Travel News - SAN evacuated briefly after passenger abruptly departs plane

SAN DIEGO (AP) - Airport officials evacuated two concourses at Lindbergh Field Thursday morning when a passenger insisted on leaving an American Airlines flight bound for Dallas-Fort Worth shortly before takeoff.

The male passenger told flight attendants that he "couldn't go on the flight and stated that he only had one carry-on bag and needed to deplane," said Michael Aguilar, federal security director for San Diego's international airport.Flight attendants allowed the passenger to leave the plane, which pulled away from the gate moments later.

Nervous passengers who remained on board objected, and the captain returned the plane to its gate so that it could be checked for security breaches, Aguilar said.

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/6627431p-7579574c.html

Okay, on a lighter if somewhat sick note...

When I read the subject line I had this vision of some poor guy stepping out the exit door by mistake. All I could see is this guy ABRUPTLY flying out of the plane.

People really need to get a grip! If they were uncomfortable because he left the flight then by all means, let them take a hike as well. Why did this require the evacuation of two concourses? If leaving a plane constitutes a security breach of some sort, then why the heII was he not escorted away so that evacuations would not be necessary???

You can check tweezers without causing evacuation and be escorted throughout the entire process but they don't know how to escort someone from the terminal???



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Hey, I get off planes around a hundred times every year. They never evacuate the concourses as a result! Of course, I wait until I reach my destination before getting off, but what's the difference, really? Why was this necessary?

Bruce

Our nation's collective insanity continues unabated. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Flight attendants allowed the passenger to leave the plane, which pulled away from the gate moments later.

. * . * . *

Security officials were notified and passengers in two concourses were evacuated after a search for the man for questioning proved unsuccessful.

"We realized we had an individual with suspicious behavior loose in our sterile area," Aguilar said.

No suspicious items were found by federal agents who searched the concourses, and passengers were allowed back into the airport after an hour.

Authorities said they knew the man's identity from his ticket and were trying to track him down.</font>"Allowed" a passenger to leave the plane while at the gate? Allowed? What, are we now hostages once we board, no matter how long a revenue-induced delay lasts?

Would someone physically try to stop him? Would the air crew "order" him to remain? Can you say wrongful detention?

Evacuation for an hour? He obviously left to do whatever was so important.

P.S. I know you were quoting the headline, but I don't call an hour "brief."

Well....had they called for a police officer to escort him out, that would have been that. However, they ALLOWED him to leave unescorted. The remaining passengers were understandably uncomfortable and wanted the plane checked. Which could have been done without all the fuss IF the aircrew had called for the police, which by the way is what they are SUPPOSED to do in these cases. The aircrew goofed this one up.

[This message has been edited by The Unknown Screener (edited 05-09-2003).]

Notice how the TSA is never at fault?

Notice how the TSA is ALWAYS at fault?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Notice how the TSA is ALWAYS at fault?</font>

Who evacuated the concourses? I place the blame there. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Who caused the commotion in the first place? That is the source of the problem. HAD the aircrew followed the proper protocol for such an event, and they did not, then no evacuation would have been necessary. Again, you see it as just another TSA goof-up, even when proper protocols were not followed by someone else. Like it or not, the TSA responded AFTER the aircrew goofed up. This lies squarly on the backs of that particular airline.

i think that the crew should have had the pax escorted to tsa/airline to confirm that there were no checked bags & no security threat, then there would be no need to evacuate.

Exactly!! That is the proper protocol and all screeners are taught that. The airlines have all been instructed to handle situations like that in that manner. When they fail to do so it causes big problems for everyone. Had this "gentleman" checked a bag, even though he said he did not, I sure would want to know the veracity of that statement before he was allowed to walk off. The aircrew goofed big time.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Well....had they called for a police officer to escort him out, that would have been that. However, they ALLOWED him to leave unescorted. The remaining passengers were understandably uncomfortable and wanted the plane checked. Which could have been done without all the fuss IF the aircrew had called for the police, which by the way is what they are SUPPOSED to do in these cases. The aircrew goofed this one up.

Who caused the commotion in the first place? That is the source of the problem. HAD the aircrew followed the proper protocol for such an event, and they did not, then no evacuation would have been necessary. Again, you see it as just another TSA goof-up, even when proper protocols were not followed by someone else. Like it or not, the TSA responded AFTER the aircrew goofed up. This lies squarly on the backs of that particular airline.

Exactly!! That is the proper protocol and all screeners are taught that. The airlines have all been instructed to handle situations like that in that manner. When they fail to do so it causes big problems for everyone. Had this "gentleman" checked a bag, even though he said he did not, I sure would want to know the veracity of that statement before he was allowed to walk off. The aircrew goofed big time.

</font>

Typical fast-food employee attitude - "hey, it ain't my fault."

Only in this case it's "hey - the 55,000 employee agency charged with airport security sure didn't do nothin' wrong."

Give me a break. You want to be treated like professionals instead of some lazy goof-offs who couldn't find any better work than overpaid sharp and pointy object searchers?

Then accept responsibility when things go wrong. That's what professionals do. Minimum wage flunkies are the ones who point fingers away from themselves when problems happen.

To which group does the TSA belong?

I agree with everything everyone said.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
Typical fast-food employee attitude - "hey, it ain't my fault."

Only in this case it's "hey - the 55,000 employee agency charged with airport security sure didn't do nothin' wrong."

Give me a break. You want to be treated like professionals instead of some lazy goof-offs who couldn't find any better work than overpaid sharp and pointy object searchers?

Then accept responsibility when things go wrong. That's what professionals do. Minimum wage flunkies are the ones who point fingers away from themselves when problems happen.

To which group does the TSA belong?</font>

Typical elitist attitude - you must be uneducated since you do this job.

You do not know what the proper protocols are in such a situation, you ALWAYS see the TSA as being wrong in EVERY scenario. Is this based on your personal knowledge of the events, or is it more likely based on your prejudices against the TSA? I think the latter as I am sure that you were not there when this happened, nor do you know what is supposed to happen in these situations. You, like a lot of the TSA bashers here are spoonfed snippits of information from the press that have been formulated specifically to provide the maximum impact upon your elitist psyche. If you were to see things from a more knowledgeable perspective you would realize that the TSA was presented with a "suspicious" person in the concourse that the AIRLINE allowed in there without proper escort like they are supposed to do. Like it or not, if the aircrew had followed the proper procedure and called for an escort, NONE of this would be an issue. Then you would have to find something else to complain about.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Well....had they called for a police officer to escort him out, that would have been that. However, they ALLOWED him to leave unescorted. The remaining passengers were understandably uncomfortable and wanted the plane checked. Which could have been done without all the fuss IF the aircrew had called for the police, which by the way is what they are SUPPOSED to do in these cases. The aircrew goofed this one up.

</font>

...???
"The remaining passengers were understandably uncomfortable"???
Why? I know I don't understand it!!! I've seen people get off of planes several times, and it never occurred to me that it was a terrorist threat. The guy leaving the plane may have just gotten a call that his wife went into labor, or that his mother died, or who knows what!!!! I can tell you that if I was on that plane the people complaining WOULD be very uncomfortable, because I would let them know exactly how I felt about them delaying my flight!

And furthermore, how would calling a police officer to escort the guy have changed anything???
Wouldn't these PARANOID MORONS have been "uncomfortable" and called for a useless search anyways?

Its not the Crew's fault, it is the fault of STUPID PARANOID OVERREACTING MORONS - a category in which both the passengers AND the TSA can be placed.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif


------------------
"I just wanna wish you good luck, we're all counting on you"
-Dr. Rumack

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Who evacuated the concourses? I place the blame there. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

</font>

OK--I agree the aircrew screwed up if policy calls for an escort in such a case. And I can understand why the passengers wanted the plane (or even themselves) rescreened if they guy exited in a truly "strange" manner.

But why the terminal evacuation? A passenger who had already cleared security got off a plane into an area that he was authorized to be in based on his ticket (i.e., the concourse).

Is "suspicious behavior" in the sterile area grounds for evacuating the whole thing? Hypothetical situation: I go through security with my boarding pass, go sit at the gate for 45 minutes, and then go berzerk (by whatever definition, but not including bomb threats, etc.). I'm so berzerk that the police have to forcibly remove me from the terminal. Is my removal followed by a terminal evacuation? If so, why?

Yeah, but the passenges *felt* so much *safer*. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Speaking only for myself, the flight attendants should have honored the passenger's request (which they did) and should have had an airline customer service agent meet the passenger at the gate and verified that no checked baggage was brought aboard and his seat area was clear.

That should have provided enough of a "general" sense of security to the passengers and airport staff (security and operations) to allow the plane to depart and the terminals to remain unaffected.

The passengers concerns were valid.

Airline staff should either be able to confirm with surety that everything the passenger brought on the plane was taken off, or... take everyone and thing off the plane, and let passengers take back on board their own things. Sort of surprised some people aren't familiar with the concept of bag matching, or preventing people from putting things on the plane and leaving before it takes off...

Someone rushing off the plane just before it takes off, is much more troubling than someone "acting suspicious" in the terminal.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by benoit:
Sort of surprised some people aren't familiar with the concept of bag matching, or preventing people from putting things on the plane and leaving before it takes off...
</font>

This is true and the only reason to empty the plane, but one could play the Devil's Advocate and say that since the guy had passed the screening and was in the sterile area, there wouldn't be anything to worry about, right?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by L-1011:
This is true and the only reason to empty the plane, but one could play the Devil's Advocate and say that since the guy had passed the screening and was in the sterile area, there wouldn't be anything to worry about, right?</font>

Playing Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate (sheesh - Wolfram and Hart are sure gonna be racking up a lot of billable hours), I am sure there are explosives that can pass an x-ray scan. And explosive detection is random (enough) that he might have gotten contraband past the screening area.

(And before we blast the TSA on this, the system is not designed for such occurrences and if it was, delays would be even worse.)

And while the tarmac is more secure than it used to be, I'd lay money penetrations can still happen. So he could have been a "suicide agent" who collected his "device" beyond the screening area.

In either case, he may have had second thoughts about ending his life and exited the plane.

Obviously, this did not happen. But if the flight crew had been a little more...congnizent...of the situation, we would not have necessitated the standard operating procedure of "irregular passenger operations" - terminal evacuation.

[This message has been edited by SEA_Tigger (edited 05-09-2003).]

SEA_Tigger... you hit the nail on the head there. Got your "A" for that one.

But, is concern that a bomb was planted on the plane justified? When was the last time that was done? Why aren't we concerned about going to restaurants without metal detectors? If memory serves me, no one on an airplane has died from a bomb brought onboard by a passenger in the last 10+ years. During that time, dozens of people have been killed in restaurants by bombs.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sbrower:
But, is concern that a bomb was planted on the plane justified? When was the last time that was done? Why aren't we concerned about going to restaurants without metal detectors? If memory serves me, no one on an airplane has died from a bomb brought onboard by a passenger in the last 10+ years. During that time, dozens of people have been killed in restaurants by bombs. </font>

You are making just too much sense here. This is logic and rational. If anyone were to REALLY study where and how people are getting killed, they would quickly realize the BILLIONS we are spending on the airport charade is a waste of money.

But, we are not being rational. Sorry.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sbrower:
But, is concern that a bomb was planted on the plane justified? When was the last time that was done? Why aren't we concerned about going to restaurants without metal detectors? If memory serves me, no one on an airplane has died from a bomb brought onboard by a passenger in the last 10+ years. During that time, dozens of people have been killed in restaurants by bombs. </font>

It's simple... it takes a big bomb to kill more than a score of people in a restaurant or other public place, but it only takes a small bomb on board an aircraft to kill hundreds of people in one go. Without the deterence of screening I'm sure that aircraft bombings would start to go up again.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CATSA Screener:
It's simple... it takes a big bomb to kill more than a score of people in a restaurant or other public place, but it only takes a small bomb on board an aircraft to kill hundreds of people in one go. Without the deterence of screening I'm sure that aircraft bombings would start to go up again.</font>

That is correct. I have an idea. Lets stop screening all together. Afterall, it does NOTHING to increase security and only "VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION." So lets throw open the gates and tear down the checkpoints. Announce it in the press and tell all our allies to do the same as we KNOW that screening accomplishes nothing.

Lets see how the airlines do then.

FWIW, I was there, and it was well over 2 hours(maybe 3) before folks got back into terminal 2.

Actually, CATSA, I don't think you are totally correct. The bombers in restaurants, who are wearing the bomb on their body, probably have less explosives than the amount which has been on planes which have been bombed.

Is there a current perception, as a result of 9/11, that airplanes are uniquely scary? Yes.

But, how long have we had the 100% screening of passenger luggage in the US? About 6 months. How long has it been since a US domestic flight had a bomb on board? Over *30* years.

Can a bomb on board cause the plane to fly into a tall building? No.

Was the message of 9/11 that airplanes are dangerous or that terrorists are dangerous? Do you personally think that if there is another major terrorist attack, in the US, it will be an attempt to hijack 4 planes using box cutters, even if box cutters are once again allowed on planes? No. Because the passengers and crew wouldn't cooperate (witness the UA plane which, on 9/11, didn't hit a target because people on board found out that the rules had changed, just that morning).

Do I want to die sooner than necessary? Of course not. Do I only make rational decisions in my life? Of course not. But does that mean that I need to join the idiocy of assuming that airplanes and airports are the *only* targets in the US? (We ban *parking* near air terminals because we fear car bombs, but we don't similarly control cars in parking garages, malls, or anywhere else, because it isn't close to an airplane). [FYI - I don't think that banning cars near buildings is the solution, I am just pointing to the anamoly.]

I really like the way you think -- and the articulate way in which you express your thoughts. Thanks! Too bad everyone isn't as logical as you are.

Bruce

sbrower,

9/11 was an attack with airplanes that shocked the nation. But you are correct that it was not a "unique" or particularly "effective" attack. Afterall, how many remember the truck bomb in the WTC garage in 1993?

Everyone else,

The problem is, too many people are, essentially, sheep. I flew two weeks after 9/11. I was one of three people in Business Class on a UA ORD-SEA 777. The only reason I was in Business Class is the 1Ks and 1Ps had been kicked up into First. "Everyone" expected that planes would be crashing into high-rises every day and nobody wanted to be near a plane. Even now, eighteen months later, people continue to stay away. Even now, we have city governments claiming that their skyscrapers are targets and that they need to be protected, even if for less than altruistic reasons (witness Chicago and the waterfront airport). This just reinforces in many people's minds that air travel is unsafe.

(With airfares so ridiculously low, you really can't say it's the economy that is keeping air travel down. The economy is keeping premium fare air travel down).

The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction by the Federal Government to attempt to restore faith in commercial air travel. The entire Department of Homeland Security is cobbled together from dozens of agencies, all with conflicting agendas and inherent distrust of one another.

It is not surprising that TSA operations are undefined, ill-defined, and less-than-effective at times. I mean they've only been doing this for a year and their charter is so all-encompasing and nebulous. Not to mention it's a government bureacracy and we all know how well they work even when they have been around since the founding of the country.

The whole nation went insane after 9/11. It was the perfect chance for people with less-than-honorable intentions to use the hysteria of that event to ram through their own agendas - Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and no doubt hundreds more on the state, county, and local levels.

The economy was already sliding before 9/11 and while it can be traced back to Clinton's Administration, people will blame G.W. because he was in office when it started to hurt (and his own policies helped exacerbate it), so the Administration has a vested interest in blaming all this malaise on terrorism and needs to "show determination in the face of adversity".

If Argenbright was still running the show, we'd ve evacuating terminals everytime there was a breach at the checkpoint or a "suspicious object" was discovered. Just because the TSA is manning the gates doesn't mean it would not happen if someone else was there, instead.

The policies are the problem, and it will be years before the TSA, DHS, the airports, and the airlines have figured out how to make air travel as "smooth" as it was before 9/11. Everyone is currently making it up as they go along.

SEA_Tigger...ya got yourself another "A" for that one.

Has everyone forgotten that there are people who are afraid of flying? Are there not people who talk themselves into taking a flight despite their fear but once on the plane can't go through with it? Isn't it likely that, post 9/11, there are more people with fear of flying rather than fewer?

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.