Senator Amy Klobuchar

Re:  "All we have to fear, is fear itself"-FDR

Dear Senator Klobuchar

As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science

and Transportation I would strongly encourage you to push for
the TSA to take a deep breath and step back from the back
scatter machines and the new aggressive pat downs.

Here is why.

Although I am now the co-owner of a small business

manufacturing our products here in Minnesota
(www.ursawagon.com) who travels to trade shows frequently, I
was formerly employed in corporate finance at Pan American
World Airways and in marketing at Northwest.  Airlines and the
love of flying have been a part of me since my earliest
memories.  With that as background, I am extremely sensitive to
the destructive acts that have, and can, occur to commercial
airliners.  In fact, as part of the closing on one of our aircraft
deals while at Pan Am in 1988, I was talking to dispatch when
the first reports came in that PA 103 had dropped off radar.  We
were all mortified and incredibly sad.  But, we also knew that it
was our responsibility to *not* let this insane and senseless act
deter us from helping people from around the world move and
come together.   It was *not* an attack on Pan Am, it was an
attack on the U.S. and we needed to, with sadness in our hearts,
carry on.  And we did.

Now 20+ years later the courage that seemed to be present in

1988 has abandoned us.  For every attempted terrorist attack a
new level of "protection" is layered onto the TSA screening
procedures, regardless of whether they are effective or make
any sense on any sort of cost/benefit basis.  The *greatest*
increase in security since 1988 and 9/11 is not from the fancy
machines but from the change in airline, crew, passenger and
governmental procedures and attitudes.  No longer will *anyone*
stand by while an attempt is made to hijack or disable an aircraft.

Prior to 9/11 this was not the case, the protocol was to
cooperate.  That was why simple weapons could wreak such
devastation.  The goal was to get everyone out alive by
cooperating with any reasonable demand of the hijackers.  And it
was why, on 9/11 itself, the attack on the U.S. Capitol failed
because the passengers on that flight realized that the times had
changed and, among themselves, decided on a new protocol.

With the new reality and procedures (and better cockpit doors),
all the box cutters, pen knives and scissors in the world could be
sitting in a plane and there will *never* be a repeat of 9/11.  

Moving up in weapon severity to firearms, we have dealt with

firearm hijackings since the 70s with magnetometers and they
have been remarkably successful.  While a firearm which might
have made it through could, pre 9/11, have allowed an aircraft
takeover, today that is not the case.  The cockpit doors are
closed and will remain so.  So with the new protocols and the
magnetometers we are actually safer now than we were in 2001.

Which brings us to explosives.  First, let's be clear, explosives

have destroyed aircraft, as I well know.  And they have been
smuggled onto aircraft by the shoe bomber and the underwear
bomber.  But let's note a few things.  First, because of the
change in passenger and crew responses neither of the
smuggled on-the-person bombers succeeded.  Second, the
amount of explosive that can be smuggled on-the-person is
limited.  Third, aircraft, while vulnerable, are not made of glass. 
As the Aloha "topless" incident demonstrates, they can withstand
a large amount of damage and still fly.  There have also been
many incidents of cargo doors coming open, engines
disintegrating and causing holes, etc. where the aircraft has
been able to land safely.  Fourth, the most devastating bombings
have not been caused by bombs on persons, but in cargo holds
(see Pan Am 103).  It is easier to pack a large amount of
explosives into suitcases than on a person so intensive scanning
of the luggage/cargo makes perfect sense.

For all these reasons, while bombs on the person are a concern,
they should not so concern us that we are unwilling to make
reasonable judgments about what threats and responses are
appropriate.  To pretend that trying to take all risk out of the
equation is possible is fool hardy and illogical.

Stepping back, if I were to tell you that 30,000 people were dying
every year in the air you would be appalled and demand
something be done.  I can already hear the calls that:

-"Whatever the 4th amendment says, we need to strip search

every passenger to stop the bloodshed."  
-"Whatever the cost, we need to stop the bloodshed."
-"Whatever the inconvenience and time required, we need to
stop the bloodshed."

Now, obviously, this is not happening in the air but it is

happening on the roads *every year*.  And we *can* stop that
bloodshed!  How?  By limiting vehicles to no more than 10mph. 
If every vehicle was so limited, the death toll would plummet and
all that bloodshed would be but a memory.  

Yet we, as a society, are *not* willing to do that because we

*are* willing to make cost/benefit tradeoffs.  There is no denying
that by allowing speed limits to be over 10mph and cars to travel
at such higher speeds lives are being lost.  But the benefit in
quality of life is judged to be more than offset by such losses.

Similarly, we need to be examining TSA procedures to see if the

extra cost, inconvenience, radiation exposure, and intrusive
searches are *in fact* providing a benefit at all proportionate to
the cost.  And, given my background and the thoughts outlined
above, it is absolutely clear to me that the current use of back
scatter machines and groping has not, and cannot, demonstrate
a benefit at all commensurate with the costs.

I will finish up with one final note on the equal application of

these procedures.  As a member of the (rapidly shrinking) middle
class I am not in a position to conduct my business via private
jet.  Therefore, according to the TSA, I *must* accept either the
scanning or the intrusive pat down in order to work.  But the
wealthy are able to avoid not only the time but the indignity of
these procedures by flying privately.

Yet step back.  A Gulfstream business jet is very large and could
cause serious damage to buildings or sports arenas if flown into
them.  It is very conceivable that a private jet could be
commandeered by a paying terrorist and crashed to cause a
large loss of life.  Or by timely bombing, the business jet
wreckage could be fatal to many people on the ground.  Why is it
then that people flying in private jets do not have to go through
the *same* level and intrusiveness of screening that we poor
people have to endure?  It seems to me that what is good for the
goose is also good for the gander.

cc:  James Fallows, The Atlantic

Regards,

James R. Ehrler
<ursawagon.com>