AA Captain Throws Secret Service Agent Off Flight
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: BAH HUMBUG
Age: 64
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the best place for weapons is the hold but surely that then leads us to need full vetting for ramp staff. It could be very embarrasing if the local reporter gets through security on dodgy paperwork and helps himself to said weapons.
Is there a fail-safe method of transporting weapons without risk of unauthorised removal.
Is there a fail-safe method of transporting weapons without risk of unauthorised removal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In South Africa, firearms belonging to pax would be taken from them at the security checkpoint and stowed on the flight deck. You get them back from baggage services on arrival.
Of course, you then have a problem if one of the pilots turns psycho ... and that's happened on a number of occasions!
Of course, you then have a problem if one of the pilots turns psycho ... and that's happened on a number of occasions!
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goober ner,
I like that.
After this a$$hole's insensitivity as evidenced by his posts on this thread, I suggest all ppruners immediately upon noting Goobner has posted a reply to any topic they refrain from posting on that topic.
Maybe then the moderators will show him the door as they did to the dear departed "CaptEd".
I like that.
After this a$$hole's insensitivity as evidenced by his posts on this thread, I suggest all ppruners immediately upon noting Goobner has posted a reply to any topic they refrain from posting on that topic.
Maybe then the moderators will show him the door as they did to the dear departed "CaptEd".
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too am an airline pilot with over 25,000 hours, and I agree with Guvnor, regardless of where he is coming from on this point. I was always willing to have an armed law enforcement officer on board before Sep 11 and would be even more happy to have these gentlemen on board now. If some crazy with a boxcutter gets to his feet, he is not long for this world and that suits me fine.
People who fear guns and want security no matter the cost should not be in the aviation biusiness. Let them go do something else that does not cause them to have sweaty palms.
Despite the beefed up security, there are people still getting on board airliners with weapons, and they will always be able to do so. But when they have tried to carry out their nefarious plot, they have been stopped, using vigilance and common sense. Why not encourage that? The last guy to take weapons on board had two loaded pistols, but please note, he did not intend to use them, and was in fact not a threat to anyone. It proves that the idea of 100% security is a joke, and we need a more common sense approach. Taking nail files off flight crew is the answer? Get a grip!
The real reason for the 9-11 disaster was a failure of Intelligence, not a failure of security. There are reports that several individuals and some agencies had alerted the various aviation authorities to the possibility of a terrorist attack using airliners as weapons, prior to Sep 11. no doubt the FAA was informed and it would be reasonable to assume that they have experts on terrorism on staff. Yet they did not (I assume, since I cannot know for sure) inform the airlines, nor modify their instructions for crews to cooperate with hijackers. To the best of my knowledge they still have not done so.
And it appears to me that from what has been posted here, most of you (but not Guvnor) are buying into this idea that it is the honest, responsible and law abiding people we need to watch out for, making their lives as miserable as possible when all they want to do is fly, and pay our salaries.
Have I slipped into a parallel universe or something?
People who fear guns and want security no matter the cost should not be in the aviation biusiness. Let them go do something else that does not cause them to have sweaty palms.
Despite the beefed up security, there are people still getting on board airliners with weapons, and they will always be able to do so. But when they have tried to carry out their nefarious plot, they have been stopped, using vigilance and common sense. Why not encourage that? The last guy to take weapons on board had two loaded pistols, but please note, he did not intend to use them, and was in fact not a threat to anyone. It proves that the idea of 100% security is a joke, and we need a more common sense approach. Taking nail files off flight crew is the answer? Get a grip!
The real reason for the 9-11 disaster was a failure of Intelligence, not a failure of security. There are reports that several individuals and some agencies had alerted the various aviation authorities to the possibility of a terrorist attack using airliners as weapons, prior to Sep 11. no doubt the FAA was informed and it would be reasonable to assume that they have experts on terrorism on staff. Yet they did not (I assume, since I cannot know for sure) inform the airlines, nor modify their instructions for crews to cooperate with hijackers. To the best of my knowledge they still have not done so.
And it appears to me that from what has been posted here, most of you (but not Guvnor) are buying into this idea that it is the honest, responsible and law abiding people we need to watch out for, making their lives as miserable as possible when all they want to do is fly, and pay our salaries.
Have I slipped into a parallel universe or something?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guvnor
There's more behind the scenes stuff that you, and others here, will never know about. The AA folks on here will hear about it through other channels. (Clue, AA supported the Captain's decision).
Fair to say though that if one can't "find" the agent in the terminal (and make full use your alleged 75 minutes between departures) for a pre board check, an announcment along the lines "Would the secret service agent travelling to Dallas, continuing on to Waco to guard President Bush, please make themselves known to the gate agents at gate XYZ to complete new paperwork" may not necessarily be in their best interest.
Too bad you keep calling for the race card. I do not know the Captain personally. You are mistaken to second guess him/her, unless you have walked in his/her shoes (notice how you ASSUME it's a HE!).
Bottom line, if the paperwork DOESN'T jive, the first thing the FAA says at the hearing (assuming one makes it that far) is "Why did you depart when the paperwork clearly was incorrect?".
Guv, you can pontificate all you want. It seems this WAS a genuine SNAFU. The benefit of any doubt should fall to the Captain. Remember, the Captain responsibly flew over a hundred people, SAFELY, to DFW.
At the time, the SS agent understood "it was nothing personal".
When you start to run your airline you too will discover that nothing's ever quite as starightforward, or black and white, as it seems.
Happy new year.
ps AA folks should realise there's more to it when "AA supports its Captain!".
There's more behind the scenes stuff that you, and others here, will never know about. The AA folks on here will hear about it through other channels. (Clue, AA supported the Captain's decision).
Fair to say though that if one can't "find" the agent in the terminal (and make full use your alleged 75 minutes between departures) for a pre board check, an announcment along the lines "Would the secret service agent travelling to Dallas, continuing on to Waco to guard President Bush, please make themselves known to the gate agents at gate XYZ to complete new paperwork" may not necessarily be in their best interest.
Too bad you keep calling for the race card. I do not know the Captain personally. You are mistaken to second guess him/her, unless you have walked in his/her shoes (notice how you ASSUME it's a HE!).
Bottom line, if the paperwork DOESN'T jive, the first thing the FAA says at the hearing (assuming one makes it that far) is "Why did you depart when the paperwork clearly was incorrect?".
Guv, you can pontificate all you want. It seems this WAS a genuine SNAFU. The benefit of any doubt should fall to the Captain. Remember, the Captain responsibly flew over a hundred people, SAFELY, to DFW.
At the time, the SS agent understood "it was nothing personal".
When you start to run your airline you too will discover that nothing's ever quite as starightforward, or black and white, as it seems.
Happy new year.
ps AA folks should realise there's more to it when "AA supports its Captain!".
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actions of the American Airlines pilot are being defended by the some of the pilots at Continental Airlines, based on comments posted in their Forum. To the extent that the American pilot was unsatisfied with the agents paperwork and his possession of a gun, the pilot is justified, but if the pilots actions were motivated by a paranoia against Arabs, he is wrong.
Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post, believes American has an image problem, because they refused a Secret Service agent, yet let Richard (?) Reid on their airplane. King's question: how come Reid appeared a more acceptable risk than a bona fide Secret Service agent.
George Bush meanwhile claims to be 'madder than heck'.
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post, believes American has an image problem, because they refused a Secret Service agent, yet let Richard (?) Reid on their airplane. King's question: how come Reid appeared a more acceptable risk than a bona fide Secret Service agent.
George Bush meanwhile claims to be 'madder than heck'.
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
[Ummm, Dallas Dude - I don't think you read the various articles properly. For 75 minutes, the USSS agent was 'run through the hoops' - ie he was there - and the departure of the flight was delayed. There was therefore no need to 'put out a call for him' as you claim.
75 minutes is more than sufficient time for the paperwork to be sorted out (which I am informed merely required the validation of AA - in the same way that a passenger ticket would under similar circumstances); and for AA Security to contact the USSS. I am told that AA Security was not even informed of the situation; which is in itself rather strange as the agent was getting rather upset with AA by that time - having been well and truly messed around by them.
As for AA supporting the pilot - don't you think that might have more to do with them needing to keep the APA on side when they are asking for salary 'givebacks'?
A very happy, prosperous - and above all, safe - 2002 to you and your colleagues as well.
75 minutes is more than sufficient time for the paperwork to be sorted out (which I am informed merely required the validation of AA - in the same way that a passenger ticket would under similar circumstances); and for AA Security to contact the USSS. I am told that AA Security was not even informed of the situation; which is in itself rather strange as the agent was getting rather upset with AA by that time - having been well and truly messed around by them.
As for AA supporting the pilot - don't you think that might have more to do with them needing to keep the APA on side when they are asking for salary 'givebacks'?
A very happy, prosperous - and above all, safe - 2002 to you and your colleagues as well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, I just can't resist this. Thanks to Paper Tiger for posting this over on the North American forum...
[quote]Meanwhile, from the other end of the spectrum (sorry, can't find a link)...
Peninsula Daily News
PORT ANGELES - A Horizon Air flight was delayed Thursday afternoon at William R. Fairchild International Airport when airline employees initially refused to let a California woman carrying nitroglycerin pills board the plane.
The incident began when airline workers questioned 74-year-old Lita Bowman on what she was carrying before she went through metal detectors said Bill Bennett, a relative. Bowman pulled out her heart medication and asked, "What about my nitro?" Bennett said.
The woman has a heart condition that requires her to carry the pills. When a doctor behind her in line explained the pills are heart medication, Bowman was asked for a prescription. Bowman's son-in-law, Dennis Dreith, said he was told FAA regulations prohibit passengers from carrying the pills aboard aircraft. "They told me, 'We have to do it this way'" Dreith said.
While airline employees were trying to stop Bowman, children were running back and forth through the security checkpoint, and some people were walking through unchecked Dreith said. Terrorists couldn't have dreamed up a better diversion. If she had walked through the metal detector without saying anything, no one would have known. Somebody should have had the presence of mind to let her through".
The doctor explained to security personnel that Bowman must carry the pills on her person, and Bowman even took the pills out of the bottle, which had her name on it, to show the medicine is not explosive. Eventually, Horizon Air employees allowed Bowman to board the aircraft, but relatives called the incident harassment and the workers overzealous. Horizon Air public affairs manager Cheryl Temple downplayed the incident, calling it "very minor".
Officials at Olympic Medical Center in Port Angeles said nitroglycerin is prescribed as a heart medication. Nitroglycerin pills dilate blood vessels to the heart and help prevent chest pains caused by a heart condition, said Olympic Medical Center spokeswoman Rhonda LoPresti. The pills are not explosive, she said.
(my emphasis) <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Meanwhile, from the other end of the spectrum (sorry, can't find a link)...
Peninsula Daily News
PORT ANGELES - A Horizon Air flight was delayed Thursday afternoon at William R. Fairchild International Airport when airline employees initially refused to let a California woman carrying nitroglycerin pills board the plane.
The incident began when airline workers questioned 74-year-old Lita Bowman on what she was carrying before she went through metal detectors said Bill Bennett, a relative. Bowman pulled out her heart medication and asked, "What about my nitro?" Bennett said.
The woman has a heart condition that requires her to carry the pills. When a doctor behind her in line explained the pills are heart medication, Bowman was asked for a prescription. Bowman's son-in-law, Dennis Dreith, said he was told FAA regulations prohibit passengers from carrying the pills aboard aircraft. "They told me, 'We have to do it this way'" Dreith said.
While airline employees were trying to stop Bowman, children were running back and forth through the security checkpoint, and some people were walking through unchecked Dreith said. Terrorists couldn't have dreamed up a better diversion. If she had walked through the metal detector without saying anything, no one would have known. Somebody should have had the presence of mind to let her through".
The doctor explained to security personnel that Bowman must carry the pills on her person, and Bowman even took the pills out of the bottle, which had her name on it, to show the medicine is not explosive. Eventually, Horizon Air employees allowed Bowman to board the aircraft, but relatives called the incident harassment and the workers overzealous. Horizon Air public affairs manager Cheryl Temple downplayed the incident, calling it "very minor".
Officials at Olympic Medical Center in Port Angeles said nitroglycerin is prescribed as a heart medication. Nitroglycerin pills dilate blood vessels to the heart and help prevent chest pains caused by a heart condition, said Olympic Medical Center spokeswoman Rhonda LoPresti. The pills are not explosive, she said.
(my emphasis) <hr></blockquote>
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Gooberner,
What's all this "I am told" cr@p? Who would (could) tell you anything?
I repeat...let us know which bash you will be attending so this can be discussed further in person...
Loser...
[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]</p>
What's all this "I am told" cr@p? Who would (could) tell you anything?
I repeat...let us know which bash you will be attending so this can be discussed further in person...
Loser...
[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guvnor
Think about this for one minute. Your information and conclusion on this event comes from; a) a journalist trying to have a story printed, which is certainly MORE likely to receive the editor's thumbs up if there's a juicy "race Angle" (YOU at least understand that); b) assumptions by you that AA is a racist
airline; c) that AA only supported the Captain because they don't wish to upset APA in case AA needs to ask for salary givebacks.
You only have a few hours left this year to realise you may be barking up the wrong tree here.
At least the other AA folks on pprune have had a good laugh at your supposed inside knowledge.
Airlines are under somewhat of a siege mantality at the moment, including AA (if we hadn't had any bad luck this year, we wouldn't have had any luck at all!). You might suspect that we're all sitting around praying for these people to go mess with someone else. The reality is that we don't want ANYONE else to be targeted. We just want these incidents to end, period.
As this incident blows over (Don Carty is a personal friend of George Bush and if there was even the slightest doubt that this Captain had caused ANY embarrasment to that relationship the individual would be hung, drawn and quartered) REAL airline pilots will have a chance to put themselves in this Captains shoes and decide what they would have done, based on the information available to the Captain, AT THE TIME. Note, real airline pilots know that Captains and other crewmembers actually have many duties to perform and don't just sit around for 75 minutes looking to pick holes in E-2 paperwork.
I wasn't there and neither were you. If you were I hope you'd have erred on the side of caution. A cavalier attitude right now WILL end in more tears!
Repent guv, and all will be forgiven (at least for 2001!).
Think about this for one minute. Your information and conclusion on this event comes from; a) a journalist trying to have a story printed, which is certainly MORE likely to receive the editor's thumbs up if there's a juicy "race Angle" (YOU at least understand that); b) assumptions by you that AA is a racist
airline; c) that AA only supported the Captain because they don't wish to upset APA in case AA needs to ask for salary givebacks.
You only have a few hours left this year to realise you may be barking up the wrong tree here.
At least the other AA folks on pprune have had a good laugh at your supposed inside knowledge.
Airlines are under somewhat of a siege mantality at the moment, including AA (if we hadn't had any bad luck this year, we wouldn't have had any luck at all!). You might suspect that we're all sitting around praying for these people to go mess with someone else. The reality is that we don't want ANYONE else to be targeted. We just want these incidents to end, period.
As this incident blows over (Don Carty is a personal friend of George Bush and if there was even the slightest doubt that this Captain had caused ANY embarrasment to that relationship the individual would be hung, drawn and quartered) REAL airline pilots will have a chance to put themselves in this Captains shoes and decide what they would have done, based on the information available to the Captain, AT THE TIME. Note, real airline pilots know that Captains and other crewmembers actually have many duties to perform and don't just sit around for 75 minutes looking to pick holes in E-2 paperwork.
I wasn't there and neither were you. If you were I hope you'd have erred on the side of caution. A cavalier attitude right now WILL end in more tears!
Repent guv, and all will be forgiven (at least for 2001!).
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh heh,
You know, when earlier in ppruning experience I thought that guv was just odd and maybe a little over eager. I kind of liked reading his posts, very much like I used to enjoy reading newspaper reports of airline incidents.
Well, as I matured and my career progressed and I learned more and more about how the press really reports and how wildly innaccurate they are, my enjoyment of reading anything about airplanes in a newspaper was reduced to rolling my eyes.
Having been on the inside of several things that Goober has commented on lately, I realize that he is even worse then the press. Atleast when the press prints utter crap, atleast they are doing it to make money.
The GUV prints his crap simply because he is the leading D I C K H E A D on prrune. Its a shame because one day he might actually print something important and worth reading but like the little boy that cried wolf it will be lost among all the lies and bul*sh*t.
Wino
You know, when earlier in ppruning experience I thought that guv was just odd and maybe a little over eager. I kind of liked reading his posts, very much like I used to enjoy reading newspaper reports of airline incidents.
Well, as I matured and my career progressed and I learned more and more about how the press really reports and how wildly innaccurate they are, my enjoyment of reading anything about airplanes in a newspaper was reduced to rolling my eyes.
Having been on the inside of several things that Goober has commented on lately, I realize that he is even worse then the press. Atleast when the press prints utter crap, atleast they are doing it to make money.
The GUV prints his crap simply because he is the leading D I C K H E A D on prrune. Its a shame because one day he might actually print something important and worth reading but like the little boy that cried wolf it will be lost among all the lies and bul*sh*t.
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ummmmmm, DownIn3Green - I think you'll find that Allianceair was getting rather riled up because now the rumourmill is saying that it's the pilot that's the Arab American.
That's how I read it anyway - and of course if the captain was Arab American then that would tend to rule out any racism.
It would also explain why AA are being so supportive ... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
That's how I read it anyway - and of course if the captain was Arab American then that would tend to rule out any racism.
It would also explain why AA are being so supportive ... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Those of us who get to experience the day-to-day operations of civilian airline piloting, and managing the myriad of decisions that can take place at the gate, long before an engine is started, I say, welcome to the discussion.
Those of you with an armchair view and intelligent observations, welcome.
As for those with strong opinions and no background, “opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one”.
Many times I have seen multiples of ground support staff, clamouring into the flight deck with sketchy information in relation to whatever their ground duty is, asking for your OK on some issue so they can escape to another flight or be able to write “on time” for their particular function.
This example is from one stop:
Voice 1 “We require the aircraft off the gate in 15 minutes for an inbound flight”
Voice 2 “We’ve discovered a maintenance problem and will require an extra 20 minutes to do the paperwork and apply the M.E.L.”
Flight Crew: The M.E.L. states a performance penalty, call for new flight plans, get the fuel truck back here, call the Duty Manager and tell them we can’t get off the gate in 15 minutes.
Voice 3: “New flight plans are here with a revised routing as well.”
Flight Crew: Re-enter the route, check the charts, en-route alternates….
Voice 4: “Here’s your weight and balance, oh its wrong, we didn’t include the new fuel figures, I’ll be back in 10 with a new one. You’ll fix it? Thanks guys/gals.
Voice5: There’s an armed LEO coming on board, here’s his paperwork”.
Flight Crew: Get the ops manual out, double check requirements for carrying armed LEO. Lets see…. Paperwork doesn’t jive do you concur?
Voice 2: Here’s your MEL paper work.
Voice 1: We need this aircraft off the gate ASAP!
Flight Crew: Double check all MEL paper work…
Voice 5: What’s wrong with the LEO’s paperwork? Can’t you fix it?
Flight Deck: Let me talk to the LEO.
LEO: Hi!
Flight Deck: Welcome aboard, here’s our problem, why the discrepancy?
LEO: My apologies, what do I need to rectify the problem.
Flight Deck: We can’t afford to further delay this flight. If you will check your weapon we can be out of here in minutes.
LEO: OK, thanks for your time.
In conclusion to my long winded story:
The only armed person(s) on board an aircraft, especially in the wake of 9/11 are on duty sky marshals and special occasions where armed protection is required in the course of duty during the flight, and these personnel are trained and certified to operate within the confines of a pressurized vessel and issued the appropriate ammunition.
If you can’t trust a pilot with a gun, but Bubba from Agriculture Inspection etc is OK, it doesn’t say much for our profession…
But hey, that’s my opinion…and it counts. Because at the end of the day I am legally accountable and responsible for the ultimate safe conduct of the flight, and that folks, I take seriously. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Those of us who get to experience the day-to-day operations of civilian airline piloting, and managing the myriad of decisions that can take place at the gate, long before an engine is started, I say, welcome to the discussion.
Those of you with an armchair view and intelligent observations, welcome.
As for those with strong opinions and no background, “opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one”.
Many times I have seen multiples of ground support staff, clamouring into the flight deck with sketchy information in relation to whatever their ground duty is, asking for your OK on some issue so they can escape to another flight or be able to write “on time” for their particular function.
This example is from one stop:
Voice 1 “We require the aircraft off the gate in 15 minutes for an inbound flight”
Voice 2 “We’ve discovered a maintenance problem and will require an extra 20 minutes to do the paperwork and apply the M.E.L.”
Flight Crew: The M.E.L. states a performance penalty, call for new flight plans, get the fuel truck back here, call the Duty Manager and tell them we can’t get off the gate in 15 minutes.
Voice 3: “New flight plans are here with a revised routing as well.”
Flight Crew: Re-enter the route, check the charts, en-route alternates….
Voice 4: “Here’s your weight and balance, oh its wrong, we didn’t include the new fuel figures, I’ll be back in 10 with a new one. You’ll fix it? Thanks guys/gals.
Voice5: There’s an armed LEO coming on board, here’s his paperwork”.
Flight Crew: Get the ops manual out, double check requirements for carrying armed LEO. Lets see…. Paperwork doesn’t jive do you concur?
Voice 2: Here’s your MEL paper work.
Voice 1: We need this aircraft off the gate ASAP!
Flight Crew: Double check all MEL paper work…
Voice 5: What’s wrong with the LEO’s paperwork? Can’t you fix it?
Flight Deck: Let me talk to the LEO.
LEO: Hi!
Flight Deck: Welcome aboard, here’s our problem, why the discrepancy?
LEO: My apologies, what do I need to rectify the problem.
Flight Deck: We can’t afford to further delay this flight. If you will check your weapon we can be out of here in minutes.
LEO: OK, thanks for your time.
In conclusion to my long winded story:
The only armed person(s) on board an aircraft, especially in the wake of 9/11 are on duty sky marshals and special occasions where armed protection is required in the course of duty during the flight, and these personnel are trained and certified to operate within the confines of a pressurized vessel and issued the appropriate ammunition.
If you can’t trust a pilot with a gun, but Bubba from Agriculture Inspection etc is OK, it doesn’t say much for our profession…
But hey, that’s my opinion…and it counts. Because at the end of the day I am legally accountable and responsible for the ultimate safe conduct of the flight, and that folks, I take seriously. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mainline Observer, it is very difficult for us to do refrain from attacks because the Guvnor is not what he appears to many on here. He claims to be an experienced airline pilot with many jet hours and he also claims to be an airline executive. He is none of these things. He is a Walter Mitty.
He plagiaraises news and then tries to pass it off as his own and then has the gall to add his own comments which outrage airline pilots because he talks such utter rubbish. He is one of those people who watch the Discovery Channel Wings and then believes that he knows everything there is to know about aviation.
If some of you are fed up with my repeated attacks on him then you might want to follow up on my challenge to him to provide evidence of his qualifications. He claims to have several university degrees and also an ATPL with many jet command hours. I challenge him or anyone else to prove me wrong but I say he has none of those. He will huff and puff and go on about not providing anything to anyone unless it is on a need to know basis and he will threaten to have me exposed and sued in court but in reality he would not dare as it would expose his life of deceit and lies. He even claims to have mates in the Australian police, skippy I assume.
Until he stops making stupic remarks about airline pilots and our job as though he knows what he is talking about I will continue to hound him. He does not know what the job involves but pretends he does. Sorry if it detracts from the topic but he insists on his relentles posts.
He plagiaraises news and then tries to pass it off as his own and then has the gall to add his own comments which outrage airline pilots because he talks such utter rubbish. He is one of those people who watch the Discovery Channel Wings and then believes that he knows everything there is to know about aviation.
If some of you are fed up with my repeated attacks on him then you might want to follow up on my challenge to him to provide evidence of his qualifications. He claims to have several university degrees and also an ATPL with many jet command hours. I challenge him or anyone else to prove me wrong but I say he has none of those. He will huff and puff and go on about not providing anything to anyone unless it is on a need to know basis and he will threaten to have me exposed and sued in court but in reality he would not dare as it would expose his life of deceit and lies. He even claims to have mates in the Australian police, skippy I assume.
Until he stops making stupic remarks about airline pilots and our job as though he knows what he is talking about I will continue to hound him. He does not know what the job involves but pretends he does. Sorry if it detracts from the topic but he insists on his relentles posts.
Moderator
>>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). <<
3 million miles? I have no idea how many miles I've flown..........How many of your miles were in the left seat of an airliner.
The agent's papers were in question. The Captain made a decision that was his to make.
3 million miles? I have no idea how many miles I've flown..........How many of your miles were in the left seat of an airliner.
The agent's papers were in question. The Captain made a decision that was his to make.