In addition to knotyeagle's helpful links regarding Volusia county, I can also reference just about any 1st/2nd season episode of the tv show "Cops" that was a showcase for then Sheriff of Broward County, Nicholas Navarro - who on national television week after week, demonstrated a total lack of regard for, and actual desecration of the constitutional and human rights of countless individuals in south Florida from the poorest black and hispanic to the wealthiest white citizens turning the Sheriff deputies into storm trooper thugs trained to harass, intimidate and attack people at the slightest provocation - a habit many of them still have.

Sheriff Navarro also dipped his hands into the wallets of many south florida residents and visitors confiscating significant cash and other assets on a whim and intimidating anyone who tried to get their property back

He is also famous for demonstrating the talents of his storm troopers to a visiting dignitary from Russia by organizing a full scale military raid on a local nightclub while swooping down from the sky in his helicopter, which included storming the premises, beating and harassing patrons, arresting everyone in sight, searching everyone for drugs and regardless of whether or not anything was found, photographing and fingerprinting everyone in the premises

So...to be honest, I do know quite abit about these things and part of what makes me so sensitive to police and government power is coming from a part of the country whose police have a particular reputation for constitutional abuses and violence against those they are sworn to protect.

I have to agree that it was most likely not an off duty FAM.

Although, I have flow on my own dime and have often been upgraded by the request of the Capt. or by the Lead FA.

The times that I have been upgraded, I performed my duties as a FAM and there were no other FAM's scheduled for the flight. I have never and will never ask to be moved to F but I will move at the request of the flight crew. I have also seen this happen to active duty military members flying in uniform. I think that this is the discreation of the flight crew also and not an example of someone getting extra "bennies".

I believe that the crews are a little more informed with our procedures and tactics thus have no problem with doing it. I'm still doing my job........

I don't think most FAMs are trying to exploit their LEO/security-related status to get a low-grade domestic upgrade; however, the airlines should standardize their upgrade process and then this issue would arise far less.

As things stand currently with most airlines, the upgrade process is so inconsistent that even transparency is no guarantee that the airline's official upgrade process is adhered to. That said, transparency is perhaps the best approach. However, asking for transparency is wishful thinking when "security" is the excuse of the day for so much.

I most certainly agree with you first paragraph GUWonder, although I wouldn't consider "security" an excuse while we are a country at war.

I look for evidence that we are a country at war, and the closest thing to a war I see are various levels of militancy (largely in foreign lands) while most people in the "Homeland" do as they always do without even knowing how many people from their own town and state have been lost in the most recent days, weeks, months or years. The government is engaged in police actions, but the people are not engaged in a war (or even the police actions underway). The closest most Americans come to a war is the government spending money like a drunken sailor on shore-leave during a war -- and then it's the government spending money we, as taxpayers in a "country at war", aren't paying for with hard cash yet.

I don't want to debate the issue of us being at war or the government being engaged in police actions. Over the last 13 years the US Gov has conducted numerous peace keeping missions, a couple that I have been an active member in, and other "police actions".

I believe the issue at hand without using the term "war" would be that we are a country in danger of being involved in another terrorist incident that could claim the lives of many, possibly now more than pre 9-11. Hopefully the security measures that have been enacted, whether by opinion poor or excellent, will assist in the prevention of another attack.

With the possibility of people losing lives, many people tend to try and be more cautious and are willing to make sacrifices to lean towards caution.

Okay, you've identified abuses that took place in one law enforcement agency, out of almost 18,000 in this country. I have never claimed that every law enforcement oficer or agency in the country is perfect. There is such a thing as corruption, and there are people that are in law enforcement for the wrong reasons (the same observation could be made for almost any other occupation). But your continued use of Nazi and totalitarian state references tells me that you tend to regard all law enforcement personnel as the bad guys. I doubt that anyone who had actually experienced oppression at the hands of real "storm troopers" or "stasi" would make the same comparisons to an agency that has, as one of its more objectionable practices, a mandate that one remove one's shoes while walking through a metal detectior.

The underlying objection to the FAM (off duty or on) getting the seat in FC is that other customers seem to think that they should get that seat instead, even though they haven't paid for it. While the airlines have created a complex set of rules to determine the priority of upgrade awards, these awards are still not a birthright. Airline employees have discretion in granting upgrades and other incentives/benefits, as do employees in most other businesses.

When I was a working cop, I rejected the offers of free meals that many restaurants would offer, but I did ask that I get a table that was (1) out of the way, so that people wouldn't bother me while I was writing reports, and (2) was positioned so that I could see the door and keep track of who entered and left. The restaurant wanted my business, so they made this concession, even though it was slighly less convenient for the waitress (whom I was always careful to tip, by the way). Had another customer asked for the same table, I suspect they would have been denied it, unless it was the only one left in the store. That one was more or less reserved for me or my colleagues.

A common sub-topic in the discussions on this site is that FFs deserve better treatment than the occasional traveler, that non-FFs have no business in FC unless they pay for it, and that those big chairs up front are the exclusive domain of the elite traveler. And, although it usually isn't stated so blatantly, there was a comment in the Delta forum a couple of days ago that was directed at nonrev flyers, but I think was intended for the rest of us commoners that can't afford FC fares: "These nonrevs filthy up the premium cabins and make those of us who can pay for it not pay for it. (Sorry I am not a DL flyer but saw this topic) As a whole Nonrevs in my beliefs belong in coach no matter how hard they work. They work in a trade where they cannot afford first/biz so they should be happy to fly coach."
When I read that, I flashed on a comment made at one of my high school reunions from a classmate that had acquired the idea that he had moved several levels above me in social class. He referred to me as a "common policeman."

As I said in another message - get over it. If the airline wants to give a FAM an FC seat, on duty or off, they can do it. They can likewise do this for a serviceman/woman, a nonrev employee, or the guy that bags the captain's groceries at Safeway. If you are fortunate enough to get an upgrade, shut up and enjoy it, and if not, shut up and enjoy the ride in coach. If FC is really that important to you, pony up the full fare and get yourself a guaranteed seat. Better yet, form a new outfit with a name like Arrogant Air, that has 80% FC seats, all of them available only to their selected elite passengers. The remaining 20% of seats will be wooden benches, and the only meal service will be a bucket of water with a ladle, passed around from one passenger to another (a similar bucket will serve as the economy lav), and whatever the economy passengers can scavenge from the produce thrown at them by the FC passengers. The primary function of the economy seats will be to give the FC passengers someone to feel superior to.

^ ^ ^ Damn fine job there copwriter! :D

connotation of previous east-germany fraternity with current uninformed agency
 

I guess you read more than I wrote. When did I use the term "STASI" towards any accredited agency (more than 18,000 in the US)? I do recall using the term when discussing TSA screeners who feel they are beholden noone or even SOP "du jour". Perhaps my error that you consider the TSA one of those 18,000 law enforcement agencies.

And if I may ask, can the Transportation Security Administration direct the state to revoke your teaching credentials on "security" grounds with no appeal except to the TSA themselves? Everytime I write I risk my FAA certificates being revoked because someone at TSA can decide it's a national security issue. So my livelyhood can be revoked and yes TSA has done that before to other people with FAA certificates. That is my example of oppression by the TSA.

But since only 600,000 people in this country have FAA certificates I guess that is a small percentage of the population affected by this TSA rule. Would you say the same of millions who have commercial drivers licenses? They also must comply with TSA deciding who can transport hazardous material or not. Of course if the TSA decides that John Smith is too much of a risk, he can appeal to the TSA of course. Where is the accountability?

Could you please point out any further errors in my post? You write well and more often then I do. But nonetheless I do would suggest more reference research (with citations) before making some of your posts.

No, I do not consider the TSA to be a law enforcement agency. To the best of my knowledge, TSA employees have no powers of arrest, don't carry firearms, can't administer oaths, and can't serve warrants. That's what distinguishes LE agencies from non-LE agencies in most places. You did compare the TSA to the Stasi, and for the purposes of this discussion, I thought that to be unfair and extreme. The subtopic of LE agencies using civil forfeiture laws to seize money and property just muddied the waters here. One issue doesn't have much to do with the other.

By the way, I think the TSA is an "accredited" agency (that could mean a lot of things), it's just not a law enforcement agency.

As I don't have any teaching credentials other than my occupational experience and my graduate degree, I doubt it. I know very little about FAA certificates, so I can't speak to that. I have to believe that there is some sort of due process that one can use to appeal the revocation of an FAA certificate or any other goverment-issued certificate, but I don't have any idea what it would be. You are almost certainly more knowledgeable than me on that subject.

I've been the prime mover in a number of circumstances where commercial drivers licenses were pulled, usually when the bearer was found driving under the influence. There was an appeals process to the DMV. The hearing officer was a DMV employee. The revocation was upheld in the majority of those hearings (e.g., I "won"), but the hearing officer found fault with the process now and then and rescinded the revocation. If the license holder still thought he/she had been done wrong, they could appeal to the district court. Just because the TSA is the agency that holds the appeals doesn't mean that the appeals system is faulty. If you make a complaint against a police officer, the complaint is most likely going to be investigated by an employee of the same agency. Cops get disciplined and canned all the time, despite that possible conflict of interest.

The other Nazi references were probably made by someone else. I don't pay as much attention to who says what as much as I do to the content. Many of the postings kind of run together for me.

By the way, if you're wondering where that figure of 18,000 law enforcement agencies comes from, it's mostly from the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. The breakdown works out like this:

State and local law enforcement agencies: 17,784 (708,022 officers)
Federal agencies employing 100 or more full-time employees authorized to carry firearms and make arrests: 30 (90,968 officers)
Federal offices of inspector general employing full-time officers authorized to carry firearms and make arrests: 28 (2,860 officers)

Total agencies: 17,842
Total officers: 801,850

The actual numbers are higher. Many local law enforcement agencies, especially smaller ones (80% of the LE agencies in the US have fewer than 20 officers - over 1000 have only one full-time officer) employ part-time officers that aren't included in this total. In the federal sector, many federal agencies and installations have small police forces that provide protective services for the personnel and facilities there. For instance, if you go to the J. Edgar Hoover Building in DC, you will see members of the "FBI Police" standing guard at the entrance.

appeals process to TSA for revoking of certificates or endorsements
 

Good to hear that you testified at a DMV hearing for revocation of someone's commercial drivers license. Did you answer the questions of the hearing officer or did you say "for reasons of national security I cannot divulge the answer"? When asked to present documentation of your arrest of the individual did you withhold such documentation "for reasons of national security". In fact when the DMV hearing officer asked you for your name did you decline "for reasons of national security".

I'm glad your state's DMV does give hearings where evidence can be published rather than withheld. TSA does not. And without the TSA approval no state may issue a hazardous material endorsement on any driver's license. Find another job is common answer. Remember the TSA does not have show their evidence in deciding you are a national security risk. Very difficult to confront what you cannot see. Only a waiver to the 4th ammendment.

The same holds true for my FAA certificates.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...326letter.html

March 25, 2003

Docket Management System
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room Plaza 401
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590-0001

RE: TSA-2002-13732
Threat Assessments Regarding Citizens of the United States Who Hold or Apply for FAA Certificates
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), representing nearly 400,000 members, has serious concerns about the recent direct final rule, "Threat Assessments Regarding Citizens of the United States Who Hold or Apply for FAA Certificates," issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on January 24, 2003. In conjunction with the TSA direct final rule, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a companion rule entitled, "Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security Grounds."

While AOPA supports the goal of combating terrorism and has worked closely with the TSA in this effort, we oppose the agency's recent direct final rule. We believe it undermines one of the most foundational elements of the United States by suspending the rights of U.S. citizens who hold pilot certificates to "due process." The requirement mandating that the FAA immediately suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue a pilot certificate to anyone that the TSA determines poses a threat to air transportation security without a third party appeal or clear criteria of the reasons is alarming. Releasing the rule as a direct final, rather than using the traditional notice of proposed rulemaking process, also raises questions about the TSA's interest in sincerely evaluating the impacts of this regulatory action on pilots.

Because of the pilot concerns over the rules, AOPA strongly encourages the TSA to address these and other comments in a timely manner. We believe that a third party review must be added and seek immediate action on this issue.

According to both agencies, these rules were promulgated under the authority Congress provided in the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001(ATSA) that directed the TSA and the FAA to "make modifications in the system for issuing airman certificates related to combating acts of terrorism." While AOPA recognizes the importance of preventing terrorists from using aircraft to attack the U.S., these rules clearly undermine the due process rights of U.S. citizens and pilots. We also contend that the rules circumvent the regulatory process defined under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The primary concern of AOPA members with this rulemaking action is a lack of due process available to an individual accused of posing a security threat. Initially the determination is made by an assistant administrator of the TSA based on materials that may not be disclosed to the individual if the TSA says it is "classified" information. The determination is then reviewed by the Deputy Administrator, and in the case of a U.S. citizen, ultimately by the Under Secretary. The process provides no independent review. A pilot can only appeal the threat determination back to the TSA (the original arbiter), and because of national security concerns, the information implicating the pilot need not be revealed.

The FAA possesses the authority, under legislation prior to the ATSA, to issue an emergency suspension or revocation of an airman's certificate. However, the affected airman has specific procedural rights that include an appeals process to an impartial adjudicator (National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)). However, these direct final rules do not allow for any meaningful appeal process to a third party or impartial adjudicator.

In a letter dated February 19, 2003, to James Loy, AOPA recommended that the NTSB be given the responsibility for the adjudication of an FAA certificate action that is based on a TSA determination that an individual poses or is "suspected of posing" a security threat. AOPA contends that the members of the NTSB are appointed by the President, are approved by the U.S. Senate, experienced in transportation issues, and are familiar with the sensitivity of airman certificate actions. However, in a March 14, 2003, reply letter, TSA Administrator Loy wrote, "TSA believes that review of its security threat determination by the NTSB, whose expertise is in aviation safety matters, is not appropriate." The letter went on to explain that the TSA has opened a dialogue with the Department of Homeland Security to seek a final appeal process there.

This exploration by the TSA of a third party review is encouraging. Rather than the Homeland Security Organization, which is really not a true third party, AOPA recommends proceeding with a hearing before a Department of Transportation administrative law judge. This allows for a discovery process, the presentation of witnesses and documentary evidence, and legal argument. Appeal of the judge's decision would be permitted within the agency to an agency decision maker (Under Secretary of Transportation for Security or the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) and a final appellate decision could be further rendered after review of the hearing record in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

These kinds of procedures currently exist for the TSA's civil penalty proceedings in Part 1503 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in particular in subparts C (Legal Enforcement Actions) and G (Rules of Practice in Transportation Security Administration Civil Penalty Actions). These procedures provide for trial-type hearing and traditional litigation rules of practice, for protections against public disclosure of sensitive security information while permitting the parties to have access to that information, and for a guard against improper interactions between the prosecutors and the decision maker. It is conceivable that these procedures can be adapted and adopted to include the review of agency determinations that an individual poses a security threat to aviation.

Promulgation of these rules circumvented or stretched the application of the regulatory process defined under the APA and denied the public the opportunity to adequately participate in this rulemaking initiative. Arguably, the FAA and the TSA have had nearly 16 months to react to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and to act to further prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property. Issuing the final rules as "direct final" rather than using a proposed rule and comment period gives the aviation community little confidence that the TSA really is concerned with receiving comments on those affected by the rulemaking action.

AOPA is also troubled that the rules seem beyond the scope of authority granted under the ATSA. The ATSA directs the TSA to assess threats, makes plans for dealing with threats, and coordinates with agencies including the FAA. The TSA is also required to establish procedures for notifying the Administrator of the FAA of the identity of individuals known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.

However, it is a beyond the scope of authority granted in the ATSA to require the FAA to revoke pilot certificates based on such a notification. The intent of the Congress in the Security Act to enhance transportation security can be implemented by the Department in a lawful manner. A manner that affords to airmen all of the traditional due process protections historically provided in the Federal Transportation Code.

Finally, the rules do not provide criteria (even vaguely) to be used by the TSA in determining whether an individual is a security threat. Other TSA and FAA rules include established criteria for assessing threats. For example, the TSA rule for obtaining unescorted access to the Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) at an air carrier airport has a specific list of disqualifiers for the authority. All three rulemaking actions allude to disqualifiers that lead to an initial and ultimately a final determination by the TSA that "an individual poses a security threat." However, there is no discussion of the standards, procedures, or criteria by which the TSA makes the threat determination. If an individual refuted such charges, they would have to be aware of the evidence against them.

AOPA appreciates the opportunity to bring these important issues to your attention, and we look forward to working with the TSA and FAA to meet the intent of the rulemaking action in a manner that will protect the interests of our members as law abiding, patriotic U.S. citizens.

Sincerely,



Phil Boyer


Is this the "appeals due process" you were thinking of? I'll have a lot more respect for the TSA when they stop coming up with rules (bypassing laws of Congress) that everyone in all industries cannot make sense of.

I have about a weeks more material on the "rules" that TSA has written.

And to close out your quotation on number of law enforcement agencies (18,000) is very close to number that I learned when I was at Texas Southmost College (AAS Law Enforcement Technology, Decemeber 1976) and Corpus Christi State University (BS Criminal Justice, May 1979). We might have even read the same books.

Been there and done that.

If you need evidence of a bias, there it is in black and white. Your statement clearly illustrates your biased opinion and presumption that LE/security "types" are more often than not dishonest when stopping people.

The inherent idiocy of prohibition aside, the profiling examples you provide were/are anomalies. The examles on 60 Minutes and the like were not even anecdodal, they were unrepresentative of the whole. That being said, I am one of the rare LE/security "types" who will admit that prohibition against drugs is as equally moronic as was the Eighteenth Amendment. The reasons it failed in the 1920's are the same reasons is fails today. We will never, ever stop it, and it is stupid to try.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that. You can rest assured that the airline will not bounce a FC passenger out of their seat for an off-duty FAM, however, the gate agent, FA, or PIC can offer an unsold FC seat to an off-duty FAM just as they can offer it to a non-rev airline employee, uniformed soldier, pregnany lady, girlfriend of the FO, etc, etc.. It does happen. The seats belong to the airlines and they can do with them as they please. If an off-duty FAM is offered an upgrade to FC, he is not unured with any real benefit or value. It's not illegal or unethical.

Are you sure? Would you bet the lives of your children on your belief that no such evidence exists? Don't believe everything you hear. Truth exists beyond sound bites, press releases, and what you think you see. Aviation is not the national security promised land, it is simply the most publicly visibly anti-terror focus, especially to FF's.