|
If knowledge was intent, I'd be really screwed. ;)
The next time I fly, I think I'll bring my copies of NFPA 1123 and 1126 just to see what happens. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 18955501)
One of the more poorly-worded (or brilliantly worded) pieces of regulation I've seen.
I kind of wonder what would have transpired if the OP had provided his pilot's certificate. What then? If it was expired, I'm sure that would have been pointed out. So? I have kept old IDs for a variety of reasons - nothing illegal about it. Would the agent have black-lighted it? What fields would have been checked? Would a copy have been taken (almost certainly 'yes')? If the agent saw something he didn't like on the certificate, would he have used it as grounds to confiscate it or to prevent the OP from entering the sterile area? A pilots or mechanics FAA certificate never expires and never needs renewal, therefore there is no expiration date on any of these certificates. Mr. Elliott |
Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott
(Post 18955937)
A pilots or mechanics FAA certificate never expires and never needs renewal, therefore there is no expiration date on any of these certificates.
Mr. Elliott |
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 18954713)
Bierfeldt v. Napolitano. The link also has a link to the TSA's agreement with the ACLU.
In the lawsuit, Bierfeldt and the ACLU sought a court order requiring the TSA to bring its search policies into line with constitutional requirements for passenger privacy, arguing that passengers moving through pre-flight screening can only be subject to searches aimed at keeping weapons and explosives off airplanes. Bierfeldt’s experience proved that TSA searches had taken on a much broader scope. In September, eight days before the government’s response to the ACLU lawsuit was due, the TSA issued a new directive governing passenger screening searches. The new policy states clearly that “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.” In October, the TSA issued a second directive addressing the issues raised in the ACLU’s lawsuit, stating that “traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal,” and that to the extent bulk quantities of cash warrant searching, it is only to further security objectives. |
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 18956408)
Thanks. Is there an actual agreement? I found the revised Management Directive and also this from the ACLU:
The ACLU wanted searches to only be about "keeping weapons and explosives off planes", but it appears that all they got was “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.” As such, I can see the TSA saying the charts were related to "transportation security" and as such did not violate the directive. What do you think might happen if one walked through with the TSA Management Directive in hand? |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 18955501)
I kind of wonder what would have transpired if the OP had provided his pilot's certificate. What then? If it was expired, I'm sure that would have been pointed out. I imagine the lack of an expiration date would have been "proof" that the license was a fake. |
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 18956530)
Actually pilots' licenses don't have an expiration date. A licensed pilot is always a licensed pilot unless the FAA pulls it. However; being authorized to exercise the privileges of a pilot is something that can "expire" pretty quickly, depending on the rating and type of flight to be undertaken.
I imagine the lack of an expiration date would have been "proof" that the license was a fake. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 18955635)
How about "Debt of Honor"?
TSA can't even do the job of screening for WEI well which is all they are authorized to do. For TSA to attempt policing other areas is guaranteed failure. |
and for another exciting development...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa..._campaign=8315
Well at least the "no fly list" is an infallible resource! /sarcasm |
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
(Post 18956459)
"That Management Directive is out out date."
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 18940651)
Chuck Sloan
Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc
(Post 18943556)
Family members are not welcome because their particular DNA line needs to be extinguished.
Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc
(Post 18951262)
My whole desire is to shun, as sub-human pariahs, all TSOs and their weasely sock-puppets.
|
Originally Posted by loops
(Post 18956881)
And due to the arbitrary and capricious nature of the sorts of allegations one may encounter with any representative of the TSA (and the requirement to surrender upon request) we again, have all sorts of problems with the latitude possessed by this rogue agency.
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 18957061)
I was thinking more along the line of being seized by the TSA.
Unfortunately we'll never know, but seems to me when one encounters silly decision-making by TSOs, at minimum one should escalate to a supervisor. Yes, some will back the TSO. Others won't. Seems like there's little to lose but time, in this case, and I'm wondering why the OP didn't try that approach, especially since it still would've given her a moral victory and might've actually resulted in the TSO getting reprimanded. |
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest
(Post 18958224)
Seems like there's little to lose but time, in this case, and I'm wondering why the OP didn't try that approach, especially since it still would've given her a moral victory and might've actually resulted in the TSO getting reprimanded.
I'm honestly unsurprised by people who simply walk away from the TSA checkpoint with a bad taste and choose not to fly again. |
Sorry I didn't answer some of these questions, I have been internet-less for a while.
Someone already pointed out why I was wary of showing my certificate to the TSO - beyond the fact it was none of his business. Yes, the TSA does have quite a bit of nasty power over us, and that's not something I ever want to happen. T-the-B is dead on with saying they can took all the want, but not touch - but I wasn't even willing to let them do that that night. As far as escalating, I already did briefly mention why I didn't - I was in a hurry, hungry, and wanted dinner. But more than that, I know what happened last time I escalated - I was subjected to a retaliatory grope. I simply don't see how escalating would have solved anything. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:14 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.