Family/Special Needs Lanes Coming to All Airports in Time for Thanksgiving Travel
The Diamond Self Select Program [link] started back in February 2008 at Salt Lake City International Airport and is now operating in 48 airports. The program allows passengers to proceed through the security checkpoint at their own pace by selecting one of three lanes: Black Diamond (for Expert Travelers), Blue Square (for Casual Travelers), and Green Circle (for Families, those with special needs, and those unfamiliar with TSA procedures.)
Today, TSA announced that the Family/Special Needs Lane (Green Circle) will be implemented at every security checkpoint across the nation by November 20, 2008—just in time for the busy Thanksgiving travel season.
Today, TSA announced that the Family/Special Needs Lane (Green Circle) will be implemented at every security checkpoint across the nation by November 20, 2008—just in time for the busy Thanksgiving travel season.
While many frequent travelers appreciate the Black Diamond Lane, we’ve also seen a great deal of success with the Family Lanes. Families and those with special needs appreciate the extra time and assistance, and our officers have seen the number of prohibited items in these lanes drop significantly because passengers have more time to divest.
From a risk management standpoint, directing all medically necessary liquids that exceed the 3-1-1 limits to a dedicated lane makes sense. This move is the first step in the path forward on liquids that Kip Hawley wrote about last month [link].
What do passengers need to know about this development? If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you should use the Family Lane. Medically necessary liquids include: baby formula, breast milk, insulin, cough syrup, contact lens solution, and prescription medications. These liquids must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening, which should usually take less than 2 minutes.
-
If you don’t have any exempt liquids, proceed with your baggie to any other security lane. Remember, you can pack any amount of liquid in your checked luggage.
Labels: innovation, liquids, policy
posted by Paul at
1:17 PM
Subscribe in a reader
144 Comments:
Nice to see this.
Now, for the obligatory gripe. :)
With all due respect ... would it have been so difficult to say 100ml, or 3.4 ounces, on this sign? I mean, I can almost buy the argument that says that the 3.0oz limit got changed after the limit got changed internationally to 100ml, and no-one wanted to reprint the signs. But considering that these signs are all new, I really don't see why they couldn't have used the real limit of 100ml/3.4 ounces ...
November 10, 2008 1:47 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
November 10, 2008 1:47 PM
Just because I carry some medically necessary liquids is no reason to be shunted into the slowest and longest line if I am an otherwise expert traveler.
To put it simply this new policy sucks a big one!
The security line is a tax payer paid item and no one should get treated differently than anyone else!
November 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Paul wrote:
"If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you should use the Family Lane."
Should use or must use?
"Medically necessary liquids include: baby formula, breast milk, insulin, cough syrup, contact lens solution, and prescription medications."
Does it include other things also, or is that the entire list?
"These liquids must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening"
Which liquids -- the ones you listed here or any medically-necessary liquids?
Paul, we shouldn't have to ask you these questions on some blog. We're talking about restricting people's right to travel, here. We should be able to see the rules that we are required to follow so that we can ensure we are in compliance with them. Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 10, 2008 1:55 PM
Fantastical news. The only improvement I can see is to include the universal symbol for handicap and staff that lane with specially trained TSOs that can competently and compassionately assist those with limited mobility.
November 10, 2008 1:56 PM
Why are you bothering with this nonsense when liquids possess no risk to any aircraft?
Does this mean that saline solution in any size is no longer exempt from the size limits if a citizen is not in the super-special screening line?
November 10, 2008 2:10 PM
So experienced, speedy, frequent travelers who just happen to have a medical condition requiring liquid meds are going to be forced to wait in line behind sprawling families with lots of kids, people who fly once a year, people with limited mobility, etc?
Do you realize how much you are going to irritate these frequent travelers? Do you realize that their irritation will rub off on the families with children who benefit most from the green lines because they don't have to worry about annoying and slowing down frequent travelers?
Thumbs down to you, TSA. You need to get rid of your liquid fetish and let people be. I hope some insulin-dependent diabetic sues you into the ground for discriminating against his disability by forcing him into the slow lane.
November 10, 2008 2:10 PM
Are the difference between your definition of "medically necessary liquids" and the exemptions on prohibited items significant? And which one are your screeners and supervisors trained to use?
If the new criteria is "medically necessary", who makes that determination? Do I need prescriptions and doctor's notes for all OTC medications and "Liquids including water, juice,... for a medical condition"? And how about a gel-pack to keep breast milk from spoiling? A copy of this page displayed on my cell phone?
As I started complaining about in this thread, (search for 'gel', since the comment-links there are broken) your TSO supervisor in STL didn't understand the rules and confiscated our gel-pack, ultimately resulting in the spoilage of 13 oz of breast milk and making my wife cry. As I said in that thread, if TSA can't even do the small tasks of management right (training your rules-enforcers to know your rules) why should we trust TSA on anything?
November 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Oh great. Now just because they don't produce my contact lens solution in bottles smaller than 4 ounces, I gotta stand in line with the screaming kids and clueless parents? Oh snap!!! Bad call, TSA. You can't rescind the liquid restrictions quick enough as far as I'm concerned.
November 10, 2008 2:18 PM
This is a CF waiting to happen. Its already been reported that this system is a mess as most of what you call the kettles think there experts and use the black lane which invalidates the whole system.
As all FF know that TSA doesnt even follow its own guidelines about medically necessary liquids, as there are plenty of examples out on the net ranging from breast milk to methadone where TSA has made the rules up on the fly about what is and isnt allowed. Paul please think on your own and not just blindly follow the misguided
November 10, 2008 2:19 PM
Ok and if an airport has only 2 lanes and only runs 1 how does this fit in? This will not save anyone time going through smaller airports. It will cause everyone, even the people that know what they are doing, to be late for their flight.
November 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Since you're specifically addressing "medically necessary liquids" here, let me ask a closely-related question. I require weekly injections of a medication in pre-filled syringes that require cooling/refrigeration. The syringes themselves contain less than 1 milliliter of liquid (roughly 1/30 of an ounce), and are packaged from the factory in sealed clear plastic packaging. But because of the need for refrigeration, they have to be kept in a container with gel packs that contain more than three ounces.
In view of the accounts I've read here and elsewhere about TSOs confiscating gel packs and opening sealed packages, I won't even think of taking trips longer than one week if I have to fly. Yes, most TSOs probably know the rules and are understanding when it comes to travelers with "special needs." But there are enough ignorant and arrogant TSOs out there to make me truly afraid of what might happen if I travel with my medication and encounter one of them who insists on confiscating my gel packs, opening the syringe package, or otherwise compromising my medication. There is no problem at all with putting it through x-ray, but a TSO who decides to go beyond that would not only deprive me of my medication, but cost me several thousand dollars that insurance won't reimburse.
I realize that the risk of this happening might be small, but the effect if it does happen is sufficiently devastating that I feel I must restrict my travel to avoid it-- even though I know I'm doing nothing wrong and that the TSA supposedly has procedures for dealing with it. I'm also convinced that if a TSO caused such a compromise, not only would I have no recourse but the TSA leadership would stand resolutely behind the TSO if I complained enough to attract their notice. That's terrible, but I've seen enough examples of it here and elsewhere to justify my fear.
That said, could someone in the TSA advise me of what I need to do to reduce the chance of problems (and to reduce my fear to a level where I could actually consider a trip longer than a week)? Obviously that would start with going to a "green circle" lane and acting as humble and deferential as possible, but what else would help me?
November 10, 2008 3:36 PM
containers larger than 3 ounces
***********************************************
This should be corrected to read 3.4 ounces
November 10, 2008 3:55 PM
A question, Poster Paul...
For those of us who's "Special Needs" (handicapped travelers requiring reasonable accommodations per federal law) do not in any way match the TSA's programs, and are not convenient to TSA's idea of how the world should work, how would you suggest we proceed through a TSA chokepoint?
Rather than re-write any of my rather extended comments on this theme in response to previous EoS posts, I'll simply provide THIS LINK to one of them.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 10, 2008 4:00 PM
That's nice for people with young children, families in general, and of course the disabled but I think I speak for everyone when I say that I'll be quite happy when this can be either merged with the non special needs green line or trimmed down to only medical and special issues line when the liquid ban is removed (supposedly in 2009 but I'm skeptical)
November 10, 2008 4:49 PM
Paul, as a TSO... just how exactly will this work with cramped checkpoints? I have worked at one that's only about two lanes wide there's way you could implement this there.
November 10, 2008 4:55 PM
I traveled through Salt Lake City in March. My family was forced to go through the "Family Lane". We are frequent travelers as is my daughter. We do not hold up lines and are as efficient as the next three people in line. The family lane in this case was slow with seemingly no motivation to move things along.
While in this lane one of the so called "experts" spilled her coffee on the person in front of her. Perhaps my daughter can assist with telling experts that they cannot bring liquids of this nature through security.
I like the concept - but do not like that traveling with a child means that we are not competent or sufficiently well organized to make it through security without disruption.
So what is the policy? Can we truly go our own pace as the experts we are or will TSA force us into the slowest lane because of a well prepared child in our party?
November 10, 2008 5:13 PM
I'm not a family, but a regular traveller.
A regular traveller who wears contacts.
Did anyone at TSA bother to check to see whether it is POSSIBLE for contact-wearing passengers to comply with the 3-1-1 rule? Because I've got some news for you:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND STERILE SALINE SOLUTION FOR USE WITH CONTACTS IN A SMALLER SIZE THAN 4 OUNCES.
I've been looking for one for TWO YEARS and haven't found one. Not one manufacturer provides saline solution in 3 ounce or smaller containers. And since I can't use the multipurpose solutions that are on the market, I don't have a choice but to use saline in addition to my peroxide-based disinfectant (which I can only get in smaller than 3 ounce containers from my eye doctor ... a 30 minute drive from home).
So now, my choices when travelling overnight for business will be to check a bag (paying the fee) and hope my contact solution arrives or stand in line waiting for people who don't know or understand the rules that I've gotten down pat in the last two years to take "more time to divest" and then undergo an additional screening (in addition to waiting longer in the line) that "should" only take two minutes.
Look, I'd LOVE to be able to carry smaller bottles of my eye items, but they SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST. It's not a matter of me not wanting to pay for them, it's a matter of them not exisiting.
I suppose it's not accurate to suggest that those are my only choices. I could have a conference call instead. Good to know that the airline industry is in such great shape that it can afford to lose passengers due to this ill-conceived TSA policy.
November 10, 2008 5:15 PM
"Green Circle (for Families, those with special needs, and those unfamiliar with TSA procedures.)"
So Paul, as TSA's constantly changing its procedures, does that mean everyone should go thru the green circle line as no one's familiar with the procedures? Or should TSO's go thru that line too as most don't seem to be familiar with the procedures?
Earl
November 10, 2008 5:17 PM
While many frequent travelers appreciate the Black Diamond Lane, we’ve also seen a great deal of success with the Family Lanes. Families and those with special needs appreciate the extra time and assistance, and our officers have seen the number of prohibited items in these lanes drop significantly because passengers have more time to divest.
Phil, you might want to take a look at a few of the comments about the ski slope selection lanes. Sometimes travelers, regardless of their experience, get funneled into a single slow moving line. This varies from airport to airport, so regardless of what TSA management wants, the local administrators do things their way.
November 10, 2008 6:08 PM
I really worry about how this will go over. There is not even any agreement at our checkpoint as to what exactly needs to be tested. One Supe says EVERY over-sized liquid is tested, and another says only 1 out of the whole mess needs to be randomly tested. I am of the opinion that EVERY liquid should be tested. If we are not testing every liquid, then we are just putting on a show or 'theater' as many have accused us of.
So why did the policy change? Are we making our security more lax to appease the whiners who can't follow the rules? If that's the case then this is really NO SECURITY at all.
I am for a TOTAL LIQUID BAN. So is every BAO I have talked to. I saw the UK article of the plane with a 6' hole blown in the side by items that got past the checkpoint. I think allowing larger volumes of liquids thru is just asking for trouble. All the 'bad-guy' needs to say is "it's medicine" and he gets a pass on his bomb making materials.
I think it is sad, we are charged with keeping bad things from getting on the planes, yet we seem to be making it easier because people have whined about the inconvienience of security.
November 10, 2008 6:10 PM
You know what, Kip? With 60-some days left in your job, we REALLY, REALLY would like you to fix one relevant problem in transportation security to leave as your legacy.
May I suggest just one? http://tiny.cc/lh2NW
Here are some quotes from the article that should get you started:
LAX Tops Nation In Stolen, Missing Luggage Items
LAPD officers recovered 272 stolen items, plus more than $10,000 in cash!
LAX tops the list with more than 3,700 claims since 2001, totaling more than $300 million, although TSA only paid off a small fraction.
These two LAX employees would only talk if we concealed their identities.
"I saw thefts within the first few weeks of working there."
They both say there are organized rings of thieves, who identify valuables in your checked luggage by looking at the TSA x-ray screens, then communicate with baggage handlers by text or cell phone, telling them exactly what to look for.
Sky Nguyen knows firsthand. He took this picture of a TSA screener with his camera phone after he saw the agent steal his iPod. The TSA agent was arrested and charged with theft.
In fact, we've found that more than 30 employees at LAX were arrested for theft in just the first nine months of this year. Trene Phillips was one of them. This TSA screener was charged with stealing an American express card from a bag she was searching. She's pleaded not guilty.
You're doing a heck of a job, Kip.
November 10, 2008 6:21 PM
>>Remember, you can pack any amount of liquid in your checked luggage.
Yeah, right. Bet I would get stopped if I had a five gallon container of liquid in my checked bag.
November 11, 2008 1:30 AM
Gee, thanks, folks. I'd normally be a Black Diamond traveler. I remove all of my items from my pockets, take my CPAP out of its bag, pull my medication bag out of the suitcase, and otherwise make sure I'm completely ready to go through the checkpoint before I ever get in line. Now, however, I'm condemned to the slow lane because I use liquid injectable medication. The additional screening, itself, may only take 2 minutes, but how much longer will I be standing in line behind every family with recalcitrant toddlers and screaming babies and everything else that makes them take forever to get through security?
Also, it looks like the additional screening has already started at MSP. I just went through a checkpoint here (about 20 minutes ago as I type this), and was ordered to take the medication syringe out of the cooler I keep it in for screening; the screener took it off to one side for ETD. I thought airports weren't supposed to make up their own rules as they went along? As it is, I spoke to a manager type, and she just couldn't understand why I was so upset at what seemed to be the checkpoint making up rules as it went along. This was after speaking to the checkpoint supervisor, and getting the second most-hated TSA line (right behind "Do you want to fly today?"): "They're not doing their jobs." No wonder the TSA is so reviled: from the perspective of the traveling public, they just Don't Get It.
Finally, the latest change to the site broke commenting from my Mac. Neither Safari nor Firefox would show the captcha at all. I'm posting this from Firefox in a Windows virtual machine. Please fix.
November 11, 2008 8:40 AM
This goes into effect Nov 20. Here it is Nov 11, and we TSA employees haven't even been given the new training on how to accomplish this screening yet...
November 11, 2008 12:31 PM
Is anyone at TSA aware of the fact that saline solution for contact lenses is not manufactured in bottles that are 3 ounces/100mL or smaller?
Many of us who wear contacts cannot use the multi-purpose solutions that are available in small sizes, and need saline solution to rinse contacts after they are disinfected. Forcing us to use the "family lane" or pay to check bags when making overnight trips will probably result in us making fewer trips.
November 11, 2008 3:13 PM
Folks, due to Veterans Day, I took Mon/Tue off and Paul had today off. We'll get back to business as usual tomorrow. Thanks for all the comments. Keep them coming!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
November 11, 2008 7:07 PM
You people have entirely to much free time on your hands.
Why not get out there and fix the theft from baggage issues?
November 11, 2008 9:20 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"So experienced, speedy, frequent travelers who just happen to have a medical condition requiring liquid meds are going to be forced to wait in line behind sprawling families"
Paul said that people with liquids should use the green lane, not that they must use the green lane. He worded it as a suggestion, not as a directive.
Paul, is this really just a suggestion, or did you means something different than you wrote? Where can we go to read the official rule on this? Surely "hey, some guy on your blog said blah, blah, blah" isn't going to cut it at the checkpoint or in court.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 11:52 AM
Several comments mention the 3oz / 3.4oz (100ml) confusion.
Months ago, HSVTSO Dean wrote (in response to the "Keep Your Lap Top IN if you have a `Checkpoint Friendly' Bag" post, at 2008-08-19 13:40 -0700):
"Strictly speaking, the fluids limit is 0oz.
"None.
"They're prohibited completely.
"Totally. End of story. Liquids and gels and aerosols and pastes are prohibited 100% from taking through a security checkpoint.
"However -- and this is assuming that the 3.0 hasn't been taken out and just moved to 3.4 anyway, like I was writing above -- up to 3.0oz is allowed in a bag by exception. We're allowed to grant a further exception up to 3.4oz without justifying it. We're allowed to further exception anything at all up to any size with compelling justification and all screening tools to ensure that it's not a threat."
So Paul, what is the rule? What we hear on this blog? What's published on your Web site? What a TSA TSO tells us?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 12:14 PM
Earl Pitts wrote:
"So Paul, as TSA's constantly changing its procedures, does that mean everyone should go thru the green circle line as no one's familiar with the procedures?"
Earl, what's significant in this case is not that TSA frequently changes their procedures (that's their business) but that TSA frequently changes the rules that we are required to follow if we are to travel within our own country via what is frequently the only practical mode of travel (commercial air).
Worse, they refuse to show us the list of rules we are required to follow, instead expecting us to show up at their checkpoints and throw ourselves at the mercy of whatever TSA bag checker happens to be working there.
TSA: Why won't you just show us the rules we're required to follow?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Someone (seemingly TSA airport checkpoint staff) wrote:
"So why did the policy change?"
Better question: did the policy change? Where can I read the current policy? All I've seen is hearsay. Surely some blog posting is not an official statement of the current state of requirements for traveling within our own country.
"I am for a TOTAL LIQUID BAN."
HSVTSO Dean told us in August that the official policy is a ban on liquids in any quantity. But we can't tell what the official word is because TSA refuses to publish the rules we are required to follow.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 12:39 PM
Phil on November 10, 2008 1:55 PM
TSA Officers will screen passengers no matter which line they choose.
Medically necessary liquids include (but are not limited to) all of the aforementioned.
Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational.
Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team
November 12, 2008 2:45 PM
"If we are not testing every liquid, then we are just putting on a show or 'theater' as many have accused us of."
I've got news for you and your phony tin badge: Even if you tested every liquid, you'd just be putting on a show. THAT IS ALL YOU DO. Nothing TSA does makes anyone safer, we know it, you know it, Kip Hawley knows it.
November 12, 2008 2:57 PM
Phil wrote:
HSVTSO Dean told us in August that the official policy is a ban on liquids in any quantity. But we can't tell what the official word is because TSA refuses to publish the rules we are required to follow.
Phil, I'm pretty sure he meant a total and complete, full LGA ban, with the only exemption being for medically-necessary items, such as what was put into place in the immediate aftermath of the August 2006 incident.
November 12, 2008 3:08 PM
Paul, you really should either link to a comment you're referencing or include a time zone. The comment to which you referred shows on your Web site as having been posted at 1:55 p.m. on November 10, but in the RSS feed for comments for this post, it's shown as 2008-11-10 13:54 -0500 (that's ISO 8601 notation [the international date standard] for 1:54 p.m. Eastern [UTC-5], which is 10:55 a.m. Pacific [UTC-7]).
Anyway, I quoted Paul:
"If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you should use the Family Lane."
then asked:
"Should use or must use?"
I later wrote:
"Paul said that people with liquids should use the green lane, not that they must use the green lane. He worded it as a suggestion, not as a directive. Paul, is this really just a suggestion, or did you means something different than you wrote?"
Paul responded:
"TSA Officers will screen passengers no matter which line they choose."
Paul, you did not answer my question. Is what you told us about taking the green lane if someone wishes to bring certain liquids through your airport checkpoints suggestion (something we should do) or a requirement (something we must do)?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 3:08 PM
I quoted Paul:
"Medically necessary liquids include: baby formula, breast milk, insulin, cough syrup, contact lens solution, and prescription medications."
then asked:
"Does it include other things also, or is that the entire list?"
Paul responded:
"Medically necessary liquids include (but are not limited to) all of the aforementioned."
Okay, so once we determine whether this new thing is a suggestion or a requirement (please clarify as repeatedly requested), how will we know what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in this context?
If this is indeed a new requirement, where can we read the official version of it so that we can ensure our compliance with it? Until you let us read the rule, we can only guess at whether we're in compliance with it.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 3:15 PM
@phil: TSA: Why won't you just show us the rules we're required to follow?
The TSA has answered this question repeatedly, so it's presumably your own fault that you haven't seen it. But I'll restate it.
Letting us know the rules we're required to follow would also let al-Qaeda know those rules, enabling them to exploit gaps and weaknesses and severely compromising security. Keeping the rules secret and changing them frequently and randomly is key to successfully implementing the TSA's Mission of improving aviation security by protecting its system from the Enemy.
Remember that Kip has repeatedly stated that "unpredictability is a key security strategy of the TSA." Randomness and unpredictability keep the enemy continually off balance. They are highly effective tools that enable the TSA to adapt to a changing threat and always remain one step ahead of a resourceful and very dangerous terrorist enemy and keep the Homeland safe. Rather than complaining endlessly, we should be grateful for the randomness and inconsistency because it is highly effective in protecting our Homeland and our children from the enemy.
These measures may seem arbitrary, capricious, and even ridiculous when we encounter them at the checkpoint. But travelers need to know that they're seeing only a very tiny part of a big picture. We need to be aware that the apparent inexplicable randomness and inconsistency they see at checkpoints is actually part of a well coordinated, carefully conceived, meticulously implemented Security Strategy that has been repeatedly proved highly effective in numerous cases that must necessarily remain classified.
The TSA realizes that this Security Strategy may have the unavoidable effect of causing confusion, frustration, inconvenience, and expense for many passengers. Of necessity, the published rules are merely guidelines. Their actual (classified) implementation is always subject to change and interpretation by checkpoint officials who are continually updated with the latest robust classified intelligence. Scrupulously following the guidelines is thus the best a passenger can do to reduce the likelihood of an unexpected unpleasant checkpoint experience. But the nature of the War we're fighting unfortunately means that even passengers who do everything they can to obey the published rules may still find that the TSO declares something they are carrying prohibited.
When that happens, the passenger should not be angry or confrontational, but simply understand that the TSO is appropriately responding to the latest robust intelligence as necessary to protect the Homeland from a very dangerous threat. Accordingly, the passenger should calmly assess the best way to comply with the necessary restriction. Many options are available, including returning to the ticketing desk to check the item, returning it to their car, mailing to themselves, voluntarily abandoning it at the checkpoint, or even abandoning the trip and going home. None of those may be desirable options, but it is always necessary to put Country First and comply with the restriction rather than throwing a tantrum and delaying everyone else.
The important thing we need to know is how we should comport ourselves when a TSO makes an unexpected decision. We need to always recognize that what TSOs tell us to do is necessary to protect aviation as part of a highly effective system. And that national security usually requires that the valid reasons behind the decision remain unknown to us and to the enemy. With that in mind, the appropriate response should always be rapid and cheerful compliance. Rather than grumbling, complaining, and demanding "change," understanding and gratitude would make the checkpoint screening experience more pleasant for everyone involved. And given the difficult task the TSOs have, a gracious word of "thanks for protecting America" would be appropriate after after you've finished complying.
The failure of passengers to understand the above is the reason for nearly all unpleasant incidents and stress at airport checkpoints. The sooner passengers gain that understanding (and the appreciation of the TSA that comes with it), the sooner we'll have the "evolution checkpoint" the TSA is working to implement.
November 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Anonymous on November 10, 2008 3:36 PM
It's pretty clear from the situation you described that everything you mentioned is medically necessary. The TSA Officer should recognize that fact and let everything go through after screening the items to the best of their ability without damaging anything.
November 12, 2008 3:35 PM
So is it 3 ounces or 3.4 ounces?
If TSA can't get it right just how can you expect us to get it right?
Pick one and stick to it!
November 12, 2008 3:45 PM
Patrick (BOS TSO) on November 10, 2008 4:55 PM
Are you saying you wouldn't be able to implement Family Lane because it would cause one lane to get extremely long resulting in congestion? If that's the case, then you can still screen people at either lane as you see fit to relieve the backup.
Hope that makes sense.
November 12, 2008 3:52 PM
Anonymous on November 10, 2008 5:13 PM
You won't be forced into any lane. TSA Officers will make a recommendation though. You don't have to use the Family Lane if you don't want to.
November 12, 2008 4:00 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"I require weekly injections of a medication in pre-filled syringes that require cooling/refrigeration. The syringes themselves contain less than 1 milliliter of liquid (roughly 1/30 of an ounce), and are packaged from the factory in sealed clear plastic packaging. But because of the need for refrigeration, they have to be kept in a container with gel packs that contain more than three ounces.
[...]
"could someone in the TSA advise me of what I need to do to reduce the chance of problems (and to reduce my fear to a level where I could actually consider a trip longer than a week)? Obviously that would start with going to a "green circle" lane and acting as humble and deferential as possible, but what else would help me?"
EoS blogger Paul responded:
"It's pretty clear from the situation you described that everything you mentioned is medically necessary. The TSA Officer should recognize that fact and let everything go through after screening the items to the best of their ability without damaging anything."
Paul, it may be clear to you, and it's probably clear to most of us, but none of that matters a bit. Because since you refuse to show us the rules we're required to follow, and because you allow rules to be created, enforced, or disregarded by TSA staff at your checkpoints, all that matters in this case is the opinion of whichever TSA bag checker(s) search(es) this person and his or her belongings.
So again, is this new information a suggestion or a requirement? If it is a requirement, then where can we read this new requirement that we must abide by in order to avoid having our right to travel restricted at your checkpoints? As these questions have now been asked several times, I've added them to the community TSA FAQ. I and many others look forward to your answers.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 4:03 PM
Anonymous on November 10, 2008 5:15 PM
"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND STERILE SALINE SOLUTION FOR USE WITH CONTACTS IN A SMALLER SIZE THAN 4 OUNCES."
You don't need to find solution smaller than 4 ounces. Contact lense solution is considered medically necessary, so you can bring it through security as long as you present it to the TSA Officer for screening.
Again, you are not being forced into the Family Lane, you can choose whichever lane you want. It's just a recommendation.
November 12, 2008 4:04 PM
Anonymous on November 11, 2008 12:31 PM
No additional training is necessary. All TSA Officers should already know how to screen medically exempt liquids. The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane.
November 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Anonymous on November 11, 2008 12:31 PM
No additional training necessary. All TSA Officers should know how to screen medically exempt liquids already. The only difference now is that most of these items are going through one lane (Family Lane).
November 12, 2008 4:11 PM
Again with the "medical necessity"... Who makes that determination? A doctor? A patient? Or a TSO?
What about non-"medically necessary" fluids like the "cosmetic reasons" for a saline-filled prosthetic breast as allowed on prohibited items? Does the passenger have to pull out their saline-filled prosthetic breast and present it to the screener at the front of the checkpoint?
Did you write this post yourself, or is it a partial copy of someone else's ill-designed TSA policy?
November 12, 2008 4:13 PM
Paul of the EoS blog team wrote:
"These [and other medically-necessary] liquids must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening, which should usually take less than 2 minutes."
Paul:
1: How can we distinguish between a TSA officer and any other TSA staff?
2: In what manner must we present such liquids?
3: Does handing over to TSA staff all of the belongings we are carrying so that a TSA bag checker can search them constitute such presentation of any liquids contained therein to a TSA officer as your new policy requires?
4: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take medically-necessary liquids through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer?
5: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take liquids that are not medically-necessary through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer?
We really need to understand the rules you require us to follow. Now they affect not only our ability to travel within our own country via the only mode of travel that is often practical, but also our health.
Where can we find a written copy of this new policy?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 4:17 PM
Someone claiming to be a TSA employee anonymously wrote:
"This [new policy you announced] goes into effect Nov 20. Here it is Nov 11, and we TSA employees haven't even been given the new training on how to accomplish this screening yet"
Paul of the EoS blog team responded:
"Officers should already know how to screen medically exempt liquids."
Paul, what is a medically exempt liquid? Until now, you've only described some examples of medically-necessary liquids (and left the rest up to our imaginations and to the whims of TSA bag checkers).
Paul continued:
"The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane."
Are you sure that's the only difference in policy? Your post made it sound much more complicated. What about the freedom baggies, the 3 or 3.4 oz. container size limit, etc.?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 12, 2008 4:24 PM
Since a new sign, designed and printed very recently, is shown as an example in this post...
The limitation on "liquids, gels, and aerosols was officially changed from 3.0 fluid ounces to 3.4 fluid ounces (100ml) per container as of 21NOV2006
________________
Procedures
November 21, 2006: Same as the procedures implemented on
September 26, 2006, with the exception of the following:
Liquids, gels, and aerosols allowed in 3.4-fluid-ounce (100-milliliter) “travel
size” bottles.
________________
From: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07634.pdf (page 26)
(1) Why do the newly printed signs and the information on the TSA web pages still reflect the 3.0 fluid ounce limit?
(2) Why do TSOs still confiscate (let's not play word games) toothpaste clearly under 3.4 fluid ounces in size because they weigh more then 3.4 ounces? Can we get some directives or training here?
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 12, 2008 4:36 PM
Where did the comments go? All I can see is Bob's.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
November 12, 2008 4:38 PM
Phil said:
"Paul, you did not answer my question. Is what you told us about taking the green lane if someone wishes to bring certain liquids through your airport checkpoints suggestion (something we should do) or a requirement (something we must do)?"
-------------
As I said before, since you can choose your lane, it's not a requirement.
November 12, 2008 4:42 PM
Blogger Paul said: "you are not being forced into the Family Lane, you can choose whichever lane you want. It's just a recommendation."
Sorry, Paul, but I'm not buying it.
The press release indicated that medically necessary large liquids will be subject to "additional screening." Is this "additional screening" going to be available at every checkpoint lane?
If not, I'm sure that many TSA screeners will simply tell those of us with the temerity to use something other than the "recommended" lane that we MUST use that recommended lane so that our liquids can be put through the additional screening.
Personally, I suspect that TSA is using those of us who have to carry medically necessary liquids as guinea pigs for the enhanced screening process that is expected to eliminate the liquid ban in a year or two.
And I don't appreciate it.
Also, you haven't answered the question: is TSA aware of the fact that many of the medically necessary items that travellers carry through the check points are simply not available -- at any cost -- in sizes that comply with the current requirement?
Finally, I can provide specific dates on which the screeners at EWR did NOT "know how to screen medically exempt liquids." And yes, these were uniformed TSA agents operating screening machines.
November 12, 2008 4:42 PM
"From a risk management standpoint, directing all medically necessary liquids that exceed the 3-1-1 limits to a dedicated lane makes sense. This move is the first step in the path forward on liquids that Kip Hawley wrote about last month....."
Paul from the paragraph quoted above I have to think that anyone with "medically necessay liquids" will be required to go through the family lane. Your saying different diagrees with your agencies own article.
Why is it that TSA cannot take a position and stick to it?
November 12, 2008 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...
@phil: TSA: Why won't you just show us the rules we're required to follow?
The TSA has answered this question repeatedly, so it's presumably your own fault that you haven't seen it. But I'll restate it.
....................................
Anon, are you a TSA spokesperson? If so what position do you hold at TSA?
November 12, 2008 4:52 PM
Phil, TSO Dean, Poster Paul, in order to present actual, documented information on liquids I present the following from the GAO since TSA seems so reluctant to provide the information directly.
For anyone trying to keep track of this "Total Ban on Liquids," here is the timeline for the initial ban and the subsequent modifications to it by the TSA, as reported by the GAO in one of their reports:
________________
August 10, 2006: Total ban on liquids and gels in accessible property or
onboard aircraft. Exceptions:
• baby formula/milk if infant is traveling;
• prescription medication with name matching passenger’s ticket;
• insulin and other essential nonprescription medications;
• liquids and gels carried by passengers with disabilities, after screening
for explosive materials, with Supervisory TSO/Screening Manager
concurrence;
• supplies brought into retail area by approved vendors for restocking of retail operations.
________________
August 12, 2006: Aerosols prohibited. Following additional items allowed
past checkpoints:
• baby food in small containers, if baby/small child is traveling;
• essential nonprescription medications (e.g., contact lens saline solution,
eye care products), not to exceed 4 fluid ounces per container;
• liquids and gels for diabetic passengers, no greater than 8 fluid ounces
per container;
• gels, saline solutions, and other liquids used to augment portions of
body for medical/cosmetic reasons;
• life support/life sustaining liquids (e.g., bone marrow and blood
products.
________________
September 26, 2006: Liquids, gels, aerosols (not on prohibited items list
or considered hazardous materials) permitted in accessible property in 3-
fluid ounce bottles fit comfortably in one quart-size, clear plastic, zip-top
bag per passenger. Plastic bags screened by X-ray. Items purchased in
sterile area of airports permitted onboard aircraft.
________________
November 21, 2006: Same as the procedures implemented on
September 26, 2006, with the exception of the following:
Liquids, gels, and aerosols allowed in 3.4-fluid-ounce (100-milliliter) “travel
size” bottles.
________________
See: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07634.pdf (Pages 22 through 27)
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 12, 2008 4:54 PM
(2) Why do TSOs still confiscate (let's not play word games) toothpaste clearly under 3.4 fluid ounces in size because they weigh more then 3.4 ounces? Can we get some directives or training here?
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 12, 2008 4:36 PM
I can order a rock to jump every day for the rest of my life and the rock will not jump!
November 12, 2008 5:36 PM
@Phil: "Anon, are you a TSA spokesperson? If so what position do you hold at TSA?"
If he's not, he's surely drunk too much of the TSA Koolaid.
Security thru obscurity doesn't work.
Looking at encyrption, for example, the federal government uses algorithms that are completely open to protect even top secret information. Ever heard of AES? Completely open with the algorithm published, and incidentally, created by foreigners.
The strength of the situation is that it's completely open and subject to analysis. The fact of the matter is that if the underlying implementation is sound, it will be resistent to attacks even if the implementation is known. The other important thing is that the research will show if there's a weakness and it can either be fixed or go to a new system. The federal government will want to know if someone can break the system. If someone breaks the system, no one will use it anymore.
And so it is for the rest of security. Nothing TSA is doing is terribly secret. One can watch TSA do its thing day in and day out or even fly repeatedly and be observant. It's not rocket science.
Unfortunately, security thru obscurity relies on the hope that vulnerabilities will not be exposed. While vulnerabilities shouldn't be advertised, at the same time, pretending that another observer doesn't notice and using that as a security model is just ridiculous. If TSA can see the vulnerabilities in its system, a terrorist sure can too.
In TSA's case, security thru obscurity is being used to excuse institutional incompetence. It can't rein in its screeners and get them on the same page, so Kippie throws up his hands, calls it designed inconsistency, and the problem's "solved."
I don't doubt that the Intelligence Community is collecting information regarding threats to the US ... it's their job to do so. The biggest question is is the intel reliable? Sometimes it is, a lot of times it isn't. Remember how WMD's in Iraq were a slam dunk? We started a whole war on bad intel.
What I think is happening is TSA is sifting thru any intel that fits its agenda and uses that, probably often taking it out of context (gee, I never saw that happen before :rolleyes:) and I doubt if it's evaluating if it's even good intel. Of course, it's a garbage in, garbage out system. Base policy on bad intel and you get the garbage security we have today.
And of course, it's all the passengers' fault for not understanding and being good little sheep. Perhaps if TSA showed us some real security, was transparent and accountable and gave us something more than "just trust us" and gut feelings, maybe we'd believe you when you say something's a threat. You can only cry wolf so many times. All I see is an incompetent organization that provides security theater and tries to hide behind SSI when their incompetence is exposed.
Sorry, Anonymous at 3:34pm, I just don't buy it.
Al
November 12, 2008 8:11 PM
Anonymous writes:
Keeping the rules secret and changing them frequently and randomly is key to successfully implementing the TSA's Mission of improving aviation security by protecting its system from the Enemy.
Then, with all due respect, TSA should completely give up on asking passengers to
"know the rules". If TSA is going to keep the rules secret and change them randomly, then there's no way that passengers can be "an active partner in [the] security experience".
These measures may seem arbitrary, capricious, and even ridiculous when we encounter them at the checkpoint. But travelers need to know that they're seeing only a very tiny part of a big picture.
Except that we've seen that, in practice, the enforcement of these rules are in fact arbitrary, capricious, and ridiculous. How else can you explain situations where certain items are permitted at one checkpoint at the beginning of one's journey, but then prohibited at another checkpoint a few days later? How else can you explain TSOs who seemingly make up rules, like "all prescriptions must be labeled" (when TSA says "recommended, but not required")?
But the nature of the War we're fighting unfortunately means that even passengers who do everything they can to obey the published rules may still find that the TSO declares something they are carrying prohibited. When that happens, the passenger should not be angry or confrontational, but simply understand that the TSO is appropriately responding to the latest robust intelligence as necessary to protect the Homeland from a very dangerous threat.
With respect ... then TSOs should also not be angry or confrontational. In fact, TSOs should recognize and acknowledge that by prohibiting a particular item, they are causing at the minimum an inconvenience, and quite possibly financial loss, by their determination --- and respond with compassion to the passenger who must now suffer the consequences. We've heard way too many reports of TSOs who react otherwise.
None of those may be desirable options, but it is always necessary to put Country First and comply with the restriction rather than throwing a tantrum and delaying everyone else.
I'm sorry ... but "my country, right or wrong" is a lousy attitude. The Founding Fathers didn't put up with unreasonable rules and regulations imposed upon them by their government; they peacefully petitioned for a redress of their grievances. (And only when that didn't work did they start a war.) I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone start a revolution over bottled water, of course.
November 12, 2008 8:56 PM
Posted by anonymous:
These measures may seem arbitrary, capricious, and even ridiculous when we encounter them at the checkpoint. But travelers need to know that they're seeing only a very tiny part of a big picture.
...
The TSA realizes that this Security Strategy may have the unavoidable effect of causing confusion, frustration, inconvenience, and expense for many passengers. Of necessity, the published rules are merely guidelines. Their actual (classified) implementation is always subject to change and interpretation by checkpoint officials who are continually updated
...
When that happens, the passenger should not be angry or confrontational, but simply understand that the TSO is appropriately responding to the latest robust intelligence as necessary to protect the Homeland from a very dangerous threat.
Are you trying to be sarcastic? (TSA is so ludicrous that it's hard to tell.) Read what you just wrote. If you're being serious (and I've no doubt that this is how TSA feels), you've just created a situation where all passengers are subject to the arbitrary whims of TSOs with no effective means of redress.
TSOs at a checkpoint could decide that diamond earrings are forbidden, and pax shouldn't be "angry and confrontational?"
TSOs at a checkpoint could decide that a pax must submit to a strip search, and pax shouldn't be "angry and confrontational?"
(BTW, there have been actual reports of TSOs doing or attempting to do both of these things.)
Secret laws don't work in a free society. There should be a prohibited items list and a posted policy on screenings. Any deviation from that should subject TSA and the TSO to criminal or civil penalties in a public court. That wouldn't prevent TSA from doing random screenings (e.g., random secondaries or ETD swabs), but it would prevent arbitrary and capricious invasive searches and property confiscation.
BTW, pax *do* need to get angry and confrontational. If enough pax stood up to rude and power-tripping TSOs and supervisors at the checkpoint, their jobs might become so miserable that enough would quit and give TSA a real manpower problem. If enough angry pax sued TSA, hired lawyers, and complained bitterly to the government, something might happen. Anger and confrontation are exactly what this out-of-control agency needs until they get their ID-obsessed, liquid-confiscating, elder-abusing, disabled-abusing, baggage-stealing paws out of our lives. :(
November 12, 2008 9:00 PM
Paul, how many credit hours did you knock down in double speak?
Words have meaning, the article says one thing and you are saying something else entirely!
November 12, 2008 9:15 PM
An anonymous TSA shill wrote, on November 12 at 3:34 PM:
These measures may seem arbitrary, capricious, and even ridiculous when we encounter them at the checkpoint. But travelers need to know that they're seeing only a very tiny part of a big picture. We need to be aware that the apparent inexplicable randomness and inconsistency they see at checkpoints is actually part of a well coordinated, carefully conceived, meticulously implemented Security Strategy that has been repeatedly proved highly effective in numerous cases that must necessarily remain classified.
In other words, as the used car salesman said, "Truuuuust me!"
The TSA is the most hated government agency in the United States, displacing the IRS from the perch it's long held. Statements and policies like this, along wiht a corporate, ingrained refusal to accept that they might possibly be in error, are the reason why.
The TSA realizes that this Security Strategy may have the unavoidable effect of causing confusion, frustration, inconvenience, and expense for many passengers. Of necessity, the published rules are merely guidelines. Their actual (classified) implementation is always subject to change and interpretation by checkpoint officials who are continually updated with the latest robust classified intelligence. Scrupulously following the guidelines is thus the best a passenger can do to reduce the likelihood of an unexpected unpleasant checkpoint experience. But the nature of the War we're fighting unfortunately means that even passengers who do everything they can to obey the published rules may still find that the TSO declares something they are carrying prohibited.
In other words, the screener can make up the rules as he goes along, and there's nothing that we can do about it, so we should just accept the arbitrary, capricious decision and go on about our business.
Sorry, but while that may be how people are forced to live in a totalitarian society, that's not the way America works.
We need to always recognize that what TSOs tell us to do is necessary to protect aviation as part of a highly effective system. And that national security usually requires that the valid reasons behind the decision remain unknown to us and to the enemy. With that in mind, the appropriate response should always be rapid and cheerful compliance. Rather than grumbling, complaining, and demanding "change," understanding and gratitude would make the checkpoint screening experience more pleasant for everyone involved.
The appropriate response to a mugger who points a gun in our faces and demands out wallet should be cheerful compliance, too, I'm guessing you would have us say. Sorry, but when the government, in the person of the TSA screener (sorry, but anyone who demands the ability to arbitrarily and capriciously take our property with no recourse at all does not deserve the term "officer"), says that the rules have changed yet again and while the medication that costs thousands of dollars is acceptable, but the gel pack that keeps it from being destroyed is not, and he's backed up with the full force and power of the United States Government, "understanding and gratitude" are going to be in very short supply.
The failure of passengers to understand the above is the reason for nearly all unpleasant incidents and stress at airport checkpoints.
No. The failure of the TSA to understand the needs of the traveling public that it serves is the reason.
The arguments our anonymous shill makes are those of a secret state police force, not an agency that serves the citizens of the United States. The results of last week's election distress me greatly, but the one bright spot I can find is that maybe, just maybe, the TSA will become an American institution instead of a modern-day Gestapo.
November 12, 2008 10:36 PM
This anonymous said "Letting us know the rules we're required to follow would also let al-Qaeda know those rules, enabling them to exploit gaps and weaknesses and severely compromising security. Keeping the rules secret and changing them frequently and randomly is key to successfully implementing the TSA's Mission of improving aviation security by protecting its system from the Enemy.
Remember that Kip has repeatedly stated that "unpredictability is a key security strategy of the TSA." Randomness and unpredictability keep the enemy continually off balance. They are highly effective tools that enable the TSA to adapt to a changing threat and always remain one step ahead of a resourceful and very dangerous terrorist enemy and keep the Homeland safe. Rather than complaining endlessly, we should be grateful for the randomness and inconsistency because it is highly effective in protecting our Homeland and our children from the enemy."
### and ###
"The important thing we need to know is how we should comport ourselves when a TSO makes an unexpected decision. We need to always recognize that what TSOs tell us to do is necessary to protect aviation as part of a highly effective system. And that national security usually requires that the valid reasons behind the decision remain unknown to us and to the enemy. With that in mind, the appropriate response should always be rapid and cheerful compliance. Rather than grumbling, complaining, and demanding "change," understanding and gratitude would make the checkpoint screening experience more pleasant for everyone involved. And given the difficult task the TSOs have, a gracious word of "thanks for protecting America" would be appropriate after after you've finished complying.
The failure of passengers to understand the above is the reason for nearly all unpleasant incidents and stress at airport checkpoints. The sooner passengers gain that understanding (and the appreciation of the TSA that comes with it), the sooner we'll have the "evolution checkpoint" the TSA is working to implement."
###########
Seriously? You expect people to believe this tripe? TSA's randomness policy makes me think of Inspector Clouseau's "Everything I do is carefully planned" or Monty Python's Spanish Inquistion: "Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency....
Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...
and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...." Trying to tell me that the confiscation of my gel pack and the subsequent spoilage of 13 oz of breast milk and crying was clever planning and masterful execution by a crack team of security geniuses is is... there are no words.
I think TSA's security is managed about as well as a Little Rascals escapade: "That's so crazy it just might work!!!"
At your absolute very best, if all your clever plans work perfectly and you keep 100% of your bomb carrying suicidal terrorists from flying, the most you could do is divert them to attack something else, like your conveniently crowded checkpoints.
After watching my wife cry as we poured out 13 oz of spoiled breastmilk due to your STL TSO supervisor's "unexpected decision" to confiscate our gel pack, I will not give TSA "rapid and cheerful compliance". I thought TSA was near useless before that, but the more I look into it, the more I think TSA is actively damaging to the USA. Each day you burn another 2,800,000 person-hours taking peoples unbaggied lipsticks and 1" penknives is a day those 9/11 terrorists can laough at us.
November 12, 2008 10:48 PM
Yet more wasted time and money that does nothing to add to security at all. Someone needs to take the drugs and koolaid from washington
To the Anonymous poster with the comment timestamp November 12, 2008 3:34 PM.
Im sorry you are very wrong on so many levels but using your logic, then you wouldnt have a problem if a cop came into your house throughly ransacked it, destroying nearly everything and you wouldnt have a problem with it? Then to do it randomly in the future without cause or warrent (and or random stops on the road at work) I seriously doubt it. To quote Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" This is exactly what is going on now in the US, and the madness has got to stop.
The inconsitantly inconsistant is Bravo sierra and everyone knows it, plus Hawley doesnt even have a security or counter terrorism background all of the madness today has been reactionary to threats that are so remote the odds of lightening strike twice. The liquids Threat is pure BS and has been proved many times over. even in the British trial scientists admitted that the compounds used where so unstable that they all had to be done via a robot there where so dangerous. That and the smell would give it away, but then lets not forget the volume of ICE and time needed to mix all of this as well. If you had a background in chemistry and physics you would understand this, but you seem like the rest of the kettles that TSA wants to Terrorise into submission, and take them for there word. Sorry I dont by it, but then again my knowledge of chemistry and physics would shock and possibly cause a fatal result.
you want hard numbers, in there terms of time (Theatre secuity and lost productivity), money and man power TSA causes more damage each year then 9/11 ever did. how many billion is TSA budget this year, because the economy has sufferred much more damage.
TSA till you come to your senses, show some intelligence, raise your standards from thug to professional, and post the rules that travelers are expected to follow, and not change them at the drop of a hat or make them up on the fly you will encounter resistance like this. Now that there is a new president who wants to make a change, maybe he will listen to the people instead of the establishment.
November 12, 2008 11:10 PM
Since the link to my previous comment above only works one out of three time on a good day (and this is the permalink provided BY THIS BLOG), I've decided that I must instead repeat my comment to a previous EoS post in it's entirety...
________________
Tomas said...
Annie, Guest EoS Blogger, wrote...
Our goal is to try to provide travelers with dedicated screening lanes based on their needs, including "black diamond" lanes for frequent fliers who know the drill and "green" lanes for families and those with special needs who need a little more time to go through security.
Hi, Annie. I understand the desire to separate those who are "quick like a bunny" from those who plod through the line like the tortoise, and it is a good move.
There is one problem that has totally dropped out of the thought and planning that went into this.
I am a handicapped individual.
Yes, I can stand, walk, sit, remove shoes, carry my minimal carry-on valuables, put my shoes back on, and eventually get to my plane, possibly with a number of rest stops along the way.
The problem is that standing or walking for longer periods is not only tiring, but eventually causes great pain.
For this reason, even though I'm not a "frequent traveler" nor a fast mover, I most definitely need to be in a lane that does not overtax my limited abilities by forcing long standing waits.
I also absolutely need a place to SIT to remove shoes and another place to SIT to put them back on. I'm no longer able to hop about on one foot with the other raised to remove a shoe, nor am I able to bend to remove my shoes while both feet are on the floor.
(I won't even get into having my cane taken from me then being yelled at when I touch the edge of the walk-through metal detector to maintain balance while trying to hobble through.)
I don't need some airline attendant pushing me in a wheelchair (I spent three years in a wheelchair, and I've fought my way OUT), but I do need minimal standing times, a place to sit while removing and replacing shoes, and some consideration that my speed of movement is somewhat less than optimum.
Missing the needs of the handicapped when planning seems often to be caused by everyone involved in the planning being hale and hearty. Not only are those directly involved not handicapped, those who ARE handicapped are seldom asked.
Planning is often done with little to no consideration to those people you ignore, or look the other way to avoid eye contact with (you know you do, be honest), and their needs are only addressed, if at all, AFTER the plan has gone into effect and the handicapped are causing problems with your nice plan because they are physically unable to comply.
Rather than worrying about what color lane I "belong in" because of my speed or lack thereof, I am more concerned with the length of time I will be forced to stand and the availability of seating for the shoe circus.
Is there a special 'purple with green polkadots cloverleaf lane' set up for those with limitations - or at least one clearly and plainly marked with the blue international handicapped symbol? http://www.ada.gov/
So far, I've not seen one.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
September 24, 2008 4:01 PM
________________
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 13, 2008 4:57 AM
"(2) Why do TSOs still confiscate (let's not play word games) toothpaste clearly under 3.4 fluid ounces in size because they weigh more then 3.4 ounces? Can we get some directives or training here?"
Just do what I do, and travel with your toothpaste in your pants pocket. It is the duty of patriots to defy TSA in any way possible.
November 13, 2008 8:45 AM
Anonymous on November 12, 2008 4:49 PM
There is no contradiction. My original post states: "If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you SHOULD use the Family Lane."
It doesn't say you are required to.
- Paul
November 13, 2008 9:05 AM
To Phil regarding the "effectively burried" comment involving discussion of Communism and the Cold War:
You've posted the same thing (word for word) several times already on various posts throughout the TSA blog. We don't publish comments that are exactly the same word for word (unless we miss it by mistake).
Rewrite it a bit and I'll put it up. I just don't want the same thing over and over again.
- Paul
November 13, 2008 9:10 AM
@anonymous-"I am for a TOTAL LIQUID BAN. So is every BAO I have talked to. I saw the UK article of the plane with a 6' hole blown in the side by items that got past the checkpoint."
Cite, please. And I would like to point you towards the Pacific to look at Japan, which does not ban liquids on domestic flights. No incidents at all.
"I think allowing larger volumes of liquids thru is just asking for trouble. All the 'bad-guy' needs to say is "it's medicine" and he gets a pass on his bomb making materials."
Again, Japan. They've used liquid scanners for a while now (have a good look at the webpage to see how long it's been around and you'll realize why a 2009/2010 implementation date is insane). TSA should have gotten them the same time as Japan; I can only imagine what silliness prevented them from doing so.
"I think it is sad, we are charged with keeping bad things from getting on the planes, yet we seem to be making it easier because people have whined about the inconvienience of security."
Not to belabor the point, but, Japan. Over there boarding a domestic flight is easier than it is here (heck, you get to the airport half an hour before departure there and you have plenty of time to spare), but with less trouble, criminal acts by screeners, theft, etc.
November 13, 2008 9:11 AM
Anonymous at November 12, 2008 4:42 PM
This additional screening will be available in every lane; however, TSOs may need to walk over to the Family Lane, grab the proper equipment, and bring it back to your lane. This will certainly hold up the line in the "Expert/Casual Travler" lanes. So you probably don't want to be that guy. But you are certainly not required to go through Family Lane.
November 13, 2008 9:17 AM
Paul: "There is no contradiction. My original post states: "If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you SHOULD use the Family Lane."
It doesn't say you are required to."
The page describing the family lane program says:
"Individuals carrying medically necessary liquids, aerosols and gels in excess of three ounces will also be directed to these popular lanes."
What will happen if we don't follow that direction? I suspect it'll result in the same thing as not following any other TSA "direction" (which should really be phrased as "order"): the screener will loudly and belligerently command that we obey, right now, and refuse to do anything else until the order is complied with.
That sure seems like "required to" to me.
Oh, and BTW, when will you folks fix (or get Google to fix) not being able to comment from a Mac?
November 13, 2008 9:27 AM
Hey, my comment was taken down!!
I was the guy who said if TSA is capable of screening liquids they should have been doing it all along. That it should be in every lane. That limiting the liquids to medically necessary is illogical, and the TSA needs to use some common sense in its policy-making.
Why is my comment gone?? Couldn't take valid criticism?
November 13, 2008 9:55 AM
Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team said...
This additional screening will be available in every lane; however, TSOs may need to walk over to the Family Lane, grab the proper equipment, and bring it back to your lane. This will certainly hold up the line in the "Expert/Casual Travler" lanes. So you probably don't want to be that guy. But you are certainly not required to go through Family Lane.
=========================
Or the TSA could have additional testing equipment at every lane because of the increased number of passengers. So the lanes don't slow down. Instead of trying to blame the passengers for the delays.
To be honest Paul your statement is nothing more than the standard "we won't have these problems if the passengers would follow the rules". Is it really that difficult for the TSA to have addtional testing supplies during holiday travel periods. They seem to happen the same time every year so the TSA has plenty of time to plan.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6 who post
November 13, 2008 10:22 AM
"We need to always recognize that what TSOs tell us to do is necessary to protect aviation as part of a highly effective system."
Shut up and do what you are told. It is for your own good.
If you don't, then the terrists win.
November 13, 2008 10:24 AM
Why won't the equipment needed to screen medical liquids be available in every lane?
Again, most of us who are carrying large medically necessary liquids are doing so because the items are not available (at any price) in 100mL or less sizes. It's not that we're trying to get away with anything, or are being cheap, or because the TSA says we can have large sizes.
By creating a double inconvenience (subjecting these items to a new screening process and by making that screening convenient only to people who are in the "family" lane), TSA is basically penalizing us for something that is entirely out of our control.
Have I contacted manufacturers of products and pleaded with them to make the items I have to carry in 100mL or less sizes? Yep. But I don't have any control over the manufacturing process.
The best option available to me is to significantly cut back on the most lucrative travel I do, which is business travel. The more inconvenient TSA makes travelling, the less people who have a choice will choose to do so.
November 13, 2008 11:23 AM
Paul @ "There is no contradiction. My original post states: "If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you SHOULD use the Family Lane."
It doesn't say you are required to."
So, SHOULD someone flying with a saline-filled prosthetic breast for non-medically necessary COSMETIC reasons use the family lane?
What are they REQUIRED to do? Pull the prosthetic breast out and present it to the to the security officer in front of the checkpoint?
November 13, 2008 11:52 AM
"This additional screening will be available in every lane; however, TSOs may need to walk over to the Family Lane, grab the proper equipment, and bring it back to your lane. This will certainly hold up the line in the "Expert/Casual Travler" lanes. So you probably don't want to be that guy. But you are certainly not required to go through Family Lane."
Thank you for this information. As a patriot, I welcome ANY opportunity to inconvenience TSA employees and make their days a little more miserable, and will be sure to do this whenever I fly from now on.
November 13, 2008 12:15 PM
Following are questions I have asked in this comment thread along with any answers that have been provided.
Q: Where can we read the official version of this new policy? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated)
A: no answer
Q: Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)? (asked)
A: No, TSA has not published such a list of rules it requires us to follow. Paul is working on it. Paul wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational."
Q: Why won't TSA show us the rules we're required to follow? (asked)
A: TSA has not responded, but others suggest that TSA refuses to show us the rules they require us to follow because we knew how to follow the rules, then criminals who wish to do harm on airplanes could also follow the rules, and it is preferable to let them break the rules so that they can be identified. We await a response from TSA.
Q: When Paul wrote that after November 20th, passengers carrying medically-necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 oz. should use the family lane, did he mean that this behavior is required or only suggested? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated)
A: It is only suggested. Paul wrote, "As I said before, since you can choose your lane, it's not a requirement."
Q: In response to a question from TSA staff about the lack of training for this new TSA airport checkpoint liquids policy just nine days before it goes into affect, Paul wrote, "The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane." Even assuming that Paul's prediction, based on TSA's suggestion that certain people use the "family lane", is valid, is this the only difference between current liquids policy and that which will go into effect November 20? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: Paul wrote that medically-necessary liquids include baby formula, breast milk, insulin, cough syrup, contact lens solutions, and prescription medications. Is that an exhaustive list or do other liquids qualify as medically-necessary? (asked)
A: The list is not exhaustive. Paul wrote, "Medically necessary liquids include (but are not limited to) all of the aforementioned."
Q: Paul ambiguously wrote that "these liquids" must be presented to a TSA officer for additional screening. Was he referring to liquids listed in his preceding sentence or all medically-necessary liquids? Any that are contained in vessels with volumes greater than 3 oz? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: How can travelers discover what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in the context of TSA's airport checkpoint regulations? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: In response to a question from TSA staff about the lack of training for this new TSA airport checkpoint liquids policy just nine days before it goes into affect, Paul wrote, "The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane." Even assuming that Paul's prediction, based on TSA's suggestion that certain people use the "family lane", is valid, is this the only difference between current liquids policy and that which will go into effect November 20? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: Paul wrote, "[TSA officers] should already know how to screen medically exempt liquids." What is a medically-exempt liquid? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: Several commenters mentioned the confusion between TSA's restriction on the size of containers for liquids to be carried through an airport checkpoint. Sometimes this limit is said to be 3 oz., sometimes it is said to be 3.4 oz., and a TSA TSO who regularly posts comments to this blog has explained that the official policy is that no liquids are allowed, but that in practice this rule is not enforced. What should we take as the official word on this topic -- what has been written on this blog, what TSA has published elsewhere on its Web site, or what a TSA TSO reports? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: Paul wrote that certain liquids "must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening." How can we distingquish between a TSA officer and other TSA staff? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: In what manner must applicable liquids be presented to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: Does handing over to TSA staff all of the belongings we are carrying -- including those which contain liquids -- so that a TSA bag checker can search them qualify as presentation of liquids to a TSA officer as required by the new policy? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take medically-necessary liquids through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take liquids that are not medically-necessary through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 13, 2008 12:21 PM
From a risk management standpoint, directing all medically necessary liquids that exceed the 3-1-1 limits to a dedicated lane makes sense. This move is the first step in the path forward on liquids that Kip Hawley wrote about last month
................................................
Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team said...
Anonymous on November 12, 2008 4:49 PM
There is no contradiction. My original post states: "If you’re flying after November 20th and carrying medically necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 ounces, you SHOULD use the Family Lane."
It doesn't say you are required to.
- Paul
November 13, 2008 9:05 AM
Well Poster Paul, you have been caught up in a quandry. One paragraph disagrees with another paragraph in the same article.
Both cannot be true and the one that states that all medically necessary liquids will be in a dedicated lane was made by Kip, your boss.
So are you now overruling the head of your agency?
That is moving up the chain of command rather quickly!
November 13, 2008 12:57 PM
Jay Maynard wrote:
"when will you folks fix (or get Google to fix) not being able to comment from a Mac?"
Note: Comments aren't working from Firefox 3.0.3 on GNU/Linux, either.
Jay, if you can manage to find the post ID for a given post, you can still use the old comment page. Use "http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2336044328955501444&postID" + post-id
It's unfortunate that a publicly-owned service like this effectively requires users to purchase bloated, buggy, expensive software from a criminal monopoly.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 13, 2008 1:13 PM
"From a risk management standpoint, directing all medically necessary liquids that exceed the 3-1-1 limits to a dedicated lane makes sense."
Paul the sentence above is pretty clear that only one lane will be used for these types of liquids. However your statement that we can select which ever lane we want seems to disagree with the sentence above.
So which is it? One lane or any lane. Please support your statement with some evidence such as the policy directive that was developed for this new rule.
November 13, 2008 1:48 PM
Paul:
Just to be clear, the LIMIT is 3.4 ounces, NOT 3.0 ounces. That has lead to alot of discussion in many of the threads recently, and to avoid confusion I think its important that the statement should read "if you are traveling after November 20 and are carrying liquids in excess of 3.4 ounces". Because the 3-1-1 posters were never updated, this is a sore spot among many posters on this blog.
November 13, 2008 2:14 PM
Just a quick question. Does TSA have an "internal affairs" department?
With reports of dishonest TSO's and now crooked Air Marshalls I have to wonder who is protecting us from you people.
Something is very wrong within your agency.
November 13, 2008 2:27 PM
Yang08j said:
"Again, Japan. They've used liquid scanners for a while now (have a good look at the webpage to see how long it's been around and you'll realize why a 2009/2010 implementation date is insane). TSA should have gotten them the same time as Japan; I can only imagine what silliness prevented them from doing so."
--
Hey Yang, that link looks interesting. Is there an English-language version of that page?
November 13, 2008 3:16 PM
I posted the anonymous question (November 10, 2008 3:36 PM) expressing my concern about my injectable medication. Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team "addressed" it thus on November 12, 2008 3:35 PM:
It's pretty clear from the situation you described that everything you mentioned is medically necessary. The TSA Officer should recognize that fact and let everything go through after screening the items to the best of their ability without damaging anything.
-----
I responded to Paul yesterday, but I haven't seen it here. I'll try again, this time with what I hope is a cooler and more respectful comment that the moderators will accept.
Paul, you didn't answer my question. I'm quite aware of what TSOs should do. But as I noted, I'm afraid of the substantial consequences I would suffer if the TSO who happens to "process" me is one who doesn't do what TSOs should do. I have read enough examples of unpleasant encounters with exactly that sort of TSO here and elsewhere. And I've personally experienced TSOs imposing "unpublished" rules at checkpoints. That's enough to feel that I'm justified in my fear. The actual odds of encountering a TSO who doesn't do what he or she "should" may be small, but the consequences if it does happen are significant enough to make it a real risk. I have dealt with that risk by only taking trips of a week or less, so that my medication isn't an issue. I would like to take longer trips, but my fear of the TSA has prevented me from doing so.
I suspect that choosing the "family lane" may reduce the chances of having problems, since that's where (I assume) I'd find TSOs who are most experienced in dealing with "exceptions." But that's only my speculation.
But the response I got (quoted above) did nothing to address my concerns. I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from it. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I think it's most likely that it reflects a well-intentioned but overworked TSA employee who wanted to acknowledge my post but didn't have time for anything more than a curt response. Or it could reflect a belief that my concerns are misguided, ignorant, or irrelevant and thus merit summary dismissal. I just don't know. But I do know that such a non-response does nothing to correct the common impression among travelers that the TSA has utter contempt for us. It certainly doesn't do anything to improve the serious public relations problem the TSA has.
It seems that my only recourse is to continue limiting my travel so I can avoid this particular difficulty.
November 13, 2008 3:53 PM
Also, it looks like the additional screening has already started at MSP. I just went through a checkpoint here (about 20 minutes ago as I type this), and was ordered to take the medication syringe out of the cooler I keep it in for screening; the screener took it off to one side for ETD.
________________________________________________
No TSO should be touching someones syringe. It is not our business what is inside of your syring. I could see them testing the entire cooler because of ice packs (if you had them), but there is no reason to remove a syring from anyones belongings. There are so many cases where TSO's do things that just baffle me. Things that make no sense at all. For example, taking away someones ice packs for babys milk. I am a TSO and I know better than to make such idiotic decisions. I have seen it myself, its not that TSO's are making up rules as they go, its that they are not smart enough to interpret the actual rule.
November 13, 2008 4:58 PM
Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team said...
Anonymous at November 12, 2008 4:42 PM
This additional screening will be available in every lane; however, TSOs may need to walk over to the Family Lane, grab the proper equipment, and bring it back to your lane. This will certainly hold up the line in the "Expert/Casual Travler" lanes. So you probably don't want to be that guy. But you are certainly not required to go through Family Lane.
November 13, 2008 9:17 AM
\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////
Paul your statement that any lane will be acceptable disagrees with the posting.
Please resovle the differences.
November 13, 2008 5:23 PM
So can I now claim my 700ml bottle of high-value Scotch as being 'medicinal' and bring it through the checkpoint (like what I witnessed in the SEA southern security line) or will it be confiscated 'for security reasons' (like in ORD)and most likely be consumed later?
November 13, 2008 6:09 PM
Oh, and I do have a question of my own that I'd like answered- why has the TSA only just now started planning on implementation of liquids scanning when the technology has been available for at least 2 years prior to the liquids terror plot?
November 13, 2008 6:53 PM
"As a patriot, I welcome ANY opportunity to inconvenience TSA employees and make their days a little more miserable, and will be sure to do this whenever I fly from now on."
Comrade, a TSO with that 'tude would suck and should be fired.
Your petty crap will have little effect on the people with the badges who have "their lives on the front line" and who are "only following orders".
You'll just end up delaying others.
Go for the head. Get rid of the apparatchicks.
Work for reform from the top down through your legislators.
November 14, 2008 8:08 AM
Ah yes. The clueless making changes without fully understanding the full ramifications of their actions. In some airports this is a physical impossibility due to under staffing of TSOs, lack of WTMD (due to physical constraints of the airport), and lack of equipment.
TSA really needs to get some people with commonsense to evaluate these half baked plans before the plans go live on the American people.
We're travelers, not lab rats and resent the inability of those in charge to fully think through policies.
November 14, 2008 8:41 AM
Phil on November 13, 2008 12:21 PM
"Q: Where can we read the official version of this new policy? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated)"
A: All new policies will eventually be posted on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm It just takes us a little time to update the page after a press release is issued.
"Q: Why won't TSA show us the rules we're required to follow? (asked)"
A: This goes back to your previous question about publishing "a list of all the rules and regulations." Again still working on it. Ultimate goal is to have everything on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm Ideally when a press release is issued, the aforementioned webpage will updated same day.
"Q: In response to a question from TSA staff about the lack of training for this new TSA airport checkpoint liquids policy just nine days before it goes into affect, Paul wrote, "The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane." Even assuming that Paul's prediction, based on TSA's suggestion that certain people use the "family lane", is valid, is this the only difference between current liquids policy and that which will go into effect November 20?"
A: Yes
"Q: Paul ambiguously wrote that "these liquids" must be presented to a TSA officer for additional screening. Was he referring to liquids listed in his preceding sentence or all medically-necessary liquids? Any that are contained in vessels with volumes greater than 3 oz? (asked)"
A: All medically-necessary liquids.
"Q: How can travelers discover what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in the context of TSA's airport checkpoint regulations? (asked)
Q: What is a medically-exempt liquid?"
A: I'd love to give you an exact definition, but the best I can do is point you to this page: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1059.shtm
"Q: Several commenters mentioned the confusion between TSA's restriction on the size of containers for liquids to be carried through an airport checkpoint. Sometimes this limit is said to be 3 oz., sometimes it is said to be 3.4 oz., and a TSA TSO who regularly posts comments to this blog has explained that the official policy is that no liquids are allowed, but that in practice this rule is not enforced. What should we take as the official word on this topic -- what has been written on this blog, what TSA has published elsewhere on its Web site, or what a TSA TSO reports? (asked)"
A: 3.4 ounces. Seriously. For real. No joke. The inconsistency in my article was brought upon by an internal effort to keep the "3-1-1" brand consistent--which is admittedly confusing.
"Q: Paul wrote that certain liquids "must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening." How can we distingquish between a TSA officer and other TSA staff? (asked)"
A: The term TSA officer is a catch-all term referring to TSOs and BDOs. I should have been more specific and said TSOs (they're the guys screening your carry-ons).
"Q: In what manner must applicable liquids be presented to a TSA officer? (asked)"
A: I'm guessing this question is coming from a fear of TSOs reacting negatively to passengers pulling things out of their carry-on at the checkpoint. There is no official policy on the manner in which you present your medically-necessary liquids, but it would probably be a good idea to give the TSO a heads up before you place your bag on the conveyor belt.
"Q: Does handing over to TSA staff all of the belongings we are carrying -- including those which contain liquids -- so that a TSA bag checker can search them qualify as presentation of liquids to a TSA officer as required by the new policy? (asked)"
A: Yes
- Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team
November 14, 2008 9:18 AM
Anonymous on November 13, 2008 9:55 AM
I deleted your comment because you used profanity.
November 14, 2008 9:22 AM
Anonymous, November 13, 2008, 4:58 PM:
I am a TSO and I know better than to make such idiotic decisions. I have seen it myself, its not that TSO's are making up rules as they go, its that they are not smart enough to interpret the actual rule.
Finally...someone from the TSA who has the guts to admit that the TSA is made up of humans who make mistakes!!
If the checkpoint supervisors and TSA managers at airports would just learn how to do this, and admit that occasionally they do make mistakes and correct them then and there, the TSA would have far fewer problems with passengers. As things stand, however, the TSA refuses to admit anything at all, even in cases where they're obviously, badly, egregiously wrong (remember the woman with the nipple ring?). That attitude just causes those of us on the other side of the X-ray machine to become ever more defensive and confrontational.
November 14, 2008 10:19 AM
Paul, maybe you missed my question about who makes the determination of "medical necessity" here, but your answer to Phil doesn't answer my question.
#########################
Paul @ "Q: What is a medically-exempt liquid?"
A: I'd love to give you an exact definition, but the best I can do is point you to this page: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1059.shtm
####################
That page doesn't explain who makes the determination of "medical neccessity" A doctor? A patient? Or a TSA TSO pretending some skill in medicine?
If want to take a 1 liter bottle of a homeopathic remedy containing a 30X potency of BPA to protect me from toxic airplane air, what do I need to do?
If other medicines are not required to be labeled, I'd rather avoid explaining homeopathy to some random TSO who thinks he knows more about medicine than a trained homeopath.
Who makes the determination of "medical necessity"?
November 14, 2008 11:02 AM
Following are questions I have asked in this comment thread along with any answers that have been provided. (Updated November 14, 2008, with new information provided by Paul during the past 24 hours.)
Q: Where can we read the official version of this new policy? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated)
A: We are not allowed to read the official version of this new policy. TSA states that all new policies will someday be published on TSA's "Area for Travelers" page, but makes no commitment to doing so in a timely manner. Paul wrote, "All new policies will eventually be posted on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm It just takes us a little time to update the page after a press release is issued."
Q: Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)? (asked)
A: No, TSA has not published such a list of rules it requires us to follow. Paul is working on it. Paul wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational."
Q: Why won't TSA show us the rules we're required to follow? (asked)
A: no answer, but others suggest that TSA refuses to show us the rules they require us to follow because we knew how to follow the rules, then criminals who wish to do harm on airplanes could also follow the rules, and it is preferable to let them break the rules so that they can be identified. Paul wrote that they're "working on it", that the "ultimate goal" is to have all TSA rules and regulations published on TSA's "Area for Travelers" page, and that ideally, when a TSA press release is issued (presumably one describing a change in the rules that travelers are required to follow) that page will be updated on the same day. TSA has not commented on why they have yet to show us the new rule they announced almost a week ago.
Q: When Paul wrote that after November 20th, passengers carrying medically-necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 oz. should use the family lane, did he mean that this behavior is required or only suggested? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated)
A: It is only suggested. Paul wrote, "As I said before, since you can choose your lane, it's not a requirement."
Q: In response to a question from TSA staff about the lack of training for this new TSA airport checkpoint liquids policy just nine days before it goes into affect, Paul wrote, "The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane." Even assuming that Paul's prediction, based on TSA's suggestion that certain people use the "family lane", is valid, is this the only difference between current liquids policy and that which will go into effect November 20? (asked)
A: unclear - Paul wrote "yes" but this answer conflicts with other information provided by TSA. Presumably, a simple change like "we'll begin to suggest that people who wish to carry liquids through a TSA airport checkpoint use the `family lane' in airports where such a lane is available" would warrant little discussion and fanfare. We await clarification.
Q: Paul wrote that medically-necessary liquids include baby formula, breast milk, insulin, cough syrup, contact lens solutions, and prescription medications. Is that an exhaustive list or do other liquids qualify as medically-necessary? (asked)
A: The list is not exhaustive. Paul wrote, "Medically necessary liquids include (but are not limited to) all of the aforementioned."
Q: Paul ambiguously wrote that "these liquids" must be presented to a TSA officer for additional screening. Was he referring to liquids listed in his preceding sentence or all medically-necessary liquids? Any that are contained in vessels with volumes greater than 3 oz? (asked)
A: He meant that all "medically-necessary" liquids must be presented. Paul wrote, "All medically-necessary liquids."
Q: How can travelers discover what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in the context of TSA's airport checkpoint regulations? (asked)
A: no answer - Though we have not confirmed that it is impossible for travelers to do so, Paul wrote that while he would like to answer, he cannot.
Q: Paul wrote, "[TSA officers] should already know how to screen medically exempt liquids." What is a medically-exempt liquid? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that while he would like to answer, he cannot.
Q: Several commenters mentioned the confusion between TSA's restriction on the size of containers for liquids to be carried through an airport checkpoint. Sometimes this limit is said to be 3 oz., sometimes it is said to be 3.4 oz., and a TSA TSO who regularly posts comments to this blog has explained that the official policy is that no liquids are allowed, but that in practice this rule is not enforced. What should we take as the official word on this topic -- what has been written on this blog, what TSA has published elsewhere on its Web site, or what a TSA TSO reports? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that 3.4oz is the real limit, but made no mention of which TSA source of information should be trusted when TSA provides conflicting information about carrying liquids across a TSA airport checkpoint. He stated that in this case, conflicting information was intentionally provided as a result of TSA marketing/PR efforts. We await an answer.
Q: Paul wrote that certain liquids "must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening." How can we distingquish between a TSA officer and other TSA staff? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that "TSA officer" is used to refer to either Transportation Security Officer (TSO) or Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). He also suggested that the previously-communicated directive was inaccurate. He did not mention how we can differenciate between the people to whom we are required to present liquids and any other TSA staff. We await an answer.
Q: In what manner must applicable liquids be presented to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: unclear - Paul wrote that this is undefined, but did not clarify what TSA requires of passengers in order to avoid having their freedom of motion restricted at a TSA airport checkpoint.
Q: Does handing over to TSA staff all of the belongings we are carrying -- including those which contain liquids -- so that a TSA bag checker can search them qualify as presentation of liquids to a TSA officer as required by the new policy? (asked)
A: Yes. Liquids need not be removed from belongings which have been surrendered for search by TSA at a TSA airport checkpoint. Paul wrote, "yes".
Q: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take medically-necessary liquids through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take liquids that are not medically-necessary through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 14, 2008 11:46 AM
@ Poster Paul:
This is anon 9:55 AM
Why was the post allowed to go up in the first place then? Geez, get it together. You idiots can't even moderate properly. I don't even remember using any profanity... what word was it, may I ask?
So... since my comment is gone, I will do my best to re-iterate what it said, and maybe poster Paul you could stop censoring and start answering some questions.
Question 1)
If you can detect explosives in liquids, why hasn't this ability been rolled out to every lane? (And... why weren't you doing it from the get-go instead of inconveniencing millions of law abiding people) If the answer is a lack of equipment, I would ask what is being prioritized in the budget OVER explosives detection, especially since explosives are an explicit part of TSA's mandate.
Question 2)
Why are you limiting your liquids screening to medically necessary liquids? Presumably if your equipment can reliably detect dangerous liquid, it shouldn't matter what the traveller says is in the bottle.
Question 3)
Why did questions 1 and 2 occur to me, a humble traveler, and not to TSA, a group of professionals charged with our safety?
November 14, 2008 12:35 PM
Paul, could you please restate completely whatever it was that you intended to announce in this post?
It seemed that there were some major changes coming, but now you've told us that 1) TSA is just going to start suggesting that people who are carrying liquids go through the green lane, and 2) there's no longer any need to remove containers of liquids from luggage before having it searched.
Also, it's rather confusing to say that we must "present liquids to [someone from TSA]" when we're already required to hand over all our luggage so you can search it, and that constitutes the presentation to TSA of any liquids contained in that luggage.
It sounds like the new policy is that the only thing special we have to do with liquids is not carry them on our person through the magnetometer unless we have first presented them to someone from TSA. On top of all that, what about the freedom baggies -- no longer needed (it kind of sounds like that's the case) or still needed (you said nothing else changes besides the... uh... what changes again?).
Please clear this up. We really want to follow your rules. You tell us that you'll mostly let us go about our business without interference from you if we follow your rules, but you refuse to show us those rules, and almost every time you tell us about your rules, you describe them differently. You say one thing, then you say another, your Web site says several different things, and nobody knows what your bag checkers at the airport are going to say, whether they are correct, or what to do when they are not.
Paul, surely you see how ridiculous this is. TSA is out of control.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 14, 2008 1:06 PM
@anonymous [TSO], November 13, 2008 4:58 PM: There are so many cases where TSO's do things that just baffle me. Things that make no sense at all. For example, taking away someones ice packs for babys milk. I am a TSO and I know better than to make such idiotic decisions. I have seen it myself, its not that TSO's are making up rules as they go, its that they are not smart enough to interpret the actual rule.
If even TSOs recognize that some of their colleagues "do things that just baffle" them and "make... idiotic decisions," it strongly suggests that the TSA has a real problem that they can't just dismiss as the ravings of a few selfish immature passengers who have issues about respecting authority (which I unfortunately suspect is just how the TSA leadership regards those of use who criticize the TSA here and elsewhere).
But assuming that the anonymous poster actually is a TSO (anonymity is quite understandable, it does prevent us from knowing for sure), I have to ask what (s)he is doing about what (s)he observes? One would think there would be an genuine incentive for conscientious, professional TSOs to report the abuses they observe. Even if it's actually just a few "bad apples," the abuses tarnish the entire agency, create unnecessary difficulties for the good TSOs, and impede the TSA's mission of protecting aviation.
Does the TSA have a way for its employees to make internal complaints about "things that make no sense at all"? Or does the "security groupthink" culture of secrecy that trickles down from the top make that impossible? It's obvious that the TSA leadership doesn't listen to travelers or care what we think of them. But if improvement can't happen from within, and if the leadership doesn't care about the people who staff the checkpoints and are charged with actually implementing the "highly effective policies," how can they possibly correct the public relations problem that even they can't ignore?
November 14, 2008 1:08 PM
So can I now claim my 700ml bottle of high-value Scotch as being 'medicinal' and bring it through the checkpoint (like what I witnessed in the SEA southern security line) or will it be confiscated 'for security reasons' (like in ORD)and most likely be consumed later?
________________________________________________
First of all, no one consumes your scotch, let alone even wants your scotch. Even if it was free I wouldn't drink scotch! Anyways, there is no 'medicinal' reason for taking through a bottle of scotch. I have seen you bring this up more than once. I am not sure why you would even bring it up at all! Its like grade school, people telling on people, if he can do why can't I do it. How do you know for sure that the person with the bottle actually kept it? Are you sure they didn't put it back in the bag and escort them back out of security? If you really did see the guy walk away with this bottle, then the TSO was wrong. But you already know that.
November 14, 2008 2:05 PM
Thank you for this information. As a patriot, I welcome ANY opportunity to inconvenience TSA employees and make their days a little more miserable, and will be sure to do this whenever I fly from now on.
_______________________________________________
You people are discusting! All the people on here think that they are so smart and so much better than TSA employees. Yet you constantly act like 5th graders.
November 14, 2008 3:24 PM
Phil wrote...
Jay Maynard wrote:
"when will you folks fix (or get Google to fix) not being able to comment from a Mac?"
Note: Comments aren't working from Firefox 3.0.3 on GNU/Linux, either.
Jay, if you can manage to find the post ID for a given post, you can still use the old comment page. Use "http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2336044328955501444&postID" + post-id
It's unfortunate that a publicly-owned service like this effectively requires users to purchase bloated, buggy, expensive software from a criminal monopoly.
________________
Please allow me to add that all my posts are made from a MacBook running Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092414 Firefox/3.0.3 on OS X 10.6.6...
Since it works on some Macs using Firefox and not others, I suspect option/permission/plug-in/add-on problems on individual machines.
That doesn't mean that the utter failure of provided links to reach existing posts and/or comments consistantly isn't a problem, but that is another problem.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 14, 2008 3:42 PM
Finally, I can provide specific dates on which the screeners at EWR did NOT "know how to screen medically exempt liquids." And yes, these were uniformed TSA agents operating screening machines.
________________________________________________
You couldn't possibly know this. Unless you know how we are supposed to screen all of liquids that come through.
November 14, 2008 3:48 PM
Poster Paul:
In response to Phil, you wrote:
Ultimate goal is to have everything on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm Ideally when a press release is issued, the aforementioned webpage will updated same day.
I really hate to say this ... but I think Phil is trying to set you up here.
Other TSA employees, such as Bob, have said repeatedly that such a comprehensive list cannot be produced ... because to produce such a list would eliminate the ability of TSA to vary its procedures dynamically. These employees have claimed that this ambiguity is deliberate, in order to try and make terrorist activity harder to achieve. (Of course, it also has the effect of making travel uncertain for the 99.99% of us who aren't trying to cause trouble.)
When I hear you working on developing such a list, I can only assume that you're going to compile an incomplete list ... and won't realize that it's incomplete until someone (like Phil) challenges you on it. Unless there's a philosophical change at TSA that hasn't been announced yet?
Later, you wrote:
3.4 ounces. Seriously. For real. No joke. The inconsistency in my article was brought upon by an internal effort to keep the "3-1-1" brand consistent--which is admittedly confusing.
So it's more important that TSA be consistent with its incorrect information than that TSA publish correct information??? Consistency is more important than truth??? Sigh ...
November 14, 2008 4:29 PM
So is my bottle of Scotch in a collectible presentation box considered a Medicinal Liquid, (as shown by a similar bottle passing through SEA's south checkpoint in Oct 26th approx 6pm)or will it still be confiscated for what is most likely going to be later consumption (as in ORD)?
November 14, 2008 9:23 PM
Response to Eric on November 13, 2008 10:22 AM
It would be nice if we had enough equipment to do that, but we generally don't. We're not blaming passengers...sorry if it came out that way.
- Poster Paul
November 16, 2008 8:25 PM
To those of you having problems posting comments using Firefox, these steps seem to work for me:
1) Type a comment and click the "Post Comment" button.
2) If you get redirected to a "Sorry, Page Not Available" site, hit the back button
3) Refresh the page. You should receive the message "Your comment was published and should be visible shortly" below the "Post Comment" section.
November 16, 2008 8:33 PM
Response to Anonymous on November 13, 2008 1:48 PM
I purposely wrote "all medically necessary liquids" because we really want people to use the Family Lane for this purpose. To be certain, technically, I should have written "most medically necessary liquids," but we really want to encourage people to use the Family Lane.
Again you are not required to do so, but we highly recommend it because it will make the entire process faster and more efficient from a security standpoint.
- Poster Paul
November 16, 2008 8:38 PM
Response to Phil on November 14, 2008 11:46 AM
Phil wrote:
[A: We are not allowed to read the official version of this new policy. TSA states that all new policies will someday be published on TSA's "Area for Travelers" page, but makes no commitment to doing so in a timely manner. Paul wrote, "All new policies will eventually be posted on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm It just takes us a little time to update the page after a press release is issued.]
I guess I should clarify by saying that official policies are always available somewhere on www.tsa.gov, but currently there is no central point to get everything. And there should be. That's what I was referring to with www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm.
I agree passengers should not have to search through tsa.gov to find our policies. They should all be in one place and updated as needed.
-----------------
Phil wrote:
[Q: How can travelers discover what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in the context of TSA's airport checkpoint regulations? (asked)
A: no answer - Though we have not confirmed that it is impossible for travelers to do so, Paul wrote that while he would like to answer, he cannot.]
No Phil, I did not write "While I would like to answer, I cannot."
I wrote, "I'd love to give you an exact definition, but the best I can do is point you to this page: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1059.shtm"
While my response may not be satisfactory to you, please do not put words in my mouth. You're only confusing the matter. While that may be your intent, it certainly does not help the discussion.
Also, in future comments, please combine the following two questions, as they both essentially ask for a definition of medically necessary liquids.
Quoting Phil:
[Q: How can travelers discover what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in the context of TSA's airport checkpoint regulations?
and
Q: What is a medically-exempt liquid?]
------------------
Phil wrote:
[Q: Paul wrote that certain liquids "must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening." How can we distingquish between a TSA officer and other TSA staff? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that "TSA officer" is used to refer to either Transportation Security Officer (TSO) or Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). He also suggested that the previously-communicated directive was inaccurate. He did not mention how we can differenciate between the people to whom we are required to present liquids and any other TSA staff. We await an answer.]
A couple of things. First off, you're not supposed to be able to distinguish between BDOs and TSOs. Second, I did not suggest that the previously communicated directive was inaccurate. If you still think I did, please clarify what you mean.
- Poster Paul
November 16, 2008 9:08 PM
Response to Phil on November 14, 2008 1:06 PM
Phil wrote:
[1) TSA is just going to start suggesting that people who are carrying liquids go through the green lane, and 2) there's no longer any need to remove containers of liquids from luggage before having it searched...On top of all that, what about the freedom baggies -- no longer needed (it kind of sounds like that's the case) or still needed?]
Medically necessary liquids should go through the Family Lane (aka Green Circle). There is an need/incentive to remove these liquids from your carry-on luggage. If you don't a TSO will have to sort through your carry-on bag, which passengers generally don't like.
The "freedom baggies" aka 3-1-1 rule still applies. Prior to Family Lane, TSA policy stated that medically necessary liquids over 3.4 ounces must be presented to a TSO for secondary screening. After Family Lane implementation, the very same policy still applies to every single lane at the checkpoint. There is no policy difference. The only difference is where we would like these over-3.4-ounce-medically-necessary-liquids to go, i.e. we'd prefer passengers take them through the Family Lane.
Hope that makes sense.
November 16, 2008 9:33 PM
I've noticed that my question has been pointedly ignored. I'd like to ask again- why is 3-1-1 still in place when quick and easy liquid scanning methods such as that I linked to before have been around since before the introduction of the liquids restrictions? I can understand it being in place for the first year while machines are procured and set up but this is an unacceptably long delay.
November 17, 2008 1:27 AM
(Tomas, I run Firefox 3.0.4 for OS X with no plugins at all; it has no content in the "comment as:" dropdown. Safari gets almost there, but shows a broken image link for the captcha; I use the PithHelmet ad blocker, but have it disabled for this site. Even IE 7 on Windows Server 2003 complains about "javascript://void(0)" not being in the accepted sies list on every page view - and yes, I've added it.)
So, Paul: The only difference is where we would like these over-3.4-ounce-medically-necessary-liquids to go, i.e. we'd prefer passengers take them through the Family Lane.
...back to my original contention: those of us who would otherwise be Back Diamond experienced travelers, but need to carry medically necessary liquids that are not available at any price in TSA-ordered 100 mL or smaller packages, are condemned to stand behind every screaming baby in the airport? Gee thanks, pal. You've just defeated the purpose of the family lane: to separate them from folks who are experienced and equipped to go through quickly, thus relieving the pressure on them to rush.
November 17, 2008 8:54 AM
Response to Yangj08 on November 17, 2008 1:27 AM
Sorry, wasn't ignoring your comment, just had to do a little research on the piece of machinery you recommended awhile ago via http://www.tech-jam.com/sfld-201/
According to the website, it seems that this piece of machinery can only detect:
1) Benzine (aka Petroleum ether)
2) Petrol
3) Methyl alcohol (more than 70 percent concentration)
4) Ethanol (70% concentration)
5) Kerosene
6) Diesel
7) Oil thinner
8) Carbonated soft drink or water (*)
9) Liquor (less than 70 percent concentration)
At first glance, this looks awesome, and at the very least, it's worth pitching to the higher-ups. The only problem I could foresee (which the website doesn't really address), is if the machine gives false positives/negatives for substances other than the 9 listed above.
I'm in the process of corresponding with the appropriate people to get some feedback. I'll let you know as soon as I hear anything.
November 17, 2008 10:25 AM
(Massive quote from Poster Paul on Nov 17 10:25am not included).
That piece of hardware does sound promising. Shame it only identifies 9 substances with better-than human accuracy. Now if the TSA could just get rid of the 'Not Invented Here' syndrome it has, and just maybe figure out that the Japanese and Germans might know what they are doing, they just might be able to actually solve some problems instead of create more.
November 17, 2008 10:40 AM
@Anonymous said...
Finally, I can provide specific dates on which the screeners at EWR did NOT "know how to screen medically exempt liquids." And yes, these were uniformed TSA agents operating screening machines.
________________________________________________
You couldn't possibly know this. Unless you know how we are supposed to screen all of liquids that come through.
~~
When a screener gives you grief about your medically necessary liquids and wants to either confiscate them or tells you they must be in checked luggage, you do know.
~~
On another topics, there will be screeners who believe that travelers with medically necessary liquids must go through the slower lanes and will try to send them to that lane.
When that happens, a passenger with medical issues is being discriminated against, which is a violation of the law. Not, of course, that violating laws is anything new to the TSA. Hopefully, disabled passengers who are thus discriminated against will begin to file lawsuits against the TSA.
November 17, 2008 2:43 PM
This entire program is a joke. I travel to Seattle every week and frequently see people in the expert lane who clearly don't know what they're doing. Everyone will claim to be an expert if they think the line is shorter. Even worse, there's often a TSA officer waving people into different lanes based solely on appearance. Have a boarding pass in your hand, or no luggage, well you must be an expert... So much for self selection. I once waited in the expert lane behind two women who each presented a boarding pass for a connecting flight at another airport, and then fumbled around for 5 minutes looking for the right boarding passes. Experts indeed. Even better, I was once reprimanded for trying to use the family lane without having children in tow. The expert lane was at least a ten minute wait and the family lane was COMPLETELY EMPTY - not a single person in line and a TSA person standing there waiting to check someone's ID. I was very curtly told by the TSA officer "monitoring" the lines that I wasn't allowed to use the family lane because I didn't have children with me. Talk about inefficient. This system needs a fourth lane for the real experts - people with elite frequent flyer credentials. Every checkpoint, at every airport, honoring every airline's elite status, instead of the patch work of airline specific offerings that you find around the country. The infrequent travelers who know the rules, or at least think they do, can keep the black diamond lane to themselves.
November 17, 2008 6:46 PM
@Sandra
When that happens, a passenger with medical issues is being discriminated against, which is a violation of the law.
What law... the people with "medical issues" Act. Please don't comment on something that you know nothing about.
An individual with a disability is a person who:
-Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
-Has a record of such an impairment;
-Is regarded as having such an impairment.
The disabled will not get picked on since there is a disabled lane(wich is optional just like the family lane). I don't see anything wrong with TSA people trying to spead up the process.
November 17, 2008 8:45 PM
I have so much to tell the public on 3-1-1 and this new family lane. Its just the same old TSA with a new song. If you need to fly, fly out of SFO! I hope to have a book out soon on Airport Security and the problems you all have. I was part of the system for 6 years.
November 18, 2008 12:20 AM
Maybe the new SOP will help.....
November 18, 2008 12:20 AM
I've noticed that my question has been pointedly ignored, so I'd like to rephrase it and ask it again:
Is it TSA's position that its TSOs are qualified to make the determination of "medical necessity"?
In many states, the determination of "medical necessity" by unlicensed persons is some sort of crime. (SC, TX)
November 18, 2008 10:42 AM
Anon 11/14: "You couldn't possibly know this. Unless you know how we are supposed to screen all of liquids that come through."
I can tell you that they didn't know how to deal with the medically necessary liquids I was bringing through because they told me that I couldn't bring them. Which is wrong.
Except of course, that the TSA appears to authorize its employees to make rules up as they go along, arbitrarily enforce them and generally give grief to people who want only to get themselves and the items they need to have where they are going.
Bring in the armed forces and let them handle security screening. They'd be more polite and efficient, better trained and they'd be more directly protecting the safety of Americans and be a whole lot safer themselves.
November 18, 2008 11:44 AM
Response to Anonymous on November 17, 2008 6:46 PM
Anonymous said:
"Everyone will claim to be an expert if they think the line is shorter."
Agreed. The only way to solve this problem would be to somehow make sure the people claiming to be experts, were in fact experts before they reached the security checkpoint. Would you be in favor of an obligatory online questionnaire at the time of ticket purchase to determine if you're an expert or not? This way, we could print some kind of symbol on your boarding pass demonstrating that you are in fact familiar with TSA screening policies.
November 18, 2008 4:02 PM
Poster Paul writes:
Would you be in favor of an obligatory online questionnaire at the time of ticket purchase to determine if you're an expert or not?
What if I buy my ticket over the phone from the airline? Or from a travel agent, in person or over the phone? Or in person at the ticket counter?
The other problem with an online questionnaire is that someone will post a list of the official "answers" to the questionnaire online as well. I'm not completely sure this is a problem ... as long as people learn the right answers, does it matter how?
If self-selection doesn't work, then someone else has to choose. Perhaps you come up with an objective standard (like the "one-bag" rule I've heard used in some airports). Perhaps you come up with something like Clear, where an expert passenger presents a card that admits them to the "good" line. Both approaches have problems, of course; there will be "experts" who won't qualify in either case.
My personal favorite (which is probably unworkable) is a token system. The first time you approach a checkpoint, you go through the "normal" line. If a TSO observes that you're obviously well-aware of the procedures and are following them, you get a token (a chit, a tuit, a get-out-of-jail-free card, whatever). The next time you approach a checkpoint, you turn in the token to enter the expert line ... and if you do well again, you get another token.
Yeah, that's no good, either, as now you're completely reliant on the good will of a TSO's subjective judgment as to your behavior. But I still like the idea, for some reason.
November 18, 2008 6:06 PM
Anonymous writes:
Except of course, that the TSA appears to authorize its employees to make rules up as they go along, arbitrarily enforce them and generally give grief to people who want only to get themselves and the items they need to have where they are going.
It's not that TSA appears to do so; it's that TSA does do so.
An official TSA publication states:
To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
In short: if the TSO says it doesn't fly, it doesn't fly. Even if the TSO is wrong.
(Incidentally, I had to go to archive.org to find a link to this publication ... there doesn't appear to be a link to this publication on TSA's website anymore ...)
November 18, 2008 6:20 PM
Paul of the EoS blog team wrote:
"I guess I should clarify by saying that official policies are always available somewhere on www.tsa.gov, but currently there is no central point to get everything."
Great. Please provide the URL for the page where we can read the new TSA policy to take effect November 20 that was described in your post on November 10.
I asked for TSA's definition of "medically-necessary" liquid. Paul responded by writing that he would like to give a precise definition but cannot. He referred to some related information. In my summary of Q&A, I indicated that this question is unanswered. Paul, I didn't put words in your mouth and I didn't misquote you. You've not answered the question and you have stated that while you would like to answer it, you cannot.
I asked for TSA's definition of "medically-exempt" liquid. Paul declined to answer, but has implied that in the context of TSA airport checkpoint rules, "medically-necessary" and "medically-exempt" are synonymous. Paul, if this is the case, please be explicit. If you leave us guessing, you're setting us up to fail. Just show us the rules so we can follow them, please.
Paul wrote that certain liquids "must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening." I asked how we can distinguish between a TSA officer and any other TSA staff. Paul responded by explaining that "TSA officer" is used to refer both to Transportation Security Officer (TSO) or Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). He then stated that contrary to what he wrote in his originial blog post (liquids must be presented to a TSA officer [i.e., to either a TSO or a BDO]), liquids must be presented to a TSO. He did not explain how to distinguish between TSA staff of the sort to whom we are required to present liquids and other TSA staff.
Paul, you did indicate that the previously-communicated directive (must present liquids to a TSA officer) was inaccurate.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 19, 2008 11:23 AM
After lots of confusion over what is changing, Paul of the EoS blog team wrote, "The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane." I asked, "Even assuming that Paul's prediction, based on TSA's suggestion that certain people use the `family lane', is valid, is this the only difference between current liquids policy and that which will go into effect November 20?" Paul answered, "yes." I noted that this seemed to conflict with other information provided by the TSA and asked if this was truly the only change, summarizing that changes seem to include, "1) TSA is just going to start suggesting that people who are carrying liquids go through the green lane, and 2) there's no longer any need to remove containers of liquids from luggage before having it searched."
Paul explained that in fact, "There is no policy difference."
So Paul, just what were you trying to describe when you told us what travelers would need to know on November 20, given that nothing will change?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 19, 2008 11:31 AM
Paul @ "Agreed. The only way to solve this problem would be to somehow make sure the people claiming to be experts, were in fact experts before they reached the security checkpoint. Would you be in favor of an obligatory online questionnaire at the time of ticket purchase to determine if you're an expert or not? This way, we could print some kind of symbol on your boarding pass demonstrating that you are in fact familiar with TSA screening policies."
That doesn't solve the other problems Anonymous wrote about: Family lanes reserved for people with kids or obvious disabilities. In fact, your solution of identifying the screening lane on the boarding pass would make it worse.
One alternative to your "only solution" of printing some indicator "that you are in fact familiar with TSA screening policies" would be to actually publish the policies so that a passenger has a chance of being familiar with the TSA policies.
Another alternative, if you don't want to communicate the real rules to the public, is to use the status of frequent flyer cards as an indication "that you are in fact familiar with TSA screening policies". This alternative has the benefit of correlating actual experience with the randomness of TSO policy interpretation and enforcement, rather than some idealized web-quiz.
That you think your way is "the only way to solve this problem" speaks to your experience.
November 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Paul, your post suggested that travelers need to know about a new policy to take effect November 20. Later you stated that there is no policy change. You have confirmed that after November 20, we will not be required to remove liquids from our luggage for presentation to TSA.
It was my understanding that liquids -- even when properly arranged in a freedom baggie -- had to be removed from luggage. If a TSA bag checker complains that I have not removed these from my bag, how can I convince that person that I am in compliance with TSA regulations?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 19, 2008 11:45 AM
Following are questions I have asked in this comment thread along with any answers that have been provided. (Updated November 19, 2008, with new information provided by Paul during the past five days.)
Q: Where can we read the official version of this new policy? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated)
A: We are not allowed to read the official version of this new policy. TSA states that all new policies will someday be published on TSA's "Area for Travelers" page, but makes no commitment to doing so in a timely manner. Paul wrote, "All new policies will eventually be posted on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm It just takes us a little time to update the page after a press release is issued." Paul later stated that "official policies are always available somewhere on www.tsa.gov" without referencing any place on the site where we can read this particular policy.
Q: Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)? (asked)
A: No, TSA has not published such a list of rules it requires us to follow. Paul is working on it. Paul wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational."
Q: Why won't TSA show us the rules we're required to follow? (asked)
A: no answer, but others suggest that TSA refuses to show us the rules they require us to follow because if we knew how to follow the rules, then criminals who wish to do harm on airplanes could also follow the rules, and it is preferable to let them break the rules so that they can be identified. Paul wrote that they're "working on it", that the "ultimate goal" is to have all TSA rules and regulations published on TSA's "Area for Travelers" page, and that ideally, when a TSA press release is issued (presumably one describing a change in the rules that travelers are required to follow) that page will be updated on the same day. TSA has not commented on why they have yet to show us the new rule they announced over a week ago (and now it's unclear whether there is actually any new rule, yet Paul has not pointed us to a written description of the existing rule).
Q: When Paul wrote that after November 20th, passengers carrying medically-necessary liquids in containers larger than 3 oz. should use the family lane, did he mean that this behavior is required or only suggested? (asked, repeated, repeated, repeated)
A: It is only suggested. Paul wrote, "As I said before, since you can choose your lane, it's not a requirement."
Q: In response to a question from TSA staff about the lack of training for this new TSA airport checkpoint liquids policy just nine days before it goes into affect, Paul wrote, "The only difference now, is that most of these items are going through the Family Lane." Even assuming that Paul's prediction, based on TSA's suggestion that certain people use the "family lane", is valid, is this the only difference between current liquids policy and that which will go into effect November 20? (asked)
A: Yes. No policies will change on November 20. - Paul wrote "yes" but this answer conflicts with other information provided by TSA. Presumably, a simple change like "we'll begin to suggest that people who wish to carry liquids through a TSA airport checkpoint use the `family lane' in airports where such a lane is available" would warrant little discussion and fanfare. Paul reconfirmed this, stating that "After Family Lane implementation, the very same policy still applies to every single lane at the checkpoint. There is no policy difference."
Q: Paul wrote that medically-necessary liquids include baby formula, breast milk, insulin, cough syrup, contact lens solutions, and prescription medications. Is that an exhaustive list or do other liquids qualify as medically-necessary? (asked)
A: The list is not exhaustive. Paul wrote, "Medically necessary liquids include (but are not limited to) all of the aforementioned."
Q: Paul ambiguously wrote that "these liquids" must be presented to a TSA officer for additional screening. Was he referring to liquids listed in his preceding sentence or all medically-necessary liquids? Any that are contained in vessels with volumes greater than 3 oz? (asked)
A: He meant that all "medically-necessary" liquids must be presented. Paul wrote, "All medically-necessary liquids."
Q: How can travelers discover what qualifies as a "medically-necessary liquid" in the context of TSA's airport checkpoint regulations? (asked)
A: no answer - Though we have not confirmed that it is impossible for travelers to do so, Paul wrote that while he would like to answer, he cannot. - Paul noted that he has referenced related information, but he still has not answered. What liquids qualify as medically-necessary, and thus what liquids need not be portioned into 3.4 oz containers and stored in a clear, resealable, plastic bag, is still unknown.
Q: Paul wrote, "[TSA officers] should already know how to screen medically exempt liquids." What is a medically-exempt liquid? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that while he would like to answer, he cannot. Paul has hinted that in the context of TSA airport checkpoint liquid rules, "medically-exempt liquid" is synonymous with "medically-necessary liquid".
Q: Several commenters mentioned the confusion between TSA's restriction on the size of containers for liquids to be carried through an airport checkpoint. Sometimes this limit is said to be 3 oz., sometimes it is said to be 3.4 oz., and a TSA TSO who regularly posts comments to this blog has explained that the official policy is that no liquids are allowed, but that in practice this rule is not enforced. What should we take as the official word on this topic -- what has been written on this blog, what TSA has published elsewhere on its Web site, or what a TSA TSO reports? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that 3.4oz is the real limit, but made no mention of which TSA source of information should be trusted when TSA provides conflicting information about carrying liquids across a TSA airport checkpoint. He stated that in this case, conflicting information was intentionally provided as a result of TSA marketing/PR efforts. We await an answer.
Q: Paul wrote that certain liquids "must be presented to a TSA Officer for additional screening." How can we distingquish between a TSA officer and other TSA staff? (asked)
A: no answer - Paul wrote that "TSA officer" is used to refer to either Transportation Security Officer (TSO) or Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). He also suggested that the previously-communicated directive was inaccurate. He did not mention how we can differenciate between the people to whom we are required to present liquids and any other TSA staff. We await an answer.
Q: In what manner must applicable liquids be presented to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: unclear - Paul wrote that this is undefined, but did not clarify what TSA requires of passengers in order to avoid having their freedom of motion restricted at a TSA airport checkpoint.
Q: Does handing over to TSA staff all of the belongings we are carrying -- including those which contain liquids -- so that a TSA bag checker can search them qualify as presentation of liquids to a TSA officer as required by the new policy? (asked)
A: Yes. Liquids need not be removed from belongings which have been surrendered for search by TSA at a TSA airport checkpoint. Paul wrote, "yes".
Q: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take medically-necessary liquids through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
Q: What will be the consequences of taking or attempting to take liquids that are not medically-necessary through a TSA airport checkpoint without the soon-to-be-required presentation of them to a TSA officer? (asked)
A: no answer
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
November 19, 2008 12:00 PM
Jim Huggins wrote...
Anonymous writes:
Except of course, that the TSA appears to authorize its employees to make rules up as they go along, arbitrarily enforce them and generally give grief to people who want only to get themselves and the items they need to have where they are going.
It's not that TSA appears to do so; it's that TSA does do so.
An official TSA publication states:
To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
In short: if the TSO says it doesn't fly, it doesn't fly. Even if the TSO is wrong.
(Incidentally, I had to go to archive.org to find a link to this publication ... there doesn't appear to be a link to this publication on TSA's website anymore ...)
________________
Just so it doesn't disappear totally, I put a public copy of that document on one of my servers...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 19, 2008 3:41 PM
@Tom
Info is on the TSA prohibited and permitted items pdf but is absent from the TSA prohibited items page(use to be there). That info is also availbe on the signage at the checkpoint(have only confirmed it at SMF so far).
I just hope this information will be added to the prohibited items page so holiday travelers(cough cough ME) will be able to properly prepare.
source:
prohibited and permitted items PDF warning
November 20, 2008 3:59 PM
My partner, our 18-month-old son and I flew from SFO to PHL on Thursday, Dec. 13, and returned on Tuesday, Dec. 18. When we arrived at the SFO airport, we saw the signs for the "Family/Medical Liquids" line and decided to use it. Granted both of us are expert flyers, each having been 100,000 mile frequent flyers, but with the stroller and other baby essentials, we decided to opt for this line. The line was rather short and quick. Essentially, we were quite pleased to see the professional demeanor and expeditious manner in which the TSA managed our belongings. Honestly, I forgot to take out our bag of liquids; when I mentioned this, the agent noted that the amounts were not significant. Okay...great.
Our experience in SFO was nothing like our experience in PHL, however. When we arrived, we opted to use the "Family/Medical Liquids" line since our previous experience was so positive...besides, the line looked shorter. We placed all of our items on the conveyer; this time I remembered to take out the liquids (i.e., Tylenol, Benadryl). As we were collecting our items, a female TSA approached and asked if she could check our lunch bag. The bag contained a YoBaby brand yogurt, an unopened plastic container of hummus, two containers of fruit, and a plastic freezer pack that we used to keep things cool. The TSA noted that we were not allowed to carry the yogurt, the hummus (a food product) and the freezer pack beyond the security point. I was shocked since no one said anything in SFO; I should also note that we have flown on several occasions where we have had these items with no incident. I mentioned this to the agent, and she reported that it was against the policy. I asked if the policy was different at other airports...she noted that it was not and that the other airport chose not to follow the policy. So I made the comment that all airports should follow the same policy. At this point, another female agent approached. She checked the items, and told her colleague that it was up to her (the 1st agent) to decide if she would allow the items - this sounded a bit contradictory to me given what we were just told, but I wasn't going to argue the point any further. At second glance, she noticed the brand of yogurt. Since it was specifically labeled YoBaby, she allowed it to pass. However, she confiscated our hummus and freezer pack.
Are we no longer allowed to bring food items through security?
What hazzard does a freezer pack entail?
What about enforcing a standard policy at all airports?
November 20, 2008 4:32 PM
Anonymous said in response to my post re discrimination:
“What law... the people with "medical issues" Act. Please don't comment on something that you know nothing about.”
It’s apparent, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, that you do not know the definition of the word “discriminating” (from Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary):
1: making a distinction
nor of the word “discriminate”:
2: to make a difference in treatment
When any class of people is grouped together (i.e., special lanes for people with medically necessary liquids) and can be distinguished from others because of that grouping, that is discrimination.
When a TSA screener forces a person with medically necessary liquids into a line not of his/her choosing, that is discrimination and it is illegal to discriminate against a class of individuals.
November 20, 2008 5:49 PM
Speaking of "just in time for Thanksgiving" ... over at FlyerTalk, they're talking about a new SOP which requires a TSO to be performing patdowns continuously of whomever comes out of the WTMD (of the same gender as the TSO), whether or not the WTMD indicates a problem. Is the added inconvenience of this procedure going to negate any convenience that the new Green Lanes provide? Anyone care to comment?
November 20, 2008 9:14 PM
@Sandra
When any class of people is grouped together (i.e., special lanes for people with medically necessary liquids) and can be distinguished from others because of that grouping, that is discrimination.
Its not any class of people. Discrimination is defined by the law. YOU ARE JUST FLAT OUT WRONG SANDRA.
Race
Color
National origin
Sex
Religion
Age
Disability or
Sexual orientation
Just because you have medically necessary liquids does not make you disabled. Read my ealier post. TSA would not be breaking the law.
Its okay to be wrong Sandra. Everyone makes mistakes.
November 21, 2008 5:37 PM
Michael @ "What hazzard does a freezer pack entail?"
Gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by persons with disabilities or medical conditions.
Elsewhere, the TSA called breast milk a medical item, and maybe the condition of being a baby counts as a "medical condition": http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm. I thought there was something more, but TSA seems to have edited their pages some, so I'm not sure where to find it.
Of course, if you do find it on TSA.gov somewhere, there are no guarantees that the screener will believe you, or that they will even follow their own rules.
November 21, 2008 8:59 PM
The Family/Medical Liquids Lanes are great measures and should have been implemented a long time ago. I certainly hope it can extend beyond Thanksgiving so we don't have to go through the lengthy, sometimes painful security lanes crowded by all people with different packages. Thank you TSA, keep up the good work.
November 22, 2008 8:51 PM
Mr. Gel-Pack writes:
Of course, if you do find it on TSA.gov somewhere, there are no guarantees that the screener will believe you, or that they will even follow their own rules.
Because, of course, as Mr. Gel-Pack knows all too well, the screener has TSA's blessing to ignore TSA's rules on what is and is not prohibited aboard an aircraft. As my
favorite publication states:
Transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
So ... any rules on TSA's website are more-or-less useless, because the TSO on duty can arbitrarily rule that a permitted item is, in fact, prohibited.
November 23, 2008 4:26 PM
Spokspeople for DFW or TSA at DFW are reporting in this mornings news that people with medically needed medical liquids must use the family lane.
So Paul, who is correct?
Of course it won't matter at DFW, they are forcing expert travelers to use the family lane just because they have some medical liquids, and we all know just how dangerous those things are!
Once again TSA speaks out of both sides of its mouth!!!!
November 26, 2008 9:22 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Spokspeople for DFW or TSA at DFW are reporting in this mornings news that people with medically needed medical liquids must use the family lane.
"So Paul, who is correct?"
Paul, who should we believe? If you are correct and this spokesperson was incorrect, what will TSA do to stop the spread of misinformation by its staff?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
December 4, 2008 4:07 PM
Paul? We're still waiting for a response to a simple question directly related to the topic of your post. It has been almost two weeks.
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Spokspeople for DFW or TSA at DFW are reporting in this mornings news that people with medically needed medical liquids must use the family lane.
"So Paul, who is correct?"
Who should we believe? If you are correct and this spokesperson was incorrect, what will TSA do to stop the spread of misinformation by its staff?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
December 17, 2008 3:34 PM
What is the policy for the different lanes?
Last Saturday I had a 6:45 AM flight from John Wayne (SNA) and had my first encounter with the new TSA Black Diamond Self Select lanes. Since I’m a United 1K Million Miler was also flying First Class, I automatically went to the Black Diamond/Expert/First Class line. The way security is setup at SNA is that they have an terminal exit aisle between the family lane and the other two lanes. At the time, there was no line for the family lane with two screening stations handling it. While the Casual lane (read economy) which had a line and Expert lane were being handled by one TSA ID checker (located in front of the casual lane) with 2 screening stations with lines behind him. After the TSA ID checker took 3 passengers from the Casual lane, I decided to exit the Expert lane and go to the Family Lane. Imagine my surprise when I was told by the TSA line checker person (not ID checker) that I couldn’t use that lane because I didn’t have a family. After I went back to the Expert lane and stood there for another minute, cooler heads prevailed and a TSA person waved me and another person to the “family” lane where we went straight to the screening station.
Please understand that I'm also a skier and will use a "green" run to get to where I want do go if it's the fastest way. So, should I be able to select what security line I use depending upon my "judgment" as to what's fastest or must I use the lane that I qualify for?
Thanks
December 19, 2008 12:58 PM
Paul, do we need to post questions in response to a newer but unrelated post so that you'll see them?
We're still waiting for a response to a simple question directly related to the topic of your post. It has been about a month and you have yet to respond.
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Spokspeople for DFW or TSA at DFW are reporting in this mornings news that people with medically needed medical liquids must use the family lane.
"So Paul, who is correct?"
Whom should we believe when there is a conflict between policies announced by various TSA staff? If you are correct and this spokesperson was incorrect, what will TSA do to stop the spread of misinformation by its staff?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
December 31, 2008 2:57 PM
First, of all for all those contact wearers out there who don’t want to use the green lane-- If you are wearing contacts, you have to go to the doctors to get them... right?? Ask the doctor for a trial size bottle and use that one for traveling only. Oh, and when it gets all used up... fill it up from a larger bottle. I do this and travel frequently and has worked for a very long time now.
And for all those people out there needing ice packs for something... As long as the ice pack (or gel pack or cooling thingy... whatever) is for something that is medically necessary then the ice pack is allowed. For example... medicine, breast milk, formula... If an officer tries to take one of these away--- ask for a supervisor, they should know the rules if the officer doesn’t. I travel with breast milk all the time and all I have to do it show my ice packs to the officer and they are fine with it. Only once have I had to ask for a supervisor and even then I was allowed to take my ice packs.
And to the rest of you out there who get all angry about losing your toothpaste that is 4.2 oz... Pack a smaller one and read the rules. They are there for a reason. Just be thankful that TSA is here to keep our skies safe.
February 2, 2009 4:17 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home