TSA mess and the police

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Exactly. That falls squarely within the bounds of reasonably accommodation under the ADA. So under those standards, would employers be required to accommodate employees who cannot perform a basic job function (flying) because of a medical condition (PTSD, phobia, etc.) due to the new TSA procedures? Or is it, in fact, the TSA that would fall under the purview of the ADA and be required to provide reasonable accommodation to flyers who cannot undergo the new procedures? I don't know the answer, but it something that will have to be addressed.

A job requiring flying wouldn't fall under ADA.

 

[LuvOrlando]

A job requiring flying wouldn't fall under ADA.

It is not the actual flying which is the problem. The new procedures which could potentially inhibit access to the flying are the pivotal point because they create a barrier for people with certain disabilities.

 

[JLTraveling]

A job requiring flying wouldn't fall under ADA.

Why not? Like I said, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around whether it's the employer or the TSA that would have to provide the reasonable accommodation. But one or the other, or possibly both together, should have to provide access. If the ADA applies to parking spots and Disney rides and museums, how does it not apply here? Taxi companies and subways and buses and trains are required to provide access. Heck, the airlines themselves are required to provide aisle chairs (which provide as much access as possible within the limitations of air travel itself). Why does a government agency get to cut off access for a portion of the population?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It is not the actual flying which is the problem. The new procedures which could potentially inhibit access to the flying are the pivotal point.

It is still elective though.

*keeping in mind that I personally am electing (for now) to not fly for similar reasons...I am not disabled by it--but I am willingly choosing (for now) to not submit'as i don't wish to relive trauma.

If the searches hold up in court and flying is required and employe refuses for documented reasons---they still will not be disabled.

I'm hopIng it will be declared unconstitutional myself.

Another ADA tidbit.

Job is located on elm street. You could travel just fine to work. But then one day, a legal protest sets up shop and passing them reminds you of the trauma. You can no lOngwe get to work because it requires passing this protest that conjures up all those painful memories.

Protest holds up on court--they do not have to move.

What shOuld happen? Remember, ADA says "reasonable"'accommodations and employee MUST physically be at work to do their job as....cleaning lady. Can't clean toilets via teleconference.

What happens?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Why not? Like I said, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around whether it's the employer or the TSA that would have to provide the reasonable accommodation. But one or the other, or possibly both together, should have to provide access. If the ADA applies to parking spots and Disney rides and museums, how does it not apply here? Taxi companies and subways and buses and trains are required to provide access. Heck, the airlines themselves are required to provide aisle chairs (which provide as much access as possible within the limitations of air travel itself). Why does a government agency get to cut off access for a portion of the population?

The employer is not restricting access though. I'm speaking from POV of employer and the fact that this one thing by itself does not define a disability.

As for the TSA, I am hoping that these enhancements are declared
Unconstitituitonal.

 

[surfgirl]

It is not the actual flying which is the problem. The new procedures which could potentially inhibit access to the flying are the pivotal point.

I'm not a qualified medical professional, nor do I play one on tv, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, however....

If someone had no documented PTSD prior to the new procedures, but yet claimed that the new enhanced pat-downs (actually the *possibility* of them) were responsible for severe trauma PTSD such that they couldn't fly, that would raise a red flag for me. As a taxpayer, as an investor, as an employee, it would seem abusive. Again, I'm only referring to a new diagnosis, because I don't believe the new procedures are significantly different than the old ones.

Discomfort is not PTSD. To refer to it as such is doing a dis-service to all with PTSD, a serious problem.

-----------------
btw, did anyone see this article about autistic kids and flying ?

www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-29-airportcheckin29_ST_N.htm

quoting article:
With assistance from Southwest Airlines (LUV), Philadelphia International and a local team of child development specialists are operating mock flights for children with autism to help them become more familiar with air travel.

In three sessions so far, children and their families simulated all phases of travel, including checking bags, dealing with airline agents, clearing security, waiting at the gate and boarding the plane, says Victoria Lupica, an airport spokeswoman.

"It was as if they're truly leaving for a trip. It's just that they never left the tarmac," she says. "When they're not children anymore, when they need to do things on their own, having the experience is so important."

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That is a pretty cool story about the autistic children.

 

[LuvOrlando]

It is still elective though.

*keeping in mind that I personally am electing (for now) to not fly for similar reasons...I am not disabled by it--but I am willingly choosing (for now) to not submit'as i don't wish to relive trauma.

If the searches hold up in court and flying is required and employe refuses for documented reasons---they still will not be disabled.

I'm hopIng it will be declared unconstitutional myself.

Another ADA tidbit.

Job is located on elm street. You could travel just fine to work. But then one day, a legal protest sets up shop and passing them reminds you of the trauma. You can no lOngwe get to work because it requires passing this protest that conjures up all those painful memories.

Protest holds up on court--they do not have to move.

What shOuld happen? Remember, ADA says "reasonable"'accommodations and employee MUST physically be at work to do their job as....cleaning lady. Can't clean toilets via teleconference.

What happens?

If that's the case then all public accommodations made for people with disabilities could be withdrawn because, after all, their decision to participate in any public situation is voluntary. That's quite a slippery slope.

As for the person who gets to work, don't all business require 2 points of egress for fire safety? Go in & out the alternative entrance and go up & down the opposite way on the street. Further, the persons hours could be changed to the middle of the night when protesting is very unlikely, why protest if there is no-one around to see it? Also, a persons right to protest is different than the procedures I am talking about because protesting is a protected liberty while the TSAs method is not a protected liberty.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I'm not a qualified medical professional, nor do I play one on tv, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, however....

If someone had no documented PTSD prior to the new procedures, but yet claimed that the new enhanced pat-downs (actually the *possibility* of them) were responsible for severe trauma PTSD such that they couldn't fly, that would raise a red flag for me. As a taxpayer, as an investor, as an employee, it would seem abusive. Again, I'm only referring to a new diagnosis, because I don't believe the new procedures are significantly different than the old ones.

Discomfort is not PTSD. To refer to it as such is doing a dis-service to all with PTSD, a serious problem.

-

You are absolutely 100% correct, PTSD is not the same thing as uncomfortable.

I think the story about the Autistic kids is fantastic!!!! It will help many but what about the ones with tactile issues including those who simply can't be touched by unfamiliar people?

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

It is not the actual flying which is the problem. The new procedures which could potentially inhibit access to the flying are the pivotal point because they create a barrier for people with certain disabilities.

Can you name one physical disability that would make one no longer able to fly? I cannot think of one.

Exclude the mental disabilities - the fear of being touched, post traumatic stress etc.

Someone very dear to me was violently raped and had both arms broken in the attack 10 years ago. Jen laughed when I asked her about the TSA rules and if they are a worry. She said she could differentiate between an act of violence and (even in the worst cases that people bring up) an act of fondling. One is intended to hurt the other is just a quick grope.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If that's the case then all public accommodations made for people with disabilities could be withdrawn because, after all, their decision to participate in any public situation is voluntary. That's quite a slippery slope.

As for the person who gets to work, don't all business require 2 points of egress for fire safety? Go in & out the alternative entrance and go up & down the opposite way on the street. Further, the persons hours could be changed to the middle of the night when protesting is very unlikely, why protest if there is no-one around to see it? Also, a persons right to protest is different than the procedures I am talking about because protesting is a protected liberty while the TSAs method is not a protected liberty.

Two egresses, but one parking lot

In any case---it isn't going to hold up. There is too much precedence.

Take a baggage handler for example. If you can no longer pick up the weight required, you can't. They don't have to accomodate anyone.

There is no slippery slope. That is why ADA is written as reasonable. A lighthouse does not have to install an elevator, for example.

An employer could improve that it is unreasonable to accomodate someone who cannot travel. Such jobs exist and it was those jobs wenwere discussing...or so I thought.

My ADA knowledge is limited to those scenarios I have found myself in. My opinion is derived from the knowledge thAt access is not guaranteed 100% of the time and that holds up in court depending on the situation. Pregnant woman who cannot lift the minimum weight for a job function is a real example.

 

[JLTraveling]

Can you name one physical disability that would make one no longer able to fly? I cannot think of one.

Exclude the mental disabilities - the fear of being touched, post traumatic stress etc.

Someone very dear to me was violently raped and had both arms broken in the attack 10 years ago. Jen laughed when I asked her about the TSA rules and if they are a worry. She said she could differentiate between an act of violence and (even in the worst cases that people bring up) an act of fondling. One is intended to hurt the other is just a quick grope.

It's absolutely wonderful that your friend has been able to move on so well. I'm truly sorry that she had to experience that, but very happy that she is doing well in moving past it. However, her experience is not necessarily "typical," if such a thing exists in this scenario. It's just like 9/11. Some people were able to get back to work as soon as their employers reopened, others are still on disability to this day. Moving on from any sort of trauma is a very personal process, and each person goes through it at his or her own rate.

So no, we can't just discount the mental health issues. They are real, they are extremely painful, and they must be considered.

Two egresses, but one parking lot

In any case---it isn't going to hold up. There is too much precedence.

Take a baggage handler for example. If you can no longer pick up the weight required, you can't. They don't have to accomodate anyone.

There is no slippery slope. That is why ADA is written as reasonable. A lighthouse does not have to install an elevator, for example.

An employer could improve that it is unreasonable to accomodate someone who cannot travel. Such jobs exist and it was those jobs wenwere discussing...or so I thought.

My ADA knowledge is limited to those scenarios I have found myself in. My opinion is derived from the knowledge thAt access is not guaranteed 100% of the time and that holds up in court depending on the situation. Pregnant woman who cannot lift the minimum weight for a job function is a real example.

Sadly, I fear that you are right. A lot of people are going to fall through the cracks simply because they cannot face either alternative of an impossible choice. I agree with what you said earlier, I hope that these procedures are simply ruled unconstitutional. If they are not, though, I worry for what is going to happen to a lot of people.

 

[DMRick]

Can you name one physical disability that would make one no longer able to fly? I cannot think of one.
.

Being on regular oxygen? Not being able to get out of your wheel chair at all, and it not being able to fit in the plane door?

 

[C.Ann]

-----------------
btw, did anyone see this article about autistic kids and flying ?

www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-29-airportcheckin29_ST_N.htm

quoting article:
With assistance from Southwest Airlines (LUV), Philadelphia International and a local team of child development specialists are operating mock flights for children with autism to help them become more familiar with air travel.

In three sessions so far, children and their families simulated all phases of travel, including checking bags, dealing with airline agents, clearing security, waiting at the gate and boarding the plane, says Victoria Lupica, an airport spokeswoman.

"It was as if they're truly leaving for a trip. It's just that they never left the tarmac," she says. "When they're not children anymore, when they need to do things on their own, having the experience is so important."

What a great idea! I'm sure that will be helpful to a majority of those kids..

I think the story about the Autistic kids is fantastic!!!! It will help many but what about the ones with tactile issues including those who simply can't be touched by unfamiliar people?

Sadly, I fear that you are right. A lot of people are going to fall through the cracks simply because they cannot face either alternative of an impossible choice. I agree with what you said earlier, I hope that these procedures are simply ruled unconstitutional. If they are not, though, I worry for what is going to happen to a lot of people.

I feel the same way..

Being on regular oxygen? Not being able to get out of your wheel chair at all, and it not being able to fit in the plane door?

And many more..:

 

[tiggerplus5]

I don't know. I'm rambling a bit. But I know that there is not reasonable accommodation being provided here, and it's not morally, ethically or legally right.

Under the ADA laws, you CANNOT assume that someone is disabled and you CANNOT assume they need special help. Everyone is to be treated the same unless they ask for a "reasonable accommodation". Many disabled people do not want to be treated differently.

On the other hand, anyone can ask for any thing. It doesn't mean TSA has to grant it. I believe it has to be a "disability" in order for it to fall under the ADA regulations though, not just a medical condition.

I have a close family member that gets panic attacks. Crowds bother him. So does flying. The TSA, Southwest and Disney did not create any barrier for him. I can ask WDW to remove the crowds when he visits the parks. Do they have to agree? No. Disney can make the wait less uncomfortable with a GAD pass but it would be unreasonable to ask for an empty amusement park. We don't ask for any special consideration. We just accept that fact that we may have to change our touring plans that day. Someone with a insulin pump could ask to be privately screened but to ask NOT to be screened would be "unreasonable".

Why isn't anyone upset that people with oxygen could not fly even prior to the new screenings? I'm not sure what the reason is but the airlines have been denying this for years. It doesn't matter if you have oxygen or PTSD. All disabilities are supposed to be considered equal. And still the answer is no to oxygen.

Someone with PTSD can ask for a more sensitive TSA agent in a quiet room (maybe someone specially trained for those with disabilities) but to ask to be exempt is not reasonable.

Does the TSA have a procedure to request an accommodation? Then they should probably set one up real quick. I googled it and found nothing readily available. If a disabled person requests a reasonable accommodation and were denied, they always have the option to pursue it within the judicial system. That's the American way! Does anyone know of someone that requested a reasonable accommodation and was denied? TSA agents may need ADA training if it has not been provided to them. Most companies already have these procedures in place.

Reasonable accommodations need to be assessed on an individual basis. There is no general answer that will apply to every disabled person. Each disability is different, each individual is different in what they need. hth

btw This is me...happy with the enhanced screening.
Definitely feel safer to fly now. If I flew often, I would opt for the retina scan. I have nothing to hide.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Why isn't anyone upset that people with oxygen could not fly even prior to the new screenings? I'm not sure what the reason is but the airlines have been denying this for years. It doesn't matter if you have oxygen or PTSD. All disabilities are supposed to be considered equal. And still the answer is no to oxygen.

Oxygen tanks are prohibited. Pure oxygen is flammable. It's presumed - because the wreckage was never found - that improperly shipped oxygen tanks are what caused that ValuJet flight to crash in the Everglades.

Many airlines allow the use of portable oxygen concentrators onboard flights - so many, but not all, persons needing oxygen actually can fly. Also, somebody mentioned upthread people who can't get out of wheelchairs. That's not realistic. There may be people who want to fly but can't get in/out of the wheelchair unassisted; At least on Delta (only company I checked) passengers needing help are advised to travel with a companion. Not unreasonable. Doesn't prevent them from flying, except by choice.

Now, the movie "Airplane" notwithstanding, someone who can't get out of bed probably can't fly.

Then again, I've heard the only thing that's truly impossible is trying to light a match on a marshmallow...

 

[DMRick]

There may be people who want to fly but can't get in/out of the wheelchair unassisted; At least on Delta (only company I checked) passengers needing help are advised to travel with a companion. Not unreasonable. Doesn't prevent them from flying, except by choice.

There are people who can not fly that are in wheelchairs. Traveling with a companion won't matter. Not everyone can simply be lifted out of a chair and put in a seat. Some people have to use a pully system (there are many reasons people are in a wheelchair, as I'm sure you know), and there is no way to do it on an airplane, and get someone that can't be lifted or even be touched, into a seat, Delta included. And some can't sit in a seat, they have to be seated in their wheelchair. It is not always a choice, and there is nothing you can say that will tell me otherwise....period. You can't possible know everyones medical history.
Also, as I said, there are people using regular oxygen that cannot fly. There may be some that can, but that wasn't the question.

 

[kaytieeldr]

You're right, DMRick. There are people who can't fly for the medical reasons you state, and others. My apologies.

But you know something? That all appears to be an attempt (by one or more posters against the 'new' procedures?") to misdirect the conversation. Because those people can't fly commercially, what treatment they might receive from the TSA is moot.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Oxygen tanks are prohibited. Pure oxygen is flammable. It's presumed - because the wreckage was never found - that improperly shipped oxygen tanks are what caused that ValuJet flight to crash in the Everglades.Many airlines allow the use of portable oxygen concentrators onboard flights - so many, but not all, persons needing oxygen actually can fly. Also, somebody mentioned upthread people who can't get out of wheelchairs. That's not realistic. There may be people who want to fly but can't get in/out of the wheelchair unassisted; At least on Delta (only company I checked) passengers needing help are advised to travel with a companion. Not unreasonable. Doesn't prevent them from flying, except by choice.

Now, the movie "Airplane" notwithstanding, someone who can't get out of bed probably can't fly.

Then again, I've heard the only thing that's truly impossible is trying to light a match on a marshmallow...

Actually it was chemical oxygen generators, not plain old tanks . . . they generate a lot of heat as well as oxygenand are started with an explosive.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Being on regular oxygen? Not being able to get out of your wheel chair at all, and it not being able to fit in the plane door?

Regular oxygen is OK (on some airlines). . .

Ask about the airline's policies on the use of supplemental O² onboard. Federal regulations prohibit airlines from allowing passengers to bring their own oxygen canisters aboard to use during the flight. Passengers who use oxygen canisters must purchase canisters from the airline for use during the flight.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm#2

Airline policies regarding oxygen can be found at http://www.airlineoxygencouncil.org/cms/?page_id=42