AA Captain Throws Secret Service Agent Off Flight
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hereford, UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
[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?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 44
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Either way it is an interesting twist and I hope it continues.
I had an arsehole transplant but the arsehole rejected me, which is why I write such rubbish
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
<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!
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Written by AA SLF...
>>>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?<<<
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.
>>>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?<<<
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 -
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 -
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Moderator
[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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
§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
(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
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Tin Can
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Sounds like a nice place to live!!!
Watch ya back!
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 -
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 -