I'M FROM THE FAA AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU

[Denny]

FAA OFFICIAL, FLIGHT ATTENDANT IN ALTERCATION ALOFT
An FAA official was handcuffed and detained when she disembarked in
Kansas City after an altercation during a Southwest Airlines flight on
March 26, The Kansas City Star reported on Saturday. A flight
standards manager for the Central Region, she had argued with a flight
attendant, according to the Star. The flight attendant told police
that the official had confronted him about how he was handling a
disturbance in the back of the airplane. He told the official to sit
down and let him handle it, and the official allegedly became verbally
combative and shoved him. Police and investigators from the
Transportation Security Administration met the airplane when it
landed, and the official was handcuffed after she objected to being
detained.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/380-full.html#189501

[Matt Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> FAA OFFICIAL, FLIGHT ATTENDANT IN ALTERCATION ALOFT
> An FAA official was handcuffed and detained when she disembarked in
> Kansas City after an altercation during a Southwest Airlines flight on
> March 26, The Kansas City Star reported on Saturday. A flight
> standards manager for the Central Region, she had argued with a flight
> attendant, according to the Star. The flight attendant told police
> that the official had confronted him about how he was handling a
> disturbance in the back of the airplane. He told the official to sit
> down and let him handle it, and the official allegedly became verbally
> combative and shoved him. Police and investigators from the
> Transportation Security Administration met the airplane when it
> landed, and the official was handcuffed after she objected to being
> detained.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/380-full.html#189501
>
If that was a civilian, rather than a privileged bureaucrat, I wonder how
much they would have charged her with.

But then, the masters-servants role has reversed these past few generations.

[Andrew Gideon]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> But then, the masters-servants role has reversed these past few
> generations.

If you take a longer view, perhaps this idea that government exists to serve
has merely been a temporary aberration.

- Andrew

[Lakeview Bill]

"The official was questioned and released, and NO CHARGES WERE FILED IN THE
INCIDENT."

While the PIC has full control over the flight, in this instance, we have
seen no evidence that the PIC was involved in the action.

And absent specific instructions from the PIC, I think it is quite possible
that a flight standards manager could very well trump a flight attendant.

Just a guess, but I imagine that the situation escalated because of some
sort of interpersonal issues between the FAA official and the FA.

As an analogy, scale the incident down to where it involves an off-duty
policeman in plain clothes riding on a city bus when an altercation broke
out. If you were on the bus, wouldn't you want the cop to trump the bus
driver in handling the situation?

Frankly, none of us can make any sort of judgment regarding the situation
based on the information we have seen here; we simply aren't given all of
the facts.

And I think that the whole purpose of the original post was to feed those
who hate the FAA.






"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Denny" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > FAA OFFICIAL, FLIGHT ATTENDANT IN ALTERCATION ALOFT
> > An FAA official was handcuffed and detained when she disembarked in
> > Kansas City after an altercation during a Southwest Airlines flight on
> > March 26, The Kansas City Star reported on Saturday. A flight
> > standards manager for the Central Region, she had argued with a flight
> > attendant, according to the Star. The flight attendant told police
> > that the official had confronted him about how he was handling a
> > disturbance in the back of the airplane. He told the official to sit
> > down and let him handle it, and the official allegedly became verbally
> > combative and shoved him. Police and investigators from the
> > Transportation Security Administration met the airplane when it
> > landed, and the official was handcuffed after she objected to being
> > detained.
> > http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/380-full.html#189501
> >
> If that was a civilian, rather than a privileged bureaucrat, I wonder how
> much they would have charged her with.
>
> But then, the masters-servants role has reversed these past few
generations.
>
>
>

[Denny]

The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
news wires...
Your attitude is your problem...

denny

[Allen]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
> group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
> news wires...
> Your attitude is your problem...
>
> denny
>

Perhaps Bill thinks it is ok to interfere with a required crew member (yes,
the lowly flight attendant who serves you drinks and picks up after you, is
a crew member), or just as long as the captain does not get involved that
you may do what you wish in the back. He states himself that there are not
enough facts to determine cause and circumstance, but then goes on to say
the FAA personnel would "trump" the on duty, at his workstation, crew
member. Perhaps the FAA personnel (or off-duty policeman) has had a bad day
and tipped a few at happy hour before boarding the flight. Do we still want
them "trumping" the flight crew (bus driver)? Not on my flight!

allen

[Lakeview Bill]

First, I don't have an "attitude", but I do apologize if I misinterpreted
your motives.


"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
> group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
> news wires...
> Your attitude is your problem...
>
> denny
>

[Lakeview Bill]

Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required crew
member"?

I agree that it is possible the FAA person was out of line.

And, as I originally pointed out, we don't have enough information to really
assess what happened.

But that also means that we don't have enough information to determine that
the FAA was acting beyond their authority, as might be inferred from the
subject line on the original post and by the various other comments that
have been posted.

Jumping to conclusions of any sort based on sketchy information is a bad
idea.

But it is not a bad idea to point out how someone else's knee-jerk
assumption might be wrong...





"Allen" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Denny" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
> > group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
> > news wires...
> > Your attitude is your problem...
> >
> > denny
> >
>
> Perhaps Bill thinks it is ok to interfere with a required crew member
(yes,
> the lowly flight attendant who serves you drinks and picks up after you,
is
> a crew member), or just as long as the captain does not get involved that
> you may do what you wish in the back. He states himself that there are not
> enough facts to determine cause and circumstance, but then goes on to say
> the FAA personnel would "trump" the on duty, at his workstation, crew
> member. Perhaps the FAA personnel (or off-duty policeman) has had a bad
day
> and tipped a few at happy hour before boarding the flight. Do we still
want
> them "trumping" the flight crew (bus driver)? Not on my flight!
>
> allen
>
>

[Allen]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
om...
> Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required crew
> member"?
>

A ramp check can be considered interfering with a crew member. You are not
required to go through the ramp check if the delay will affect the safety of
your flight (such as weather or airport closing) or hinder your business.
Let's say you are a corporate pilot waiting at an airport and your
passengers show up. If there are no obvious issues the FAA can not hold you
to do a ramp check.

allen

[Blueskies]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message om...
> "The official was questioned and released, and NO CHARGES WERE FILED IN THE
> INCIDENT."
>
> While the PIC has full control over the flight, in this instance, we have
> seen no evidence that the PIC was involved in the action.
>

The Flight Attendant is acting as the voice of the PIC, as required crewmember.

> And absent specific instructions from the PIC, I think it is quite possible
> that a flight standards manager could very well trump a flight attendant.
>

The abscence of specific instructions from the PIC indicates concurrance with the attendants actions.

[John Galban]

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required
crew
> member"?
>
> I agree that it is possible the FAA person was out of line.
>
> And, as I originally pointed out, we don't have enough information to
really
> assess what happened.
>
> But that also means that we don't have enough information to
determine that
> the FAA was acting beyond their authority, as might be inferred from
the
> subject line on the original post and by the various other comments
that
> have been posted.
>
From the article : "An FAA spokesman told the Star that interference
with flight-crew operations violates federal aviation law and is
subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000. "

It's pretty simple. The FAA person is not part of the flight crew
and has no business interfering with a flight crew in flight. What
other information to you need to come to the conclusion that a flight
standards rep cannot interfere with a flight crew? The law does has no
exemption for people that happen to work for the FAA.

The degree of interference may be in question, but it seems pretty
clear to me that the FAA person was clearly overstepping her authority.
As far as the law is concerned, she was just another passenger on
that flight.

BTW - In addition to the FARs, there are federal criminal statutes that
cover interference with a flight crew.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jose]

> As an analogy, scale the incident down to where it involves an off-duty
> policeman in plain clothes riding on a city bus when an altercation broke
> out. If you were on the bus, wouldn't you want the cop to trump the bus
> driver in handling the situation?

Probably not.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Lakeview Bill]

By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

And you are making the assumption that the flight attendant was acting
properly.

Suppose a flight gets asked for a glass of water just one time too many and
starts beating an elderly woman with a fire extinguisher.

Would it be acceptable to you if a TSA officer intervened?

Would it be acceptable to you if an FAA employee intervened?

Would it be acceptable to you if an ordinary citizen intervened?

Or would you find it acceptable for everyone to just stay in their seats and
allow the flight attendant to beat the old lady to death?

AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS WASN'T A SITUATION WHERE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT
WAS BEATING AN OLD LADY TO DEATH WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER? YOU DON'T!

As far as the law goes, why don't you define "interfere" for us, and then
I'll get 20 Federal judges to give you totally different definitions.

You may or may not know that in most jurisdictions, it is a violation to
interfere with a policeman making an arrest. But if the arrestee starts
fighting the cop and grabbing for a gun and you walk over and cold-cock the
bad guy with a beer bottle do you really think you are going to get
arrested?

Now, go back and read every word I have written on this subject, and you
will find that I did not in any way say that the action of the FAA person
was correct.

I simply pointed out circumstances under which it could have been correct.

You asked the question: "What other information to you need to come to the
conclusion that a flight standards rep cannot interfere with a flight crew?"

Well, to start with, a definition of "interfere".

You stated: "it seems pretty clear to me that the FAA person was clearly
overstepping her authority."

Given that she was not charged, and given the paucity of facts that were in
the article, if it "seems pretty clear to (you)", I can only believe that
your judgment is questionable.


"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Lakeview Bill wrote:
> > Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required
> crew
> > member"?
> >
> > I agree that it is possible the FAA person was out of line.
> >
> > And, as I originally pointed out, we don't have enough information to
> really
> > assess what happened.
> >
> > But that also means that we don't have enough information to
> determine that
> > the FAA was acting beyond their authority, as might be inferred from
> the
> > subject line on the original post and by the various other comments
> that
> > have been posted.
> >
> From the article : "An FAA spokesman told the Star that interference
> with flight-crew operations violates federal aviation law and is
> subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000. "
>
> It's pretty simple. The FAA person is not part of the flight crew
> and has no business interfering with a flight crew in flight. What
> other information to you need to come to the conclusion that a flight
> standards rep cannot interfere with a flight crew? The law does has no
> exemption for people that happen to work for the FAA.
>
> The degree of interference may be in question, but it seems pretty
> clear to me that the FAA person was clearly overstepping her authority.
> As far as the law is concerned, she was just another passenger on
> that flight.
>
> BTW - In addition to the FARs, there are federal criminal statutes that
> cover interference with a flight crew.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

[Matt Whiting]

Lakeview Bill wrote:

> "The official was questioned and released, and NO CHARGES WERE FILED IN THE
> INCIDENT."
>
> While the PIC has full control over the flight, in this instance, we have
> seen no evidence that the PIC was involved in the action.
>
> And absent specific instructions from the PIC, I think it is quite possible
> that a flight standards manager could very well trump a flight attendant.

I don't see that being reasonable at all. An FAA manager has no
authority on a civilian operated airliner.


> Just a guess, but I imagine that the situation escalated because of some
> sort of interpersonal issues between the FAA official and the FA.
>
> As an analogy, scale the incident down to where it involves an off-duty
> policeman in plain clothes riding on a city bus when an altercation broke
> out. If you were on the bus, wouldn't you want the cop to trump the bus
> driver in handling the situation?

This isn't even close to an analogy. A police officer has law
enforcement authority, an FAA manager has no such authority.


> Frankly, none of us can make any sort of judgment regarding the situation
> based on the information we have seen here; we simply aren't given all of
> the facts.
>
> And I think that the whole purpose of the original post was to feed those
> who hate the FAA.

I thought it was to show that even an FAA manager isn't above the law.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Lakeview Bill wrote:

> By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

A law enforcement officer and a manager aren't even close to being the
same thing.


> And you are making the assumption that the flight attendant was acting
> properly.

That is a reasonable assumption lacking any evidence to the contrary.


> Suppose a flight gets asked for a glass of water just one time too many and
> starts beating an elderly woman with a fire extinguisher.
>
> Would it be acceptable to you if a TSA officer intervened?
>
> Would it be acceptable to you if an FAA employee intervened?
>
> Would it be acceptable to you if an ordinary citizen intervened?
>
> Or would you find it acceptable for everyone to just stay in their seats and
> allow the flight attendant to beat the old lady to death?
>
> AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS WASN'T A SITUATION WHERE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT
> WAS BEATING AN OLD LADY TO DEATH WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER? YOU DON'T!

Now you are being ridiculous. You really think that wouldn't have been
reported had that happened?

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
om...
> "The official was questioned and released, and NO CHARGES WERE FILED IN
THE
> INCIDENT."
>
> While the PIC has full control over the flight, in this instance, we have
> seen no evidence that the PIC was involved in the action.

PIC doesn't have to be involved.

> And absent specific instructions from the PIC, I think it is quite
possible
> that a flight standards manager could very well trump a flight attendant.

I don't believe the FARs back up your thoughts.

> Just a guess, but I imagine that the situation escalated because of some
> sort of interpersonal issues between the FAA official and the FA.

As in the FAA goon sticking his/her nose in where it doesn't belong.

> As an analogy, scale the incident down to where it involves an off-duty
> policeman in plain clothes riding on a city bus when an altercation broke
> out. If you were on the bus, wouldn't you want the cop to trump the bus
> driver in handling the situation?

Probably not.

> Frankly, none of us can make any sort of judgment regarding the situation
> based on the information we have seen here; we simply aren't given all of
> the facts.
>
> And I think that the whole purpose of the original post was to feed those
> who hate the FAA.

There is plenty of that food in the store to last decades.

[Dave Stadt]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
om...
> Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required crew
> member"?

During a ramp check the FAA cannot interfer with the departude of the
aircraft.

[Morgans]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message news:%li5e.16161

> By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

Unless there was a danger to flight, (or persons) situation, that is
exzacary right. He is only there for Security (thus the "S" in TSA), not
behavior policing.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message news:%li5e.16161
>
> > By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.
>
> Unless there was a danger to flight, (or persons) situation, that is
> exzacary right. He is only there for Security (thus the "S" in TSA), not
> behavior policing.
> --
> Jim in NC


Exactly....the sky marshals would not give up their identity over a minor
passenger incident. That would be a sure way for terrorists to get the
marshals to identify themselves.

PS. I'm still not going to let a Wal-Mart wrench touch my airplane. :-)

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> PS. I'm still not going to let a Wal-Mart wrench touch my airplane. :-)

Agreed. But in my experience, they are better (at our local WallyWorld,
anyway) than jiffy lube. New lows, all around.
--
Jim in NC

[John Godwin]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in
om:

> While the PIC has full control over the flight, in this instance,
> we have seen no evidence that the PIC was involved in the action.

In FARs 91.11 and 121.80, what part of "crewmember" don't you
understand? By regulation, Flight Attendants are required
crewmembers and the minimum numbers are specified in FAR 121.391

> And absent specific instructions from the PIC, I think it is quite
> possible that a flight standards manager could very well trump a
> flight attendant.

Please cite the regulation backing up your statement. Again,
remember that a Flight Attendant is a crewmember.



--

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > But then, the masters-servants role has reversed these past few
> > generations.
>
> If you take a longer view, perhaps this idea that government exists to
serve
> has merely been a temporary aberration.

It certainly has been an aberration throughout history. Of course, the
inverse has been "divine right of kings".

[Matt Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
> group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
> news wires...
> Your attitude is your problem...
>

Who are you talking to?