AA Captain Throws Secret Service Agent Off Flight

[The Guvnor]

Perhaps McD, Dallas Dude, Raas 767 or another AA employee could confirm (or deny) this story?

I'm told that a Secret Service agent (complete with gun) boarded an American Airlines flight BWI-DFW, from where he was going to travel to President Bush's ranch to be one of the agents assigned to guard the President. He had all the required paperwork for the gun as well as Federal I.D. and presented it to the captain.

This agent happened to be Arab-American.

The Captain allegedly threw him off the plane, saying he saw inconsistancies in the paperwork. The Agent produced all the Secret Service paperwork and offered to have them verify with Washington, but the Captain said no. The agent was put through several metal detectors and searched before being told he could fly on the next days' flight.

That Agent is now in Crawford, TX with President Bush.

----

If this story is true, what would one attribute the Captain's actions to? Highly (perhaps over) developed sense of security? Paranoia? Or racism?

[aviator]

First, I am not with American Airlines.

<<<If this story is true, what would one attribute the Captain's actions to? Highly (perhaps over) developed sense of security? Paranoia? Or racism?>>>

One could reasonably expect the Captain to have the events of the Paris-Miami in mind. Irony has it, AA paid $175 that night for the "shoe-bomber's" lodging and put him on another flight the next day. He was allowed to preceed on the plane because the questioning yielded nothing.

Of course, the Secret Service agent could have offered to check his gun as baggage instead of insisting on carrying it onboard while essentially being off duty.

As for racism, if the agent had been a caucasian - would anybody even care? Funny how some people like to pull the race card out when it suits their purpose.

If there is any doubts, the safety of the flight and its passengers must outweigh the inconvenience of an occational suspect.

Cudos to the Captain (with a capital "C")!

Does anyone question the Sercret Service agent's choice of delaying the flight for over an hour by insisting on bringing his gun in the cabin?

Following is the article:

Bush Agent Removed From Flight
By DOUGLAS KIKER

BALTIMORE (AP) - An Arab-American Secret Service agent assigned to President Bush's security detail was removed from an American Airlines flight after the pilot questioned his credentials, the Secret Service said Thursday.

American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke said "inconsistencies'' in paperwork filled out by the armed agent prompted his removal Tuesday. The captain decided a more thorough check was needed to confirm the identity of the agent, the spokesman said.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Thursday that the agent told him he felt he had been kicked off the Baltimore-to-Dallas flight because of his religion and ethnicity.


But the airline spokesman said: "This has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity of the agent. What this has to do with this was confirming that an armed individual was indeed who he said he was.''

The agent eventually traveled to Dallas on an American flight on Wednesday. He asked that his name not be released for security reasons.

"We certainly apologize to the agent for any inconvenience,'' Burke said. "But during this time of heightened security, we feel no one is above the approved security procedures.''

Hooper said the group has written a letter to the airline asking for a clarification of its rules regarding "racial and ethnic discrimination.''

The Secret Service is conducting an inquiry into the incident, said spokesman Jim Mackin.

The agent was flying to Texas, where Bush is scheduled to spend two weeks at his ranch in Crawford. A mechanical problem caused the agent's original flight to be canceled, but he was rebooked on an American flight, Hooper said.

Once seated on the plane, Hooper said, airline security personnel asked the agent to submit to additional security checks. After a delay of an hour and 15 minutes - during which the agent was questioned by the flight's pilot, airline officials and airport police - he was ordered removed from the flight despite offering to have the Secret Service confirm his identity.

Federal agents regularly travel armed aboard commercial flights, law enforcement officials said Thursday, and there is a routine procedure to ensure safety.

Before boarding a plane armed, advance notice to the airline is given and an agent goes through several credential and identification checks. Once through security, the armed agent's seat assignment is noted on the flight manifest for the crew's knowledge.

In addition, it is routine procedure for any armed agents to introduce themselves to the pilot or co-pilot upon boarding the plane.

FBI spokesman Pete Gullota said an incident similar to the one Tuesday occurred shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Gullota said an armed, off-duty FBI agent from the Baltimore office was not allowed to board a plane by a pilot despite following the security procedures for armed agents. Gullota refused to identify the airline but said the issue was cleared up and resulted in the pilot's suspension.

"This, unfortunately, is not the first time something like that has happened,'' Gullota said. "In most instances the airlines are very happy to have us on-board. We don't just don't show up at gate armed. We go through routine and a whole lot of people are notified.''

[GlueBall]

The captain has final authority as to the safety of the flight; it is so stated in the Regs. And if a captain doesn't feel safe with a particular gun toting agent, then so be it. Furthermore, there have been incidents where a captain inflight had told an FAA inspector on official duty to vacate the cockpit. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Roadtrip]

Another example of the government's complete failure to devise an electronically verifiable system of identification for federal officers AND flight crew members. The current system is capable of being forged, but then again, it's not the FAA and politicians that have to face the threat from imposter and suicidal fanatics.

[Fr8t M8te]

Given the circumstances as outlined the captain was right.

End of speech.

NEXT!

[DownIn3Green]

Having worked for a now defunct airline based in Miami, I have encountered my share of gun toting Feds, DEA's, Custom's Officals, ad nasuem, filling out required paperwork and jumping through all the hoops just to carry their weapon on board.

This was during the times of Miami Vice on TV. It was "cool" to be like Sonny and Tubbs.

It wasn't "cool" to carry a weapon on my plane.

If this Ibraham was enroute to guard the president, then he wasn't actually required to carry his weapon on board in the "performance of his duties".

What if he had demanded enterance to the cockpit, claiming he was "protecting the president?"

Where does the insanity stop? If ploice escorting prisoners aren't allowed to be armed, why do "off duty" law enforcement officals feel they have a right to flex their muscles? Ego?

Well Done to the AA Capt. Rather than turn on him, the SS and Justice Dept should be concentrating on their agent's behavior. As a "professional" he no doubt realized the disturbance he was causing, and therefore surrender his weapon or leave the flight to work it out.

Obvivously this "Arab" American should be more sensitive to his country than his feelings. If in fact he is on the Presidential Detail he should be reassigned for his actions on this day, instead of held up as a martyr by his fellow came1-jockey's.

To answer Guv's question, if it was my flight he'd have been off immediately because there was no need for him to have a weapon on board. Period. Call this what you want. I call it common sense.

[Skyhawk XP]

And the Captain was suspended from duty ???.

[West Coast]

Gov
A little bit of aviation knowledge is a dangerous thing. Not sure what its like on your side of the pond, but anytime a weapon is onboard an aircraft, paperwork must follow it. Even if I believe the person carrying it to be legit, the paperwork must be perfect. The last thing I need is a FAA goon reviewing the papers for conformity and finding errors. The Captain did exactly as he should if there was ANY question. Your stirring the pot isn't going to work this time.

[Flap 5]

What should be a worry is that this guy seems to have complained to the Council of American-Islamic Relations. As a personal agent of the President he should give his total loyalty to the President without any other concerns what so ever.

[AA SLF]

Very interesting reading, even from the Americans who have posted before me. Here is a link to the Federal Code about what a Law Enforcement Office (LEO) has to comply with, as well as what the airlines have to do:
<a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_00.html" target="_blank">http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_00.html</A>
Note - section-108.219 for the details.
Yes, the Captain has final decision to fly the LEO or not. Yes, the Captain should exercise sound judgement (IMHO). I say that the Captain exercised poor judgement! I don't want to fly with Captains that exhibit poor judgement cause it could cost me my life!

This whole scene is a fiasco. The Captain could have picked up a phone (even his cell) and called the Secret Service to confirm the Agents bona fides. The police authorities at the airport could have done the same thing through their liason channels. You say you can't call the Secret Service. Bull $#%@ - call 911 in the USA and ask for a patch to the Secret Service. Bet you get it, especially when you mention Presidential security to Dispatch.
LEO's, as are ALL emergency service personnel, the most dedicated people in the world, because they put their LIFE on the line ever day for YOU AND ME! And this is the Thanks they get from y'all for being willing to take a bullit for you??? I wonder if this Captain is willing to stand in front of a gun? For me? I don't think so, and I don't think most of y'all would either!

LEO's walk forward when everyone else is walking away. WTC should be something y'all remember, eh?
How many cops, firemen and medics were killed?

Christmas spirit - I wonder???

dAAvid -

This Agent WAS on duty, as travel in an official capacity is "on duty" time.

[wallabie]

AA SLF

Once you've recovered from your Xmas party hangover, you may be fit enough to read this :

GUNS DON' T BELONG TO THE CABIN !!

I mean what kind of guys are they anyway ? Can't do without their toys ? Or is this an extension of their body ?
Air crews get their nail files or scissors taken away from them and we should allow BIG guns on our very aircrafts ???
Of course the Captain was right and just be aware that when wrong he's right anyway. One of Aviation golden rules !!
Ease up on the egg nog will you ??

[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: wallabie ]</p>

[Warthog]

Right, so we stop the good guys with guns getting on board but we do sweet f@?k all about guys with exploding shoes??? Where the hell was the Captain when the guy wearing the Nike's and with "If Not A Terrorist Then A Lunatic" tattooed across his forehead got onboard? If I had the choice of having either a Secret Service Agent or the Captain look after my security during a flight we'd be flying single crew!

[maxrpm]

We were 5 minutes to departure and all pax on board when a big black limo pulled up and a well known European politician stepped out followed by two security officers. Station informed about three more pax and a new loadsheet. I went to the new pax and the security officers told me that they carried guns and showed me their identification. Dialog: "Sir I realise that you two are on duty but this is not according procedure I cannot accept you with guns on board" "Captain we know you close on time what can we do to solve that problem quick" "If you would be normal pax you would have to check in your weapons in the baggage compartement and get them back by security of destination airport, we could do so now" "Sound good to me, thank you" "thanks for cooperation"
The whole thing took a minute and we left on time. This is was I would call real professional attitude of a security officer.

[The Guvnor]

West Coast - if you lok up at the very top of my post, you'll see I was asking for verification of this story - because I couldn't believe it, and I hadn't seen any confirmation of it elsewhere. Many thanks to aviator for posting the story.

Now, anyone who knows anything about the workings of FBI and Treasury Agents (the latter is what the Secret Service agents are) knows that (a) they are required to carry their personal weapons at all times; and (b) are permitted to carry them on board aircraft. If the agent had surrendered his weapon (which ould indeed have been the easiest solution) then not only would he have been in trouble for breaching his own regs; but it would also have been rather hard to explain why he wasn't able to act if there had been another terrorist incident on board that flight.

I have no argument that the captain was right to query the paperwork - especially if there were discrepancies on it, such as a different flight number. However, it would have been very easy for him to establish the reason for that discrepancy - ie that the flight had been cancelled.

However, the moment that he refused to verify the agent's ID with the Operations Office of the USSS then he's going way out on a limb - it then becomes pretty obvious that he doesn't give a damn who this guy is; he's not going on his flight. Remember, they delayed the flight 75 minutes to put the agent through the security hoops - how long would that call have taken?

And that smacks of racism.

[GrandPrix]

Some of you need to be reminded that WE ARE AT WAR!
You cannot be too safe these days.
The FAA has done nothing to improve security at it's must must vulnerable places. Checked baggage and ground personnel are still not being screened before they go to work in or near aircraft.
If the AA captain thought the FED was suspicious, more power to him.
Too bad if a few Arabs feel that their so called rights are being violated.
I even have a solution. Lets put all the Arabs and Muslims on the planes of the pilots who are sympathetic to them for having their "rights" taken away.
Any takers? I did not think so.

[bblank]

dAAvid, I read the section on carriage of accessible weapons. It is mostly about what LEOs must do. I missed the part that says "airlines shall accept armed LEOs who comply with these regulations."

What it does say is that the airlines must "Advise the armed LEO, before boarding, of the aircraft operator's procedures for carrying out this section." If the airline's procedure is that the Captain gets to decide then what in the regulations contradicts the Captain's action in this incident?

You say that the Captain exercised poor judgement. The regs say "the armed LEO must have a need to
have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning." I understand that by parts (i), (iii), and (iv) of item (2) this requirement was technically satisfied. But assuming that you were the Captain and that it was your call, what, in your good judgement, was this agent's need to be armed on this flight?

I hope that the Secret Service does not try to bully AA.

[Roadtrip]

The trouble with this guy was that his paperwork wasn't right and then he became pushy and demanding, fitting the profile of someone who was trying to bully an aircrew in letting him on the aircraft. You would think a Secret Service agent would have the smarts to not give the captain a reason to question his authenticity. Quite simply, this guy's paperwork was not exactly right AND his attitude and demenor did not match that of the professional he was purporting to be.

Now, if the incompetent leadership in the FAA and government would do what ALPA has been asking for since 1989 - that is, issuing ELECTRONICALLY verifiable, POSITIVE identification, a lot of these problems would simply GO AWAY. But, that would take foresight, initiative, and leadership . . . none of which are qualities possessed by the administrator of the FAA.

[PaperTiger]

Quite. Whatever the pros and cons and legality, complaining to the CAIR doesn't strike me as a wise career move. The activities of the Secret Service should be umm.. secret, no place for egos on the team surely. A quiet word in the right ear would have got this sorted.

[Wino]

Guv,

As a pilot I am not trained to verify a persons Identity. All I can go by is the paper work he brings. If that paperwork is fouled up AND he has a bad attitude, then I have no choice but to deny him boarding.

When the FAA does an audit of a flight looking to hang a pilot, the first place they start is the paperwork.

The Gentleman in question brought incorrect paperwork. A phone call to his superiors is not going to change the paperwork unless THEY run down to the gate with correct paperwork.

He had the wrong paperwork plus a bad attitude. He could have just as easily called his superiors and had them run correct paperwork to the gate. That was his problem, not the airline's. The airline must verify that his paperwork is correct, not assist some potential terrorist into gaining armed entry to the aircraft.

To do any less than deny him would smack not of racism but NEGLIGENCE! , but obviously in your fantasy airline world you don't understand the responsibility for a plane load of lives.

Wino <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[BOEINGBOY1]

it has been said many times previously on this topic alone, that the captain of any a/c that he is in command of, has the final say on any particular persons carriage - period! he is the commander. he carries the rank and is paid his salary because of the resonsibility that he carries, as "the buck stops with him". that said, he must also accept full responsibility for his actions. if this means that he refuses carriage to any passenger (for whatever reson) he must justify his actions, at the time and later at any inquiry. IF, and i repeat IF he is later proven to have made an error of judgement (as hard as it may to beleive sometimes - captains are human afterall) he must be prepared to accept the consequences. as none of us here, were present at the time of this passengers refusal, and only heard infomation 2nd or 3rd hand - we can't comment on the exact circumstances.

[The Guvnor]

All well and good - except that it takes a couple of minutes to deny someone boarding and explain why. The article says that the flight was delayes seventy five minutes - which is more than ample time to check out the paperwork and verify identity with the USSS.

[West Coast]

Gov
What part don't you understand? A number of pilots have tried to explain to you, ITS NOT THE CAPTAINS JOB TO CHECK OUT QUESTIONABLE CREDENTIALS, WE ARE NOT TRAINED TO DO SO. There still lies a possibility that one of the Sept11 hijackers was a masquerading as an airline pilot, thus we go through the same security as the pax. If we can't tell a fake airline pilot from a real, theres no chance of doing so with someone who claims to be a law enforcement officer. I have had an armed law enforcement officer from the department of fish and game prior to Sept11,all he had to do was show some credentials that can probably be had on E bay and fill out some simple paperwork. Never again. The Captains job in this case is to review the paperwork, and if its not in order, deny boarding, not to pick up a phone and call the local secret service office to check for credentials and ask his boss why he can't fill out paperwork and why he has a bad attitude. The onus of responsibility lies with the LEO to provide accurate paperwork to begin with, and if questioned, not become defensive(as reports have indicated) Just what I want on board my aircraft, an angry man with a gun who happens to be torqued off at the crew.

[Peter Skellan]

The Skippers discretion is absolute.

You can quote whatever regs you like but if the Captain is not happy then the flight does not move or the pax/bags are removed. That is the case law the world over.

Unless you can prove a malicious intent by the Skipper you will lose every time.

Jurisdiction does not really come into it as in reality the Skipper can close up, push, move under his own power, become God and order whatever he or she wishes.

The USSS are not making a big deal of this. They are probably embarassed.

Just imagine IF this guy had been accepted and it turned out to be a terrorist. The crew would have been castigated as grossly negligent.

If you have ever been in the LHS under pressure you would have a whole lot more respect for the AA Skipper who made this decision.

Armchair internet wannabe Skippers need not comment.

PS

[The Guvnor]

West Coast - I thought my post was written in English - what couldn't you understand about it? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[quote]...it takes a couple of minutes to deny someone boarding and explain why. The article says that the flight was delayed seventy five minutes...<hr></blockquote>

It should therefore be obvious to everyone that this was not simply a case of denying someone passage.

I agree with you that the captain has the absolute right of discretion about who travels on the aircraft - that's not an issue here. What is is the question about whether the agent was denied passage because of his ethnicity. Had the captain chucked the guy off and gone on the understandable basis that the paperwork wasn't in order then that's one thing. However, here we have a seventy five minute delay - yet there doesn't seem to have been any effort to have done the two things that would have resolved the problem for once and for all; (a) verified the cancellation of the earlier flight - which would have made the paperwork problem the airline's problem rather than the USSS; and (b) had AA Security call the USSS to obtain verification of the agent's identity.

Understand where I'm coming from now?

[Murray_NN]

DownIn3Green

You are just a plain RACIST!!!

Upon such circumstances, I wonder if you would have reacted the same if it was a white agent protecting your cowboy president's ass...

I will never fly AA/United/or any american airline...as they are a big fat target!

Good luck and safe flying to the straight thinking americans.

[DownIn3Green]

Yo Murray,

If my post makes you think I'm a racist...great!!!!You're free to think what you want.

But the reality is the AA Capt was right, and you're not...

[Raas767]

The only thing extraordinary about this is the fact that AA backed up their captain. Captains Authority has been a bit of a joke at AA for the last 10 years. Usually they would have just fired the guy or given him two weeks off without pay. Maybe the airline is waking up to the fact that their crewmembers are the last line of defence when it comes to security.
Either way it is an interesting twist and I hope it continues.

[whatshouldiuse]

Hey Folks;


Reality check here and I'm only a passenger.

Leave Denver at 8:40 on 12/26/01 via UA 418....Tug pushes us back and immediately pulls us forward. Told to empty everything off-borad including carry-on luggage. Plane emptied and searched due to "FAA Random Search Procedures". Nothing found and no problem. This was after arriving at the airport 3 hours earlier.


After hearing about a guy get on-board with explosives in his shoes, I really don't give a damn what nationality get's searched ( including myself), I just want a safe environment to fly in. Anybody who has better ideas to make security quicker, safer and faster, let me know.

[AA SLF]

Seems to be a lot of "information" about what happened floating through posts here. Below is a hot link to an Associated Press story from today with comments by Pres. Bush:
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/678511.asp?0dm=C26EN#BODY" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/678511.asp?0dm=C26EN#BODY</A>
Some interesting info in this AP report. Quote from this story: "— he was ordered removed from the flight despite offering to have the Secret Service confirm his identity." Seems to me like it may - repeat - may have been that nobody was willing to confirm who he was. Very interesting, eh? Why?? Would that have raised the "decision point" to to high of a level?

Here is a second quote from Pres. Bush: "Bush said he had spoken with the agent, who was a member of the president’s security detail. “I told him how proud I was that he was by my side,” Bush said." Doesn't sound to me as if Pres. Bush thinks this Agent was a "bad boy" at BWI. IMHO it seems that Pres. Bush does NOT believe this Agent is a "security risk" to him (Bush) or anyone else.


For those who believe that a Captain can do anything they want to without consequences, please read the next to the last paragraph in this story.
dAAvid - just a pax NOT a wanna be Captain. WHy would I want to be a Captain, the pay cut would be too severe!

[DownIn3Green]

If anyone can give me one (1) reason that a SS Agent traveling to a duty position (read: Not on duty, protecting no one, just riding, deadheading, etc.,)should be allowed to go armed on a commercial flight I may change my opinion.

In the meantime, an arrogant "American?" Arab with a gun and an attitude, especially one who works for the government, checks his gun at the door or doesn't ride. Period.

Has anyone ever heard of the expression "Going Postal?"

Government ID's mean nothing in this day and age.

[Wino]

Written by AA SLF...

&gt;&gt;&gt;Some interesting info in this AP report. Quote from this story: "— he was ordered removed from the flight despite offering to have the Secret Service confirm his identity." Seems to me like it may - repeat - may have been that nobody was willing to confirm who he was. Very interesting, eh? Why?? Would that have raised the "decision point" to to high of a level?&lt;&lt;&lt;


Now SLF, no where does it say in that article that he was willing to have the paperwork corrected. All the verbal OKs in the world even from President Bush himself wouldn't help the problem.

An armed PAX brings the paperwork with him and presents it to the captain. If the paperwork is correct he flies, if it is wrong he does not, PERIOD END OF STORY.

There is no person in the world with the power to verbally authorize an armed passenger on a United States civil aviation flight. The agent in question could have had HIS superiors bring corrected paperwork or whatever, but under no circumstances is a verbal approval authorized.

When the FAA does a safety audit 3 months from now and sees this guys paperwork was incorrect, then the captain gets his license removed, and the airline that carried the agent gets fined by the FAA, not the agent who brought the incorrect paperwork and caused the problem in the first place. That is how things are done, and why the man was ultimately denied boarding.


Cheers
Wino

PS AASLF as an AA pilot, let me just say, thanks for your business.

[411A]

Clearly the turkey had an "attitude" and THAT was the problem, in addition to the paperwork.

[AA SLF]

wino -

Glad to finally engage an AA pilot, cause I have some questions for you. But first, let me say Thanks for the kind words at the end of your post. I hang out on FT and USA as well, under the same screen name.

Question - seems the Agent had to write two sets of paperwork. Seems there was a "difference" between the first and second set. If so - why could he not just tear up the "incorrect" set and re-write a third set that would be "correct"? Are the sets "serial numbered"? Are you only allowed, by FAA reg, to only write "one" set for a particular flight?
Question - why did "everyone" else even let this Agent board the a/c if his paperwork was not in order? How in the world could airport security, and AA Security let this Agent even past the screening area if he was a "bad boy", let alone let him board the a/c and take a seat? Why did the "local" police "vouch" for this "un-trustworthy semitic looking" person carrying a handgun? Seems like an awful lot of "questions" here that have not been answered.
Final "technical" question: Does AA have the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do a full - repeat - full - background investigation of every AA flight officer? Reason I ask is cause the Agent would have had to do that to get his job. A "full" BI is required for a Top Secret clearence, as well as for compartmented clearences added to the TS. You got to be a fairly reliable individual to stand five feet from POTUS with a loaded handgun. I wonder if they would let any AA Captain do that? (rhetorical question.)
These are factual questions I am asking that should be answerable by any US airlines Capt/FO, I hope. The reason I am asking is I can not understand why the Capt. wasted 1-1/4 hrs. of his pax's time on this matter if the paperwork was clearly wrong. Seems that kind of evidence, and the decision, should have been very easy to make.

By the way - I have NOT see any report from any news source yesterday or today that reports the Agent acted in an arrogant, argumentative, etc. manner. If anyone has such a report why don't you post a link (or just give us the URL in plain typing). Methinks there is some story "creeping" going on here ( as in 'scope creep').

ps - I too think the posting "against" The Guvnor is way over the top. This is not Jet Blast last I looked. I think ANY such posting of that type needs to be somewhere else. I thought this was a "professional" forum which implies a certain level of decorum. Am I wrong?

dAAvid -

[MainlineObserver]

As an active airline captain I welcome law enforcement officers on board my aircraft; after 9/11 it seems to me to have added benefits in case some unstable individual reacts strangely to all the uproar in our country. Unarmed F/A's and Pax might be able to stop an incident but an armed law enforcement officer would really help out!
I have had Secret Servicemen on my flight deck and have enjoyed the experience. They are at least as impressive as any airline pilot I've ever met. As a captain I know that the AA captain had the authority to do what he did, but if he made the wrong call as appears likely then an apology should be made. A mistake on issues like this is understandable in light of all the emotions stemming from 9/11 and will be forgiven. Defending a mistake is just immature. And counterproductive.

[Tripower455]

[quote]To answer Guv's question, if it was my flight he'd have been off immediately because there was no need for him to have a weapon on board. Period. Call this what you want. I call it common sense.<hr></blockquote>

AMEN down3green!


[quote]LEO's, as are ALL emergency service personnel, the most dedicated people in the world, because they put their LIFE on the line ever day for YOU AND ME! And this is the Thanks they get from y'all for being willing to take a bullit for you??? I wonder if this Captain is willing to stand in front of a gun? For me? I don't think so, and I don't think most of y'all would either!

LEO's walk forward when everyone else is walking away. WTC should be something y'all remember, eh?
How many cops, firemen and medics were killed?

Christmas spirit - I wonder???

dAAvid -

This Agent WAS on duty, as travel in an official capacity is "on duty" time.<hr></blockquote>

There were a few pilots killed as well there Daavid, not to mention a few thousand regular folks whose only crime was getting to work early.

The guys paperwork was in question. Are you saying that even folks POSING as LEO's should be afforded the same perks as real LEO's? The Captain did the right thing. The safety of his aircraft was in question, and he took the most prudent action, for the safety of all of his pax/crew.

In the wake of 9/11, the ONLY guns in the cabin should belong to working sky marshals. 99% of the LEO's that I carry on my airplane have no NEED for access to the weapon on board the airplane (heck, half of them don't need them for their job! Poultry inspectors etc. Please!). A gun in the cabin is a liability, unless in the hands of a TEAM of sky marshals.

As for whether the Captain is willing to stand in front of a gun for you, that's a silly statement. Many (most) airline pilots have served in the military in previous lives, many putting their lives on the line in battle for you and me. Comparing us to rescue folks is irrelevant.


[quote]Final "technical" question: Does AA have the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do a full - repeat - full - background investigation of every AA flight officer? Reason I ask is cause the Agent would have had to do that to get his job. A "full" BI is required for a Top Secret clearence, as well as for compartmented clearences added to the TS. You got to be a fairly reliable individual to stand five feet from POTUS with a loaded handgun. I wonder if they would let any AA Captain do that? (rhetorical question.)
These are factual questions I am asking that should be answerable by any US airlines Capt/FO, I hope. The reason I am asking is I can not understand why the Capt. wasted 1-1/4 hrs. of his pax's time on this matter if the paperwork was clearly wrong. Seems that kind of evidence, and the decision, should have been very easy to make.
<hr></blockquote>

I am not an AA Capt, but I am a Capt for a major US airline. I have been through several "full" FBI backround checks, and I still can't carry a gun on the airplane (nor 5 feet from POTUS!). Thanks to 9/11, I am getting yet another FBI backround check.

The point of this discussion is not whether SS agents are trustworthy enough to carry a handgun on an airplane. If he were an imposter, he would not have been subject to any backround check. There was a question, reflected in the paperwork, of this guys credentials. It makes no differance what race he is, if the paperwork is wrong, he's not getting on the plane! The FAA is a bureacratic agency, and as such, they thrive on paperwork. Even if the PIC just let the paperwork mistake slide, and 6 months later, an overzealous inspector rifling the paperwork finds the discrepancy, he can violate the PIC for not correcting it. When it comes to the FAA, logic is not part of the program (see: pilots undressing at the security checkpoints while credible safety threats walk right on by........)

As someone else has stated, we aren't just there to push buttons and look dapper in our cool uniforms. We are paid for our JUDGEMENT. Every time we strap that jet on, we hold the lives of several hundred passengers, and over a bilion $ (with a B!) worth of liability, not counting hitting office buildings, then it's more. When weighing the cause and effect of a decision like this, we have to take the welfare of our passengers into account, and not the feelings of the SS agent who had improper paperwork. Especially in the wake of 9/11.

I suggest that you fly a mile in our seat prior to second guessing a decision made by a professional. Got 10-15 years or so and a ton of money? If so, then learn to fly, work your way up the ladder, and then you might get the opportunity to make these decisions. Until then, lighten up.

[Shore Guy]

§121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.

(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.

(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers

[SaturnV]

Well POTUS (President Of The United States for those unfamiliar with the acronym) had some additional comments about this Secret Service agent and the incident, to wit:
"President Bush said Friday that he will be upset if investigators find American Airlines removed an armed Arab-American Secret Service agent from a flight at Baltimore-Washington International
Airport because of his religion or ethnicity.

""There's an inquiry going on as to specifically what took place," Bush told reporters at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. "But if he was treated that way because of his ethnicity ... that will make me mad as heck.""
________________________________________
Fair to say that Secret Service agents assigned to the Presidential detail are highly screened, have passed batteries of psychological tests, and if their behavior was the cause of an incident such as this, would likely find themselves immediately booted off the Presidential detail.
There is no more trusted position in American law enforcement.

As the Secret Service is in the same department (ministry) as the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (which makes US currency notes) one can accurately presume that an agent's credentials do not resemble something that was created using Photoshop and run through a xerox copier.

One may fairly surmise that a Presidential detail Secret Service agent placing his gun with the checked baggage would quickly find himself off the Presidential detail and possibly booted from the Secret Service as well. If the gun is stolen or his luggage is misrouted, where would accountability for that result lie?

In this instance, the agent was apparently supposed to fly with POTUS on Air Force One to Texas, but AF One's flight itinerary was changed and he was booked on American Airlines. (One can presume that his ticket would show it was issued by either the White House Travel Office or the Treasury Department.) His originally scheduled flight was cancelled by American and he was rebooked on a later American flight. His clearances had to be amended, and the PIC of the second flight on reviewing the two clearances discerned a discrepancy between them. The discrepancy, which has not yet been further described, could not be resolved to the PIC's satisfaction. Apparently, no attempt was made by American Airlines to contact Secret Service as to the agent's bona fides. At some point, the Secret Service agent exited the aircraft and the PIC subsequently refused to let the agent reboard the aircraft to recover his coat. American flew the agent to Texas the next day, which presumably generated another set of clearances, and some peed-off agents at Secret Sevice on this incident ever having happened. (The Secret Service has a strong union, and one ought not be surprised if it turns out that other agents have suggested to this agent that he should consider sueing American.)

Now that POTUS has become personally involved in the manner that he has, the PIC is probably going to be put through the ringer. One can presume that the nature of the discrepancy was explained to POTUS before he made his statements, and that POTUS considered it to be just so much heifer manure.

And the Secret Service is probably not beyond exacting a little revenge on the PIC if it so desired. They could start by pushing the DOT to remove his clearannce to fly to DCA (if he has been cleared under new security protocols), expand it to BWI and IAD, or even add JFK, LGA, EWR, BOS, and who knows where else as well. And I do recall, perhaps inaccurately, that the Secretary of the Treasury (the agent's ultimate boss) sits on the group that decides how much individual airlines get of the post Spet. 11 bailout money. American got about $360 million in the first set of payouts.

[radnav]

So POTUS, the Secret Service, and who knows which other government agency is "not beyond extracting revenge" on its own citizens and institutions.
Sounds like a nice place to live!!!

Watch ya back!

[Paterbrat]

This whole unfortunate affair only underlines the resposibility of the Captain and the possible consequences of decisions taken by him. It would appear that incorrect paperwork began the events. Possibly attitude might have accacerbated the situation and a decision was taken.
The fact that a delay was incurred indicates that some effort was made to sort the problem out and it would seem not to have just been " he's and Arab I am not having him on board."
It is quite natural that POTUS would have to be indignant these people are his immediate bodyguard and anybody in that position would quite naturaly want to follow up.
It is also, I am glad to see proper for AA to back up the Captain. A full investigation will no doubt follow and the relative merits or shortcomings of the situation will be examined in detail. A decision on who was right or wrong will then be made. Once that is made and the full details are available we can all chew it over to our hearts content, in the meantime without all the facts opinions are just that, opinions.

[AA SLF]

Tripower455 -
Yes, Workers were killed. More than very sad as they mostly had no choice. Yes, Pilots too, also more than sad, and they had no choice. LEOs had a choice is the point I make. They should be honored for that choice is my point.

Posers should be arrested, as an obvious threat. But, there was no posing going on. The Agent was, and is, a real Agent. Supposedly - repeat - supposedly it was the paperwork in question. More to this point at the end.

Sky Marshalls vs. Secret Service Agents, as a choice in the cabin. I'll take the Agent every time. They get a lot more target practice, but the main reason is that they are trained to "spot" suspicious "actors" every day of their lives. Much deeper training than a Sky Marshall.

"Take a bullit" - the point is who merits more respect. An airline Capt. or a LEO. I too was in the military. More on that later too.

Full FBI background check? I have to seriously doubt that yours is as "full" as a Secret Service Agent. Mine took ten (10) months and ran to eight typed pages of the DD-395. However, I did not know y'all were subject to BIs and I like that you are. Speaks highly of your profession.

Still would like to have an answer as to why the Capt. didn't say - "here fill out new paperwork and let's get going". I appreciate your paperwork problem w/FAA, although I am not sure that POTUS has the same appreciation, but still like an answer as to could they not have just done "new" paper and got on w/flight. I did NOT ask/suggest about "sliding" the paperwork. Never!
I totally agree with you that JUDGEMENT is the crux of the matter here.
SaturnV makes a great comment [quote]There is no more trusted position in American law enforcement.<hr></blockquote> so even your Sky Marshall doesn't get within five feet of POTUS with a gun.
The big point made here is the psych testing that one goes through. Simply put - who is more "reliable"? The Capt. or the Agent? Give me a break, this is a no brainer!
Lastly - I said I am not a wanna be. I have done a lot more than 10-15 years of flying. I have very close to 3 million miles with AA alone. Another 500k w/DL, TW, UA and WN. But you measure hours, so I will count my Looking Glass hours too. Over 114 flying hours per month for thirty-four (31) months with an extra hour on both ends for pre and post flight. A 100% OTTO record. We did TOs in wx when OMA was flat closed. BTDT! The maths say I have over 10k hrs. "on type" (including Catalinas).

Still want to know why the PIC could not have said - "here let's just do this paperwork over" since I agree with SaturnV that the Agents creds are at the very least as good as the Capt's.

It is all about judgement. And "my" Capt. made a bad call and that is very obvious now.

Latest off the TV - MSNBC says that AA now says that it was never a matter of paperwork, rather the Capt. could not establish the Agents credentials. Give me break - that is a non-starter. Does anyone out there really believe that the Secret Service doesn't have one of the best communication systems in the world? That the BWI LEOs couldn't contact their next door neighbor and independently confirm the Agents creds? Does anyone believe the Secret Service doesn't maintain a 7x24 command post in Wash-DC?

This is becoming worse in the eyes of the pax is the biggest point to make of this whole mess. The idiot at CDG gets on the plane and the Agent at BWI doesn't? This builds confidence in the great un-washed public that there is "real" security in flying? I think not, and this is what will hurt the flying industry the most. And that is the saddest thing other than the deaths on 9-11-01. Good Luck to ALL airline employees, I'll keep flying (AA you know) as long as my employer allows. I will Never Forget!

dAAvid -

[Few Cloudy]

It's very simple gentlemen.

I am not allowed to carry a gun on my own aeroplane so no other b~gger is going to either - with or without papers.

If he's a bodyguard even on duty with his client I don't care, he doesn't get on.

[The Guvnor]

SaturnV - as you correctly say, the problem with the flight cancellation was American's.

As I have said several times now, I really cannot understand why this captain (or whoever was given the task of verifying the agent's ID) would have not done the two things that would have confirmed it in minutes - checked with the gate agent re the cancellation of the original flight (and hence the glitch in paperwork); and had AA Security call the USSS ... especially as the flight had been delayed by over an hour!!

At the very least, this is poor judgement on that individual's part; and at most racism from the point of view that he's not having any gun-toting Arabs on his flight (regardless of their nationality and employer).

If the latter is the case, what will happen if an Arab-American skymarshall is assigned? Will that person similarly be denied travel?

Again, as I have said before, Federal agents are required to carry their personal weapons at all times. No ifs, buts or maybes. Failure to do so results, I am told, in pretty drastic action. These are not hick cops from some one horse town - these people have generally gone through at least as rigorous recruitment, selection and training processes as the average airline pilot - and with them, they genuinely do both put their lives on the line and make life-changing decisions for other people on a daily basis.

[Stelios]

Gov,

It really is time now for you to listen to the PILOTS here. You do not carry passengers, we do.
If I as captain decide that someone is not getting on, then that's it. I make the decision on behalf of safety/perceived safety or even Cautionism, NOT racism.
It's a short and as simple as it is, right?

[flybhx]

AA SLF
The difference between the Secret Service man and a Sky Martial is that the Sky Martials are specifically trained to operate within the confines of an aircraft cabin. That means that they are aware of the potential for an explosive decompression if they discharge their weapons. As I understand it they also operate as a team rather than a sole agent.

As an (unarmed) UK Police Officer I know which one I would prefer to be looking out for my interests on a flight

[The Guvnor]

flybhx - Treasury Agents get far more intensive (and extensive) training including the use of firearms on board aircraft and other enclosed places. With the possible exception of the SAS, I can't think of anyone better to have on board.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Guv,

As an AA Captain, I give as much credibility to your statements as the world investment community has given you in financing to start an airline.

When large goverment and corporate organizations interact there are problems that sometimes occur. Instances like these have occurred many times in the past.

In this case, instead of the Secret Service quietly handling the problem with AA, this whiney agent went immediately the the Council of Islamic Relations knowing it would go public.

So much for the agents "background" check and his ability to remain "secret". By going public, he has revealed the travel patterns of agents assinged to the presidential detail. He has in some form compromised the security of the presidential detail. It will not go unnoticed by the professionals

He should be reassigned to guarding the gooney birds on Midway island in the middle of the Pacific.

[Roadtrip]

This entire episode is blown WAY out of proportion by the news media, self-interest groups, AND President Bush. When questioned about it down at the ranch the other day, he should has said simply that it was a "misunderstanding and that it's being looked into." Instead, he chose to tacitly infer that the American Airlines captain is a racist. A couple more slurs like that, and the republican party can count me out as a member.

[Wino]

The problem here is that there is no single ID for all armed law enforcement. How can I know what is right and wrong? Verbal approvals are specifically verboten.

Security concerns limit what I can say, but bear in mind that pilots are often notified in advance when an armed pax will be on their flight.

If this guy was rolled over from another flight, the pilot of the flight in question probably didn't receive his advance notice, add to that a problem with his paperwork, and then pax gets arrogant.

As a federal law enforcement officer he had plenty of avenues available to him to redress his problems with American's treatment of him if he had really been mistreated, most of them very effective government agencies.

Instead he went to the Arab anti defimation league or whatever and made his beef through there, which leads me to believe he is/was spoiling for a fight and this whole thing will wind up with him filing a lawsuit against AA so that he can get a Lotto type payout, which I now think was his intention all along.

This is the same sort of crap that lead up to 9/11. There is a great profiling system called CAPS. it picked out many of the 9/11 hijackers and though we are forbidden from using it on people because of "Arab outrage" after the persian gulf war, we can use it on their bags (which they don't know about) which is why Atta's bags never made it out of boston. They were still being screened when the flight left.

So Boo hoo, they were mean to me.

Folks, incase you don't get it, its war right now and security is high. If you don't behave nin an expected manner (even for reason's not known to you, like the crew wasn't notified in advance of your presence, or your paper work is dorked up) expect to be taken aside.

The fact that AA is backing the pilot (Which they absolutely never do) is more than enough evidence that this guy was not cooperative and was suspicious.

Cheers
Wino

[The Guvnor]

Wino - the earlier flight (also AA) was cancelled.

Therefore, the problem with the paperwork was down to AA (ie it would have been in order for that flight (I assume)). Indeed, it appears now - according to AA SLF's post:

[quote]Latest off the TV - MSNBC says that AA now says that it was never a matter of paperwork, rather the Capt. could not establish the Agents credentials. Give me break - that is a non-starter. Does anyone out there really believe that the Secret Service doesn't have one of the best communication systems in the world? That the BWI LEOs couldn't contact their next door neighbor and independently confirm the Agents creds? Does anyone believe the Secret Service doesn't maintain a 7x24 command post in Wash-DC? <hr></blockquote>

I don't think that this problem has been blown out of all proportion by the media etc: clearly - within the same company! - you have one flight where someone allegedly with IEDs in his shoes attempts to blow it it; and another where you have a captain denying passage to a member of the President's close protection team - apparently on the basis of his race.

Obviously, AA has a serious problem in its hands.

[OzDude]

Oh no. Now we have the Guvnor as a safety, security and firearms expert. When will those of you who keep sticking up for this Walter Mitty start to realise that he is nothing but a failed businessman who is wanted for various illegal activities. He spends all his time on the internet scouring for bits of information he can plagiarise and pretend it was his own qualifications that give him the right to explain to us how to do our jobs and why.

[quote]Treasury Agents get far more intensive (and extensive) training including the use of firearms on board aircraft and other enclosed places. With the possible exception of the SAS, I can't think of anyone better to have on board.<hr></blockquote> Here is a classic example of this idiots 'expertise' and 'knowlege' based on experience. Dont you realise yet that he just loves pretending he is an expert.

No one who is in the real business would make stupid comments like that above and anyone who has had 'real' training knows that one person acting on their own, armed or not, unrehearsed, is only of very limited use and quite possibly more of a danger. The Guvnor is like many of the commentators on this forum a jack of all trades and a master of none. Watch too many hollywood movies and you begin to believe everything you watch.

If the Guvnor ever made it to become an airline captain (which is as about as likely as him starting an airline ie. zilch) we would have seen him creaming his pants as he got to be pals with a real secret service agent and ignoring any discrepancies in the paperwork. Bet then he is used to discrepancies with his paperwork. Just ask the police about some of the companies he has tried to set up.

[The Guvnor]

Bruce - go and lie down somewhere in a darkened room. Kindly point out precisely where I have claimed to be an expert in these areas?

You can't, because I haven't - outside your own fevered imagination.

Just as you were completely unable to substantiate any of your claims about me, despite being challenged to.

And yes, it's amazing what one can discover through the power of the net, isn't it - and a couple of mates who happen to be cops in Oz! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]</p>

[aviator]

This excerpt from a San Francisco Cronicle article gives a little insight into the problem with assuming that any badge is good one:

&lt;&lt;&lt;"This is about American Airlines confirming that an armed individual is indeed who he says he is," Whitcomb said. He noted that once the agent's identity was confirmed, he flew on American Airlines the next day to Dallas to guard the president, who is vacationing at his West Texas ranch.

"In this time of heightened security, absolutely no one is above approved security procedures," Whitcomb said.


FAKE CREDENTIALS
A federal probe conducted last year shows that concern about bogus law enforcement credentials is justified. Undercover inspectors using fake law enforcement credentials and badges "readily available" on the Internet were able to declare themselves "armed law enforcement officers" and skirt security checkpoints at 19 federal agencies -- including the CIA, FBI and Pentagon -- and two airports, according to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress which conducted the operation.

"At no time time during the undercover visits were our agents' bogus credentials or badges challenged by anyone," Robert Hast, the GAO'S special investigations chief, told Congress last year. Working in teams of two or three, the agents were able to get minivans and satchels that could have been packed with explosives and biological agents past checkpoints.

The agents were waved around metal detectors at Washington's Reagan National Airport and Orlando (Florida) Airport after presenting tickets issued in their undercover aliases and fake credentials.

"Our agents could thus have carried weapons, explosives, chemical/biological agents, or other dangerous objects onto aircraft," GAO manager Gerald Dillingham warned a Senate committee on Sept. 20, nine days after the terrorist attacks in New York and on the Pentagon.

The number of law enforcement officers who fly while armed is unknown because neither the FAA nor airlines systematically collect this information. But a GAO study found nearly 10,000 armed law enforcement officers flew on US Airways during a three-month period in 2000.&gt;&gt;&gt;

[Wino]

Okay GUV,

I thought you had experience with airlines but apparently not.

I am an airline pilot. Everything I do is governed by my company operating manual. It is MORE restrictive than the FARs. If it is in the book it is the LAW, nothing less for operating an aircraft on American Airlines AOC.

Regardless of how it happens, if a person does not have the required paperwork as stated in the company ops manual I cannot let that person board the aircraft, nor can I amend his paperwork just because I feel like it.

Regardless of how he ended up on another aircraft, their are very strict procedures for allowing armed pax to travel in a commercial jet. Among other things they exist to prevent an agent from "Going Postal" and jumping on another aircraft to cause mayhem.

You may not like it, and I know you enjoy slamming pilots every chance you get, but we cannot violate a company ops manual. Doing that is a violation of FEDERAL LAW. Once the agent got rolled over, he needed new paper work. I am sorry if he was too lazy, or uninformed or whatever else, but he can't simply line out parts of the form and turn them in.

The forms are multiple carbon copies that are scattered all over the planet. So he dropped one copy before he left for the airport, dropped another one at the ticket counter etc. YOU in all your wisdom think he should just line out something in the last 2 or 3 copies he is holding on to and think that would be ok. Well its not, maybe thats okay in Africa. In the USA that would be fraud.

Get a grip Guv. This is being spun to appease muslims so that we can show how we are not attacking a religion or a race. This guy screwed up.

Cheers
Wino

[The Guvnor]

Only in America ... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

... you have a load of aircraft hijacked and crashed into various buildings; you allegedly beef up security at all airports (turning a two hour trip into a six hour one; you deny boarding to a member of the US President's bodyguard detail...

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/29/airport.gun/index.html" target="_blank">...and you allow a bozo with a 9mm on not one, but TWO flights!</a> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[ 30 December 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]</p>

[WhatsaLizad?]

Guv,

I saw my co-workers murdered and cremated on TV on 9/11, flying the exact tail numbers that I have also flown. You can go F&ck yourself.


If the Captain on the agents flight didn't have a valid concern, he would have been publicly hung out to dry by now. This is a fact of life at AA.


Your pathetic

An AA pilot

[DownIn3Green]

Guv, You are way out of line with that last post.

Why don't you tell everyone here which Bash you will next attend.

I'm sure that will put attendance at an all time high.

After your last post I'm sure many ppruners would like to have a "private" discussion of these issues with you...myself included...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Haven't seen the pax POV posted yet.

If I've got a choice of flying on

(1) an airline which allows any old part-time poultry inspector with dodgy paperwork to carry a gun on the flight

(2) an airline which allows nobody at all to carry a gun on the flight (OK, except perhaps for Mossad and the SAS)

to me it's a no brainer as to which airline to buy a ticket on.

Could I encourage airlines to publish their policies please?

[bblank]

Wino, Given the potential lawsuit that you suspect, I am more cynical than you are about the reasons for AA backing the Captain. AA apologized to the agent, and I suppose that that was prudent, but they should also have told him that once on the a/c he was outranked and that he, of all people, should have governed himself accordingly. And he of all people, a Secret Service agent for crying out loud, should appreciate the need to be on guard. It is too bad that pilots have to worry that their exercise of caution will be second-guessed by their airline and their President. E.K. Gann once quoted a pilot saying "If my ass gets there, so do the passengers'." Pax know this and will nearly unanimously side with the Captain every time. AA might try polling their sources of revenue, particularly in these days of nervous travelers.

Guv, about your "only in America" nonsense. Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui attended the same London mosque. The leader of that mosque alerted the London police to the extremist activities of certain members of his flock long ago. The London police, by their own admission, did not investigate or, apparently, do anything whatsoever with the tip. By contrast an American flight instructor contacted the FBI last August about Richard Reid's mosque-mate Zacarias Moussaoui. One day later, August 16, Moussaoui was picked up by FBI and held on immigration charges, averting a possible 5th crash on 9 11. (He has since been charged for his involvement in the plot.) American security also identified Richard Reid but he was vetted and kicked by French authorities. Clearly there was a screw-up in Tampa but it doesn't appear that screw-ups are only happening in the US.

[rick1128]

Considering that AA has lost three a/c in the last 90 days and almost lost a forth one, I can understand why the Captain is a little gun shy. A lot would depend on the agent's ATTITUDE. In my career I have carried many leo's from county sheriffs to state police, local police, FBI, DEA, Customs, US Marshalls, DSS (Diplomatic Security Service), foreign security officers, including UN security and other high profile people and the USSS. When I have run into a problem, I have talked with the leo and for the most part their attitudes have been "OK, what do WE need to do to get it fixed?" Those guys I will work with. When they pull an attitude and get on their high horse, my answer has been very simple. "GET OFF MY AIRPLANE!". I am the final authority for the safety of my aircraft. I will work with anyone who will work with me so that we can do our muyual jobs. But it is a two way street.

As for the paperwork, it better be right. We sometimes take this as a joke but there is a lot of truth in it. "It is OK to crash, but God help you if the paperwork is not right." In my career, I have been through two (2) NASIP (National Aviation Safety Inspection Program) inspection. And they are picky, they will ding you if the math in your W&B paperwork shows a error as small as one pound. I would rather do a root canal without being doped up.

There appears to be much more to this than anyone is being told. We as aviation professionals need to stay on top of this.

[Budgie69]

A secret service agent is undoubtably trained and competent to use firearms, so are SAS etc etc.

However all that is required is some false paperwork and an armed bad guy is on board. Photo ID's can be faked - unless the agent is personally known to the captain it is impossible to fully prove his bone fides.

There can be no reason for a passenger to have firearms in the cabin. The safe and only option is for all firearms to be hold loaded.

[flybhx]

I agree that the best place for weapons is the hold but surely that then leads us to need full vetting for ramp staff. It could be very embarrasing if the local reporter gets through security on dodgy paperwork and helps himself to said weapons.

Is there a fail-safe method of transporting weapons without risk of unauthorised removal.

[The Guvnor]

In South Africa, firearms belonging to pax would be taken from them at the security checkpoint and stowed on the flight deck. You get them back from baggage services on arrival.

Of course, you then have a problem if one of the pilots turns psycho ... and that's happened on a number of occasions!

[GrandPrix]

To the Goobernor,

Why are you such an "agent provocetour"?

This is a professional pilot forum, of which you are neither.

[DownIn3Green]

Goober ner,

I like that.

After this a$$hole's insensitivity as evidenced by his posts on this thread, I suggest all ppruners immediately upon noting Goobner has posted a reply to any topic they refrain from posting on that topic.

Maybe then the moderators will show him the door as they did to the dear departed "CaptEd".

[boofhead]

I too am an airline pilot with over 25,000 hours, and I agree with Guvnor, regardless of where he is coming from on this point. I was always willing to have an armed law enforcement officer on board before Sep 11 and would be even more happy to have these gentlemen on board now. If some crazy with a boxcutter gets to his feet, he is not long for this world and that suits me fine.
People who fear guns and want security no matter the cost should not be in the aviation biusiness. Let them go do something else that does not cause them to have sweaty palms.
Despite the beefed up security, there are people still getting on board airliners with weapons, and they will always be able to do so. But when they have tried to carry out their nefarious plot, they have been stopped, using vigilance and common sense. Why not encourage that? The last guy to take weapons on board had two loaded pistols, but please note, he did not intend to use them, and was in fact not a threat to anyone. It proves that the idea of 100% security is a joke, and we need a more common sense approach. Taking nail files off flight crew is the answer? Get a grip!
The real reason for the 9-11 disaster was a failure of Intelligence, not a failure of security. There are reports that several individuals and some agencies had alerted the various aviation authorities to the possibility of a terrorist attack using airliners as weapons, prior to Sep 11. no doubt the FAA was informed and it would be reasonable to assume that they have experts on terrorism on staff. Yet they did not (I assume, since I cannot know for sure) inform the airlines, nor modify their instructions for crews to cooperate with hijackers. To the best of my knowledge they still have not done so.
And it appears to me that from what has been posted here, most of you (but not Guvnor) are buying into this idea that it is the honest, responsible and law abiding people we need to watch out for, making their lives as miserable as possible when all they want to do is fly, and pay our salaries.
Have I slipped into a parallel universe or something?

[dallas dude]

guvnor

There's more behind the scenes stuff that you, and others here, will never know about. The AA folks on here will hear about it through other channels. (Clue, AA supported the Captain's decision).

Fair to say though that if one can't "find" the agent in the terminal (and make full use your alleged 75 minutes between departures) for a pre board check, an announcment along the lines "Would the secret service agent travelling to Dallas, continuing on to Waco to guard President Bush, please make themselves known to the gate agents at gate XYZ to complete new paperwork" may not necessarily be in their best interest.

Too bad you keep calling for the race card. I do not know the Captain personally. You are mistaken to second guess him/her, unless you have walked in his/her shoes (notice how you ASSUME it's a HE!).

Bottom line, if the paperwork DOESN'T jive, the first thing the FAA says at the hearing (assuming one makes it that far) is "Why did you depart when the paperwork clearly was incorrect?".

Guv, you can pontificate all you want. It seems this WAS a genuine SNAFU. The benefit of any doubt should fall to the Captain. Remember, the Captain responsibly flew over a hundred people, SAFELY, to DFW.

At the time, the SS agent understood "it was nothing personal".

When you start to run your airline you too will discover that nothing's ever quite as starightforward, or black and white, as it seems.

Happy new year.

ps AA folks should realise there's more to it when "AA supports its Captain!".

[vtmsch]

The actions of the American Airlines pilot are being defended by the some of the pilots at Continental Airlines, based on comments posted in their Forum. To the extent that the American pilot was unsatisfied with the agents paperwork and his possession of a gun, the pilot is justified, but if the pilots actions were motivated by a paranoia against Arabs, he is wrong.

Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post, believes American has an image problem, because they refused a Secret Service agent, yet let Richard (?) Reid on their airplane. King's question: how come Reid appeared a more acceptable risk than a bona fide Secret Service agent.

George Bush meanwhile claims to be 'madder than heck'. :) <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[The Guvnor]

[Ummm, Dallas Dude - I don't think you read the various articles properly. For 75 minutes, the USSS agent was 'run through the hoops' - ie he was there - and the departure of the flight was delayed. There was therefore no need to 'put out a call for him' as you claim.

75 minutes is more than sufficient time for the paperwork to be sorted out (which I am informed merely required the validation of AA - in the same way that a passenger ticket would under similar circumstances); and for AA Security to contact the USSS. I am told that AA Security was not even informed of the situation; which is in itself rather strange as the agent was getting rather upset with AA by that time - having been well and truly messed around by them.

As for AA supporting the pilot - don't you think that might have more to do with them needing to keep the APA on side when they are asking for salary 'givebacks'? :)

A very happy, prosperous - and above all, safe - 2002 to you and your colleagues as well.

[The Guvnor]

Sorry, I just can't resist this. Thanks to Paper Tiger for posting this over on the North American forum...

[quote]Meanwhile, from the other end of the spectrum (sorry, can't find a link)...

Peninsula Daily News

PORT ANGELES - A Horizon Air flight was delayed Thursday afternoon at William R. Fairchild International Airport when airline employees initially refused to let a California woman carrying nitroglycerin pills board the plane.
The incident began when airline workers questioned 74-year-old Lita Bowman on what she was carrying before she went through metal detectors said Bill Bennett, a relative. Bowman pulled out her heart medication and asked, "What about my nitro?" Bennett said.

The woman has a heart condition that requires her to carry the pills. When a doctor behind her in line explained the pills are heart medication, Bowman was asked for a prescription. Bowman's son-in-law, Dennis Dreith, said he was told FAA regulations prohibit passengers from carrying the pills aboard aircraft. "They told me, 'We have to do it this way'" Dreith said.

While airline employees were trying to stop Bowman, children were running back and forth through the security checkpoint, and some people were walking through unchecked Dreith said. Terrorists couldn't have dreamed up a better diversion. If she had walked through the metal detector without saying anything, no one would have known. Somebody should have had the presence of mind to let her through".

The doctor explained to security personnel that Bowman must carry the pills on her person, and Bowman even took the pills out of the bottle, which had her name on it, to show the medicine is not explosive. Eventually, Horizon Air employees allowed Bowman to board the aircraft, but relatives called the incident harassment and the workers overzealous. Horizon Air public affairs manager Cheryl Temple downplayed the incident, calling it "very minor".

Officials at Olympic Medical Center in Port Angeles said nitroglycerin is prescribed as a heart medication. Nitroglycerin pills dilate blood vessels to the heart and help prevent chest pains caused by a heart condition, said Olympic Medical Center spokeswoman Rhonda LoPresti. The pills are not explosive, she said.

(my emphasis) <hr></blockquote>

[DownIn3Green]

Hey Gooberner,

What's all this "I am told" cr@p? Who would (could) tell you anything?

I repeat...let us know which bash you will be attending so this can be discussed further in person...

Loser...

[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]</p>

[dallas dude]

guvnor

Think about this for one minute. Your information and conclusion on this event comes from; a) a journalist trying to have a story printed, which is certainly MORE likely to receive the editor's thumbs up if there's a juicy "race Angle" (YOU at least understand that); b) assumptions by you that AA is a racist
airline; c) that AA only supported the Captain because they don't wish to upset APA in case AA needs to ask for salary givebacks.

You only have a few hours left this year to realise you may be barking up the wrong tree here.

At least the other AA folks on pprune have had a good laugh at your supposed inside knowledge.

Airlines are under somewhat of a siege mantality at the moment, including AA (if we hadn't had any bad luck this year, we wouldn't have had any luck at all!). You might suspect that we're all sitting around praying for these people to go mess with someone else. The reality is that we don't want ANYONE else to be targeted. We just want these incidents to end, period.

As this incident blows over (Don Carty is a personal friend of George Bush and if there was even the slightest doubt that this Captain had caused ANY embarrasment to that relationship the individual would be hung, drawn and quartered) REAL airline pilots will have a chance to put themselves in this Captains shoes and decide what they would have done, based on the information available to the Captain, AT THE TIME. Note, real airline pilots know that Captains and other crewmembers actually have many duties to perform and don't just sit around for 75 minutes looking to pick holes in E-2 paperwork.

I wasn't there and neither were you. If you were I hope you'd have erred on the side of caution. A cavalier attitude right now WILL end in more tears!

Repent guv, and all will be forgiven (at least for 2001!).

[Wino]

Heh heh,

You know, when earlier in ppruning experience I thought that guv was just odd and maybe a little over eager. I kind of liked reading his posts, very much like I used to enjoy reading newspaper reports of airline incidents.

Well, as I matured and my career progressed and I learned more and more about how the press really reports and how wildly innaccurate they are, my enjoyment of reading anything about airplanes in a newspaper was reduced to rolling my eyes.

Having been on the inside of several things that Goober has commented on lately, I realize that he is even worse then the press. Atleast when the press prints utter crap, atleast they are doing it to make money.

The GUV prints his crap simply because he is the leading D I C K H E A D on prrune. Its a shame because one day he might actually print something important and worth reading but like the little boy that cried wolf it will be lost among all the lies and bul*!!!!!.

Wino

[allianceair]

How is this for bull and lies......I just heard the Captain of that AA flight was an Arab American. :)

[MainlineObserver]

May I suggest that we all refrain from personal attacks on this forum?
If what is said is wrong address your comments to the substance of the argument.
Thank you!

[DownIn3Green]

Alliance...if true that kind of shoves one of Goober's theories up past his hemorrhoids...

[The Guvnor]

Ummmmmm, DownIn3Green - I think you'll find that Allianceair was getting rather riled up because now the rumourmill is saying that it's the pilot that's the Arab American.

That's how I read it anyway - and of course if the captain was Arab American then that would tend to rule out any racism.

It would also explain why AA are being so supportive ... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[allianceair]

Jesus Guvnor,

I am not going to start anymore rumours, you certainly take them to the next level and make them sound convincing. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Orca strait]

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Those of us who get to experience the day-to-day operations of civilian airline piloting, and managing the myriad of decisions that can take place at the gate, long before an engine is started, I say, welcome to the discussion.

Those of you with an armchair view and intelligent observations, welcome.

As for those with strong opinions and no background, “opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one”.

Many times I have seen multiples of ground support staff, clamouring into the flight deck with sketchy information in relation to whatever their ground duty is, asking for your OK on some issue so they can escape to another flight or be able to write “on time” for their particular function.

This example is from one stop:

Voice 1 “We require the aircraft off the gate in 15 minutes for an inbound flight”

Voice 2 “We’ve discovered a maintenance problem and will require an extra 20 minutes to do the paperwork and apply the M.E.L.”

Flight Crew: The M.E.L. states a performance penalty, call for new flight plans, get the fuel truck back here, call the Duty Manager and tell them we can’t get off the gate in 15 minutes.

Voice 3: “New flight plans are here with a revised routing as well.”

Flight Crew: Re-enter the route, check the charts, en-route alternates….

Voice 4: “Here’s your weight and balance, oh its wrong, we didn’t include the new fuel figures, I’ll be back in 10 with a new one. You’ll fix it? Thanks guys/gals.

Voice5: There’s an armed LEO coming on board, here’s his paperwork”.

Flight Crew: Get the ops manual out, double check requirements for carrying armed LEO. Lets see…. Paperwork doesn’t jive do you concur?

Voice 2: Here’s your MEL paper work.

Voice 1: We need this aircraft off the gate ASAP!

Flight Crew: Double check all MEL paper work…

Voice 5: What’s wrong with the LEO’s paperwork? Can’t you fix it?

Flight Deck: Let me talk to the LEO.

LEO: Hi!

Flight Deck: Welcome aboard, here’s our problem, why the discrepancy?

LEO: My apologies, what do I need to rectify the problem.

Flight Deck: We can’t afford to further delay this flight. If you will check your weapon we can be out of here in minutes.

LEO: OK, thanks for your time.

In conclusion to my long winded story:

The only armed person(s) on board an aircraft, especially in the wake of 9/11 are on duty sky marshals and special occasions where armed protection is required in the course of duty during the flight, and these personnel are trained and certified to operate within the confines of a pressurized vessel and issued the appropriate ammunition.

If you can’t trust a pilot with a gun, but Bubba from Agriculture Inspection etc is OK, it doesn’t say much for our profession…

But hey, that’s my opinion…and it counts. Because at the end of the day I am legally accountable and responsible for the ultimate safe conduct of the flight, and that folks, I take seriously. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[OzDude]

Mainline Observer, it is very difficult for us to do refrain from attacks because the Guvnor is not what he appears to many on here. He claims to be an experienced airline pilot with many jet hours and he also claims to be an airline executive. He is none of these things. He is a Walter Mitty.

He plagiaraises news and then tries to pass it off as his own and then has the gall to add his own comments which outrage airline pilots because he talks such utter rubbish. He is one of those people who watch the Discovery Channel Wings and then believes that he knows everything there is to know about aviation.

If some of you are fed up with my repeated attacks on him then you might want to follow up on my challenge to him to provide evidence of his qualifications. He claims to have several university degrees and also an ATPL with many jet command hours. I challenge him or anyone else to prove me wrong but I say he has none of those. He will huff and puff and go on about not providing anything to anyone unless it is on a need to know basis and he will threaten to have me exposed and sued in court but in reality he would not dare as it would expose his life of deceit and lies. He even claims to have mates in the Australian police, skippy I assume.

Until he stops making stupic remarks about airline pilots and our job as though he knows what he is talking about I will continue to hound him. He does not know what the job involves but pretends he does. Sorry if it detracts from the topic but he insists on his relentles posts.

[Tripower455]

&gt;&gt;Lastly - I said I am not a wanna be. I have done a lot more than 10-15 years of flying. I have very close to 3 million miles with AA alone. Another 500k w/DL, TW, UA and WN. But you measure hours, so I will count my Looking Glass hours too. Over 114 flying hours per month for thirty-four (31) months with an extra hour on both ends for pre and post flight. A 100% OTTO record. We did TOs in wx when OMA was flat closed. BTDT! The maths say I have over 10k hrs. "on type" (including Catalinas). &lt;&lt;

3 million miles? I have no idea how many miles I've flown..........How many of your miles were in the left seat of an airliner.

The agent's papers were in question. The Captain made a decision that was his to make.

[AA SLF]

Tripower455 -

ZERO hours in the left seat (in "bold" in case you can't see too well). Never claimed otherwise. Never will. Just wanted to show that I am not just some "wannabe". From the "backside" of the bulkhead, I have BDTD.

Agree, final decision is the Capt's. to make.
Just feel the Capt. made a very bad decision. So bad as to make me feel like I could NOT trust this Capt's. decision making process is a real emergency. Don't want to fly with this Capt. in the future, but realize that I have no control over this.

The worst thing about this whole mess is Mr. & Mrs. Shellsuit (to use the UK terminology) are now viewing "my" airline as a bunch of imcompetants (read letting shoebomber on the plane and USA SS Agent not to board). This destroys all of the "good" that AA has been trying to build since 09-11-01. If you don't believe this is true then just say so and I will post in links to emails from traveller (SLF) BBSs on this very subject (unedited) and just let y'all read thru them. Makes me want to cry for all the good will that AA has blown over this mess with the great "unwashed" public.

Remember - I agree with you, that the Capt. had the ABSOLUTE right to do what happened. No questions about that! But, was that the "right" decision for the Capt. to make for that particular flight - AND for the overall good of AA/AMR? I think NOT!

wino - where are you when I need your help? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

The point here is - AA is being beat to Hell over this particular issue in the minds of Ma & Pa Kettle, and a great airline company is suffering, and I am suffering with them.

Truce please Tripower455 - you are right as to the Capt's. authority, no doubt about it. I feel my point is also valid, since I represent Ma & Pa Kettle's view of the world (the "back seat").

dAAvid -

edited to fix "bold" type - david
second edit - still trying to fix the bold type, drunk as a skunk at 0225 CST on New Years Day (the only time I ever drink - Champagne). Moet & Chandon. A whole damn bottle meself. Happy New Years to y'all from DFW, home of the best airline in the world!! :)

[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: AA SLF ]

[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: AA SLF ]</p>

[Sid's Stars]

Ozdude,

I can vouch for The Guv having at the very least an MSC in Airline Management from a certain well known university in SE England. Look carefully, and you can even find confirmation on the Net.

I also used to fly from EBOS and know for a fact that he had an op there as well in the mid/late 80s with 707s.

All of his posts that you say are plagiarised in fact include a statement of where they come from. I think that the vast majority of any comments he makes about these articles are spot on. He shows considerably more knowledge about the airline industry than you ever have, mate!

He's also challenged you on at least four occasions to back up your rather nasty claims about him. I know you've seen these challenges, cos you have said that he says he's got Aussie cop mates, yet you seem very reluctant to meet his challenge.

You also said yesterday that you had to go off on a trip and would be away for some days yesterday but here you are posting the usual cr@p.

You know what? I reckon you're right about there being a bs'ing Walter Mitty type on here. Its YOU.

[OzDude]

Oh would that be the same Sid's Stars aka the Goobner? Yet another one of his aliases. Just do a search of posts by these two aliases and there is an uncanny coincidence of them posting within a short time of each other and singing each others praises and back slapping.

If the Goobner aka Sid's Stars would care to NAME that educational establishment then I am sure we could all find out once and for all what a liar you are. But of course you would never go so far.

[quote]I can vouch for The Guv having at the very least an MSC in Airline Management from a certain well known university in SE England. Look carefully, and you can even find confirmation on the Net.
I also used to fly from EBOS and know for a fact that he had an op there as well in the mid/late 80s with 707s.<hr></blockquote>

I am sure you can vouch for yourself Goobner and sure you used to fly from Ostend in the mid 80s. You, the Goobner and pigs!

This Walter Mitty never ceases and until someone exposes him as the liar that he is he will continue to fool some of the more gullible ones on this forum. I am still waiting for the high court writ from him. Better not hold my breath!

[OzDude]

Just thought I would make it easier for you all to see the evidence that Sid's Stars is also the Goobner, in fact if you follow the links I have provided to the posts you will see that Sid's Stars would get the Goobner pregnant if he did not use protection.

All the links I provide below are just some of the ones where I have noticed Sid's Stars sticking his nose so far up his own orifice as he gushes about the Goobner. Just see for yourselves because I had nothing better to do downroute in an internet cafe.

This bozo even admits it in one as he tries a bit of reverse psychology <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

<a href="http://Flighthttp://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=017182&p=6" target="_blank">AA Captain Throws Secret Service Agent Off</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=017060&p=2" target="_blank">BA Unable to Meet Branson's Challenge on Slots at LHR</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016847&p=5" target="_blank">Brits poised to Invade Canada? Again!</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=005257&p=3" target="_blank">Who is this Guvnor Bloke Anyway?</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=41&t=002347" target="_blank">In FLL on the 6th November? Want to rub shoulders with Sir Freddie Laker?</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016315" target="_blank">Michael O'Leary - AIR-FACED CHEEK</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016290&p=2" target="_blank">All Over for Sabena?</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016279&p=2" target="_blank">UNIQUE Swiss Pilots !!</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016214&p=2" target="_blank">Rastas thrown off plane !</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016127&p=4" target="_blank">Ryanair at it again!</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016151&p=2" target="_blank">Apology to Pilots from The Guvnor</a>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=015644" target="_blank">Airlines to be Grounded Over Changes in Insurance Rules?</a>
This is the one where he even admits it although he will of course deny it but those of you who have followed through this far will see the trend. [quote]Yes, Notso Fantastic I did indeed delete my original post (with your pathetic response) and I hoped you had got the message. Unfortunately not.

And yes, I admit it. I am Sids Stars.<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=004919&p=3" target="_blank">Should the Guvnor Quit Pprune ?</a>

<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: OzDude ]</p>

[Sid's Stars]

Why is it that anyone that supports the Guv is automatically assumed to be the Guv by certain morons?

And why are you ducking my question (and the Guvs and a few other people's) about why you are unable to back up any of your allegations about the Guv?

Oh, I know. Its cos you cant't!

You posted your last whilst I was writing this, so instead of adding yet another post to this thread that has nothing to do with it I'm responding here. I've mad a few supportive posts. So what? I've done many more on other subjects. Can you explain why every one of your posts over the last 6 months have been attacking the Guv? I reckon you're that Who? cyberstalker the Guv had after him.

ROTFLMAO!

Oh yeah, since you're too stupid to be able to work out what Uni I'm talking about (even though theres only two in the UK that do these courses I believe and both are known to everyone in the airline business Europe) I'll give you another big clue. It begins with C.

[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: Sid's Stars ]</p>

[Tripower455]

[quote]ZERO hours in the left seat (in "bold" in case you can't see too well). Never claimed otherwise. Never will. Just wanted to show that I am not just some "wannabe". From the "backside" of the bulkhead, I have BDTD.

Agree, final decision is the Capt's. to make.
Just feel the Capt. made a very bad decision. So bad as to make me feel like I could NOT trust this Capt's. decision making process is a real emergency. Don't want to fly with this Capt. in the future, but realize that I have no control over this.

The worst thing about this whole mess is Mr. & Mrs. Shellsuit (to use the UK terminology) are now viewing "my" airline as a bunch of imcompetants (read letting shoebomber on the plane and USA SS Agent not to board). This destroys all of the "good" that AA has been trying to build since 09-11-01. If you don't believe this is true then just say so and I will post in links to emails from traveller (SLF) BBSs on this very subject (unedited) and just let y'all read thru them. Makes me want to cry for all the good will that AA has blown over this mess with the great "unwashed" public.

Remember - I agree with you, that the Capt. had the ABSOLUTE right to do what happened. No questions about that! But, was that the "right" decision for the Capt. to make for that particular flight - AND for the overall good of AA/AMR? I think NOT!

<hr></blockquote>

My original challenge stands.........

Sitting in the back does not give you the comprehensive experience to judge a professional's decision. You are entitled to your opinion, just understand that since you have never experienced (in the airline world, I have no idea what you actually ARE responsible for) the thrill of having over a billion $ worth of liability, not to mention the lives of several hundred moms, kids and grandparents resting SOLELY with you, you cannot impartially second guess this Captain's decision. The saftey of his passengers rests SOLELY on his shoulders. He made a conservative decision that he can't be faulted for.

Orca straight's description of the minutes just prior to push brought a smile to my face.....he nailed the situation EXACTLY!


Since we will likely never know ALL of the circumstances surrounding this incident, I will give the Captain the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

[dallas dude]

You know folks, if this thread (and the attendant press reporting) was titled "Captain denies boarding due to paperwork snafu" it wouldn't have received this much attention.

AASLF, if the said agent HAD been an imposter (which clearly and belatedly ,as far as that flight's concerned, was proven not to be the case) and another "incident" occured, you wouldn't be the only one worried about AA's future. The repercussions of NOT erring on the side of caution would possibly result in AA going the way of Pan Am, Eastern and TWA.

The Captain is not hired for PR work. The Captain is paid to make instant decisions after assimilating all the available information and taking a safe and reasonable course of action.

If the Captain gets there in one piece, chances are good that you will too.

Others here (who to my knowledge have never admitted being wrong but simply stop posting on the subject) have attempted to portray the Captain as a belligerent, swaggering individual intent on five minutes of fame (if only others would pack it in after five minutes!) by "getting back" at an enemy.

Truth is, the Captain more than likely is a Republican and would take enormous pride carrying one of George Bush's personal bodyguards.

If one can't fly POTUS himself, that's the next best thing. There's the irony.

Looking forward to seeing you on AA sometime soon!

[4g_handicap]

What amazes me is the fact that many reasonable & intelligent people here cannot agree on the correct course of action, yet everyone is second guessing this poor guy.

Was what he did in line with his company procedures or not?

If AA is backing the pilot then it is as if they did the throwing off - why make this a personal issue against the pilot involved.

WHile I agree the captain could have expedited matters by verifying the persons credentials, that is not his job - imagine the choas if he has to start doing everyone else's job, no matter how small. Why was this matter allowed to get as far as the cockpit. Does AA not employ people to make sure that everything is in order before boarding.

When I finally move into that left seat, I hope that I don't have all my decisions publicly questioned(it's bad enough when P1 starts to second guess you)
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[DownIn3Green]

Oz Dude, Sid and others...

I did a search for Gooberner on the web and came up with something you may be interested.

According to this link, which is some sort of Tristar website, the writer (webmaster, I presume) offers evidence that Goober is a liar, manipulator of facts, and not a pilot at all...

As Goober seems to be familiar with this site, and they have not suffered the wrath of his "mighty army of solicitors" in a court of law, they must be depicting Goober in a truthful manner...


Caledonian Wings: Broken Promises?
L-1011 Articles: Volume 6 Return to Home
History | Specifications | Features | News | Accidents | Fleetlist | Production List | Photo Gallery | Market | Links | Videos



Special thanks to BWIA West Indies, Delta Air Lines, R&R Aviation, FreeBoot, Matthew Goldberg, Daniel Gonzalo Fisher, Lamonte King, Andrew Lawlor, Holger Ludwig, Olafur Sigurdsson, Nigel Spink and many other resoruces for contributing so much. I couldn't have completed this work without their help and investigation. All information posted here is believed to be correct, but without any guarantees. For comments or corrections, please email Ryosuke Yano.



"We haven't really talked with Caledonian Wings." was the reply when I asked Delta Air Lines about the airline.

Frequent visitors of this website, or people who know about the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar well, probably thought ÒWhat!?Ó the moment you read this first sentence. Caledonian Wings, formerly known as Celtic Airways, has been known for its humongous, ironic plan that took the airline industry observers by surprise; a plan to purchase 44 L-1011s from Atlanta-based mega carrier Delta Air Lines. Neil Robertson, the Chief Executive Officer of Caledonian Wings has been telling the media since early this year that he is under negotiations with Delta Air Lines, and that talks were progressing smoothly, despite slowly. According to Robertson, the new airline would offer low-fare transatlantic flights from Scotland's Prestwick International Airport commencing April 2001. He claims that the airline will grow quickly, becoming the largest operator of the L-1011, opening and thus developing Scottish tourism. Well, then what did Delta's words mean!?

Recently, I had been receiving numerous letters asking whether Caledonian Wings really existed or not. They had announced their existence in spring 2000, and surprised, or should I say took everyone by doubt, when they told the media that they intended to acquire 44 L-1011s from Delta for ACMI (Aircraft Crew Maintenance Insurance) services. Robertson reported that the new airline would be based at Shannon, and that a huge L-1011 overhaul complex would be built there. TriStar enthusiasts around the world were probably delighted to hear this, since it was like a dream coming true. But, when Robertson kept giving similar announcements on and on that he was "making progress, despite slowly", shades of dark clouds started to gather in our minds.

When Robertson first emailed me, he was not asking me to assist in finding an airworthy L-1011 TriStar available at a reasonable price, but instead asked me if I could suggest a good name for his new airline! I replied "Excel" (now used by former Sabre Airways), but then he told me that he had made up his mind on "Celtic Airways", the reason being that "Celtic" was his favorite word. Next, he emailed me a large chart identifying the names and registrations he hoped to apply to the L-1011s he planned to acquire, which he hadn't even submitted to the Ireland's aviation authority. After that, he introduced me Africargo Airlines and told me that they operated ACMI leases worldwide with Boeing 747Fs, L-1011Fs and "many" cargo propliners. He also told me about City Connexions Airlines, which he said was a local airline based in Burundi utilizing a fleet of "fuel-efficient" Canadair CL-44s. I searched for the two airlines in several aviation directories and publications, including "JP Airline Fleets", but I could not find anything about it, and nor did my friends did. Robertson told me that he negotiated with BWIA for three months in acquiring three L-1011-500s. He reports that the negotiations were terminated since BWIA asked too much money for the aircraft. But BWIA has nothing about the discussions on their website. Before summer, Robertson told me that he had plans on setting up a leasing company exclusively for the L-1011 in Gibraltar named Elten Acquisitions Limited, and that Caledonian Wings would lease the L-1011s from them. Well, let's see, what's the point of leasing aircraft from a subsidiary leasing company? Recently, he told me that he would rename his airline "Caledonian Wings" with the "parent company"(?) being named "Wings Holdings", although he didn't tell me any reasons for this move. He then told me his tie up with BPI Aerospace to form a large company to acquire the L-1011s from Delta. But BPI Aerospace has nothing about it on their website either. Anyway, why would anyone form an airline by forming an alliance with a company who's major is in providing spare parts?

One day, a pilot who had lost his job with Kitty Hawk International, because of the airline's bankruptcy, came up to me if I could help him find a new job, of course as a TriStar pilot. At that point of time, I did not know much about Celtic, so I suggested him to try Celtic, and told him Robertson's mail address. The pilot later told me that Robertson answered him, but his words had absolutely no reliability. "The salaries were too good to believe..."

Turning back to the basics, the most important thing for any kind of business is "money." He has boasted of creating 250 jobs at Prestwick with direct flights to Boston, Orlando, New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, and Washington DC for as little as 165 pounds roundtrip. Recently, he said that he was close to clinching a 30 million-pound deal with Delta to buy three of its aging L-1011s. Remember, the "deal" was to have led to Robertson buying 44 aircraft, instead of three. He boasted "We will have no problem filling our seats. It will be carriers like British Airways who will feel the pinch when we start up. As long as we can conclude this deal with Delta, we will be flying by Easter." But a senior Delta source revealed "The last time this news came out, checked and the reality was we have never actually talked with them. We run up against this sort of thing on a regular basis. It enhances their public perception and, in a lot of cases, enhances negotiations with governments and others to say they are talking with Delta Air Lines." An official Delta spokesman said it was their policy not to identify firms involved in buying aircraft until the deal was complete. But in anyway, they revealed that Robertson was an "unreliable client". Robertson's last HQ was an office at Bujumbura Airport in Burundi. A friend of mine who is involved the airline business said that in the beginning of this year, Robertson came up to him and asked if he could find a job! An airline is nothing without aircraft and employees. I tried writing emails to different departments at Wings Holdings to find out more about Robertson's biography, but surprisingly, all of them were replied by Robertson. Is there anyone who works for Robertson?

Talking more about "aircraft", Robertson reportedly purchased N31023 (msn 1080) from PK Airfinance. This fact is extremely hard to believe, since this aircraft is one of the TriStars which have accumulated the highest hours, having logged 71,299 hours. The aircraft would absolutely need a C-Check. In addition, the aircraft has been stored at Kingman, Arizona since its retirement from Trans World Airlines back in September 1997. A photographer shared with me a recent photo of the aircraft sitting on the desert sands at Kingman, and it did not seem airworthy at all. Asking the sources, they said that they haven't heard of Caledonian Wings, and that the aircraft may have to be scrapped soon, since a new owner could not be found. First of all, from an industry observer's point of view, how effective could acquiring 44 overaged, fuel-thirsty widebodies be for a startup airline, when maintenance fees and fuel cost a fortune these days?

Tracing Neil Robertson's biography, it revealed that he is a failed pilot linked to a trail of broken businesses. He claims to have acquired Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 experience, but according to sources who actually know him, the only genuine pilot he has obtained is a South African PPL and in no ways above that. He is at age 35, and he claims his firm, Caledonian Wings, will pioneer flights from Prestwick International Airport to the USA and Canada. A few weeks ago, he claimed that he was buying L-1011 TriStars which would be flying across the Atlantic by April 2001. But research revealed that the closest Robertson has come to being an airline tycoon was running two clapped-out freight planes from a dusty airstrip in Africa under the name of Africargo Airlines, which was not listed in any airline directories. But, as previously mentioned, Robertson boasted that the airline operated Boeing 747Fs, L-1011Fs and many propliners. And the thing is this even ended up in disaster. Seven months ago, both planes were blown up by explosions which killed more than 100 people. But all of this was flipped over later, as more "truth" started to show from the dark. It came out that both Africargo and City Connexion were "paper" or "internet" airlines. The CL-44, which is reportedly registered 9U-BHI, does have that registration but has never been owned or operated by neither City Connexions nor Robertson. This was revealed by one of the actual owners of the aircraft. The "Sunday Mail" has taken up Robertson many times, and they can also reveal that he, :) :) who calls himself "The Guvnor" on PPrune :) :) and "Ceilidh" on Airliners Net, has been involved in more than 10 "airlines" - few, if any of which ever made it into the air. According to their information, his bases have included a string of war-torn African countries notorious for diamond and arms smuggling. Robertson, whose only pilot's qualification is a lapsed licence he bought in Nigeria for 60 pounds, returned home to England to set up Caledonian Wings. Plugging the firm on TV and in the Press, he said it would be Scotland's first international airline. Prestwick's managing director, Tom Wilson, was persuaded that the new airline could get off the ground. He said "If it gets the planes and finance to start up, there is no doubt it will work. We would welcome transatlantic flights back with open arms. It would be a major stimulant for the Ayrshire economy." But they also said that "At this stage Caledonian Wings is an idea - so far the company has not yet purchased aircraft from supplier Delta. We hope of course that finance can be raised however until that happens, Prestwick is not involved." And despite publishing ticket prices and advertising for staff, Robertson's airline has no aircraft or pilots whatsoever. The company's "switchboard" is Robertson's mobile phone, while the "office" is his laptop computer. And the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has never heard of him or his firm. On his website, Robertson still claims he will be raising 350 million pounds to buy and overhaul 44 L-1011s.

Robertson has been involved at various levels with "airlines" in Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo. As previously mentiones, the common fact about the areas is that all of them are notorious for its civil wars, corruption and lawlessness. Robertson's firms included City Connexions, SecureAir, FreshAir, TransOceanic, PegasusAir, Lionair, Skymaster Freight, Trans Lloyd Cargo and Africargo Airlines. And not even Africargo operated any aircraft. It was run by Robertson and another of his firms, City Connexions. The two propeller-driven freight planes told to have been operated by Africargo, built in 1961 and 1964, were destroyed, or at least heavily damaged, at Kinshasa Airport in the Democratic Republic of Congo in April anyway. The inferno was blamed on a soldier dropping explosives. At least 100 people died and 200 were injured. Shortly before the catastrophe, Robertson announced that City Connexions were also grounded, blaming it on "political problems". The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said anyone wanting to run an airline in the UK would need both an Air Operating Certificate (AOC) and an Operating Licence. But a CAA spokeswoman said few days ago that they had not been contacted by Caledonian Wings or any other firm Robertson has used for his latest venture - Celtic Airways, Celtic Aviation, Celtic Caledonian, Wings Holdings or the Odyssey Group. Even if they had been contacted, applying for such rights takes more than six months national and an additional four months for international routes. Robertson's plans seem way too premature, don't you think so?

In January 2001, Robertson reported that due to "difficulties", the inaugural flight will not take place until April 2002. But he says that he would take advantage of this period of time making efforts to gain many certificates he needs in order to commence operations. He also says that he has posted the availability of their L-1011s for wet-lease contracts and that the response from the industry was great. Can this be? Even Air Atlanta Icelandic, who is well-known for their ACMI leases, is having some hardships in finding contractors. Later, Robertson released news that he is now ready to place his first TriStar online, which he claims is N31023 (msn 1080), as previously mentioned. He used the wording "ready to rock'n roll", but is the aircraft really going to? Early this year, a representative from an aviation company made a visit to Kingman, Arizona, where N31023 is parked, like most other remaining TriStars which were with Trans World Airlines. He reported that the aircraft was still sitting on sand, missing all of its three engines and many other vital parts, and looking like if it is going to be scrapped soon. According to his report, the aircraft has not been touched for many years. Well, then what did Robertson mean by "rock'n roll"? Is he going to convert the aircraft into a disco or what?

Well, from the points viewed, a man named Neil Robertson is planning to start transatlantic services as Caledonian Wings, but they have no aircraft, no crew, no rights, and they are missing the most important thing of all, cash! Also, as this article points out, there are serious doubts about Robertson's words. It would be a dreams-come-true for us TriStar fans and enthusiasts worldwide, to be able to see 44 L-1011s return to the skies, and it's sure that Scotland would appreciate the development of tourism, but we sure can't hold much hope in this one. Caledonian Wings is likely to end up betraying all our hopes and dreams, turning itself into just a cluster of broken promises...

This article was posted on: April 4, 2001



[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]

[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]</p>

[Al Weaver]

The preceding post seems to have nothing to do with the thread subject and is entirely aimed at defaming a single individual and encouraging mob personal attacks.

For crying out loud can't we debate opinions without resorting to these kind of stoopid tactics

[Sid's Stars]

downin3green

Cant you do what normal people do and post a link? Also if you go <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=005257" target="_blank">here </a> you'll even be able to see the Guv's responses to it. Turns out its complete BS.

[4g_handicap]

hear hear,

While I appreciate that Guv may not be well liked, can I suggest that those with a grudge rather visit the following thread, dedicated to Guv bashing :-

<a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=005257" target="_blank">Guv bashing thread</a>

<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[bblank]

I learned more and more about how the press really reports and how wildly innaccurate they are

No need to berate the press on this one. This story should not have made the news but somebody brought it to the press. Once they were alerted to the story it was too "man bites dog" for them to ignore. However, without the "madder than heck" quote from Don Carty's buddy the story would not have received much coverage.

The press, as usual, attempted to get both sides of the story. When reporters came to the AA spokesman he did not make much of his opportunity. To wit, "We certainly apologize to the agent for any inconvenience." The spokesman should have been making AA's case, not auditioning for the diplomatic corps. At the least this sounds needlessly defensive - more likely it will appear that AA did something for which it needs to apologize. He continued "But during this time of heightened security, we feel no one is above the approved security procedures. What this has to do with was confirming that an armed individual was indeed who he said he was."

What a wimp! "This time of heightened security." Well, duh. It's only four months after four successful hijackings and only one week after a bombing attempt. I know you don't want to alarm pax but it's a little late for that. Anyway, as recent events have shown you want the pax to be as attentive to security as this Captain was. "We feel ... " How about "It is company policy that ... " "no one is above the approved security procedures." How about "The agent did not meet the requirements of our security procedures." "What this has to do with was confirming that an armed individual was indeed who he said he was." How about "There was a legitimate issue about an armed individual. Our Captains do not take off if there is any doubt about the safety of our pax."

This incident should have been a positive opportunity for scoring points with the public concerning AA's attention to security.

[Capt PPRuNe]

Due to the amount of thread divergence this thread will be closed. Feel free to carry on the original debate in a mkII thread.