You have every right, and I would support you, in saying that the passenger may proceed to the sterile area, but if the bag is not screened it will not be allowed in the sterile area. You can check it. You can ship it. You can take it back to your car (if your car is here). You can surrender it. But, it does not go into the sterile area unless it is screened. (Diplomatic excluded as mentioned up thread)

First of all, you say, "By `screened', do you mean `searched'?" Then, if the passenger's objection is to your search of his bag, you refer him to the law that requires searching of his bag as a condition of carrying it aboard a plane.

Yes, I understand and appreciate that. I think that's what the TSA is arguing (or hiding behind) when they claim "only 5%" of travelers undergo the invasive search, the so-called patdown.

There are really two issues for me: one the "worst case" of what might happen to me at the checkpoint, the other the SOP that I'll ordinarily have to endure.

How bad that worst case is, and how remote the possibility is of experiencing it is, are both factors I'd like to be aware of.

Ask them to volunteer for the AIT, if available. If not, then that person is not cleared into the sterile area. An alarm must be resolved. If you had said a ETD, I would have suggested a follow up with known clean gloves and new swab. If it still fails, then you have no choice.

In a case like this TSA needs to have a person on staff who is specially trained in conflict resolution. They may have, but I do not know the acronym. They would nicely and quietly explain what the problem is and what can be done to resolve it. They should also calmly explain why they can not go into the sterile area. If ETD they should explain what type of chemical was detected.

The conclusion is it doesnt matter what the pax does.

If we "help" to much we get arressted and cant fly.

If we "help" to little we dont fly.

If we ask questions. We dont fly.

It is like catch 22. All depending on the TSO screener at the time

I just dont want to fly anymore.

Well, you commented about the procedure for body piercings earlier in this thread so they seemed a reasonable example for the scenario you posted before.

It seems like what you're fishing for is recognition that not flying can be an acceptable result of an unresolved screening. I'd say Yes, if a guy is hiding something (in your scenario you can feel it, don't recognize it, and the person won't show it...but do you ever ask them to explain it?) and you truly think it could be a weapon then that person should be informed that they won't fly unless they reveal it. If they refuse to reveal it then they don't fly. Fine by me. The problem is that there are innocent items (like maybe a piercing) that might trigger a similar extreme response, but to us it seems silly that a piercing could be construed as a weapon in the first place. So unless you can provide a better example then one can only assume that the person in your example either actually does have a weapon or is purposely trying to sneak something through to make an example/spectacle. In the first case, hooray for you; in the second, screw that guy for wasting everyone's time. In either case you're setting up a scenario where the only logical response supports your argument, yet there less one-sided examples out there.

Remember that this whole issue is brought about by the OP who was told to strip to her underwear in the private screening area. Folks here are wondering what might cause the need to bare body parts when it's been claimed that strip searches are outside the SOP. We all get that it's up to the passenger to "voluntarily" do this if they want to fly. The worry is that the "no fly unless you voluntarily strip" option will be exercised before absolutely necessary, or even when totally unnecessary.

I hope you can understand that and not just blow it off because you think it's silly.

I think this is my biggest concern here. We have examples of screeners acting calmly and respectfully in these situations, but we also have other examples of screeners using intimidation tactics ("swarming", raised voices, threatening to call law enforcement, announcing excitedly that someone has "tested positive for explosives!") to pressure passengers into doing what they're told. It may technically be a choice, but I don't think it is presented as such in many of these situations. And plenty of people think and have been told that "you have no rights" when you enter the checkpoint. So how can the flying public understand that they have a choice when it isn't even clear that they have any rights at all?

And I think this is what pmocek was getting at that made SATTSO put him on his naughty list.

I don't want to get on SATTSO's much-vaunted ignore list either, but I really would wish he would answer billycorgan's questions. I believe they are:

--must a resolution pat-down be performed in private?
--may it be videotaped, filmed, or otherwise recorded by the passenger or a witness?

I would also add another question: can the TSA force any traveler into a private room for any sort of screening purpose, or for that matter any purpose whatsoever? (and before you quibble with semantics on my use of "force", feel free to substitute "require as a condition of clearing the checkpoint or being allowed entry into a sterile area.")

I really hope SATTSO addresses these questions. I hope that the bugbear of SSI won't overly tie his hands in giving us a forthright response. (And I will happily answer whatever question he wants me to, even if it's rhetorical.)

I further note that no one here seems to be arguing for no security whatsoever. That's a straw man. And I believe I understand the point that SATTSO is attempting to make when he insists that D...T is, in some subtle way, at the heart of any interaction between TSA and pax. (That is, in the sense that pax won't be allowed entry into a sterile area unless they clear screening, which is nothing new.) Yes, there's always a choice between remaining unscreened and using the commercial air travel system, but that's really not what we've been discussing here. I don't believe that FTers or the vast majority of pax have problems with security screening, but the current way that TSA is conducting them, their possibly extraconstitutional status, and the confounding, frustrating lack of transparency and consistency that go along with the user experience.

I'd add that D...T is most annoying (at least to me, and I'd wager a lot of other FTers feel this way) when it's used in an attempt at intimidation and retaliation. When it's phrased that way and spoken to a passenger from a screener, it's not only a dumb question, but a transparent attempt to make the passenger do what the screener wants them to do. I would much rather hear "Do you intend to complete the screening process?", because that's a non-rhetorical question that might actually get us somewhere.

I won't speak for SATTSO, I have noticed that if a question has been addressed previously, some TSA-employed posters don't necessarily answer or will say outright they've already answered such a question. Perhaps he will return and answer Billy's questions directly in this thread. Perhaps not. In this case, these questions were discussed in another recent thread entitled "Required to go to a private room", in case one is interested in the answer (or lack thereof...).

I hope he does. I've no idea why he's writing so elliptically.

And after I've skimmed all 24 pages of that thread (thanks for the link), I find that HSVTSO Dean (who is a good writer and seems like a good egg) says, essentially, that some searches must be performed in private, regardless of the passenger's wishes, and that a witness is allowed, and that the witness may record the search. HSVTSO Dean also goes on to say -- and here's the really unfortunate part, and yes, I'm paraphrasing here -- that basically your mileage may vary, because in practice it's really up to the individual managers about what they will and will not permit. Which only adds to the inconsistency problems that plague TSA and which are a huge source of its poor reputation among the flying public.

Good find vidiot

However, I would still like to hear from SATTSO, after all things change. It is good to be kept up to date.

I hope I am not wrong but SATTSO seems more interested in getting into semantic arguments and hypothetical situations than helping out here.

And again , what if it is a piercing in the genital area or on the breasts?

How is that supposed to be cleared?

Since they cant ask you to take of your undies and bra's. It is not permitted to take these items off even if you offer to do it.

These kind of piercings cant be seen through the clothes.
So how is these piercings cleared?

As was discussed here a number of times, if something is obviously (by feel) a piercing, that's enough to "clear it". The only complex issue would be a very large and hard-to-remove piercing.

I think the problem here is, and has been, a lack of information given to passengers. Most of the problems there are with patients and screening arise from people feeling picked on because of a condition.

Additionally, I think it is hard for a big government agency to understand that different people with the same condition are different and what works for one doesn't always work for the other. I

I personally would rather just be able to opt for a strip search. It's not like hundreds of medical professionals haven't seen everything. And having professional agents see me (which isn't a pretty sight) is fine with me.

What I am bothered with is the pat downs. I feel they can damage the seal on my ostomy and have the potential to cause a leak. Every time I have gone through the pat down I have been literally shaking due to worries about a leak.

I have asked over and over and got no responses. But can one opt for a strip search and touch areas as instructed then be swabbed (swab my clothes to, I don't care when my ostomy bag isn't being pulled down by then "pat downs.").

That said just because that would work for me doesn't mean it would work for everybody with my condition. A pat down may be better for some, if not most. What I think tsa should do is figure out what the equivalent of a pat down is and allow people to request non-touch (ie strip) searches that are as effective.

Haven't you heard? The TSA motto has been changed from, "We're the TSA and we're here to help you." to "We're the TSA and we're not happy until you're not happy."