Overheard in elevator today conversation about FAM who didn't like men of Middle Eastern descent on aircraft and diverted the flight. Mentioned that they were flying from MCO but I do not know if it was an MCO flight or the connecting flight into DCA.

Does anyone know of an incident this past weekend? Any particulars?

Thanks,

Marc

I fly MCO DCA every week and have never been harassed; I am worried if FAMs are going ballistic.

Do you really believe that FAMS would divert a plane just because they didn't like having middle easterners on it? Do you really think the pilot would agree to it? You have better odds of a f/c passenger going ballistic over having to take his shoes off at TSA. Rumors like this (although exciting to the haters of anything government) are just silly.

Have a great day all!

Thank you HiltonHead.........

.....

If true, some here may have to re-evaluate their prior comments.

It's true. Check it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061301937.html

I guess hiltonhead and 24th ID are enjoying a silent moment ...

The original post contended that "FAM who didn't like men of Middle Eastern descent on aircraft" caused the diversion of the flight. Then a couple posters said, hogwash, a flight isn't going to get diverted just because a FAM doesn't like middle eastern men.

Based upon the articles, it seems that the "hogwash" posters are more accurate than the original poster.

What the FAM didn't like was:
1. 7 middle eastern men being on the flight.
2. All 7 middle eastern men sitting in first class.
3. Strange behavior by the 7 middle eastern men.
4. Apparent hand-signal communication by the 7 middle eastern men.

It seems that the original poster thought that only condition #1 existed and that only condition #1 resulted in the diversion. As it turns out, it was the combination of conditions #1-#4 that resulted in the diversion.

I would contend that if the 7 men were white, black or hispanic and conidtions #2-#4 existed, the flight still may well have been diverted.

With the limited information provided by the linked articles, I believe that the FAM and the pilot acted reasonably.

Yes. There was a plane diverted not too long ago because someone found the letters "BOB" written on an airsick bag or magazine or something and assumed that it meant "bomb on board."

I've flown and known other people on the plane before. And I've probably even made hand signals to them.

Seems like these guys were guilty of FWA (flying while arab). Did the old DWB (driving while black) cops get jobs as air marshals?

I guess the lesson here is that when you fly with people you know, especially if they have dark skin, don't make hand signals to communicate, shout loudly across the cabin.

So we should just pretend that the 9/11 hijackers were all white guys from Des Moines, Iowa in order not to offend people's sensitivities? There still are terrorists who want to kill Americans. The FAM took the circumstances into account and had the flight diverted as a cautionary measure. Thus far, 100% of the instances of terrorists using US domestic commercial jets as missles have been perpetrated by people who fit a very narrow profile. IMHO, that puts anti-terror actions into a completely different category from the "DWB" phenomenon.

Well, that is what we do do, but regardless....

If the FAM considered the fact that these 7 guys "looked Arab", in conjunction with the other activities mentioned, I don't really have a problem with it. Say on a 100 point scale, the "looking Arab" was a 5 point "strike", I think that's reasonable. However, if it was a 95 point "strike", then I think that presents a problem - and not a problem with policitcal correctness. If we get to the point where we are suspecting people solely, or nearly solely, based upon their skin color or national origin, then we run the risk of overlooking some very dangerous dudes. It is clear that there are many "white american looking" people who are sympathetic to Al Qaeda and would be more than willing to assist them in their war against the United States and other "infidels". That's why I'm not disturbed by toddlers and little old ladies with walkers getting the SSSS treatment - if we just assume that those individuals don't pose a threat, then it only a matter of time before the terrorists figure that out, recruit them, and make them go Ka-Boom!

The "security at any cost" apologists will either come out on the attack or sit very still and silently. (Images of snakes under the rocks/bushes on the screen.)

Those of the above who go on the offensive will bring up, amongst other things, all sorts of excuses on why this was the "right" action.

You know - I don't see seven middle-eastern looking guys all in F (looking "suspicious" and using hand signals) as the threat some more paranoid people do, but I gotta be honest:

If their presence is gonna trigger a flight diversion by some idiots in charge - I'd just as soon we tell the middle-eastern looking guys "You don't fly." That is sad.

Too damn many Gladys Kravitz on airplanes these days, and too many of them have guns and badges.

Interesting that in the responses so far, no one seems to have flat out said that it was the "wrong" action; much less why they might conclude so.

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. As you said, they fit a profile. I guess you must be willing to pull down your pants (and underwear) at a TSA-operated checkpoint so the "security-at-any-cost" types can get a true measure of what is there and is not there (to see if it fits the "profile").