AF050-refused to land in USA

[Flaysafe]

The flight AF050 (Air France) Paris-Chicago, had to return to Paris after 2 flying hours. The USA authoryties refused the plane to land. Does somebody know why? It strange that the day after the London attack, this occur. Had the USA authoryties found any suspect in the passenger list?
Not nice to the PAX....if they start hollydays.

[Harrier46]

Same as usual I expect, American security has spotted a five year old called Osama on the pax list. They do this fairly regularly just to let us all know how professional they are!

[Airbubba]

>>Same as usual I expect, American security has spotted a five year old called Osama on the pax list. They do this fairly regularly just to let us all know how professional they are!<<

Yep, everyone knows the threat of terrorism is overstated...

[brockenspectre]

These days, quite understandably, as an international pax one is required to check in well in advance of the scheduled flight time. For Israel, check-in has always been about 3hrs prior to flight time. Even now, for flights to USA it is "only" 2hrs. Might it not make sense for flights to USA to require a minimum 3hr check-in so that not only can pax and their bags go through the check-in process but also the pax manifest can be approved by TSA prior to aircraft departure. The cost/expense/inconvenience of "after departure" turnbacks must be prohibitive - I am assuming airlines have to eat those costs....

[View From The Ground]

The threat from terrorism may or may not be overstated.....even post London yesterday and I am from the UK, my view is considering the scale of the supposed threat there are relatively few successful terrorist attempts...Maybe because of good intelligence...On the other hand surely there is another way and better way other than turning flights back. Have any of these flights turned back ever found someone 'unsafe' on board???? If not...perhaps the queality of interpretation of information leaves something to be desired!

[Flaysafe]

The company will certainly paid those costs, and I presume such extra cost are included in the PAX ticket. But what about all the problems related to the PAX. Working people going home, or going to work, people on hollidays who left 1 day of vacations.
If this is done for security reason, OK, we can understand it, but I don´t think the procedure is the right one. I´m sure thet better procedures can be implemented without the needs of disturbs PAX, and of course, reduce the cost, and so maybe reduce the PAX tickets, or refunding this money to better purposes.

[superpilut]

The other day, when they refused a KLM 74, the "suspects" walked, since there were no charges against them in the Netherlands..

[billy34-kit]

Hey bunch of genius!!! think what can be more damageable for the industry,...one late flight or another sept 11 massacre!!

[KiloMIke]

As far as I am aware the PAX details are sent to the US after the flight is airborne.

[FunkyMunky]

Do they seriously believe that terrorists would travel under their own suspect names?

[Bengerman]

How many US aircraft, flying into the US have been refused entry?

Is it zero?

If so, is that just good luck?

Or is there another reason?

[mauro146]

they will never learn.
history prooves it! :mad:

[PaperTiger]

Have any of these flights turned back ever found someone 'unsafe' on board?You could expand that question to be how many terrorists have been apprehended as a result of The List ? The exact figure is 'secret', but in round numbers... 0.
Oh wait, that is the exact figure.

[West Coast]

"It wasn't a European carrier that accepted and carried the terrorists on 9/11, nor was it a European carrier that carried Richard Reid, the shoe bomber"

It was European security that allowed him to fly on a US carrier after that US carrier voiced concerns about him. US security aint the best, don't get a woodie thinking yours is.

[Techman]

Slight correction there West Coast.
It was a US carrier that allowed him to fly. If the carrier thought he was a security concern, they could have refused to carry him.

They didn't.

[PAXboy]

Hey bunch of genius!!! think what can be more damageable for the industry,...one late flight or another sept 11 massacre!! Warning, a politically incorrect view follows.

After the great success of 9/11, the low tech approach (Madrid) has worked very well for them. Which is why central London got done.

I have said since 9/11 that flying continues to be the safest way to travel - for many reasons. One of them is that, they will not use aircraft in flight again. Of course, there may be some wild cards who will try their luck but, I doubt it.

Whilst shipping containers are good at getting materials into a country, they need to ensure that the bombs go off in the right place at the right time and that means having someone local to push the button. Trains and busses can never be controlled in the way that a/c ear, so they will continue to use them.

This is not a reason to stop security on all flights but the way in which the USA is turning flights away has no effect on insurgents and terrorists in any way what so ever. Except to provide them with a good laugh.

If they kept on using a/c they would not demonstrate their complete control but by varying the approach and the targets, they show us that they can do as they want. Which, of course, they can and will continue to do so untill we stop telling them how to lead their lives. Which will not happen anytime soon.

[PaperTiger]

Richard Reid was not on any list. And he was such a low-profile dork he still wouldn't be on one today.

AA did refuse to fly him the first time. The French police (not CDG security) cleared him, or at least couldn't find anything to hold him. AA initially refused to fly him a second time but then changed their mind in a decision process that has still not been publicly divulged.

And quite what the DHS expect a single 'bad guy' to be able to do on a flight eludes me. Now if there were say five of them...

[West Coast]

Techman
As PT points out, AA did refuse him initially. After vetting by French security and finding nothing, AA would be hard pressed to deny boarding. After security found nothing, AA would be hard pressed on denying him boarding by his looks alone. Nothing other than his looks would have clued anyone in after French security said he was clean.

[Techman]

Still, it was AA who had the final say. As they allowed him to board they obviously had no security concerns.

Would American security haved checked his shoes? I doubt it.

[N5528P]

Is it so new to the travelling and aviation community that certain states impose security measures, which are nearly totally useless?

How many people where interviewed over the years (BEFORE 9/11!) prior to check-in? Has this measure ever turned out something useful? How many people admitted that they were terrorists and intend to kill someone or hijack the a/c?

I would support any measure which elevates safety and/or security, no question. But right now we see a show which looks pretty good on national TV, but will not increase anything beside costs and fuel consumption.

The intention is to calm the people and not to heighten the security level.

Sad, but true...

Regards, Bernhard

[West Coast]

What would they have based the denied boarding on? His looks alone? Security officials said he wasn't a threat. Agreed, AA could deny boarding to all those who wear a particular type of clothing or by some other parameter they find sketchy. At least until the lawsuits followed from legitimate passengers who happen to look different.

Should we deny boarding to those who dress or appear different from the norm, is that what your advocating? That's what would have happened.

[PaperTiger]

What would they have based the denied boarding on?

ISTR it was:
a) one-way ticket
b) no checked bags
c) no destination address
all of which were CAPPS flags prior to 9/11, although back then it just meant a bag search and PBM. I don't know if it was the same ground crew which alerted the second day.

[West Coast]

Those are markers that note a closer look at by security. That was completed. He had no background that I'm aware of to tip anyones hat, he had special attention above and beyond what every other passenger received.

A a pilot who commutes to work (not in uniform), I meet some of those parameters. I am a last minute addition to the DM, one way pass, I offer no address other than company headquarters and no checked bags. What did it get me? A special date with security at the gate for an extra patdown and an examination of my flight case and roll aboard. After finding nothing, I was always allowed aboard. The only difference was I'm a white male, somewhat cleancut.

[Few Cloudy]

So if the shoe bomber's plane had been turned back, how would that have helped anybody's security?

Also if you are flagged because of no checked baggage, how do they do a baggage check on you (the hand baggage being scanned anyway)?

[effortless]

Osama and his buddies are sat, fat, dumb and happy watching us tear whats left of our precious industry to pieces ourselves.

I've missed something somwhere. I am sure that there are more movements not fewer.:confused:

[Dash-7 lover]

...and try getting back to your apartment in the centre of Birmingham at 0600 on Sunday morning when you have to be at work at 1300 with no sleep. All due to bomb threats and the evacuation of 20,000 ..... - not happy!! but a sign of the times!!

[AMX10]

Gentlemen;

Let us not confuse patriotism with effective security, I often read in these lines that being american or pro american in security policies is akin to being safe.

Wrong!

As someone rightly mentionned in an earlier thread, the 9-11 attacks started on american soil and not in Europe, where security despite what some may think of is much stricter in effective terms than security in the US.

Now everyone seems to have a wwonderfull go at the way we do things on this side of the Atlantic, rest assured everyone that security at European airports and cities is much better than anywhere in the US.

Which brings about another question, who is this security bash really serving?

It is destroying the industry at its seams and the ones creating these problems are really the US, everyone else in the industry is managing their security to KPIs that are much higher than any US carrier despite the appearances, troublesome check-in procedures and inconvenience caused to every pax and of course airport congestion.

European airports have got their procedures so well oiled that they are actually looking for other looming problems today like unruly and offloadable material (probably irrated from a US flight)

It still brings me back to the same question: Whose interest is this serving?

Certainly not the passengers, and certainly not the carriers and certainly not the airport authorities.

American airports remain the unsafest hubs in the world and their actions against other carriers are only an indication that they cannot compete in a service industry that has eveolved beyond the comprehensive psychological means of the honourable senator from Kentuky, so his parade is to impose what would otherwise be unexcusable in a market economy: Threat by fear.

I live in the Middle East and perhaps US authorities should come here to look at how we keep everything under control, no guns, no drugs and relatively orderly terminals.

It is also perhaps time to question why these threats seem to threaten only one axis and not the other, perhaps as citizens of the world some wshould question the presence and illegality of US troops abroad, the palestine conflicts etc..... Maybe if logic was used by these policy makers, all this would not be happening.... Just a thought!!!!:8

[N380UA]

AA nor any other carrier is obligated to fly anybody. By buying a ticket, the carrier and the PAX are entering a contract. As any contract, this one is subject to condition which must be meet by both parties. One of those conditions is that a PAX may be of no threat to the operation of the flight. From being ever so slightly unruly al the way to terrorist intentions.
If AA had such suspicions then AA should have denied the flight to Mr. Ried on basis of a breached contract – they could even have kept the airfare!

[radeng]

N380UA said:

If AA had such suspicions then AA should have denied the flight to Mr. Ried on basis of a breached contract – they could even have kept the airfare!


That sounds interesting. As an airline, all you have to do is to cancel a flight because you suspect everybody on it of being a terrorist, and keep the cash. I wonder how long you could get away with that before a court found against you? (not intended to give a certain Dublin based airline ideas!)

More seriously, I suspect anyone denied the flight would have a good case in court unless the airline could prove the terrorist connection.

[BleriotXI]

I'm speculating, but there's a plausible reason I can think of why there have been no US carrier turn-arounds: these carriers are subject to US law by default and the US security will probably have the passengerlist before departure. For the US to get the foreign carrier's passenger list, a whole political dance has to be performed which likely delays the delivery of the list up to a point where the carrier has already departed.

I don't think the US security is favouring the US carriers, really. Just look at what the US govt has imposed on their citizens in the name of "national security", not to mention the scare tactics to make sure their citizens don't complain too much about losing their privacy step by step.

Just my two cents.

[Hunter58]

Paper Tiger

a) one-way ticket
b) no checked bags
c) no destination adress

That guy looks very much like a business traveler to me.

One-way-ticket because I don't know how long I am going to be there (assuming I have the necessary documentation). no chekce bags. Handluggage does the thing (I can live several weeks with hand luggage only provided someone give me a possibility to clean my clothes). No destination adress. No, since I have no idea where they are going to put me.

Or he is a pilot going to pick up a new airplane.

Pretty difficult to spot the 'terrorist' from all the legitimates with similar tickets.

[skydriller]

a) one-way ticket
b) no checked bags
c) no destination adress

That guy looks very much like a business traveler to me.


Yep, been there done that......

In fact as far as US immigration is concerned they really do want an address on the entry card.....and according to the immigration guy that gave me a hard time on a previous trip, any address is better than none - 'even if its not the truth' I asked him, 'yep', he replied, 'its a reason for me to prevent entry if you dont have a destination address'.........what does that say about the system?

Regards, SD..

[Pax Vobiscum]

I've experienced the 'no fixed abode' problem twice (both prior to 9/11) - once in transit through LAX (NAN-LHR) and once on holiday in the US when the first night was on the Capitol Limited. In both cases the immigration staff were a little bemused, but with good will on both sides, I had no real problem getting through.

I wonder what happens when a plane-load of cruise-liner pax arrives in Florida? To be fair, I guess immigration there are used to this problem, whereas my cases were (slightly) unusual.

[PAXboy]

Rather than start a new thread ... a British senior academic was on BBC Radio 4 'Today' complaining that he was turned back at JFK.

He had been to the USA many times, including taking part in post 9/11 ceremonies and, on this trip, had been invited by a university .

Oh yes, he is a Moslem. Still, at least the flight was not turned back and ruined everyone's day. And it is reassuring to see that the USA are keeping to their usual standards.

[Jordan D]

Indeed - link to the BBC Article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4684489.stm)

It seems even having dinner with QEII and ol' George W won't get you ... what is it, "good enough for the Secret Service isn't good enough for Customs and Immigration"

Jordan

[PaperTiger]

Dr Badawi said he was detained for six hours on Wednesday and that he was baffled and angry by the exclusion.

.....

when Dr Badawi was initially questioned his answers would not have been "in alignment" with his background check or documentation.

"He was questioned further and after a thorough interview he was deemed inadmissible."Mouth-breathing ICE moron encounters self-important A-rab religious leader.
Result: predictable.
Apology: you must be joking.

[PAXboy]

P-T: That was a very silly set of statements. You might have contributed to the debate but, first, 'quote' from an unnamed source. Then insult the man, without revealing why and on what you base this.

Lastly you say, "Apology: you must be joking." No one here has suggested or asked for such. So you are reacting against your own imagination. If you are reacting against Dr.Badawi requesting an apology, then you should have stated such.

[Jordan D]

PAXBoy - I think P-T was pointing out what US Customs & Immigration point of view is ... nothing more than that ... I can put bottom dollar on them no apologising to the Cleric, and it shows that they are a law unto themselves.

Jordan

[PaperTiger]

paxboy, the quote was from the link in the preceeding post. I apologise if that was too much for your attention span.

You are correct I was surmising what might have occurred based on reading between the lines in the story. If you have not experienced or witnessed such confrontations at a US Customs and Immigration post, then you should simply revel in your good fortune.

The US authorities have yet (to my knowledge) apologised for any of these err... misunderstandings wrt their 'secret' lists.

[PAXboy]

P-T, sure no problem. I have heard these stories of the way in which the US folks 'greet' some of their would be guests and it certainly is not something I wish to experience. The most I have had is my bags turned inside out.

I caertainly cannot imagine them apologising to anybody about anything for any reason!

[PaperTiger]

To be fair, the US Embassy in London has apologised to Dr. Badawi with assurances "it won't happen again". Uh-huh :rolleyes:

Of course, the DHS has not apologised or expained what happened except that it was a decision by a junior customs offcier.

So that's OK then :mad:

[Jordan D]

Junior? Shouldn't they refer these things up the chain when kicking people out/refusing them access? I'd like to think a decision like this was taken by somewhat who has a clue of what's going on ....

Jordan

[PaperTiger]

We'll never know. The DHS works in an atmosphere of almost total secrecy and unaccountability.

Whether a junior official does in fact have such authority, this is a cover-up for someone in a higher position, or they (DHS) simply have no idea what happened here is clearly "not in the public interest" to divulge :rolleyes:

[Middle Seat]

The DHS works in an atmosphere of almost total secrecy and unaccountability.

While I'm no fan of DHS and some of the dumb-ass things they've done here, this is at best a gross overstatement. All federal agencies are subject to accountability.

Time for a U.S. Civics Lesson!
Congress enacted the Inspector General Act in 1978 to ensure integrity and efficiency in government. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of Inspector General (OIG) in the Department of Homeland Security.

The Inspector General is responsible for conducting and supervising audits, investigations, and inspections relating to the programs and operations of the Department. The OIG is to examine, evaluate and, where necessary, critique these operations and activities, recommending ways for the Department to carry out its responsibilities in the most effective, efficient, and economical manner possible. In addition, OIG also works to prevent and detect fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and waste in such programs and operations.

Their public reports are available online at www.dhs.gov/oig. Clearly, some of the stuff may be classified, and are not posted for all to see. Zome of the available ones include:
-Irregularities in the Development of the Transportation Security Operations Center, OIG-05-18, March 2005
-Follow-Up Audit of Passenger and Baggage Screening Procedures at Domestic Airports (Unclassified Summary), OIG-05-16, March 2005
-Review of the Transportation Security Administration's Role in the Use and Dissemination of Airline Passenger Data, (Redacted), OIG-05-12, March 2005

etc. Some of these are fascinating reading. Others are a good cure for insomnia.

In addition, to the Inspector General, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. GAO is often called the "congressional watchdog" because it investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.

GAO gathers information to help Congress determine how well executive branch agencies are doing their jobs. GAO’s work routinely answers such basic questions as whether government programs are meeting their objectives or providing good service to the public. Ultimately, GAO ensures that government is accountable to the American people. To that end, GAO provides Senators and Representatives with the best information available to help them arrive at informed policy decisions--information that is accurate, timely, and balanced. GAO supports congressional oversight by:
-evaluating how well government policies and programs are working;
-auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently, effectively, and appropriately;
-investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities; and
-issuing legal decisions and opinions

With virtually the entire federal government subject to its review, GAO issues a steady stream of products--more than 1,000 reports and hundreds of testimonies by GAO officials each year.
(132 on DHS alone in the last year..and that's just the public ones available on line) You can find those at www. gao.gov

Some recent DHS reports include:
-Aviation Security: Secure Flight Development and Testing Under Way, but Risks Should Be Managed as System Is Further Developed, GAO-05-356, March 28, 2005
-International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved, GAO-05-663, July 15, 2005
-Aviation Security: Better Planning Needed to Optimize Deployment of Checked Baggage Screening Systems, GAO-05-896T, July 13, 2005

(GAO reports tend to be denser and more insomnia-curing than IG reports)

CLASS DISMISSED!
Please return to bureaucracy bashing mode. :)

[PaperTiger]

Please return to bureaucracy bashing mode.

Avec plaisir ! Although some of my best friends are bureaucrats. Well not best, perhaps :\

I am aware of the oversight provisions pertaining to the DHS, but do not accept that they are being satisfactorily (or even perfunctorily) applied. The GAO has been somewhat critical (the $2000 coffee, screening effectiveness etc.) but has not addressed the sharp end - how the DHS treats individuals, be they US citizens or 'furriners'. And I do not accept that such information is in all cases a matter of National Security and thus must be kept secret.

As to accountability, do you think we will ever know who decided what in the Dr. Badawi case, and what admonition(s) resulted ? I don't.