Friday, June 29, 2012

Traveling with Crematory Remains


The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently. As part of our standard operating procedures, TSA has a clear process for screening crematory remains. Our Officers routinely conduct these types of screenings throughout our nation’s airports.

Passengers may transport crematory remains as part of their carry-on property or checked baggage. Some airlines do not allow crematory remains as checked baggage, so check with your airline first.

If carrying on the crematory remains, they are subject to screening and must pass through the X-ray machine. If the X-ray Operator cannot clear the remains, TSA may apply other, non-intrusive means of resolving the alarm. Under no circumstances will an officer open the container, even if the passenger requests this be done. If the officer cannot determine that the container does not contain a prohibited item, the remains will not be permitted.

We understand the emotional stress passengers may be under when transporting the remains of a loved one.   Our guidelines for traveling with crematory remains  is not intended to make this already emotionally difficult process more complex than needed. However, crematory remains are one of the many sensitive items that could be exploited by someone wanting to conceal a dangerous item.

If you have questions, concerns or would like to provide feedback, please feel free to contact the TSA Contact Center, 1-866-289-9673 or use the Talk to TSA feature on our website.

61 comments:

bob said...

"Under no circumstances will an officer open the container..." except when an officer opens a container, and the traveler is given no relief by TSA supervisors who, unlike a child of 8, seem to lack the sense to say "hmmm, maybe I should check some guidelines."

Anonymous said...

We already knew the "rules". Now we want to know why TSA violated the traveler's rights and what is being done to to the "agent" who violated those rights. I hope we don't get the normal, canned answer "retraining". The TSA never ceases to amaze me.

Anonymous said...

Well, given this explicit statement of your policy, the issue becomes a simple yes or no question: did the TSA agent in Orlando violate the policy?

Anonymous said...

>> Under no circumstances will an officer
>> open the container

Martie, you did not answer the question everyone here wants answered. Mr. Gross claims that the Orlando TSO did open the jar. So are you saying that Mr. Gross is lying?

I am sure that sleeping on the job is not in the rulebook either. Yet eight Newark TSOs were just canned for sleeping on the job.

And I am sure that the rulebook says that air marshals may not drink on the clock. Yet eight marshals were just canned for drinking when on the clock.

What's policy and what's practiced by individual employees are entirely different animals.

So, again, are you saying that Mr. Gross is a liar and that none of what he described actually happened?

I eagerly await your answer. Don't think you can dance around the topic with your nuanced observations.

[Screenshot captured.]

Anonymous said...

"..Our guidelines for traveling with crematory remains is not intended to make this already emotionally difficult process more complex than needed. However, crematory remains are one of the many sensitive items that could be exploited by someone wanting to conceal a dangerous item."

So in other words, if you are travelling with the remains of a loved one, skip the airport and drive. The TSA has guidelines they aren't going to follow and if you don't like it you don't have to fly.

Wintermute said...

I notice you attempt to distract the public by posting your policy and fail to address the incident at all. Are you denying that it happened? Or are you saying that your employee acted outside of policy? Can you tell us the policy for dealing with employees who violate this policy?

Anonymous said...

So basically, Bob, you're saying that we are better off driving, not flying, with our loved one's remains. Thanks for the confirmation.

Anonymous said...

"The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently... " - Wow, just Wow. Actually the subject of "Desecration of human reamins by the TSA, and humilation of the family member..." is what has been in the news. Along with your transparent refusal to provide the videotape evidence of this incident.

Anonymous said...

Please show video footage proving that your officer indeed did not open and manipulate crematory remains. In the absence of such proof, I will believe the passenger´s story, since at no point in this text you actually say your officers did not do what he says.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

wow...

Another example of why the TSA has lost the respect of the American people.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely no mention of what happened to the passenger that triggered this post, Bob. Let me guess. There was unfortunately no video?

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Responses like you wrote only promote the idea that the TSA can be less than truthful.

If the TSA wants us to trust them, then talk straight.

If the TSA wants us to think they are hiding something, keep doing what you are doing.

Anonymous said...

Martie said:
"The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently."

No kidding. As usual, the TSA blog totally avoids actually addressing the real issue.

Just how stupid do you think we are?

Jeff said...

I notice that's what you say the policy is, but that is not apparently what your personnel actually do.

Also, you do seem to have a habit of commenting on whatever grievous incident that hit the news that week on Friday afternoon.

I wonder why that is?

Anonymous said...

"The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently."

Tell us, Curtis, why was this in the news lately?

Oh, I know...just another passenger fabricating a lie about one of your fine fellow employees.

Too bad you can't find the surveillance video. I'll bet you'd come out smelling like a rose disproving the passenger's lie.

Anonymous said...

So why did the orlando tsa screener open an urn?

Anonymous said...

"The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently." No, once again it is the TSA's unprofessional behavior that has been in the news recently - just like it is most every week. Americans are tired of the repeated empty promises to "retrain" and "do better". The TSA is a disgrace to the United States.

Anonymous said...

Apparently TSA has no respect for the dead either. This agency and its workers are a disgrace.

RB said...

"The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently."
..........................
The above statement by TSA in false. What has been in the news is a TSA screener who opened an urn, caused the remains to be spilled after poking their hand in the urn, and then laughing about the matter while the poor man tried to collect his grandfathers remains that were spilled on the floor. That is what is being discussed in the news. Address the the real issue instead of trying to hide behind any and every other possible thing.

Has the TSA screener involved been fired yet?

Anonymous said...

Your circular logic fails....

"Under no circumstances will an officer open the container, even if the passenger requests this be done. If the officer cannot determine that the container does not contain a prohibited item, the remains will not be permitted."

So under no circumstances will you open the container (except that once in the media you refer to in your article). But if the remains of your loved one catch the eye of the x-ray operator you can't fly with the remains of your loved one. At which point the travelers options are what, exactly?

Nice.

I wish I could use the rules of my job to make it so I didn't have to do my job and actually have it be the fault of my boss who gave me the rules in the first place.

Randy said...

Silly Question: How would you grade yourself on the recent incident?

...which you should have discussed here, of course. Sigh.

Randy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Funny how you do everything but tell us about the incident.

Why is that?

Anonymous said...

Your guidelines were not followed. The passenger's sensitivities were violated. Why no apology?

CLH said...

They will never open them? They did. And they laughed. Your pathetic attempts at spinning this PR disaster are both ludicrous and transparent. The TSA needs to be disbanded, and control returned to more intelligent people. All of you should lose your jobs over this. Period.

Sandra said...

This blog's arrogance knows no bounds.

Sandra said...

Martie, why did you write this drivel? We all know what the TSA's rules are concerning travel with cremains.

What we want to know is why did the agent open the jar, stick her finger in it causing a spill and then laugh at Mr. Gross?

It's quite a coincidence that there is no video of the incident. I'm willing to wager that had the screener's actions been totally in keeping with procedure the video would have been readily available.

The arrogance of the TSA knows no bounds.

screen shot taken and will be sent to the DHS OIG if this post does not appear.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

I will keep this post in mind the next time the TSA tells me something like the AIT machines are safe.

I now know that the TSA purposely leaves out important information.

Thanks for teaching me not to trust the TSA.

DoraMia said...

The TSA stands by their contention that Gross is a liar.
"While not directly contradicting Gross, the TSA said it believes his sequence of events is incorrect.

"Our initial review concluded that the circumstances as described in some reports are inconsistent with what we believe transpired," an initial statement from the TSA said.

That pronouncement prompted Gross, who said he would otherwise be content to drop his contention, to once again assail the agency.

"I don't want this to continue," he said Wednesday in an interview with CNN, but "now I'm really heated because the TSA is coming back and saying there's inconsistencies in the reports."

The TSA statement added that "under no circumstances should a container holding remains be opened."

"TSA recognizes the importance of screening human remains with utmost respect and dignity while remaining vigilant of our security mission to protect the traveling public," its statement said.

TSA spokesman David Castelveter said Tuesday that there is no surveillance video relevant to the episode, and the agency followed that on Wednesday by adding that the security cameras in question are being upgraded.

Gross, however, said he believes the agency is concealing the truth.

"If they don't have any tapes, it obviously shows they are hiding something," he told CNN.

The situation calmed later Wednesday, after Gross said he received what he viewed as a "sincere" and "heartfelt" apology from a TSA administrator, but he was still bothered by the federal agency's public declaration that his story had "inconsistencies" with what the TSA says happened. And he still wanted "the apology from the person who did it ..."

Anonymous said...

You would think that at some point the people who run this blog would figure out that posing evasive responses to real issues is like throwing gas on a fire.

There's a pattern here, they just don't seem to get it.

Anonymous said...

I think this post wins the award for the most demeaning and useless TSA blog post to date.

"We will not open remains under any circumstance. They will pas through the x-ray. We may use some other unnamed approach to clear the remains, but we still won't open them. If we decide so, the remains and the passenger will not fly."

Some racket you got going there. If you were a private company, you'd be out of business pretty quickly. But you're my government, funded by my tax dollars.

I expect more.

RB said...

That would require people with a sole. TSA workers have none.

Anonymous said...

From the TSA Response to the Gross Family:

" ... the TSA said it believes his sequence of events is incorrect."

Well you believe that do you? Well I believe that your Division is out of touch with the people you serve and out of touch with the rules you are supposed to be working under and just generally out of control.

You have a blog that doesn't really say anything. You have a website that assures us we're safe if we do certain things and then your Agents assure us the website is incorrect or out of date and whatever they say is the current 'law of the land.'

This belief of mine is continued every time I interact with your Agents and they ask me 'do you want to fly today?'

Rude. Arrogant. Unprofessional. I won't go so far as to say everyone in the TSA is bad, just everyone I have dealt with.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that we have seen, time and again, TSA personnel ignoring the TSA's policies and subjecting travelers to humiliation, loss of property and false imprisonment without any substantive change by the agency and without any consequences to the personnel. TSA personnel have endangered the flying public on multiple occasions without any retribution.

Let's recap some of your highlights:

Urine collection bag of cancer survivor spilled all over him, man sent off from checkpoint covered in his own urine.

Mom flying with breastmilk held in screening area "penalty box"

Screaming four year old inappropriately screened.

Cash stolen by TSA personnel

Airplanes broken by TSA personnel climbing on them

Gun brought to checkpoint by TSA screener

The list goes on and on. We don't see the TSA changing its response, it is always, always that the screeners followed policy even when it's obvious that they clearly violated the TSA's policies. This is why you do not have the public's trust and are rated as the worst government agency.

RB said...

Who or what is a Martie?

P.F. Bruns said...

This post in particular makes me question the point of The TSA Blog. It's clearly not to reach out and communicate to people who have questions, or who don't trust the TSA. It seems to be to passive-aggressively contradict people the TSA has upset through the actions of poorly-trained or power-mad agents. It seems like the TSA people who post here are specifically forbidden by upper management to accept when the agency has made a mistake.

Then again, I'm biased because I actually follow multiple press reports that provide ample evidence of TSA wrongdoing.

Maybe we shouldn't be questioning the purpose of The TSA Blog. Maybe we should be questioning the purpose of the TSA.

Anonymous said...

All I have to say is that the reason some of the Tsa officers are rude are because of the rude passengers that they have to deal with day in and day out!!!!! What would you all do if they came into your work place and started cussing and throwing stuff amd causimg a scene. You all wouldn't like that very much would you. Another because of a few bad officers do not mean every officer is that way, every Tsa person I have talked to at Dfw have always been nice and respectful! If you dont like Tsa dont fly drive to your destination.

Andrea said...

I think it would be worthwhile to see just how often TSA employees are charged with not handling something properly given the passenger volume. When I read comments such as those found here, I immediately feel these errors-transgressions are being overblown, and the only way to be certain would be to measure as described above.

I suggest we use a Lean Six Sigma calculation here--number of instances where the TSA was perceived to have made a mistake divided by the number of passengers screened--result multipled by 1million to determine the rate per million passengers screened. My instinct is that the number will be extremely low (and if so, please give the TSA a break as the alternatives--scans with illegal items divided by total scans should be much higher).

Please look at the positive side of this even if the process is frustrating at times.

Anonymous said...

Nobody can tell, without opening the container, if a container has human remains. TSA policy should be for a TSA offider to open all containers with indeterminate contents and examine the contents to determine if they include something dangerous or prohbited. If people want to avoid scrutiny of their loved one's ashes, mail them instead.

@SkyWayManAz said...

I'm sure TSA screeners are treated rudely by the public at times. So are gate agents. So are flight attendants. I work in IT and at times get screamed at by people in my own company for things they did to themselves. Yeah it sucks but you can't handle the situation by immediately flying off the handle screaming back. I have NEVER been rude to a TSA screener but have been screamed at numerous times by numerous screeners in numerous cities. That is NOT an acceptable way to respond to a customer. For the TSA screeners out there reading these posts yes we are your customers. The fee on our airline ticket says so. The flying public is sick of being treated this way. I've had a lot of friendly professional screeners but it only takes one bad apple on a long trip to make the public feel abused. If we complain we are always told TSA acted appropriately or worse OUR version of events is inconsistent with YOUR investigation. I would never tell a customer the latter, you're calling them a liar and you better be able to back that up if you say it. In this case there's no video, much like other recent high profile incidents. That is unacceptable given the amount of theft your own employees have engaged in. Video would cleared up some allegations in this case but instead you called the customer a liar. Just like the elderly strip search victims at JFK were called liars until their Congressman got involved. Only then did TSA acknowledge mistakes were made. Unfortunately it does have to go that far before changes are made.

Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous suggests: I suggest we use a Lean Six Sigma calculation here--number of instances where the TSA was perceived to have made a mistake divided by the number of passengers screened--result multipled by 1million to determine the rate per million passengers screened.

Be careful what you wish for. By that metric, airline screening performed by private companies prior to 9/11 also produced an "extremely low" failure rate. Such an evaluation might lead one to conclude that the US taxpayer might not be getting much from all that extra money being spent on security by the TSA ...

Phil said...

Last night, Anonymous, a TSA apologist, wrote: "policy should be for a TSA offider to open all containers [sic]."

I am left wondering whether he misspelled "TSA officer" or "TSA offender."

Phil said...

Anyone with any credibility or a shred of human decency would have written a far different post, beginning with:

"The subject of traveling with crematory remains has been in the news recently. That's because we grossly mishandled an incident in Florida recently.

"An agent violated policy, and to make matters worse, we didn't step up immediately and apologize. It's time to do that now.

"To the family of John Gross, we say we are deeply sorry. We find it difficult to imagine how truly distressing this must have been, but we promise a thorough review of our policies to see that it never happens again."

IF JOHN PISTOLE HAD AN OUNCE OF CREDIBILITY, HE'D SAY THOSE WORDS HIMSELF.

But I'm pretty sure he won't.

[screenshots taken]

Anonymous said...

"RB Said: That would require people with a sole. TSA workers have none."

Actually they have two "soles" at the bottom of their feet; you may have meant soul if it hasn't been sold. . .

RB said...

Andrea said...
I think it would be worthwhile to see just how often TSA employees are charged with not handling something properly given the passenger volume. When I read comments such as those found here, I immediately feel these errors-transgressions are being overblown, and the only way to be certain would be to measure as described above.

I suggest we use a Lean Six Sigma calculation here--number of instances where the TSA was perceived to have made a mistake divided by the number of passengers screened--result multipled by 1million to determine the rate per million passengers screened. My instinct is that the number will be extremely low (and if so, please give the TSA a break as the alternatives--scans with illegal items divided by total scans should be much higher).

Please look at the positive side of this even if the process is frustrating at times.

..................
Can we use the same calculation for the likelihood of a terrorist event?

1.5 million passengers per day and no terrorist attack since 2001. Seems the chances of a terrorist attack are infinitesimal low and spending over 8 billion tax dollars each year on overstaffed TSA checkpoints is a waste of valuable resources.

We should be getting more for our money than abuse by TSA screeners.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Nobody can tell, without opening the container, if a container has human remains. TSA policy should be for a TSA offider to open all containers with indeterminate contents and examine the contents to determine if they include something dangerous or prohbited. If people want to avoid scrutiny of their loved one's ashes, mail them instead.

July 1, 2012 10:45 PM
........................
Be sure to include the spilling of the ashes of the departed along with the laughing TSA clerk.

But none of that is current TSA policy is it? That is the point that TSA has refused to address.

The screener reportedly did not follow policy and has not been disciplined.

The public deserves better for our 8 billions dollars that we currently waste on TSA.

Keith said...

Even the dead can be violated by the TSA.

Anonymous said...

Bob is probably giving an accurate account of the TSA's official policy about cremated remains. But as we all know, there is all too often a disconnect between the official TSA policy reiterated here and what we actually see happening at checkpoints. This inconsistency is possibly the most frustrating aspect of TSA screening, and is one of the main contributors to the dismal reputation the agency has earned.

This post appears to be a response to reports of a TSO who did not follow procedures for handling cremated remains, and did not meet the standards of professional courtesy. The angry victim made enough noise about the experience to require defensive action. Bob is doing his usual masterful job of evading any accountability for the failure, while implicitly disparaging the victim of the TSO's failure.

Notice how he avoids any specific mention of the incident. He simply states what's supposed to happen when a passenger is carrying cremated remains. From that we're presumably supposed to conclude that the incident could not possibly have happened. It would have violated TSA procedures, and of course TSOs never violate procedures. Therefore, the passenger who said it happened must be lying. And even if what happened was true, the TSO's conduct was justified and appropriate because of the inherent threat of terrorists concealing dangerous items in cremated remains.

What the post really says is that the TSA doesn't consider this incident a problem. They will not hold TSOs accountable when they violate (or don't know) procedures, or when they cause unnecessary distress to innocent passengers. They will do nothing to correct the underlying systemic failures that allow embarrassing incidents like this to occur again and again. And of course, the TSA is always eager to exploit their failures as opportunities to demonstrate utter contempt for passengers.

If Bob's intent was to further erode whatever respect and trust passengers still have for the TSA, he has done a great job with this post. Bravissimo!

Anonymous said...

You would think that at some point the people who run this blog would figure out that posing evasive responses to real issues is like throwing gas on a fire.

There's a pattern here, they just don't seem to get it.


There's a pattern alright. But it's not because they don't get it. I think it's intentional.

While it's impossible to know what goes on behind the locked doors at TSA headquarters, it appears that the TSA's top leadership believe that maintaining a delusional facade of infallibility is essential to their definition of security. They may believe that admitting to any kind of flaw, failure, or error creates a vulnerability that the enemy can exploit. (It also makes them look bad.) So when something happens that's embarrassing enough to require an official response, their goal is to steadfastly avoid the suggestion that anyone in the TSA is even capable of error. The passenger is either at fault or is lying. The TSA is always right.

One approach is to ignore the problem, as Bob has done with the baggage screeners who were taking bribes to ignore drug-filled suitcases. This operation went on for months, until one of the drug smugglers became and FBI informant and the FBI busted the screeners. It means that the TSA supervisors were either unaware of the operation, or else they allowed it to go on. Either way, it's a public relations disaster that seriously undermines confidence in the TSA's ability to do their mission. But they seem to have decided to ignore it, in the hope that we'll forget about it. I haven't forgotten it.

Another approach is to evade the problem, as Bob has done here. He recites the rules about how TSOs screen cremains, but avoids mentioning the incident "in the news" where a TSO apparently failed to follow those rules. The recitation is apparently an attempt to convince us that the incident could not possibly have happened, and that the victim is a liar. The TSA is always right.

Yet another approach is to justify or excuse whatever the TSA did. Bob carefully explains the threat the TSO was responding to, and why the TSO's response was entirely appropriate and justified. He might possibly note that an "investigation" showed that the TSO acted properly, apparently the only result a TSA "investigation" can produce. The implication here is that the passenger is at fault for the unpleasantness, either due to ignorance of the threat or a failure to obey or respect the TSO. Again, the TSA is always right. And it's always the passenger's fault when something goes wrong.

Finally, when TSA misconduct is so egregious that it can't be ignored, evaded, or excused, Bob solemnly informs us that the TSA has zero tolerance for such conduct. Then he tells us that appropriate action was taken, but national security and privacy concerns preclude saying anything more. As he draws the thick curtain of secrecy over the incident, he insists that we trust them. They're taking the right action, even though we must never know what it is. The TSA is always right. Until it happens again.

That's the pattern. Dodge, deny, lie, or spin as appropriate. I don't think Bob or his masters care whether we believe any of it.

Anonymous said...

"All I have to say is that the reason some of the Tsa officers are rude are because of the rude passengers that they have to deal with day in and day out!!!!!"

I have never seen a passenger treat a TSO disrespectfully. I'm not saying that it's never happened, but I've never seen it. I have, however, seen TSOs being extremely rude to passengers on a number of occasions.

In any case, it doesn't matter. If it is your job to deal with people who might be rude to you, then you have to deal with it. There is no excuse whatsoever for behaving the way that many TSOs do.

RB said...

If Bob's intent was to further erode whatever respect and trust passengers still have for the TSA, he has done a great job with this post. Bravissimo!

July 2, 2012 5:37 PM
...................
Excellent post.

I think you hit the nail fully on the head.

No accountability in TSA.

No ownership of problems created by TSA screeners, just constant denials.

The total lack of professionalism demonstrated by TSA is unacceptable.

Ever noticed that we hear almost no accounts of screener misconduct from the airports with contract screening?

Anonymous said...

@RB: No accountability in TSA.

No ownership of problems created by TSA screeners, just constant denials.

The total lack of professionalism demonstrated by TSA is unacceptable.


Those are well-known problems with the TSA. But I think there's really more to it than that.

I think TSA leadership actually encourages what we call "lack of professionalism." I think they actually want everyone who enters a checkpoint to feel fearful and uneasy about the possibility of being the next victim of a screener who enjoys a license to cover up incompetence with arrogance. I think they want the public to be regularly outraged at conduct anyone outside the TSA would consider unacceptable. I think John Pistole is actually very proud of his agency's reputation, and actively seeks to make the TSA even more despised by even more people.

The reason for thinking this is that it's quite apparent that the TSA believes that airport screening needs to be as intrusive and unpleasant as possible. To be effective, the "screening experience" needs to be something dreaded and feared. dreads and fears. Regular reports of "unacceptable" conduct, which Bob then denies, excuses, or justifies as appropriate, reinforce the dread and fear. And dread and fear is necessary for "effective security," as the TSA defines it.

Part of this is about "security theatre." Some people truly buy into it, and are genuinely willing to submit to anything the TSA wants to inflict if the TSA says it's protecting them from an unspeakable horror. Those people are very important to the TSA because of their willingness to stand up and defend the TSA whenever it does something outrageous. At least some of the comments on this blog defending the TSA likely come from these people who drink that Kool-Aid.

But the main reason the TSA believes that they need to be hated and feared is that they have no way of identifying the extremely rare terrorist who might be among the millions of innocent travelers. Even if "behavior detection" techniques were inherently reliable (and there's no evidence that they are), there is no way they could be useful in the hands of TSA "officers," whose competence and intelligence varies so widely.

So their only option is to treat everyone who enters a checkpoint as a terrorist or a criminal. The assumption seems to be that if they make screening aggravating enough for innocent passengers, it will be that much more difficult for terrorists. It will thus have a deterrent effect. There is, of course, no proof that such an approach is effective. But lack of evidence has never stopped the TSA.

As far as the TSA is concerned, "outrageous" incidents where screeners go overboard with cremains, breast milk, piercings, and urostomy bags only attest to the "thoroughness" of screening. If it upsets and outrages people, so much the better: The TSA puts "security" first, and if it causes distress, humiliation, or even injury that's a necessary price to pay for "effective security."

That is the only explanation I can think of for the way Bob and the TSA respond to these recurring incidents. And also for why the TSA refuses to do anything about "lack of professionalism." It's clear that they consider the abuse of passengers as "good security." It's also clear that they consider being hated and distrusted essential to "effective security," as they define it. In other words, they believe that the only way to protect the public is to treat the public as the enemy.

Anonymous said...

"Be careful what you wish for. By that metric, airline screening performed by private companies prior to 9/11 also produced an "extremely low" failure rate. Such an evaluation might lead one to conclude that the US taxpayer might not be getting much from all that extra money being spent on security by the TSA ..."

A meaningless point: The "private companies" that provided security did not allow anything on the 9/11 aircraft that were not permitted by FAA regulations.

The biggest contributor to 9/11 was the FAA-mandated "Coordinated Response." The video was required recurrent training that urged flightcrews to resist hijackers but only up to the point of bodily harm. At that point, flightcrews were to comply with hijacker demands. Hijackers, we were told, only wanted to make political points.

The FAA made the situation worse then and the TSA is likely doing the same now.

Anonymous said...

"However, crematory remains are one of the many sensitive items that could be exploited by someone wanting to conceal a dangerous item."

Kids and the elderly could be so exploited. Can't you at least be consistent, TSA?

Cameron said...

Bob, let's be honest here. We all know that your response and the TSA's response is going to be one of the following:

1. The person filing the complaint is lying.

2. We have investigated this incident and have concluded that our agents did nothing wrong.

3. We are dedicated to keeping you safe and are trained professionals.

4. The person filing the complaint is lying (Which is a repeat but the TSA relies on that so much it had to be posted twice).

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how people jump on a band wagon and ride it until the wheels fall off. How do you know the person did in fact open the remains? Most urns are sealed and cannot be opened due to the bio hazardous content unless the conatainer is broken open. Wheres the video showing the officer did in fact open the urn? Bunch of band wagoners with nothing better to do.

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
"It's amazing how people jump on a band wagon and ride it until the wheels fall off. How do you know the person did in fact open the remains? Most urns are sealed and cannot be opened due to the bio hazardous content unless the conatainer is broken open. Wheres the video showing the officer did in fact open the urn? Bunch of band wagoners with nothing better to do."

TSA does not outright deny the incident; they just claim it did not happen the way passenger recounts it. They also, amazingly, claim that there is no video. Funny how a single-lane checkpoint can take more video than hours in a given time (multiple cameras?) when it appears to absolve the TSA, but the TSA denies video exists when it does not. Granted, that's not proof, but there does seem to be a pattern with the TSA in this regard.

RBM said...

This is just sad. Every American is a potential terrorist who must be rigorously screened even when transporting a deceased loved one.

Earl Finnegan said...

My family will be doing a cremation in Chicago IL, but we'll be transporting the ashes back to my home. Thanks for the info on transporting them.

Anonymous said...

Just to be clear here, they are called 'Cremated Remains'. 'Crematory remains' would be what you would have if a crematory burnt to the ground and you gathered what was left. Pale in comparison to the real issues here, but annoying nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Emotional and psychological feelings of loved ones loss will leads to stress. Very helpful post that we can understand that how to carry Crematory remains