What somebody's sex life might have to do with blowing up a plane is something I can't begin to fathom; how any government might actually get wind of this information is even more troubling. Fortunately, others feel the same way, and the details of this proposal have provoked the ire of certain lawmakers. It remains to be seen how much of it becomes policy.

Silly pilot! With our roll-over-for-everything Democratic Congress, the answer to that last sentence is surely "all of it."

Reading nonsense like this makes me want to scream.

In his article, this pilot tells the story of how he got a TSA supervisor to overrule a "lackey" and let him keep his shoes on at an airport checkpoint. But when he started telling the story he acknowledged that he knew he was not permitted, under TSA rules, to wear those shoes if he was not in uniform when he approached the checkpoint. So what he really is revealing is that he deliberately defied a rule he knew about, then tried to argue about it with an low-level employee who is not a policymaker and is not in a position to defend or explain the rule, and then got a TSA supervisor to let him break the rule.

Is this the guy you want flying you? Someone who defies flight safety rules or policies he disagrees with or can't understand? Somebody who won't obey rules if the people enforcing them can't explain or defend them? Somebody who bullies and intimidates others into not doing their safety-related jobs? Suppose he takes that approach to his job...would you trust him in the cockpit? There are many, many FAA rules governing pilots and flight crew members. Suppose this pilot disagrees with the rules prohibiting pilots flying within a certain time period after they drink alcohol? Should he be allowed to break that rule if he thinks it's stupid, or if an FAA inspector at an airport can't explain to the pilot's satisfaction why the rule exists?

The pilot writes that he told the TSA supervisor he wasn't trying to be a jerk. But think about what he did, and read again his description of the incident, and the insulting way he describes the TSA people he bullied...he certainly was being a jerk.

There are many things to criticize about TSA and airline safety in general, but this arrogant egomaniac's article said far more about him than it did about the TSA.

Responding to the posts from "c1byrd" and "cbuckley".....

The accidents involving Air Midwest 5481 and Comair flight 5191 are duly noted. I have previously written about both them in this very column. My story on 5191 was a Salon cover....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/08/28/plane_crash/

In no way do I mean to downplay the deaths of those who were aboard these planes, but these were not major airlines. One involved a 19-passenger turboprop; the other a 50-passenger regional jet. Neither Air Midwest nor Comair were/are major carriers.

So you're asking, why does the "major" distinction matter? Well, it does and it doesn't. But the point I was making is that never before have we gone this long between crashes involving large, passenger-carrying jetliners -- "air disaster" in the reasonably assumed sense of the word.

Patrick Smith

Here's my theory on why the quality of TSA employees is less than wonderful: The Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2001-2002 -- a time when the unemployment rate in America was relatively low. And when the unemployment rate is low, those left in the ranks of the unemployed are mainly the marginally employable -- those without marketable skills, or lacking experience in things like exercising judgment and making decisions. This is the pool from which the TSA employees were drawn.

This certainly explains the inspectors who can't tell if a tube of toothpaste is nearly empty or not. The regulations clearly state that containers shall be no larger than 3 oz. Period. End of story. No wiggle room for nearly-empty containers. No judgment to exercise.

Would you like fries with that?

Just as airport security cannot possibly find all threats but everyone expects security can and should, I find the similarities in my field all too real and disturbing. I am a pediatric physician for 20 plus years. Not once in all those years did I wake up in the morning thinking, “Great, another day where I can hurt children!” The general public expects perfection in the delivery of medicine especially when children and babies are involved. This is IMPOSSIBLE! All human endeavors must inherently have some degree of failure. I have been sued twice in my 20 plus career, both times I did my job correctly with highly distressed newborns. I did not create or cause the problems. Both times I saved the infants but they both had terrible problems. One was congenital the other acquired severe infection. Neither my doing and all said, I dealt with the issues properly in both cases. One case I was released after 9 month but with a $35K legal bill. The second I was involve in had a massive $1 million combined party settlement. Yes, I had insurance, but do not forget lost work, personal expenses, the emotional trials both my family and I suffered. Both legal cases were partially due to the families having terribly afflicted newborns with no other monetary recourse but to sue. And yes, although this is "only a cost of Business", it really, really is personal, not just "Business".

On a recent trip to New York City, I finally went to the Statue of Liberty, which I had never done before despite many trips to NYC.

The lines, as expected, were long, but people were in a good mood, the fall weather was nice and sunny and it really is a lovely sculpture, over and above its meanings in our culture generally.

But then the security lunacy struck.

To board the boat you have to go through security (pretty standard airport metal detector and xray of your bags, but with shoes on) in a 'temporary' canvas building at the dockside in Manhattan. You then are able to board the boat.

When you depart the boat at Liberty Island, and want to go inside the statue (since 9/11 you can't go up to the crown of the statue) you have to wait in another interminable line, and GO THROUGH SECURITY AGAIN. Yes, the TSA with all of their inefficiency and stupidity has struck the National Park Service. Again, you're inside a poorly ventilated "temporary" canvas structure.

This time, though, you go through a mass spectrometer. One of those machines that requires you to remove metal objects and stand still while it sends a puff of air at you. Needless to say, because each machine takes 30 seconds or so to do its thing, this is interminable, and there aren't enough machines to handle the crowd. Getting inside the building takes well over an hour, provided you have the free, timed pass which is required in addition to the ticket to go inside the statue.

Finally, when you are departing there is a nasty looking high fence so no one who hasn't paid the requisite $12 can climb over it and get inside Lady Liberty's skirt.

I certainly understand wanting the Statue of Liberty to be safe from a terrorist attack, but most of the poor schlumps who were waiting in line to get inside were justifiably annoyed at this craziness.

Oh, and did you have to go through security a second time to get onto Ellis Island? The answer to that question, kids, would of course be no.

Frankly, if I had to do it again, I would skip the SoL and go straight to the wonderful immigration museum at Ellis Island. If you can't climb to the crown (after all that security bullshit) what's the point?