Sky Marshalls
Have been thinking about this for some time and still not sure but as the politicians, police, captains and airline owners have to I have made a few decisions. Firstly I agree that the prime objective is to stop these guys getting on the aircraft in the first place as it is to stop possible SAM attacks etc. This is still not happening, countless passengers on wrong plane etc, How does someone manage to fly to the wrong country these days with a ticket for some other destination?
Ok, lets get to the on board scenario. I must say that I don't like the way we seem to follow the US on policy lately but we haveto admit that we have entered into a new era of terrorism. Pilots can no longer open the crew door and talk to or try and negotiate with these guys, end of story. They have one job and that is to get the aircraft safely on the ground. It seems that a stray bullet is not likely to bring the a/c down unless it hits something major. With this in mind I advocate on board armed security. The Captain is there to command the a/c from point A to point B. His secondary duty is to his cargo 'in normal operations'. When a fundamentalist steps onto an a/c it is not his/hers responsibility, this is then taken away from him and given to our security service governed by government and the public. It would be lovely to think that there is a middle ground that we could all be happy with. Views so far seem to be from the U.S guys "we need them, they have allways worked in the past" Rubbish, they have not been tested in the past. Maybe on a few occassions with 1 person who might have a little go with his fists, but not post 9/11 when all those nutters can see that it works! Then we have the very well behaved Brits. of which I am one. Lets have a nice chat with all these pilots because they know all about anti terrorism and see if we can come up with some softer option. Maybe like a sand bag that pops out of a gun and knocks them down, dirty rotters.
Countries that have developed the most effective counter terorism teams are those that have had the most experience such as the uk and Israel. The US have been rocked by 9/11 but in terms of experience they have little. Don't get me wrong, this is not a competition. I am just trying to justify my unease with this apparent sheep like behaviour that our government works under. The way that this country has dealt with aggressors to it in the past has been to crush them. Win the firefight, that's the only way. If you have some nutters on an aircraft willing to die for some god then you must wipe them out as quickly as possible. If a couple of passengers get slaughtered in the cross fire then that's just bad luck. 1 dead passenger 2 dead terrorists is a success to me. Let's not sit in our little holes here. You get on an a/c and you know it has 6 guys that are intent on killing you. Do you a) Not require help from some armed security. You might be able to talk them out of it, the pilot might be able to get us on the ground where those lovely men that saved lives like mine in the Iranian Embassy will help. b) Have a guy with a gun that could have a go and possibly avert a dissaster, oh and maybe save my life c) have a friend with a gun that will help me and like minded citizens fight to the end like those guys on the last downed 9/11. It's like the JARs people, more than one right answer but pick the best one.
AND IF ONE PERSON REPLIES WITH I WOULDN'T GET ON THE AIRPLANE OR SOME SIMILAR SMART ARSE REPLY I WILL KILL MYSELF.
I don't agree with the way the US government are fighting this battle in Iraq. It stinks of desperation and you don't beat these guys by being afraid. You beat them by letting them and the voters know that if they kick off on an aircraft then they will be killed. The only question that you haveto ask yourself is do you want to be killed with them?