Interesting!
 

Basically they held up the exemption in the ATSA for reporting possibly dangerous people.

"The Court also noted that denying immunity for substantially true reports would defeat the pur*pose of ATSA immunity: 'to ensure that air carriers and their employ*ees would not hesitate to provide the TSA with the information it needed'."

http://www.faegrebd.com/mobile/showu...px?show=21076&

What was most interesting were the behaviors of both parties.

So the pilot has difficulties in certain skill sets, who hasn't at one time or another.

IMHO his former employer overstepped their bounds without just cause. The Court found that the Airliner had no proof that the Pilot was armed. It should have ended there.

The Pilot's FFDO status and associated training/vetting also should have mitigated and overridden this obvious unnecessary overreaction by both the airline and the TSA.

I believe that a good portion of the U.S. populous have been over sensitized to a person's personal choice to enhance his/her personal protection by LEGALLY possessing a firearm.

People need to spend time in States like Texas and Arizona and in rural/farm areas of the U.S. where firearms are considered as common as a hammer to a carpenter.

Granted, it should not have been done, whether you agree with either side. But the law states that there is immunity to the people making the accusation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No one knows what was said after he failed and was dismissed.

Exactly, I'm curious how irate this guy was. Who gets upset over their own lack of skills and goes off on an employer? My guess is this guy did something to bring this upon himself, especially if ALPA couldn't save him.