Thursday, May 4, 2017

TSA Cares: Lupus Awareness Month

Purple Lupus Awareness RibbonAs you may know, May is Lupus Awareness Month. Lupus is a non-contagious, chronic and often disabling, autoimmune disease that affects approximately 1.5 million Americans. TSA recognizes that traveling with this condition can be challenging. So, here are a few tips you should know before you go on your next trip. 

Need assistance getting through security? 
Contact TSA’s helpline 72 hours before your scheduled flight. The TSA Cares helpline provides travelers with disabilities, medical conditions, and other circumstances, assistance during the security screening process. If you require security screening accommodations or have any concerns about the screening process, TSA Cares can coordinate assistance with a TSA passenger support specialist who can provide on-the-spot assistance at the checkpoint. 

Know the 3-1-1 liquids rule. 
All liquids, aerosols, gels, creams and pastes 3.4 ounces or less are allowed in your carry-on bag. Liquids greater than 3.4 ounces, will need to be checked in. There are however, exceptions to the rule. If you are traveling with liquid medication greater than 3.4 ounces, you will be allowed to pack them in carry-on baggage. All you need to do is notify the Transportation Security officer at the start of your screening process. Just keep in mind, medically required liquids will be subjected to additional screening. If the officers are unable to use X-ray to clear the item, they make ask to open your container. 

Arrive early. 
On the day of travel, ensure you arrive early to allow time for security screening. You will be screened by walk-through metal detector or advanced imaging technology. If you cannot or choose not to be screened by advanced imaging technology or a walk-through metal detector, you will undergo a pat-down. You may also undergo a pat-down if you alarm the screening equipment and/or at random. 

Have TSA Pre✓®? 
If you have TSA Pre✓® then you know that you are not required to remove your shoes, light outerwear jackets, 3-1-1 compliant bag, laptop and large electronics including your CPAP or BABP machine. If you don’t have TSA Pre✓® and have to go through standard screening, make sure you allow yourself plenty of time to go through the checkpoint as you will have to remove all the items listed above except for maybe your shoes. Persons with disabilities and medical conditions are not required to remove their shoes however, shoes must undergo additional screening, including visual/physical inspection as well as explosives trace detection testing of the footwear. If needed, you may request to be seated during this portion of the screening. 

Traveling with a companion? 
The good news is you won’t be asked to be separated from your companion during the screening process. Know that at any time during the screening process, you may request a private screening which can be accompanied by your companion. 

Have additional questions on policy or what to expect at the checkpoint? Email TSA Cares or call (855) 787-2227. You may also send us a tweet or direct message to @AskTSA. 

Lizzy Gary, Director, TSA Traveler Engagement

26 comments:

RB said...

"Just keep in mind, medically required liquids will be subjected to additional screening. If the officers are unable to use X-ray to clear the item, they make ask to open your container."

.........................

I would hope, but have little confidence, that TSA knows that many medical LGA's are sterile and once opened have a limited shelf life or must be used right away.

Being required to open certain types of medical LGA's, babies formula, breast milk,juices, or other types of nutritional items is just not a viable option. Yet this is exactlyt what TSA demands, even in some cases requiring the passenger to consume some of the item.

TSA claims it Cares but is clearly deaf to the public's needs, health and safety.

In fact I would feel much safer if TSA wasn't in my airports.

Yes4TSA said...

Rb, what would make you feel safe at airports?

RB said...

Yes4TSA said...
Rb, what would make you feel safe at airports?

May 7, 2017 at 2:36 PM
....................
For starters, TSA working for citizens not against.

The war of liquids is idiotic. TSA is permitted a limited Administrative Search for the purpose of preventing Weapons, Explosives, and Incendiaries from making it onto airplanes. That's it, nothing else TSA is doing is permitted under legislation. Breast milk, water, pudding cups, contact lens cleaners can be prohibited. Playing name games with passengers, threatening people with a choice of flying or not is not proper conduct. I could continue but there is really no reason, we all know that TSA has overstepped and continues to push the boundaries of what is reasonable such as the recent Extremely Invasive Pat Downs where genital contact is the rule of the day. That is simply not acceptable.

The airplanes belong to private companies and it is they who should provide for the security of their property not government.

TSA is worse than the disease that TSA was created to fight.

Boldly said...

Just keep in mind, medically required liquids will be subjected to additional screening. If the officers are unable to use X-ray to clear the item, they make ask to open your container."

.........................

"I would hope, but have little confidence, that TSA knows that many medical LGA's are sterile and once opened have a limited shelf life or must be used right away.

Being required to open certain types of medical LGA's, babies formula, breast milk,juices, or other types of nutritional items is just not a viable option. Yet this is exactlyt what TSA demands, even in some cases requiring the passenger to consume some of the item.

TSA claims it Cares but is clearly deaf to the public's needs, health and safety.

In fact I would feel much safer if TSA wasn't in my airports.

I believe I read once that medically exempt liquids such as breast milk, formula, milk and juices for infants are allowed in quantities needed for the duration of the flight. Thus your argument is almost invalid as those "self life" items are going to be consumed while on the flight. If they aren't going to be consumed, then they should be in checked baggage. And I have never heard of any TSA policy that requires a passenger to consume liquids prior to taking them on a flight. To the original point, I think it makes perfectly sense if a bottle is not see through and cannot be x-rayed, it should be opened. How else would anyone know if there are dangerous things in the bottle? Could be a small knife inside, a detonator...

Wintermute said...

I thought you said you didn't believe the sky was falling? But your argument is, basically, "the sky is falling!"

RB said...

Boldly said...
Just keep in mind, medically required liquids will be subjected to additional screening. If the officers are unable to use X-ray to clear the item, they make ask to open your container."

.........................

"I would hope, but have little confidence, that TSA knows that many medical LGA's are sterile and once opened have a limited shelf life or must be used right away.

Being required to open certain types of medical LGA's, babies formula, breast milk,juices, or other types of nutritional items is just not a viable option. Yet this is exactlyt what TSA demands, even in some cases requiring the passenger to consume some of the item.

TSA claims it Cares but is clearly deaf to the public's needs, health and safety.

In fact I would feel much safer if TSA wasn't in my airports.
................


I believe I read once that medically exempt liquids such as breast milk, formula, milk and juices for infants are allowed in quantities needed for the duration of the flight. Thus your argument is almost invalid as those "self life" items are going to be consumed while on the flight. If they aren't going to be consumed, then they should be in checked baggage. And I have never heard of any TSA policy that requires a passenger to consume liquids prior to taking them on a flight. To the original point, I think it makes perfectly sense if a bottle is not see through and cannot be x-rayed, it should be opened. How else would anyone know if there are dangerous things in the bottle? Could be a small knife inside, a detonator...

May 8, 2017 at 1:37 PM

...............
Boldy, even you should know that a sterile item is no longer sterile once opened. If it is food/beverage for a baby or young child contaminated/spoiled fool could be deadly. As far as quantity, people have to plan for the unexpected, weather delays, aircraft not being available for various reasons. What should be a two hour flight is easily 6 hours without any delays. Arrive at the airport two hours early, wait for the plane, toss in a late departure, and the clock gets out of hand real fast.

I maintain that on a day to day basis TSA presents a greater threat to safety than terrorist for flights originating in the U.S.

Doober said...

Boldy, yet again makes no sense: "as breast milk, formula, milk and juices for infants are allowed in quantities needed for the duration of the flight." No one knows how much is reasonable for a flight, Boldy. What happens if the flight is delayed, if the plane is held on the tarmac for three hours, what happens if a flight is diverted to an airport in the middle of the night? Think, Boldy, think.

And think about what you said here: "To the original point, I think it makes perfectly sense if a bottle is not see through and cannot be x-rayed, it should be opened. How else would anyone know if there are dangerous things in the bottle? Could be a small knife inside, a detonator..."

1. You do know, don't you, that often when a liquid is opened by TSA it is then contaminated and no longer safe for use?

2. You do know, don't you, thatTSA has required some parents to open every single juice box being carried on for use by children? What is a parent to do with multiple open juice boxes, Boldy? (We've had this discussion before and you were set straight but I guess you don't remember or can't learn.)

3. You do know, don't you, that TSA's x-ray machines can see through a bottle of milk to determine if there is a weapon hidden inside?

screen shot/DHS IG statement

Wintermute said...

My initials are RB as well, so let me answer plainly and simply: Having whatever organization is in charge of security not fail over 95% of red-team tests would be a great start. Insider knowledge or no, this is, quite simply, unacceptable.

Yes4TSA said...

No offence but it seems like you are upset about the policies and behavior of TSA. You did not explain what they need to do that would make you feel safe. Just your opinions on policies and tsa in general.

And if airports privatized security, it would be the exact same screening, just not by a government employee.

RB said...

Yes4TSA said...
No offence but it seems like you are upset about the policies and behavior of TSA. You did not explain what they need to do that would make you feel safe. Just your opinions on policies and tsa in general.

And if airports privatized security, it would be the exact same screening, just not by a government employee.


May 9, 2017 at 10:24 PM
..................
Not upset but strongly disagree with how TSA conducts itself and abuses citizens.

I explained my position to my satisfaction.

Yes4TSA said...

With some research I found many articles about these tests. I think some things should be noted about these tests from what I'm reading.
- all the articals are from 2015, almost two years ago. I, and I would assume others, are curious to see new testing scores.
- these tests seemed to be set up for fairlue as one article said the test were designed to find vulnerabilities in With in the systems. And yes, it seems they did just that.
- only 70 tests were ran. There are over 400 airports ( estimating) with tsa... why were all these airports not tested? 70 is a very low sample score.
- A new pat down was introduced recently to offset those vulnerabilities found during testing. ( which many that use the 95% percent argument then turned around and complained about the new pat down).
- the testing seemed to be successful for what it was intended to do which was find vulnerabilities. Let's hope they have improved in a two years time frame.

Wintermute said...

Oh, so the 70% stat gets updated to 95%, and you're just chomping at the bit for it to age so you can claim it is old.

Also, you're aware that TSA fails to find mock underwear bombs in these tests? Not exactly pushing the envelope to find the breaking point, but testing for exactly what the TSA used to justify the nude-o-scopes as well as their replacement "nude-o-scope with Gumby image overlay."

As for the pat-down, how many embarrassing situations has it created for the TSA to have to put spin on? I don't care about the veracity of the reports, as TSA will spin them regardless, but the fact that a patdown leads to the TSA having to spin them to begin with tells a lot. How many have resolved an alarm without finding anything? How many have verified an alarm to be an actual threat? Even counting banned but non-threat items, I'm betting most alarms are resolved in the negative. Oops. There went your argument about the new pat-downs. Besides, if they're being used to resolve alarms (I know, sometimes the TSA will "randomly" pick someone to harass regardless), then they do nothing to address the false negatives from the machines.

Wintermute said...

And to add - are not the terrorists trying to find vulnerabilities within the system? If not, then TSA's very existence is unnecessary. If so, then these tests are very relevant.

Chip and Andy said...

".. Yes4TSA said...And if airports privatized security, it would be the exact same screening, just not by a government employee.

Yes! Now you are starting to understand!

If the private companies are doing the screening then the Constitutional Issues with the screening are mostly solved. If the private companies are doing the screening then market forces will balance out the cost of the screening to something that matches the risk (as opposed to the TSA trying to manufacture risk to justify their costs). If the private companies are doing the screening there will be free-market controls on the level of customer service provided by the private screeners, those who ask 'do you want to fly today' will be pushed out of the market by customer selection (as opposed to the TSA being between everyone and the aircraft and beholden to neither the airlines nor the passenger).

Shut down the TSA. Turn them into a regulatory body similar to the FAA and let the airlines provide the security for their assets.

Wintermute said...

Private companies can do things the government can't without running into Constitutional issues. Unless, of course, they're acting as an agent of the government.

Boldly said...

I maintain that on a day to day basis TSA presents a greater threat to safety than terrorist for flights originating in the U.S
we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Boldly said...

1. You do know, don't you, that often when a liquid is opened by TSA it is then contaminated and no longer safe for use? not entirely true. In fact, I would argue that this is a mostly false statement.

2. You do know, don't you, thatTSA has required some parents to open every single juice box being carried on for use by children? What is a parent to do with multiple open juice boxes, Boldy? (We've had this discussion before and you were set straight but I guess you don't remember or can't learn.)

actually, TSA policy does not "require" baby food (juice bottles ) and such to be opened for screening. If they cannot be screened, one of the parents simply gets the famed TSA patdown. Pretty simple. Perhaps you don't recall the conversation...

3. You do know, don't you, that TSA's x-ray machines can see through a bottle of milk to determine if there is a weapon hidden inside? absolutely. but that only works when the parents allow the item to be xrayed. you should read what I wrote before posting next time... I clearly said "To the original point, I think it makes perfectly sense if a bottle is not see through and cannot be x-rayed, it should be opened." maybe you missed that part...

Boldly said...

Yes4TSA said...
With some research I found many articles about these tests. I think some things should be noted about these tests from what I'm reading.
- all the articals are from 2015, almost two years ago. I, and I would assume others, are curious to see new testing scores. I would love to see it.
- these tests seemed to be set up for fairlue as one article said the test were designed to find vulnerabilities in With in the systems. And yes, it seems they did just that. exactly, but the haters don't care. how do you know the breaking point of anything unless you test its known vulnerabilities?
- only 70 tests were ran. There are over 400 airports ( estimating) with tsa... why were all these airports not tested? 70 is a very low sample score.
- A new pat down was introduced recently to offset those vulnerabilities found during testing. ( which many that use the 95% percent argument then turned around and complained about the new pat down).
- the testing seemed to be successful for what it was intended to do which was find vulnerabilities. if poor test results caused proper changes, I would call the test an overwhelming success.
Let's hope they have improved in a two years time frame the problem will be, the tests will be the same in that they will be testing known weakness. There is a simple solution to most TSA problems if you ask me. They first need to raise the hiring standards. Nobody goes to TSA with a career in mind. They come there to get benefits while going through school, or to work part time and get benefits.
They need to hire better educated career minded people. They need to hire full time employees. they need to demand more from them and tolerate less. And they need to pay them properly. I agree many at TSA are over paid. I don't believe the position is over paid, in fact I think it is highly underpaid. I just think in many cases, the wrong person is doing the job.
When you only hire part time, require very odd hours and only pay $15.50 an hour, you wont get much in return.

RB said...

Boldly said...
I maintain that on a day to day basis TSA presents a greater threat to safety than terrorist for flights originating in the U.S
we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

May 15, 2017 at 11:51 AM
......................
No we don't. What I believe has nothing to do with your beliefs.

We do know that TSA has assaulted travelers, stolen property from travelers, violated travelers rights, and a host of other violations while there hasn't been one terrorist event on a U.S. originating flight since the inception of TSA.

TSA is clearly the greater threat to travelers safety.

Wintermute said...

how do you know the breaking point of anything unless you test its known vulnerabilities?
--
So, an underwear bomb, mock or otherwise, is a known vulnerability now? That's one of the items that made it through on testing. And no AIT alarm means no patdown (unless it's "ramndom") so what good does a new patdown do, exactly, except punish those who either refuse to go through AIT or have the gall to have an "anomoly" cause an alarm?

Chip and Andy said...

Boldy said "..if poor test results caused proper changes, I would call the test an overwhelming success. "

You might want to rethink that just a bit.

The first bits of information on 'Red Team Testing' was reporting something near six in ten screening failures. This was now several years ago and you are correct, if the failed tests resulted in improvements then the failures are important but in the past.

The new batch of 'Red Team Testing' is reporting something near nine in ten screening failures. This is not a metric that in any part of this universe indicates success at any level of political spin or even in simple reality.

Many of the other TSA employees, and I think even you yourself have said this... The TSA has to get it right every single time, the Terrorist only have to get it right once.

Lucky for us there aren't very many terrorist trying to get it right or we would all be in trouble and our aircraft would be raining out of the sky every single day.

Boldly said...

RB said...We do know that TSA has assaulted travelers, I don't believe this is a true statement. But if someone has been convicted of it, then I guess I'm wrong. I don't recall any convictions. stolen property from travelers, trueviolated travelers rights, I don't recall such a case, and a host of other violations while there hasn't been one terrorist event on a U.S. originating flight since the inception of TSA. that's right, not a single one. 100% success rate


Boldly said...

how do you know the breaking point of anything unless you test its known vulnerabilities?
--
So, an underwear bomb, mock or otherwise, is a known vulnerability now? of course it is. That's one of the items that made it through on testing. And no AIT alarm means no patdown (unless it's "ramndom") so what good does a new patdown do, exactly, except punish those who either refuse to go through AIT or have the gall to have an "anomoly" cause an alarm? seems to me this is pure logic, maybe thats where people get lost. Yes, (I assume, I haven't read the reports) underwear bombs are still a threat. The processes have changed to prevent them. IF the test have failed, that means the processes didn't work and more changes are needed. I would rather have the "failure" on a test than the real thing. So although failure rate is high, it shows that things need to change.

Wintermute said...

I think you need to ponder my statement a little more and get back to me, because you twisted your logic so much that a can't tell if you're still pro TSA or joined the detractors now.

Boldly said...

Wintermute said...
I think you need to ponder my statement a little more and get back to me, because you twisted your logic so much that a can't tell if you're still pro TSA or joined the detractors now.
I would say I am neither. I simply look at the entire picture and don't allow my bias to overwhelm my sense of logic. I call TSA out when they screw up. But unlike most here, I don't assume all reports from frantic moms are factual and I don't convict TSA until I know what the story really is. I am open minded enough to know that a vast majority of TSA officers are very hard working dedicated workers. A vast majority do the job properly every day. The vast majority are very underpaid for what is demanded of them.

Wintermute said...

Show me once where you've called them out. You can't, because you haven't. You're one of their most vocal cheerleaders here.