Danny
You ask,
'does your job description include an obligation to knowingly put yourself and those under your care in harms way?'
No, and I am sure yours doesn’t either. Of course I am not suggesting that you operate with a known threat on board to be dealt with by your trusty sky marshal and in truth, it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is asking you to do that. Dispensations to protect your position regarding firearms under parts of the ANO/Reg can be organised overnight if the will is there. You speak a lot about the politics of the situation, I’d liked to have heard your union in the first instance reassure the public that our aircrew support the idea of an additional tier of security, and work through the issues as required, something that only now appears to be happening.
The fundamental question as to whether a sky marshal/s, in extremist is going to increase the chances of survival during the type of terrorist threat that exists today is, in my view, yes. Whether you're a professional pilot or not, one doesn't have to stretch the imagination too much to realise, that although we know our Captain up the front is going to do all he can to protect our well being, its down the back that the problem is going to occur in the first instance. The ultimate decision as to what happens in that situation may well not be yours. I'd also like to think the cabin crew might have some support if that happens at 30W.
Aviation security, is not 100% few systems are, so why not have another tier of defence, covert by nature and deployed to act as a further deterrent. All the other issues surrounding the enhancement of security, profiling etc. must be introduced urgently and I say include sky marshals in that. But as part of a strategy, surely sky marshals are valid and I don’t see a case against that holds water.
Last edited by alpha charlie; 7th Jan 2004 at 05:59.