PDA

View Full Version : Air France Diverted by "No-Fly" List


JohnMcGhie
27th Apr 2009, 11:29
I thought we were over this silliness? Apparently an aircraft that was NOT bound for the USA was refused permission to over-fly its airspace because it was carrying a passenger whose name appeared on the Department of Homeland Insecurity's "no-fly" list!

'No fly' list journalist forces Air France flight diversion from US airspace (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/no-fly-list-journalist-forces-flight-diversion-20090427-ajt9.html)

llondel
27th Apr 2009, 13:45
Interesting from the article that AF had not sent the passenger manifest to the US authorities and yet they were still aware of the person on board. One has to ask how they got hold of the information (OK, I know, they probably have open access to the records of all airlines that fly to the US and trawl them all, whether the flight is to the US or not).

nicolai
27th Apr 2009, 15:59
Hernando Calvo Ospina's own account [1] (http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=922&Itemid=1) of the events.
The question arises, how did the USA know he was on board? Air France shared the passenger manifest with the Mexican Government, but not with the US Government. So the Mexicans told the Americans. (Daily Telegraph, UK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5217186/US-authorites-divert-Air-France-flight-carrying-no-fly-journalist-to-Mexico.html)
So it now seems that the USA may now withdraw overflight permission, for arbitrary reasons, for a flight which has already taken off and planned a route through US airspace, causing an unplanned diversion with all the attendant costs and crew, ops and passenger inconvenience. A most unreliable country to deal with.

[1] I have not verified independently that this is actually him writing.

FrequentSLF
27th Apr 2009, 16:19
Last sentence of the article summarize everything


How far will the U.S. authorities' paranoia go?

FCS Explorer
27th Apr 2009, 16:36
(OK, I know, they [probably] have open access to the records of all airlines that fly to the US and trawl them all, whether the flight is to the US or not).

uncle sam knows it all....:ouch:

fox niner
27th Apr 2009, 17:29
OK, here's my 2 cents:
One of our crew didn't have time to renew his USA-crew visa. So he couldn't fly to the US, and crew sceduling knew this. Soooo they put him on a flight from Amsterdam to South America. Problem solved????

NO.

The flight went through NEW YORK Oceanic airspace, nearest point to the contiguous USA about 2000 miles. Refused entry, had to fly all around the damn Oceanic Area because of this!
I thought the Atlantic was International Airspace but apparently I was mistaken.

cockney steve
27th Apr 2009, 18:38
I certainly don't agree with the US of A's handling of this matter, but one has to take on board that they have a perfect right to excersise their ridiculous paranoia over their own airspace.

Effectively, they're saying "Aviators in distress, carrying a persona-non-grata, will NOT be afforded a safe haven diversion.


Silly buggers could better spend their energies protecting their citizens' shipping off Somalia.

but, what do I know? just a cynical old Brit unlikely to waste my currency visiting a country that really doesn't want "furriners"

Mark in CA
27th Apr 2009, 18:38
Here's the inside scoop on this plane diversion:

progreso-weekly.com - The criminalization of journalism (http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=922&Itemid=1)

pax2908
27th Apr 2009, 19:59
If the same person needs to travel again between Europe and South America, what are going to be his options?

QCM
27th Apr 2009, 21:22
Maybe they saved this journalist life by helping him from catching the porcin flu:hmm::hmm:???

brickhistory
28th Apr 2009, 00:01
Silly buggers could better spend their energies protecting their citizens' shipping off Somalia.

but, what do I know? just a cynical old Brit unlikely to waste my currency visiting a country that really doesn't want "furriners"

You start letting the Ghurkas who served your Queen and win the VC into your country and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

edited to add: doing a little research on Sr. Ospina turns up his views match pretty well with some nasty types in Columbia who are trying to topple the government. And kidnap people as a sideline occupation.. Wonder if there's a connection?

Nah, surely he's just an innocent man Uncle Sam decided was soooo important that it was worth the hassle of this.

Overdrive
28th Apr 2009, 00:08
You start letting the Ghurkas who served your Queen and win the VC into your country and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.



I second that. I'd also add, let them in instead of who-knows-how-many criminals.




(I'm just waiting for us to roll over as usual to take the latest lot from France).

Roger Sofarover
28th Apr 2009, 03:50
Brick

You always seem to take any comment aimed at the US government as a personal attack against you, resulting in many of your arguments being a 'tit for tat'.

Cockney Steve said

I certainly don't agree with the US of A's handling of this matter, but one has to take on board that they have a perfect right to excersise their ridiculous paranoia over their own airspace. A 100% accurate assessment

Effectively, they're saying "Aviators in distress, carrying a persona-non-grata, will NOT be afforded a safe haven diversion. We don't know but that seems entirely plausable.


Silly buggers could better spend their energies protecting their citizens' shipping off Somalia. Now Steve is on your side here Brick, saying the Gov would serve YOU better by protecting IT's citizens. You are one of those Brick

but, what do I know? just a cynical old Brit unlikely to waste my currency visiting a country that really doesn't want "furriners" That is the message that current immigration policy into the states seems to send.

You reply with

You start letting the Ghurkas who served your Queen and win the VC into your country and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

I am sure that Cockney Steve like the rest of we Brits is utterly appalled at the British Governments stand on this. There is an almost unanimous feeling amongst the population to let the Ghurkas in. Sadly it is not our decision it is that useless bunch of to****s we have for government that we pay ridiculous amounts of money to. Now if you want to call them or their policies cr*p, then do so, be my guest, I understand you are having a go at the government and not little old me.

edited to add: doing a little research on Sr. Ospina turns up his views match pretty well with some nasty types in Columbia who are trying to topple the government. And kidnap people as a sideline occupation.. Wonder if there's a connection? Freedom of speech Brick!! Is he actively involved in criminal activities with this group? Or as a journalist does he see the side of people that believe they are oppressed. He is certainly not a terrorist or a Taliban. You are making ground fit map, finding any excuse to justify a ridiculous decision that cost a major 'Client' of USA plc a lot of money and hundreds of passengers a major inconvenience.

Nah, surely he's just an innocent man Uncle Sam decided was soooo important that it was worth the hassle of this. Like the 9 or 10 year old boy a while back that they would not let board a flight because he had the wrong surname.

Stop taking it personal. Surely you don't agree with every single decision your Government and administration make.

belfrybat
28th Apr 2009, 04:25
From the article:

Again in the air, and preparing for another four hours of travel, a man who identified himself as the copilot came to me...
"The captain wants to sleep, that's why I came here," he said...
Captain asleep, CP in the back. Is this normal procedure, who's watching the controls?

vapilot2004
28th Apr 2009, 04:38
Captain asleep, CP in the back. Is this normal procedure, who's watching the controls?

......George?

Roger Sofarover
28th Apr 2009, 04:47
Captain asleep, CP in the back. Is this normal procedure, who's watching the controls? Perhaps if they are double crewed the other crew is in the front, and the Capt referred to is in the flightcrew bunk and has kicked the FO out to talk to the pax. The FO will then go and brief the operating crew.

Or if no double crew then as someone has mentioned 'George'. He flies more accurately than a pilot you know;) Or maybe the Capt didn't want to alarm people with his presence or he does not like interaction with the passengers. Whatever, a non event, don't worry.

unstable load
28th Apr 2009, 05:20
I thought the crew was not supposed to mingle with the riff-raff in the back for security reasons?
As for the diversion of the flight, it is the USA's right to do so, but for an overflying flight it does seem a bit much to me. Still, I am sure there is more to it than simply that.

unstable load
28th Apr 2009, 05:24
I thought the crew was not supposed to mingle with the riff-raff in the back for security reasons?

GGR
28th Apr 2009, 05:45
As many of you will know the Ghurka regiment have always served the UK for many years and a kinder more respect deserving, hard working, honest people I have yet to meet! Makes me ashamed to be British.
GGR

merlinxx
28th Apr 2009, 06:10
If the aircraft was over International Waters and not over US Territorial Waters, then they have NO RIGHT in International Law to restrict operations.:ugh::ugh::ugh: AF & French Gov't should go directly to ICAO in the first instance, as this could infringe the agreements as per ICAO Doc7300:=

Jofm5
28th Apr 2009, 06:27
I thought we were over this silliness? Apparently an aircraft that was NOT bound for the USA was refused permission to over-fly its airspace because it was carrying a passenger whose name appeared on the Department of Homeland Insecurity's "no-fly" list!



Forgive my ignorance in this but why is this unreasonable ?

If the good ole USA dont want him in the country as they consider him a security risk then its not unreasonable to take the stance that he may be a security risk flying over the USA.

Given that he knows he is banned from the USA - he may take the view that he could utilise an over flying flight for whatever means. I am not saying this guy is any way in the risk factor that would - but I would not expect any agency to sit there and assess each and every passenger and their risk. A blanket NO is the easiest and most efficient course of action.

As tough as it is its the world we live in nowadays - the best we can expect is to either get the information earlier to route/fuel the flight appropriately or bump the pax accordingly.

Roger Sofarover
28th Apr 2009, 07:32
Jofm5

Given that he knows he is banned from the USA

Did he know?

He was flying to Mexico, not the USA, being banned is a thing normally done at immigration, not at 38 000 ft


the best we can expect is to either get the information earlier to route/fuel the flight appropriately or bump the pax accordingly.

Well Air France didn't know

So now everybody better send pax manifests to the USA if they are going to go within 2000 miles of the place and then the US that has it's own secret list of people can tell aircraft to divert wherever and whenever they like. What a good way to pi*s off people with European carriers and encourage them to use only US ones. Very creative.

Snifferdog
28th Apr 2009, 09:54
Anyway it's heartening to see the good ol' USofA doesn't need unwanted foreigners overflying their airspace to scare the crap out of its citizens. They can use one of the Presidents' fleet of 747's. Shame it wasn't actually Air Force One! :}

brickhistory
28th Apr 2009, 12:58
roger,

taking it personally


is not quite accurate although the instant acceptance of what was essentially a political essay and not a factual piece of journalism does raise my blood pressure a bit.

Given that the author was the person in question and has a known and stated agenda, it's still accepted as factual.

As noted previously, when is the last time you saw flightdeck crew mingling with the SLF?

I don't know the rules for international airspace, but denying transit of said international airspace, regardless of whomever the controlling agency, doesn't seem logical for an aircrew to follow. Approaching a nation's FIR is a different matter, but the point mentioned in the 'story' seems a bit far from the border for it to be binding. But, I am not an ICAO expert, so that's a maybe.

How does the author know that Air France had to book hotels for half the passengers? Did it?

There is much about my government that I don't care for. TSA being but one. But having been in one of the buildings that went 'boom' on 9/11, I'm not a big fan of being lumped in with terrorists as the writer claims.

I also, however, don't have a better solution to keeping further buildings from going 'boom' from real terrorists. Do you?

That said, my point about Britain's treatment of the Gurkha VC winner stands. Every 'furriner' should ensure his own country is order before having a go at mine. To expect such cheap shots to go unanswered seems a bit arrogant.

And, as an American, I certainly know arrogance, right?

Until then, Mr. Ospina can write his political fiction all he wants. It's up to intelligent readers to accept it wholeheartedly or not. But as long as it's anti-American, it seems to be the former. I will offer counter-examples as often as I can.

airship
28th Apr 2009, 13:47
Anyway it's heartening to see the good ol' USofA doesn't need unwanted foreigners overflying their airspace to scare the crap out of its citizens. They can use one of the Presidents' fleet of 747's. Shame it wasn't actually Air Force One! :} Whole-heartedly concur with the sentiments expressed above (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8021830.stm) :ok:

This latest version of "Airforce 1" can now be added to the long list of other 'self-inflicted, terror-engendering' home-productions not forgetting the all-time great Hollywood classics (and how they ruled US foreign policy for decades):

A Nightmare on Elm Street
Christine ('foreign car imports')
The Red Menace ('foreign and home-grown' communist sympathizers)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('foreign and super-natural' communists)
Red Dawn (everything plus teenage sexual innuendo)
U-571 (how a US Navy submarine crew 'wins' WWII, all by themselves...)

;)