Pilot protests customs 'check' (from AVWEB)

BigAL said:
FWIW, how would you like to be the one doing the search........knowing that there could be a drug smuggler w/nothing to live for.......and you have'n a wife and kids at home. Sounds like they were a bit "over suspicious", but w/all the nut cases out there.........

Look at it from both sides is my point. Hard to play devils advocate on this one though........just a thought.

They should use water guns, w/mexico water.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

I see your point, but being in law enforcement is a voluntary choice. There's a certain level of risk that comes with the job, and that's knowingly undertaken.

I don't think you're suggesting it at all, but the ultimate result of crying "officer safety" would be a situation where every car is installed with a goofy-gas dispenser that activitates in every single situation where you're pulled over or something like that.
 
jmaynard said:
It must be nice to live in a place where the government can be trusted.
Click to expand...

Please provide actual examples, rather than rhetoric and hyperbole, to support any kind of finding that there is a widespread problem with the government, or reason to actually distrust the government.

Just because you think there's a problem doesn't mean there's a problem.

I'll wait for your actual facts and an argument that, despite the fact that for 1 out of every XXX,000 encounters with police there is poor judgment displayed, there is a problem.

[yawn]
 
BigAL said:
FWIW, how would you like to be the one doing the search........knowing that there could be a drug smuggler w/nothing to live for.......and you have'n a wife and kids at home. Sounds like they were a bit "over suspicious", but w/all the nut cases out there.........

Look at it from both sides is my point. Hard to play devils advocate on this one though........just a thought.

They should use water guns, w/mexico water.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

Sorry Big Al, if you don't like the risks don't take the job.

A routine random search should not be conducted assuming that the people are dangerous smugglers.

The officers who make traffic stops don't pull their guns, they have them at the ready but they don't approach the car with them pulled and pointed at the occupants.
 
Missa said:
Sorry Big Al, if you don't like the risks don't take the job.

A routine random search should not be conducted assuming that the people are dangerous smugglers.

The officers who make traffic stops don't pull their guns, they have them at the ready but they don't approach the car with them pulled and pointed at the occupants.
Click to expand...

I completely agree - but who's to say that, in this case, there wasn't some kind of indication that, when viewed from a reasonable perspective, guns were necessary? That might or might not exist.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Please provide actual examples, rather than rhetoric and hyperbole, to support any kind of finding that there is a widespread problem with the government, or reason to actually distrust the government.
Click to expand...
You are obviously not a firearms owner, and obviously do not travel by commercial air; therefore, you do not deal with the jackbooted thugs of the BATF or the TSA.
 
jmaynard said:
You are obviously not a firearms owner, and obviously do not travel by commercial air; therefore, you do not deal with the jackbooted thugs of the BATF or the TSA.
Click to expand...

Actual examples, instead of rhetoric, hyperbole, and innuendo, please.
 
David, Missa.....good points. I tend to side w/the law officer.......if you have a gun drawn on you....there is a reason, maybe wrong place wrong time, maybe a mistake by the law. This doesn't happen often.

Also just because you sign up for a job that is dangerous doesn't mean you let your guard down. This case sounds "excessive", but I wasn't there. I do some dangerous jobs, doesn't mean that I don't get excessively precautious at certain times........if not I wouldn't be here.

But I do agree, these guys sound like they were a bit "gun happy", if ya know what I mean.

later
 
gkainz said:
Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind ... just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Sure - and those are two incidents out of how many total contacts with police in the last two decades? Like I said, that's enough to indicate that sometimes bad judgment is used and/or mistakes happen; but, it's not enough to show that there's some kind of universal problem.

It's enough to make a reasonable person aware that sometimes, sh-t happens. It's not enough to make any reasonable person say, "oh my God, the sky is falling, the government's out to get us."
 
David, I'm not squawking "falling sky" ... you asked for real examples, I provided two. You didn't ask for a particular number of incidents to give credence to the supposition that there is a problem, you just asked for real examples. These two just happened to garner a LOT of public attention. I am firmly convinced there are numerous others that did not make the local news and turn into multi-day news orgies.

My position is that these events happen, and shouldn't. I do not support anarchy, but neither do I support unrestricted government run amok.
 
gkainz said:
...
My position is that these events happen, and shouldn't. I do not support anarchy, but neither do I support unrestricted government run amok.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree - when these things happen, people have to be held accountable (if appropriate, punishment isn't necessarily appropriate in some situations), and mistakes need to be resolved so that they can be prevented in the future.

I'm just opposed to using individual, and isolated, instances as proof that the government is out of control.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I absolutely agree - when these things happen, people have to be held accountable (if appropriate, punishment isn't necessarily appropriate in some situations), and mistakes need to be resolved so that they can be prevented in the future.

I'm just opposed to using individual, and isolated, instances as proof that the government is out of control.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I often hear pilots express dismay that they are being lumped together regarding stupid acts committed by other pilots. I'm sure LEOs feel the same way.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I absolutely agree - when these things happen, people have to be held accountable (if appropriate, punishment isn't necessarily appropriate in some situations), and mistakes need to be resolved so that they can be prevented in the future.

I'm just opposed to using individual, and isolated, instances as proof that the government is out of control.
Click to expand...

Stop making sense!
 
Everskyward said:
Exactly. I often hear pilots express dismay that they are being lumped together regarding stupid acts committed by other pilots. I'm sure LEOs feel the same way.
Click to expand...

I'm not lumping them all together, I'm commenting on this instance and the three other instances refered to on the pod cast. This needs to be invistaged and stopped, no one should be aproached like that without reason. The pilot asked for a reason by the supervising officer and got none. The lack of comment by the LEO's for the article makes me suspicious.

Missa
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I absolutely agree - when these things happen, people have to be held accountable (if appropriate, punishment isn't necessarily appropriate in some situations), and mistakes need to be resolved so that they can be prevented in the future.

I'm just opposed to using individual, and isolated, instances as proof that the government is out of control.
Click to expand...

ReverendSlappy said:
Stop making sense!
Click to expand...

According to the pod cast this was not an isolated instance, they refer to hearing about others and yes they to not substainciate them however they did ask for anyone who has experianced similar to contact them. Maybe we will have substaincation in the future. I remain suspucious.
 
Everskyward said:
Exactly. I often hear pilots express dismay that they are being lumped together regarding stupid acts committed by other pilots. I'm sure LEOs feel the same way.
Click to expand...

The difference is that 99% of us pilots will feed "our own" to the wolves when they screw up and do something stupid and we are usually the worst critics of said acts. 99% of the LEOs will end up defending and justifying the actions of their brothers, no matter how out of line the offenders were.
 
Missa said:
According to the pod cast this was not an isolated instance, they refer to hearing about others and yes they to not substainciate them however they did ask for anyone who has experianced similar to contact them. Maybe we will have substaincation in the future. I remain suspucious.
Click to expand...

Even if there were more than one instance (and, as you mention, these claims are all largely unsubstantiated at this point anyway), David's point stands: To take these few -- yes, they are isolated -- instances and draw the conclusion that there's some wider, more nefarious trend at play here just doesn't work logically.

Should we find out the truth of these matters? Make sure that these alleged abuses don't take place (again, perhaps)? Ensure that measures are in place to protect our rights in these situations? Hold the people in these roles accountable for their actions? Of course, absolutely. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But all of that is a far cry from some of the bordering-on-hysterical hyperbole and fantastical conspiracy theories that are so often injected into these kinds of matters.
 
EdFred said:
The difference is that 99% of us pilots on internet message boards will feed "our own" to the wolves when they screw up and do something stupid and we are usually the worst critics of said acts.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you. I think 99% is a bit of an exaggeration too.
EdFred said:
99% of the LEOs will end up defending and justifying the actions of their brothers, no matter how out of line the offenders were.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know about this since I am not an LEO nor am I closely associated with any.
 
Missa said:
I'm not lumping them all together, I'm commenting on this instance and the three other instances refered to on the pod cast. This needs to be invistaged and stopped, no one should be aproached like that without reason. The pilot asked for a reason by the supervising officer and got none. The lack of comment by the LEO's for the article makes me suspicious.
Click to expand...
My response was more to Jay than to you. Of course these incidents are wrong and need to be investigated, but that doesn't mean that it's common or that it is a sign of government running amok.
 
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that this was not a "random" check. What I find disturbing about the whole thing is not the treatment of the pilot and passengers at "gunpoint" (big whoopdy do) but the mind-numbing moronic excuse given for their presence there. Either CBP need to be better liars or tell the truth. They were either tipped (incorrectly it seems), or eAPIS triggered a hit on a name.
 
A letter sent in regarding this and other recent customs checks by the Baha Bush Pilot's president.

We've discussed this before on here and I asked what legal rights one has in circumstances like this. Can anyone point to anything offering an opinion or outlining rights?


http://snipurl.com/jsb2l

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
wow - this snippet caught my eye

"….for the next hour, screw by screw, he dismantled the entire rear bulkhead of the cabin.
As mine is a pressurized aircraft, this bulkhead forms part of the airtight seal of the
cabin. I tried to tell him this, and also to explain….

….I was told to get the hell away from the plane (so of course, I have no idea of whether
he damaged anything or not!!). He played at being a mechanic for over an hour, and only
after he replaced the bulkhead did he tell me I could inspect the cabin and complain if
anything was damaged!!....."

Any recourse along the line of non-A&P wielding a tool in anger against an aircraft? Would this aircraft now be considered unairworthy until inspected by an A&P again because of this?

just sad ...
 
gkainz said:
wow - this snippet caught my eye

"….for the next hour, screw by screw, he dismantled the entire rear bulkhead of the cabin.
As mine is a pressurized aircraft, this bulkhead forms part of the airtight seal of the
cabin. I tried to tell him this, and also to explain…."

Any recourse along the line of non-A&P wielding a tool in anger against an aircraft?

just sad ...
Click to expand...

No. Apparently, they can slice open your plane with a recipricating saw and it's your problem to make the plane airworthy.
 
I've never known what remedies you have if the government disassembles your property, and finds absolutely nothing. Personally, I'd say that we, as a society (through government, whom we act through), have an obligation to repair it in a competent manner. Or maybe even replace, in the right situation.

But, like I said, I don't know what remedies you've got. On top of that, everyone I've ever discussed the issue with has no idea of what the remedies are.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I've never known what remedies you have if the government disassembles your property, and finds absolutely nothing. Personally, I'd say that we, as a society (through government, whom we act through), have an obligation to repair it in a competent manner. Or maybe even replace, in the right situation.

But, like I said, I don't know what remedies you've got. On top of that, everyone I've ever discussed the issue with has no idea of what the remedies are.
Click to expand...

The Federal Tort Claims Act governs (in most cases) when and how you may sue the United States Government.

Among the exceptions in the FTCA is section 2680(c), which exempts the United States from liability for any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty, or the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other law-enforcement officer.

There are many cases in the US Circuit Courts of Appeal and the SCOTUS about this exception. But in the end they all say you can't sue the government for damage to your vehicle while in the custody of customs (actually, in very few circumstances may you sue the government for damage or loss of property while in the custody of a federal law enforcement agent.) You may file an adminstrative claim with the agency alleging damage and the agency may choose to pay it for whatever reason (politics/public relations) but in the end they don't have to.
 
According to the CBP Guide for Private Flyers "Aircraft operators may have to hire a certified mechanic in the event of extensive examination."
 
AuntPeggy said:
Back in the '50s when I was trained to use firearms, the rule was, only point a weapon at someone you intend to kill. Never intend to frighten, intimidate, or wound; only kill.
Click to expand...

flyersfan31 said:
How refreshingly quaint. :frown3:

Intimidation seems to be the name of the game now. Guilty until proven innocent, and even then, we'll keep treating you as guilty.
Click to expand...

Correct. With the advent of paramilitary tactics and training, the goal is to intimidate. In fact, a core element of a police officer (or security guard, or TSA screener) traning is to "take control and demonstrate your authority", and that means intimidation.

Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Actual examples, instead of rhetoric, hyperbole, and innuendo, please.
Click to expand...

Shall I start with P.G. County Maryland (police kill homeowner's dogs; suspect is murdered in solitary jail cell where officers were the only ones with access; etc - no accountability in either case)? (further discussion on those cases will send this into spin zone)

Law enforcement generally has no liability for damage they do in a search. I've seen US Marshals rip a place apart with no liability for damage. TSA has steadfastly refused to pay damage claims for searches (I have a suitcase with ripped lining where the screener refused advice on how to open and claims were refused).
 
CBP Story doesn't make sense

AvWeb published a response from the CBP regarding the armed ramp inspection of a G/A aircraft at Long Beach prior to its departure last week.

While Ivahnenko maintains CBP agents did not draw weapons, she said it was their idea that the Long Beach police officers have their guns out. "We are taking responsibility as the lead agency who requested assistance from Long Beach," she said. "That was simply part of the security protocol for that part of the inspection."

This sounds to me as though CBP was setting up the Long Beach police to take the fall. If you are the lead agency with specific weapons procedures, why would you delegate weapons use to another agency? The only reason I can think of is if someone in the other agency decides to use their own guidelines on weapons use, CBP would point the finger and say, "It wasn't us!"

This is truely getting out of hand.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I absolutely agree - when these things happen, people have to be held accountable (if appropriate, punishment isn't necessarily appropriate in some situations), and mistakes need to be resolved so that they can be prevented in the future.

I'm just opposed to using individual, and isolated, instances as proof that the government is out of control.
Click to expand...

So how many individual and "isolated" events does it take to rise to the level of a problem?

Heck the letter from the Baja Pilots Association listed three such "isolated" incidents in the past 5 months! That is just from one set of pilots, in one area....
 
kkoran said:
According to the CBP Guide for Private Flyers "Aircraft operators may have to hire a certified mechanic in the event of extensive examination."
Click to expand...

You have got to be shatting me!!!!

OK hyperbole aside, this is getting ridiculous.
 
tdager said:
So how many individual and "isolated" events does it take to rise to the level of a problem?

Heck the letter from the Baja Pilots Association listed three such "isolated" incidents in the past 5 months! That is just from one set of pilots, in one area....
Click to expand...

I never said there wasn't a problem. I just said that it's in no way any kind of indication that the government is the out-to-get-red-blooded-Americans-who-travel-to-Mexico-all-the-time, as has been suggested in this thread. That's kind of like saying the Boy Scouts of America are out to get America because a Boy Scout got convicted of assault somewhere.

At any rate, there's not really a legal leg to stand on. Like I posted earlier, the 4th Amendment is pretty well abrogated when you're travelling internationally. Right or wrong, them's the rules.

There are two choices if you don't like it. First, don't travel internationally. Second, amend the Constitution or lobby Congress to pass a law mandating that customs agents are subject to the 4th Amendment to same extent as domestic police officers are.
 
Re: CBP Story doesn't make sense

Agreed.

I know of no professional peace officers (and I certainly would presume Long Beach's officers meet that standard) who would approach a vehicle, etc., with weapons drawn, unless they had been instructed to do so and (I'd add with emphasis) told that there was a legitimate expectation that the people being intercepted were dangerous and that weapons might be needed.

If I were the LBPD, I'd be livid at this chickensh!t attempt to shift blame - and responsibility!
 
OK, so let me get this straight. We have a new eAPIS system which requires much more information. Responsible pilots go through the brain damage to file and attempt to comply. This therefore triggers MORE inspections? Not less or the same?

So those who comply get whacked, and those that don't ????

Sheesh. We have a government that actively dissuades it's citizens from traveling. What's next?
 
Re: CBP Story doesn't make sense

Typical behavior of a Federal LEO agency. Many local government agencies despise it when a Federal agency works in their jurisdiction. The Feds take over, but if something goes wrong, the locals take the blame.
 
Re: CBP Story doesn't make sense

I want to respectfully disagree with the title of this thread...based on information in your OP...it actually makes perfect sense...
 
Re: CBP Story doesn't make sense

As someone who HAS worked with LB PD in an LEO capacity. I can say they are VERY professional.
If the "feds" were running the show, LBPD was just following orders so to say.
Long Beach on TV is not what it is like in real life. If they were told there was a felon in that aircraft, they would have weapons drawn and would be ordering everyone on the ground to protect themselves.
As someone who has BTDT, I can say, a little embarrassment is better than getting killed when it comes to how you treat a "suspect".

Mark B
 
alaskaflyer said:
Update from Avweb:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/CustomsBorderProtection_JustifiesRampCheck_200528-1.html
Click to expand...

Ivahnenko said in an interview on Tuesday that there was a "heightened alert" involved in the Long Beach operation but she also said she could not discuss the circumstances that led to a more aggressive posture than normal by the CBP and local police
Click to expand...

Let's guess. The pilot or one of the passengers had a name that's on the No Fly List along over a million others like "David Nelson." and "Ted Kennedy."

If they just had a name like "Ivahnenko" they would have been fine.
 
wsuffa said:
OK, so let me get this straight. We have a new eAPIS system which requires much more information. Responsible pilots go through the brain damage to file and attempt to comply. This therefore triggers MORE inspections? Not less or the same?

So those who comply get whacked, and those that don't ????

Sheesh. We have a government that actively dissuades it's citizens from traveling. What's next?
Click to expand...
The sound of jackboots on the horizon. I can't BELIEVE I got a DD 214 for THIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top