TSA - terminally stupid assholes - strikes again. Can anyone say = "nazis?" ----- Original Message -----=20 From: APSA System=20 To: System=20 Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 16:16 Subject: APSA members - APSA members - =20 Thank you for your attention to our request. If you haven't yet = responded to our earlier request, we've now confirmed the memo's = authenticity and you can disregard our earlier email. Again, thanks. =20 A further explanation is necessary since our earlier email was so short. = We were in the process of answering myriad media questions on a news = article printed in the Washington Times this morning and needed to = appropriately research the subject in only a couple of hours. =20 This morning, the Washington Times reported UAL flight 200 from Los = Angeles to Dulles was designated a "flight of interest" by the = Transportation Security Administration. This, according to an industry = memo the Times had obtained, and also confirmed by interviewing a = crewmember who was subjected to extraordinary security inspection with = his fellow crewmembers on this flight. The paper called APSA for = comment on the story. =20 The Times reported, and APSA has now confirmed, that crewmembers = arriving for the flight are, at last report, daily being met by a team = of TSA employees and ordered to empty their pockets of all contents, = submit all of their luggage and personal belongings for thorough = inspection of each individual item one by one by a screener, wanded down = and/or frisked, followed throughout their preflight inspection by a TSA = screener (not permitted on the ramp without an escort) and have their = bags sniffed by bomb dogs. The crewmember reported he and his fellow = pilot were then observed in their cockpit by a TSA official from the = airport window, and told the flight had been "sanitized" as they readied = the aircraft for flight. These crew security inspections are being = carried out in front of the passengers at the jetbridge, prior to = boarding. =20 According to the crewmember, some passengers were randomly secondarily = screened, but ALL flight crew were screened onerously prior to the = flight. A pilot who asserted his identity was easily confirmed from his = ID picture and the flight's paperwork was ordered to submit for search = anyway. =20 APSA has another, unconfirmed report, of a SFO flight crew ordered out = of their cockpit by the TSA during a flight sequence for similar = inspection last month. =20 TSA has provided no reason for the searches to the pilots, airlines, = unions or even the FAM's, according to the Times, so there is no = recourse for an affected crewmember to gather information with which to = ascertain the flight's safety or any justification for being searched. =20 We put out the request for the memo for two reasons. First, it was = important we independently confirm the memo was, in fact legitimate and = accurately quoted in the Washington Times article (it was); and second, = the Department of Homeland Security allegedly called the Washington = Times asserting the Times' story was false and warranted a retraction. = DHS said the flight was not a "flight of interest" and "a disgruntled = union employee" must have written the memo. In fact, the memo was = apparently authored by United Airlines to its crews and quoted also by = ALPA. =20 The memo was apparently designated for UAL crews. We will not share any = copies of the memo used to confirm its authenticity and any copies of = the memo APSA has were destroyed immediately after confirming the memo's = contents and authenticity. UAL and ALPA have now confirmed the = document's existence. =20 For APSA to comment on a story, we need to know the story is accurate. = This one is, and we needed to understand the issue in order to comment. = Of course, the Times will not be retracting the story. =20 The TSA maintains there is no "specific" threat against UAL 200. The = article did not assert a specific threat. However, TSA spokesman Mark = Hatfield said TSA does not comment on specific threats but does increase = security if a threat has been identified. You can do the deductive = logic. TSA has not addressed whether there is a "nonspecific" threat or = intelligence suggesting terrorists targeting a certain class of flights = or using a certain methodology. =20 If these searches are being conducted in response to intelligence, APSA = believes the Pilot In Command is legally required to be given, as 91.103 = says, "all available information concerning the flight" in order to = legally accept the assignment. It is impossible to responsibly assess = the flight's safety in an information vacuum, particularly when the = evidence would lead any reasonable person to conclude the flight was a = terror concern, and may open the pilot and his airline to vast liability = if full disclosure is not given to him or her. We also believe all = flight crews have a clear need to know what information TSA has. =20 If these searches are part of a new TSA policy targeting random flight = crew, we would like to know why the policy and the justification for it = was not announced in advance and appropriately commented on, prior to = its implementation; and what other flights, if any, this is being = implemented on. As there is already an undefeatable procedure for = verifying the identities of legitimate crewmembers prior to flight, why = is it necessary to single them out to search them? =20 It is obvious a weapon is superfluous to a pilot gaining control of an = aircraft, since he is given control of the aircraft as part of his job. = Without any justification, this does nothing more than demean our = profession, frighten our passengers and use critical resources for = meaningless purposes.=20 =20 The Washington Times has asked that any crewmember so screened on this = flight contact them through APSA. United Airlines has told the Times no = crewmembers have complained about the procedure. The Times would like = to learn if crews have no problem with going through extraordinary = searches for a follow-up it might do. =20 =20 ***** =20 =20 =20 =20