Pilot Group Urges Pilots To Refuse Naked Backscatter Scans, And Avoid Groping Pat Downs
from the you-realize-they-pilot-the-planes,-right? dept
We recently had the story of a pilot who ran into some trouble after refusing to go through one of the "naked" backscatter scanners at the airport, and then refusing to go through a much more invasive "pat down" search as payment for skipping the scanner. Over the last few weeks, airports in the US have stepped up the use of both (though, it should be noted, I'm writing this particular post on an airplane and did not have to go through either such "search" in order to do so). It appears that the pilot in question was not the only one miffed at the rules. Apparently the head of the Allied Pilots Association (which represents American Airlines pilots among others), Dave Bates, has sent out a note to the members complaining about these new security procedures, suggesting that pilots refuse the new scanners, and insist that any additional pat down must be done in private, rather than out in the open. It does seem rather silly to give pilots this kind of treatment since they already pilot the damn plane. If they wanted to do something bad to the plane, they already have the ability to do so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: backscatter, pilots, scans
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Flight attendants not liking it either
Deborah Volpe, Vice President of the Association of Flight Attendants Local 66, told local ABC News affiliate ABC15 in Phoenix that "our members are concerned" with the procedure, which is conducted when passengers and flight personnel alike decide to opt-out entering secured concourses through backscatter full-body X-ray machines currently being used in more airports.
Volpe said the union was advising members to request the patdown in a private area with a witness present.
"We don't want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public," she told the local news station. "They actually make contact with the genital area."
She added that while the union is definitely not against security at airports, there are better ways to clear flight personnel through checkpoints, so as not to delay passengers - some of which complained to ABC15 that crew members who chose to bypass the scanners contributed to flight delays.
Volpe says a better approach would be to issue a "crew pass" to flight personnel so they could essentially bypass security.
"Security is the most important aspect, our offices were used as murder weapons," she told ABC15. But, she added, "Keep in mind we undergo extensive background checks and we fly quite often."
Volpe said some union members were considering lawsuits.
"They've already contacted the ACLU. We don't know if somebody may have had an experience with a sexual assault and its (pat-down) going to drudge up some bad memories," she said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh for crying out loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh for crying out loud.
The only thing I have to say is; If the airport doesn't trust the actual pilots, then I don't want to be in that airport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh for crying out loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh for crying out loud.
Oh, and by the way, shooting hole in a pressurized plane does not result in catastrophic depressurization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh for crying out loud.
We don't need guns on planes. We need to lock cockpit doors. What's that you say, we already do that? Well shit. Security solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh for crying out loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh for crying out loud.
You're saying it's effectively illegal to obtain firearms in the United States? There are good arguments for gun rights; if you want to be taken seriously you should stick to them rather than making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh for crying out loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Terrorists impersonating pilots wouldn't have to carry weapons or bombs or anything so your point is moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All it would really take would be a uniform and whatever TSA special pass the pilot would presumably have to get through security without getting scanned. The terrorist could then go to an airport restroom and change out of the uniform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Biometrics? Fingerprints? Iris scans? Smart Flight-crew passports? vouched for by 2 other crew?
If you *KNOW* they are the pilot you do *NOT* need to see them naked or grope them... unless of course you really enjoy that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"your junk is secure, move along"
*real pilot refuses backscanner*
"excuse me sir, you're going to have to wait for verification..."
^^ yeah, thank god for security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They actually make contact with the genital area."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pissed off pilot.
However, earlier in the day he/she found out his/her partner was cheating on him/her. He/she made a mental decision to take his/her life, but to do it when the plane is in the air taking everyone else on board with him/her.
Tell me the scan or pat down that will prevent that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pissed off pilot.
It's irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pissed off pilot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pissed off pilot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pissed off pilot.
he's making the point that bad shit happens all the time which cannot be prevented. Deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does anyone know ...
I have and idea for a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: does anyone know ...
This one uses Linux. (Warning link to PDF)
Are you going to break the story here first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: does anyone know ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All we need, is a bunch of upset pilots, with X-Ray induced cancer... !! Feel safe ?
I dont see any reason why there should not be a 'Trusted fly list' just as there is a 'no fly list'.
You can expect people like employees, that are constantly checked to do their job, and frequent flyers that could be put on a 'trusted' list, that would reduce the requirement for searching, to at least some random searches, (like sports people drug testing).
Having to check pilots like normal unknown passengers is saying the consider their low paid security people to be more authorative and security concerned than the pilots and the people who's lives are at risk !!.
Plus the fact that frequent flyers, and pilots and crew do not need to be subject to excessive X-Ray exposure, they allready get more exposure that people who work on the ground.
Its a risk that does not need to be taken..
When I got my security clearance, they checked my history, my politics, my entire family, my travel history.. everything. (and probably more than I know).
But once you have that trust, you have it, and unless you abuse it you keep it.
Same should apply to flight staff, they should have the same security rank as the low paid staff manning the airport security. Or more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All we need, is a bunch of upset pilots, with X-Ray induced cancer... !! Feel safe ?
There should not be a "no fly" list. If you think it does any good then you don't understand security, and if you think it does no harm then civil rights are not important to you.
"When I got my security clearance, they checked my [everything]. But once you have that trust, you have it, and unless you abuse it you keep it."
Judging by your reference to the "no fly" list, I'm guessing you're American. In the United States, security clearances expire after a certain number of years (depending on level), whether you've kept your nose clean or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All we need, is a bunch of upset pilots, with X-Ray induced cancer... !! Feel safe ?
And its based on a "need to know" basis, so even if you have a clearance if you are no longer involved in work that required that clearance, even if you have it if you 'dont need to know it' you dont get to know it.
I enquried about a job in the Govnnt security industry and that was over 10 after my defense security 'expired' (I no longer needed to know, was no longer in the military).
But my security clearance was still valid, and I would not have to wait the 1 year period normally required for background checks.
They do a very deep background check, for example I was an amateur radio operator before I joined the military and when I was under training, used to military bases ham station and spoke to someone in Bulgaria.
Australian security agents quizzed me, and asked me to explain why I was talking to countries like that in my position !!..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All we need, is a bunch of upset pilots, with X-Ray induced cancer... !! Feel safe ?
Well, apparently except for the part where you're not supposed to be telling people in public forums that you have a security clearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little logic
AS a pilot...HE DONT NEED A BOMB, he is driving one.
Anyone understand that a BOMB is a waste of time to a pilot? He can put a 20 HOLE in the earth with a QUICK dive and CRASH. And never see the inside of a jail cell.
eVEN THE threat that a Pilot is suicidal or holding a Plane hostage. There is Nothing you could really do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little logic
What's a 20 hole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's sickening, but "why him what about me" riot prevention probably does factor in here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously pilots should not be able to fly planes. It's the clearest weak link in our security. One passenger, at random should be chosen to fly the plane at the start of the flight. Only then will we be safe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pilotless planes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pilotless planes
Its the landing zones that REALLY suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was already an article I read that they figure it too expensive to run security setups on bulk cargo flying. It costs too much, even though it costs more for the passengers.
I long ago figured out it wasn't worth the hassle to fly. I now refuse to fly because of these hassles. I am not going to pay for something that adds these BS PNAs into the mix. Don't like it, not going to do it. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See society stratify into Brave New World.
Of course, it's a "conspiracy theory" to even entertain the thought there's an over-arching plan being put in place, in which a key component is accustoming the general populace to more scrutiny than actual prisoners, with threats of a shadowy "terrorist" network, in a state of perpetual war, and constant lies from gov't officials. -- At this stage, anyone who doesn't see the outlines of a plan is willfully blind, but many of "conservative" views do worship authority and think that they're *in* the power structure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See society stratify into Brave New World.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, the pilots fly the plane. But, that doesn't make them any less of a security threat for unapproved paraphanalia.
Pilots could be forced/coerced/bribed to be carrying illegal devices or drugs. Or they might just be sneaking something like liquor onboard. Not every security violation is a threat to the plane itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My gods. Just how is the lack of a Ouiji Board or a sexual penertration device going to decrease his abilty to just crash the plane?
Oh wait... maybe you meant a bomb? Um... just why does he need a bomb again? He is after all in control of a very very large guided missile.
FFS trust them to do their job.. or make it a requirement every pilot holds secret top super duper clearence re-checked every year and has a physch session before every flight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
either everyone gets the search or the system is pointless. I can't see how this can even be open for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the system is pointless.
FTFY. ;-)
Mike, how come the comments don't support strikethrough? Or am I doing it wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It already is pointless if you're searching the person who can crash the plane whenever he wants to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Invasive Touching Private Body Parts, Naked X-ray Scans
If Obama has his way, Americans might be X-Ray Scanned not just at airports, it is problematic airport X-ray scans will lead to government scanning Citizens boarding trains, cruse ships, buses, entering sports events and and a large array of buildings. Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer.
Recently the Obama government purchased hundreds’ of X-Ray Vans that will be traveling our streets without warrants, secretly x-raying Americans walking on the street, peering though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to X-rays. X-ray vans are an affront to privacy, literally allowing government/police to view Citizens naked in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly exposed) by police X-rays when in their vehicles and in their homes? Imagine a government agency every night X-raying someone in his or her home. Could many X-rays pose a serious health risk? It is foreseeable some Citizens will install similar to smoke detectors, sensors that will set off an alarm, if their home or vehicle is bombarded with X-rays, keeping records of the level of radiation.
X-Ray Vans can ALSO be positioned to secure perimeters by the military or police to control civil unrest and instances of revolt, to screen and stop Citizens carrying guns, cameras; any item. Why did the government order hundreds X-Ray Vans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partially not brain damaged
All this ignores the rest of the issues around whether this process adds any value etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No medical minimum dose for X-Ray exposure.
So the more X-Rays you get the more chance you have of getting cancer, but it could be the billionth x-ray or the first one, or none at all.
flying in a aircraft at high altitude, also increases you exposure to natural radiation, gamma ray, x rays and nuclear radiation, that is not as much reduced by the atmosphere when you are at 30,000 feet.
That is not including the carcenogenic chemicals and solvents and materials in an aircraft that would create a higher incidence of cancer.
So an X-ray for a pilot every DAY, would be a massive risk.
They estimate a full body cat scan has a 2 to 3% chance of GIVING you cancer, as opposed to finding any cancers !!..
Thats 2% risk with ONE X-ray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pilots and searches
As to "they pilot the plane" so if the "want to do something bad" - what, like smuggling drugs? I think everyone should be searched, and if they are so God-like that they should be excepted, let's except them from flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pilots and searches
As to "they pilot the plane" so if the "want to do something bad" - what, like smuggling drugs? I think everyone should be searched, and if they are so God-like that they should be excepted, let's except them from flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boneheaded Sheep to the Slaughter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doh
If we have the technology to distinguish between the two why not apply it to regular passengers as well?
We don't have it, and so we don't do it.
However, in true TSA spirit this should only be a problem after an attack has been tried with this method. So I suggest that we don't do security checks on pilots - at least not until a plane gets blown up by a terrorist who smuggled his bombs through security by dressing up as a pilot. THEN we start checking pilots. Makes much more sense that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom or death
I refuse to fly. I refuse to have my body or my possessions searched by anyone, and anyone who tries is going to get beat down and/or strangled. I've had enough of this fascist garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]