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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wrong.

The government requires that everyone goes through screening, this is not a decision made by the airlines. That means it is compelled by force of law and not as a condition of carriage. I don't know why you are trying to blame airlines for a decision they had nothing to do with. The regulations are promulgated by the TSA, which is an agency of the federal government. If they came from airlines some would have different rules than others, just like some airlines have different rules for baggage fees or premium seat charges.

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.

WTF?

Why do people assume that because they have a right to something someone else has to pay for it? You have a constitutional right to publish anything you want, including a manifesto on over throwing the government. That does not mean you have a right to force anyone to publish, nor does it mean that anyone who does publish it has to pay for it.

Trying to argue I do not have the right to travel because I do not have the right to travel for free is the most specious argument I have ever read, and that includes all the arguments that attempt to prove that I have the right to force others to pay for it.

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.

Wrong again.

It applies to all government action, including those times when the government does not suspect me of committing any crime. If it only applied if when they suspected me of a crime they could enter the home of any innocent person without a warrant and search at will. They can get away with it at airports because the courts have ruled that national security overrules my right to privacy. this also means that the Patriot Act is justified in allowing police to search my email, or tap my phone, at will. This is one they got wrong, which they have been known to do.

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.

Which is absolute proof that this is not the airlines, despite your attempts to argue otherwise. Airlines would have more common sense than to require their pilots to be strip searched as a condition of employment. Can you imagine the civil rights violations that would entail, and how hard the feds would come down on them?

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.)

He did not.

I admit we only had one side of the story here, but he had previously submitted to going through metal detectors and allowing his bag to be screened. Since he submitted to that level of screening before, and did so again on this day, all he was objecting to was being groped, or submitting to having himself photographed in the nude. You might argue that the scanners will not do this, but you cannot argue that he refused any screening. If that is the basis for your argument that he acted unprofessionally, you definitely need to reevaluate you position.

 

[Toome]

Wrong.

The government requires that everyone goes through screening, this is not a decision made by the airlines. That means it is compelled by force of law and not as a condition of carriage. I don't know why you are trying to blame airlines for a decision they had nothing to do with. The regulations are promulgated by the TSA, which is an agency of the federal government. If they came from airlines some would have different rules than others, just like some airlines have different rules for baggage fees or premium seat charges.

I think we're saying the same thing. Yes, it's a federal law that commercial airline passengers undergo screening. I never denied that. I merely pointed out that it is in the conditions of carriage. However, the requirement for screening comes from Congress not TSA. TSA is the agency responsible for conducting screening whether it's by federal screeners or private screeners. I'll spell it out a little more clearly for you in the future. I thought we both agreed that this is federal law and I thought we both understood that it's contained in the conditions of carriage. In other words, it should be no surprise to anyone. Apparently, it's caught you off guard.

WTF?

Why do people assume that because they have a right to something someone else has to pay for it? You have a constitutional right to publish anything you want, including a manifesto on over throwing the government. That does not mean you have a right to force anyone to publish, nor does it mean that anyone who does publish it has to pay for it.

Trying to argue I do not have the right to travel because I do not have the right to travel for free is the most specious argument I have ever read, and that includes all the arguments that attempt to prove that I have the right to force others to pay for it.

Please define your right to fly. I thought I explained it to you, but you apparently have a different interpretation. I'm curious how you define it.

Wrong again.

It applies to all government action, including those times when the government does not suspect me of committing any crime. If it only applied if when they suspected me of a crime they could enter the home of any innocent person without a warrant and search at will. They can get away with it at airports because the courts have ruled that national security overrules my right to privacy. this also means that the Patriot Act is justified in allowing police to search my email, or tap my phone, at will. This is one they got wrong, which they have been known to do.

You can turn right around before you enter a checkpoint and not undergo security screening. When you enter the checkpoint, you have voluntarily given your consent to undergo security screening. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

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.)

He did not.

I admit we only had one side of the story here, but he had previously submitted to going through metal detectors and allowing his bag to be screened. Since he submitted to that level of screening before, and did so again on this day, all he was objecting to was being groped, or submitting to having himself photographed in the nude. You might argue that the scanners will not do this, but you cannot argue that he refused any screening. If that is the basis for your argument that he acted unprofessionally, you definitely need to reevaluate you position.

Uh, actually he did. If you look at my initial posts, I said this was all about him as a pilot and had nothing to do with the rest of us as passengers. Then I saw his interview on Good Morning America, and he made it absolutely clear that he opposes the screening process. He opposes undergoing body imager screening and he opposes the alternative method of undergoing a pat-down. His words not mine. I waited for his lawyer to clarify what the pilot had said, but the lawyer backed him up all the way. Granted, this was a TV interview, and the lawyer may certainly present a different argument in court, but the pilot said he opposes undergoing any screening. He used the 4th Amendment as his basis: no probable cause, no search. Basically, the same argument you're making. The difference is that we're a couple of bored guys throwing ideas back and forth; this guy is going to bet the farm on this in court. I truly doubt you'd do something that stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please define your right to fly. I thought I explained it to you, but you apparently have a different interpretation. I'm curious how you define it.

I define it the way the Supreme Court does in Saenz v Roe. We basically have a right to move to other states, and those states cannot stop us from entering.

You can turn right around before you enter a checkpoint and not undergo security screening. When you enter the checkpoint, you have voluntarily given your consent to undergo security screening. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Why don't you try that sometime, and then report back on the reaction. My guess is that security will stop you and ask why you suddenly decided not to get screened, and subject you to some rather intrusive scrutiny and a very thorough search.

Uh, actually he did. If you look at my initial posts, I said this was all about him as a pilot and had nothing to do with the rest of us as passengers. Then I saw his interview on Good Morning America, and he made it absolutely clear that he opposes the screening process. He opposes undergoing body imager screening and he opposes the alternative method of undergoing a pat-down. His words not mine. I waited for his lawyer to clarify what the pilot had said, but the lawyer backed him up all the way. Granted, this was a TV interview, and the lawyer may certainly present a different argument in court, but the pilot said he opposes undergoing any screening. He used the 4th Amendment as his basis: no probable cause, no search. Basically, the same argument you're making. The difference is that we're a couple of bored guys throwing ideas back and forth; this guy is going to bet the farm on this in court. I truly doubt you'd do something that stupid.

I never said his actions had anything to do with passengers. What I said is he did not refuse all screening.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job. [/FONT]

Unless his story is inaccurate he went through a metal detector after refusing the AIT, which even passengers have the right to do. He then refused a pat down that was not triggered by anything other than him exercising his right not to go through the AIT.

The pat down was not an alternative to the AIT, it was in addition to the alternative, and thus unreasonable by any standards you can reasonably apply.

 

[Toome]

I define it the way the Supreme Court does in Saenz v Roe. We basically have a right to move to other states, and those states cannot stop us from entering.

Airport security does not prevent freedom of movement. Commercial aviation is not the only way to travel. You have choices. No one guarantees you the right to travel exclusively by air.

I can see we're not going to reach any common ground on this point, so let's agree to disagree.

Why don't you try that sometime, and then report back on the reaction. My guess is that security will stop you and ask why you suddenly decided not to get screened, and subject you to some rather intrusive scrutiny and a very thorough search.

LOL. I don't have a problem with airport security, pal.

I never said his actions had anything to do with passengers. What I said is he did not refuse all screening.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job. [/FONT]

Unless his story is inaccurate he went through a metal detector after refusing the AIT, which even passengers have the right to do. He then refused a pat down that was not triggered by anything other than him exercising his right not to go through the AIT.

The pat down was not an alternative to the AIT, it was in addition to the alternative, and thus unreasonable by any standards you can reasonably apply.

I read the same article. I also saw his interview on GMA. What he said during that interview is not consistent with what he wrote in that article. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that. I thought he was going to say he objected to the screening because he was a pilot who had been vetted by the system. Instead, he said he refuses to undergo any search without probable cause. His lawyer repeated the same argument. As I said, they're not committed to whatever they say in a TV interview, and their tactics may be different in the court room. But I know what he said on GMA.