Ask the pilot

A bogus "federal air marshal" group joins Annie Jacobsen's crusade against Syrian musicians.

By Patrick Smith

Aug. 13, 2004 | Feedback to my analysis of the Annie Jacobsen/flight 327 affair has been overwhelmingly positive. Of the hundreds of letters I've received, roughly 90 percent have been supportive. Here's hoping that testifies to the sensible thinking of Americans in general as much as it does to the eagerly analytical minds of Salon subscribers (read: elitist Democrats).

Dissent has arrived from two camps. A few of you who took me to task did so intelligently, patiently and respectfully. My gratitude to Tom Izzo, Ken Potter, Rebecca Matthews and several others (you know who you are), for your constructive and engaging critiques. Unfortunately, the bulk of the disagreement has come in the form of pugnacious little e-mail bombs -- rude, obscene, flippant letters that can't be bothered to address a specific point. These are easy to spot since their subject lines typically include some combination of the words "pussy," "loser," "idiot" or, most caustic of all, "liberal." Begins one letter: "You might be a pilot, but your [sic] also an idiot." Usually these notes are unsigned, and rarely longer than three or four lines. To a few -- call me crazy -- I took the effort of a pointed reply, but not once did the writer respond a second time or elaborate on his or her disappointment with my views.

"Dear Patty, I just read your article on Annie Jacobsen. I find it hard to believe you're a pilot given your cavalier attitude toward terrorism. Thanks, JH"

I'd hardly describe my take on terrorism to be "cavalier." To the contrary, I find the incendiary scare-mongering of Jacobsen, et al., to be reckless and destructive. I can't afford to be cavalier. The fallout of Sept. 11 cost me my job and effectively ruined a career I spent decades attempting to establish.

This how-can-you-be-a-pilot bit is something I keep running into. During my appearance with Michael Smerconish, the conservative talk-show host out of Philadelphia, he posed to his listeners: "Can you believe this guy? And he's a pilot! That is scary."

Pilots, in the opinions of those who transact in fear and hysterics, are consigned to play the part of red-meat nationalist -- eager to kick ass, take no prisoners, and hoist the Stars and Stripes over whatever inflammatory rhetoric happens to be cast about. Take a skeptical view, and you're a "pussy," if not a traitor. To those who insist on tying in ideology with FAA flight credentials, please extend the offer to thousands of other pilots, including those quoted in part 2 of my Jacobsen rebuttal, one of whom was a friend and U.S. Navy squadron mate of Tom McGuinness, the copilot of American Airlines flight 11. And consider this, from pilot Don Wright, retired from Pan Am and Delta:

"Last week my adult daughter announced she is terrified of flying. Reason: That idiotic piece about the Syrians. We've put the hysterics in charge. Last year the airlines killed exactly zero passengers while auto accidents did in about 40 thousand. I'm sure a number of those killed on highways would have been safely aboard airplanes if it weren't for people like Annie Jacobsen."

More than it hurts my feelings, the juvenile harshness I've encountered serves to underscore the strange way in which the story of flight 327 has been so acutely politicized.

As Annie and her story made the rounds of electronic and broadcast media, I started to feel as though I was typing into a void. At long last, other voices have begun scrutinizing the matter more carefully. Congratulations to Time magazine for featuring an exclusive interview with one of the federal air marshals aboard flight 327, who coolly and succinctly dismantled most of Jacobsen's histrionic fantasy. Then again, to quote one of my hometown's more popular drive-time radio blabbermouths, Time is "just another liberal rag."

Next page: Air marshals with an agenda