the person did not have a job on the airplane that required a gun . the gun should have been checked. imho

Where in the story does it say who filed the complaint?

andrew

I have worked the gates before and had to deal with an armed passenger. Usually its PIT and they have at least two armed plain clothed officers. They fill out a FAA weapons notifcation card which has carbon copies. One goes to the captain, one goes to the airline and one goes with the armed person.
The pilot was well aware of any armed persons coming aboard prior to them actually coming on board.
Now lets talk about what one has to endure to get into the airport.
Walk into airport, go to security screening, sometimes by just showing 1)badge, authority ID card AND drivers Lic they will have u go through, OR security screeners will call Airport police and have them come and verify the armed person.

What AA did was horrible all away around, several steps could have been taken on the spot to solve the situation however its my belief that the crew on the flight didnt want him on the plane period. I swear the crew on the plane, dont dont give a Da** about anything or anyone at the airport, they act as they own the plane and they dont listen from outsiders....

For example when a state police or trooper comes onto an aircraft, they dont give directives they remain silent and when they are asked about airline crew then only then do they do something.

I believe the entire crew on this flight should be on leave for 6 months.

in one word, BS!

had this agent been able to contact a local field office, you can bet your sweet rear end that a whole swarm of dark suits would have shown up at the gate. the secret service phone number is listed in my local (akron, ohio) phone book. captain clueless should have made a simple request to verify the identification presented.

besides, if the guy wasn't really a secret service agent, don't you think that the secret service would've wanted TO KNOW?!?!?!? i'm no lawyer, but i'll bet its a pretty serious federal offense to impersonate as a federal agent!

sorry, but the captain was out of line, and did absolutely nothing to help the situation. his insistance that he was better qualified than security personnel to make a security decision caused this whole fiasco. i certainly hope he is getting some much needed time off to review his actions.

i was giving serious consideration to switching my allegiance to AA from CO/NW. in light of 3 serious post 9/11 incidents, i think the devil i know is better than the one i don't!

ErnestB: Thanks for confirming my memory about the FAA Firearms form. Something is wrong here and I *think* (we will see) that it is something more than a flight crew with bias. I belive that bias does (and, in some cases, should) exist. But after the amount of investigation reported by the press, it is hard to believe that the pilot was allowed to say: "Okay, we know he is really an agent of the US Secret Service, we know that he is allowed to carry a firearm when in the same room with the President, we know that he filed the FAA Firearms form, we know that he was okayed by security and FAA management, but no d**n arab looking guy will ever fly on one of my flights!" Hardly credible. If it really did happen that way I think that heads will roll.

The only news article that I could find on this story, was the one that Bruce quoted from the NY Times. I don't think that you will be hearing too much more about it in the press, as everyone involved must be totally embarrassed by the actions of their employees.

------------------

You are right. This guy gets to carry a firearm around the President. There are very few people who are allowed to do this.

But you're not going to let him fly?

That's absurd.

This isn't the first time we've heard about discrimination against SS (no, not that German organisation) agents who are not lily white.

Remember the case (during Clinton's first term, IIRC) about staff at some Denny's outlet refusing to serve/ignoring a table of black SS agents while serving their white colleagues?

President: Johnson? Murphy? Jackson? Roberts? Hey, where is my security detail?
Aide: I'm sorry Mr. President it's Christmas - they're off
President: Well I guess we're on our own. C'mon Laura, git my shotgun 'cause we're on our own ta'day

The U.S. Secret Service does not have days in which they "close". We're not talking about employees at the Dept. of Education, Labor or Interior that are able to close a regional office on Friday 12/21 and place a sign on the door that says - open on Wed 12/26. Also, I may your typical arrogant Californian that many times believes that the entire country, and the world, revolves around our state. However with that said, I'm sure even Maryland (especially since they border with D.C.) has a liaison at ATF for the Secret Service.

There is no excuse for this, it was nothing but racism. This I.D. verified, United States Secret Service Agent, working on the President's detail (not out looking for counterfeit money), who happens to be of arab descent was thrown off a plane because they did not feel "comfortable?"

The pilot and airport security personnel should be fired or at the very least suspended. You cannot continue to allow people a legal shield to hide their racist ways.

------------------
Ken in Sacramento

bdschobel & rssrsup. i beg to differ w y'all. if i can't carry a very small knife aboard , then i think that others should not be allowed to have weapons except on an ad hoc basis. i don't care who the person is or how qualified the person is. the weapon should be checked & not in the cabin. i am trying to think of a situation where any one other than the air crew should have a weapon. [marshall is air crew imho]

bdschobel & rssrsup. i beg to differ w y'all. if i can't carry a very small knife aboard , then i think that others should not be allowed to have weapons except on an ad hoc basis. i don't care who the person is or how qualified the person is. the weapon should be checked & not in the cabin. i am trying to think of a situation where any one other than the air crew should have a weapon. [marshall is air crew imho]

Here are the regs for law enforcement officers carrying accessible firearms on planes:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...cfr108_00.html
then scroll down to 108.219
Also a later story with some elaboration from AA:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2001...uard_dc_2.html

Edited to fix url which I can't seem to get to link directly to the proper CFR[This message has been edited by jerry a. laska (edited 12-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by jerry a. laska (edited 12-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by jerry a. laska (edited 12-27-2001).]

From cnn.com

"Even when local transit police vouched for the agent, the pilot refused to let him board the plane, the council [of American-Islamic Relations] said."

"The agent eventually was sent to another American Airlines flight, but was banned from boarding the aircraft because he had been reported for "suspicious activity," according to the council.

"The agent ultimately took yet another flight to Texas"

"An American Airlines spokesman said the company stands behind its pilot, saying he took appropriate action to protect his aircraft, passengers and crew."

My 2 cents:

AA has decided that re-assuring the majority that its planes are safe is worth any cost to a minority. It is in their financial interests. It is up to the inconvenienced and enraged to decide whether they should continue to patronize this airline.

The CFR confirms that he would have completed paperwork before taking the flight. In fact, before closing the door, the airline is required to inform every armed person on board of the location of every other armed person on board. The pilot was also informed.

Then, the followup story from AA says that the pilot found discrepancies between the first set of paperwork and the second (there had been a flight cancellation so the agent was required to complete the paperwork a second time).

Having now had access to the actual regulations, and to AA's "followup" story, it appears clear (to me) that I will need to "eat my own words" - the pilot made a decision which, at best, reflected poor judgment.

jerry, to net it out, do the regs allow any police officer to carry on an air plane when not doing a job [vacation, deadheading, etc] ?

This was in the later article, http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2001...uard_dc_2.html


"The agent, who was not identified by the Secret Service, was to fly from Baltimore Washington International Airport to Dallas to protect Bush on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. He was carrying a weapon because he was on official duty."

If people feel that this agent didn't have the right to carry his weapon while on offical duty, they need a reality check.



------------------

rssrsvp- who was he protecting on the plane?..... edited to change rssrup to rssrsvp.

[This message has been edited by clacko (edited 12-27-2001).]

On a related note...

December 27, 2001 - Special Report: Aftermath of Terror
Creating Bullets Safe for Use on Planes Is a Tricky Job, but the Demand Exists
By PAULO PRADA Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The silver bullet in airline safety may turn out to be a new kind of bullet.

With governments adding air marshals to airplanes to subdue hijackers, and some U.S. pilots asking for permission to carry handguns, ammunition-makers are scurrying to produce an airplane-safe bullet. The ideal: a bullet that could kill an adversary, but not pass through a cockpit door and kill the pilot or wreck electronics.

"In an aircraft with people, hydraulics, pneumatics and electronics, you'd be foolish not to be concerned about a miss or the problem of overpenetration," says Bob Giuda, chairman of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, a Warren, N.H., group that lobbies to arm pilots.

Ammunition makers are focusing on so-called frangible bullets, which disintegrate on impact with the first hard substance they hit, eliminating ricochet and reducing the chance that bullets will pass through a body. Frangible bullets usually consist of a copper cladding packed with ground metals or plastics. They were developed to meet new demands on the firearms industry: ammunition that is less deadly for use by police in urban neighborhoods and less polluting than lead.

Often Inaccurate

But frangibles are often inaccurate, because the ground materials inside tend to clump or break apart, throwing off bullet trajectory and making shots behave unpredictably upon impact. By contrast, a conventional bullet, generally a homogeneous slug of lead, flies straight and hits as a solid mass, although with too much power for the inside of an airplane.

SinterFire Inc., in Kersey, Pa., and Bismuth Cartridge Co., of North Hollywood, Calif., believe they have come up with better alternatives, using such materials as copper, tin and bismuth, a hard and lustrous metal. Packing frangible bullets with more consistently machined powder or crystalline metal reduces the problem of clumping and makes the shots more accurate, they say. The companies believe they could sell millions of these bullets a year.

Manufacturers also have fine-tuned the material to make sure the bullets are powerful enough to kill, but not so powerful that they penetrate metal. Technicians have tested the rounds against a variety of materials, including gelatin globs that model human tissue.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center are testing frangible bullets for their effectiveness in police handguns. The Federal Aviation Administration is looking at new weaponry for use by air marshals, but wouldn't say whether they were examining frangible bullets.

The prospect of midair shootouts makes many aviation experts gun-shy, even though they dismiss the idea that bullet holes could lead to a loss of cabin pressure. Unlike the villain in the James Bond movie "Goldfinger," passengers wouldn't get sucked through a window punctured by a bullet. Aircraft manufacturers say pressurization systems are designed to compensate for leaks, and that pilots are trained to fly the craft safely, even in cases of depressurization.

Insurance Liabilities

Instead, airlines worry about insurance liabilities if an errant bullet kills a passenger. UAL Corp.'s United Airlines backs stun guns and is seeking FAA permission to have pilots and flight attendants carry the weapons. But stun guns may not be potent enough to stop a determined group of hijackers.

In Europe, where air marshals operate on a country-by-country basis, aviation regulators haven't even raised the issue of bullets. There, individual countries have authority over air safety, making coordination on security issues complicated enough without the added controversy of weaponry. Few European airlines are pushing the gun issue either.

"The whole thing is fraught with dangers, from accidental discharge to issues of proper training," says Iain Jack, head of security for British Airways. "We don't want bullets flying around inside an aircraft."

SinterFire says its frangible bullets are more airplane-friendly. Its rounds consist of a baked metal powder that is 90% copper and 10% tin. By pulverizing, compressing and heating the metals, the company says, it avoids the clumps in other frangibles, making the bullets more reliable. "Our bullet can penetrate a bad guy's head, but it won't come out the other side," says Dan Smith, SinterFire's director of technology.

SinterFire works closely with Sigarms Co., a handgun maker in Exeter, N.H., which sells firearms to the FAA. Air marshals work for the FAA and use government-issued weapons. The two companies are discussing a new gun designed specifically for the frangible bullets.

Ken Elliott, president of Bismuth Cartridge, says his company recently developed a bullet made of that metal. Those bullets shatter more easily on contact than lead, because bismuth, a metal slightly heavier than lead, has a brittle, crystalline structure.

Mr. Elliott, already sells bismuth shotgun shells in the U.S., and is the publisher of hunting magazine "Sports Afield." He began investigating new ammunition several years ago, when the Clinton administration began pressing bullet makers to move away from lead, which poisons groundwater and soils.

Most frangible bullets, he realized, were "sintered" -- that is baked, not melted into a single unit. But he cast his bismuth bullets from the molten metal, forming a solid, yet breakable mass. The result, he says, is a truer flight path.

But some pro-gun pilots fear the push toward fragile bullets will produce ammunition that wouldn't stop terrorists. Mr. Giuda, of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, says he would prefer short-range versions of standard bullets, whose lethality is unquestioned, but which would be less likely to blast through cockpit doors.

Write to Paulo Prada at mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

URL: http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/r...5355504440.djm

Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

You are missing the point, he was on offical duty. As such, he was required to carry his weapon. Please read the regulations pertaining to this, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...cfr108_00.html The agent filled out the forms for both flights.

The reality of the situation is that the pilot played the "paperwork is incorrect" game to hide his racial bias.

One would hope. I kind of had to laugh at this. It might be profiling, which
I don't approve of, but our gov't has be SO clueless and moronic WRT security of late, it's amusing to see the blade cut both ways once in a while. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Another good one was on the 12/25/01 issue of the SF Examiner. On the top fold of the paper, in large-point type(The size usually reserved for "WAR DECLARED!!" type headlines) was the phrase "FBI Hasn't a clue!" with no other sub-header visible above the fold!
I had to buy a copy just for that alone!
JD

Today at LAX on boarding an AMericanEagle to SAN, I was picked for carryon search after a flight from NRT. While being searched, everyone else boarded without any search. You could say I covered for them! The gal sort of poked around without looking at anything very seriously. There wasn't much to look at!

WRONG!!
Can you say "authentication"? How do you know that the you're talking to a real federal agent on the other end of that phone call that would have "only taken 10 minutes"?

If you don't trust that the guy is leveling with you or that you can verify that he really IS who he says he is, how can you trust that the person he's telling you to call is also telling the truth?

C'mon people!
If there are people out there clever enough to engineer a shoe bomb or put together an operation like the WTC attack, they're CERTAINLY clever and connected enough to pull off something as simple as hijacking a phone line and redirecting it to an accomplice. Hell, I used to do this with my buds in high school!

As the talking heads are so fond of saying in every other instance: "The system worked!"
The crew did the right thing.

JD

Err...

Depends on how you mean "any". I'm not trying to be obtuse. What I mean is that some LEO's are by nature of their job considered (and may be required) to be armed *at all times*, even when nominally not on duty. By example certain types of DEA agents need to be armed whether or not they are in normal working hours. Even if they're on vacation.

The ATF even has an exemption under federal Domestic Abuse laws about this. When writing about who may or may not be allowed to carry a weapon, the ATF says that if officers are "authorized or required to carry their service weapon at all times, the exception applies to their service weapon at all times."

BTW, here's the best link I could find as to the actual rules. The paperwork at the bottom is not that difficult to fill out and is pretty clear.

http://cas.faa.gov/readingroom/circulars/carweap.html

The fundamental issue I have is that the guy was authenticated by local police, had the proper paperwork, and the pilot decided that he wasn't going to admit that mayyyyyyyyybe he made a mistake. so he made an even bigger one.

Well we all now know that AA let's the bombers on but keeps the cops off. Nice job, really. make sure you put this on your resume.

Dec, 01. :
"Destroyed any credibility my Airline had left."

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Every local police department in the USA has a contact number for the Secret Service. So even if you don't use the number that the agent has provided to them, there is always a number available to use. The airport police knew who to call.

By the way, this thread is a good example of why a juries don't convict people even though the evidence is clear. There is no basis of fact for the arguments expressed to defend the pilot's action. The pilot made up an issue over the paperwork that was total bull.


[This message has been edited by Rssrsvp (edited 12-27-2001).]

I am not "the guy" but is this the quote?

Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.

That's what I was looking for! Thank you. I've never been an alarmist, but I do feel we need to recognize how little we've gained from our lost freedom.

Let's have a national ID card! (But wait! Maybe yours is a fake. Have to detain you anyway.) Let's give pilots guns! (But we can't give them good judgement.) And so on.

I also have to agree that I can not understand how people including american airlines can defend this. First he has his SS badge and Id.(undisputed) He would have been flying on an original ticket booked under government rate even if the new ticket from the reschedule did not specifically carry that info. He had been passed by security to get to the plane originally. He actually had filled out the forms to fly armed, thereby telling everyone that he was armed.(undisputed even if the pilot wants to say something was filled out wrong.)

As to the story that the phones could be routed. Only an idiot could believe that. If the police actually questioned the ID they would call their dispatcher to have them connected, or the AA CSR could pick up phone, dial O and ask either for a secret service number or white house info and then ask to be connected. There is a duty station manned 24 hours a day at either location.

As to whether he should fly armed. Since he was reporting to duty he is going to keep his firearm with him at all times. If he checks it there is a chance that the bag would not be there when he got there. Especially since now he is not even going to be on the flight he was originally booked on. If you were responsible for your sidearm and the penalties for losing it would you want to trust checking it. I would also wonder if current policy for most federal LEO's is to carry on airlines for added security.(remember Leon wanting Delta on flights)

There is a new book out by a former member of the FBI HRT team. He has a story about how part of the team flew to Italy to a competition. On the way back they board there flight after being passed by Italian police through security with MP5's, grenades and other equipment. They did not realize that they had to connect through Zurich. They had not made any prior notification and at first were unsure what to do when they saw that they had to go back through a security checkpoint. None of them spoke german. Long story short they ended up getting lots of looks by the swiss police and then after some joking around were taken to their flight having met some new friends. He sad from that point on they never flew commercial to training. The point being that they could not trust and I would not want baggage handlers to have had access to fully automatic weapons. The right choice is for them to have that as carry on.

The last point. Frangible ammo is actually illegal for military use. Dumdum ammo is considered the same as gas. Now police can use this ammo but can also be subject to lawsuits as it is designed to increase lethality as much as stop bullets from passing through building etc.



------------------
Robert

When we spend most of a day speculating on incomplete evidence, wrong assumptions and conclusions can be arrived at.

From the info now presented, it boils down to a pilot who didn't want an armed federal agent of middle-easter descent on his aircraft. It's the pilot's authority to eject anyone he doesn't want to carry, and that's all it boils down to.

Having said that, I do think there's no reason we should be more upset about a SS agent being ejected versus some random law abiding citizen.

As a 23-year police supervisor, I have difficulty believing someone under direct scrutiny by another police officer could survive questioning if they were not authentic. There are simply too many nuances of behavior and knowledge among the profession that only a police officer would know in depth. Superficially, perhaps they would pass scurtiny, but even as a local cop I know where the SS academy is, who the director is, what "G" grade a given level of agent is... all this stuff.

Police officers (and I count the SS as such) are very comfortable talking to each other and will quickly detect an anomaly.

While it is possible someone might go through an incredible amount of training to do this (as in the Soviet "Charm School,"), it would be much easier to just get a job as an airline catering employee with fake ID (as we saw happen in SLC).

In setting up any kind of screening procedure -- whatever the purpose -- there's only one reasonable way to proceed:

1) Develop standards and procedures
2) If confident in those S&P's, go to 3
3) Implement the S&P's
4) Periodically review results and adjust
5) When the procedures fail, take responsibility

This last one can take the form of either a) changing the procedures or b) taking the hit, i.e. -- accepting that no procedure is perfect and taking responsibility for the level of failure.

The trouble right now is, I think, that no procedures really ever can pass #2. The feeling is widespread that all airline security sucks, and nothing will ever be foolproof. Everyone in the security chain knows that if one more terrorist incident occurs on his watch, it's his ... -- period. The current threshold for error is zero. This means that judgement has been removed entirely from the process, leaving the employees with "responsibility without authority" -- the classic blueprint for workplace stress.

The only reasonable reaction (other than finding different work) is to follow every procedure blindly TO THE LETTER. At least then you can say you followed procedure, and maybe they won't fire you for a debacle like this one. But if the attitudes here are any guide, they'll probably be fired anyway.

I'm glad I'm not in airline security.



------------------
HP Silver, HH Gold, Starwood Gold

I find this just another act of how crazy things are.I have to laugh dening a S.S. agent boarding,well I'm sure someone will get fired over this one.

I worked many years with agents in the S.S.
and beleave me they can do things you can't even begin to imagine. I figure his idenity could be verified in less than 5 minutes anywhere he is in the world,they have a communication system like none other.
Regarding traveling by commercial planes they do it all the time.

According to one of the NYT reports: I guess all's well that ends well. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

"Getting the Heave-Ho" takes on new meaning & wider definition, eh folks...?

If AA can screw with an armed Secret Service agent......huh!!

Now you know why I didn't say boo when I got drop-kicked through the proverbial AA uprights. Hell, I'd STILL be in the DFW hoosegow if I had refused to leave the plane...

BTW: Bruce said it best.

Back to the shadows for me...





------------------
Only one thing endures & that is character.
- Greeley

AA is "my" airline. I am intensely loyal to this company. Having said that -

1) Captain of a USA (FAA) commercial airliner has absolute, and final - unquestionable - authority to refuse passage to anyone. No reason needed, to make this happen.

2) Captain "should" have sound judgement, since lives depend on that judgement.

3) Captain on this AA flight exhibited, and exercised, poor judgement IMHO.

4) Captain should be fired for judgement this bad!

5) I am embarassed over the press release put out by AA. It is simply amazing that adult humans with responsible positions in large corporations, can issue such tripe into the public space.

The Secret Service Agent in this case stands ready, as do ALL emergency service personnel, to die as part of his job. For us, and this includes that AA Captain. And Don Carty doesn't even have the good manners to apologize in public for the actions of one of his employees. Amazing times we live in. Our standards for common decency have certainly fallen over the past few decades.

It is going to be hard now for me to wear my AA "Proud to Fly" button on my Jan-2002 trips. I will do it, but it will be hard after this piece of idiocy.

ps - my nephew is a LEO, and his department says he is to "carry" his gun "at all times". Department regs also tell him he is "on duty" at all times. Seems I remember the exact same regs applied to me in my military job, even when I was in a secure facility. No, I wasn't in Military LE.

dAAvid -

This situation has really pissed me off. There was no reason for the SSA to be removed and espically be labeled suspious for the next flight which he also missed. I have a great college friend that is a SA for a field office. He travels with his service sidearm at ALL times. Flying with a sidearm is no different now nor before 911. Its very clear the crew on this flight didnt like his color, height, looks whatever. IT makes me so SICK, cause they all knew darn well that he was a true SSA. I read ir prior post that it would take time to verify ID or reach someone at a command center... FALSE any member of the USMS,FBI,ATF,DEA,SSA can be confirmed within mins, anytime there is a question about an agent status that call is traced and given the most attention. With all the police and national guard in the airport if he was truly a fake well he would have been captured long before he was sitting on the plane. Simply before pilot closed the door he looked on the slip and looked where the SSA was seated and went out into the cabin and didnt like what he saw he started eviction procedure.(my observation) Now if there was paperwork problems he would have gave the paperwork back to the gate agent, he had papers in his hands for a period of time. There is no excuse, PERIOD!

Presidential Secret Service Detail has teams that travel primarily commercial too.. namely, the advanced team.

Wow. I didn't know that the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION had that sort of capability for its employees! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

That list 2 above didn't apply in Paris for the AA flight. All the markers, but still allowed to board.

Actually, AA did yank the bomber off his first flight. It was the French Border Police who cleared the passenger to board the next available flight, so I think AA did their job properly in that case as well.

At what point based on the facts presented will you acknowledge that the AA pilot stepped over the line when he removed the Secret Service agent?