Spygirl

Once again-

For those of you who are interested in an update of the wildly overreactive Annie Jacobsen article "Terror in the Skies" please see Joe Sharkey's column today in the N.Y. Times entitled "Continuing Question About Flight" -www.nytimes.com. As I stated at least twice in previous postings on this subject, there was no factual evidence whatsoever that the Syrians in question were standing in the aisles when the aircraft was in descent, and after the seat belt sign went on. This article relates that the Federal Air Marshall Service (FAMS) has confirmed that, in fact, when the Syrians were asked to take their seats after the seat belt sign illuminated they politely complied with the request-in other words, they had caused no problems whatsoever on the flight. Accordingly, any notion in the numerous articles written on this subject that these or any other pax would have been allowed to violate the Federal Aviation Regulations by standing in the aisles without anyone on the crew questioning them, or otherwise taking action to prohibit or report such action, is absurd.

The best that one can say about the Jacobsen article now is that it was a nice piece of fiction.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

joan

This is too weird, spygirl. Why oh why won't Fodor's allow anyone to respond to this post? Although I think calling Jacobsen's article "fiction" is a bit going too far, it's good to hear you state (and repeat) all the good things being done to insure our air safety.

But hey Fodor's why can't we discuss this? It's on everybody's mind and a very valid topic. I can feel my hand getting slapped, Danny come on!

Craig

Well, I've been deleted once but I'll try again:

The article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/business/03road.html
I would like to point out that Mr. Sharkey does NOT fully dispute Ms. Jacobsen's story although there are definitely contradictions between her version and the air marshalls'. He also recognizes that terrorists are most certainly testing the airlines security systems.

beachbum

Read the whole article, Spygirl, especially the last two paragraphs.

buckeyemom

She was on Joe Scarborough (MSNBC)last night along with the head of the Air Marshall's and a former FBI person. Apparently, several other passengers have come forward with the same story AND the band's visas all were expired. One passenger who wished to remain anonymous said he "thought they were all goint to die."

joan

I am certainly not an expert, but I believe that expired visas are very common, and are over-ridden by "I-94's, a form which extends the stay.

Craig

The transcript for the Scarborough show can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5591031/

Spygirl

thanks Joan-the heavy handed deletion is obviously making me angry. But thanks for posting and you too, Craig-now, let me see if I can reconstruct my answer! (I'm going to copy this thread , and repost if necessary!)

No, Craig, Joe Sharkey did not fully refute Jacobsen's article, but he is, like Jacobsen, a journalist, and he needs a bit of an edge and tension to his story. However, it is important to note that now, with this latest admission from the FAM service the article HAS been refuted on all factual issues about the flight as related by the Jacobsens.

Craig mentioned in the previous deleted post that terrorists are testing the airline security systems. My response to that was, PEOPLE test the aviation security system all the time, not necessarily "terrorists" (whatever that means in this context-what the Animal Liberation Front, an aryan supremacy group, or foreign terrorists?). But as far as "terrorists" actively testing the aviation or other transportation systems now, there are many people, particularly flight crews, who not only believe this, but accept it as a given. I do not-simply because there's no hard evidence to that effect that anyone can point to on this matter. We simply cannot say at this point whether, and to what extent, our transportation systems are being actively surveilled by what? foreign terrorists (al-Qaida?- I have to use question marks here, because who or what specifically are we talking about? There are other foreign terrorist groups that may pose a greater threat to this nation than al-Qaida, like Hamas, for instance.

But this is what we CAN say, and I'm referring now particularly to the aviation security system, as well as surface and marine-based transportation systems: There are enhanced government watch lists, the USVISIT program that tracks every foreigner coming into the country, there are enhanced border and visa checks, the USG has an agreement with the EU for foreign carriers to provide passenger name records to the USG, we have a multi-layered system of security from curbside to cockpit-FAMS, Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs), reinforced cockpit doors, new technology at the screening checkpoint to assist the screeners -I refer to the new explosive detection portals that have been put in place in airports and rail systems to detect explosives on the person, as opposed to checked baggage, there are EDS machines for checked baggage, stringent new procedures for air and marine cargo security, enhanced intelligence reporting and greater cooperation amongst the law enforcement and intelligence communities to provide more accurate and targeted information-in short, I LIKE our chances in being able to disrupt any plans by would-be attackers on the transportation systems in this country.

buckeyemom

Terrorists and expired visas aside, why were they allowed to walk around the cabin before the seat belt sign was turned off? From the Times article, the FA's were strapped into their seats when they were descending and they were still walking around. This is against FAA regulation. I was on a flight recently and the man across the aisle jumped up when the seat belt sign was still on and 3 FA's swarmed him and told him to please sit down. He jumped up because a bottle of something broke in the overhead bin and dumped stuff all over him. They found him another seat pronto and made him sit back down and buckle himself in.

Craig

I don't totally understand what your point is Spygirl, but I'm not fully convinced that ALL issues related by the Jacobsens have been refuted. Also, I believe terrorists do not come from some specific background, origin or country - I did not say that it was Muslim extremists or any other generalization and I am ticked when I hear Tom Ridge talking about our war against "the" terrorists when our war is supposed to be waged against ALL terrorists.

joan

Two more thoughts:

First, even though it's against FAA regulations, perhaps the new stringent enforcement of no lines at the lavs, as well as no walking around while seatbelt sign is on, have come about AS A RESULT of the above case, and others like it. Perhaps it's more a case of finetuning which rules are more important (I hear they're allowing nail clippers back on for instance). I've flown several times a year since 9/11, but it's only in July that I first heard the announcement about no lines at the (forward) lavatory, after the Jacobsen story came out.

My second point: As good as all those improvements are, spygirl, everything is subject to human error. A 20-something male I know flew two weeks ago from Tampa to Boston, with a metal boxcutter in his carryon. He works at a supermarket and forgot he had it. It was never detected.

And about Al-Qaeda, yes it's become a catchword for ALL THE terrorists.

buckeyemom

Spygirl-You been hitting the ???

As to the watch lists..what a perfect foil, traveling as a band. Who would suspect?

buckeyemom

Joan-I have flown quite a number of times since 911 and each flight has announced no lines at the front lav. Maybe it's the airlines or the routes?

Had an FAA inspector been on that flight, that crew would have been in deep trouble for letting them walk around like that....

Spygirl

JOan-no one is saying that any system is foolproof-as I've stated previously-HUMAN BEINGS are handling the screening process, as with other systems-but when there has been a screening lapse, as it were, that may fairly be attributed to screener error, then said screener is subjected to disciplinary action, up to and including termination under expedited processing. Screeners have recurrent training, and they are constantly being tested as to their detection rates as well-as I've said before, what you think you see at a screening checkpoint is not necessarily all that is going on there-there IS a lot more than meets the eye here!

But that is precisely why we have a REDUNDANT security system in place, so that if one part of the system malfunctions or does not perform at optimal levels, the other systems back it up-to detect a problem before it happens.

As far as the no congregating around the lavs, Joan, that is been off and on with carriers since 9/11-it is an individual air carrier policy decision to make those types of announcements.

Kate2

Being a stewardess yourself-Spygirl-how do you feel about air marshals?

Craig

Kate2 - they are no longer stewards or stewardesses, they are flight attendants.

Spygirl

Fair enough, Craig-my point is, that everything that could have been done with respect to Flight 327 WAS done-AND IT WAS A NON-EVENT-THE POST 9/11 SYSTEM WORKED. There was cooperation on all levels- the aircraft was met at the gate by local, state AND federal law enforcement officials, who interviewed the Syrians and the pax, and found no violation of federal law, either with respect to the flight, or with respect to their I-94s (the fact that one has an expired visa means little to nothing in and of itself-many other factors are at play before an alien can be declared in overstay status) Not to mention the fact that there were FAMS on board WHO ARE PAID TO BE SUSPICIOUS. The FAMS were checking the lavs-regularly-, and observing the scene-there was NO interference with a flight crew member of any kind on this flight-therefore, there was no reason for the FAMS to act. AND the Syrian pax were NOT standing when the plane was in descent after the seat belt sign went on, as that would be a violation of FAA regs. The pax in question were in fact asked to take their seats, and they did. The Syrian musicians then took a JetBlue flight-all together again! after their gig with no incident, nothing whatsoever reported on any front-only #327 -because A. Jacobsen decided to write a sensationalist story that was way short on facts and way long on speculation and dramatics.

But that is not to say that one should not always be alert and aware as to what is going on - a little paranoia is not a bad thing-certain pax apparently did feel uneasy on Flt. 327, and that is why the flight was met by law enforcement. That which could have been done, was done-and no one in charge disregarded the concerns and unease of the pax.

Spygirl

thanks Craig-I think I went off on this issue on another board-the term stewards and stewardesses is not only anachronistic-but sexist-flight attendants consider the term quite offensive-and indeed they should-lest one forget-F/As are there primarily for safety reasons-(remember what happened to the F/As on Sept. 11?)

soccr

I can't say how interesting it's been to watch how the web, the print media, and the broadcast media have dealt with this, and how gratifying it is that eventually facts outshouted hype.

Now, what do we do when "terrorized" by cranky 3-year-olds or officious gate agents?

Spygirl

I catch your drift, soccr-indeed, one can be "terrorized" by so many of life's travails!