Was There a "Dry Run" Before Flight 253?

Douglas Hagmann has had this information posted over at Northeast Intelligence Network since late December. Hagmann conducted a telephone interview with a passenger, name concealed as "REDACTED", who had witnessed what appeared to him to be suspicious behavior on Delta-Northwest flight 253 a week before the attempted bombing. As Hagmann notes, there may be a perfectly innocent explanation. However, since there appear to have been "dry run" or back-up aspects to even the actual December 25th bombing try, this testimony may be significant.

There is quite a bit more at the NIN site, but these are the essentials from the interview:

REDACTED stated that he was a passenger aboard Delta-Northwest Airlines flight 253 flying from Amsterdam to Detroit on 17 December 2009, seated in . He stated that he has taken international flights in the past. At the onset of the flight, he observed two individuals seated in seats 41-G and 41-K, possibly with an empty seat between the two individuals. REDACTED denied seeing either individual within the terminal or at any time prior to boarding the aircraft.

Subject one was an adult male, approximately 32-35 years-old, slight build, short dark, well-trimmed hair and a dark colored closely cropped beard, possibly of Yemeni ethnicity. (REDACTED stated he was able to determine ethnicity with a high degree of certainty due to his experience and time spent in the Middle East.) This male was smartly dressed in dark colored dress pants, dress shirt and a tie, the latter which he kept on during the entire flight.

Subject two was an adult female of undetermined origin/ethnicity, appearing to be older than the male, possibly in her early to mid forties, dark black hair, medium build, wearing jeans and a very loose fitting sweater possibly worn over another shirt. The sweater was of specific interest as it was more bulky than necessarily fashionable.

It is important to note that upon boarding the aircraft, the subjects described above provided no indication that they knew each other or were otherwise traveling together.

Throughout the entire duration of the nearly 8-hour flight, the above-referenced male remained seated, barely moved, and engaged in what best could be described as surveillance of the aircraft and the flight crew. His actions could best be described as calm, collected and “focused.” Meanwhile, the female made at least nine-(9) separate trips to the lavatory during the flight, and was closely observed by the well-dressed male on each occasion. Although one could explain the frequency of trips to the lavatory citing a number of normal causes, REDACTED stated that his concern was elevated by a number of other factors, including but not limited to non-verbal communication that appeared to take place between the male and female following these lavatory visits. Mr. REDACTED stated that this non-verbal communication was definitely out of place, suspicious, and timed with or consequential to the lavatory visits.

Mr. REDACTED further advised that the male appeared to be “extremely focused” on various aspects of the flight, flight crew and events taking place aboard the aircraft, well beyond anything that could be reasonably explained by the actions of a nervous passenger. The male showed no signs of nervousness whatsoever, and remained very attentive to his surroundings. He explained that he did not alert flight attendants to the behavior of either passenger, instead opting to continue to monitor the situation during the course of the flight. Although his concern grew as the flight progressed, he believed that the actions of the two passengers, particularly the female passenger, could possibly have a reasonable explanation, and did not want to cause an unnecessary alarm. His concern grew proportionate to the interaction between the two passengers progressed during the flight, although by the time his concern reached the point of notifying the flight crew, the flight was about to land without incident.

Hmmm . . . Yet Another Dry Run?: United 227 Sounds Just Like AirTran 297

RRA comments:

Why "dry runs" on the ground prior to takeoff, involving behavior pretty much guaranteed to get them thrown off the plane or at least frisked and delayed because it violates basic rules regarding takeoff?

James Woods witnessed a very subtle "dry run" by several of the hijackers about a month prior to 9/11. Annie Jacobsen witnessed what looked like either a dry run or actual attempt at mixing a bomb in flight. Woods' information was not acted upon, and Jacobsen got about the same treatment as the AirTran passengers.

Now we have two incidents of disruptive behavior prior to takeoff occurring within about a month of each other. So far neither provocation has resulted in a lawsuit. Why bother engaging in this behavior while still on the runway? Are these men testing the limits, trying to flush out the air marshals, just being arrogant Islamic jerks, or what?

From Debbie Schlussel

For those doubters who mocked me and chose to believe a lying AirTran over passenger Tedd J. Petruna regarding what happened on AirTran Flight 297 on November 17th, you might wanna start mocking the passengers of Wednesday’s United 227, too. Oh, and maybe you might wanna start calling former NFL coach Mike Shanahan a nut, too. He was on the flight.

It’s yet another flight grounded because Middle Eastern men tried to create havoc, test the system, and likely do a dry run. It’s almost an identical scenario with flight attendants scared out of their minds, etc.

But, hey, nothing to see here, move along. You know the drill: we’re just “bigots”. Uh-huh. So what happened on this flight? Why was a bomb-sniffing K9 brought in? And why were several “Middle-Eastern” men escorted off? Huh?

It’s not entirely clear why some passengers were removed from a plane at Denver International Airport on Wednesday. United Airlines issued a statement suggesting that the passengers were “re-accommodated” onto another flight.

A spokesperson for the Denver Police Department confirms to 9NEWS that Denver Police officers were called to DIA on Wednesday, but declined to elaborate any further.

Flight 227 left DIA bound for Los Angeles nearly three hours late. It was scheduled to depart at 1:50 p.m., but ended up leaving at 4:32 p.m.

“Our crew followed recognized, industry standard procedures and re-accommodated some passengers on another flight. We are investigating this matter,” read a Thursday morning statement from United. A United spokesperson declined to elaborate any further as well.

The United crew apparently noticed certain patterns they are trained to spot. Sources tell NBC News airline employees are trained to look for certain behaviors such as how a ticket is paid for, how often passengers get up to use the restroom, and even who their traveling companions are.

A spokesperson for the FBI, Kathy Wright, confirmed to 9NEWS that federal investigators were originally called to the scene after receiving a call on a “possible suspicious incident.” Wright said eventually “we determined that it was not an FBI matter.”

Passengers say a bomb-sniffing dog was brought onto the plane and passengers in the first-class cabin we’re asked to go back to coach for a brief amount of time according to passengers on the plane.

John Sloan of Oxnard, California, was on board the flight on Wednesday.

“I have never seen flight attendants so scared in my life. Everything turned out OK, but it was not a very good feeling. It would have been nice to have been updated though this process,” he told 9NEWS by phone.

Sloan says seven men were escorted off of the plane. Two of them were sitting in coach. The other five were sitting in first-class, he says. All were re-booked onto another flight according to United.

Sloan says the men were attempting to change seats with other passengers. Another passenger, who doesn’t want his name used, says the men were also trying to move luggage while the plane was getting ready to push back.

Passengers tell 9NEWS all of the men looked to be “Middle Eastern,” but United will not confirm the identity of the seven men.

Nothing criminal was found, and the flight was allowed to continue on to California.

Passengers also tell 9NEWS that former head coach of the Denver Broncos, Mike Shanahan, was seated in first class while this was all going on. Shanahan could not be reached for comment, and a spokesperson for the former coach simply told 9NEWS that he was “out of town.”

But, hey, I and the passengers and the flight attendants and the K9 are all just nuts, right? There’s nothing to fear here. Tell me that the next time you’re on a flight with several Middle Eastern men who are escorted off with a bomb-sniffing animal brought in.

If there was nothing going on here, United wouldn’t still be “investigating.” So, how long until United starts attacking its passengers the way AirTran did? Perhaps United–which had two planes hijacked on 9/11–gets it.

Flight 297 Passenger: Incident Bigger Than AirTran Claims

Take note, the man quoted in this article is Brent C. Brown, CEO of Chesley-Brown International.

In the body of this article, AirTran claims,

"Because of privacy laws, the airline would not identify any of the men involved in the November incident."

They should clarify that they have no intention of identifying any ME men involved since AirTran had no problem calling Petruna a liar by name!

From WSBTV:

ATLANTA -- Rumors continued to circulate Monday via e-mail and the Internet about what exactly happened on an AirTran flight at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport in November.

At the time, AirTran told Channel 2 Action News that an unruly passenger on a cell phone forced the pilot to take the plane back to the gate. Monday, a passenger said the situation went well beyond that.

“It was extremely intense. I’ve never experienced anything like that,” said passenger Brent Brown.

Brown runs a security consultant company and is a frequent flier. But even for him, he said the events of Flight 297 were disturbing and frightening. As the Houston-bound flight taxied to the runway, several in a group of about a dozen men of Middle Eastern descent started walking the aisles and using their cell phones, Brown said.

Brown said he could tell from the flight attendants' actions that the situation was more than just a single passenger misbehaving.

"This was a big step ahead of that. You could tell that they were distressed and that they were getting very much uncooperative people in the back," said Brown. "So when the pilot turned the plane around, not only was I not surprised I was proud that he had made that effort to secure the cabin."

Back at the gate, Brown said the situation did not improve. He said he was sitting toward the front and he never saw law enforcement enter the plane. He also said that no one informed passengers of what was going on.

"They weren't speaking to us. And they didn't speak to us at all for at least an hour. Our only interaction was with the crew that was already upset at the way they were obviously being handled," said Brown.

Within days, the incident went viral on the Internet which prompted news coverage. Internet rumor control sites seemingly couldn’t make heads or tails of the incident. AirTran responded by posting an article that called most of the claims an "urban myth."

"And then after the fact, when (AirTran) apparently issued a statement that says, in effect, that this was a customer service issue or someone was on the phone...they're dead wrong," said Brown.

The crew, including the pilots, decided not to continue with the flight. Brown said AirTran put about 10 of the 12-man group back on the plane with a new crew. Most of the original passengers chose not to re-board and instead got on a different flight.

Because of privacy laws, the airline would not identify any of the men involved in the November incident.

An AirTran spokesman called the incident "isolated" and said the airline considers the case closed.

RAW VIDEO: Flight 297 Passenger, Brent Brown Talks About AirTran Incident

Click here to watch the video. (If anyone could upload it to YouTube, that would be a help.)

Thanks to HRW for the transcript:

9:42 RAW VIDEO: Flight 297 Passenger, Brent Brown Talks About AirTran Incident

rough transcript:

Reporter: First of all, your reaction to how this story has taken on a life of it's own since

the actual flight.

Brent: Well, it's incredible. You kind of expect this in the time of the internet but you never

know where it's going to come from. But after coming home and not seeing much about it, kinda thought it was over with. So, it's pretty incredible.

Reporter: It's been what? A couple of weeks now?

Brent: Two and a half

Reporter: Do you still think about it? Is it something that still bothers you?

Brent: Well, I still think that the uh, AirTran company, the officials were dead wrong in what they did in over-riding the crew. I think they mishandled it

from the get go - um - and I would like to hear some real responses from them. So, I think

about it from that respect and I think about it because people are starting to call because they found out that I was on that flight.

Reporter: What about it, air transportation bothers you most?

Brent: Well, when the officials starting getting on the plane, you gotta realize I about five feet from the door, basically, so I can hear and see all the action. But they weren't speaking to us. They didn't speak to us at all for at least an hour. Our only interaction was with the crew that was already upset at the way they were obviously being handled. And then after the fact, they apparently issue a statement that says in effect that this is nothing more than a customer service issue over someone who was on the phone. Then they're dead wrong. The captain did the right thing and should be commended for doing it. That's all I want them to do. Acknowledge that.

Reporter: You've read all the crazies. . .is there. . .the truth I'm sure lies somewhere between what AirTran said and these crazy e-mails out there. Um, what did you first see that raised your, piqued your interest?

Brent: Well, I saw the folks that were on the plane that were of obvious middle eastern descent, which in and of itself doesn't concern me. I fly a lot. They were spread throughout the cabin. I was in business class. What I would refer to as the leader of the group was just one row up and to my left. But I was also right on the edge of the coach section where I can see where some of the people were getting up and down the aisles and looks like they were interacting with each other. There were cell phones or some type of electronic device. That was unsettling, you know.when you can tell that. Also, you are watching, engaging the look of the flight attendants faces. We've all been on flights when someone makes a mistake and stands up or unbuckles during taxi and they come on the intercom and they say take your seats or we can't move the plane. This was a big step ahead of that. You could tell that they were distressed and that they were getting pretty much very uncooperative people in the back.

Reporter: um, and theres all these e-mails people were dancing and singing and they were doing everything. You said it's untrue. Did you see them taking pictures or any . .?

Brent: Nah, from my vantage point I couldn't see that. I was close enough to one of the people in the back, uh, the back compartment, that I could see that one them had come from further in the back to that other person and was interacting with him because I saw the flight attendant tell him to take his seat. Beyond that, and some of the people writing e-mails making themselves heros - obviously they live in a fantasy world and I would challenge whether they were even on the plane. But if they were, the action that they said they took, they would have had to walk right past me and they would have been part of the problem. So, and people making claims that they knew that they were dancing and taking pictures in there, from the vantage point of the business class compartment - it's just simply not true. What they did was concerning enough. The story doesn't need to be embellished.

Reporter: Just the fact that they were walking around interacting

Brent: Walking around, refusing to cooperate, you got to stay in your seat when you taxi out.

Using electronic devices , um, we can argue whether that's a real issue in a flight take off. But that's a rule, an FAA rule they have to contend with. And they were obviously refusing with that. And uh, so when the pilot turned the plane around, not only was I not surprised, I was proud that he had made that effort to secure the cabin.

Reporter: You mentioned especially with the lack of interaction for that hour you got tense.

Brent: It was extremely tense . I've never experienced anything like that. After flying, for company reasons, for more than twenty years now, you can imagine, pretty much everything has happened on a flight . . .and some pretty hair raising experiences. This was like nothing else I've ever experienced. After having been in law enforcement, obviously in the security industry, this was tension at its highest. And I had to make some very real decisions myself, on whether or not I was going to continue the flight.

Reporter: Then you decided to

Brent: I did. What made me decide that was, after two hours of being on the ground, they, um, the rumor was that they were going to put the folks back on the flight. And they did. It appeared that the two biggest problems within the group were not allowed back on the plane. I felt like they had probably, hopefully screened them enough to know that it was at least safe. There also was a mass exodus of the regular passengers getting off the plane. So, I kinda felt like, with fewer passengers we might be able to control things if something were to get out of hand. And frankly, when other AirTran captains that were dead heading to Houston got on board the plane, I talked to a couple of them and one in particular, I said, do you feel safe flying this plane? -flying on this plane? And he said yes, they've done everything they could possibly do now. It's probably the safest plane leaving. So I made the decision to stay on.

Reporter: um, was this any sort of dry run for terrorist activity?

Brent: You never know, but I don't think so. I think it was some people that were probably not just the best citizens for flights. Maybe there was a language barrier. I find that a little difficult to believe that someone flying all the way into this country hasn't flown enough now to know the proper procedures. Um, in the security business we might consider it somewhat of a dry run or test to see what the reaction would be. Um, I still think it's a little far fetched to say that's exactly what it was.

Reporter: And , last question I guess . .. what lesson are we to take out of - not only what happened on that flight - but how it's been handled and become a (???) - does that make any sense?

Brent: It does. First of all I would encourage everyone to stand up for themselves and let their voice be known. That sounds like a simple statement but if um, all those passengers that didn't feel comfortable flying - that exited the plane did exactly the right thing. And uh, you shouldn't be forced to do something you are uncomfortable with. In the security business we tell people all the time, if you don't feel comfortable about something that's part of your security plan - then don't do it. And post Fort Hood I think that we all need to be extremely in tune to how political correctness jeopardizes our security day to day. And uh, be aware of it and figure out what we are going to do about that. You know, I don't want any group singled out - but if there is a security risk - let's not look at it from a pc standpoint. Let's look at it from a security standpoint. Um, beyond that I would tell people that if you're going to embellish a real story - be careful where you post it. Because in this day and environment that's never going to change now - it's going to get out there and you're going to be embarrased that you have embellished something that is already an incredible story.

Reporter : (uninteligible) What would you tell AirTran

8:32

Brent: Well, first and foremost I would tell AirTran that when they have a security situation - have security officials board the plane. The most startling thing that I saw was when the captain turns us around and comes on the intercom and says we have a security situation - and I didn't see a single uniformed law enforcement officer or anyone that I would classify as law enforcement board the plane. I think that's first and foremost. From a customer relations standpoint - you've got to communicate. You can not stand, literally feet away from people that you are affecting their lives, in more ways than just their time, you're affecting and possibly jeopardising their lives and you're not speaking to us. You've got to say something . And when you say something, be honest and accurate. Don't fill us with a bunch of hooey because most of the people that fly, especially at that time of day when it's mostly business passengers , know a little bit more than the basic flight standard. So, talk to us. We can understand delays but you got to tell us what's going on.

Hmmmm... Trouble-Making on Commercial Airflights Again?

From Ace:

I don't know if too much can be read into this, because... once you're suspicious of someone, everything that person does seems suspicious. Anyone who's been cheated on can attest to that.

I'm not seeing this in Big Media (of course) so I have to go with the reportage of a guy I've never heard of and a blog posting.

On AirTran Flight 297 from Atlanta to Houston Hobby, on November 17 this past month, a group of Muslim men began to act oddly. Oddly enough that passengers became directly involved -- deputizing themselves as security agents of last resort -- and a stewardress refused to fly further with the men.

I didn't hear about this, but apparently it was reported on Fox. but not with much oomph; apparently they said just that a man refused to get off his cellphone and a flight was delayed.

There seems to be a lot more to it than that.

Here's a journalist's account after talking, he says, to seven witnesses.

On November 17, an incident took place aboard AirTran Flight 297 scheduled to fly from Atlanta Hartsfield Airport to Houston that the media does not want to cover and everyone from the airline to the TSA and other government agencies want to keep very quiet. The reasons, I have been told, is fear of predatory lawsuits, negative publicity from accusations of religious profiling, and the obligatory subjugation to mindless mandatory Muslim sensitivity training that make a mockery of our American system of values. Interestingly, one airline official told me “we don’t want to become another flight 300,” which is a reference to a very similar scenario that took place aboard US AirwaysFlight 300 exactly three years ago.

The incident referred to is the "Flyin' Imams" incident, I guess, recounted here. I say "I guess" because I think I remember this... but was it really only three years ago?

Anyway back to the recent incident.

A group of thirteen men dressed in traditional Muslim attire were among 73 passengers who boarded AirTran Flight 297...

As the passengers boarded the aircraft, two of the Muslim men took seats in first class, while the remaining eleven were seated throughout the remaining rows of the aircraft....

As the aircraft began to taxi to the runway, a female flight attendant was beginning to issue the normal passenger advisories over the PA system. Almost on cue at the time passengers were told to turn off all electronic devices, one of the Muslim men seated in the front of the plane began to use his cell phone in a manner that was described by a flight attendant and passenger “as deliberate and obvious.” He was talking loudly in Arabic, nearly at the level of the flight attendant. Some reports suggest that this man actually called another Muslim passenger, although this has not been immediately confirmed. It is possible, however, as another passenger reported that a Muslim man seated toward the rear of the plane answered his cellular phone at the same time the man in the front began using his.

At this point, the flight attendant in the front of the plane approached the Muslim man using his telephone and instructed him to immediately turn it off. A second female flight attendant did the same at the rear of the aircraft. Concurrent with this cellular activity, two other Muslim men seated adjacent near the middle of the aircraft began operating what one passenger described as a palm type camcorder, ostensibly to view previously taken footage. It is possible, according to one flight attendant interviewed by this investigator, however, that the camcorder was being used for recording purposes. Whatever its use, a third flight attendant, aware of the incidents taking place in the front and rear of the aircraft, approached the two men for the purpose of securing the camcorder. At least two passengers reported that the men became abusive to the flight attendant and initially refused to comply with her request.

It was at this time that most of the passengers began to notice the multiple incidents involving over a dozen men dressed in Islamic attire. Next, as if previously rehearsed, at least ten of the 13 Muslim men aboard the aircraft began to leave their seats at the same time. At least one passenger stated she observed one of the Muslim passengers using his cell phone to take photos of other passengers on the aircraft, while one other Muslim passenger sang loudly in Arabic. According to information provided to this investigator from one of the flight crew who was alerted to an onboard emergency, the aircraft was now being taxied back to the terminal. The TSA, FAA and FBI were notified.

Sang loudly in Arabic?

Here's a personal account, by someone who says he was on the airplane, and took personal action about it, on a blog. After recounting the initial cellphone dispute...

The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said “shut up infidel dog!” She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say “I got your back.” I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said “you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!” As I “led” him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, “You WILL do the same!” He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.

We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happen, when suddenly, the door open again and on walked all 11!! Stone faced, eyes front and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it! Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal. She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men.

Back to the Canada Free Press article. This statement by an "airline security official" makes it sound as if the goal was not terror per se, but some sort of defiant, you-will-not-profile-Muslims-no-matter-how-crazy-we-act-and-if-you-do-we-will-sue-you sort of thing. Which, actually, whether intended or not, actually of course assists terrorists down the line.

According to one airline security official, “This was a deliberate, well planned attempt to disrupt a domestic flight that was organized in advance of the boarding of these [Muslim] passengers. The purpose of their actions appeared to be multi-faceted, not the least of which was an attempt to change their status from passengers to victims of religious profiling. The situation was handled in a manner that we believe might have avoided an incident like USAir had in 2006, where everyone from the passengers who reported suspicious behavior to the airline was subjected to legal action by the Muslim passengers.”

They seemed to make every effort to draw attention to themselves, which makes me think it's unlikely this is really a terror-deal, or even a dry run for terror. Perhaps "probing," but again, they seemed to really go out of their way to get some TSA lovin'.

Not necessarily terror, then, but the demonstrations of a thin-skinned bunch determined to fuck with the legitimate fears of infidels. And prove some stupid point. And maybe get a nice fat lawsuit out of it too.

I wrote recently -- about the shootings at the Texas army base -- that it is the ambiguous and contradictory orders, the confused and deliberately confusing orders from the policymakers and bureaucrats, that force those attempting to execute their intentionally-baffling non-policies to err on the side of not rocking the boat and not getting fired.

I don't see anything changing this. Even after 14 people were killed at that army base, it's not going to change.

Thanks to rockhead.

More:



Baldilocks adds in another account. This one by a Chaplain also on the flight.

Caveat Emptor: I really should have included this caveat in the post from the get-go, rather than mentioning it as a comment in the thread.

Regarding the personal account from that blog...

I hate that "infidel dog" quote myself. Sounds... made-up, frankly. But I don't know.

I am also suspicious of that account because the guy offering it sort of gives you a hero's narrative, including saying he knows how jihadists do certain things, because he's "studied."

The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims, one in the back, isle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it. Now….they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her. (don’t ask me….I don’t make the rules, but I’ve studied).

The account seems to have a whiff of Mack Bolan to it. (Yeah, and now I'll be told that just because I'm a pussy that would gladly say nothing and not prepare for such contingencies I shouldn't assume everyone else is a pussy like me.)

Making him sound like a guy who's been preparing for this... and the trouble there isn't that he's prepared, it's that if you prepare enough, hey, maybe you want to jump at the opportunity to put your preparations into action. There's a fine line between prudence and paranoia sometimes.

But again, unless Canada Free Press guy is simply making this up -- he says he has seven witnesses talking to him, plus an airline security official -- something seems to have happened.

I really, really should have included my doubts about that personal account.

Yeah... Nickless says:

The airlines need to make a big show about installing cabin video cameras that can record cabin activities.

Seems the 'Flying Jihadis' operate on being the only ones prepared for an altercation.

Good Lord, that is so simple and obvious it's baffling it hasn't been done yet.

I guess there are... what? Privacy concerns?

Privacy concerns about being videotaped when you're sitting in what is basically an open room with 100 other people?

I don't know -- I'm not a civil libertarian/privacy champion. Such measures usually don't push my buttons, so I'm the wrong guy to ask. Are there privacy worries here?

Media Blog Pick-Up: Story noted at the Dallas Morning News' aviation blog.

FAA to investigate.

Sure they'll have top men on it.

Who?

Top. Men.

Missed the Headline! The headline is not, as the AJC says, that the FAA will investigate. The real headline (see the end of my snippet) is that the TSA won't. They deem it a "customer service issue" between the passengers and AirTran.

Story seems to be utterly real. Just took a few days for the media to mention. The article above provides new details and casts some doubt on the suspicions.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating what led to the two-and-a-half hour delay of a Tuesday flight from Atlanta to Houston, an agency spokeswoman said Wednesday morning.

An AirTran spokesman said a man traveling with a group Tuesday afternoon refused to turn his cell phone off before takeoff. But the woman sitting behind the man said it wasn't a phone at all, and feels the entire incident was the result of poor communication.

"He was not talking on a cell phone, it was a camera," said Nancy Deveikis of Marietta. "He was looking at pictures."

A flight attendant asked the man twice to turn off the device, Deveikis said. But it was clear the man did not speak English, she said. Although the man was traveling with others, the rest of the group was seated throughout the plane.

When the man did not respond to the flight attendant, she took the camera from him, Deveikis said. Deveikis, who presented ajc.com with her boarding pass for the flight, said she watched the exchange from directly behind the man in seat 28A and the female flight attendant.

"She grabbed it from his hand and basically said I'll be holding this until you get off the plane,"Deveikis said.

It’s unclear whether he was talking on the phone, snapping photos or texting, AirTran spokesman Christopher White said. But to airline officials and flight attendants, it didn’t matter. The Boeing 717 had pulled away from the gate, and the phone was on, White said.

“Flight attendants were telling him, ‘Turn off the phone, turn off the phone,’” White said.

“We can’t taxi with the cell phone on, and we certainly can’t take off,” White said. “Language barrier or not, you start to butt up against interfering with a flight crew.”

Deveikis said she never heard the one flight attendant use the word "phone" when speaking to the man.

“Passengers are required to follow instructions of the flight attendants," regional FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said. AirTran reported the incident to the FAA, Bergen said. The federal Transportation Security Administration will not handle the incident, saying it is a customer-service issue between the passenger and the airline, a TSA spokesman said.

According to the one guy's account -- the blog account -- there was both a camera incident and a cellphone incident. This AJC story seems to assert that there was just the once thing, the camera thing, confused for a phone thing.

I think AJC is wrong. The other guy mentioned both as discrete incidents. I think it's AJC that's conflating them into one single misunderstanding, based on one witness who seems to think it was just about the camera.