FFDO Story. What do you think?

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Yeah, CA is ISC, but he'd be stupid not to be open to input from the FO if he's an FFDO.

Input is certainly welcomed. But some FFDOs feel that their role isn't that of providing input, but of giving orders as to how things will be handled in an inflight security situation. Honestly, you wouldn't believe how some of these guys handle their briefings, and it's not a good way to start a trip.

As far as briefing the ice, ignition, etc, that's the PF's job, not necessarily the CA. Now, the CA should be able to overule the FO IF he's able to give a good reason.

Interesting that you put the "if he's able to give a good reason" qualifier on there. What would you do if he didn't provide a good reason? What if he did just say "because I say so?" I push this point because I had to represent plenty of FOs in disciplinary hearings because they thought that they had the authority to argue with Captains. They thought wrong.

 

[lancair1]

And there we have it. Someone who I assume is an FFDO admitting that he feels the Captain isn't truly in command of his own aircraft. This is exactly the problem I have with this program. The Captain should never play second fiddle to anyone else in his crew, whether they happen to have a gun or not.



I'll apply for training after I upgrade in a few years, and not a day before. Until then, I look forward to flying with well-trained Captains that are FFDOs.

No.

I am in command of my airplane, but my "command" is trumped by those with US Code given privileges to do their duty.

Op Specs do not trump US Code, nor does 91.3

Sec. 91.3

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

This does not extend to controlling the actions of LEO's on the aircraft.

-------

A rough example to explain this logic is found in the USSS. The President is certainly in charge, but in the event of a threat the President does not have a say in their actions to protect him.


------


Lastly, suggesting that you need to be Captain before you defend your flight deck is sad for me to hear. May nothing happen on your flights.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

No.

I am in command of my airplane, but my "command" is trumped by those with US Code given privileges to do their duty.

And my disagreement comes in with how the US Code was modified to allow for FFDOs. I support the FFDO program in theory, but the practice of having crew members that trump Captain's authority on certain issues is unacceptable.

 

[CaptBill]

PCL 128 is right. You won't get explanations from many captains on why they choose to do things certain ways. If you choose to act not in accordance with their wishes, you better have a very good reason for doing so or you are going to be on the receiving end of bad things. It's just the way it is.

 

[lancair1]

Input is certainly welcomed. But some FFDOs feel that their role isn't that of providing input, but of giving orders as to how things will be handled in an inflight security situation. Honestly, you wouldn't believe how some of these guys handle their briefings, and it's not a good way to start a trip.



Interesting that you put the "if he's able to give a good reason" qualifier on there. What would you do if he didn't provide a good reason? What if he did just say "because I say so?" I push this point because I had to represent plenty of FOs in disciplinary hearings because they thought that they had the authority to argue with Captains. They thought wrong.

It is NOT the duty of an FFDO to provide input. Assuming their briefings are inline with what they are taught, they are correct and you should defer to them as the authority in the case of something happening.

Although it is completely out of your hands, I can insist that those who designed the duty of the FFDO are not fools and the reaction by the FFDO will be better than any reaction the average captain (no LEO or MIL training) has thought up.

If you think that some are too pompous, notify the ALPA security chairman. He will be happy to set them straight, because it is of the utmost importance that we all perform as we were taught.

 

[kellwolf]

Interesting that you put the "if he's able to give a good reason" qualifier on there. What would you do if he didn't provide a good reason? What if he did just say "because I say so?" I push this point because I had to represent plenty of FOs in disciplinary hearings because they thought that they had the authority to argue with Captains. They thought wrong.

The times that it has happened (and there have actually only been a few), we talk about it while the passengers are boarding. I present my view, he presents his view. In the end, you're right. It's his/her airplane. In those cases, I just toss another one in my bag of tricks for down the road.

I didn't have a good reason for going flaps 20 vs flaps 8, and that kinda put me on the losing end of some discussion. Then I flew with a certain CA that has been there for 22 years (who also happens to be a check airmen), and he showed me how to determine which would give me the best performance. Now, I've got that in my bag of tricks for the next time a CA asks why I want to do flaps 20 instead of flaps 8. Had one guy tell me I was a wuss b/c I didn't want to do flaps 8.....seriously.

 

[kellwolf]

It is NOT the duty of an FFDO to provide input. Assuming their briefings are inline with what they are taught, they are correct and you should defer to them as the authority in the case of something happening.

But what happens when/if they make a bad call? Who is the company gonna want to talk to, the FO that's the FFDO or the CA, who is ultimately in charge of security on the airplane?

How does it work here? The PIC is the one that determines who does what in a security briefing prior to flight.

 

[CaptBill]

And my disagreement comes in with how the US Code was modified to allow for FFDOs. I support the FFDO program in theory, but the practice of having crew members that trump Captain's authority on certain issues is unacceptable.

US Code does not trump captain's authority one iota. The captain is in command of every aspect of his flight. Obviously, the flight attendants will not ask permission to serve every drink. LEOs aboard flights are directly under the command of the captain as is every single passenger while they are aboard. If a threat existed that necessitated a LEO to take action, they would do so as they have been trained; however, the captain does retain command authority as well as the responsibility for every thing that happens aboard his aircraft. If an FFDO is acting in a way that compromises the aircraft, the captain not only has the authority, but also the obligation to intercede. The laws only say that a captain cannot deny an FFDO from doing their job based solely on that fact that they are armed. There is a difference. By the way, I am a pretty good authoriy on the subject.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

By the way, I am a pretty good authoriy on the subject.

I got that impression. But, as you can tell by lancair's post above, some FFDOs have a real problem with understanding who the real authority is on an airplane, and that's the problem that guys like me have with the program. There are many great FFDOs, but there are also plenty of right-seat Captains that think their gun and credentials give them the authority to overrule the Captain when they deem necessary.

 

[BobDDuck]

T...but there are also plenty of right-seat Captains that think their gun and credentials give them the authority to overrule the Captain when they deem necessary.

Which goes back to my original point of issues I have with the program. Unfortunately many of the people I see carrying an NDB around are (and I'm sure I'm going to offend some people here) NRA member-Bush Voting-War Supporting-NASCAR Fan-John Wayne Watching-Red Neck-Cowboy Pilots. They see strapping a gun on as a way of fighting the terrorists. They see it as making them cool. They do it to boost their ego. THOSE are the ones who probably would get in an argument with a captain just because they are the one carrying. I am very glad that they decided not to pay FFDOs extra as I feel that would just encourage more people to do it for the wrong reasons.

 

[CaptBill]

Which goes back to my original point of issues I have with the program. Unfortunately many of the people I see carrying an NDB around are (and I'm sure I'm going to offend some people here) NRA member-Bush Voting-War Supporting-NASCAR Fan-John Wayne Watching-Red Neck-Cowboy Pilots. They see strapping a gun on as a way of fighting the terrorists. They see it as making them cool. They do it to boost their ego. THOSE are the ones who probably would get in an argument with a captain just because they are the one carrying. I am very glad that they decided not to pay FFDOs extra as I feel that would just encourage more people to do it for the wrong reasons.

I can assure you that your observations and generalizations do not represent the majority of FFDOs. There may be some bad ones who slip through the cracks, but they are few and far between. The program has a ways to go to be perfect, in fact a long ways; but, it is a better program than some here are giving it credit for. Those who volunteer and serve are for the most part respectful, responsible and decent folks.

 

[mrivc211]

Certain security issues, Yes. And quite frankly there is absolutely nothing you can do about it other than refusing to fly the flight yourself, in which case you would most likely just be replaced.

FFDO's have received specific training to deal with specific situations. You have not.

In the same sense, try telling the FAM that you are in charge of the flight and he is to ask you or an FA before initiating action. That's simply not the way it works.

My best advise is to apply for the training yourself, in which case I'm willing to guarantee that you will no longer complain about it.

Hey bud- I don't know what computer screen your hiding behind, but the CAPTAIN is the inflight security coordinator. HE is the Pilot in Command. He says what goes no matter what aspect of flight it pertains too. No if's, and's, and but's. The FAA specifically states this in the FAR's.

I don't know what they taught you at your FFDO program/training event, think what you like, but the captain is the FINAL authority. Not the SIC FFDO. Period. End of story.

Additionally, if you instruct a FAM to do something, and refuses, he is interfering with a crewmember which is a federal offense. I'm sure you hear this in the pax announcement everythime you fly.

 

[mrivc211]

My personal opinion is guns do not belong in the cockpit. but thats just my personal opinion, which doesn't mean much these days.

 

[CaptBill]

Certain security issues, Yes. And quite frankly there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.......

FFDO's have received specific training to deal with specific situations. You have not.

In the same sense, try telling the FAM that you are in charge of the flight and he is to ask you or an FA before initiating action. That's simply not the way it works.

If you are an FFDO, which I doubt, you are very confused about your role on the aircraft. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[surreal1221]

Muh.

The Captain's attitude was ridiculous - obviously. But in no way does what I am about to say excuse it. . .

I find the whole FFDO program, TSA, and all of the smokescreens required in our nation's Airport nothing more than a safety blanket.

Real steps could be taken, but then we wouldn't be able to see them, and then, people would think we are not secure.

Majority of the security actions are for show, while others - the important ones - the public never sees. Keep it that way, even better, reduce the security actions that are just for show and increase the not-for-show actions.

 

[SkiHigh2002]

Muh.

The Captain's attitude was ridiculous - obviously. But in no way does what I am about to say excuse it. . .

I find the whole FFDO program, TSA, and all of the smokescreens required in our nation's Airport nothing more than a safety blanket.

Real steps could be taken, but then we wouldn't be able to see them, and then, people would think we are not secure.

Majority of the security actions are for show, while others - the important ones - the public never sees. Keep it that way, even better, reduce the security actions that are just for show and increase the not-for-show actions.

I agree 100% with you. The entire process is nothing more than a series of knee jerk reactions designed to make Grandma feel better about boarding the plane. I talked to a guy the other day that had flown twice with a pocket knife in his carry-on. Mind you, he didn't do this on purpose... he simply forgot he had stuck it in there. But the point is the TSA crack squad of security personnel didn't catch it EITHER TIME! But God forbid you bring 4 oz of shampoo on board the plane... TERRORIST!

The whole process of flying as a passenger is a series of humiliating endeavors... not the least of which is that I practically have to strip down to go through security.

You know what else grinds my gears? The fact that some airports don't have chairs to sit down in when you get through security. Old ladies trying to get their shoes back on (because we know how dangerous they are) while standing up is a slip and fall lawsuit waiting to happen.

I've never thought the FFDO program was a good thing. The only reason I'd consider being an FFDO is the ability to bypass the above crap mentioned. The people who need a gun to make them feel important are the same people who drive massive pick up trucks (for the same inadequate reason) -- I guess I'll probably change my tune if the #### hits the fan and we need assistance up there.

Personally, I believe the best FFDO is the passengers. Before 9/11--not so much... but since 9/11 those passengers are not going to let someone gain access to the cockpit. Hell, you'll probably have to stop them from killing the guy... or gal... don't want to be terrorist-sexist.

 

[surreal1221]

lol

jynxyjoe confirms the gear monkey's point. . .

Game - Set - Match.

The rapid thinking, quick on the trigger, unable to allow thoughts to settle before exploding. . .just who we want with a weapon on an airplane.

Brilliant!

 

[Velocipede]

You know, I'll just let CalCapt, PCL, BobDDuck and mrrivt make the argument for me. lancair is the poster boy for the "John Wayne" FFDO who thinks he's running the show.

I had the ALPA National Security Chairman tell me personally that if I ever got a lancair F/O just to remind him who the ISC is. And if he didn't comply, to just drop a dime on him to ALPA security and the badge would be gone faster than crap through a goose.

 

[Ian_J]

and to Ian J, i haven't met him but i have met the people that he's talked about and insulted.

I deleted my post - I don't want any part of this.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I deleted my post - I don't want any part of this.

fine then i'll get rid of mine.

it really is hilarious that i get talked to about being a descent person, which i think were someones words up above and nothing is said to the guy who opened with "i'm gonna insult some people"

*rolls eyes*

 

[Ian_J]

fine then i'll get rid of mine.

it really is hilarious that i get talked to about being a descent person, which i think were someones words up above and nothing is said to the guy who opened with "i'm gonna insult some people"

*rolls eyes*

Sigh. Look, I hate to get on the "words mean things" kick, but he was just giving his opinion. He didn't open up with "I'm gonna insult people." He said his personal views may offend people. BIG difference.

Which goes back to my original point of issues I have with the program. Unfortunately many of the people I see carrying an NDB around are (and I'm sure I'm going to offend some people here) NRA member-Bush Voting-War Supporting-NASCAR Fan-John Wayne Watching-Red Neck-Cowboy Pilots. They see strapping a gun on as a way of fighting the terrorists. They see it as making them cool. They do it to boost their ego. THOSE are the ones who probably would get in an argument with a captain just because they are the one carrying. I am very glad that they decided not to pay FFDOs extra as I feel that would just encourage more people to do it for the wrong reasons.

If you don't fit the description of his personal observations, what do you care? He didn't say EVERYONE who is an FFDO is...

 

[jynxyjoe]

Sigh. Look, I hate to get on the "words mean things" kick, but he was just giving his opinion. He didn't open up with "I'm gonna insult people." He said his personal views may offend people. BIG difference.


no. again. he said was "and I'm sure I'm going to offend some people here". i'm sure since you know him better than me, seeing as how i have 9 posts and he has +3000 you saw it as "my personal views may offend people".

If you don't fit the description of his personal observations, what do you care? He didn't say EVERYONE who is an FFDO is...

what he said was wrong and it was insulting. and just because i'm not the guy he's talking about in no way changes that fact.


you've said that you know the guy well and you obviously are able to read things into his statement that are not there. the rest of us just take what he says at face value.

 

[BobDDuck]

Hmm... Seeing as you trashed your original post I have no idea what you said but it looks sort of like you took offense to my stereotyping?

Calcapt is right. There are a bunch of good FFDOs that I've flown with. However there are also a bunch that fit the mold I talked about. I really have no problem with any one of those things by themselves, I was just making a point.

Look it it this way. While I think it's unnecessary for people to actually strap their weapon on during flight, I don't really have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with them adjusting how it's riding on their belt every once in a while but I do have a problem with them stroking their gun every 10 minutes and taking it out to check the load every half hour. You don't see cops doing that.

Sure, these were only a few that did that... but it wasn't an isolated incident. There are a bunch of FFDOs that go into this because carrying the gun made them feel important. That's not right. There are also many FFDOs that got into it because they wanted to add to the security of the operation and felt like this was a way to do it. That's fine. I appreciate the sacra fices in time they have made to get trained and stay current. What I can't stand are the ones who feel like they are the thin (blue,black,brown,orange... you name your airline color here) line between humanity and the terrorists.

I certainly don't want a Tackleberry sitting next to me. (That's a Police Academy reference for those who missed it)

And Velo, I wouldn't believe ANYTHING Capt. Beebe tells you (although in this case he may be right.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

And Velo, I wouldn't believe ANYTHING Capt. Beebe tells you (although in this case he may be right.

What does Captain Beebe have to do with this? Velo said the Security Chairman told him that. The ALPA National Security Chairman is Capt. Bob Hesselbein.

And Captain Beebe never lied to you about anything. He simply complied with the confidentiality agreement that he was bound by with USAirways. But that's another thread...