Air Marshall Slapped

[Bear96]

After ignoring more flight crew instructions, one of two air marshals ordered Belkova to be seated and put a hand on her shoulder to show her where to sit.

Maybe I missed something, but where does it say the FAM identified himself at the time as a FAM? Obviously that fact came up at some point after she slapped him, but at the time it could have been seen as just a regular old passenger stepping in to help, no?

 

[PropPiedmont]

Anyone with a SIDA badge at any airport who is involved in this discussion is subject to lose their privileges. Airport/Airline security is not to be discussed in a public forum or public in general.

 

[Light Years]

According to prosecutors, Belkova refused flight attendants' instructions to turn off her cell phone as Flight 26 taxied for takeoff, saying: "It is rude to hang up on people. I don't have to turn my phone off."

Oh heyulllll no... she best not take that tone with Light Years. I'll take the phone, toss it down the lav and take my jumpseat.

 

[jimntx]

Oh heyulllll no... she best not take that tone with Light Years. I'll take the phone, toss it down the lav and take my jumpseat.

My two best lines I ever used...

"Sir, this plane is going to LAX today. The FAA says I have to go with it. The FAA does not require that you go. So, if you and your cell phone want to have dinner at the beach tonight, I suggest you turn it off now."

"Sir, if talking on your cell phone is that important, may I recommend Greyhound. They also run this same route, and your phone will work the entire distance."

If said with a smile and loud enough so others can hear you and can exert peer pressure (and they will), it works like a charm every time.

 

[HJM]

does anyone recall the suspected detonation device in the rail bombings in Spain?

 

[Dea Certe]

Light Years,

Don't do that, honey! Then it will get stuck in that vacuum flushy thing and we'll all have to listen to it ring until maintenance can fish it out.

Very annoying to Mama Dea, who has ears like a lynx (including the hair sticking out) in spite of my advanced age....

 

[geo1004]

This is a clear case where the FA's should have handled the situation.

In addition to to above suggestions, a simple "Miss, either the phone is turned off right now or I will have to ask the captain to return to the gate" should have sufficed. There is absolutely no reason for any "government handling" of this situation...

 

[bofie]

re the easy spotting of FAMs...I suspect that the early boarding etc is an intentional technique to thwart trouble. Cops are in uniform for a reason. They only go plainclothes when trying to catch someone in the act.

 

[jimntx]

re the easy spotting of FAMs...I suspect that the early boarding etc is an intentional technique to thwart trouble. Cops are in uniform for a reason. They only go plainclothes when trying to catch someone in the act.

Well, no. That is not the reason why they are boarded early, but as PropPiedmont said, it's not a subject that can be discussed in a public forum. Since the FAM "broke cover", his/her actions are open for discussion--after all it made the papers. The mechanisms, rules, etc for proper conduct of security procedures is NOT open for discussion.

 

[<./']>]

Anyone with a SIDA badge at any airport who is involved in this discussion is subject to lose their privileges. Airport/Airline security is not to be discussed in a public forum or public in general.

I'm a pilot so they don't trust me to own a SIDA badge, therefore, I suppose that I could discuss it all that I'd like to.

 

[tadjr]

The story posted here left out some of the information I had seen on an earlier report (more thorough) from a Miami local paper. Maybe the addition of several lines with a more thorough explanation will change the debate. It appears she didnt just refuse to turn off the phone and she was up during taxi heading toward the front of the plane.

A US Airways passenger slapped a federal air marshal after refusing to sit down and repeatedly ignoring orders to get off her cell phone, which she said would be "rude," federal prosecutors charged Tuesday.

A public defender was appointed to represent Lilia Belkova, who will remain in jail pending a bail hearing Thursday.

Belkova was charged with assaulting a federal officer and interfering with a flight crew after her Miami-Philadelphia flight returned to the gate last Wednesday to drop her off.

The trouble started when she refused orders to turn off her phone while Flight 26 was taxiing for takeoff, saying: "It is rude to hang up on people. I don't have to turn my phone off."

A flight attendant told her that she would need to change her seat if she couldn't follow instructions because she was sitting in an emergency exit row, which was open only to people who follow directions. She was sitting 11 rows ahead of her assigned seat.

Belkova, 38, responded that she was disabled and needed a wheelchair to reach the jet. The flight attendant said that was another reason for her to move because only people who could open the exit door were allowed to sit there.

Belkova said she could lift the 40-pound door and reached for the handle before other passengers yelled at her to stop.

The plane's first officer was notified and decided Belkova needed to get off the plane. Heading back to the gate, she stood up, walked forward and was told to sit down.

One of two air marshals on the flight told Belkova she was interfering with the crew, told her to be seated and put a hand on her shoulder to show her where to sit.

Belkova reached back and slapped the marshal across the face, causing "minor swelling," according to court papers filed by another marshal. Belkova was handcuffed and taken off the plane.

 

[ClueByFour]

Well, no. That is not the reason why they are boarded early, but as PropPiedmont said, it's not a subject that can be discussed in a public forum. Since the FAM "broke cover", his/her actions are open for discussion--after all it made the papers. The mechanisms, rules, etc for proper conduct of security procedures is NOT open for discussion.

Hogwash.

At least one of the marshals has to brief the crew in person (among other reasons they board early). It also helps one member of the team ensure there are no suprises waiting for them already on board.

Forget about the fact that the gate agent has to be shown their creds at some point.

You do realize that all of this information has been discussed in public hearings before congress and in major national newspapers, right?

See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ghtbeeasytarget

Once again, security thru obscurity does not work.

 

[jimntx]

Hogwash.

At least one of the marshals has to brief the crew in person (among other reasons they board early). It also helps one member of the team ensure there are no suprises waiting for them already on board.

Forget about the fact that the gate agent has to be shown their creds at some point.

You do realize that all of this information has been discussed in pulbic hearings before congress and in major national newspapers, right?

See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ghtbeeasytarget

Once again, security thru obscurity does not work.

Well hogwash it may be, but what I know is that I was given a paper to sign that said I would not discuss the details of security procedures with ANYONE other than a very limited group of authorized persons. That disclosure of any part of the security plan--particularly to the public at large--was not only grounds for termination, but also for prosecution. And, this was BEFORE 9/11.

I don't care to risk testing their seriousness on the subject.

The fact that the FAMs must show credentials to the gate agent in no way "outs" them as FAMs. ALL LEOs who are armed must identify themselves to an agent, and there is paperwork to do. That doesn't mean the agent makes a PA about it.

Following your logic, the fact that a CIA undercover operative was identified by name in the Washington Post by a columnist should make it ok to continue doing so in the future. "You do realize that all of this information has been discussed in pulbic [sic] hearings before congress and in major national newspapers, right?"

 

[mweiss]

Following your logic, the fact that a CIA undercover operative was identified by name in the Washington Post by a columnist should make it ok to continue doing so in the future. "You do realize that all of this information has been discussed in pulbic [sic] hearings before congress and in major national newspapers, right?"

Not at all. Plame's name was not in any public documentation before the congressional hearings. Her name is now open for discussion at length. Unouted CIA agents are not open for discussion, because their names were not mentioned in those hearings. However, if any discussion in those hearings included methods of identifying the unouted agents, those methods are open for discussion here as well.

Having said that, you signed a contract limiting the scope of topics that you are free to discuss. Therefore, you have not only a right but an obligation to not discuss these topics. Those of us who have not signed such a contract are free to discuss this information (though not, interestingly, how to build a nuclear device).

 

[ClueByFour]

The fact that the FAMs must show credentials to the gate agent in no way "outs" them as FAMs. ALL LEOs who are armed must identify themselves to an agent, and there is paperwork to do. That doesn't mean the agent makes a PA about it.

[/quote]
No, but it's trivially easy to spot it, and thus the cloak and dagger BS about not discussing it in public does nothing to add to aviation security. If nothing else, it promotes a false sense of security, which is what lulled us into 9/11 in the first place.

Following your logic, the fact that a CIA undercover operative was identified by name in the Washington Post by a columnist should make it ok to continue doing so in the future.

It's against federal law to reveal the name of a national intelligence resource while under cover. Please show me the relevent portion of USC that makes it illegal to discuss aviation security.

Again, the cloak and dagger BS does nothing more than make people think they are safe. It does n-o-t-h-i-n-g for actual security.

There have only been two effective security measures come about as a result of 9/11 (that pax will no longer cower in fear of hijack attempts and armored cockpit doors). The FAM program (due to it's current operational procedure stupidities) is not one of them.