Homeland Security got suspicious...

[DieHardFlyer]

I'm not arguing with this point. I just don't see their asking for a reason for the deviation being a concern. Either tell them or just say something basic. The question in itself doesn't bother me because they may want to know if their is an underlying concern you may have...

Well there not just “asking”…they are REQUIRING that you provide an acceptable (to them) justification. And if you fail to do so, you are subject to severe consequences including, but not limited to, in-flight interdiction by armed military aircraft ordering your compliance under threat of lethal consequences for failure to comply. This is NOT an innocent government request concerning your well being with the intent to be of service.

Imagine that a police officer is standing outside your home, and when you leave he requires that you give a satisfactory explanation as to WHY you’re going out before allowing you to proceed. If you tell him it’s none of his business, or if your explanation is not acceptable you are subject to being detained, arrested, or even shot for not cooperating. Now on one hand, a person’s attitude could be…”well, it doesn’t bother me to tell the nice officer why I’m going out…he might be wondering if I need some assistance”. However, such an attitude would blithely overlook the much larger issue –is it acceptable for the government to possess such power and control over its citizens? In the good old U.S.A. we’ve already resoundingly answered this question!

Ben Franklin Quote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

 

[bflynn]

I'm not arguing with this point. I just don't see their asking for a reason for the deviation being a concern. Either tell them or just say something basic. The question in itself doesn't bother me because they may want to know if their is an underlying concern you may have. If I had to fill out paperwork or prove "no wrong doing with my actions", I'd feel differently about it.

Would you feel differently if they met you on the ramp with armed agents and a drug sniffing dog, then detained you by your airplane rather than allowing you to visit the little pilot's room, which was the purpose of stopping in the first place?

 

[rbridges]

Would you feel differently if they met you on the ramp with armed agents and a drug sniffing dog, then detained you by your airplane rather than allowing you to visit the little pilot's room, which was the purpose of stopping in the first place?

Of course, that's what my last sentence said. And it's not the detainment or dogs that bother me, it's the cavity search.

 

[MAKG1]

Well there not just “asking”…they are REQUIRING that you provide an acceptable (to them) justification. And if you fail to do so, you are subject to severe consequences including, but not limited to, in-flight interdiction by armed military aircraft ordering your compliance under threat of lethal consequences for failure to comply. This is NOT an innocent government request concerning your well being with the intent to be of service.

Imagine that a police officer is standing outside your home, and when you leave he requires that you give a satisfactory explanation as to WHY you’re going out before allowing you to proceed. If you tell him it’s none of his business, or if your explanation is not acceptable you are subject to being detained, arrested, or even shot for not cooperating. Now on one hand, a person’s attitude could be…”well, it doesn’t bother me to tell the nice officer why I’m going out…he might be wondering if I need some assistance”. However, such an attitude would blithely overlook the much larger issue –is it acceptable for the government to possess such power and control over its citizens? In the good old U.S.A. we’ve already resoundingly answered this question!

Ben Franklin Quote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

This is off the deep end. What requirement?

Answer the query with "I'd rather not say" and you'll be fine. Odds are, they'll presume you gotta take a leak.

They are just checking if you're having an emergency.

 

[timwinters]

This is off the deep end. What requirement?

Answer the query with "I'd rather not say" and you'll be fine. Odds are, they'll presume you gotta take a leak.

They are just checking if you're having an emergency.

Have you been shooting spitballs in the back of class again instead of paying attention?

This is not a case of ATC simply being worried about your wellbeing. It's the government believing that any deviation is suspicious/nefarious... It's driven by the DHS, not the FAA.

 

[MAKG1]

Have you been shooting spitballs in the back of class again instead of paying attention?

This is not a case of ATC simply being worried about your wellbeing. It's the government believing that any deviation is suspicious/nefarious... It's driven by the DHS, not the FAA.

No, I've been reading in this thread that people don't like to be asked why they are diverting. You seem to think that's the only reason someone was suspected. In a word, that's stupid. Of course that isn't even close to the whole story.

You are asked a reason for a diversion specifically because ATC is concerned about your well-being, and that really is all, despite the astonishingly silly conspiracy theories this board seems to attract.

If you don't want the help, or to answer the question, you don't have to.

And, please learn to read critically. Not everything you read is correct, and quite a lot of stories intended to rile you up leave out critical details. If you think this is simple, you're flat-out wrong, full stop.

 

[PPC1052]

You are asked a reason for a diversion specifically because ATC is concerned about your well-being, and that really is all,

I would like to think that. Is there any evidence one way or the other what prompted the policy for ATC to request this information?

 

[DieHardFlyer]

This is off the deep end. What requirement?

Answer the query with "I'd rather not say" and you'll be fine. Odds are, they'll presume you gotta take a leak.

They are just checking if you're having an emergency.

It appears you sincerely believe “required ATC compliance” in the context of the circumstances discussed herein to be a half-baked conspiracy theory. I’d very much liked to be proven wrong, so give it a try the next time you’re queried by ATC and let us know how it goes...

 

[MAKG1]

It appears you sincerely believe “required ATC compliance” in the context of the circumstances discussed herein to be a half-baked conspiracy theory. I’d very much liked to be proven wrong, so give it a try the next time you’re queried by ATC and let us know how it goes...

Considering I've already answered such queries with "gotta pee" with no follow-up questions, I think it's already been tested adequately. No, no men in black met me at the ramp.

 

[James331]

The point is you should not have to tell them about your bodily functions, or make up a excuse, it's no one business, I know they are "just following orders" and boy how that lines gets old, but it's not a constitutional order, if they are concerned about safety they should just ask if everything is alright, or let us tell them via radio or transponder code if he have a issue.

 

[mscard88]

Considering I've already answered such queries with "gotta pee" with no follow-up questions, I think it's already been tested adequately. No, no men in black met me at the ramp.

Even no black.....

 

[DieHardFlyer]

Considering I've already answered such queries with "gotta pee" with no follow-up questions, I think it's already been tested adequately. No, no men in black met me at the ramp.

I never said that there are no answers that ATC will accept to this question. "I gotta pee" or "need fuel" are among the safe ones. The FACT is that an acceptable answer (in the eyes/ears of ATC) IS REQUIRED. Giving the answer you mentioned above of "I'd rather not say", or even better "none of your business" will result in a much different outcome. And therein lies the rub...

 

[Stearman]

Well there not just “asking”…they are REQUIRING that you provide an acceptable (to them) justification. And if you fail to do so, you are subject to severe consequences including, but not limited to, in-flight interdiction by armed military aircraft ordering your compliance under threat of lethal consequences for failure to comply. This is NOT an innocent government request concerning your well being with the intent to be of service.

Imagine that a police officer is standing outside your home, and when you leave he requires that you give a satisfactory explanation as to WHY you’re going out before allowing you to proceed. If you tell him it’s none of his business, or if your explanation is not acceptable you are subject to being detained, arrested, or even shot for not cooperating. Now on one hand, a person’s attitude could be…”well, it doesn’t bother me to tell the nice officer why I’m going out…he might be wondering if I need some assistance”. However, such an attitude would blithely overlook the much larger issue –is it acceptable for the government to possess such power and control over its citizens? In the good old U.S.A. we’ve already resoundingly answered this question!

Ben Franklin Quote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Well said.

Principles, people. In the 1770s, the illegal Stamp Act and the Parliamentary tax on tea were minuscule yet the principle of the thing caused the Colonists to stop all importation of tea into the Colonies. And Parliament understood that it was an argument over principles and not revenue. How, you say? Because when the East India Company offered to pay the offensive tax for the Colonists, Parliament refused and insisted the Colonists pay it, even though the lack of trade was killing the Company.

C'mon people...


That said, I would agree with the consensus here that the Feds were onto him for something else and this was just a "sanitized", for public consumption version of their reason for suspicion. :wink2:

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

This is off the deep end. What requirement?

Answer the query with "I'd rather not say" and you'll be fine. Odds are, they'll presume you gotta take a leak.

They are just checking if you're having an emergency.

Nope.

I would like to think that. Is there any evidence one way or the other what prompted the policy for ATC to request this information?

Our resident controllers have discussed this requirement previously.

All this diversion stuff triggering paperwork must be a post 9/11 thing because we never did it when I did ATC. If a pilot changed his destination it was simply a matter of throwing the strip to flight data and saying "Hey change this guy's destination to XYZ now." There was no investigation as to why they changed their destination and no report made to the FAA. Any current controllers out there validate this paperwork for a change of destination?

It's a DHS requirement. No paperwork though, just a phone call.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

... as have those on other boards. This is not a worry about your well being. This is DHS anti-terrorism data collection via ATC.


http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79557&start=15

Username Protected wrote:
Is true that they are just doing their jobs. They tell me so too. "I'm required to ask, just doing my job".

Why are they required to ask?

Because we are told to by the higher ups. They then have to call it in to the DEN (Domestic Events Network). It is all about big brother and is ridiculous.

 

[Croomrider]

If it is actually a requirement by DHS to help them find activity to protect our national security, it is totally stupid, and I can't imagine they wouldn't know it. Would you expect terrorists or criminals to tell the truth? It seems to me that most are not going to give a complete and accurate reason, even if they have nothing to hide. If ATC can be appeased as easy as "need to pee", what good could any of this do from a law enforcement standpoint?

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

If it is actually a requirement by DHS to help them find activity to protect our national security, it is totally stupid, and I can't imagine they wouldn't know it. Would you expect terrorists or criminals to tell the truth? It seems to me that most are not going to give a complete and accurate reason, even if they have nothing to hide. If ATC can be appeased as easy as "need to pee", what good could any of this do from a law enforcement standpoint?

This apparently has nothing to do with whether ATC is appeased or not. They don't make the judgement call

ATC must ask the question and report the answer to DHS. What DHS does with it is anyone's guess.

 

[Croomrider]

This apparently has nothing to do with whether ATC is appeased or not. They don't make the judgement call

ATC must ask the question and report the answer to DHS. What DHS does with it is anyone's guess.

Maybe appeased wasn't the best wording, but if DHS gets "needs to pee" back for the reason for the divert, they couldn't possibly know whether it was true or not, and it's certainly believable. I can only see this questioning possibly being relevant when applied to commercial flights.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Maybe appeased wasn't the best wording, but if DHS gets "needs to pee" back for the reason for the divert, they couldn't possibly know whether it was true or not, and it's certainly believable. I can only see this questioning possibly being relevant when applied to commercial flights.

And why would anyone think that this DHS requirement would be any more relevant than the rest of them?

I don't think relevancy is a requirement in that department.

 

[Mason]

Well said.

Principles, people. In the 1770s, the illegal Stamp Act and the Parliamentary tax on tea were minuscule yet the principle of the thing caused the Colonists to stop all importation of tea into the Colonies. And Parliament understood that it was an argument over principles and not revenue. How, you say? Because when the East India Company offered to pay the offensive tax for the Colonists, Parliament refused and insisted the Colonists pay it, even though the lack of trade was killing the Company.

I love a good Tea Party.

 

[Palmpilot]

I never said that there are no answers that ATC will accept to this question. "I gotta pee" or "need fuel" are among the safe ones. The FACT is that an acceptable answer (in the eyes/ears of ATC) IS REQUIRED. Giving the answer you mentioned above of "I'd rather not say", or even better "none of your business" will result in a much different outcome. And therein lies the rub...

Short of "Muhammed wants me to crash into this playground full of kids," I'm having a hard time imagining what an unacceptable answer would be.

And if the questions really are prompted by 9/11, it's hard to imagine this doing any good at all.

 

[Palmpilot]

By the way, here's a previous thread on this:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72227

 

[timwinters]

Short of "Muhammed wants me to crash into this playground full of kids," I'm having a hard time imagining what an unacceptable answer would be.

It'd be interesting to begin responding with that just to see...

 

[denverpilot]

It'd be interesting to begin responding with that just to see...

I think "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you..." would be entertaining if you were working with someone who has a sense of humor.

 

[timwinters]

By the way, here's a previous thread on this:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72227

This would be good reading for MAKG who thinks the query is nothing more than ATC benevolence.

 

[Palmpilot]

It'd be interesting to begin responding with that just to see...

I think the response would be a little TOO interesting!

 

[timwinters]

I think the response would be a little TOO interesting!

Then cancel IFR as you're nearing the revised destination, shut off the transponder, and land at a third airport. Do a touch and go, then proceed to your original destination...sans transponder.

That oughta keep 'em busy for a few weeks.

 

[MAKG1]

This would be good reading for MAKG who thinks the query is nothing more than ATC benevolence.

Yup, I read that thread, and it is COMPLETELY consistent with "ATC benevolence" and a bunch of ill informed conspiracy theorists. It's very interesting that the controllers posting there say it is NOT required by DEN, while a whole bunch of the same out-of-the-loop actors as in this thread say it's a big government power grab.

The government just doesn't care where you pee. And it amazes me that people here think they are so important that anyone would care.

 

[Everskyward]

Anecdotally, I have changed destinations or plans a fair amount of times without anyone getting too curious about the reason. The one time I was intercepted (at an airport, not in flight) I was not on any kind of flight plan and was not talking to anyone. And it was somewhere around 1990.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Yup, I read that thread, and it is COMPLETELY consistent with "ATC benevolence" and a bunch of ill informed conspiracy theorists. It's very interesting that the controllers posting there say it is NOT required by DEN, while a whole bunch of the same out-of-the-loop actors as in this thread say it's a big government power grab.

The government just doesn't care where you pee. And it amazes me that people here think they are so important that anyone would care.

It amazes me that you must not be reading the same thread that was linked to.

We report changes of destination on all IFR aircraft to the DEN. As a controller, it's a directive from management, so I am required to ask, and the reason for the change is reported to the DEN. If a pilot refused to give a reason for the change, that would be reported to the DEN as well ... Would they consider that suspicious at that point? I don't know. I suspect it would be investigated, though.

Maybe it's not required nation-wide to ask, but at some AT facilities, management requires it...

 

[PPC1052]

And it amazes me that people here think they are so important that anyone would care.

Ah, yes. The government only persecutes the important people. What was I thinking?

 

[MAKG1]

It amazes me that you must not be reading the same thread that was linked to.

"Maybe it's not required nationwide…"

He doesn't know.

 

[MAKG1]

Ah, yes. The government only persecutes the important people. What was I thinking?

Yes, with limited funds and personnel, you do not waste your effort on things that are obviously useless. Do you think it's fun?

The consequence is that they miss important stuff while chasing the obviously irrelevant. And assuming all government is stupid is itself stupid -- a bureaucrat's job is managing workload.

 

[PPC1052]

Yes, with limited funds and personnel, you do not waste your effort on things that are obviously useless. Do you think it's fun?

The consequence is that they miss important stuff while chasing the obviously irrelevant. And assuming all government is stupid is itself stupid -- a bureaucrat's job is managing workload.

So that's why no one has never stopped aircraft just for flying west to east, or set up interior traffic check points miles from any border. And I guess that's why police never set up DUI check points. And why no one ever arrested that old guy flying a glider over a power plant despite the fact that that was perfectly legal. Cool. I always wondered.

 

[rbridges]

Yup, I read that thread, and it is COMPLETELY consistent with "ATC benevolence" and a bunch of ill informed conspiracy theorists. It's very interesting that the controllers posting there say it is NOT required by DEN, while a whole bunch of the same out-of-the-loop actors as in this thread say it's a big government power grab.

The government just doesn't care where you pee. And it amazes me that people here think they are so important that anyone would care.

you're so naive. I bet you don't think contrails are actually jets spraying us with chemicals.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

"Maybe it's not required nationwide…"

He doesn't know.

Or maybe you don't. I think I'll believe the ATC/TRACON guy who says, at his location, he is required to report.

We report changes of destination on all IFR aircraft to the DEN. As a controller, it's a directive from management, so I am required to ask, and the reason for the change is reported to the DEN. If a pilot refused to give a reason for the change, that would be reported to the DEN as well ... Would they consider that suspicious at that point? I don't know. I suspect it would be investigated, though.

Maybe it's not required nation-wide to ask, but at some AT facilities, management requires it.

For a VFR, I may ask just to try to be helpful. A lot of VFR pilots are afraid to ask for a vector around a rain cell or inquire about where there are better conditions....I might be able to help a pilot come up with a better alternative because of all the information I have available to me. But, I think most controllers are happy to let a pilot go on his own if he doesn't want to give any information other than "we changed our mind".

One other scenario....I have seen pilots trying to go to flow-restricted airports file for a nearby airport, then change their destination once they're airborne to the one they really wanted to go. That is generally frowned upon; I don't know what the FAA's official position is on that practice.

 

[MAKG1]

So that's why no one has never stopped aircraft just for flying west to east, or set up interior traffic check points miles from any border. And I guess that's why police never set up DUI check points. And why no one ever arrested that old guy flying a glider over a power plant despite the fact that that was perfectly legal. Cool. I always wondered.

You seem to think these things are random.

I think the stories are missing critical details.

The Feds obviously do not stop all eastbound light aircraft. Something else makes it suspicious, not merely the direction of flight.

And you seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between local cops and Federal agencies.

 

[PPC1052]

And you seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between local cops and Federal agencies.

Please school me in the difference. They are beyond my limited cognitive abilities. Tell me again, which is the one that has the power to deny me life, liberty and property? I can never remember which of the two it is.

 

[NoHeat]

Anecdotally, I have changed destinations or plans a fair amount of times without anyone getting too curious about the reason. The one time I was intercepted (at an airport, not in flight) I was not on any kind of flight plan and was not talking to anyone. And it was somewhere around 1990.

Mari, how are pilots intercepted at airports while not in flight? I'm having trouble picturing this. Did an F-16 pull alongside while you were taxiing?

 

[Everskyward]

Mari, how are pilots intercepted at airports while not in flight? I'm having trouble picturing this. Did an F-16 pull alongside while you were taxiing?

We were held on the runway then told to follow a Citation to the ramp. The Citation had just landed on a crossing runway.