Air Marshal Uses Gun to Subdue "Noncompliant" Pax
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Air Marshal Uses Gun to Subdue "Noncompliant" Pax
D.C. Man Arrested on Flight
Associated Press
Monday, November 12, 2001; 8:06 PM
A US Airways plane from Pittsburgh to Reagan Washington National Airport was diverted to Washington Dulles International Airport because of an unruly passenger, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday.
US Airways spokesman Richard Weintraub said air marshals on board Flight 969 ordered the plane to Dulles rather than National. Dulles is 40 miles farther outside the capital than Reagan National. The plane landed without incident at 5:08 p.m. EST, the FAA said.
The passenger, Raho Ortiz, 33, of Washington, was arrested, law enforcement and airport officials said. Law enforcement authorities said the man ignored warnings to stay in his seat on Flight 969. Passengers cannot leave their seats during the last 30 minutes of any flight into Reagan National under new security rules imposed when the airport reopened after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Another passenger, Robert Gorence, a former assistant U.S. attorney for New Mexico, said he saw a man "making his way toward the cockpit" when "an air marshal jumped up with his gun and subdued him."
Gorence, in a cell phone call from the plane to Albuquerque television station KOAT, said all the passengers "were ordered to put our hands above our heads, and then we were quickly diverted to Washington-Dulles."
Associated Press
Monday, November 12, 2001; 8:06 PM
A US Airways plane from Pittsburgh to Reagan Washington National Airport was diverted to Washington Dulles International Airport because of an unruly passenger, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday.
US Airways spokesman Richard Weintraub said air marshals on board Flight 969 ordered the plane to Dulles rather than National. Dulles is 40 miles farther outside the capital than Reagan National. The plane landed without incident at 5:08 p.m. EST, the FAA said.
The passenger, Raho Ortiz, 33, of Washington, was arrested, law enforcement and airport officials said. Law enforcement authorities said the man ignored warnings to stay in his seat on Flight 969. Passengers cannot leave their seats during the last 30 minutes of any flight into Reagan National under new security rules imposed when the airport reopened after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Another passenger, Robert Gorence, a former assistant U.S. attorney for New Mexico, said he saw a man "making his way toward the cockpit" when "an air marshal jumped up with his gun and subdued him."
Gorence, in a cell phone call from the plane to Albuquerque television station KOAT, said all the passengers "were ordered to put our hands above our heads, and then we were quickly diverted to Washington-Dulles."
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like a bit of an overreaction to me, personally I think the no stand up within 30 mins of landing rule to be mindlessly stupid - government trying to look like they are doing something when they are clueless. Of course the pax should have been jumped for non-compliance with crew or air marshal orders but making all of the passengers sit with their hands on top of their heads and diverting to IAD - a bit over the top. Sometimes blind adherence to silly government regulations just makes things worse - hard to convince people to fly when this kind of cr@p is happening!
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree...the order for the pax to have their hands over their heads is OTT.
However, if language is an issue...
In a letter to the editor of the Naples Daily News recently, a reader commented on a proposal that was made to print another issue in Spanish.
He said "No Way", but if you must, why not print the "Ploice Beat" section in Espanol?
Makes one think, eh?
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]
However, if language is an issue...
In a letter to the editor of the Naples Daily News recently, a reader commented on a proposal that was made to print another issue in Spanish.
He said "No Way", but if you must, why not print the "Ploice Beat" section in Espanol?
Makes one think, eh?
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the day they started to talk about air marshals, I have had mixed feeling about it. Mainly because I`ve been wondering how these officers are recruited. Are they former law enforcement officers, people with a military background, or have whoever is responsible for putting them onboard our airplanes been smart enough to take advantage of the expertise on air safety all the pilots made redundand after Sept. 11th. could bring to the table. If handling a gun is what it is all about - you certainly do not need a professional airman/woman. But if you want people with inside knowledge of safety in the air, may be the responsible people should look at the flight crew community. They might even find candidates with both qualifications, law enforcement and experience from security and safety in the air.
When a person heads forward "to the cockpit", they are also going towards the First Class lavatory-did the guy have to go really bad? What if the last food you ate gives you the you-know-what?
This country has so many hysterical procedures, it is embarassing-it was enough going to Europe years ago and noticing the crap from MTV which gets exported from these shores.
Is the requirement to be seated into DCA strictly an FAA reg, or is it from the Executive or Legislative Branch of government?
We should now market any flights into DC as "Conair, Part Two", a continuation of the movie which featured one of the governments' convict flights, normally flown by B-727s, and force our passengers to wear the orange coveralls.
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
This country has so many hysterical procedures, it is embarassing-it was enough going to Europe years ago and noticing the crap from MTV which gets exported from these shores.
Is the requirement to be seated into DCA strictly an FAA reg, or is it from the Executive or Legislative Branch of government?
We should now market any flights into DC as "Conair, Part Two", a continuation of the movie which featured one of the governments' convict flights, normally flown by B-727s, and force our passengers to wear the orange coveralls.
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Sensible, I agree. I had to go back and read the opening post on this thread over again. It is hard to judge what actually happend onboard that flight from what I`m reading, but it gives me a sneaky feeling that we are experiencing some sort of a Hollywood style of approach to a serious problem. And as a cockpit professional, I think this is something we do not need. Not at all. I would love to know more about the selection process of air marshals. International aviation is a professional environment. Flight crews are all well aware of that. We are trained,tested and screened several times a year to make sure that the quality is up to a professional level. We need to know that everyone involved in despatching a flight is a professional; the engineers, the guy from the fueling company, the cleaners, the loaders and... the air marshal. An aircraft at 35000 ft. is no place for "trigger happy" people. Came to think of it; what is the legal side to this. Can a captain refuse to carry an air marshal? I`m just asking.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is no-one else concerned that the sky marshall 'ordered' the aircraft to divert? I don't know what the rules say over there but the final say-so in Europe lies with the captain of the aircraft. Did the sky marshall really order the flight to divert, or did he request or recommend it? Is a sky marshall qualified to make decisions about weather and airport facilities? Or is America in constant sunshine, with no need for NOTAMs or airfield info services?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pandora, my understanding is that if any passenger leaves his or her seat in the last 30 minutes before a plane is to land at DCA, the plane must divert to IAD. That supposedly is the standard rule. The rule supposedly also requires no leaving your seat in the first 30 minutes of a flight to DCA, which means that shuttle passengers (LGA-DCA) would never leave their seat given the one hour flight time.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, it seems that those responsible for airline security in the US have got their priorities wrong. The "no standing up within 30 mins of landing" rule an over-reaction to the present situation to the present situation, especially if more fundamental issues are not being addressed. Is it REALLY true that luggage going into the hold isn't X-rayed?? I heard it on the news, but I'm having trouble believing it, because it seems such an obvious and fundamental point.
On a related point, a friend of mine was travelling in the US on business a couple of weeks ago, and was about to fly home (don't know which airport) when a gentleman of middle eastern appearance was asked to leave the aircraft (I don't know why - whether he was actually misbehaving, or whether as a result of hysteria by fellow pax/crew). He was taken off, BUT HIS LUGGAGE WASN'T! That would be unthinkable in Europe.
So my unhappy and frankly rather nervous friend had a rather uncomfortable flight back to the UK (have to admit, he's a braver soul than me - I think I'd have got off!)
Surely if a pax behaves/looks like a serious security threat, you take his luggage off too? Not to do so seems to me to be asking for another Lockerbie.
On a related point, a friend of mine was travelling in the US on business a couple of weeks ago, and was about to fly home (don't know which airport) when a gentleman of middle eastern appearance was asked to leave the aircraft (I don't know why - whether he was actually misbehaving, or whether as a result of hysteria by fellow pax/crew). He was taken off, BUT HIS LUGGAGE WASN'T! That would be unthinkable in Europe.
So my unhappy and frankly rather nervous friend had a rather uncomfortable flight back to the UK (have to admit, he's a braver soul than me - I think I'd have got off!)
Surely if a pax behaves/looks like a serious security threat, you take his luggage off too? Not to do so seems to me to be asking for another Lockerbie.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel very uncomfortable discussing Skymarshall operations on an open forum.
Perhaps those of you who are questioning the actions of this particular individual should think about the following.
1. No Skymarshall wants to reveal his presence or identity until absolutely necessary.
2. Terrorist hijackers don't usually operate alone...although they may pretend to be.
Those of you with half a brain and keeping in mind some of your basic security training should know what I'm saying.
Let's just drop it now folks.
Perhaps those of you who are questioning the actions of this particular individual should think about the following.
1. No Skymarshall wants to reveal his presence or identity until absolutely necessary.
2. Terrorist hijackers don't usually operate alone...although they may pretend to be.
Those of you with half a brain and keeping in mind some of your basic security training should know what I'm saying.
Let's just drop it now folks.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the poor guy was just going to the toilet, I can just imagine it - "FREEZE MOTHERF*CKER".
Don't think I'd feel safe as a passenger with skymarshalls on board. At least you could spot them, they'll be the ones with the ten gallon hats and spurs.
Don't think I'd feel safe as a passenger with skymarshalls on board. At least you could spot them, they'll be the ones with the ten gallon hats and spurs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9611/0001.html
... SENATE AIDE ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT. Raho Ortiz, a Senate Indian Affairs Committee
aide, was charged with the malicious wounding of Christopher Stearns, a House ... www.co.arlington.va.us/cmo/digest/07-24-98.dig.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
He's a troublemaker. John Wayne was right.
... SENATE AIDE ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT. Raho Ortiz, a Senate Indian Affairs Committee
aide, was charged with the malicious wounding of Christopher Stearns, a House ... www.co.arlington.va.us/cmo/digest/07-24-98.dig.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
He's a troublemaker. John Wayne was right.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SFB
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The measures taken by the FAA make absolutely no sense at all. I personally witnessed several trucks pass through a gate at TPA without being searched this past weekend. All the driver did was run a card through a scanner and the gate opened. No checks of the people on the truck or its contents. However, we have 2X the National Guard troops doing nothing at the passenger checkpoints. Its time that the FAA got out of the security business and handed it over to someone better, preferably law enforcement or military. As far as sky marshalls are concerned, I like the idea and wish I had them on my flights, regardless of the stereotypes applied by others. I'm not sure where the 30 minute rule came from, but I'll feel safer landing at DCA this weekend.
Steve
Steve
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Authorities did not want to reopen DCA to airline ops. We pleaded with them to reconsider. The FAA came up with a plan to make the Authorities somewhat comfortable with the idea. Now we have limited, yet absolutely vital operations at DCA. Yes, no pax may stand within 30 minutes of DCA. This is FAA law. This is thoroughly briefed to the pax...they will not be surprised.
The Air Transportation System is not back to normal. Manpower is not available to address every item on the list. You have to work with the system through these difficult times until the less important items can be addressed.
The Air Transportation System is not back to normal. Manpower is not available to address every item on the list. You have to work with the system through these difficult times until the less important items can be addressed.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None your post seems to miss the point - the 30 min rule is cr@p! We here in the US keep being asked to accept silly cr@p in lieu of real security actions in an effort to placate us or the ever nebulous "authorities". This is simple. Make security screening a law enforcement funtion - pure and simple - backing up poorly trained and ineffective contract labor with National Guard troops still leaves you with ineffective and poorly trained people doing the screening! Develop real responses to the challenges to running DCA - closing it down is not an option - threatening all pax is not an option - use your heads and develop a real solution that works not some mindless rote routine that doesn't work and doesn't make things any safer! 