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

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/archive...ll.html#189501

"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/archive...ll.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.

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

"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".

"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/archive...ll.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.

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

"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

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

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

"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?