Captain removing SS agent from aircraft

[MetroSheriff]

This whole thread is getting wrapped around the axle. It is a chicken and egg discussion.

Yes, the man was a SS agent.
Yes, the man was carrying a gun.
Yes, the man was an Arab-American.
Yes, he was tossed off the plane

Now the kicker...would he have been tossed if he was not trying to bring a gun on board, which brought to light some inconsistancies in paperwork. I think not. So let's leave the race card out of this one.

The real issue:

An LEO (a gender-neutral, racially-neutral, agency neutral) tries to get on an aircraft with a loaded weapon. The Captain notices something un-kosher with the paperwork and the LEO gets hinky about it. The Captain has the LEO removed till it can be sorted out.

In this situation, did the Captain do his job? You bet your a$$ (and his certificates) he did. He is not a CSA, it is not his job to fix a gender-neutral, racially-neutral, agency neutral LEO's paperwork. It his job to move people from A to B, safely and in accordance with regs, and security directives. After all that he should give the old college-try at on time performance. Nowhere in that job description does it say anything about hand-holding a passenger thru his paperwork so he can bring his gun on board. USSS agent or not.

If the pax wasn't trying to bring a gun on board, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Captain was not being a racist hillbilly, he was doing his job, and making sure that everything was kosher before allowing a LOADED GUN, on an AIRCRAFT, in the POST 9/11 world.

In short he behaved like an AIRLINE CAPTAIN. Kudos to him!!!

Let's give it a rest already.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Well put.

 

[1900laker]

Caveman wrote:

>>
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.<<


Hate to break it to you, but occasionally dangerous prisoners are escorted on commercial flights. The FOM at my old airline specified that any high risk prisoners shall be escorted by two armed LEOs. It went further to detail exactly how that was done. I am sure I am not the only one who has ever had a prisoner in handcuffs on board my flight. Just thought I would let you know about this, so you will be enlightened.

As a side note, if a situation arises on board which would warrant one of these individuals to draw their weapon, I think it is an acceptable risk that they MIGHT hit a passenger or crew member if the ENTIRE aircraft is being threatened. Under that theory, It should be acceptable for LEOs to carry even when travelling, as they could be one more line of defense. I think a good regulation to impose while travelling on a flight is that they must have their sidearm loaded with the "aviation approved" ammunition, whatever that will be, whether it is ceramic bullets or something similar with low penetration.

 

[stingray]

CAPTAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THINGS, on their aircraft,
You do not take a chance with anything, let alone an questionable armed agent with improper paperwork. If the SS agent (Security Experts) can't fill out the forms properly its his own fault for getting the boot. You don't delay flights while trying to verify something like this. The agent should have known as I am sure he does now to have his forms in order.

The Gate pesonal should not have even brought SS person to the plane and captain with out the verified proper forms.

The Captain was right and acted proper.

To the few posters that don't get it. CYA CYA CYA CYA CYA CYA

 

[PHX767]

Boy, I don't think I have ever heard of an AA Captain being called a hillbilly before. That's a new one.

Anyway, here is the text of the AA Cheif pilot hotline for today...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is Bob Kudwa, and today is Thursday, January 3rd, 2002.

Some of you have sent me questions regarding the denied boarding of a Secret Service agent in BWI last week. You have probably read some points of view in various newspapers. I have spoken to the Captain, read the various AA reports, and had discussions with the SOC people.

The Captain was in direct contact with the law enforcement personnel in Baltimore, the AA agents, and the MOD. The Secret Service Agent did not completely fill out his paperwork three times and when challenged to complete it correctly got angry. The Captain, supported by the manager at SOC, chose not to board an angry individual with a weapon. I support his decision. End of story. We have been through enough - we do not need to
take any chances.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I saw the SS agent's lawyers on MSNBC today, and they are making it a race issue. His lawyer is a black lady, who looks very tough, and another guy said that the Captain does NOT have authority to keep anyone off his aircraft. Well, I'm not a judge, but if I decided that I didn't want to fly with a certain person on my plane, and they forced me to take him, I guess I could refuse to go myself.

They also said his "civil rights" had been violated. If that's true, aren't my civil right violated every time I have to be searched before boarding? Isn't that an unreasonable search? I suppose random drug testing is also an unreasonable search? Just some food for thought.

 

[avbug]

Verification of this individual's credientials is only part of the story. If I, or any one of us, is not comfortable with a situation, it is our obligation (both right, and responsibility) to handle that situation as we see fit. Even if the USSS agent was able to demonstrate the proper credentials and verification of those credentials was able to be obtained, it changes nothing.

A form 110A from the FAA is not a magic boarding pass, and neither are credentials with any other government service. Everyone must pass security, everyone is subject to inspection and verification (including crew), and ultimately, everyone is still subject to the authority of the Captain as Pilot in Command.

The details are still not fully clear, and will likely never be publically clear. We are in no position to judge, but we are in a position to support a pilot who exercised his right and responsibility as pilot in command to act in the interest of his company, his aircraft, and his passengers. Those who post that they would feel better with a secret service agent aboard miss the point; you'e not the captain. It matters very little what you feel as a prospective passenger; you don't carry the weight and responsibility as captain and pilot in command, and most importantly, you were not there, and haven't the facts to command in making such judgements.

FAR 91.11 specifically prohibits any person from threatening or intimidating a crewmember. While the facts are unclear, the use of a badge to intimidate a crewmember into allowing entry could be considered with the scope of the FAR to fall within the constrainets of 91.11, leaving lattitude to ultimately deny entry.

Let's not forget that some very notable assasinations were carried out by individuals holding high security clearances, and high positions in the government and military. Off the top of my head, I still have a very clear mental image of the murder of Anwar Sadat as he sat in the revew stand for his trusted troops. Because someone is trusted doesn't make them safe, and past checks assure nothing in the future. This is really beside the point, as the Captain was within his discretion. If there are other issues or apologies to be made, the company may do that after the fact. It's far better to apologise for having required the man to miss the flight, than to allow the man on board the flight if there is any question at all as to the safety of doing so. That's a matter of fact.

I can say this; I have delayed flights or taken actions in the past when I had an uncomfortable feeling about something, and haven't discovered until later the reason. Small things become big things. I've also had the unwise misfortune to disregard that little voice from time to time, and have come to deeply regret doing so shortly thereafter. Some years ago such a little discretion almost cost me my life in a parachute accident. I didn't feel quite right, but like the idiot I've too often proven myself to be, I went anyway, and very dearly paid a high price.

We're not just paid to drive airplanes. We're paid to make judgement calls, pure and simple.

Years ago I packed a parachute on a weekend, for a student jumper. Shortly after that I saw the same person enter the loft with a open reserve parachute in his arms. He had cut away his main, and had used his reserve. I was keenly interested in what had happened, and his actions. As I listened to his account, it was clear to me that he had no need to cut away from that parachute. He made a conservative decision, based on the moment and some degree of inexperience, and it worked successfully for him

At the time, I had a little pride and personal feeling tied into the issue. I wanted to make it known that my pack job hadn't caused this situation. A jumpmaster pulled me aside, and asked me to say nothing. I attempted to say something, but was held back. I was reminded that regardless of the correctness of that student's decision, it had been made, and it worked. He didn't have to cut away, but he did, and he handled it well, and lived. If I tried to confuse the issue by telling him he did the wrong thing, then the next time he were to have a real emergency up there, he might become confused, freeze up. It could cost him his life. I understood, and kept silent.

This captain made a call. Perhaps the USSS agent presented no danger, perhaps not. Perhaps he copped an attitude, or showed discrepancies in his boarding paperwork. Regardless, the Captain made a decision based on his judgement and experience, and the worst that happened was one passenger had to take a different flight. NOT a big deal. Don't second guess the man. Not one of us were there. How can we do so? He made a judgement call, and nobody got hurt. In my book, that's probably a good call. It's far better to make a conservative judgement decision and not need it, than hold back, and realize it's too late.

Let the man live. He's doing his job.

 

[bobbysamd]

Booting the Agent

I vote with the majority. The AA Captain did right. The Secret Service man did wrong. We've read Part 91. The PIC is ultimately responsible for the safety and conduct of the flight. As I see it, the Captain can either deplane the SS man, which he did, or remove himself from the flight. The SS man was very, very wrong to act huffy. It makes me wonder if this individual has enough self-control to be an SS agent.

I am certainly not trying to make light of this serious situation with the following comment - but wouldn't this episode make for a provocative interview question? Everyone prepares for the classic "Captain is drunk - what should you do" question. Maybe interviewees should also construct answers based on this event. I would not be the least bit surprised if some interview board pops it sometime.

 

[siedkick]

FOR RELEASE: Thursday, Jan. 3, 2002
AMERICAN HOLDS FIRM ON PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF ITS PASSENGERS

FORT WORTH, Texas – American Airlines today said it would not be deterred from protecting the safety of its passengers by frivolous claims of racial profiling asserted by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Relman & Associates.

The company said: "American carries out its security obligations according to the guidelines provided by the Federal government. Those guidelines are applied equally among all passengers, and the company vigorously resents any suggestion of racial discrimination.

"Threats of lawsuits will not deter us from justly applying the security programs established to protect the tens of millions of customers who entrust us with their lives each year."

American finds the "facts" released by the law firm today surprising and irresponsible since the firm has not discussed this incident with any American Airlines employee involved. Airline employees said the passenger, an armed Secret Service agent, behaved inappropriately.

The airline said that, while it also would prefer to resolve this situation in an amicable way, it cannot allow misleading information to go uncorrected.

American therefore feels obligated to release the attached copies of incident reports filed by the captain of Flight 363 and the manager of the airline’s System Operations Control center who spoke directly with the passenger.

"These reports paint a clear and consistent picture of what occurred during this agent’s attempt to board Flight 363," the airline said. "While we’ll let the reports speak for themselves, we will reiterate that American will not allow any armed individual onboard, regardless of who he or she is, if that person is angry or acting in a manner that the crew believes could jeopardize the safety of the flight."

American can confirm that, as stated in the captain’s report, he has filed a letter of complaint with the Secret Service.

As this incident is now under investigation by the Secret Service, American cannot comment beyond this statement.

Text of Captain’s Statement
Misconduct of Armed Passenger
Debrief Detail:

Armed passenger * flight 363 BWI/DFW. Flight was scheduled to leave at 1715. I was notified that due to a mechanical at the next gate - they would hold our push for approximately 30-40 minutes to try to accommodate those pax going to DFW. A few moments later the *1 flt attendant brought to my attention that she and other flt att were concerned about the actions of one of the pax. This pax left the aircraft with carryon bags still in his seat. He told the flt att. Please don’t leave without him. While the pax was away a flt att observed books in the individuals seat which were written in what she assessed was Arabic style print. Upon further investigation - when the individual came back it was determined that he was in fact our ‘armed passenger’. I then decided to stop my pre-flt and review the AA E2. The form was unreadable because it was a carbon-copy and there were missing items. I then had the agent come back and recheck his credentials and give me a new AA E2. Again this form was filled out improperly. I left my seat to speak to the individual. He appeared nervous and anxious. With all the forms that I received in error I determined that the most prudent course of action was to call dispatch to phone patch me to the SOC. I asked them to fax me a copy of what the Secret Service credentials looks like. He advised me that BWI should have this information. BWI in fact does not. We still were accommodating the connecting passengers and had time to further determine the proper credentials of this person. While all this was going on the individual approached me in front of the lead agent and asked why he was being denied boarding for so long. I disclosed to him that the paper work was not correct and that I needed to have this fixed before he would be accommodated. This was an AA issue and none of his concern. At this time the individual became very hostile with me. Upon all the information that I had up to this point - I had doubt as to his actual representation as a Special Agent for the Secret Service. 1. *Two improperly filled out AA Form E2. 2. *Flt atts bringing to my attention what appeared to be strange behavior. 3. *Hostility toward me for trying to correct my required paper work. I then had the Maryland Airport Authority police determine his proper ID by calling the Secret Service as to his legitimate status. This took about ten minutes to complete. In the interim I was given a third improperly filled out AA Form E2. This had no signature of the LEO. No initial as to the traveling status of the officer. No phone number. While the police were determining the proper status of this individual this person came up to me with loud abusive comments as to his being denied boarding. That he has the powers of the White House behind him and that this is not of [sic] the end of this matter. The police agreed with me that there was a legitimate concern because of his unprofessional behavior. This was all in full view of every passenger boarding the flight. He then said he would not board the flt. As it turned out he was an actual LEO. After the events of 9/11 and another of our fls targeted with explosives and causing injury to a flt att I absolutely felt correct in having this individuals [sic] identification validated. After three improper AA Form E2s [sic] and the behavior of this individual, I needed to be 100% sure of his credentials. If he just let us do our job of getting the paper work in order, he would have been boarded, and it would have been a pleasure to carry an ‘armed passenger’. With the lives of the entire passengers and crew, I was uncomfortable with his actions and did what a Captain should do and edge toward the side of safety and not move the aircraft until I’m confident that all issues are satisfied before taking off. As a note, I am filling [sic] a misconduct report with the Secret Services Internal Affairs division. I would suggest that AA Security follow up on this matter because this individual made the entire crew uncomfortable with his actions and absolutely with his confrontational behavior toward me. The police officer who was very helpful was officer (redacted). The case # was (redacted). The Secret Service Agent’s name was (redacted). Passports and fraudulent IDs can easily be altered to look passable. With all the items to this event not adding up, I absolutely believe I acted in the best interest of my crew, pax and AA.

Text of SOC Manager’s Statement:

I was working as Center Manager on Christmas and received a call from Captain

(employee number ) flying flight 363 from BWI/DFW. The Captain had a concern about a passenger onboard his flight. The Captain first requested a fax containing all wanted terrorist photos that American had available. I explained that this was not possible and asked exactly what problem he was encountering. He said that he received paperwork for a passenger that stated he was a Secret Service Agent and would be traveling armed. The Captain said that the paperwork contained scratched out flight numbers and may have been altered. I then suggested that the Captain request new paperwork. The Captain called back again and stated the he was still questioning the validity of this passenger working for the Secret Service because the secret service agent had failed to fill the paperwork out properly again. I asked if he had looked at the agent credentials. He said you work for the airline, you know how easy it would be to get fake I.D. I suggested that I could call the Secret Service and verify that this passenger was in fact an agent. I asked the Captain to request the agent’s superiors [sic] name and number. The Captain said that we should not use his information because he could have a friend answering the phone when we called. I then suggested get the local police to verify the I.D. since, being located at BWI, they would have exposure to Secret Service I.D.’s and contact phone numbers. The next phone call I received was from the AA ticket agent at BWI. He said that the Secret Service agent had verbally abused the Captain and that the Captain was denying him boarding. I asked to speak to the police officer that was witness to this, who then verified what the ticket agent had stated. Based on this, I then decided to end boarding to this passenger on future AA flights. Later, I received a call from the AA ticket agent at BWI and was asked to talk to this Secret Service Agent. I then heard the Secret Service Agent’s side of the story. He admitted to not properly filling out the paperwork for carrying a weapon; not once, but twice. He also admitted to losing his temper with the Captain because he was asked for his ID five separate times. When he asked why he was denied future boarding, I explained that I could not expose AA crews or passengers to abuse. He said he was being discriminated against, wanted my bosses [sic] name, and threatened that he would have my job. He was going to take this to the highest authority. I asked for his superior’s name and contacted him. I explained the situation to the superior. He confirmed that this man did work for the Secret Service, and would contact him. A short time later the agent’s superior called back and said that he was sorry for losing his temper and would like to travel out of DCA the next day. He then stated that the agent was of Middle Eastern descent. I explained to the superior that I did not know this and that there was no discrimination in the denied boarding process with SOC. I was 1,000 miles away from the situation and handled it as we would for any unruly passenger. We agreed the agent could travel the next day.

SOC Center Manager – American Airlines

 

[skydiverdriver]

Man, now that's good information that you won't see on CNN. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Keep the guy on the ground for a day, and risk an angry letter or a lawsuit, or let him go and possibly risk a disaster? Perhaps we should get cameras on the gates too, for verification of things like this. I'm sure the security areas are being filmed.