law dawg

I'm no tough guy nor am I advocating any particular course of action. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that sometimes, when you decide to play with people, they may play back.

I can't speak to FAMs and their behaviors or what they would do. I could imagine, though, that this might happen.

FWAAA

More evidence that our nation's air security has been entrusted to men and women who really aren't up to the task. Too bad, really, since air security is a serious subject worthy of much more professional treatment than that evidenced by your hypothetical response.

Global_Hi_Flyer

Well, that sounds like a threat. "Be a good sheep and the Government won't harass you".

Is this what America has come to? *sigh*

law dawg

Are you kidding? It has nothing to do with being sheep and all about not screwing with people. This is along the lines of "don't start nothing, won't be nothing."

The only rationale of someone saying "Morning officer" as evidenced is to f_k with the FAM. There is no other conceivable reason.

If you mess with people, be it LEOs to civilians or civilians to LEOs or airline personnel to passengers or passengers to airline people or whatever combination you can envision then you have to expect that people will mess with you back.

Yet somehow it's okay for one group to do so while the other is verbotten.

If a FAM messes with a passenger I fully expect the passenger to pursue the remedies available. I expect the passenger to mess back. If anyone here on this board was messed with by a FAM I'd loooove to read the responses from other members and their recommendations for messing back. The list would be long and distinguished, I know.

Yet somehow anyone not of this august body is supposed to sit there and take it. If you fight back it's just and right. If those guys fight back it's a threat?

Wow.

ND Sol

Sure there is. It shows the FAM's that their cover is not as effective as they want it to be. That might make the program more effective in the long run if those in the program realize this is more of an issue than many believe to be the case.

law dawg

I've read a post or two of yours advocating responses to people who are messed with that are then equally unprofessional.

If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

law dawg

Really? That FAM in that seat has the ability to change policy? C'mon now, let's not be silly. That FAM knows and has probably complained about the things that make the FAM stick out. It's in their best interest to change the policies to make them better able to blend it. No FAM I've ever met (and I've met a few) ever liked being visible.

FAM management, the airlines and government officials control these policies.

This in no way, no shape and no form addresses policy and procedure.

And you know it.

ND Sol

No way, no shape and no form? Once again, this just isn't true. Any good organization listens to its employees on the line. I would think that should also be the case with FAM's. If the FAM's in the field give concrete examples of the problems with their SOP, then perhaps change will be effected.

And if you believe that the airlines have a significant role in the FAM program, then you must not have seen some comments from airline management about FAM's.

bbc1969

What "more evidence?" I believe Law Dawg has stated many times that he is not employed by TSA and/or the FAM Service.

His thoughts do not constitute "evidence" one way or the other, merely opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but its not "evidence" of any person's ability to be "up to the task".

bbc1969

Thank you for the advice about giving "concrete" examples. Why we never thought of that.

"Concrete" examples have been documented and presented in abundance in the past six years. Change was effected on several issues.

Several other glaring issues, "some" of which (but not limited to) are the widely discussed, theorized, and quarterbacked one's listed about a million times on FT, have not been dealt with yet.

There are one or two "common sense" changes that get listed time and time again on FT, as well as in other media outlets. Guess whom HQ has to negotiate with to get them changed? Thats right, the airlines.

Now, the agency could get congress to "shove it" down their throats some more, but that only provides for "bad press".

law dawg

They have, and some things have been changed, no doubt. They took years, and many people were sanctioned, fired, went to the media and outright risked their careers to affect these changes. The FAMS at the time did not listen to their employees. They had to have change forced upon them. FAMs I know tell me their new administration is much better, but change is still slow in coming. Other things have not changed, to date. Some are too costly, others fought by the airlines (see below).

But let me ask you this - is someone being a jacka$$ and saying "Morning officer" really adding something substantive to the debate? Are they telling the FAM or LEO something he or she didn't already know and want addressed?

Be honest now - they're just being an a$$.

How about this - FAMs and LEOs preboard due STRICTLY to the airlines.

Isn't this one of the main ways LEOs are spotted?

The airlines have, to date, refused to budge on the issue. It is an airline policy and exists nowhere else. But they enforce it.

ND Sol

I think I was fairly clear in my prior posts - that is not necessarily what they are doing (and not the reason I have talked to FAM's in the past).




That doesn't change the view of many airlines about the cost/benefit of the FAM program. The Gov't is the 800 pound gorilla in the equation. I consider this "airline policy" to be a pretty small bone compared to the restrictions placed on the airlines by the Gov't. The concept is that persons carrying firearms need to have face-to-face contact with the flight crew before the flight. Perhaps the FAM management can find a better place for this to occur.

law dawg

Talking to FAMs is one thing. Outing them by publicly addressing them as "officer" is quite another.

Remember what I'm saying is in that context.

The FAMS have tried. They asked to meet the crews in another place.

Denied.

There is no reason for the face to face. It isn't a law or regulation and "contributes nothing to security," since that's one of the catchphrases on this board. It's simply what the airlines and crews want.

As for the 800 pound gorilla, of course they are. It's the nation's airspace, not the airspace of AA, NW, etc. Much like if you want to drive on the highways you must accept certain restrictions, if you want to utilize this airspace you must as well.

sinanju

So, the airlines won't let FAMs:

• Recline
• Be addressed by (someone's) name
• Put gear in the overhead bin
• Look like a round-belly businessman
• Order a drink
• Sleep
• etc

I'm not suggesting that overweight FAMs should drink 'til they pass out with their weapon stashed in some random overhead bin.. I'm suggesting that the whole idea of undercover FAMs is simply unworkable. Anyone with the observational skills of Mr. Magoo is going to identify them.

Give it up or put them in uniform and install them on the flight deck.

law dawg

Not if it's done right you won't.

And the airlines won't let any LEO not pre-board as a matter of course. THAT's their biggest issue.