Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'

[Quantum Windbag]

The devil is in the details. You did ask for this, perhaps not specifically for your grandmother to be thrown through an x-ray machine, but you asked for patriot act, a lessening of our liberty, having been handed over to our government to insure our safety as they saw fit, inadvertently giving a security on a power trip the right to do what he wants. I don't see how you can be so naiive about this. Acceptance bro, it's a powerful tool in getting rid of anger and regret.

I have spoke up against it more than once, do not try to pin this on me.

 

[ConHog]

Was this Pilot scheduled to actually pilot a plane? Seems to me he was going to be a passenger. If he was to be in the cockpit then he should have been fired.

As a passenger he should have gone through security same as anyone else.

Pilots often deadhead, so no telling.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We may be going round in circles, so I'll clarify:

That was my impression.

1. The original field tested models DID reveal more than what was expected. The manufacturers went back to the drawing board and developed something that was not so revealing and had added privacy filters built in.

And we all know it is impossible to bypass security on computer systems.

2. The models that were deployed this summer were the ones with the filters built in. Additional security features prevent the ability to electronically save images to a hard drive, disk, thumb drive or any other storage system.

Yet the TSA has admitted that at least some of them do store, and transmit, images. Not to mention it is not that hard to just take a picture of the screen.

3. The images themselves are not revealing. They are no more revealing than family photos at the beach. You can choose to not believe that, but I've worked with these specific systems before as part of another type of security program; these are the exact same models and I frankly don't know what the big deal is. What is impressive is that you can detect non-metallic items such as wads of paper, metallic items as small as a pendant, medical implants and other similar artificial objects.

Some people do not go to the beach because they are revealing.

4. It all boils down to operator attentiveness and vigilance, but these systems are pretty good. As for the professionalism of the operators, I guess there's always a percentage in any population of folks who misbehave. I think it's disingenuous to assume the majority of operators are horny little perverts and deviants. It would take a pretty imaginative mind to get any sort of sexual pleasure from these images. In fact, I'd say that it will have the opposite effect along the same lines as the nurse or physician's assistant who tend to be desensitized about the human body. But there's always at least one person in the crowd who gets his jollies masturbating over something as mundane as a spiked high heel shoe, and I imagine that there's probably one or two such people in all the ranks of TSA. There's no way to tell what's a fetish for one person and what's not for another.

I have already posted a link that proves those sysytems are pretty much useless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I happen to agree with the pilot that he should not have to undergo screening. I happen to believe that pilots (NOT flight attendants, maintenance personnel or other aircraft operator employees) should be exempt from general screening procedures as long as there's another way of verifying their identification (biometric screening, coded pass and badge system, etc.---something more than just an ID card).

The professional thing to do would have been to submit a complaint through either his airline station manager or other similar channel so that he could get the support of his and other airlines so that they speak with one voice when they complain to TSA. But by posting what amounts to uninformed opinions on a blog, he's doing the exact opposite by spreading fear about the reliability of these systems, professionalism of the operators who view these images and validity of airport security screening. He's using his position as a pilot to criticize these programs without having really done any valid research. His opinions get instant credibility because he's a pilot even though his information is inaccurate. He's also using emotions to make his point rather than fact.

TSA isn't exactly blameless in this. I don't know why TSA didn't launch some sort of information campaign, at least with the airlines, to avoid last minute surprises at the checkpoint so that pilots would be prepared for the new procedures.

The pilot is a crybaby. And I'm frankly surprised why others support his position. No matter how this turns out, the bottom line is that pilots (and flight crew) believe that they don't have to undergo the same level of screening that you and I have to undergo. They don't even have to take off their shoes, whereas you and I must. They don't care about "our" civil rights; they only care about their convenience. You and I must show up at the airport at least two hours early so that we can park the car, check in our luggage, get through security and hopefully get a bite to eat before we board the plane. Flight crews show up at the airport somewhere around 30 minutes before the flight and fully expect to be able to cut in front of the line and be expedited through security. Re-read the pilot's comments. He's NOT saying "why is this happening to us?", he's saying "why is this happening to ME!"

I understand.

He is supposed to submit to the illegal search, and then complain. Sorry, but that is how it works, you object before the search and then file a complaint if they proceed anyway. Doing it your way makes the case a lot harder to pursue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Screw that noise.

Make airliner security the business of the airlines and airports, and all this crap pretty much goes away.

Screwed up as the ACLU is, they do end up with worthy case and cause, from time to time.

Airport security USED to be private. It was at best ineffective. Rules variesd from facilitiy to facility. Different airlines had different sets of rules. While I cannot stand government intrusion, this is different.
The people who are the security force do not matter. it is the rules set in place.
If the carriers were in charhge of security, their first priority would be on-time performance. That means security would be secondary.
I think the business of air security is being done the wrong way.

 

[Synthaholic]

James Fallow makes a great point: Why would a pilot need to bring anything aboard? He's at the controls.

One Pilot's Revolt: Today's Security Theater Update - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[HUGGY]

Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'


Being a pilot..I can relate...

 

[R.C. Christian]

TSA agents are undereducated statist dogs. They should be targeted for violence for their crimes if not simply hung by piano wire from a street light. That is the only recourse for these unamerican filth.

 

[Toome]

I understand.

He is supposed to submit to the illegal search, and then complain. Sorry, but that is how it works, you object before the search and then file a complaint if they proceed anyway. Doing it your way makes the case a lot harder to pursue.

Illegal search? Sorry, I don't buy into your hyperbole.

The pilot wanted attention. He got it. In my book, he's a whiner. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way. He chose to be unprofessional.

Again, I agree with his point. I just disagree with the manner he chose to make it.

 

[beowolfe]

And that, ladies and gents, in a nutshell, is why I don't fly anymore. BTW, Memphis isn't the only airport with little people with a bit of power. When they made me discard a brand new pack of fishing hooks that were in my checked baggage, I'd had enought. They took my hooks, but let a middle school golf team store golf clubs underneath their seats. I'd rather drive.

 

[Synthaholic]

And that, ladies and gents, in a nutshell, is why I don't fly anymore. BTW, Memphis isn't the only airport with little people with a bit of power. When they made me discard a brand new pack of fishing hooks that were in my checked baggage, I'd had enought. They took my hooks, but let a middle school golf team store golf clubs underneath their seats. I'd rather drive.

My thoughts exactly. I may never fly again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

James Fallow makes a great point: Why would a pilot need to bring anything aboard? He's at the controls.

One Pilot's Revolt: Today's Security Theater Update - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

Umm, because they pack a bag with a change of clothes?

Besides, he was just trying to bring himself on the plane without being subject to a strip search.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand.

He is supposed to submit to the illegal search, and then complain. Sorry, but that is how it works, you object before the search and then file a complaint if they proceed anyway. Doing it your way makes the case a lot harder to pursue.

Illegal search? Sorry, I don't buy into your hyperbole.

The pilot wanted attention. He got it. In my book, he's a whiner. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way. He chose to be unprofessional.

Again, I agree with his point. I just disagree with the manner he chose to make it.

What hyperbole? Did you ever read the 4th Amendment? Any search that is not specifically approved by a judge in advance is unconstitutional, and those are still borderline. By default, any search without a warrant is illegal. Just because there a bunch of people who put up with it does not make it legal, or right.

That said, how is one supposed to protest governmental abuses of power? Would you prefer that he joined a picket line with s sign?

 

[Synthaholic]

James Fallow makes a great point: Why would a pilot need to bring anything aboard? He's at the controls.

One Pilot's Revolt: Today's Security Theater Update - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

Umm, because they pack a bag with a change of clothes?

Besides, he was just trying to bring himself on the plane without being subject to a strip search.

You didn't read the James Fallow piece that you replied to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

James Fallow makes a great point: Why would a pilot need to bring anything aboard? He's at the controls.

One Pilot's Revolt: Today's Security Theater Update - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

Umm, because they pack a bag with a change of clothes?

Besides, he was just trying to bring himself on the plane without being subject to a strip search.

You didn't read the James Fallow piece that you replied to.

Never said I did, nor did I respond to whatever he said. I responded to you.

 

[Synthaholic]

Umm, because they pack a bag with a change of clothes?

Besides, he was just trying to bring himself on the plane without being subject to a strip search.

You didn't read the James Fallow piece that you replied to.

Never said I did, nor did I respond to whatever he said. I responded to you.

And I was paraphrasing one of the points in the article.

I think we are in agreement concerning TSA and searches. You must have mis-read my post. If you had read the article, you wouldn't have mis-read my post.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And that, ladies and gents, in a nutshell, is why I don't fly anymore. BTW, Memphis isn't the only airport with little people with a bit of power. When they made me discard a brand new pack of fishing hooks that were in my checked baggage, I'd had enought. They took my hooks, but let a middle school golf team store golf clubs underneath their seats. I'd rather drive.

Wait a minute.. Yopu placed fishing hooks in your checked baggag and TSA took them?
That's fucked up...
Flying sucks. I hate the airlines, the FAA and TSA. They can all go screw themselves.
US Airways just reported large increases in profits. Fares have gone up because carriers have reduced seats on popular routes. Ok that's good business. That isn't enough though. US Aiwrays and other carriers are slapping confiscatory fees on just about everything imaginable. Some carroers are charging additional fees for "premium" coach seats. In other words ,if you want window or aisle, you pay a fee. If you want front rows in coach, you pay a fee. All this, and we have to suffer the indignity of arrogant, mannerless TSA people who wear a scowl of disdain towards the traveling public.
Thing is, air carriers don't care about leisure travel. These companies make their money off business travel. So the airline's attitude to leisure travelers is "Tough shit. If you don't like it, drive. We don't need your money".
I love to fly. I hate dealing with the hassles of flying.

 

[Toome]

I understand.

He is supposed to submit to the illegal search, and then complain. Sorry, but that is how it works, you object before the search and then file a complaint if they proceed anyway. Doing it your way makes the case a lot harder to pursue.

Illegal search? Sorry, I don't buy into your hyperbole.

The pilot wanted attention. He got it. In my book, he's a whiner. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way. He chose to be unprofessional.

Again, I agree with his point. I just disagree with the manner he chose to make it.

What hyperbole? Did you ever read the 4th Amendment? Any search that is not specifically approved by a judge in advance is unconstitutional, and those are still borderline. By default, any search without a warrant is illegal. Just because there a bunch of people who put up with it does not make it legal, or right.

That said, how is one supposed to protest governmental abuses of power? Would you prefer that he joined a picket line with s sign?

You need to learn the law as well as the constitution, friend.

This is an administrative search not a criminal search. Passengers are free to refuse screening. The consequences of refusing to be screened is that they don't fly because all passengers must be screened prior to boarding. It's called "conditions of carriage." Every airline has them.

There is no constitutional crisis here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are? They can refuse screening, and still get to where their job requires them to be? What about members of the military that get orders to travel via commercial airlines, are thay also free to refuse screening?

If this was a condition of carriage it would be spelled out on your ticket in really small print. Since it is actually the government that is doing this, and not the airlines, it is not on the back of your ticket. When did pilots, who actually fly the plane, become subject to the contracts that apply only to passengers?

Nice try at deflection though. It might have worked if I did not understand anything about law at all. I may not be a lawyer, but I do know the difference between contract law and civil law.

 

[Toome]

They are? They can refuse screening, and still get to where their job requires them to be? What about members of the military that get orders to travel via commercial airlines, are thay also free to refuse screening?

If this was a condition of carriage it would be spelled out on your ticket in really small print. Since it is actually the government that is doing this, and not the airlines, it is not on the back of your ticket. When did pilots, who actually fly the plane, become subject to the contracts that apply only to passengers?

Nice try at deflection though. It might have worked if I did not understand anything about law at all. I may not be a lawyer, but I do know the difference between contract law and civil law.

I know you're a helluva lot smarter than what you just posted indicates. You can choose to play the rhetoric if you wish, but I credit you as wanting an honest debate.

No one is forced to undergo screening. If a person does not want to be screened at the airport, they can refuse. That's the constitutional protection. However, airport screening is a condition of carriage. In other words, the airlines will refuse to fly anyone who has not undergone security screening. I don't know if the conditions of carriage necessarily have to be in writing on the ticket. But I do know that if you visit any airline website, there is a proviso somewhere that addresses this issue. I forget which airline it was, but when I purchased a ticket online, before it took me to the print page, a dialog window popped up that said something about having to undergo security screening; I clicked on the acknowledgment button, and then I could print my boarding pass. I'm certain that other airlines have a similar process. I truly doubt you want to hang your hat on the argument that NO ONE is aware that they have to undergo airport security screening at the time they purchase their ticket.

As for the "right" to fly: no one is constitutionally guaranteed the right to fly. In other words, if you want to fly, you have to either pay someone to get you there and meet their conditions of travel or you can buy your own plane and fly yourself. Freedom of movement is a different animal. No one can discriminate against you based on skin color, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. However, you cannot simply bypass security, sit on the airplane without having paid for a ticket and claim that the constitution guarantees you the right to fly in any airplane at any airport to any destination you desire.

The right against unreasonable searches applies when the government determines that you are suspected of a crime and initiates a search of your person or property. That does not apply at an airport because you are not suspected of a crime. Instead, what takes place at an airport is an administrative search looking for prohibited items such as knives, dangerous items such as corrosive acids and weapons such as firearms and bombs. When you walk to the checkpoint and place your bag on the x-ray conveyor belt, you have voluntarily initiated the screening process. No government official arrested you or detained you or otherwise forced you to be searched. You did that by voluntarily walking up to the checkpoint.

As for pilots, if you scroll down to one of my previous posts, you'll see that I agree pilots ought to be given special consideration. I didn't say they ought to be exempted from screening, but I did say they ought to be given some alternative form of screening such as biometric screening (i.e. thumbprint) or other measure that identifies the individual as a pilot who is authorized to access a specific aircraft at a specific date and time. And I also said this should apply only to pilots (and co-pilots) but not the rest of the flight crew. Big difference between the person who sits in the cockpit and the person who just hands out beverages hidden somewhere in the ice cubes and stale cookies.

What this particular pilot has done is claim that he shouldn't undergo ANY screening whatsoever. He just shot himself in the foot, the leg and groin with that argument. I'm surprised that his lawyer is actually trying to prop that flimsy argument, but I guess lawyers will do anything if a client is willing to pay the fees. I sort of thought the lawyer would suggest a smarter argument to his client. I would go for the special consideration screening argument; that would probably win in court. But by saying that he shouldn't undergo ANY screening, this clown will lose his case in a matter of minutes. (Good luck with that one.)