Rand Paul & TSA

Ron Levy said:
You can disagree all you want with the law, but the law on point is clear -- Senator Paul has no exemption from the security process.
Click to expand...

The "law" hasn't even been deemed legal.
 
gcd89 said:
The "law" hasn't even been deemed legal.
Click to expand...

Of course it has. A law passed by Congress is, well, a law. It can be struck down by the courts, but until then it's the law. I thought the SCOTUS or Federal courts already ruled that you gave consent for the search when you bought your airline ticket, but I'm no legal scholar.
 
steingar said:
Of course it has. A law passed by Congress is, well, a law. It can be struck down by the courts, but until then it's the law. I thought the SCOTUS or Federal courts already ruled that you gave consent for the search when you bought your airline ticket, but I'm no legal scholar.
Click to expand...

A couple of things. It's not a law, it's a regulation (49CFR1501), which is a creation entirely by the executive branch.

As far as consent goes, the supposed justification for the search is that you consented by buying the airplane ticket. However, the bedrock principle of consent is that it must be voluntary.
Additionally, in order for consent to be voluntary, it must be freely given, it must be able to be withdrawn at any time, and there cannot be punishment, threat of punishment, or negative consequences for withdrawal of that consent.
Even an 'intimidating atmosphere' (like too many cops standing around) can be enough to destroy the consent to search, and that's much less outright threats that "we'll fine you $10,000 if you don't comply" (i.e., withdraw consent).

I guess my state should pass a law that if you consent to allow the cops to search your house or car, and then change your mind, we'll fine you $10,000. Do you think that would pass Constitutional muster?

Also, the court cases regarding consent for airport searches were from 40 years ago, when it was metal detectors (not body scanners, pat downs, and threats of 5 figure fines).
One of the key points in the court decision was that metal detectors were a minimal intrusion into personal sovereignty (no contact, just walking through a machine, etc). That cannot be said for current practice.

So, I maintain that current processes have not been reviewed by the courts, and in my opinion what the TSA is doing flies in the face of 30 years of Constitutional precedent. I fail to understand how an innocent traveler has less 4th Amendment protection that a criminal caught red handed.
 
Last edited:
WRT to Alan's comments about consent. This sounds a lot like "restrictive endorsement", whereas such endorsement is illegal. Example: the payee's endorsement on the back of a bank check does not constitute a quit of further claims against the payer.
 
PilotAlan said:
A couple of things. It's not a law, it's a regulation (49CFR1501), which is a creation entirely by the executive branch.

As far as consent goes, the supposed justification for the search is that you consented by buying the airplane ticket. However, the bedrock principle of consent is that it must be voluntary.
Additionally, in order for consent to be voluntary, it must be freely given, it must be able to be withdrawn at any time, and there cannot be punishment, threat of punishment, or negative consequences for withdrawal of that consent.
Even an 'intimidating atmosphere' (like too many cops standing around) can be enough to destroy the consent to search, and that's much less outright threats that "we'll fine you $10,000 if you don't comply" (i.e., withdraw consent).

I guess my state should pass a law that if you consent to allow the cops to search your house or car, and then change your mind, we'll fine you $10,000. Do you think that would pass Constitutional muster?

Also, the court cases regarding consent for airport searches were from 40 years ago, when it was metal detectors (not body scanners, pat downs, and threats of 5 figure fines).
One of the key points in the court decision was that metal detectors were a minimal intrusion into personal sovereignty (no contact, just walking through a machine, etc). That cannot be said for current practice.

So, I maintain that current processes have not been reviewed by the courts, and in my opinion what the TSA is doing flies in the face of 30 years of Constitutional precedent. I fail to understand how an innocent traveler has less 4th Amendment protection that a criminal caught red handed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're quite better versed with this sort of thing than I, thankyou. However, Congress passed the laws entitling the appropriate agencies to pass said regulations. I had thought some of this was already hashed out in court, and can't for the life of me figure out why it hasn't hit the SCOTUS yet. The TSA has been around for awhile and is universally despised. I would think some lawyer would have pursued a case just to spite them.
 
Everskyward said:
ATC. That said, Canada has privatized ATC and it works fine too.
Click to expand...

In the U.S., privatizing Flight Service Stations sure had a heck of a learning curve, and according to some, after seven years Lockmart is still not doing it as well as the FAA was doing it.
 
Palmpilot said:
In the U.S., privatizing Flight Service Stations sure had a heck of a learning curve, and according to some, after seven years Lockmart is still not doing it as well as the FAA was doing it.
Click to expand...

Anyone seen if it's been cheaper or more expensive so far?
 
Michael, on the subject of "why no cases"? I think earlier in this thread someone alluded to the fact that we don't know if anyone has actually been fined the 10,000 for saying "I'm done, let me go home" after starting the screening process. Until someone does, there's no basis for a complaint.
 
Palmpilot said:
In the U.S., privatizing Flight Service Stations sure had a heck of a learning curve, and according to some, after seven years Lockmart is still not doing it as well as the FAA was doing it.
Click to expand...
I quit calling FSS regularly a long time ago, before it was turned over to Lockmart so I can't say that I have much basis for opinion. My only call in recent memory was to ask if a TFR in the Dallas area was really over so we could reposition the airplane. They knew right away. In fact it was lifted as I was in the process of talking to them.
 
Palmpilot said:
In the U.S., privatizing Flight Service Stations sure had a heck of a learning curve, and according to some, after seven years Lockmart is still not doing it as well as the FAA was doing it.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Before the turnover, I used to be unable to reach the FSS without a very long wait on a nice day, and couldn't reach them at all in some places. I have not seen that with Lockheed Martin.

The old FSS's had locals working in them who understood local conditions and could be massively helpful. The Lockheed guys are not local, and simply read off the same screen I do. As such it isn't very useful. That said, the first thing you do to reduce costs is centralize and reduce personnel. Hence I see no way in which any alternative to the FSS will give the same sort of service.

To be honest, for me calling the FSS has always been about discharging the legal requirement to do so. I can get my own aviation weather. As such, Lockheed does a very good job. I get in touch with them quickly, and I suspect it is far cheaper than the former FSS system.
 
steingar said:
To be honest, for me calling the FSS has always been about discharging the legal requirement to do so.
Click to expand...
You hear this statement occasionally but it isn't true. There is no legal requirement to call FSS. Show me where it says that.
 
Everskyward said:
You hear this statement occasionally but it isn't true. There is no legal requirement to call FSS. Show me where it says that.
Click to expand...

A pilot must be in possession of all pertinent information relevant to a flight. The only way you can prove you know all the pertinent weather is a call to FSS or a link to DUATS.
 
steingar said:
A pilot must be in possession of all pertinent information relevant to a flight. The only way you can prove you know all the pertinent weather is a call to FSS or a link to DUATS.
Click to expand...

No, those are two of the more convenient methods for proving such, but not the only ways.
 
Richard said:
When "calling the FSS" is code for complying with 91.103, it makes sense.
Click to expand...
That's making a big leap in logic. Say, for the sake of argument, you are trying to prove that you checked the weather, NOTAMS, etc. How are you going to prove the rest of the items?

§ 91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
How else can you legally prove you have familiarized yourself with the relevant weather?
Click to expand...
How are you going to legally prove that you did or didn't do other things related to the flight?
 
steingar said:
How else can you legally prove you have familiarized yourself with the relevant weather?
Click to expand...

Simple, check the weather, make a printout.

There are lots of ways to do it. FSS and DUATs make it more convenient, sure, but they are by no means the only methods available to evidence that you have all available information.
 
Everskyward said:
How are you going to legally prove that you did or didn't do other things related to the flight?
Click to expand...

If you have a current chart and AFD on board, you have all the relevant information about your destination and alternates. You have AROW and logbooks to show your aircraft is in good working order (i.e. is airworthy). After the wx, what else is there?
 
steingar said:
If you have a current chart and AFD on board, you have all the relevant information about your destination and alternates. You have AROW and logbooks to show your aircraft is in good working order (i.e. is airworthy). After the wx, what else is there?
Click to expand...
How are you going to prove you checked the performance? I'm not talking about us. We write it down. But how many people flying small airplanes check it before every takeoff? Look at all the other regs. How far from that cloud were you really? There are many things that can't be proven. Good thing, too.
 
Everskyward said:
How are you going to prove you checked the performance?
Click to expand...

If you actually have to prove anything, it means you had a boo boo. if that happens, your aircraft had better be up to the mission you're flying.

Everskyward said:
I'm not talking about us. We write it down. But how many people flying small airplanes check it before every takeoff?
Click to expand...

Aall the information pertinent to the flight. You're supposed to have your POH or similar document that spells out the performance on board. Hence that requirement is met.

Everskyward said:
Look at all the other regs. How far from that cloud were you really? There are many things that can't be proven. Good thing, too.
Click to expand...

True, but you do have to be able to prove that you had checked before takeoff to know where those clouds were. And again, the only way I know to do that is to call the FSS or log on to DUATS. If someone knows another way to satisfy that regulatory requirement, I am quite interested. I've not heard of one in the decade I've been volant.
 
steingar said:
True, but you do have to be able to prove that you had checked before takeoff to know where those clouds were. And again, the only way I know to do that is to call the FSS or log on to DUATS.
Click to expand...
As Jeff said, a printout is good enough. But I used to live in Missouri and I would like someone to show me where it says you need proof.
 
Everskyward said:
As Jeff said, a printout is good enough. But I used to live in Missouri and I would like someone to show me where it says you need proof.
Click to expand...

Are you certain? What if the provider doesn't provide updated weather? How do you know? If the FAA has never heard of it, the trouble could land in your lap.
 
steingar said:
Are you certain? What if the provider doesn't provide updated weather? How do you know? If the FAA has never heard of it, the trouble could land in your lap.
Click to expand...
If you're not around to answer the question, "Did you check the weather?" and your paper printout has been incinerated then you probably have bigger problems than trouble with the FAA.
 
Everskyward said:
If you're not around to answer the question, "Did you check the weather?" and your paper printout has been incinerated then you probably have bigger problems than trouble with the FAA.
Click to expand...

I was more referring to the following situation, which has occurred in the past. You're flying along, and up come a pair of F16's. Turns out you violated a VIP TFR. Two possible outcomes:

1. You have a printout of a wx briefing from some site the FAA has never heard of. They claim you haven't fully prepared for your flight leading to your TFR violation, and you have all sorts of trouble.

2. You claim that you were briefed from FSS, you asked and no TFR came up in the briefing. They check the tapes, and there it is. You have no trouble and continue on your way.

I would imagine a printout from NOAA should suffice (though I am unaware of whether or not it actually does), as that's what the FSS guys look at. But I can't get one of those in my hangar just as I'm about to take off. It would be just like the FAA to not accept a printout of the very thing the Briefers examine.
 
JeffDG said:
Simple, check the weather, make a printout.

There are lots of ways to do it. FSS and DUATs make it more convenient, sure, but they are by no means the only methods available to evidence that you have all available information.
Click to expand...
Jeff- I understand what you are saying except that I know a call to the FSS (apparently, the information is recorded) or using the one of the DUAT(S) is official.

Let's suppose I use the AOPA flight planner- I beleive this links to DUATs, but is one abstraction away- does this meet my needs of being able to demonstrate I researched the weather and TFRs before flight?

How many layers of abstraction am I allowed before I can't demonstrate I did the research?

I'm not intending to argu with you, but this is an area where some of us don't know if "Joe's Flight Planner" provides evidence that we did research that there were no TFRs. We do know that FSS and DUAT(S) provide that proof.

Perhaps you can provide some guidance? Thanks in advance!
 
steingar said:
I was more referring to the following situation, which has occurred in the past. You're flying along, and up come a pair of F16's. Turns out you violated a VIP TFR. Two possible outcomes:

1. You have a printout of a wx briefing from some site the FAA has never heard of. They claim you haven't fully prepared for your flight leading to your TFR violation, and you have all sorts of trouble.

2. You claim that you were briefed from FSS, you asked and no TFR came up in the briefing. They check the tapes, and there it is. You have no trouble and continue on your way.

I would imagine a printout from NOAA should suffice (though I am unaware of whether or not it actually does), as that's what the FSS guys look at. But I can't get one of those in my hangar just as I'm about to take off. It would be just like the FAA to not accept a printout of the very thing the Briefers examine.
Click to expand...
OK, so you are doing it to CYA but it's not a requirement to call FSS. If it was their lines would be busy forever.
 
I have been told repeatedly that for a pilot like myself, who does not have a dispatch service, the only acceptable briefings are from DUATS or FSS itself. Before LM, their lines were often busy forever.
 
steingar said:
I have been told repeatedly that for a pilot like myself, who does not have a dispatch service, the only acceptable briefings are from DUATS or FSS itself. Before LM, their lines were often busy forever.
Click to expand...
I don't have a dispatch service either and I've never been told to call FSS although I do print out the weather.
 
I use fltplan.com and WSI (either online or the setup they have in some FBOs).
 
denverpilot said:
Presidential Elections are a side-show. Until one of them grows a pair large enough to actually utilize the line-item veto on these enormous unreadable spending Bills, the President's not that important at all.
Click to expand...

Ummm... It has nothing to do with "growing a pair." The President of the United States does not have line-item veto power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top