Ask the pilot

Confiscating shampoo? Forcing crew members to remove their shoes? The absurdity that is airport "security" continues.

By Patrick Smith

Read more: Technology & Business, Business, P. Smith, Ask the Pilot

Oct. 12, 2007 | It has been a while since we've done airport security. Having devoted more than two dozen columns to the topic over the past few years, I try to keep my rants fewer and farther between. Of course, with the Transportation Security Administration being a source of limitless aggravation and befuddlement, one can only hold out for so long. Just when you think there's nothing left to say, the agency finds a way to outdo itself with yet another sparkling example of absurdity.

Reasonable or otherwise, pilots and flight attendants are required to pass through the same security checkpoints as passengers. They are subject to most of the same rules, but are granted the luxury of leaving their shoes on.

With this in mind, imagine for a moment that you're an airline pilot. You're assigned to an overnight flight from one of the country's busiest airports. Having commuted in from another city, several hours away, you show up at the terminal wearing civvies, as many pilots do. Your uniform is packed in your roll-aboard case. The plan is to change clothes in the crew room. Around your neck is a plastic case holding your employee identification badge, FAA licenses and medical certificate.

You lift your bags onto the X-ray belt, remove your laptop computer, and step toward the metal detector. "Excuse me, sir," says the guard, gesturing for you to stop. "Your shoes. You need to take your shoes off."

"I'm a crew member," you tell him, holding out your credentials.

"Yeah, but you need to be in uniform."

"I do? Why?"

The guard shrugs. "That's the rule. If you're not in uniform, you need to take your shoes off."

"But my uniform is right there, in my luggage."

"Sorry. No uniform, no shoes."

"But ... What's the difference? You can see my I.D."

More shrugging. "You gotta put your shoes on the belt."

And so you do, resisting the temptation to unzip your carry-on right then and there, throwing on your uniform in full view of passengers -- over your jeans and T-shirt.

Is the absurdity of this requirement not obvious? TSA grants a welcome and reasonable exemption for airline crew members, then negates it by demanding that those employees needlessly adhere to a dress code. Either you're a crew member or you're not; what difference does it make what you are wearing at that moment? By virtue of the addition of a polyester shirt and a pair of epaulets, suddenly a pilot is less of a security threat? The policy seems to say that clothes, not credentials, are what really count.

And what exactly constitutes a uniform? For the sake of comfort when commuting to and from work, pilots often remove certain components -- tie, hat, wings, etc. -- while leaving on the basic shirt and pants. Are they "in uniform" or not? (We could play smartass all day long with different variations: What if a pilot's work shirt is untucked? Can he wear a baseball cap? Pink socks? What if his otherwise regulation pants have been tie-dyed?)

You might recall one of my columns from last winter, when I attempted to get clarification from TSA as to whether a container of frozen tomato sauce could be brought onto an airplane. Turns out that guards are allowed to use discretion with respect to the liquids, gels and aerosol rules. They should have discretion in this matter as well. Better yet, the rule shouldn't be there in the first place.

Maybe this sounds like an entitlement tantrum. But the point isn't to demand perks for pilots, it's to illustrate the TSA's often arbitrary and contradictory approach to security. Remember that tens of thousands of airport workers, from baggage loaders to fuelers to cabin cleaners, receive little or no on-site screening whatsoever. Why then are pilots and flight attendants, who've undergone extensive pre-employment checks, put through the wringer? I'm not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. At the very least, if the government is willing to allow the so-called Registered Traveler program to move forward, whereby, in exchange for a fee, passengers receive preferential handling after undergoing a background check, then it ought to let crews leave their damn shoes on at the metal detector. If nothing else, it would speed up the lines.

Considering all the many dastardly options at a saboteur's disposal, the shoe rule itself, six years after Richard Reid marched his explosive sneakers past guards at Charles de Gaulle airport, is largely a waste of time. But if it's going to remain in place, it ought to be enforced with a dash of common sense. And wait, it gets sillier: Although a crew member in uniform is allowed to wear his or her shoes through the metal detector, should those shoes cause the machine to beep, they must be removed and X-rayed. This, even though the beep signals only the presence of metal, not explosives. Yet the potential for explosives, not metal, is the whole point of having shoes X-rayed to begin with. Thus, TSA will only X-ray your shoes for precisely the wrong reason.

Next page: The American public will accept anything in the name of "security"