Well, today was the day

Discussion in 'The Pipe' started by SpatialD, Oct 16, 2010.

Help Support The Pipe by donating:

  1. Oct 16, 2010 #1

    SpatialD

    SpatialD

    SpatialD

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    15
    My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an “alternative option” to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

    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.

    Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this “incident” – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.

    As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.

    “Am I under arrest?” I asked.

    “No, he just needs to ask you some more questions.”

    “But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?”

    “We just need to hold you here so he can…”

    “Hold me in what capacity?” I insisted.

    “Detain you while we…”

    Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.

    We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?

    “Do you want them to board your plane?” he asked.

    “No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society.”

    “Yeah, I know,” he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, “But somebody’s already taken those away.”

    “Maybe they have,” I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.

    As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.

    The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.

    His reply: “That’s irrelevant.”

    It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.

    “I need to get your information for my report,” he demanded.

    “The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him.”

    “No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…”

    “I’m familiar with TSOC,” I assured him. “In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline.”

    “Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better,” he barked.

    “Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?”

    “I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility.”

    “Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.”

    Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative “option” to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d “had words” with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been “any exchange of words.” I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.

    As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.

    It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today, 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.

    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    Michael S. Roberts
    3794 Douglass Ave.
    Memphis, TN 38111
    901.237.6308
    FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com


    See this thread for additional background.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  2. Oct 16, 2010 #2

    PhantomHawk

    PhantomHawk

    PhantomHawk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,695
    Likes Received:
    27
    Good luck! I agree with your stance 100%. The advent of these policies is a terrible thing.
     
  3. Oct 16, 2010 #3

    echelon228

    echelon228

    echelon228

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good luck, I would suggest getting the media involved, heavily if possible. I hope you find an attorney and sue the **** out of them. I will follow suit in IAH the day this happens to me.
    lawsuit filed by EPIC
    http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
     
  4. Oct 16, 2010 #4

    Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    10
    Good luck with this. I had the TSA point me towards the intrusive scanner. I refused and they quickly ushered me sideways to the normal metal detector. They did ask why I refused and I said I had read a report that the full body scanner might not be as "harmless" as the gov would have us believe due to a difference in how the scan is concentrated on the skin surface, rather than through the entire depth of the body like a regular x-ray.

    Until there is a definitive answer one way or the other, (read as: 15 years without adverse effects to anyone) I will err on the side of caution, and I will not be going through that machine. While I differ in my reasoning for primarily refusing. I do not refute your reasoning for doing so. It would run a close second to my own . If medically it were proven that the machine does not pose a threat then reason #2 (yours) and reason #3 which is "I've posed no threat for 7 years, have passed every background check (including checks for true SSI would kick in. I simply WILL not subject myself to a senseless and timewasting ordeal.

    The bag sticker "Trusted in the air, Why not at security ? " Has never sounded truer or louder in this instance. I hope this resolves itself quickly in your favor.
     
  5. Oct 16, 2010 #5

    sspears737

    sspears737

    sspears737

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    6
    Good for you I can't see why you shouldn't have been allowed passage. I have a friend who was almost denied passage at terminal C in IAH the other day. The TSA screener threatened him with a pat down at which he stated he had no problem undergoing a pat down. The TSA screener a female then stated, "she would grab his crotch." I wish I was making this ***** up. It's the blind leading the blind at the TSA. Good luck with your incident I was harassed myself in terminal E and I understand the lack of accountability that TSA agents have when dealing with the public. You can be threatened at a moments notice by an agent if they see fit. I blame ALPA and the government for not putting together a secure program for us to bypass theses security screeners. I suspect daily passage through these X-ray screeners will lead to all sorts of maladies long-term.
     
  6. Oct 16, 2010 #6

    Do A Barrel Roll

    Do A Barrel Roll

    Do A Barrel Roll

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    6
    So you refused the body scanner (I would too) and also refused the pat-down after the metal detector?
     
  7. Oct 16, 2010 #7

    APU

    APU

    APU

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    10
    Spatial:

    Good job! If we ever cross paths, the drinks are on me!

    However a word of advice that was once passed to me. People talk waaaaay too much! Unlike your parents may have taught you, the police are not (or not necessarily) your friends. Once you asked them, "am I under arrest" and they said no...then you offer your name, DOB, and address and advise them you are not interested in speaking to them any further.

    Fortunately, when the officer asked the other officers, "did this guy speak abusively to you" no one said you did. All you needed at that point was some a-hole with a chip on his shoulder or a bruised ego and you would have been done for.

    I was briefed carefully on these things by my best friend, who is a public defender in NYC. He warned me, it is amazing how much trouble innocent people get into because they can't keep their mouth shut when questioned by the police.

    Very Best Regards!
     
  8. Oct 16, 2010 #8

    goxc

    goxc

    goxc

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    9
    So uniformed crew members are not exempt from the body scanner??? We're excempt from the puffer machine.
     
  9. Oct 16, 2010 #9

    ice check complete

    ice check complete

    ice check complete

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    5
    where the F is crew pass. Oh wait it alpa elections time. How long has it been now since BWI opened as crew pass and no action has been taken?
     
  10. Oct 16, 2010 #10

    Mitch

    Mitch

    Mitch

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    20
    We are not required to go though the porn machine, but if we don't, they must do the pat down secondary screening. Per their rules.
     
  11. Oct 16, 2010 #11

    rjacobs

    rjacobs

    rjacobs

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    20
    Good for you on sticking to your guns. I think you will have the full weight of this pilot group(and I hope many others if your story gets out) to back you up on this. I have been brought to the little room twice before for sticking to my guns on issues with the TSA and both times they could not show me in their rule book what I had done was wrong and let me go. Both times I wrote complaints to the TSA(which on their website they state they take VERY SERIOUSLY). Both times I got a cut and paste canned response from some person who is even less intelligent than the screeners and when I responded I got no other response from them.
     
  12. Oct 16, 2010 #12

    Alter Ego

    Alter Ego

    Alter Ego

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    1
    Michael,
    Is there someone you could contact who handled the Steven Bierfeldt deal with the ACLU. He was the guy who the TSA held for having $4700 in cash, and the ACLU sued the TSA for harassment and (not sure what happened there).
     
  13. Oct 16, 2010 #13

    I_Love_Lamp

    I_Love_Lamp

    I_Love_Lamp

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sorry, I'm going to have to be "that guy"...

    How old are you? How long have you been in this industry? I'm guessing the answer to the second part is less than 10 years.

    If you started flying professionally in the post 9/11 world, how could you not see this coming? You could. And in fact, judging from your previous posts to which you have linked, you did.

    The question arises then, why did you continue to play airline pilot? If it was that morally corrupt of an idea, surely it would be worth a 50% paycut to go fly boxes (worst case, assuming you couldn't find a corporate job) and not have to deal with the TSA? Instead, you're getting a 100% paycut and a big mark on your record. I really, truly, hope that you are a single guy and not subjecting your family to this situation because you want to make a political point (and this is a political point whether you think so or not). You're going to have to accept that your days of playing airline pilot, for all intents and purposes, are completely done.

    Congratulations, you fell on your sword for nothing. No policy has changed, or will change, and now you're likely unemployed because of it. Noble? Sure. Stupid? Incredibly. Especially factoring in that you wrote management a letter essentially informing them that you will be the subject of a termination hearing sometime soon. It never ceases to amaze me how dumb my fellow pilots can be.

    Look, do I agree with you about the intrusiveness of the TSA? Absolutely. However, since 2001, the TSA has been the name of the game in the airline world. You knew you'd be dealing with this hassle every day for the rest of your career, yet you decided to do it instead of fly jumpers, boxes, or VIPs around. That was your decision and now you're going to have to live with it.

    Is it wrong to fight these injustices? Absolutely not. Its just that the method you chose was the absolute incorrect way of doing it. Like it or not, when you're in uniform, even commuting, you're representing XJT. If you cause a problem, it is also the company's problem, unfortunately for us. Dedicate your entire time off to fighting the TSA, that's fine. But, as you demonstrated, being passive aggressive got you nowhere but the unemployment line.

    I do hope that you get to keep your job, I just don't see it happening. You acted incredibly stupid (I mean come on, you sent a letter stating that you're not going to comply with national security directives, I would've probably began the termination hearing right there). And like I said before, I hope you aren't dragging an entire family down because daddy has a chip on his shoulder. Hopefully one day you'll realize how foolish this move was, and you'll learn about the idiom "Live to fight another day." Instead, you let your ego do the talking. Good luck with interviews.

    Sorry to sound like a ****, and like I said, I completely agree with your stance, but this is absolutely the wrong way of fighting the TSA.
     
  14. Oct 16, 2010 #14

    V2+15

    V2+15

    V2+15

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    9,998
    Likes Received:
    16
    Kudos Michael. Question...I'm assuming you were, but were you in uniform? If so, don't we have to remove our shirt wings in order to go through the Microwave Oven? What have your duly elected representatives had to say about this, if anything?

    So...where is ALPA again???? Oh that's right...John Prater was "takin' it back". Not quite sure what he's taken back (gotten back from management), but it ain't our QOL or salaries. Pfffftt...what a joke.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  15. Oct 16, 2010 #15

    hokiepilot

    hokiepilot

    hokiepilot

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    11
    Exactly! ALPA saw this coming and did nothing but communicate the new rules. ALPA should have headed this crap off before it ever hit the line pilot, but they failed.
     
  16. Oct 16, 2010 #16

    ramira18

    ramira18

    ramira18

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    1
    Send this story to the newspapers and call some attorneys.
     
  17. Oct 16, 2010 #17

    rcb

    rcb

    rcb

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not doing the machine.

    If the machine is ever mandatory, then we're going to have a problem.

    I don't mind a professional and reasonable pat-down; doctors do 'worse'.

    Of course, getting that professional TSA agent...
     
  18. Oct 16, 2010 #18

    V2+15

    V2+15

    V2+15

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    9,998
    Likes Received:
    16
    I've mentioned it before, but is it unreasonable to ask for a supervisor and LEO be present while your pat-down is being conducted?? This would be my passive/aggressive method of causing a chink in "their" chain...all of a sudden every pilot in the industry asks for a supervisor and LEO to be present for EVERY pat down and perhaps TSA will see the inaneness of their "fool-proof" (oh brother) system.

    The primary question still remains..."Why are we even going through 'security' in the first place?!?!?" To appease TSA's dog and pony show?

    "TRUSTED IN THE AIR, WHY NOT THROUGH SECURITY?"
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  19. Oct 16, 2010 #19

    whitesox

    whitesox

    whitesox

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    .............................
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2010
  20. Oct 16, 2010 #20

    Alf

    Alf

    Alf

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you were having problems with the TSA, did you ever email any of the guys on the security committee? My guess is no. If you don't email them about problems you encounter with TSA irregular screenings, how do you expect things to change?
     

Share This Page