This is incorrect. FAA, FAMs, airport LEOs, etc can go onto planes without consent or PC.

I left out the FAA because they can conduct inspections of equipment or crew at any time...that is clearly spelled out in the FARs and is assumed by every airline, aircraft owner and pilot.

However, please cite the specific regulations which permit a FAM, TSA or airport police to board an aircraft without permission from the airline or crew. I've not read any such regulation in the FARs.

The same situation would apply to private aircraft - the FAA can do an inspection of equipment or crew, but no one else can board my aircraft without my permission.

On the water, the Coast Guard can board any US flagged vessel or foreign vessel operating in US waters to inspect equipment or crew, but the police cannot board me without permission or probable cause to search. Case in point: I was "pulled over" on the Intracoastal Waterway for leaving a wake in a no-wake zone (alas, the no-wake sign was hidden) - the police requested my permission to board in order to give me the ticket and check the boat's papers, or he gave me the option of 'rafting' and he would work from his own boat. I cannot block the Coast Guard from boarding my boat, but I can prevent local police from boarding.

Not if the airline refuses permission -- the 4th amendment still applies. They would have to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause.

FAA inspectors would have some additional leverage with regard to their operating certificate.

Such a blanket statement so wrong has me doubting whether law dawg has any real experience with law enforcement; if he does, it's time for some continuing education.

Called a FAM friend and here's what his credentials say,

"...have unimpeded access to transportation facilities; buildings; lands; areas; sites; aircraft; vessels and vehicles in the performance of official duties in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."

This doesn't track to me. How can searches of aircraft for potential threats (bombs, etc.) occur then? While it is always better to get approval in the interest of "getting along" US security concerns would trump private ownership of the plane. What about CBP? I believe they too can go into all areas of an airport, up to and including a plane.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. It just seems that you can't secure something that you don't have access to.

The bolded part is the clincher - the pilot in command can refuse to allow a FAM (or anyone, even the President) to board his/her aircraft.

The searches of commercial aircraft occur because it's in the best interests of the airline to have their aircraft searched by competent people if a threat is found. I doubt any airline or pilot would refuse under those circumstances.

A search of a private aircraft would be dependent on the pilot's permission, but if they refused, the FAA could just as easily refuse to permit the aircraft to fly until it's searched. Either way, no one can just storm on board an aircraft, private or commercial, without someone knowing about it and permitting it.

The germane issue is whether or not a bunch of TSA screeners can show up at the gate and board an aircraft under the guise of a 'security sweep' without airline/crew permission. As a frequent traveler, I know so-called 'security checks' are done on aircraft all the time, but not by roving squads of TSA people showing up to inspect aircraft. Could the airline/crew refuse to allow TSA screeners onboard? Yes, I believe they can, which is the issue of property sovereignty I'm trying to make... but would they? I'm not sure. Perhaps if the flight was running late, they were ready to board, and all of a sudden a bunch of screeners waddled over to the gate in slow motion to say they're doing an inspection, the crew could tell them 'no'. If the inspections became chronic and started delaying flights throughout the system, I could see airline management calling TSA management and blasting them too.

"in accordance with applicable laws" = get a warrant if permission is refused

The constitution has not been suspended. Otherwise city cops would be walking around with credentials that read "have unimpeded accesses to dwellings, businesses, outbuilding and vehicles in the performance of official duties ...".

The full text of that 1 "surge" :rolleyes: item is conducting random screening of employees and passengers at boarding gates, including behavior detection.

So, I can't tell whether it's random searching or random stupid questions. And I'd like to be there when the surgers pull the captain out of his seat for a random screening :eek: , after all what other "employees" are present during boarding except the crews. Unless they actually mean searching the cleaners ^ , but were unable to express it lucidly in the press release . Nah, couldn't be that now.

bocastephen:

Exactly how would the FAA not permit the aircraft to fly unless it had been searched first? Issue an emergency revocation of the pilot certificate within 10 minutes? Not very likely. Perhaps you have a different understanding of how much "permission" a private aircraft needs from the FAA to conduct a flight.

Please elaborate.

I thought we were allowed to bring on liquid purchased AFTER passing through the security checkpoint? If not, that will be a REAL problem for me, as I need to bring plenty of water for long haul flights (the airline isn't going to have enough bottled water, and I'd rather not the potable water).

What a waste of time and money....

It's not something they would normally do, of course. I'm just saying they have the power to prevent an aircraft from flying if they chose to. Either by license or aircraft certificate suspension or just declining to provide approval to operate in controlled airspace.

OK...if the refusal happened in a remote rural area at an uncontrolled airport surrounded by uncontrolled airspace, could the FAA step in effectively and prevent the aircraft from flying? No, obviously it couldn't.

Funny..90% of the crews I've come in contact with despise the TSA, and are all aware that it's just a waste of $6B a year without providing any addition to security. Anyway, this "enhancement" is a joke. I thought once you passed "security" the TSA's role was over. Who knows what's next...

Being an FO, you obviously talk to more crew than I ever will. But I have to say the same thing.

I've had numerous conversations over the past few years with both on and off-duty crew. And obviously not every conversation is "security" brought up, but in the ones that it is, I would say the same percentage say the same thing to me.

Let me quantify...'rah rah' in public...putting on happy face in public, complying with TSA directives and following instructions.

There aren't many crew members I know of who get 'into it' with the TSA in public while on duty - although perhaps that will change soon.

Let's change this so you can here how bad this sounds:

While it is always better to get approval in the interest of "getting along" US security concerns would trump private ownership of your house.

Do you think that would fly with regards to the 4th amendment without probable cause and/or a search warrant?

If the US deemed your house a security threat and wanted in, they'd have to make a good case for barging in or show up with a warrant. Why is a plane any different?

This is incorrect... "Administrative searches" (such as this one) are allowed without warrant as long as the search falls under a general regulatory scheme and the scheme is broadly targeted (i.e. at all airlines, or all aircraft, whether than at a black list).