I participated this afternoon in conference call with representative of various disability organizations. The highlight of the call was when a representative of an organization for the blind - who travels 2 - 3 times a week - reported that, when going through security with his guide dog, he invariably cleared but the dog's harness triggered the dog's need for "secondary screening" (pat-downs) at which point he was asked - "over a dozen times - the sex of the dog, so that the pat-down could be done by a same-sex TSO! [Transportation Security Officer.] Not only that, but he had reports of this happening to a number of other people. At which point, the call hosts made clear they didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

That, and it provides a nice lead in to a difficult subject. When a person with disabilities or a medical condition is required to go through secondary screening, they have the right to request that it be done in private. At which point, not only is the secondary screening performed (as always) by a same-sex TSO, but the passenger also has the right to have the witness of her/his choice present. And, and as noted above, a paper smock of some kind it provided so that the traveler can remove bulky items of clothing, e.g., sweats, to allow for the lightest possible touch.

Now, I fully understand that the national director of a major support group for the blind, is going to travel with much greater frequency than someone with debilitating RSD/CRPS, but we all have to travel from time to time.

So the question is, is whether a significant number of people would prefer a choice of either partially disrobing in complete privacy, putting on a paper smock and then being patted down from there in a private room with a witness, etc., or, under the same circumstances, completely disrobing, putting on a gown, and then, after the TSO has gone over your clothing with a wand, dropping the smock for 5 seconds, raising your arms and turning around. And consistent with the secondary search policy, it would not be any more invasive than that.*

I understand if the whole concept seems outrageous to some of you, and I wish the emphasize that this would be a strictly voluntary option. So with that, would anyone be interested in having this as an option? With sufficient interest and its own internal approval, the RSDSA could then formally submit this as a proposal to the TSA.

And in the event of some interest, I may put up a separate polling thread to gain further input.

Let me know. Thanks.

Mike


*As opposed to when I was a young man with long hair trying to enter Canada in a car with some friends, long time back, and the agent found OMG "a seed!" on the floor of the car, at which point, we and all of our possessions were subject to a significantly more invasive procedure, not that anything turned up.