As professional pilots, some colleagues and I recently issued a statement to our airline. We voiced our rejection of the policy changes being enacted by the Transportation Security Administration at airport security checkpoints across the country, including Memphis International (Sept. 18 article, "Virtual strip search / Random full-body scans launched at Memphis airport").
We do not consent to the indignity of virtual strip searches as a matter of course in performing the duties of our profession. Neither can we conscientiously accept being physically frisked by federal agents every day as a reasonable alternative.
Obviously, our work places us inside the flight deck door by necessity. We wouldn't have to smuggle a weapon into the airport to take control of an aircraft. After running the gantlet of required background checks, security training and screening procedures, it's just plain silly to confiscate pilots' pocket knives and corkscrews before we enter the cockpit. In short, here's hoping the crew for your next flight is on the home team.
But that's not even the point.
We are appalled that any citizen who is not under arrest, has made no threats, nor raised any suspicion of terrorism or other malice should be made to submit to either of these "options" in order to move about within his or her own national borders.
Federal airport security guards are often unskilled, entry-level responders to help-wanted ads affixed to pizza boxes. Perhaps novice agents lack the perspective to grasp the full implications of their work. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. But please don't show them your naked body. Don't let these strangers put their hands on you or your children. Their abuse protects no one. No, the good citizens of a free society must resist such authoritarian overtures at least as much as any foreign threat.
I offer my condolences if your flight should be delayed or canceled because the TSA won't let us in the door. But I suggest that your freedom is more important. At any rate, ours certainly is.
Michael Roberts
Memphis
Russwood Park Memories
'Hurricane Elvis' 2003 
West Memphis Three
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 58
Hogs2009 writes:
Mr. Roberts,
Thanks for a well written letter regarding this TSA/Homeland Insecurity lunacy!
OldHippieChick writes:
Bush initiated the useless, bogus Homeland Security to make the American people THINK that they were doing something to protect us from terrorist attacks. Patting down Grandma, removing shoes and frisking pilots is just an easy way to make it seem like they are doing something. In the meantime, the ports are completely unprotected and thousands of miles of our borders (including Canada) are totally ignored. I am ashamed that Obama continues the Bush craziness of bogus airport security, senseless wars and pandering to Repubs.
OldHippieChick writes:
Pshaw! Think about something - anything.
BogeyMan2013 writes:
I wonder whether El Al's pilots b!tch and moan like this? If they did, they'd be out of a job (and maybe Mr. Roberts needs to be too).
I agree there needs to be some common sense exercised at check points, but, sadly, intrusive searches are the price we have to pay to fly safely. If you don't believe that, fly in or out of Ben Gurion airport sometime.
Nightcrawler writes:
Letter of the Day Mr. Roberts.
And it's exactly why I've chosen to motor the interstates when needing to travel in the lower 48.
ohknow writes:
I agree with you that profiling would be a more effective way of protecting us from a culture that truly wants to harm us, unlike Grandma (unless she's a radical Muslim).
This is what your PC has brought us, OHC. We now must search everyone even though we know the precise type of identity that is trying to harm us.
We also agree about the borders: seal them!
RSharradh writes:
I wonder if the good Mr. Roberts flies internationally, and if so, what his opinion of crew screening at European airports is? They're screened exactly the same there as they are here. And for entry into the sensitive areas of the airports, EU airports must now screen ALL persons entering the ramp area. However, a malcontent ramper can still take any tool available on the ramp and do some serious engine or landing gear damage that would ruin your day very quickly. And judging from Mr. Roberts' dismissive attitude toward the TSA's screeners, I'd say issue is more one of elitist classism than security. Flight crew is trustworthy, eh? I can recall at least four instances in which pilots going through the checkpoint ended up ARRESTED because they were going to fly their plane (and its passengers) DRUNK. And if a flight attendant can snap and pop an emergency exit (which could have seriously injured or killed someone standing by that door on the ramp), who's to say one can't snap and bring a gun to work to play shoot-em-up-bang-bang at 35,000 feet? Mr. Roberts, it's a dangerous world in which we live. Those wings on your chest and a background check don't make you a good person - it just means you've never been caught. Perhaps you're a very good bad guy? I'd have rather hoped that sky-gods such as yourself would take some measure of comfort in seeing persons being required to go through security and would be more alarmed at the number of people at US airports who can swipe their airport ID (or someone else's) and freely enter the most sensitive area of an airport completely unscreened. But, no - you'd rather ADD to those numbers. I suggest you stick to flying your airplane and leave security to the security folks.
hkerr#427307 writes:
RSharradh,
you make many very compelling points, and I have to say I agree with your conclusions.
I do find it odd that Mr./Capt(?) Roberts waited until the institution of VIRTUAL full body screening (isn't this really like an X-Ray, but with an enhanced/flesh added image?) to voice his complaints about airport security. I suspect the real reason Mr. Roberts is so upset is that TSA screeners (and by the way, these folks don't have their job vancancies advertised on "pizza boxes") found something he felt was innocuous on his person. His choice of example in the "corkscrew" is most telling.
ezduzit writes:
Only after TSA, at the very least, buys me dinner and a movie, would I ever submit to that! LOL
USAidit writes:
It only took three posts before Bush was blamed.
Why am I not surprised.
Gosh62 writes:
I have finally given up on airports. I will not humiliate my self by being subject to a stip search or a full body scan. I will no longer have to worry about having my toothpaste and shampoo confiscated because the Department of Homeland Security considers those dangerous items. I bought a GPS system for my car and I love it. Already made one long trip. Wonderful tool.
SpatialD writes:
If you've flown El Al, or to/from TLV at all, then of course you know they don't use these peep show machines in their security screening program. In fact, their security experts have resoundingly commented that the body scanners are ineffective and a waste of money.
The waste of money part, of course, explains our own government's insatiable appetite for them. It's a racket. Your stimulus dollars at work.
tigerclaw writes:
Michael Roberts brings up a good point: Why are we hiring incompetent people to do the screening? Once, I was on a plane that had to make an emergency landing in Japan (a country not included in my passport). The Japanese screeners were VERY professional - AND intimidating. I was scared to death going through one checkpoint because I thought I lost my papers. The screeners patiently and politely waited with their billy clubs while I searched for them. When we learned that we wouldn't be able to leave Japan until the morning, they rolled out the red carpet, set up a buffet, gave us a hotel room, but we were escorted everywhere by the guards. We were not allowed to leave the hotel. It was unnerving, but if I was a Japanese citizen I would feel safe knowing that there were competent people in charge. Do we do the same when a plane makes an emergency landing here?
Hogs2009 writes:
TSA is a total joke and a feel good agency. I have more faith in Americans on the planes putting a stop to a terrorist than the TSA failed organization on the ground catching a terrorist. TSA uses failed techniques to try to catch terrorists. Weapons screening does not work. Granny will get her pepper spray taken. Jim will get his Swiss Army knife 'confiscated'. TSA will jump up and down on the rare opportunity some average Joe traveler sadly and accidently leaves his pistol in his carry on when he traveled the week before by car. The nutty African terrorist will WALK ON the plane with ill intent time and time again. Until the system is fixed, travelers will continue to have their time wasted and liberties and rights violated.
SpatialD writes:
Actually, the situation in many European countries is far worse. The difference lies in our claim to being the land of the free and home of the brave. This is our home, and it's our own government that has taken this despotic vector.
Tell me, does it really give you a warm, fuzzy, safe feeling to know that federal agents will be able to see whether you, if you are male, have been circumcised - or whether your wife, if she is female, happens to be menstruating on the day she travels?
What's being done here isn't about security - at least, not yours or mine. It's about money. It's about the transference of power away from ordinary citizens like us into the hands of the criminals in Washington.
Yes, maybe I'm just a really good bad guy. I think I addressed that idea in my letter. But if I did snap at 35,000 feet, my hands would already be on the controls - what would I need a gun for? Strip searches and frisking wouldn't stop me from showing up to work drunk, either, which is a little beyond the scope of TSA's mission anyway (though I have no doubt they'd use it to further justify their jobs).
I'm no 'sky-god' - just a regular guy supporting a family. And, if my paycheck is any indication, I'm definitely no elitist. Telling the truth about TSOs being (mostly unwitting) pawns in the hands of the true political elite in D.C. isn't dismissive. It's just my assessment of an agency with such a horrible track record that it must be either deliberately trying to fail, or else run by people with motives not truly related to air transportation security. It's just not that easy to be that incompetent. If security were simply left to the security folks, United 93 would have reached its intended target, the underwear and shoe bombers might have actually hurt someone, and there are endless other examples where disaster has only been averted by the people on the plane - not those on the federal payroll.
mdtwntgr writes:
Thank you!
NoPouting writes:
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Roberts. I was randomly sent through this virtual strip search two weeks ago on return from Boston. I was not told what was going on or aware I didn't have to consent to this scan. I had left a receipt in my pocket and was therefore frisked after the strip scan. All this happened while my husband, who carries a CPAP machine, went right through without security scanning the CPAP as requried. The guards were quite rude, in addition. I understand being professional and serious, but rude and sarcastic does not fall under those terms.
We've already made concessions on packing the bare minimum to travel. We have shoes off, belts off, bags free of anything crazy like tweezers. My 3 ounces of SPF 50 and tiny toothpaste are in a plastic bag, in the open. I don't even wear jewelry while going through because I'm paranoid about getting pulled aside and man-handled. That didn't stop me from getting unknowingly violated through strip-scan and frisked. Are you kidding me? My record is clean, kids!
I'm thankful for air travel, and for professional security who do their job right, but come on...the procedure changes every time we go through, security is rude if you're not familiar with the changes, and I'm left feeling more uneasy and wound up each time.
Mr. Roberts is right... airport security let the CPAP machine go through without an ETD sampling, but I got scanned and frisked because of a receipt in my back pocket.
That's not elitist, that's idiocy.
tigerclaw writes:
Nice to meet you Charlemagne! ;)
Tell me Obama didn't REALLY say that!
ChickPea writes:
Back from the corner with your new id, eh RC??
Vril writes:
During an interview with Bob Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
So, the fact of the matter is that we already did absorb and survive a terrorist attack. However, I am somewhat uncertain about how much stronger it may have made us. Once again, the propagandists like RC the DH pull a comment out of context and attempt to demonize the president with it. Ho-hum...
tigerclaw writes:
...as long as "absorbing terrorist attacks" doesn't become policy.
ChickPea writes:
"isn't this really like an X-Ray, but with an enhanced/flesh added image?"
You be the judge:
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners...
http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.co...
tigerclaw writes:
I think Americans would be willing to put up with some degradations if they felt that the screeners were truly professionals. It was very clear to me in Japan that those screeners were not going to let ANYTHING slip past them. They were not playing any games. They never took their eyes off of us, and if I made one false move ... uh, well... I wouldn't dare. They made it VERY clear that they were there to protect the citizens of Japan (in a polite way of course!).
ChickPea writes:
Actually, a full body scan at the Memphis Airport won't affect many people living here.
We're all riding the Bettie Bus to catch filghts out of Little Rock, anyway.
ChickPea writes:
Just maybe because Homeland Security and all the ineffectual search strategies started under the Bush administration under executive order??
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-...
Pretend all you want, facts are still facts.
Vril writes:
Looks like the scanner exposed a zombie, albeit a penis-clad zombie. If they can catch subversive zombies who are out to slurp up our brains, then I'm all for it.
debweb_7 writes:
As a flight attendant, I can agree with Mr. Roberts. How many times in screening have I been asked to unpack my corkscrew (a required item for serving 1st class), only to have TSA open it, look at it, (yes, it IS a corkscrew) and give it back. I decided last time it happened, that the next time I would ask them exactly why they did this, because we are "supposed" to be on the same (good guys) team. Is it just a reason to justify their job, or are they trying to show the general public that even "we" (flight crews) are checked carefully, too? All it does is delay the crew from getting to the gates. And it will be a cold day somewhere before they body screen or pat me down. There will just be another flight delayed somewhere, because this crew member won't be on that flight.
RSharradh writes:
Whether DHS considers these to be dangerous items or not is moot. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has taken the same approach, which is why the US restriction went from 3 ounces to 3.4 ounces - to match the ICAO's standard of 100 milliliters - 3.4 oz. You'll need your clear, zip-lock 1-quart (or 1-liter) bags for flying out of European and many other international airports now. And it's not in response to any requirement our Homeland Security levied.
RSharradh writes:
Actually, you're very much in agreement with TSA's opinion of passengers - that passengers ar one of the best weapons in defending against a terrorist act. Passengers see something, say something. And as the 25 Dec 2009 incident demonstrated, a lone terrorist has bad odds against four or five adrenaline-fed interlopers. As for the forgotten gun, are you saying you're totally comfortable with a stranger, not of a law enforcement agency, being on a plane with you at 35,000 feet PRESUMABLY unknowingly carrying a loaded firearm? And as for the "Nutty African", his plane came in from Amsterdam. I regret to inform you that the United States does not screen passengers embarking from foreign countries. You should take that issue up with the government of the Netherlands. No US agency - not TSA, not Customs and Border Protection, and not Immigration and Customs Enforcement - had the opportunity to intercept "the Nutty African".
ChickPea writes:
Obviously, we just need to declare that all people flying in American airspace fly nekkid and have done with it!
The airlines will love it because they can turn down the heat and make a killing selling cheap blankety things.
RSharradh writes:
"Actually, the situation in many European countries is far worse". On what do you base this conclusion? I suggest you, and anyone else interested in finding out how European airport security requirements have left those of American airports in the DUST, Google "EU 300/2008". It is a piece of EU legislation, binding and enforceable, which requires certain security measures for airports within the European Union. Here's some trivia for you: Did you know that persons from the European Union come to the US as part of a reciprocal agreement to review security at OUR airports? The same as we send people to review security at THEIR airports. It will probably come as a surprise to you that the Europeans are NOT impressed. I think we've all seen the local news hidden camera reports showing airport employees using side doors to skip the TSA security checkpoints in their airport. Personally, I'm stunned we don't already have 200-300 Al Qaida plants working at Auntie Anne's or the company that cleans the planes and takes out the trash skipping security every day. I do agree that as long as we're going to let the baggage handlers, mechanics, and other people with an airport pass skip security, might as well let the pilots and flight attendants. Heck, why screen ANYONE? Let everyone on. Out of 100 people on a plane, I'm betting a good 10% of them would be carrying guns anyways. (Note dripping sarcasm, please.) Better - 100% security screening for EVERYONE entering the sensitive areas of an airport. Let's not add to those skipping security with who-knows-what in their bags.
RSharradh writes:
Champion: The persons you saw at Schiphol are not part of that country's screeners, but part of their law enforcement. If you'd like to see county deputies or other local law enforcement officers strolling your airport with Uzis, take it up with the local jurisdiction. In Europe, the police officers aren't strolling the airport with submachine guns for passenger comfort - it's because there's a THREAT. Remember post 9/11 and the National Guard with M-16s? For my part, I'm glad our cops can currently get by with a 9-mil.
RSharradh writes:
Can YOU say "Egypt Air 990"? I KNEW that you could.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/defa...
DaGreek writes:
OK, ChickPea, since it was an executive order, why doesn't Obama issue his own executive order to put things back the way they were? Or make them better. He doesn't need Congress' permition.
Vril writes:
Excellent question, DaGreek! My best guess is that Obama has been stymied by the hardliners in the national security arena. I believe he's been convinced that anything which happens on his watch in the way of successful terrorism will be politically devastating for him and the Democrats. That may be true, if it were to happen in such a volatile political climate as currently exists. President Obama is being extra cautious, to the extent that he is willing to continue compromising our individual privacy as his predecessor did.
FYI, here is a list of Obama's executive orders. You can be your own judge as to whether they have improved anything:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regis...
ChickPea writes:
Bush did as he did and Obama does as he does.
Unfortunately, neither have bothered to ask my opinion before acting, so I cannot be responsible for the actions of either.
RSharradh writes:
You're right, ya got me there! I'm obviously not a gun guy. I should have said I prefer a lower-key law enforcement presence of pistols rather than large machine guns. :)
BAlton writes:
While it's true common sense is needed it's simple common sense that a way will be found to smuggle weapons of some kind onto aircraft. It's also true that when that happens the citizens on that aircraft will be defenseless & the aircraft will be taken & will be used as the takers see fit. I fly a few times per year & observe the circus that is the TSA checkpoint procedures &, trust me here as someone who works with prisoners, they are not increasing security/safety. To the trained eye they are not even increasing the false appearance of security/safety. Prisoners fashion weapons from things you wouldn't believe, even magazines can be used to fashion a weapon & the "terrorists" are at least as smart as convicts.
Lurker writes:
If it took it for me to fly safely on my way, I would strip down naked and walk through the screening process.
Of course, this would allow me the opportunity to sit WHERE EVER I wanted on the plane, since everyone else would be sick, vomiting at the site of my naked body. :-)
Thought that might liven up the discussion. lol
Hogs2009 writes:
You have to look at intent of people. I'm not saying it is wonderful that people accidently leave weapons like handguns in their carry on, but it does happen and they are usually fined for it. If such an object slipped through the X Ray machine in the carry on and was put in the overhead bin (yes this has happened), the person 99.9% of the time would fly from Memphis to Dallas, arrive to Dallas and realize he left his handgun in his carry on. One of those OOPS mistakes! This is similar to a lady or teenage/college girl accidently leaving pepper spray/mace in her purse and it makes it through the X Ray machine. The college girl does not have bad intent.
Screening for weapons/objects catches the OOPS mistakes usually, not the hardcore criminals/terrorists with ill intent. A terrorist can do all sorts of nasty things with all sorts of objects/materials. Our system is a failure because it does not screen for people with ill intent who are shady or from shady places. Looking for mainly objects is a joke and will never work.
The guy from Africa did fly out of Holland and was out of US jurisdiction. Evidently the Dutch have the same joke system that the US. Europeans are worse at 'feel good' garbage than the USA.
Dutch police do not carry Uzi's though for the visitor to Holland. The submachine guns or carbines they carry in airports and train stations are for hostage, terrorist, bombing situations that have happened a lot in Europe since the 60's and 70's. ETA, IRA are some nasty groups over there.
Gosh62 writes:
I hope Bush gets a full body scan and stripped searched somewhere. Yea, I know he won't go through regular airports but I think it would only be fair that everybody who gets on a plane is treated equally.
ChickPea writes:
I know firsthand of someone who flew accross country shortly after 9/11, whose personal belongings were x-rayed twice and searched by hand three times.
All three times, the jacknife this person forgot to remove from her handbag (an'OOPS' item usually carried for personal defence in a dicy parking garage near work), slid through security like butter.
The whole security thing strikes me as so much drama to attempt to convince us the government is in control of a situation that is very much not under control.
Interactions with TSA employees over the years have not been reassuring in anyway.
SpatialD writes:
Have you been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the state's propaganda that you are unable to understand that by "worse" I do NOT mean "less invasive"?
Yes, the EU has left us in the dust when it comes to the government's authoritarian control over their citizens (or are they serfs?). And you can be sure what's going on over there gives our own leaders a... strong desire to follow suit.
I find the correctional officer's comments especially interesting since TSA checkpoints seem so much like what I imagine prison security stations to be. If they can't keep drugs and weapons and other stuff out - even with physical strip searches, cavity searches, 24/7 surveillance, and locking people in cages - what will it take to secure the skies?
Thanks to Richard Reid, you have to take off your shoes. Now you've got this, courtesy of the crotch bomber. What's next when someone packs a load of C4 in his/her rectum?
Go ahead, bend over and spread 'em. At least then you can finally rest easy knowing nobody is going to blow up your airplane. Right?
auntie1947 writes:
Israel has had great airport security for decades. I guess everyone has forgotten.
Thanks for the reminder, Bogey.
auntie1947 writes:
You mean "With Liberty and Justice for WASPS - all others need not apply."
RSharradh writes:
El Al and Israel airports are always trotted out as shining examples of aviation security. Well, guess what - if the US had all of about 40 airplanes and three airports to secure, I'm sure the US could do every bit as good a job - and it would be especially beneficial if the airline was a state airline. Sure, they've been trying to divest to private ownership for years, but that blue Star of David on the tail will ALWAYS give the government controlling interest, believe me. So, about 40 airplanes of a state entity and 3 airports in Israel compared to several THOUSAND airplanes belonging to publicly-held companies and more than 400 airports of varying types of ownership. So, as you can see, comparing El Al Israeli Airlines and airports in Israel to airlines and airports of the US is not even CLOSE to a valid comparison. (And by the way, I had occasion to observe an El Al flight check in at Rome-Fiumicino Airport. I saw at least six passengers who each were "questioned" for more than half an hour in the lobby. If six passengers from each US flight were held up in such a manner, just because of the scale of six passengers per flight, there would be an absolute OUTCRY in the US press.
Cheeks writes:
Noamsayin, I'm a pilot for an airline as well. He didn't fail to mention it because it is a moot point. TSA strip searches of pilots won't reveal required safety equipment that is already in the cockpit, which includes amongst other things, a sharpened AXE!
If a pilot wanted to, they could simply cut the other pilot into pieces. Or, they could take the halon extinguisher and spray it right into the other pilot's eyes, blind him and then beat him to incapacitation with the cannister. The possible ways to overcome the other pilot are almost endless just by using equipment that is required by the FAA to be in the cockpit. Also, lets not forget that many pilots are given guns by the TSA and allowed to bypass security altogether.
The bottom line is the background checks are the best security and you simply just have to trust your flight crew.
auntie1947 writes:
I commented only about the security as Israeli airports. I only wish we had half the security measures the Israelis do.
Security at airports is an absolute necessity in this era of terrorists and other assorted idiots intent on doing us harm. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to deal with. (I've been patted down twice, but the ladies who did it were very polite and professional.) However, if there were NO security and another hijacking or worse happened, there are those who would scream at the top of their lungs, "WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE AIRPORT SECURITY?!?!?"
Peace to you and yours.
Auntie
Cheeks writes:
Why do pilots have to go through security at all when they already have weapons in the cockpit in the form of FAA required safety equipment and are given guns by the TSA http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/pro...
ChrisP writes:
Be realistic. It wasn't random, and they didn't want to check your receipt.
They wanted to see you naked. And they did, without your consent.
Does that make you feel safer?
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.