Georgia Peach

I'm surprised the TSA didn't make a big deal out of the formula powder, especially if it wasn't in the original packaging. Imagine the spin if they had thought it was drugs and arrested the parents.

CLELOSER

"It would not have been insubordination for the TSOs to follow the existing policy which exempts liquids for baby food and let the parent through with the non-chilled water."



If water is in a water bottle, how exactly do we determine who the water is for?? If its already mixed in the formula, its probably NOT for the adults.


"Instead, the OP was politely and graciously bullied by two power-tripping TSOs who violated their own SOP, which does allow liquids in this case."

AGAIN WRONG. The SOP was correctly followed.

"There's always going to be some discretion/leeway in policies in any organization. One of the many major problems with TSA is that they have been told to err on the side of paranoia instead of on the side of the passenger, the vast majority of which are not terrorists. I'm not talking about anything insane here "

TSA is very top-down oriented. They do NOT want TSO's to have discretion to make decisions. Of course if it was up to me 4 inch scissors wouldn't be allowed unless there is was a legitimate reason to have them.

" This woman has a baby, powdered formula, (presumably sealed) bottled water, and a reasonable explanation as to why she needs it. There is an explicit exception in the rules for baby formulas and other liquids for babies. Woman (and baby) are not otherwise engaging in suspicious behavior, not triggering SPOTters, etc. Do we a) assume the factory-sealed non-leaking water bottle is an explosive and confiscate it (but then throw it in the bin next to our checkpoint)?, or b) ETD the bottle and after the negative ETD test allow the woman to proceed with her baby and the components of formula?"

If we allowed water for her, we would have to allow it for everyone. That would mean all TSOs would be doing is ETDing water.

"Of course, TSO chooses a).

Another example of this failure to err on the side of the passenger and failure to use logic was the detention and referral for arrest of the special-ed teacher carrying a leather bookmark. Stopping and thinking for a heartbeat would have prevented that scenario. Same with the nipple ring incident. And the amputee who was told to remove his leg but refused a chair.

Instead, we get bullies and power trippers."

That's your interpretation of TSO's following the rules as given to them.

red456

TSA allows gel packs for meds, but not for someone bringing their own food on board. Therefore, they should allow water to mix baby formula.

From the TSA website:

Big Mo

By the fact that it's accompanied by a baby and powdered formula.

schwarm

Report on the return flight:

We had decided to bring no water and simply purchase airside, but we arrived at the airport with a pair of bottles of (regular) water.

So, we decided to fill each of our 3 baby bottles with water. No problem going through security.

So, water in the baby bottles (accompanied by powdered formula and baby) seemed to be OK. Water in the original sealed water bottles (accompanied by empty baby bottles, powdered formula, and baby) was not. Go figure.

studentff

TSA has a virtual encyclopedia of exceptions, which is exactly what is necessary when the idiots in charge start banning harmless everyday items that are needed by people to go about their lives. If TSA would reduce the prohibited items list to those things that are actual threats to aircraft--guns, bombs, and large knives--then they wouldn't need exceptions.

IMO TSA should be ETDing water bottles and a lot of other things. It would increase security far more than banning liquids does, particularly given the myriad of exceptions necessary to keep the stupid liquid policy from outright preventing large segments of the population from flying.

Drop the shoe carnival, war on water, jacket hokey-pokey, and blacklight/loupe ID-check charade. Re-direct all of the TSO energy that was going toward that security-theater to making sure that the majority of passengers either walk through an ETP/puffer or have at least one of their items ETDd. TSA would drastically increase their detection rate for explosives--not only liquid explosives but the far more likely and threatening solid explosives.

And by all means, when TSA sees a carry-on with a lot of water or wine bottles (before this debacle, I would frequently carry 6-12 bottles of wine in my carry-on), give the bag a hand check and do some ETDs.


Are you actually defending the TSOs who mocked the woman as they forced her to remove her private jewelry with pliers? Or the TSOs who mocked the amputee as they demanded he remove his prosthesis without a chair? Or the TSA's behavior in the leather bookmark incident?

mikeef

So does this mean that if I can get my doctor to write me a note detailing my issues with dehydration, I can bring liquids through, as long as I am willing to submit them to an ETD test?

Mike

Cee

I am quite sure nobody is defending the TSO's who mocked the nipple ring girl. I don't know if I believe the story of the amputee. I have never heard of the leather bookmark incident...what happened there?

Cee

Liquids for medical purposes are *supposed* to be allowed.

knotyeagle

Since you asked.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/17/Hi...me_Totin.shtml

http://isil.org/towards-liberty/tsa-outrage.html

Cee

Thanks for the info. As ridiculous as the story is, sounds like the PD is partially to blame for the escalation in this case too. The PD could've told the TSA staff that they were idiots, and it was only a bookmark not a dangerous weapon.

knotyeagle

And the Tampa Police Department (Airport Division) were the ones who threatened her with a $10,000 civil fine? Or was that perhaps your kangaroo friends in the TSA kangaroo court?

Cee

No, that would have been the TSA.
I may be wrong on this, but I *like* to think that in order for someone to be charged with a serious violation, there actually has to be a violation. Maybe it is my background in LE that gives me these silly ideas. If we find a dangerous item at the CP, the LEOs are called in. (I am not talking about pocket knives.) If in this case, the LEOs came and said "It's a bookmark, not a weapon..." then the matter wouldn't have escalated. It could have been *surrendered* at the CP and the lady could've been on her way.

FWAAA

In the FLA bookmark case, the lady told the screeners it was a bookmark. It was monogrammed with her initials. Yet the "big catch" mentality caused the screeners to call the PD, whose response was just as brainless as that of the screeners. Hancuffed? Placed in a holding cell? Charged with a misdemeanor?

What should the screeners have done in that case? Perhaps use less of their "imagination" and use more common sense. Nearly everything carried by humans "could be used as a weapon." There was no excuse for calling in the LEOs to investigate a bookmark.

We even had alleged-ex-LEO screener-posters defending the TPA screeners on that one.

Everyone involved should have been caned.

knotyeagle

Sure did not happen that way. What do you think this woman's opinion of the TSA at Tampa (or TSA overall)? Amazing how many people can find out about an incident like that or the most recent one at Tampa where using the words "Nazi-like" means the screener can give an extra secondary so that you miss your flight.

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/06/Bu..._to_Nazi.shtml

He says that after explaining it wasn't personal, he told the supervisor that screeners were going to make him late for the plane by using "Nazi-style, police-state tactics."

The supervisor, a Florida National Guard member and Iraq war vet, blew up. "I don't have to listen to your s---- and being called a Nazi," he said, according to a TSA report dated Tuesday. Derrick says he asked for his supervisor, only to be told he was talking to the supervisor.

Two officers detailed to watch for suspicious behavior decided Derrick was a "heightened concern individual," said TSA spokesman Christopher White. They directed him to additional screening, a body pat-down and a scan with a hand-held metal detector.

Derrick refused to give his telephone number. He didn't agree to have the pat-down in a private room, noting the case of a woman who died while detained at the Phoenix airport. The supervisor had airport police escort Derrick from the terminal.

The TSA report concluded that Derrick's "frustration made him a victim of himself" and stated officers followed all procedures. The supervisor will receive "corrective action" for using profanity, said White.

Derrick contends the Nazi comment was free speech and the TSA officers put him through additional screening as retaliation.

"I didn't go in there and yell 'terrorist.' It's the system. Everyone's treated like a criminal," he says. "It's dehumanizing."

His isn't exactly mainstream opinion. But an Associated Press poll released in December found that only the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stained by its response to Hurricane Katrina, ranked below the TSA as the least-liked federal agency.

TSA tied the IRS in a ranking of a dozen federal agencies, though 53 percent of air travelers said the agency does a "very" or "somewhat" good job.

Staff writer Steve Huettel can be reached at [email protected] or (813) 226-3384.

[Last modified February 6, 2008, 11:56:07]

Sorry Cee, this is the agency that you choose to work for. And every passenger you deal with, 50% of the time recently dealt with another TSA screener a lot less professional of their mission limits than you know.