Please Remove Your Shoes
2010 Documentary

Did you know...

According to GAO, TSA inspectors spend 33% of their time inspecting, 8% on incidents, 5% investigating, 5% on “outreach”, and 49% of their time on “other.” Other?

10% of useable TSA equipment (worth millions) in transit is stored for 2 years or more due to poor logistical processes.

During the first 3 months of 2007, the TSA Logistics Center received eight explosive detection systems units at a cost of about $7 million.  As of January 2009, all eight explosive detection systems units remained in storage at the Logistics Center.

In December of 2009 TSA leaked a full copy of its 2008 S.O.P., screening protocol, and other security standards onto the internet.

 In June 2007, investigators testing the TSA checkpoint screening process were able to smuggle prohibited items past security despite passing through secondary screening and pat-downs.

TSA has not deployed any of the 10 technologies it has created since 2002.

In 2006, TSA screened 708,400,522 passengers in U.S. airports.

In 2006, TSA screened 535,020,271 pieces of checked luggage.

TSA opens 16% of checked luggage (over 85million bags) to screen for prohibited items.

TSA confiscated 13,709,211 items in 2006.

In 2006, TSA confiscated 11,616,249 lighters.  Lighters can now be brought on planes.

President Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, which banned butane lighters from flights.

TSA’s website recommends that travelers with small children ‘do not pass [their] child to our security officer to hold.

In 2007 a man traveling to NYC from Puerto Rico smuggled a baby alligator in his pants.

As of Dec. 7, 2009, TSA is still in the planning stages for 100% checked baggage screening at many airports.

The 9/11 Act gives TSA the responsibility to ensure that the airline industry screens 100 percent of the cargo on passenger aircraft by August 2010.

As of March 18, 2009, all cargo on small body aircraft only went through daily screening procedures.

TSA paid out $98 million in bonuses and pay raises in 2008.

TSA randomly stops passengers at city subway and bus stations to screen for explosive materials.

The TSA VIPR program is meant to deter terrorists from attacking public transportation through random screenings.

50% of part-time TSA Screeners quit their job in 2006.

20% of part-time screeners left their job in 2008.

Average wait in airport checkpoint line is 11.5 minutes. On Thanksgiving it’s 16.5. In Copenhagen it’s 3.5, and at SFO (privately screened) it’s 5-10 minutes.

Aug 19, 2008: a TSA security inspector grounded 9 American Eagle jets, by climbing  on (and damaging)  their temperature probes and pitot tubes.

According to GAO, TSA inspectors spend 33% of their time inspecting, 8% on incidents,  5% investigating, 5% on “outreach”, and 49% of their time on “other.” Other?

In years 2002-2007  TSA conducted 20,000 covert tests. Over 60% breached security lines, but TSA has not recorded how.

In its first year TSA confiscated 4.8 million items, including 1.4 million knives, 1,101 firearms, and 39,842 box cutters.

Prior to 2007, TSA was confiscating 22,000 cigarette lighters a day.

In December of 2009 TSA leaked a full copy of its 2008 S.O.P., screening protocol, and other security standards onto the internet.

From 2002 to 2007, roughly 67,000 TSA employees quit or were fired from their jobs. There are roughly 44,000 screeners in the workforce.

In the period 2002-2006, TSA screeners lost 3674 badges and uniforms.

In 2005 TSA lost a portable hard drive, with data that contained social security numbers, bank data, and payroll for over 100,000 employees.

In 2009 TSA spent $2mm to store new equipment that had been ready for deployment for three years.

TSA personnel use ready x-rays, advanced technology x-ray, explosive trace detection systems, explosive detection systems, bottle liquid scanners, and enhanced metal detectors to screen personnel and baggage.

As of January 2009, TSA had approximately 20% of its transportation security equipment stored in warehouses rather than in the field.

Fred Finds Interest in Please Remove Your Shoes

Published July 21, 2010 Fred Topel / www.canmag.com/

This is an issue I’m really into. I go through all the motions and cooperate with airport security, but I don’t buy it. The only safety I feel is just that I make unstrategic trips. I would like to see the U.S. wise up. Even broader than just the issue of one type of security, we should stop humoring systems that pay lip service and demand actual solutions. And this expose on airport security is sort of being buried. They’re only selling the DVD from their own site, here.

Review: Please Remove Your Shoes
As Please Remove Your Shoes shows, the real problems have been hidden behind the scenes. Don’t worry about travel size bottles and shoes. It’s worse than you know. Air marshal testing is disturbingly lax. Their misguided obsession with a dress code is maddening.

Did you know that basic security testing has been outright ignored? You quickly get a sense that keeping a job is more important to security agencies than the actual job they’re supposed to be doing. It’s a typical perspective of big business. “We know what we’re doing. Just listen to us.” It’s all theory but doesn’t work in practice, and it’s all for appearance.

My favorite airport security story was a guy who managed to hide box cutters in airports after security checkpoints, to prove that the new system wouldn’t even stop another 9/11. That guy was doing a national service. I saw that story get swept under the rug. It’s not in this documentary and I can’t even remember the guy’s name now. The film does feature other expose’s I had not known about before.

One smart traveler found himself being detained by aggressive security people, and decided to record the interrogation on his iPhone. Now he knew what he had to say to get out of there and be on his way, but he let the security guards hassle him and hassle him so there would be a record of their inane waste of time. God bless that man for enduring on principal.

The basic filmmaking is standard documentary with talking heads intercut with demonstrative footage. They got a surprising amount of material at airports, at security where I didn’t think you could film. They do some re-enactments, and visualize some metaphors like an overflowing bathtub. It’s not the most dynamic film, but it’s not trying to entertain. This is pure information and call to action.

There were a few questions I would have liked them to address. Have they actually caught any shoe suspects in the last nine years? I mean, has one person taking off their shoes led to any kind of prevention or incident? Some more details on the basic aspects of security would be nice.

Unfortunately, the only suggestions the film offers are administrative. It’s how to make the system that runs security better, but how about some suggestions for actual superior security measures? Well, I guess this is the first step to making some change.

 You can make a difference.

The Issue

There is something Un-American about the Transportation Security Administration: It is heavy handed, it violates at least three Amendments to the US Constitution. It is rigid and inflexible. It is managed by unmotivated career bureaucrats. It is lazy and ineffective. And we're not getting what we paid for.

The Opportunity

One third of the US Senate and the entire House of Representatives must be re-elected in November of 2010.  The “Christmas Bomber” of 2009 revealed the absurd ineffectiveness and complacency of TSA. Through distribution and promotion of Please Remove Your Shoes and its message, we will launch an active effort to lobby congress for realistic change and tighter control of a super agency run amok.

With intense criticism of this agency’s operation and massive sensitivities about government spending in general, the political climate is ideal for curbing abuse and waste by TSA.  Distribution of the movie to Congress and the White House can be expected to at least put this topic on their agenda.

The Effort

Certain congressional groups like The House Transportation Subcommittee will be canvassed as early as possible in an effort to get the subject of air security reform onto their agendas early in the re-election process.

A majority of the effort for the cause will be education of the public to bear pressure on their representatives. In addition to movie screenings nationwide, presentations at organizations like Rotary Club will be held, with tailored edits of Please Remove Your Shoes  in illustration of the problems of current TSA practices.  

The Suggestions to Congress

Reread the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. Give us a solution that works, is proportionate to the threat, and keep it that way - no more “mission creep.” Clarify the roles of “deterrence” and “interdiction” in aviation security, and see that TSA and the intelligence agencies are properly involved and understand which role they have. 

1) Establish and enforce tough proficiency standards.

2) Emphasize results, scrap the PR.

3) Recruit the right people, with intelligence and integrity - train and test them frequently.

4) Promote based on performance.

5) Decentralize decision making - encourage local problem solving.

6) Admit mistakes and shortcomings - then fix them.

7) Keep terrorists off balance with flexible, changing tactics.

8) Identify realistic threats and dangerous people.

9) Design practical and effective countermeasures.

10) Motivate TSA management to set and achieve meaningful goals.

11) Clear out bureaucratic survivors.

Movie review: Please Remove Your Shoes

JULY 6, 2010 BY: Billie H. Vincent | www.securityinfowatch.com/

A new documentary on TSA and FAA failures opens up the bigger questions about aviation security challenges
July 1, 2010 - It's not a summer blockbuster with Hollywood starlets and hunks, but the new documentary Please Remove Your Shoes from executive producer Frederick Gevault takes a sobering look at persistent issues of safety and security in the U.S. aviation system. The film is being released just as John Pistole takes over the position of TSA Administrator, and perhaps the movie's exposing of failures can help galvanize Pistole and the new TSA into improving air security.

The documentary, which is now available for purchase at www.pleaseremoveyourshoesmovie.com, is designed to be a revelation of the mishaps and failings of both the pre-9/11 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the subsequent creation of a behemoth organization with more than 50,000 employees - the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The stories of these two U.S. Government organizations are told through the eyes and experiences of several whistle blowers, two U.S. Senators, one Washington Times reporter, and a key official of the U.S. government's General Accountability Office (GAO).

The trials and tribulations of the whistle blowers are the central theme designed to illustrate the failings of these organizations. A number of well known failures are used in the documentary -- ranging from the PAA 103 disaster of December 21, 1988, to the 1994 hijacking of the Air France Airbus and its subsequent termination by a French Special assault team in Marseille, to the Bojinka plans by Ramzi Yousef and his terrorist team in Manila in late 1994 and early 1995, the devastating 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, down to the present day attempt to bomb NWA/Delta Flight 253 by the underwear bomber on December 25, 2009. Much is made of the alleged NWA flight 327 probe by the Syrian band flying from Detroit to Los Angeles on June 29, 2004 which was largely discredited by later reviews and by the TSA Air Marshals on board the flight.

The failures of the several government agencies in most of these incidents already have been thoroughly investigated by a variety of official and unofficial organizations and groups and made public in reports and Congressional hearings, and none of these reports will give any great comfort to any airline passenger or to the general public. Nor will this documentary provide the flying public any comfort, but far from being redundant, Please Remove Your Shoes does provide additional information not available in these public reports. The behind-the-scenes revelations by the whistle blowers give credibility to complaints of sloppy aviation security procedures and alleged willful negligence by FAA and TSA officials.

Of course, if one is to believe the allegations in the documentary, then one has to accept the revelations by the whistle blowers at face value - without any in-depth knowledge about the individual whistle blower, his motivations or intentions. To their credit, all appear sincere in their assertions, and in at least one instance, an individual's claim of warning the FAA of impending attacks is well documented.

The documentary alleges several times that FAA managers made gross errors or failed to act on known failures of the pre-9/11 aviation security screening of passengers and their personal articles. In the film, whistle blowers cite statistics that the pre-9/11 screening system failed to detect guns, knives, explosives (or simulated explosives) as much as 90 percent of the time. One individual stated in the film that some procedures were successful in detecting these test articles only 3 percent of the time. These same individuals revealed that the tests were totally unrealistic because of the conditions imposed on them by their FAA supervisors, conditions affected by the whims and complaints made by the airlines which were responsible for the screening. In other words, even with unrealistic testing protocols the failures to detect the test articles were enormous. One U.S. Senator backhandedly confirmed the enormity of these detection failures of the pre-9/11 aviation security screening system that was being run by U.S. airlines. The whistle blowers allege that their complaints to FAA supervisors and managers did not result in the adoption of their recommended changes to their testing regimen.

Screening failures aren't the only target of the Please Remove Your Shoes documentary; it jumps quickly into whistle blower complaints about the Federal Air Marshal (FAM) program under the TSA. It rehashes the revelations in the 2003-2005 timeframe about the TSA FAM head requiring the air marshals to dress in business suits or sport jackets with ties. The complaint was that this frequently exposed their identity because other passengers were in leisure clothes, e.g. going to Los Vegas, but TSA's official response was that during a real incident, business suit clothes would signal to the passengers that they were indeed marshals.

In the movie, one whistle blower details trials and tribulations that followed allegations from the TSA that he was the individual who released data to the media. He tells viewers that he wasn't the leak, but subsequently became a whistle blower after being relieved of his air marshal duties and assigned the task of washing the unit's vehicles. Most of these allegations have been confirmed by Congressional hearings on the subject and they eventually resulted in the resignation of the former official that was running the TSA Federal Air Marshal program at that time. What is not revealed in the documentary is that this former official was actually a former Secret Service official, and the result is that viewers are left with the carry-over impression from the earlier allegations of failures and alleged willful misconduct that it was an FAA official and that former FAA officials are at fault for the TSA failures.

The inescapable conclusion of Please Remove Your Shoes is that the documentary is simply a collection of misadventures by the FAA and the TSA. Furthermore, I would argue that the documentary deals with symptoms but fails to address the systemic problem. That systemic problem was the result of three or more elements.

The first of these is the U.S. political system where the heads of the FAA, DoT, FBI, the Congressmen/women, and the in-power presidential administration are all elements of the U.S. campaign funding system. In the pre-9/11 aviation security system, the FAA issued the regulations, was supposed to enforce them, had to deal with any failures, and handled crisis management. As directed by the FAA, the U.S. airlines were in charge of screening the passengers, their personal articles, their checked baggage and other articles. The passengers paid for the system through taxes on their tickets as well as contributions from the U.S. general fund. The airlines paid taxes as well that went into the general fund with the exception of taxes that went into an Aviation Trust Fund. The U.S. airlines had the greatest operational involvement in the pre-9/11 aviation security system, and one has to consider that the airlines gave monies to the U.S. political system through their contributions to each major political party and to individual political campaign funds. The post 9/11 aviation security system put the TSA in charge and does the security screening, and enforcement - all quite differently from the pre-9/11 system.

The second element is that the FAA and TSA bureaucracy are essentially "survivors" -- survivors in the sense that many of the key FAA managers, and now TSA managers, were comfortably seated into a key aviation or security position and did not want to jeopardize their position or remuneration by "rocking the boat" by implementing unwelcome security requirements. To do so meant that the airlines Air Transport Association (ATA) would raise objections to the FAA, the DoT, the Administration, AND the individual Congressional Congressmen/women. Since the airlines had all of the monies, they most often encouraged individuals from Congress to object to the administration and the FAA. As a consequence, the airlines frequently "won" and the FAA would reverse its planned regulatory actions. After one or two of these major setbacks the failure of individual FAA bureaucrats to act was predictable; they became survivors. The TSA is in the process of becoming similarly impacted.

In the private sector an organization would go bankrupt under similar circumstances - in government they become mature bureaucracies and continue their existence to the detriment of the public interest.

The third element is that the airlines were the predominant political entity in the pre-9/11 system. They still play a substantial role in the post 9/11 system with the U.S. airports partially replacing their pre-9/11 role. As noted earlier, in their pre-9/11 existence, the airlines frequently ruled supreme notwithstanding the FAA's supposed dominant role. Several FAA Administrators promoted the FAA's role as being "coach and counselor", as opposed to a role of regulation and enforcement. In other words, the FAA under these Administrators wanted to be "liked or loved" by the airlines. Most failed miserably as the airlines were operated on a profit-or-loss basis and reacted according to rules of profit. If a compliance issue detracted from their bottom line, they opposed it. The post-9/11 U.S. airline industry is no different - one either makes a profit or they go out of business. The U.S. airports now have a more dominant role and they are similarly motivated as they are most often part of a nearby community economic system that cannot afford any long-term losses.

Please Remove Your Shoes misses these basic facts. After a D.C.-area premier at the E Street Cinema, one individual asked executive producer Gevault why he had made a statement in a Q&A session to the effect that the pre-9/11 organizational template was simply transferred to the post 9/11 era. The questioner pointed out the diametric differences in the two templates before asking his question. Gevault's confused response indicated that his actual knowledge of the underpinnings of the two systems was very weak. To this reviewer, it seemed that he was relying on knowledge passed along from whistle blowers, people who each saw only one or two parts of the FAA/TSA elephant. After that response, it becomes understandable why the documentary is somewhat of a disjointed series of events recounted by whistle blowers, rather than an in-depth analysis of the underlying problems within the U.S. aviation security system.

The foregoing criticism notwithstanding, Please Remove Your Shoes does effectively add to the body of public knowledge about the need for improvements in the U.S. aviation security system. At best, if a security system approaches a 90 percent success level, then each remaining 1 percent improvement will cost exponentially more than the earlier percentages - and one can never actually reach a 100% effectiveness level regardless of the monies and effort expended. Lastly, contrary to statements in the documentary, the current TSA aviation security system is substantially more effective than its pre-9/11 predecessor. Nevertheless, the current TSA aviation security system is not what it should be nor what it could be and efforts must continue to improve its effectiveness.

More Background On PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com

PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com was established as the official website for Please Remove Your Shoes, a 2010 American documentary examining the effectiveness, accountability, and management of aviation security in the United States. Directed by Rob DelGaudio and developed by aviation publisher and executive producer Frederick C. Gevalt III, the film investigated the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the decisions that shaped American airport security before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The documentary was built around a question familiar to millions of airline passengers: Had the enormous expansion of airport security actually made flying safer, or had it created an expensive bureaucracy that emphasized visible procedures over meaningful protection? Rather than concentrating exclusively on travelers' complaints about removing shoes, surrendering liquids, or enduring security inspections, the filmmakers examined the experiences of federal employees who claimed that serious institutional weaknesses were being ignored.

Released in the summer of 2010, Please Remove Your Shoes attracted coverage from major newspapers, aviation commentators, television personalities, and independent film reviewers. Its subject was particularly relevant during a period when the TSA was expanding its screening technologies and facing renewed criticism following the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009.

The website served as more than a promotional destination for a documentary. It presented the film's arguments, introduced its filmmakers and interview subjects, publicized reviews, and encouraged Americans to demand stronger oversight of federal transportation security. Although the original promotional period has long passed, the website's historical material remains relevant to understanding the public debate over security, civil liberties, government spending, and federal accountability during the decade following 9/11.

The Origins and Purpose of PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com

The original PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com website functioned as the documentary's central online identity. Visitors could learn about the film, explore its production background, watch promotional material, read commentary, and find information about obtaining a copy. It also provided a platform for the filmmakers' broader campaign to encourage changes in federal aviation security policies.

The domain name was deliberately chosen to reflect one of the most recognizable aspects of post-9/11 airport screening. Removing shoes at security checkpoints had become a symbol of the inconvenience and heightened scrutiny associated with air travel. By using that familiar instruction as the documentary's title and website address, the filmmakers connected a complex subject involving federal bureaucracy, national security, and congressional oversight with an experience almost every frequent flyer understood.

The website's central message questioned whether the government was delivering sufficient security improvements in return for the money and authority entrusted to the TSA. Its promotional approach emphasized firsthand testimony from people who had worked within the aviation security system, rather than relying solely on outside commentators. That distinction helped position the film as an investigation into institutional performance rather than simply another complaint about airport inconvenience.

During the film's initial release, the website also played an important distribution role. In an era before streaming services had become the dominant method of documentary viewing, independent filmmakers often depended on their own websites to sell DVDs and reach audiences directly. Contemporary interviews with the filmmakers confirm that the documentary was initially available through its official website while broader distribution arrangements were being explored.

The domain later changed ownership, and its subsequent custodians described an intention to preserve much of the historical content associated with the original film. The current ownership identity and any commercial relationship between the later domain operators and the original filmmakers have not been independently established. Consequently, the website's original function as a filmmaker-controlled promotional platform should be distinguished from its later role as a historical resource.

The Documentary's Historical Background: Aviation Security Before September 11

To understand the significance of Please Remove Your Shoes, it is necessary to examine the aviation security environment that existed before September 11, 2001. At that time, responsibility for airport passenger screening was divided among airlines, private screening contractors, and the FAA, which established and enforced federal aviation security regulations.

This arrangement created complicated relationships among regulators, commercial airlines, airport operators, and private security personnel. Airlines had significant responsibility for implementing screening procedures, while the FAA was expected to evaluate their effectiveness and require corrective action when weaknesses were discovered. Critics argued that commercial pressures, inconsistent enforcement, and institutional resistance sometimes interfered with security improvements.

The documentary investigates claims by former FAA security personnel that federal officials knew about serious screening deficiencies but failed to respond adequately. Some interview subjects describe repeated tests in which prohibited objects or simulated weapons passed through checkpoints without detection. They also recount disputes with supervisors about testing procedures, reporting practices, and the interpretation of security failures.

The film places these allegations within the larger history of threats to commercial aviation. Among the incidents discussed in contemporary reviews are the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; the 1994 hijacking of Air France Flight 8969; and the Bojinka terrorist plot uncovered in the Philippines in 1995. These events demonstrated that international terrorist organizations had long considered commercial aircraft attractive targets.

The September 11 attacks fundamentally transformed American attitudes toward aviation security. The federal government responded by creating the TSA through the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, signed into law in November 2001. The new agency assumed responsibilities previously divided among airlines, contractors, and federal regulators, bringing passenger screening under a substantially expanded federal security structure.

For the filmmakers, however, creating a new agency did not necessarily mean eliminating the weaknesses of the old system. Their investigation asked whether problematic management practices, insufficient accountability, and resistance to employee warnings had survived the transition from FAA-supervised screening to TSA operations.

Frederick C. Gevalt III: The Aviation Publisher Behind the Film

Frederick C. Gevalt III, commonly known as Fred Gevalt, was the driving force behind the documentary. His professional background was particularly relevant because he had spent decades working within the aviation industry and had firsthand experience challenging federal regulatory decisions.

Gevalt founded The Air Charter Guide in 1984, developing a publishing and information business serving the international market for on-demand aircraft charter services. The business supplied information to aviation professionals and customers seeking charter aircraft, helping connect operators with a specialized commercial audience. His work brought him into contact with the operational and regulatory challenges facing aviation businesses.

Gevalt also had a longstanding personal interest in flying. A Vietnam veteran and experienced pilot, he was familiar with aircraft operations from perspectives that extended beyond commercial airline travel. His aviation experience contributed to his interest in how security regulations were developed, enforced, and justified.

In the late 1990s, Gevalt became involved in a regulatory dispute with the FAA concerning the treatment of aviation businesses. The experience reinforced his concerns about the power of federal agencies and the difficulty of challenging administrative decisions. Although the dispute did not produce an uncomplicated legal victory, it contributed to his determination to examine how government organizations exercised their authority.

After selling his publishing business and leaving his publisher position, Gevalt began exploring the possibility of writing a book about the TSA and the broader development of American aviation security. As he investigated the subject, he concluded that documentary filmmaking could communicate the issues more effectively to a general audience.

The project evolved from an intended book into a substantial film production. Gevalt conducted interviews, assembled research, and ultimately worked with professional filmmakers to transform the material into a documentary centered on the experiences of security professionals. His goal was not simply to criticize airport screening but to encourage citizens and lawmakers to demand measurable improvements in federal security performance.

Director Rob DelGaudio and the Making of the Documentary

Rob DelGaudio became the documentary's director and played a major role in shaping its final structure. A founding partner of Black Pearl Productions, DelGaudio brought experience in documentary filmmaking, commercial production, corporate communications, and international location filming.

The film's development involved a significant change in creative direction. Gevalt initially collected extensive interviews covering aviation security, public fear, government decision-making, and the media's influence on public attitudes. As the research expanded, however, the filmmakers encountered a common documentary problem: the subject was too broad to present coherently within a feature-length film.

DelGaudio helped redirect the production toward a more focused narrative involving people who had worked inside the FAA and TSA. Instead of attempting to explain every aspect of aviation security policy, the film would examine how individual employees encountered institutional problems and what happened when they tried to report or correct them.

This approach provided the documentary with a human dimension. Viewers could follow the experiences of inspectors, federal air marshals, and other professionals whose responsibilities involved protecting passengers. Their accounts became the foundation for a larger discussion about management failures, employee treatment, and the difficulty of implementing reforms within large government organizations.

The production involved interviews filmed across the United States, documentary footage, archival material, and visual sequences intended to illustrate complex administrative issues. Contemporary reviews describe a conventional documentary format combining interviews with supporting footage and occasional dramatized or illustrative sequences.

Additional production contributors included cinematographer Joe Figucia, composer Thomas DeRenzo, co-producers Lorraine Pouliot and Susan Escher, and writer Rocco Giuliano. The production was associated with the New England filmmaking community, particularly the Boston area and Black Pearl Productions in Hopkinton, Massachusetts.

The finished film was released in 2010. Its running time is listed differently across film databases, with IMDb reporting 89 minutes and several contemporary reviews and listings reporting approximately 94 minutes. These variations may reflect different edits or cataloging practices, but the available records do not establish a definitive explanation.

The People Featured in Please Remove Your Shoes

One of the documentary's defining characteristics is its reliance on individuals with direct experience in aviation security. Instead of presenting the TSA entirely through the observations of journalists or political commentators, the filmmakers interviewed people who had worked as federal security agents, inspectors, air marshals, and government officials.

Among the participants were Bogdan Dzakovic and Steve Elson, both associated with FAA security operations. Their accounts addressed security testing and concerns about the treatment of warnings before September 11. Former federal air marshals P. Jeffrey Black and Jeffrey Denning contributed perspectives on operational policies, employee treatment, and the practical challenges of protecting aircraft.

The film also features Steven Bierfeldt, whose experience being detained and questioned while carrying a substantial amount of cash became an example of concerns about airport security authority and individual rights. Kathleen Berrick, associated with the Government Accountability Office, and Washington Times homeland security reporter Audrey Hudson added institutional and journalistic perspectives.

Archival footage and commentary from political figures, including Senators Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Byron Dorgan, and Claire McCaskill, helped establish the broader legislative environment surrounding the TSA. Former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley also appears through archival material.

Together, these participants allowed the documentary to connect personal experiences with questions about congressional responsibility, administrative oversight, and the effectiveness of federal security policy. The interviews are particularly significant because they demonstrate how disagreements about aviation security existed not only between the government and travelers but also among professionals working within the security establishment.

Major Issues Investigated by the Documentary

The documentary explores several overlapping problems involving the design and management of aviation security. One recurring issue is whether security testing accurately reflects the threats that screening personnel are expected to detect. Former employees describe situations in which testing procedures allegedly failed to simulate realistic attacks or in which poor results did not produce meaningful corrective action.

Another important subject is the Federal Air Marshal Service. The film examines complaints about dress requirements that allegedly made undercover marshals more recognizable to passengers. Because the effectiveness of air marshals depends partly on their ability to remain unidentified, critics questioned whether rigid administrative rules were interfering with operational security.

The documentary also investigates allegations of retaliation against employees who challenged management decisions or disclosed security concerns. Several participants describe professional consequences following disputes with supervisors, suggesting that institutional self-protection sometimes took precedence over evaluating legitimate warnings.

A broader theme involves the distinction between security measures that are highly visible and measures that actually reduce risk. The filmmakers question whether expensive equipment, increasingly complicated checkpoint procedures, and extensive public relations campaigns necessarily produce proportional improvements in passenger safety.

The film's central argument is that an effective security system requires more than funding, technology, and federal authority. It must also have reliable testing, competent management, honest reporting, and a willingness to correct mistakes. These arguments remain important even when individual allegations are disputed, because they concern the organizational principles necessary for any large security agency to operate effectively.

The Film's Release, Screenings, and Geographic Connections

Please Remove Your Shoes entered public discussion in June and July 2010. An important early event was its Washington, D.C., screening at Landmark's E Street Cinema on June 30, 2010. The location was appropriate for a documentary aimed partly at lawmakers, federal officials, journalists, and organizations concerned with transportation security.

The theater's proximity to the federal government's political and administrative institutions gave the screening particular relevance. Washington was not merely another potential audience market; it was the city where congressional oversight decisions and federal aviation security policies were being developed. Showing the documentary there created opportunities for discussion among people who could influence the subjects being examined.

The film also had significant connections to Massachusetts. Gevalt was identified in contemporary reporting as a Boston-area producer, while DelGaudio's production company operated in Hopkinton. These New England connections shaped the film's development, even though its subject and interviews were national in scope.

The documentary was intended for audiences across the United States, particularly frequent flyers, aviation professionals, government employees, journalists, and politically engaged citizens. The filmmakers also discussed using screenings and presentations before civic organizations to stimulate public discussion.

Its early distribution relied heavily on direct DVD sales through the official website. This strategy reflected the challenges independent documentary filmmakers faced in obtaining theatrical bookings and securing commercial distribution, especially for politically controversial nonfiction films.

Press and Media Coverage

The documentary received attention from several prominent media organizations during 2010. Coverage was especially strong among aviation writers, political journalists, and commentators concerned with government accountability.

The Washington Post published a June 30, 2010, article by Ed O'Keefe examining the allegations presented by former aviation security employees. The newspaper subsequently published an August interview with Gevalt that explored his motivation for making the documentary and his concerns about TSA practices. These articles introduced the film's arguments to a broad national readership.

Salon published commentary by aviation writer Patrick Smith on June 29, 2010. Smith described the documentary as a significant contribution to the discussion about airport security and drew attention to the film's examination of the relationship between visible screening procedures and meaningful protection. His commentary was especially relevant because of his established reputation for explaining aviation issues to general readers.

The film also received attention from ABC News, CNN, Fox News personalities, and independent entertainment publications. Critics and commentators frequently characterized it as provocative, disturbing, or informative, although reactions differed regarding the strength of its evidence and proposed solutions.

In an article published by TheWrap, Gevalt discussed the difficulty of getting the documentary accepted by film festivals. His account illustrated a problem facing many independent filmmakers: a documentary may attract journalistic attention and generate political debate without securing the festival exposure that traditionally helps films reach distributors and wider audiences.

This combination of mainstream reporting, specialized aviation commentary, and independent reviews gave Please Remove Your Shoes a public profile extending beyond its relatively limited commercial distribution.

Reviews, Ratings, and Audience Reception

Critical reception was mixed, although reviewers generally recognized that the documentary addressed an important public issue. Some praised its whistleblower testimony and detailed criticism of bureaucratic failures, while others questioned its presentation, balance, or ability to explain the underlying causes of security problems.

Rotten Tomatoes lists a 62% audience score based on more than 50 ratings. Its critics' section contains three reviews, including a highly favorable four-star assessment by Kam Williams, a critical one-star review by David Nusair, and commentary by Fred Topel emphasizing the film's informational and advocacy-oriented approach. Because the professional review sample is small, it does not provide a particularly comprehensive measure of critical consensus.

IMDb lists the documentary with a rating of approximately 6.5 out of 10 from 169 user ratings. This indicates a modest but identifiable audience rather than the widespread popularity associated with major theatrical documentary releases. Ratings on these platforms may change as additional viewers submit evaluations.

A September 2010 review by Stephen Davis for College Movie Review assigned the film a C+ grade. Davis considered its subject meaningful and worth examining but was less enthusiastic about the documentary as a cinematic experience. His assessment reflected a recurring criticism: the film delivered considerable information without always presenting it in a compelling or balanced manner.

One particularly informative review came from Billie H. Vincent, a former senior FAA security official, writing for SecurityInfoWatch. Vincent acknowledged that the documentary contributed valuable firsthand information about aviation security problems. However, he also argued that the filmmakers had not adequately explained the political, economic, and organizational structures underlying the failures they described.

Vincent disputed the film's implication that the post-9/11 security system had achieved little or no improvement over its predecessor. His analysis distinguished between legitimate criticism of TSA management and the broader claim that federalized airport security had failed to produce meaningful benefits.

This disagreement is essential to understanding the documentary's reception. The film was not universally accepted as a definitive assessment of the TSA. Rather, it became part of a larger debate involving security effectiveness, public spending, federal management, and the proper balance between individual rights and protective measures.

The Documentary's Advocacy and Proposed Reforms

The filmmakers intended Please Remove Your Shoes to encourage public action, not simply provide historical information. Its release coincided with the 2010 congressional election cycle, creating an opportunity to bring aviation security reform into political discussions.

The campaign emphasized accountability and measurable performance. The filmmakers argued that TSA management should be evaluated according to operational results rather than public relations achievements or the volume of procedures introduced. They called for improved employee recruitment, stronger training standards, more realistic testing, and promotion based on demonstrated competence.

Another important recommendation involved decentralizing decision-making. The documentary's contributors believed that personnel working directly in airports often understood operational problems better than distant administrators. Giving qualified local professionals greater authority could, in their view, help security organizations respond more quickly and effectively to changing threats.

The filmmakers also encouraged Congress to revisit the findings of the 9/11 Commission and evaluate whether the TSA's responsibilities remained consistent with the purposes for which the agency was established. They were concerned about the possibility of mission expansion without adequate evidence that additional programs would improve public safety.

The website's advocacy material discussed contacting congressional committees, organizing public screenings, and making presentations to civic organizations. These activities were intended to transform individual frustration into informed participation in government oversight.

Although the film made forceful recommendations, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that its campaign directly caused particular legislative changes or major TSA reforms. Its documented contribution lies primarily in raising public questions and providing a platform for security professionals who believed their concerns deserved greater attention.

Government Investigations and the Continuing Relevance of the Film

The documentary's historical significance is strengthened by subsequent federal investigations examining some of the same general problems. Government Accountability Office reports published after the film's release identified weaknesses in TSA testing, technology evaluation, performance measurement, and the use of information to improve screening operations.

A 2015 GAO assessment found that TSA had not consistently evaluated the effectiveness of certain technologies and security programs before adopting them. Investigators emphasized the importance of assessing both equipment capabilities and the performance of the personnel operating that equipment.

In 2016, GAO reported concerns about incomplete and unreliable data from security screening assessments. The agency recommended improvements in collecting performance information, analyzing results, and ensuring that corrective actions were implemented.

A 2017 report examined the relationship between the costs and effectiveness of different aviation security measures. Investigators found that TSA possessed useful effectiveness information for some programs but lacked comparable evidence for others, making it difficult to evaluate the overall balance between expenditure and risk reduction.

In 2019, GAO again examined TSA covert testing and identified weaknesses in the process used to address vulnerabilities. The report also acknowledged improvements in the agency's testing practices, demonstrating that the security system was evolving rather than remaining entirely unchanged.

These findings do not establish that every allegation made in Please Remove Your Shoes was correct. They do, however, demonstrate that questions about testing reliability, management accountability, and the practical effectiveness of security measures remained legitimate subjects of federal oversight years after the documentary appeared.

Cultural and Social Significance

The cultural importance of Please Remove Your Shoes lies partly in its examination of how Americans responded to government authority after September 11. Airport security became one of the most visible manifestations of the country's expanded national security apparatus, bringing millions of ordinary travelers into direct contact with federal screening procedures.

For many passengers, removing shoes, presenting identification, submitting belongings for inspection, and complying with changing rules became routine parts of flying. The documentary questioned whether familiarity with these procedures had encouraged the public to accept them without demanding adequate evidence of their effectiveness.

The film also contributed to the broader discussion about security theater, a term used to describe measures that create a visible impression of protection without necessarily delivering equivalent security benefits. The filmmakers suggested that highly publicized checkpoint procedures could distract attention from less visible weaknesses involving intelligence, personnel management, and operational testing.

Another important theme is the role of whistleblowers in democratic government. The documentary portrays employees who believed their professional responsibilities required them to challenge decisions made by their superiors. Their experiences raise questions about whether government organizations can identify and correct serious problems when employees fear retaliation for reporting them.

The film therefore belongs to a larger tradition of investigative documentaries examining institutional power, public accountability, and the relationship between government and citizens. Its subject extends beyond aviation to include the difficulties large organizations encounter when administrative routines become more important than their original missions.

PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com as a Historical Website

The website's original importance was closely connected to the independent documentary distribution environment of 2010. At that time, a dedicated film website could serve as a promotional headquarters, online press kit, educational resource, and direct sales channel.

PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com combined several of these functions. Its material introduced the documentary's central questions, provided background on the filmmakers, presented excerpts from reviews, and explained the public issues the production hoped to address. Information about the film's participants helped establish the credentials of its interview subjects, while discussion of federal aviation security gave visitors additional context.

Unlike a commercial entertainment website built around merchandise, celebrity coverage, or a large film catalog, this was a single-subject documentary site. Its content was focused on aviation security and public policy. It did not operate as a conventional business with restaurant menus, physical retail locations, or hospitality services; its relevant offerings were film information, promotional videos, educational material, and opportunities to obtain or discuss the documentary.

The site's historical audience was national rather than local. Although the production had Massachusetts connections and important Washington, D.C., screening activity, its subject concerned federal transportation policy and affected travelers throughout the United States.

The original website's later preservation is significant because independent documentary websites frequently disappear after their promotional campaigns end. When this happens, information about screenings, production history, early reviews, and the filmmakers' original intentions can become difficult to reconstruct.

Preserving such material helps researchers understand not only the documentary itself but also the public conversation surrounding its release. The site's current traffic, visitor demographics, revenue, and domain ownership records have not been independently verified, so claims about its present-day popularity or commercial performance would be speculative.

Awards, Recognition, and Distribution History

The documentary's most clearly documented recognition came through media coverage and critical discussion rather than major film awards. Its appearance in The Washington Post, Salon, and other publications demonstrated that the film attracted attention among journalists and commentators interested in transportation security.

Available film records identify Rob DelGaudio as director and list the documentary's 2010 release, but do not establish a substantial record of major festival prizes or prominent industry awards. It would therefore be misleading to describe the production as an award-winning documentary without identifying a specific verified honor.

The film's distribution history is more distinctive. Its initial reliance on direct DVD sales, followed by efforts to secure wider distribution, illustrates the challenges faced by independent nonfiction productions addressing politically sensitive subjects.

Rotten Tomatoes records a later streaming release date of December 9, 2016, although that catalog entry does not establish universal streaming availability. GuideDoc currently maintains an informational listing but does not offer the documentary for viewing through its service.

The persistence of these film database entries is nevertheless useful. They preserve credits, audience ratings, release information, and review histories that allow researchers to identify the documentary and distinguish it from other productions about terrorism, aviation, and national security.

The Lasting Legacy of Please Remove Your Shoes

More than fifteen years after its original release, Please Remove Your Shoes remains an instructive example of independent filmmaking focused on government accountability. Its strongest contribution is not a definitive conclusion about whether the TSA made American aviation safer, but its examination of the difficulty of measuring security effectiveness and correcting institutional weaknesses.

The documentary brought together people with direct experience in federal aviation security and gave them a platform to describe operational problems that they believed deserved public attention. Its critics, meanwhile, highlighted the importance of distinguishing personal testimony from comprehensive institutional analysis and recognizing improvements that may have occurred alongside continuing failures.

PleaseRemoveYourShoesMovie.com was central to the film's original identity. It helped connect an independently produced documentary with journalists, aviation professionals, policymakers, and members of the public who wanted to understand the expanding federal security system.

The film's enduring questions remain relevant to public administration: How should security organizations measure success? How can employees report problems without retaliation? What evidence should justify expensive new programs? How can Congress and the public evaluate agencies whose operations necessarily involve secrecy?

By documenting a period of intense debate over airport security, Please Remove Your Shoes and its associated website provide a historical perspective on the continuing challenge of balancing safety, efficiency, individual rights, and government accountability.