Secret Service Agent Removed from Plane!
Dec 27, 2001, 3:12 pm
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
Dec 27, 2001, 3:26 pm
#62
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: San Francisco
Programs: UA Mileage Plus Premier Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,467
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Rssrsvp:
There is absolutely no argument or rationalzation for this type of activity happening, that can justify what took place.
</font>
There is absolutely no argument or rationalzation for this type of activity happening, that can justify what took place.
</font>
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
Dec 27, 2001, 3:34 pm
#63
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: OCONUS
Programs: Presidential Airways High Value Target, Catfish Air Flare, Hootch Honors Gold
Posts: 9,049
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-
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-
Dec 27, 2001, 3:39 pm
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: DL FO, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 12,003
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Jet'Dillo:
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"?
</font>
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"?
</font>
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).]
Dec 27, 2001, 6:39 pm
#65
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, Marriott Lifetime Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,202
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by highgamma:
Where's the guy with the Ben Franklin quote when you need him?</font>
Where's the guy with the Ben Franklin quote when you need him?</font>
Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.
Dec 27, 2001, 7:40 pm
#66
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EWR
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 100K, AA Lifetime Gold, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 451
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryU:
I am not "the guy" but is this the quote?
Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.
</font>
I am not "the guy" but is this the quote?
Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.
</font>
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.
Dec 27, 2001, 7:41 pm
#67
Join Date: May 2001
Location: omaha,Ne,usa
Programs: UAL, AA, Hilton, Marriott, and Northwest
Posts: 465
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
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
Dec 27, 2001, 7:52 pm
#68
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,618
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.
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.
Dec 27, 2001, 8:00 pm
#69
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Valley Springs, Ca USA;Proud Retired AAer SJC Ramp/ AA- 2 MM Platinum;Hilton Diamond
Posts: 851
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).
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).
Dec 27, 2001, 8:11 pm
#70
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tha OC
Programs: Outgrew all status except AA: Plat for life (the program's); Costco: Ex Plat
Posts: 654
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
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
Dec 27, 2001, 8:44 pm
#71
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX AA EXP-3MM, HYT PLAT, SPG PLAT,HLT GLD,LEADERS CLUB
Posts: 1,183
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.
Dec 27, 2001, 8:58 pm
#72
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Southwest Desert, under a rock, watch out! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<" You can get there, but it's gonna cost you!
Programs: Previously NonePass®, now UA 1K (*Enhanced*)
Posts: 4,248
According to one of the NYT reports:
I guess all's well that ends well. 
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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.</font>
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.</font>
Dec 27, 2001, 9:10 pm
#73
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
"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
Dec 27, 2001, 10:30 pm
#74
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Coppell, Tx AA EXP, AA Lifetime Plat, HH Diamond, Hyatt Plat
Posts: 217
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 -
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 -
Dec 27, 2001, 11:01 pm
#75
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MIDWEST
Posts: 468
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!