ALPA doesn't take the "No AIT" stand

[ACL65PILOT]

Millimeter wave

Millimeter wave technology creates a three-dimensional image of the body, revealing concealed objects beneath clothing. Electromagnetic radiation in the high radio frequency (terahertz) band is transmitted simultaneously by two coils or antennas which rotate around the body during the scan procedure. Although the technology employs electromagnetic radiation, the type of radiation associated with this scan is classified as non-ionizing radiation. The electromagnetic wave that is reflected from the body surface is processed to form a three-dimensional image of the body surface. While the electromagnetic radiation is not considered ionizing, researchers are currently investigating the health effects of terahertz radiation exposure. The American College of Radiology (ACR) released a position statement in January 2010, citing that the technologies associated with both scanning modalities is not considered to present significant biological effects for passengers screened. Results from research conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory suggests that terahertz radiation exposure may affect DNA dynamics, impacting processes associated with gene expression and DNA replication. Current position statements by national organizations suggest that the risk associated with such scans may not significantly increase risk to adverse health effects. Further research may be warranted to investigate the proposed risk suggested in preliminary studies, especially given that debate still exists over the safety of this form of imaging technology.

Dr. Quay Snyder, ALPA’s Aeromedical Advisor, makes the following statements regarding repeated AIT exposures for pilots:

ALPA’s Aeromedical Committee is actively studying TSA’s Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) and its potential effects on pilots who face repeated exposures. The March/April 2010 Aeromedical Flyer offers an excellent synopsis of the current science and relative risks associated with this technology. The equipment used in AIT meets scientific recommendations for radiation exposure for the general public even when considering the multiple exposures pilots face over a career. The backscatter screening technology provides a very small contribution to a pilot’s annual total ionizing radiation dose. Although the science on very low dose radiation exposure has not shown a causal relationship with cancer or other diseases, no amount of ionizing radiation should be considered completely safe in the absence of scientific evidence. Pilots should minimize their exposures to ionizing radiation in both non-occupational and occupational settings.

Millimeter wave AIT does not utilize ionizing radiation as does the backscatter technique, which has been shown to pose a health risk in moderate to high dosages. The millimeter wave technology uses electromagnetic radiation, which is under study and the subject of debates similar to those related to questions whether cell phones potentially cause brain tumors or living near a high power line causes birth defects and other diseases. No evidence exists, but the issue is still under study.

TSA Policy On the Use of AIT and Pat-down Procedures

An individual who presents himself or herself for checkpoint screening will be directed by a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) to pass through either a walk-through metal detector (WTMD) or an AIT portal. TSA policy permits individuals to refuse to be screened by any technology deployed at airport checkpoints, including the AIT, WTMD and baggage x-ray for carry-on luggage, and request a private physical screening. An individual who refuses to be screened by a particular technology does not have the right to choose an alternative, preferred technology.

If an individual refuses to use a particular checkpoint screening technology such as WTMD or AIT, the TSA will use standard pat-down procedures by a same sex-screener as the primary method of search (as opposed to a hand-wand search). Standard pat-downs are conducted with the palm of a screener’s hand, except for more sensitive areas of the body (i.e., groin or breasts), where the back of the hand is used. During any alarm resolution, resolution pat-down searches may include a more aggressive touching of the individual’s body in the suspect area with the palms of the hand, except for the groin and breast areas, which will be conducted with the back of the screener’s hand. Following any pat-down search, the hands of the TSO will be tested for residue by explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment.

An individual can be subjected to checkpoint pat-down search for a number of reasons:

· Opting not to submit to AIT or WTMD

· An unresolved alarm after submitting to either AIT or WTMD

· Random selection

· Designation as a “selectee”

Withdrawal from Screening Process

According to TSA, once an individual presents himself or herself for airport checkpoint screening (i.e., submits to the process of an administrative search), he or she cannot withdraw from the process before its completion without risk of exposure to a TSA investigative process and/or local law enforcement action. The agency cites U.S. v. Aukai, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, 2007.

Recommendations

The TSA does not currently differentiate between passengers and crewmembers regarding the use of AIT at airport checkpoints. ALPA categorically objects to this policy and is currently engaging government policy makers to bring short-term and long-term relief from this process to all flight crewmembers.

As we pursue that effort, we offer our membership the following guidance:

· TSA permits you to opt out of AIT screening. If you do so, you will be required to submit to a pat-down screening which you may find invasive of your privacy.

· Maintain a professional demeanor at all times, as your actions are on public display and are likely being video-recorded

· If selected for pat-down screening, request a private search. Note: ALPA has made an inquiry of the TSA to determine if they will permit a pilot to have a witness with them during pat-down searches. The answer to that question will be relayed to the membership upon receipt.

· If you encounter suspected unprofessional and/or inappropriate behavior by checkpoint screeners, file reports with the TSA checkpoint supervisor, your chief pilot’s office, and your MEC Security Committee Chairman/Coordinator

· Be aware that your Ground Security Coordinator will not be able to aid you in resolving difficulties at the screening checkpoint

· Be advised that the National Security Committee is updating and will soon publish a revised Jepp-sized brochure with more detailed information on transiting the screening checkpoint.

This document obviously does not address every question that may be raised about security screening, but the National Security Committee will continue to update the membership with answers to questions on this important subject as appropriate. We thank you for your patience and professionalism as we strive to create a better security screening environment for all airline pilots.

 

[nwaf16dude]

I'm glad ALPA gives us an option. I don't want to do either, but I'd rather do the AIT than get felt up like a common criminal.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

This letter they sent out last night give some really good information on what the real effects are with these machines. It also goes further and states, that the FDA has in fact deemed these safe for the traveling public. That info was not out there before.

ALPA is letting us be big boys and girls and decide what we want to do.

 

[densoo]

It also goes further and states, that the FDA has in fact deemed these safe for the traveling public. That info was not out there before.

The frequency which the traveling public goes throught the AIT and the frequency that crewmembers go through the AIT are quite different, and greatly increased frequency of exposure could also lessen safety.

Millimeter Wave. Results from research conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory suggests that terahertz radiation exposure may affect DNA dynamics, impacting processes associated with gene expression and DNA replication. Current position statements by national organizations suggest that the risk associated with such scans may not significantly increase risk to adverse health effects. Further research may be warranted to investigate the proposed risk suggested in preliminary studies, especially given that debate still exists over the safety of this form of imaging technology.

Dr Snyder at ALPA Medical. Although the science on very low dose radiation exposure has not shown a causal relationship with cancer or other diseases, no amount of ionizing radiation should be considered completely safe in the absence of scientific evidence. Pilots should minimize their exposures to ionizing radiation in both non-occupational and occupational settings.

Based on these two statements alone from the bulletin, ALPA would have been justified in following APAs and USAPAs lead of recommending that no crewmember use the AIT until more is known.

Whether or not there is a real risk to health is immaterial really, this is the chance to use this as a wedge issue to get CrewPass now, vice never. No one is going to cough up the money for this unless it costs them more not to do it. Even the ALPA survey on it is essentially saying to the pilots how much do want to pay for this out of your own pocket.

 

[Turtle21]

Far be it from ALPA to allow their representation of dues paying pilots to have any adverse impact on big money. The AIT is over $1B in commerce. Just sayin'.

 

[PCL_128]

Sometimes a threat is a bigger motivator than an action. A threat from USAPA means nothing to the TSA and DHS, because it's only a few thousands pilots. But a threat from ALPA means something, with the TSA and DHS knowing that 53,000 pilots are represented by a single organization. For all you know, Captain Prater is behind the scenes telling the TSA and DHS that this either gets fixed by (insert date), or he'll give 53,000 pilots the direction to not accept AIT screening. That would get them moving on fixing the problem.

Give it time. Playing the tough guy and beating your chest like USAPA is usually not a solution for anything. Ask the Airbus CAs in the East making $124 an hour.

 

[Turtle21]

S...a threat from ALPA means something, ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klQPTrvJaZ8

 

[Raskal]

I love that "media coverage" is considered good. The coverage makes all of us sound like a bunch of whining b!tches. As usual. What many fail to understand about this issue is that the public DOES NOT CARE, not even a little bit beyond something to watch on tv and laugh about. The Roberts thing is simply something to fill the air during slow parts of the 24hr news cycle, that's it. Are we really naive enough to believe that the public will support government money to pay for our convenience? Airline money? C'mon.

This will end up being paid for by us or it won't happen, see the recent ALPA survey actually asking how much YOU would be willing to pay as a perfect example of where it's all headed.

Personally, I won't pay a dime, but you can bet in a month or two pilots will be lining up to pay a hundred bucks. Airlines will gleefully issue press releases saying that pilots now have a perfectly good option so there is no issue anymore. The end of another very blustery but meaningless campaign is near.

 

[dicko]

Sometimes a threat is a bigger motivator than an action. A threat from USAPA means nothing to the TSA and DHS, because it's only a few thousands pilots. But a threat from ALPA means something, with the TSA and DHS knowing that 53,000 pilots are represented by a single organization. For all you know, Captain Prater is behind the scenes telling the TSA and DHS that this either gets fixed by (insert date), or he'll give 53,000 pilots the direction to not accept AIT screening. That would get them moving on fixing the problem.

Give it time. Playing the tough guy and beating your chest like USAPA is usually not a solution for anything. Ask the Airbus CAs in the East making $124 an hour.

He doesn't have the balls and you certainly don't. Your imaginary scenario is just that .... Imaginary.

Mr Prater is effectively not a Captain at any airline. You can tell by his paycheck. He out earns every ALPA pilot and he doesn't fly. He is as much a Captain as you were a First Officer when you bought your job and paid your employer to work for them.

You do have some things in common; A steak gut paid for by pilots, ambition that disregards the people that feed you and a complete lack of efficacy.

So far your legacy includes a disastrous TA. Care to add another disastrous SLI to ALPA's record ?

 

[dicko]

Ask the Airbus CAs in the East making $124 an hour.

Or ask the guy who paid Gulfstram International for the privilege of working for them. For how much ?