Do not be decieved!

Help Support The Pipe:

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
This is painfully long - almost deliberately so, perhaps. But it's important. Sent to me by the guy mentioned below (the one who puked). You'll be hearing more from him in the days ahead - on my site and elsewhere. I'll try to cut some of the most insignificant parts. It's still long, though. But you should read it anyway:



November 6, 2010



BPR Special Meeting Recap

BPR Special Meeting Recap


The Board of Pilot Representatives met at 0930 ET at the Hyatt Place Charlotte/City Park for a Special BPR Meeting.
The agenda included:

  • [Blah, blah, and blah...]
Roll was called at 0930. President Mike Cleary reviewed the [blah, and blah blah blah...]


Security Committee
President Mike Cleary prefaced the Security Committee’s update by providing further detail on a TSA incident that has truly damaged one of our union brothers. After being selected for the TSA’s new, enhanced pat down procedure, this pilot experienced a frisking that has left him unable to function as a crewmember. Words used to describe the incident include “rape” and “sexual molestation,” and in the aftermath of trying to recover this pilot has literally vomited in his own driveway while contemplating going back to work and facing the possibility of a similar encounter with the TSA. This is obviously a very serious matter and it weighed heavily in President Cleary’s decision to call this special BPR meeting.
Security Committee Chairman Steve Sevier began his report with a briefing on the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) scanners. According to the TSA there are now 317 in use at 65 airports with a total of 450 to be deployed. While the TSA makes claims that the radiation emitted by AIT is similar to that of a chest x-ray, pilots are already exposed to considerable radiation as a function of working at high altitude and should be aware that no actual numbers are published for how much radiation is involved. Captain Sevier explained that the AIT’s radiation is concentrated on the outer skin (they don’t even look at the body internally,) and that they have been shown to be particularly hard on the face and upper neck. He noted that doctors have counseled several of our pilots – one recovering from pancreatic cancer – to not even go near these machines. Further evidence of the hazards of ambient radiation from the AIT scanners is found in California, where prison employees aren’t even allowed in the room when they are in use. Finally, Captain Sevier pointed out that TSA personnel are prohibited from wearing dosimeters that would provide data on just how much radiation they are being subjected to by working around the AIT scanners.
Captain Sevier continued by reviewing what we know to date about the TSA’s protocol in applying their new procedures. First, they are purposely random in their application as a means of maintaining effectiveness. While we all recognize how ludicrous this is for pilots who are just trying to reach their aircraft and get to work, we must remember what the TSA’s actual mission is. Once a pilot is inside the “security area,” meaning in the maze of lanes routing them to the screeners, any refusal to submit to screening from that point forward might result in an arrest. Further, at airports that have multiple lines, with some leading to metal detectors and others leading to AIT scanners, pilots cannot switch lanes once becoming aware that they are in the AIT line. When aware of the pending AIT screening, pilots and passengers alike are allowed to opt out of going through AIT, but must then submit to the enhanced pat down. Failure to do so can, again, result in your arrest.
At this time, your Security Committee is strongly recommending that pilots opt out of the AIT screening. While the Security Committee works in conjunction with our fellow pilots at American, Southwest and UPS (CAPA) to convince TSA leadership, senators and industry leaders to gain relief from these onerous security checks, it is important to keep the following in mind: Keep your cool. Be professional in dealing with the TSA and simply state "I prefer to opt out of the AIT Scan and I would like to request a private secondary scan." For further information, as well as information about how to handle improper TSA demands for two forms of identification, please go to the USAPA web site and read the Security Committee’s latest update.
The BPR discussion explored many of the peripheral issues surround these new TSA procedures, including Crew Pass and the reasons that program stalled after the testing phase, the possible legal ramifications of refusing the enhanced pat down once in the security area, International requirements or changes, the need to stand up for our Flight Attendants, and exactly what our best course of action is with regard to teaming with other labor groups in our upcoming response.
After lengthy discussion the BPR crafted and passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the USAPA Security Committee, based on its review of currently available medical information, has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks, and
WHEREAS, other pilot unions associated with USAPA, share the view that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks, and
WHEREAS, the TSA-operated scanner devices subject pilots to a level of intrusiveness not required by security considerations in view of the availability of alternative techniques including magnetometer devices or crew pass procedures, and
WHEREAS, the USAPA Security Committee has recommend to all USAPA-represented pilots that they avoid exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices by either using security access points utilizing magnetometer devices or, where security access points utilizing magnetometer devices are not available, electing to submit to a TSA-agent pat down as an alternative to subjecting themselves to TSA-operated scanner devices [BOO!!!], and
WHEREAS, a USAPA-represented male pilot has recently reported that, after being required to submit to a TSA-agent pat down, he suffered sexual molestation at the hands of a male TSA agent, and
WHEREAS, USAPA legal counsel has submitted to the TSA a Freedom of Information Act request demanding that USAPA be provided with all documents pertaining to TSA protocols applicable to the proper administration of TSA pat downs, and
WHEREAS, USAPA-represented pilots and pilots represented by other pilot unions belonging to the Coalition of the Airline Pilot Associations (CAPA) have expressed their concern that they be subject to abusive pat downs by TSA agents or other retaliatory measures in exercising their right to opt for a pat down in lieu of subject themselves to TSA-operated scanner devices, and
WHEREAS, the risk of being subject to abusive or retaliatory pat downs has recently been increased by the TSA’s implementation of a new policy that forbids a person who has once entered a security access line from removing himself from that line, upon discovering that the access point utilizes TSA-operated scanner devices, for the purpose of seeking an security access point utilizing magnetometers, and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1) USAPA’s President and Security Committee coordinate with all pilot union leaders to promote a unified response to TSA abuses of the pat down process and to seek less intrusive security procedures, including the expanded use of crew pass procedures for all airline pilots on duty and in uniform, and
2) In coordination with the President, the Security Committee develop within two weeks time a monitoring program of TSA pat down practices to include a system for obtaining information from USAPA-represented pilots concerning TSA abuses of the pat down process, and
3) USAPA legal counsel be authorized to utilize information collected through the Security Committee’s monitoring program to seek the discipline and/or termination of TSA agents engaging in abusive pat downs, and
4) USAPA legal counsel be authorized to exercise the full weight of the Freedom of Information Act, and any other appropriate laws, to obtain documents pertain to the proper conduct of the pat down process, and
5) The BPR advises the Pilots of US Airways to use the option to “opt out” of AIT scanners if directed to go through the machines by the TSA, and
6) The BPR directs US Airway’s pilots that if they are subjected to the “enhanced pat-down” procedure it is your right to request a private screening. The BPR also recommends that any pilot subjected to the “enhanced pat-down” procedure make sure that a witness, preferably a crewmember, accompanies them during the pat-down, and
7) The BPR directs US Airway’s pilots that if they are subjected to the “enhanced pat-down” procedure they should evaluate their fitness to continue their flight assignment.
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Officer Reports
President’s Report
[4 or 5 more pages of blah, blah, and blah..]




To adjust your email preferences or to opt out of communications, please visit the My Settings section of the website.[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]

[/FONT]

© 2010 US Airline Pilots Association
5821 Fairview Road, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28209
Phone Message: 877-332-3350 | Office: 704-936-4500 | Toll-free: 877-332-3342​
 

Jetlinker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,934
Wow. ALPA legal would never permit such a thing to be published.
 

post911

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
791
1) USAPA’s President and Security Committee coordinate with all pilot union leaders to promote a unified response to TSA abuses of the pat down process and to seek less intrusive security procedures, including the expanded use of crew pass procedures for all airline pilots on duty and in uniform, and
So... commuters keep getting groped?
 

imr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
1,413
Nice to see ALPA standing shoulder-to-shoulder with APA and USAPA counselling their members to opt-out. Way to
go ALPA!!

Hell they won't even return my phone calls and emails so I can comment on their cowardly stance on the matter.
 

Lazy8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
100
Yet another real airline union makes a stand while....

in the ladies room...

ALPA continues to douche it up.

Just figures that we end up with the weak union that even if they weren't complete wussbags would, due to conflicts of interest, probably end up using our own dues against us.
 

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
Yes, yes, yes. F ALPA - you'll get no argument here (I know, you didn't see that one coming). But guys...

Once a pilot is inside the “security area,” meaning in the maze of lanes routing them to the screeners, any refusal to submit to screening from that point forward might result in an arrest. Further, at airports that have multiple lines, with some leading to metal detectors and others leading to AIT scanners, pilots cannot switch lanes once becoming aware that they are in the AIT line. When aware of the pending AIT screening, pilots and passengers alike are allowed to opt out of going through AIT, but must then submit to the enhanced pat down. Failure to do so can, again, result in your arrest.
 

XSive

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
1,118
Yes, yes, yes. F ALPA - you'll get no argument here (I know, you didn't see that one coming). But guys...

Once a pilot is inside the “security area,” meaning in the maze of lanes routing them to the screeners, any refusal to submit to screening from that point forward might result in an arrest. Further, at airports that have multiple lines, with some leading to metal detectors and others leading to AIT scanners, pilots cannot switch lanes once
becoming aware that they are in the AIT line. When aware of the pending AIT screening, pilots and passengers alike are allowed to opt out of going through AIT, but must then submit to the enhanced pat down. Failure to do so can, again, result in your arrest.
Arrest? On what grounds? What crime is being committed by refusing to get scanned and patted down? We should flip this crap on the TSA, as a matter of fact, all of us who are mentally strong should opt-out and get patted down, once they do bust out the cell phone call 911 and press charges for sexual molestation, heck it's on video tape! That's my plan at least! See how many TSA idiots we inconvenience....
 
Last edited:

lj1313

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
175
Yea I keep seeing him mentioning "your will get arrested". Not quite sure where he is getting that.
Spatial please shed some light on this for us.

LJ
 

qotsaautopilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,259
The problem with calling 911 and crying rape is that u let them do it and it was consensual
 

clepilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
289
Yes folks....wilcomen to East Germany! This is what happens when big government gets even bigger. A pilot going to work has many choices to make. Subject oneself to radiation or be groped in a manner that leaves you emotionally damaged.

Don't have the right to ask for law enforcement to be present to safeguard against molestation.........can't turn around in line and leave without getting arrested.......can't raise your voice or speak out against the TSA agent who is groping you inappropriately because ultimately it is your word against his or hers.

This is the ultimate stripping of ones rights. This is also a complete assult on our sensibilities when safe and effective security alternatives are available. Don't let ALPA slither away into the background on this one guys and gals. Hold their feet to the fire and make them take a hard line stance on this one. You all pay **** good money and this is an issue where you need to finally cash in. ALPA needs to adopt a no tolerance policy for these machines....they need to push for at least the legal right to demand a third party to be witness to any pat downs....THEY NEED TO ADOPT CREWPASS NOW!!!!!

My heart goes out to that pilot....or any pilot for that matter that has to endure these insulting and humiliating gropings at the hands of power hungry, attention starved TSA agents.

If your folks don't believe that our freedoms can slip away because we live in a reasonable country...think again. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have their agends that involve you having less and less of yourself and more and more of the government control....and they are for different reasons and rationales...but they all innvolve the loss of personal freedom.

Absolute power corrupts absolutly. Stand up as Americans and individuals and fight back against these infringements of our freedoms.
 

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
Yea I keep seeing him mentioning "your will get arrested". Not quite sure where he is getting that.
Spatial please shed some light on this for us.

LJ
You'd have to ask the folks at USAPA where they got it, but a commenter on my site (who happens to be a journalist who's been writing about TSA's illegitimacy since it was established) said this:

This actually isn’t new. A court case 3 or 4 years ago from the Ninth District decreed that once your bag hits the conveyor belt at the checkpoint, you may not leave. In effect, you become the TSA’s prisoner whether you’re a pilot or a passenger.
That’s why we must ABOLISH the agency and liberate aviation from the Feds’ stranglehold. So yes, don’t fly. Boycott the airlines until the industry as it currently exists collapses. And let freedom arise from the ashes!
 

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
So some commenter on a website references some non-descript court case who doesn't say "you'll get arrested" in any of his comments and that turns into you adding "you'll get arrested" to everything you write. Sorry, if you want to be taken seriously you have to actually research the court case on your own and know full well what it involves. Basing your stance on something a poster mentioned online is like basing a legal argument on posts from the crackpipe here. "Poster I-Fly-Jets posted online that he read a court case once that said the government can smack you in the head with salami. As a result I'm forming a group to battle this government policy".

What would your stance be if a passenger loaded his bags on an airplane as a gate check and then tried to leave the airport without those bags? Should we let the passenger go because forcing them to stay with their bags would be wrong? Or do we just let them go and leave their bags behind at the airport? How would that be any different than someone loading their bags into an x-ray machine then walking away leaving the bags behind?

Your underlying stance may be correct but this lack of research and extremism is making you sound like FoxNews.
 

Ozark

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
202
Nova, Why don't you start pulling some of your own weight around on this issue? Does Michael have to do all the work for you? I mean he is the only one at this company or union who has actually done anything about this issue. Now you want him cross-referencing every post made on his website with court cases? Or are you still waiting for the union to tell you what to do before you risk your precious job?
 
Last edited:

dozorr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
111
What would your stance be if a passenger loaded his bags on an airplane as a gate check and then tried to leave the airport without those bags? Should we let the passenger go because forcing them to stay with their bags would be wrong?


How would that be any different than someone loading their bags into an x-ray machine then walking away leaving the bags behind?
.
The difference is that it is practically impossible to stop them from leaving in the first case.
 

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
Nova, Why don't you start pulling some of your own weight around on this issue? Does Michael have to do all the work for you? I mean he is the only one at this company or union who has actually done anything about this issue. Now you want him cross-referencing every post made on his website with court cases? Or are you still waiting for the union to tell you what to do before you risk your precious job?
Hilarious. Sorry, if you make yourself the poster boy for a cause and take your place in the spotlight by excepting interviews in a National stage you'd think there would be an effort by said parties to know the subject matter especially if they are using it to make a case. It isn't my duty to do someone else's job to research other people's stories/claims if they are going to be used as ammunition in a cause. I'll support Michael in his situation as it's his story to tell. I have no obligation to support unfounded claims by other parties. So in a nut shell if Michael is going to use posts from his website then it is up to him to validate them. It isn't up to us or the general public to figure out what's true or not for him. You know how journalism works right?
 

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
The difference is that it is practically impossible to stop them from leaving in the first case.
And we don't know the circumstances of this alleged case. The situation probably wouldn't be much different outside of an airport. If you subjected you and your car to a search crossing the US border but told the officers half way through you'd rather not continue and would like to leave, they would probably stop you and continue the search. I have this feeling any State and Federal law enforcement/security department has rules about when a search becomes legally binding. Obviously we can only speculate what the court case was about.
 

lj1313

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
175
Nova-

You and I might be thinking along the same lines on the Micheal thing.

But that being said, I want to point out there there are HUGE differences in the searches that you are subject to entering the United States by way of an Inspection Checkpoint (Boarder Crossing, ICE Entry Area at the airport or seaport, or being stopped in a vehicle or vessel while traveling a nexus to United States boundaries, as opposed to those searches which in you are discussing during a the typical law enforcement contact.

Too much information to cover on a post here, but let it suffice to say there is an apples and oranges type of difference.

LJ
 

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
That probably is the case but my point was to show that there will be a point where a passenger can't willingly terminate a search. If a bag is x-rayed and found to have something dangerous a passenger can't say "my bad" and leave the airport.

Perhaps the problem with some of these stories recently is that line isn't defined or consistent. You should be given your options for search but refusing one or even both shouldn't be an issue for the TSA. If you are offered method A but you decline so you're offered method B. It shouldn't be an issue. Even if you refuse both and leave the airport willingly the TSA shouldn't care one bit. Sadly that hasn't always been the case.
 

nixon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
4,680
That probably is the case but my point was to show that there will be a point where a passenger can't willingly terminate a search. If a bag is x-rayed and found to have something dangerous a passenger can't say "my bad" and leave the airport.
There is legal presedent set for this already. You cannot withdraw from screening while initiated. Michael simply got "lucky."
On that note: Michael I commend you for your decision to take a stand on this issue, that being said: please take get some media training and study the law just a little bit - it is not only your *** on the line out there.
 

lj1313

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
175
That is very true. I remember flying in the months following 9/11, we would clear security one way one morning using one procedure and boom the next morning the city you were leaving had a totally different policy. Actually sounds like things have not changed all that much now.

In many of my post I seem to be disagreeing or unsympathetic of the feelings that many have on this whole issue that is Michael. I am just pointing out the realities of all of this.

I have held my tongue on several occasions at some of the comments that have been made on here and other sites. From an emotional standpoint they are understandable, I have been there and had to endure some of the same treatment as a crew member. However from a legal standpoint, the case law, the legal standards or the proof of any constitutional violation just hasnt made its face shown yet.

In the job I do now, I am in court weekly, almost every day I answer LEO's questions on how they should handle cases (criminal only thank goodness), assist in the writing of search and arrest warrant affidavits, and I on faculty at three different Law Enforcement academys teaching guess what....search and seizure laws from a peace officers prospective among other topics. I have a clue of how this will unfold, but not any idea how it will end. Best option from a crew prospective: CREWPASS period.
 
Top