[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.