Posted on 12/27/2001 9:43:03 AM PST by kattracks
It's really simple. If the Secret Service doesn't vouch for the guy (whether by choice or by inaccurate data), he doesn't fly. If they do vouch, it's done by each guy splitting the info available to them.
Why the nebulous rhetoric?
If your point is that the law is written to allow LEO's to enforce it, you are correct. But only an idiot would write unenforceable laws.
FAR 108.11 - Carriage of weapons.
(a) No certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program may permit any person to have, nor may any person have, on or about his or her person or property, a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed, accessible to him or her while aboard an airplane for which screening is required unless:
(1) The person having the weapon is--
(i) An official or employee of the United States, or a State or political subdivision of a State, or of a municipality who is authorized by his or her agency to have the weapon; or
(ii) Authorized to have the weapon by the certificate holder and the Administrator and has successfully completed a course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator.
(2) The person having the weapon needs to have the weapon accessible in connection with the performance of his or her duty from the time he or she would otherwise check it in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section until the time it would be returned after deplaning.
(3) The certificate holder is notified--
(i) Of the flight on which the armed person intends to have the weapon accessible to him or her at least 1 hour, or in an emergency as soon as practicable, before departure; and
(ii) When the armed person is other than an employee or official of the United States, that there is a need for the weapon to be accessible to the armed person in connection with the performance of that person's duty from the time he or she would otherwise check it in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section until the time it would be returned to him or her after deplaning.
(4) The armed person identifies himself or herself to the certificate holder by presenting credentials that include his or her clear, full-face picture, his or her signature, and the signature of the authorizing official of his or her service or the official seal of his or her service. A badge, shield, or similar may not be used as the sole means of identification.
(5) The certificate holder--
(i) Ensures that the armed person is familiar with its procedures for carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon aboard its airplane before the time the person boards the airplane;
(ii) Ensures that the identity of the armed person is known to each law enforcement officer and each employee of the certificate holder responsible for security during the boarding of the airplane; and
(iii) Notifies the pilot in command, other appropriate crewmembers, and any other person authorized to have a weapon accessible to him or her aboard the airplane of the location of each authorized armed person aboard the airplane.
(b) No person may, while on board an airplane operated by a certificate holder for which screening is not conducted, carry on or about that person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This paragraph does not apply to--
(1) Officials or employees of a municipality or a State, or of the United States, who are authorized to carry arms; or
(2) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the certificate holder to carry arms.
(c) No certificate holder may knowingly permit any person to transport, nor may any person transport or tender for transport, any explosive, incendiary or a loaded firearm in checked baggage aboard an airplane. For the purpose of this section, a loaded firearm means a firearm which has a live round of ammunition, cartridge, detonator, or powder in the chamber or in a clip, magazine, or cylinder inserted in it.
(d) No certificate holder may knowingly permit any person to transport, nor may any person transport or tender for transport, any unloaded firearm in checked baggage aboard an airplane unless--
(1) The passenger declares to the certificate holder, either orally or in writing before checking the baggage, that any firearm carried in the baggage is unloaded;
(2) The firearm is carried in a container the certificate holder considers appropriate for air transportation;
(3) When the firearm is other than a shotgun, rifle, or other firearm normally fired from the shoulder position, the baggage in which it is carried is locked, and only the passenger checking the baggage retains the key or combination; and
(4) The baggage containing the firearm is carried in an area, other than the flightcrew compartment, that is inaccessible to passengers.
(e) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic beverage to a person having a deadly or dangerous weapon accessible to him or her nor may such person drink any alcoholic beverage while aboard an airplane operated by the certificate holder.
(f) Paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of this section do not apply to the carriage of firearms aboard air carrier flights conducted for the military forces of the Government of the United States when the total cabin load of the airplane is under exclusive use by those military forces if the following conditions are met:
(1) No firearm is loaded and all bolts to such firearms are locked in the open position; and
(2) The certificate holder is notified by the unit commander or officer in charge of the flight before boarding that weapons will be carried aboard the aircraft.
[Doc. No. 108, 46 FR 3786, Jan. 15, 1981, as amended by Amdt. 108-4, 51 FR 1352, Jan. 10, 1986]
You're right
According to other reports the agent was vetted before the flight was boarded but the aircraft captian was suspiciuos of the credentials submitted and asked for further vetting.
Oops! Bad example. Roosevelt had all the Japs locked up in Camp California!
Not at all. Once again, whether he flies or not is the Captains perrogative, no person, regardless of their employment circumvents that authority, ever.
If the airline were to "fire" that Captain, they would have no Captains. The SS person has no more right to the flight than anyone else, his status and or employment means nothing. No one knows all the facts of what happened but I would dare venture that someone did not do their homework and I suspicion it will be determined to be a lack of coordination, most likely on the part of the SS person or the SS.
As an employee of FAA, we use to ride the jumpseat in the cockpit, but ONLY with proper paperwork, etc etc.
And if the above is true then we don't need agents like this guarding the president. Any agent that would speak to a group like this instead of having his superiors in the Secret Service handle the situation is not someone that I want guarding the President.
One way the Secret Service could have avoided this might have been to call ahead and contact airport and airline security & tell them the man was coming on this flight. Time constraints may have prevented doing this -- the fact the agent was on a commercial flight at all was apparently due to a last minute schedule change by the President. There may not have been time for prior notification. Or maybe it is that it simply did not occur to the Secret Service because Secret Service agents fly quite regularly and there had not been any previous problem. Probably would not have been a problem this time either, except this particular agent is Arab-American. This may not have occurred to the Secret Service as a problem -- they are probably used to dealing with him as just another fellow-agent.
Me thinks that this particular ss agent has some sort of personal agenda to put forward. I would bet that the agency has had problems with him in the past.
I recall that some black ss agents made a big time issue of claiming that they were "denied" service at a Denny's.
It is indeed surprising to see the racist card drawn in a forum as intellectual as this one.
Which one of those describes Poohbah, who makes the best argument of the thread in #23? Is he a libertarian?
I read another news story on the incident since posting.
There apparently is a procedure whenever armed federal law enforcement personnel are due to fly. The procedure provides for advance notification -- as I suggested should have been done to avoid this sort of thing. As far as I can tell this was done. Also pre-boarding credential and identification checks. And the LEO's seat location is noted on the flight manifest for the crew's information. The AA spokesman said that "inconsistencies" in the agent's paperwork prompted the removal, based on the pilot's decision that a more thorough check was needed to confirm his identity.
That sounds plausible -- and I don't think anyone claims that it wasn't proper to make the additional checks -- but that, in an hour and a half of additional checking, they couldn't verify who he was, is a little strange. I still think that even if there were "inconsistencies" that needed to be checked out, the likelihood is that he would have been allowed back on if he hadn't belonged to a suspect group. Maybe that's to be expected in today's climate.
I'm thinking you may be right and that if in fact they have had problems with him that he's just managed to get himself a few reasons to feel he's been wronged and by default a way to sue someone.
What makes you feel that way?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.