Narrative:

Arrived at gate xa for an XB00 departure. General boarding well in progress. Found 2 armed passenger forms in cockpit. Purser told me armed passenger had been preboarded. Obviously, flight manual part I, section 13 1.18F, was not complied with. One form did not have any seat assignment information. Asked agent where he was seated, why the information was not on the form, and why both were boarded without my prior knowledge. I was told it was 'unfortunate' but that was how it was done. I discussed the armed passenger with the purser. Still, I was satisfied they were not a risk, based on the purser's observations. I then went back to discuss the matter with the lead agent. While showing her part I, and trying to learn why the armed passenger were boarded so early, and without my prior knowledge, the agent I had previously spoken with came over and repeatedly tried to insert herself into the conversation. Her stated reason was that I had discussed the matter with her before. She persisted, even after I clearly told her I was no longer talking to her, but rather to the lead agent now. Because of this continued intrusion, I accepted the lead agent's offer to call a supervisor. While waiting, I had to inquire if the supervisor had indeed been called. This was because, after the offer, all subsequent conversation between the agents was in spanish. I advised the supervisor that I was not comfortable with the lack of compliance with part I and with the error in the paperwork. She said that the front desk did the paperwork. She also said that the passenger had to be boarded and that the flight attendant had missed the error on the form. I reminded her that I was at the gate 30 mins before departure, boarding was well in progress, and that none of that trumped my need to be informed before armed passenger were boarded. In fact, if proper procedures had been followed, I'd have seen the missing information on the form. She said she would address the forms being done better. She pointedly did not address the non compliance with part I, nor offer any reason why the armed passenger were boarded before I was informed. Due to pending departure time and being satisfied that my current passenger were authentic, I ended the discussion. The supervisor gave me one more bit of concern when she offered her name and also that she was the ground security coordinator. I left feeling my concern was not considered all that important, despite this involving armed passenger, especially in light of recent tests where security was easily breached by armed individuals using false identify and badges at the department of justice, orlando and washington reagan airports, and other federal offices. How can I have any confidence proper screening is being done at san juan when they not only can't complete the forms correctly, but also show little or no concern with following procedures in part I.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 CAPT SUBMITTED RPT DESCRIBING A SECURITY SIT IN WHICH 2 ARMED PAX WERE BOARDED WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND WITHOUT THE PROPER PAPERWORK.

Narrative: ARRIVED AT GATE XA FOR AN XB00 DEP. GENERAL BOARDING WELL IN PROGRESS. FOUND 2 ARMED PAX FORMS IN COCKPIT. PURSER TOLD ME ARMED PAX HAD BEEN PREBOARDED. OBVIOUSLY, FLT MANUAL PART I, SECTION 13 1.18F, WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. ONE FORM DID NOT HAVE ANY SEAT ASSIGNMENT INFO. ASKED AGENT WHERE HE WAS SEATED, WHY THE INFO WAS NOT ON THE FORM, AND WHY BOTH WERE BOARDED WITHOUT MY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. I WAS TOLD IT WAS 'UNFORTUNATE' BUT THAT WAS HOW IT WAS DONE. I DISCUSSED THE ARMED PAX WITH THE PURSER. STILL, I WAS SATISFIED THEY WERE NOT A RISK, BASED ON THE PURSER'S OBSERVATIONS. I THEN WENT BACK TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE LEAD AGENT. WHILE SHOWING HER PART I, AND TRYING TO LEARN WHY THE ARMED PAX WERE BOARDED SO EARLY, AND WITHOUT MY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, THE AGENT I HAD PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN WITH CAME OVER AND REPEATEDLY TRIED TO INSERT HERSELF INTO THE CONVERSATION. HER STATED REASON WAS THAT I HAD DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH HER BEFORE. SHE PERSISTED, EVEN AFTER I CLRLY TOLD HER I WAS NO LONGER TALKING TO HER, BUT RATHER TO THE LEAD AGENT NOW. BECAUSE OF THIS CONTINUED INTRUSION, I ACCEPTED THE LEAD AGENT'S OFFER TO CALL A SUPVR. WHILE WAITING, I HAD TO INQUIRE IF THE SUPVR HAD INDEED BEEN CALLED. THIS WAS BECAUSE, AFTER THE OFFER, ALL SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION BTWN THE AGENTS WAS IN SPANISH. I ADVISED THE SUPVR THAT I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH PART I AND WITH THE ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK. SHE SAID THAT THE FRONT DESK DID THE PAPERWORK. SHE ALSO SAID THAT THE PAX HAD TO BE BOARDED AND THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT HAD MISSED THE ERROR ON THE FORM. I REMINDED HER THAT I WAS AT THE GATE 30 MINS BEFORE DEP, BOARDING WAS WELL IN PROGRESS, AND THAT NONE OF THAT TRUMPED MY NEED TO BE INFORMED BEFORE ARMED PAX WERE BOARDED. IN FACT, IF PROPER PROCS HAD BEEN FOLLOWED, I'D HAVE SEEN THE MISSING INFO ON THE FORM. SHE SAID SHE WOULD ADDRESS THE FORMS BEING DONE BETTER. SHE POINTEDLY DID NOT ADDRESS THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH PART I, NOR OFFER ANY REASON WHY THE ARMED PAX WERE BOARDED BEFORE I WAS INFORMED. DUE TO PENDING DEP TIME AND BEING SATISFIED THAT MY CURRENT PAX WERE AUTHENTIC, I ENDED THE DISCUSSION. THE SUPVR GAVE ME ONE MORE BIT OF CONCERN WHEN SHE OFFERED HER NAME AND ALSO THAT SHE WAS THE GND SECURITY COORDINATOR. I LEFT FEELING MY CONCERN WAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL THAT IMPORTANT, DESPITE THIS INVOLVING ARMED PAX, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF RECENT TESTS WHERE SECURITY WAS EASILY BREACHED BY ARMED INDIVIDUALS USING FALSE IDENT AND BADGES AT THE DEPT OF JUSTICE, ORLANDO AND WASHINGTON REAGAN ARPTS, AND OTHER FEDERAL OFFICES. HOW CAN I HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE PROPER SCREENING IS BEING DONE AT SAN JUAN WHEN THEY NOT ONLY CAN'T COMPLETE THE FORMS CORRECTLY, BUT ALSO SHOW LITTLE OR NO CONCERN WITH FOLLOWING PROCS IN PART I.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.