sterile area of an airport until that issue is resolved.

That is my only point - and I think most here will agree. Yet even those here who agree with my point are critical of when TSA has to exercise that option.

And at the same time, these same people are critical when TSA allows something into the sterile area and fails a red team test.

Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of group here on FT, as far as TSA is concerned. And its a reason why many of the opinions here are ignored. Too much hypocritical attitudes here.

As a former educator, I expected you to better understand my point. People love to argue semantics here - and have claimed that because the pat down involves sliding motions, its not a pat down. There has not been a pat down TSA does that does not involve sliding motions. So if people want to play a game of semantics, I can too. ;)

These signs I have seen for years used plain words too. No sign I have seen uses the word "resistance".

Once again another round of posts by SATTSO without addressing my questions.

Hell if you can't answer them just say so, and quit hiding from them.

I think the what-if scenarios and semantics are taking away from the crux of this thread.

Which is what rights do we and don't we have during an RPD.

As do I. "Boundary conditions" help define the situation in detail. That's why much of law school are about things on the boundary. That's what the phrase "the exceptions make the rule" really means. You don't learn about anything if all you do is look at the most common case!

It is your own words that the item that triggers an alarm has to be cleared. We get that.

And that the pax gets a chance to take it off/remove it.

And no that has never happen to me.

Perhaps I can help clear up the confusion.

To your first point: People here are often critical of TSA when it exercises the option to not allow items on planes. This is because TSA often demonstrates a remarkable degree of cluelessness regarding what it will and will not allow. Two such examples would be the battery pack fiasco in Mississippi and a mounted collection of arrowheads in a framed case (not arrows, and definitely not a bow and arrow) at BNA. I won't get into the now-discarded ban on fingernail clippers. Any reasonable person would get the point - TSA has a history of seizing perfectly harmless items - items that no reasonable person could construe as being a WEI that could threaten aviation safety. While you may disagree, I think it is a valid criticism when TSA prohibits passengers from taking their non-harmful, non-WEI possessions with them.

To the second point: You are also correct that TSA receives criticism here for its abysmal performance on red team tests. I would think that an agency that cannot perform its basic function more often than not when being tested would deserve criticism.

This is not a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is a case of being criticized for focusing on the trivial, while failing to do the essential.

Since you'd apparently forgotten you'd made that statement and were contradicting yourself I was simply referring you to the source.

As a former educator, even when it was a dull student who didn't understand my point, I accepted some share of the responsibility - and I'll also overlook your dangling modifier. I make the same mistakes all the time. ;)

My point is that the TSA is deliberately using the expression "pat-down" as a euphemism for a search that is more invasive than a standard LEO pat-down frisk. At least you and I seem to agree that the TSA is mislabeling it, although I wouldn't expect you to comment on your employer.