AA Captain Throws Secret Service Agent Off Flight
Guest
Posts: n/a
AA Captain Throws Secret Service Agent Off Flight
Perhaps McD, Dallas Dude, Raas 767 or another AA employee could confirm (or deny) this story?
I'm told that a Secret Service agent (complete with gun) boarded an American Airlines flight BWI-DFW, from where he was going to travel to President Bush's ranch to be one of the agents assigned to guard the President. He had all the required paperwork for the gun as well as Federal I.D. and presented it to the captain.
This agent happened to be Arab-American.
The Captain allegedly threw him off the plane, saying he saw inconsistancies in the paperwork. The Agent produced all the Secret Service paperwork and offered to have them verify with Washington, but the Captain said no. The agent was put through several metal detectors and searched before being told he could fly on the next days' flight.
That Agent is now in Crawford, TX with President Bush.
----
If this story is true, what would one attribute the Captain's actions to? Highly (perhaps over) developed sense of security? Paranoia? Or racism?
I'm told that a Secret Service agent (complete with gun) boarded an American Airlines flight BWI-DFW, from where he was going to travel to President Bush's ranch to be one of the agents assigned to guard the President. He had all the required paperwork for the gun as well as Federal I.D. and presented it to the captain.
This agent happened to be Arab-American.
The Captain allegedly threw him off the plane, saying he saw inconsistancies in the paperwork. The Agent produced all the Secret Service paperwork and offered to have them verify with Washington, but the Captain said no. The agent was put through several metal detectors and searched before being told he could fly on the next days' flight.
That Agent is now in Crawford, TX with President Bush.
----
If this story is true, what would one attribute the Captain's actions to? Highly (perhaps over) developed sense of security? Paranoia? Or racism?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, I am not with American Airlines.
<<<If this story is true, what would one attribute the Captain's actions to? Highly (perhaps over) developed sense of security? Paranoia? Or racism?>>>
One could reasonably expect the Captain to have the events of the Paris-Miami in mind. Irony has it, AA paid $175 that night for the "shoe-bomber's" lodging and put him on another flight the next day. He was allowed to preceed on the plane because the questioning yielded nothing.
Of course, the Secret Service agent could have offered to check his gun as baggage instead of insisting on carrying it onboard while essentially being off duty.
As for racism, if the agent had been a caucasian - would anybody even care? Funny how some people like to pull the race card out when it suits their purpose.
If there is any doubts, the safety of the flight and its passengers must outweigh the inconvenience of an occational suspect.
Cudos to the Captain (with a capital "C")!
Does anyone question the Sercret Service agent's choice of delaying the flight for over an hour by insisting on bringing his gun in the cabin?
Following is the article:
Bush Agent Removed From Flight
By DOUGLAS KIKER
BALTIMORE (AP) - An Arab-American Secret Service agent assigned to President Bush's security detail was removed from an American Airlines flight after the pilot questioned his credentials, the Secret Service said Thursday.
American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke said "inconsistencies'' in paperwork filled out by the armed agent prompted his removal Tuesday. The captain decided a more thorough check was needed to confirm the identity of the agent, the spokesman said.
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Thursday that the agent told him he felt he had been kicked off the Baltimore-to-Dallas flight because of his religion and ethnicity.
But the airline spokesman said: "This has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity of the agent. What this has to do with this was confirming that an armed individual was indeed who he said he was.''
The agent eventually traveled to Dallas on an American flight on Wednesday. He asked that his name not be released for security reasons.
"We certainly apologize to the agent for any inconvenience,'' Burke said. "But during this time of heightened security, we feel no one is above the approved security procedures.''
Hooper said the group has written a letter to the airline asking for a clarification of its rules regarding "racial and ethnic discrimination.''
The Secret Service is conducting an inquiry into the incident, said spokesman Jim Mackin.
The agent was flying to Texas, where Bush is scheduled to spend two weeks at his ranch in Crawford. A mechanical problem caused the agent's original flight to be canceled, but he was rebooked on an American flight, Hooper said.
Once seated on the plane, Hooper said, airline security personnel asked the agent to submit to additional security checks. After a delay of an hour and 15 minutes - during which the agent was questioned by the flight's pilot, airline officials and airport police - he was ordered removed from the flight despite offering to have the Secret Service confirm his identity.
Federal agents regularly travel armed aboard commercial flights, law enforcement officials said Thursday, and there is a routine procedure to ensure safety.
Before boarding a plane armed, advance notice to the airline is given and an agent goes through several credential and identification checks. Once through security, the armed agent's seat assignment is noted on the flight manifest for the crew's knowledge.
In addition, it is routine procedure for any armed agents to introduce themselves to the pilot or co-pilot upon boarding the plane.
FBI spokesman Pete Gullota said an incident similar to the one Tuesday occurred shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Gullota said an armed, off-duty FBI agent from the Baltimore office was not allowed to board a plane by a pilot despite following the security procedures for armed agents. Gullota refused to identify the airline but said the issue was cleared up and resulted in the pilot's suspension.
"This, unfortunately, is not the first time something like that has happened,'' Gullota said. "In most instances the airlines are very happy to have us on-board. We don't just don't show up at gate armed. We go through routine and a whole lot of people are notified.''
<<<If this story is true, what would one attribute the Captain's actions to? Highly (perhaps over) developed sense of security? Paranoia? Or racism?>>>
One could reasonably expect the Captain to have the events of the Paris-Miami in mind. Irony has it, AA paid $175 that night for the "shoe-bomber's" lodging and put him on another flight the next day. He was allowed to preceed on the plane because the questioning yielded nothing.
Of course, the Secret Service agent could have offered to check his gun as baggage instead of insisting on carrying it onboard while essentially being off duty.
As for racism, if the agent had been a caucasian - would anybody even care? Funny how some people like to pull the race card out when it suits their purpose.
If there is any doubts, the safety of the flight and its passengers must outweigh the inconvenience of an occational suspect.
Cudos to the Captain (with a capital "C")!
Does anyone question the Sercret Service agent's choice of delaying the flight for over an hour by insisting on bringing his gun in the cabin?
Following is the article:
Bush Agent Removed From Flight
By DOUGLAS KIKER
BALTIMORE (AP) - An Arab-American Secret Service agent assigned to President Bush's security detail was removed from an American Airlines flight after the pilot questioned his credentials, the Secret Service said Thursday.
American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke said "inconsistencies'' in paperwork filled out by the armed agent prompted his removal Tuesday. The captain decided a more thorough check was needed to confirm the identity of the agent, the spokesman said.
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Thursday that the agent told him he felt he had been kicked off the Baltimore-to-Dallas flight because of his religion and ethnicity.
But the airline spokesman said: "This has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity of the agent. What this has to do with this was confirming that an armed individual was indeed who he said he was.''
The agent eventually traveled to Dallas on an American flight on Wednesday. He asked that his name not be released for security reasons.
"We certainly apologize to the agent for any inconvenience,'' Burke said. "But during this time of heightened security, we feel no one is above the approved security procedures.''
Hooper said the group has written a letter to the airline asking for a clarification of its rules regarding "racial and ethnic discrimination.''
The Secret Service is conducting an inquiry into the incident, said spokesman Jim Mackin.
The agent was flying to Texas, where Bush is scheduled to spend two weeks at his ranch in Crawford. A mechanical problem caused the agent's original flight to be canceled, but he was rebooked on an American flight, Hooper said.
Once seated on the plane, Hooper said, airline security personnel asked the agent to submit to additional security checks. After a delay of an hour and 15 minutes - during which the agent was questioned by the flight's pilot, airline officials and airport police - he was ordered removed from the flight despite offering to have the Secret Service confirm his identity.
Federal agents regularly travel armed aboard commercial flights, law enforcement officials said Thursday, and there is a routine procedure to ensure safety.
Before boarding a plane armed, advance notice to the airline is given and an agent goes through several credential and identification checks. Once through security, the armed agent's seat assignment is noted on the flight manifest for the crew's knowledge.
In addition, it is routine procedure for any armed agents to introduce themselves to the pilot or co-pilot upon boarding the plane.
FBI spokesman Pete Gullota said an incident similar to the one Tuesday occurred shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Gullota said an armed, off-duty FBI agent from the Baltimore office was not allowed to board a plane by a pilot despite following the security procedures for armed agents. Gullota refused to identify the airline but said the issue was cleared up and resulted in the pilot's suspension.
"This, unfortunately, is not the first time something like that has happened,'' Gullota said. "In most instances the airlines are very happy to have us on-board. We don't just don't show up at gate armed. We go through routine and a whole lot of people are notified.''
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain has final authority as to the safety of the flight; it is so stated in the Regs. And if a captain doesn't feel safe with a particular gun toting agent, then so be it. Furthermore, there have been incidents where a captain inflight had told an FAA inspector on official duty to vacate the cockpit. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another example of the government's complete failure to devise an electronically verifiable system of identification for federal officers AND flight crew members. The current system is capable of being forged, but then again, it's not the FAA and politicians that have to face the threat from imposter and suicidal fanatics.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked for a now defunct airline based in Miami, I have encountered my share of gun toting Feds, DEA's, Custom's Officals, ad nasuem, filling out required paperwork and jumping through all the hoops just to carry their weapon on board.
This was during the times of Miami Vice on TV. It was "cool" to be like Sonny and Tubbs.
It wasn't "cool" to carry a weapon on my plane.
If this Ibraham was enroute to guard the president, then he wasn't actually required to carry his weapon on board in the "performance of his duties".
What if he had demanded enterance to the cockpit, claiming he was "protecting the president?"
Where does the insanity stop? If ploice escorting prisoners aren't allowed to be armed, why do "off duty" law enforcement officals feel they have a right to flex their muscles? Ego?
Well Done to the AA Capt. Rather than turn on him, the SS and Justice Dept should be concentrating on their agent's behavior. As a "professional" he no doubt realized the disturbance he was causing, and therefore surrender his weapon or leave the flight to work it out.
Obvivously this "Arab" American should be more sensitive to his country than his feelings. If in fact he is on the Presidential Detail he should be reassigned for his actions on this day, instead of held up as a martyr by his fellow came1-jockey's.
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.
This was during the times of Miami Vice on TV. It was "cool" to be like Sonny and Tubbs.
It wasn't "cool" to carry a weapon on my plane.
If this Ibraham was enroute to guard the president, then he wasn't actually required to carry his weapon on board in the "performance of his duties".
What if he had demanded enterance to the cockpit, claiming he was "protecting the president?"
Where does the insanity stop? If ploice escorting prisoners aren't allowed to be armed, why do "off duty" law enforcement officals feel they have a right to flex their muscles? Ego?
Well Done to the AA Capt. Rather than turn on him, the SS and Justice Dept should be concentrating on their agent's behavior. As a "professional" he no doubt realized the disturbance he was causing, and therefore surrender his weapon or leave the flight to work it out.
Obvivously this "Arab" American should be more sensitive to his country than his feelings. If in fact he is on the Presidential Detail he should be reassigned for his actions on this day, instead of held up as a martyr by his fellow came1-jockey's.
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.
Gov
A little bit of aviation knowledge is a dangerous thing. Not sure what its like on your side of the pond, but anytime a weapon is onboard an aircraft, paperwork must follow it. Even if I believe the person carrying it to be legit, the paperwork must be perfect. The last thing I need is a FAA goon reviewing the papers for conformity and finding errors. The Captain did exactly as he should if there was ANY question. Your stirring the pot isn't going to work this time.
A little bit of aviation knowledge is a dangerous thing. Not sure what its like on your side of the pond, but anytime a weapon is onboard an aircraft, paperwork must follow it. Even if I believe the person carrying it to be legit, the paperwork must be perfect. The last thing I need is a FAA goon reviewing the papers for conformity and finding errors. The Captain did exactly as he should if there was ANY question. Your stirring the pot isn't going to work this time.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should be a worry is that this guy seems to have complained to the Council of American-Islamic Relations. As a personal agent of the President he should give his total loyalty to the President without any other concerns what so ever.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting reading, even from the Americans who have posted before me. Here is a link to the Federal Code about what a Law Enforcement Office (LEO) has to comply with, as well as what the airlines have to do:
<a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_00.html" target="_blank">http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_00.html</A>
Note - section-108.219 for the details.
Yes, the Captain has final decision to fly the LEO or not. Yes, the Captain should exercise sound judgement (IMHO). I say that the Captain exercised poor judgement! I don't want to fly with Captains that exhibit poor judgement cause it could cost me my life!
This whole scene is a fiasco. The Captain could have picked up a phone (even his cell) and called the Secret Service to confirm the Agents bona fides. The police authorities at the airport could have done the same thing through their liason channels. You say you can't call the Secret Service. Bull $#%@ - call 911 in the USA and ask for a patch to the Secret Service. Bet you get it, especially when you mention Presidential security to Dispatch.
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.
<a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_00.html" target="_blank">http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_00.html</A>
Note - section-108.219 for the details.
Yes, the Captain has final decision to fly the LEO or not. Yes, the Captain should exercise sound judgement (IMHO). I say that the Captain exercised poor judgement! I don't want to fly with Captains that exhibit poor judgement cause it could cost me my life!
This whole scene is a fiasco. The Captain could have picked up a phone (even his cell) and called the Secret Service to confirm the Agents bona fides. The police authorities at the airport could have done the same thing through their liason channels. You say you can't call the Secret Service. Bull $#%@ - call 911 in the USA and ask for a patch to the Secret Service. Bet you get it, especially when you mention Presidential security to Dispatch.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tamarama beach
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA SLF
Once you've recovered from your Xmas party hangover, you may be fit enough to read this :
GUNS DON' T BELONG TO THE CABIN !!
I mean what kind of guys are they anyway ? Can't do without their toys ? Or is this an extension of their body ?
Air crews get their nail files or scissors taken away from them and we should allow BIG guns on our very aircrafts ???
Of course the Captain was right and just be aware that when wrong he's right anyway. One of Aviation golden rules !!
Ease up on the egg nog will you ??
[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: wallabie ]</p>
Once you've recovered from your Xmas party hangover, you may be fit enough to read this :
GUNS DON' T BELONG TO THE CABIN !!
I mean what kind of guys are they anyway ? Can't do without their toys ? Or is this an extension of their body ?
Air crews get their nail files or scissors taken away from them and we should allow BIG guns on our very aircrafts ???
Of course the Captain was right and just be aware that when wrong he's right anyway. One of Aviation golden rules !!
Ease up on the egg nog will you ??
[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: wallabie ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, so we stop the good guys with guns getting on board but we do sweet f@?k all about guys with exploding shoes??? Where the hell was the Captain when the guy wearing the Nike's and with "If Not A Terrorist Then A Lunatic" tattooed across his forehead got onboard? If I had the choice of having either a Secret Service Agent or the Captain look after my security during a flight we'd be flying single crew!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austria
Age: 63
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were 5 minutes to departure and all pax on board when a big black limo pulled up and a well known European politician stepped out followed by two security officers. Station informed about three more pax and a new loadsheet. I went to the new pax and the security officers told me that they carried guns and showed me their identification. Dialog: "Sir I realise that you two are on duty but this is not according procedure I cannot accept you with guns on board" "Captain we know you close on time what can we do to solve that problem quick" "If you would be normal pax you would have to check in your weapons in the baggage compartement and get them back by security of destination airport, we could do so now" "Sound good to me, thank you" "thanks for cooperation"
The whole thing took a minute and we left on time. This is was I would call real professional attitude of a security officer.
The whole thing took a minute and we left on time. This is was I would call real professional attitude of a security officer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
West Coast - if you lok up at the very top of my post, you'll see I was asking for verification of this story - because I couldn't believe it, and I hadn't seen any confirmation of it elsewhere. Many thanks to aviator for posting the story.
Now, anyone who knows anything about the workings of FBI and Treasury Agents (the latter is what the Secret Service agents are) knows that (a) they are required to carry their personal weapons at all times; and (b) are permitted to carry them on board aircraft. If the agent had surrendered his weapon (which ould indeed have been the easiest solution) then not only would he have been in trouble for breaching his own regs; but it would also have been rather hard to explain why he wasn't able to act if there had been another terrorist incident on board that flight.
I have no argument that the captain was right to query the paperwork - especially if there were discrepancies on it, such as a different flight number. However, it would have been very easy for him to establish the reason for that discrepancy - ie that the flight had been cancelled.
However, the moment that he refused to verify the agent's ID with the Operations Office of the USSS then he's going way out on a limb - it then becomes pretty obvious that he doesn't give a damn who this guy is; he's not going on his flight. Remember, they delayed the flight 75 minutes to put the agent through the security hoops - how long would that call have taken?
And that smacks of racism.
Now, anyone who knows anything about the workings of FBI and Treasury Agents (the latter is what the Secret Service agents are) knows that (a) they are required to carry their personal weapons at all times; and (b) are permitted to carry them on board aircraft. If the agent had surrendered his weapon (which ould indeed have been the easiest solution) then not only would he have been in trouble for breaching his own regs; but it would also have been rather hard to explain why he wasn't able to act if there had been another terrorist incident on board that flight.
I have no argument that the captain was right to query the paperwork - especially if there were discrepancies on it, such as a different flight number. However, it would have been very easy for him to establish the reason for that discrepancy - ie that the flight had been cancelled.
However, the moment that he refused to verify the agent's ID with the Operations Office of the USSS then he's going way out on a limb - it then becomes pretty obvious that he doesn't give a damn who this guy is; he's not going on his flight. Remember, they delayed the flight 75 minutes to put the agent through the security hoops - how long would that call have taken?
And that smacks of racism.
Some of you need to be reminded that WE ARE AT WAR!
You cannot be too safe these days.
The FAA has done nothing to improve security at it's must must vulnerable places. Checked baggage and ground personnel are still not being screened before they go to work in or near aircraft.
If the AA captain thought the FED was suspicious, more power to him.
Too bad if a few Arabs feel that their so called rights are being violated.
I even have a solution. Lets put all the Arabs and Muslims on the planes of the pilots who are sympathetic to them for having their "rights" taken away.
Any takers? I did not think so.
You cannot be too safe these days.
The FAA has done nothing to improve security at it's must must vulnerable places. Checked baggage and ground personnel are still not being screened before they go to work in or near aircraft.
If the AA captain thought the FED was suspicious, more power to him.
Too bad if a few Arabs feel that their so called rights are being violated.
I even have a solution. Lets put all the Arabs and Muslims on the planes of the pilots who are sympathetic to them for having their "rights" taken away.
Any takers? I did not think so.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dAAvid, I read the section on carriage of accessible weapons. It is mostly about what LEOs must do. I missed the part that says "airlines shall accept armed LEOs who comply with these regulations."
What it does say is that the airlines must "Advise the armed LEO, before boarding, of the aircraft operator's procedures for carrying out this section." If the airline's procedure is that the Captain gets to decide then what in the regulations contradicts the Captain's action in this incident?
You say that the Captain exercised poor judgement. The regs say "the armed LEO must have a need to
have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning." I understand that by parts (i), (iii), and (iv) of item (2) this requirement was technically satisfied. But assuming that you were the Captain and that it was your call, what, in your good judgement, was this agent's need to be armed on this flight?
I hope that the Secret Service does not try to bully AA.
What it does say is that the airlines must "Advise the armed LEO, before boarding, of the aircraft operator's procedures for carrying out this section." If the airline's procedure is that the Captain gets to decide then what in the regulations contradicts the Captain's action in this incident?
You say that the Captain exercised poor judgement. The regs say "the armed LEO must have a need to
have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning." I understand that by parts (i), (iii), and (iv) of item (2) this requirement was technically satisfied. But assuming that you were the Captain and that it was your call, what, in your good judgement, was this agent's need to be armed on this flight?
I hope that the Secret Service does not try to bully AA.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with this guy was that his paperwork wasn't right and then he became pushy and demanding, fitting the profile of someone who was trying to bully an aircrew in letting him on the aircraft. You would think a Secret Service agent would have the smarts to not give the captain a reason to question his authenticity. Quite simply, this guy's paperwork was not exactly right AND his attitude and demenor did not match that of the professional he was purporting to be.
Now, if the incompetent leadership in the FAA and government would do what ALPA has been asking for since 1989 - that is, issuing ELECTRONICALLY verifiable, POSITIVE identification, a lot of these problems would simply GO AWAY. But, that would take foresight, initiative, and leadership . . . none of which are qualities possessed by the administrator of the FAA.
Now, if the incompetent leadership in the FAA and government would do what ALPA has been asking for since 1989 - that is, issuing ELECTRONICALLY verifiable, POSITIVE identification, a lot of these problems would simply GO AWAY. But, that would take foresight, initiative, and leadership . . . none of which are qualities possessed by the administrator of the FAA.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite. Whatever the pros and cons and legality, complaining to the CAIR doesn't strike me as a wise career move. The activities of the Secret Service should be umm.. secret, no place for egos on the team surely. A quiet word in the right ear would have got this sorted.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guv,
As a pilot I am not trained to verify a persons Identity. All I can go by is the paper work he brings. If that paperwork is fouled up AND he has a bad attitude, then I have no choice but to deny him boarding.
When the FAA does an audit of a flight looking to hang a pilot, the first place they start is the paperwork.
The Gentleman in question brought incorrect paperwork. A phone call to his superiors is not going to change the paperwork unless THEY run down to the gate with correct paperwork.
He had the wrong paperwork plus a bad attitude. He could have just as easily called his superiors and had them run correct paperwork to the gate. That was his problem, not the airline's. The airline must verify that his paperwork is correct, not assist some potential terrorist into gaining armed entry to the aircraft.
To do any less than deny him would smack not of racism but NEGLIGENCE! , but obviously in your fantasy airline world you don't understand the responsibility for a plane load of lives.
Wino <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
As a pilot I am not trained to verify a persons Identity. All I can go by is the paper work he brings. If that paperwork is fouled up AND he has a bad attitude, then I have no choice but to deny him boarding.
When the FAA does an audit of a flight looking to hang a pilot, the first place they start is the paperwork.
The Gentleman in question brought incorrect paperwork. A phone call to his superiors is not going to change the paperwork unless THEY run down to the gate with correct paperwork.
He had the wrong paperwork plus a bad attitude. He could have just as easily called his superiors and had them run correct paperwork to the gate. That was his problem, not the airline's. The airline must verify that his paperwork is correct, not assist some potential terrorist into gaining armed entry to the aircraft.
To do any less than deny him would smack not of racism but NEGLIGENCE! , but obviously in your fantasy airline world you don't understand the responsibility for a plane load of lives.
Wino <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it has been said many times previously on this topic alone, that the captain of any a/c that he is in command of, has the final say on any particular persons carriage - period! he is the commander. he carries the rank and is paid his salary because of the resonsibility that he carries, as "the buck stops with him". that said, he must also accept full responsibility for his actions. if this means that he refuses carriage to any passenger (for whatever reson) he must justify his actions, at the time and later at any inquiry. IF, and i repeat IF he is later proven to have made an error of judgement (as hard as it may to beleive sometimes - captains are human afterall) he must be prepared to accept the consequences. as none of us here, were present at the time of this passengers refusal, and only heard infomation 2nd or 3rd hand - we can't comment on the exact circumstances.