Captain removing SS agent from aircraft

[kilomike]

This previous post has been edited by me since I did not have enough information. On the surface it may have been an inappropriate action to remove the Secret Service agent. However if he did act emotional and get angry then I don't blame the captain for removing the agent. Sorry I remarked the way I did before since I did not have the information at hand and thought that the agent had acted professionally. That not being the case (I read Capt. Kudwa's information) I view the situation differently. I apologize for the post that had been written here.

 

[chickenpilot]

From what I have heard the paperwork had some problems with it and the Captain said no before ever seeing the guy. The Captain has a lot to do during the preflight especially if its quick turn ( yes thats an oxymoron at AA) I dont know how many airlines have the info right in front of them to call and confirm the SS agents info , yes the agent does provide a number but whats to say thats not his buddy's number.
As far as being a hillbilly who cares? Its still his decision and AA and the FAA have given him this power. dont like it? tough luck
Why do people think that all these armed people being on a plane make it so safe? ever read a report on a shootout a lot of LEO miss! Just because he is a SS agent doesnt mean he knows jack about shooting in a aircraft and whats behind what he is aiming at i.e. cables, hyd lines, etc a hole in the fuselauge is bad but remember we pilots get quickdonning masks we will be ok

 

[Simon Says]

Here is a little something to think about. Four or five months ago (before 9-11) I was flying from ESC (Which is in the upper penninsulla of Michigan) to DTW. I had a young guy mabey 21 or 22 come onto the plane and sat in 2C. The flight attendent gave me some paperwork that told me that he was a police officer and that he had a gun.

Being a fairly new Captain this was my first experience with this. So I read the paperwork. Guess what the fine print says. "They must be on official business or have a letter from their supervisor saying that is OK for them to be travelling with a gun" I dont know if this was a company form or if it was a government form, but I bet most all company forms on this read the same.

I called the guy forward and asked him where he was going. Then I asked him what he was doing in such a small town of Escanaba. (loaded question) He told me he was here visiting his girlfriend. I asked him if he read the form that he signed. He said yes. Then I asked him if he was on offical business. All I got out of him was himmmms and hawwwws. I told him that I was more than happy to take him to DTW, but the gun will have to stay. With that he got an attitude and told me that he is a Police Officer and that he has a right to travel with his gun. What he really was was a punk kid that was a police officer. Need less to say he did not travel on my plane. I am sure he traveled up to ESC with his gun to impress his girlfriend that he gets to carry a gun where ever he goes.

My point with that story is to read the forms that are brought up to the flightdeck and ask questions. Its amazing what people do.

Good Luck to all

P.S. come on kilomike.......give me a break. with post like that I really question someones profile. At least fulcrum is probally truethful about his profile.

 

[ultrarunner]

The agent had an earlier flight cancelled. He had to fill out his paperwork over again. The second set of papers had inconsistencies / different answers than the first set. This made the Captain want verification of his status. The Captain could not get verification to his satisfaction so he denied him boarding. I agree with the Captain.

What exactly were the inconsistencies????

 

[Cornelius]

If I remember correctly there is a difference between handling local law enforcement officers and secret service, FBI,DEA, and so on. The SS, FBI, and DEA have continuous authorization to bring a gun on board where as the local sheriff has to have a reason to. I'm not sure if the forms are different since I haven't compared the two.

Oh yeah, I think kilomike and fulcrum are the same person from looking at the style of writing.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I would tend to err on the side of caution, but I wasn't there. I think the captain did the right thing.

 

[Caveman]

If anybody should understand about erring on the side of caution regarding security it should be a secret service agent. He obviously doesn't get it.

If we are going to hold Capts absolutely responsible for the safe operation of the airplane he (or she) must have the latitude to make tough decisions.

There isn't one valid reason for anyone other than an air marshall or crewmemember to carry a weapon on board a commercial airliner. No LEO should ever be armed inside the cabin. They aren't guarding dangerous prisoners because dangerous prisoners aren't allowed on board. Even if they are FBI or SS all they are doing is TRAVELLING. Their 'official' duty begins and ends at the jetway. Put all weapons in the baggage hold and end all this BS.

 

[browntail]

I thought I would relay a little info from a friend of mine with ties to the SS. They were thinking of dis-arming the three agents directly around the president. This is because during most of the practice drills they either shot each other or the stand in for the president. So just because they are SS does not mean they are gods with guns.

Kilomike you clueless citation boy, go away!!!!!

 

[Victor Basta]

FAR and Secret Service

Was the agent a passenger or trying to jumpseat?

If he was a passenger the Captain has final say. PERIOD!!

If he was trying to jumpseat, did the Secret Service Agent have a protectee on board? If he didn't then the Captain has final say again because the jumpseating of a SS Agent is tantamount to the execution of his duties (in this instance protection).

Anyway the reg. is slightly contradictory. In one part of the substantive sentence is says "agent must (occupy jumpseat)" but only after "request and presentation of credentials to the PIC"

Sounds like the person who wrote the reg left an out for both.
SS: "must occupy"
PIC: "after request and presentation of credentials to PIC"

At any rate, it sounds like a pissing contest ensued and as usual the Captain won. As for the SS agent, if he didn't have a protectee on board that aircraft he was in the wrong, pure and simple. The SS jumpseat reg. is not a courtesy it is a mandate, but ONLY if the agent is protecting someone on board.

If SS agents have been jumpseating in the past it is on the pure courtesy of previous Captains unless a protectee was involved.
As for being safer w/ an agent on board, that can be debated.
Fed. Air Marshals qualify several times a year on their weapons and their acceptable parameters are lower than typical agencies. Moreover, they practice in an aircraft passenger configuration and use special rounds for thier mission.

Just any armed person onboard doesn't mean you are any more safe.

That's my spin.

The FAR for SS in the cockpit is 121.550
(page 337 of 2001 FAR/FC)

VB

 

[kilomike]

Simon Says is being a smart aleck. My profile is truthful. Just because you do not like my opinion does not make me dishonest.

If I had more information about the incident I may have a different take on this issue. If the agent was removed without verification just because of his nationality alone, then I have a problem with that. However if he behaved like that kid cop that insisted on having his gun with him on a personal flight then I would say remove him! I was stating my opinion based on the information I had at the time.

After seeing what Capt. Kudwa had to say on the issue and having more information, I agree with the captain removing the agent from the aircraft. Initially it appeared to be a racially motivated incident and insufficient information was given on the issue. The agent should not have gotten emotional or angry about the situation. I apologize for posting the way I did previously. It is so easy to come to a quick conclusion with limited information.