Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights

[BoeingMEL]

Just announced on UK independant TV that some UK airline flights to carry armed marshals .... in civvies of course. Dear God... just as it was getting safe. bm

[FlapsOne]

Totally barking Mad !!!!!!!!!!

[Stelios]

So the bl**dy CRM day will be getting longer still, now with gunmen to boot.

[surely not]

Surely CRM will be easier now, you just do what the man with gun says!!

[BOEINGBOY1]

A bit of risk analysis is called for here.
I for one strongly believe that in the current climate of terrorism and its threat to aviation, the threat of a terrorist hijack is far more likely, than an inadvertent weapon discharge. However, non lethal weapons such as stun guns are I believe, being studied. Even so, I would openly welcome a trained sky marshal with a lethal fire arm, on to my aircraft and to any aircraft where I might be a passenger. Let’s face it, if a September 11th situation should ever arise again, a sky marshal would certainly level the playing field with the terrorist(s). With the use of special training and weapons, the chances of a terrorist gaining access to the flight deck would be virtually nil. The way that I see it is that the very worst situation that could ever happen would be that the sky marshal is killed, his weapon used on the crew, terrorists then crash aircraft into a building - Well, this would have been the same situation with the same number of people killed, had the sky marshal been on board or not.

[Tandemrotor]

But what if you smell alcohol on his breath?

"Hey Osama, I got an idea. Let's hit them right where they most expect it!"

[Genghis the Engineer]

So, let's get this straight. A kerfuffle happens on a transatlantic flight, for arguments sake about 4 hours from the nearest landing field. A weapon is fired and the bullet hits a window. As a result of decompression and a limited oxygen supply the aircraft is forced down to about FL140. Fuel consumption goes through the roof and the aircraft is now at severe risk of not reaching any landable destination - the alternative is to subject 300 pax to hypoxia and probably lose a few.

Now there are non-lethal weapons about, such as CS and pepper spray, baton-rounds, and various toys beloved of martial arts practitioners and police forces. If we've got to have somebody armed on board an aeroplane, for goodness sake arm them with something (non-lethal) capable of incapacitating somebody, but not of penetrating a window or aircraft skin (or if it gets into the wrong hands forcing open a cockpit door). If worried about firearms being used by terrorists put yer copper in lightweight body armour.

With intelligence some sense could be made of it. But if we are simply looking at firearms-trained policemen armed with conventional firearms, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

G

[28L]

Genghis,

One of the most basic requirements in aviation is that a decompression is non-jeopardy. Commercial aircraft all carry enough fuel to cover that contingency.

[chiglet]

28L,
Errm, if "An Aeroplane" does not carry a lot of "Holding Fuel" and therefore has to divert after "10 mins [or so] hold" [due wx etc,] I presume that you have invented a means of "Self Levitation" so's that the Pax [and Crew] can "carry" this a/c to its intended destination?
watp,iktch

[Aeropig1]

Ever worn 'lightweight' armour then Ghengis?

[BOEINGBOY1]

Gengis Firstly you will never be more than 3hrs, let alone 4hrs from any airfield accross the atlantic. Secondly, by the shear fact that you are flying over such an area you are compelled to carry sufficient fuel for a max distance, low level, anti ice on divertion all in addition to usual fuel reserves.

As I said before, if the situation ever arises where a bullet needs to be fired, ie a hijack by terrorists - and an unlikely stray bullet goes through the window and the aircraft subsequently crashes - then the same result as not carrying a sky marshall occurs. At least this way there is a severe deterant and a level playing field in the case of a suicide hijack situation.

chiglet If "An Aeroplane" does not carry a lot of "Holding Fuel" and therefore has to divert after "10 mins [or so] hold" [due wx etc,] I presume that you have invented a means of "Self Levitation"

err no, I would continue to use my reserve fuel supply

[Basil]

If the aircraft commander is prepared to permit an armed guard to board his aircraft will the captain now be permitted to carry his Swiss army knife again?

[chapmdav]

"If a security breach occurs on the flightdeck, we have failed. The emphasis of all policy makers, legislators, regulators, manufacturers should be on preventing the problem getting near the airport or onto the aircraft."

From time to time Balpa do come out with something profound. Surely the idea is to prevent firearms getting on to the aircraft at all.

The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters not guns and were able to hijack 4 aircraft simultaneously. This was despite a locked flight deck door policy and to my understanding the US were using Air Marshalls - although not on the aircraft concerned.

The UK government has yet again decided to throw their toys out of the pram at the slightest hint of a problem on the other side of the pond.

I don't know about anyone else but I've never seen any reports on what actually happened on board those aircraft (eg CVR transcripts,) just heard rumours. The last version I heard was the flight crew were lured out of the flight deck by a stewardess being stabbed. If we know what the crew did "wrong" (and that is meant very loosely) then maybe we can all learn something and avoid it - I always thought that was the point of accident investigation.

Don't fix something if it ain't broke! The fact I managed to get on board a flight from JFK to LHR last November with a woman's boarding card for a flight the day before (by accident I must add) would suggest the problem is on the ground not in the air - If they want to take us out a man with a pellet gun won't stop them, merely cause panic - which doesn't much help either.

[farefield]

All we need is an armed Marshal with the same sympathies as the American army sergeant who shot a bunch of his colleagues in Iraq and the results don't bear thinking about.
Knowing our politically correct a**hol*s in government and the race relations industry in the UK we'll end up with horses a** of a scheme which will not engender confidence in any of us who have to deal with it on a daily basis...............But then again they could just be saying they are going to do it and not bother .....you know how they like to lie.

[Aeropig1]

The UK government has yet again decided to throw their toys out of the pram at the slightest hint of a problem on the other side of the pond.

Guess you haven't seen any news in the past two years then? this is not a hint of a problem the other side of the pond. It is a global problem and what ever you think about the politics measures need to be taken.

While everybody agrees that the emphasis is to prevent the problem reaching the aircraft we have to accept that if aviation is to remain a viable business that people continue to use then we must also accept that there has to be a level of compromise. Security is a multi layered beast and skymarshals are one layer for the 'what if' situation. By not putting such a scheme in place when many other countries are may, it could be argued, leave UK aviation in a more vulnerable position as we could be percieved as being a softer target.

Many posts refer to security issues and one aspect that seems to be forgotten is that security isn't just about those in the air but also protecting those on the ground. Reputation is an important layer in any security system and highlighting errors in public may not be the wisest move. Whilst it is important for policies to be discussed, any specific errors spotted by crew or passengers or airport staff should be directed to the airport authority and if nothing happens about your concerns then direct it to the DfT.

[surely not]

I hope that a better system is found PDQ because the thought of the chaos that a Sky Marshall can cause by shooting off in an aircraft is not a good one.

When will the gung ho realise that it is only in the movies that the good guy only needs one shot to kill the bad guy. Chances are that the ONE Sky Marshall will be outnumbered by the 'bad guys' and that they will lose the battle, leaving the surviving bad guys to wreak their havoc in a mind set of revenge.

Perhaps if the Govts of UK and USA were serious about solving the problems they might start by trying to resolve the issues which have caused the upsurge in terror, and I don't mean by bombing them to hell and back!

[Rand$]

ok so assume we lets these marshalls on and you are 4 hrs from nowhere and you hear a whild west gun fight in the back?
or smell the pepper spray comming in under the cockpit door?
or get a call from the hostee to say there is a WWF showdown back there?

as the captain....uhhh...what exactly are you gonna do???

cant see much calming things down when an armed man is perapred to fight a terrorist. At least cabin crew wont try and act like rambo.

and cents.

[Airbubba]

Predictably perhaps, Balpa is against the increased security:

6:02pm (UK)

'We don't Want Any Guns on Planes' Pilots Warn

By Sam Sheringham, PA News


The Government’s decision to deploy armed sky marshals on UK passenger flights has provoked an angry reaction among pilots, it emerged today.

The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) said it was disappointed not to have been consulted about measures which would do “more harm than good”.

The group said it would be advising pilots who were not happy with the new initiative not to fly their planes – a move which could cause chaos in the airline industry.

Balpa general-secretary Jim McAuslan said: “We take security seriously. We will not put passengers or aircraft at risk.

“But we cannot agree with the Government’s decision to put armed guards on aircraft as we believe this will do more harm than good.

“We do not want guns on planes.”

Mr McAuslan said he believed the Government should be investing in measures to improve security on the ground “where it matters most”.

If air marshals were to be placed on planes, his organisation would insist that the plane’s captain remained in command at all times.

Air safety expert Jonathan Crivon said the introduction of air marshals on UK passenger flights represented a logical step in the improvement of air safety.

Mr Crivon, director of Airline Safety and Protection (ASAP), said: “I think air marshals are a good thing as long as they are produced by specially trained units.”

He played down the dangers of having guns on passenger flights.

“Marshals have been operating on Israeli flights for years without any problems.

“Their weapons will be invisible and it will be impossible to tell who is the marshal.”

Today’s initiative is the latest move to increase security at UK airports and on planes in face of international terrorism threats.

The move follows developments in the United States where the government last week raised the national alert level one notch to orange, the second-highest, warning that the threat of attack was “perhaps greater now than at any point” since the September 11 atrocities in 2001.

In February more than 400 soldiers were drafted in to provide extra security at Heathrow Airport to combat terrorist threats to the capital.

The then Labour Party chairman John Reid said the threat to London was on the same scale as September 11.

“This is not a game,” he said at the time. “This is about a threat of the nature that massacred thousands of people in New York.”

The move at Heathrow prompted a number of UK airports, including Manchester and Cardiff, to step up security levels.

Police patrols were increased and spot checks were carried out by armed officers.

In December last year, the 15 EU nations agreed on a series of joint security measures at airports.

Member countries must now meet a number minimum standards while being allowed to set tougher security measures if they deem them necessary.

As recently as November, it emerged that Edinburgh Airport had failed an undercover Government security test.

Plain clothes officers from the UK Department of Transport got their bags, containing what one newspaper described as two “bomb-like” objects, past security staff and X-ray machines.


http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2346415

[MerchantVenturer]

I cannot see that the British government would use anyone but police officers for 'sky marshal' duties ( an unfortunate term as it does not relate to anything in the official British psyche).

If this is the case then I believe that the officers would be from the Metropolitan Police SO 19 branch. This unit has some of the most highly trained and proficient armed police officers in the world.

So far I am reasonably content in that if there must be armed personnel on British aircraft then there could not be any better for this purpose than those from SO 19.

However, I am not a pilot, never have been, neither have I worked in the aviation industry. I must therefore bow to the superior knowledge of those who do/have done so, and it appears there is a real danger that an armed officer (no matter how proficient and well-trained) could be more of a danger than terrorists themselves.

Some posters have said that we should ensure that no terrorist ever gets on board an aircraft where he/she can ply his/her trade. No matter how many systems are put in place, the bottom line is that there is a human input to security at the very sharpest end, and humans are fallible, as are of course 'sky marshals'.

So, is today's announcement a sop (but to who?) and/or mere window dressing?

I don't know. What I do know though is that the more posts I read in this thread the more confused I become.

[Woff1965]

I have a friend who used to run a pistol club (pre Dunblane).

When you use the phrase "highly trained firearms officers" he usally goes very pale and then laughs. He can tell you stories about these guys that you would not belive.

As for the highly trained Met firearms squad - there is the story about the firearms officer who was shooting at a club and put 2 rounds through the table, 2 into the ceiling baffle and the fiftth down range (into someone elses target) - the entire met team had their shooting privilidges withdrawn by the club secretary and were asked to leave the club.

[CJ Driver]

I'm not going to comment on whether "sky marshals" are a sensible idea, but I will comment on cabin pressurisation systems...

Pressurised aircraft leak like a sieve, with many holes both deliberate (for control runs) and accidental (poor sealing of cable entries, for example). They stay pumped up because the bleed air supply exceeds the leakage, and the outflow valves then control the balance to maintain the pressurisation.

On a larger transport aircraft, making a few bullet holes in the fuselage would not have any significant effect on the cabin pressure (although it may make it whistle more than usual). The outflow valves would just close a tiny amount to compensate.

The threat I suspect is therefore not that of operating unpressurised, but that the stray gunfire might hit something important, like an engine, or a flight control run (whether hydraulic or electrical), or even more importantly, me.:eek:

[rotorcraig]

BBC News story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3352717.stm) does give a timescale ... "early this week".

What I haven't read anywhere is clarification as to whether the Pilot and/or Crew will be aware of the presence (and location) of the Marshalls.

If they don't, how do the Crew know who the good guys are in the event of an incident? If they do, I would anticipate difficulty in keeping the identity and location of the Marshalls absolutely secret?

RC

[boeingbus2002]

Interesting comment by Jim on BBC News interview.
He mentioned this move was made by the government due to "an increased" threat to aircraft safety. He said any Captain on a flight who finds there are Armed Sky Marshalls on board should refuse to fly citing the threat! (Surely if the threat is so bad to warrant armed marshalls....may aswell not fly rather than risk something worse inflight!!)
That wouldnt go down too well im sure!:rolleyes:

As an aside does anyone have any figures for EL-AL Sky Marshalls and how many potential attackers they have stopped? (If this is deemed sensitive info..dont post it!!)

[Navy_Adversary]

I suspect that you will soon know if you have a Sky Marshall on the aircraft.
He/she is the 35 year old still wearing their jacket,sitting unaccompanied in seat 1A and drinking Evian water.:8

[BOEINGBOY1]

I hope that a better system is found PDQ because the thought of the chaos that a Sky Marshall can cause by shooting off in an aircraft is not a good one.

Coincidently, how many civilian aircraft have been bought down by stray bullets, fired by sky marshals, since the first sky marshal ever travelled on a flight?
I think the answer is 0.0 %
When was the last time an El al aircraft, (who have armed sky marshals on every single flight) had a successful hijack??

The deterent effect would be severe, the ability to fight an attempted hijack would also be severe. If we do nothing we are probly dead anyway, so I say Bring 'em on
:ok:

[powerless]

Some thoughts from a simple SLF.

If an incident occurs how do the rest of the passengers know who is the good guy and who is the bad? On a transatlantic flight earlier this year a passenger attempted to grab a member of the cabin crew after a few words had gone between them. A very quick reaction from a number of other passengers stopped this action very fast. In the same situation would the armed officer take over and how do we know he is what he says he is. Pretty good cover for a terrorist in my opinion.

Keep guns out of the cabin whoever has them is my view.

[matblack]

I assume the risk is a threat to the USA ? If so then why would a hijacker need to risk blowing his cover by boarding a UK airline? I'm a frequent flyer and it's clear that security is much tighter than before. OK not infallible, but there is a high risk of being caught if a would be terrorist tried to get on board a US bound flight especially on a carrier such as BA. If they take months or years and many thousands of dollars planning atrocities like 9/11 then surely they would seek to minimise risks of falling at the final hurdle by being rumbled at a security check. Hence why not use either cargo aircraft or other carriers with less security focus than BA. Take PIA for instance. How much more difficult must this NY bound flight via MAN be to screen ? I feel very safe now when I fly and usually fly BA whenever I can. I have no fear of terrorism from on board the aircraft and consider the likelyhood of ground attack minimal. It's unlikely that 9/11 would be repeated due to the scrutiny of air travel and I suspect that the terrorists also know this. While all this govt focus is on the sky's who's looking after those enormous floating cities on our seas ? These terrorists exploited an enormous hole in aviation security on 9/11. Maybe they are looking for a similar weakness somewhere else now...

[SPIT]

How many Skymarshals will be able to stop a SAM or Defuse a small bomb in the hold of an aircraft whilst it is in flight or meby even prevent a Light A/C (as has been recently suggested) ramming into a larger passenger a/c . Will his gun in the passenger cabin then be of ANY USE.:mad: :mad:

[Wino]

Spit,

Okay, you wanna have that arguement? Tell me how sept 11 could have possibly turned out worse if there had been airmashals on board. Couldn't have been any worse, might have been better though, wouldn't you agree?

It may not stop a missle, but an armed skymarshal will prevent the aircraft from being USED AS A MISSLE. The people on board an aircraft are now expendable. If an airplane is hijacked, it is unlikely that ANY government will now allow it to approach a major city and it will be shot down if it tries to do so. Better to sacrifice the 100 people on the airplane than the Thousands in the big tall buildings in all major cities.

Its amazing how people bury their heads in the sand and think this problem will just go away. If everyone is so sure that security is the answer and keeping all guns off the airside will protect them, then how come a couple of million dollars gets stolen every few months at Heathrow? Wouldn't you suppose that the security around cash shipments would be atleast as high as that of a plain pax cabin (and probably many times higher) yet they can't keep from getting robbed.

If you can be robbed, you can be hijacked.

Another layer of defense is needed.
Chglet,

a decompression (low level diversion) is flight planned for in all translantic crossings. Doesn't matter if it happens because of a system failure or bullet (extremely unlikely btw) the airplane has the fuel on board as a requirement for dispatch.

Skymarshals for ELAL have never failed to protect an aircraft and never endangered an aircraft. They HAVE shot dead attempted hijackers on board an aircraft without harming any pax though (1973 or so as I recall)

Armed pilots were the law in the USA untill the 60s (all pilots were REQUIRED to carry a gun as part of the airmail contracts) and guns were stilled permitted well into the 80s (untill the PSA crash when a GROUND AGENT, smuggled a gun in an aircraft and shot the crew dead, forcing all pilots to go throgh security at that point as a visual bandaid) and there was NEVER an accidental discharge or accident in the 70 years or so that pilots regularly carried guns in the cockpit. HOWEVER, an American airlines DC-6 captain shot a hijacker to death averting a hijacking in the late 50s.

Surely not,

You will NEVER be able to please everyone and by surrendering you just tell every other agrieved person in the world to empower themselves by picking up a boxcutter and heading to the airport. Its not something you are going to fix by surrendering, or burying your head in the sand.


CHAPMDAV,
Without revealing anything classified today, on the morning of 9/11 the rule of the day was to cooperate with the hijackers at all costs. It was felt that all they wanted was ride and maybe to make a political statement. Prior to that policy, we had previously resisted (quite successfully btw) hijackers including an American Airlines captain who shot one dead in the 50s, but it was felt it was better to cooperate, and that was the whole program called "basic strategy". As a result, by annoucing you were hijacking the aircraft the cockpit door would be opened for you etc. The locked door was still usefull for keeping the random nutters out, but it had nothing to do with hijackings...

Now the game is defend the cockpit at all costs. If the only people left alive are the two pilots, so be it, atleast nobody else on the ground has died. If control of the cockpit is lost, expect the aircraft to be shot down (and not just in the USA, intercepts for lost comm are now happening around the world). So you better defend the cockpit at all costs, even with an armed guard. If you don't the next sound a passenger is going to hear is a sidewinder hitting the airplane.

Cheers
Wino

[BOING]

Wino has it about right.

Priority One. Stop aircraft being used as missile.

Priority Two. Far behind Priority One, save aircraft and pax.

Priority Three. Far, far behind Priority Two, save individual pax or worry about remote chance of firearms use damaging aircraft.

The reinforced cockpit door, the air marshals, the armed pilots, the TSA are all focussed on preventing ONE event. The use of aircraft as guided missiles.

Don't fall asleep approaching the US, an air-to-air missile makes a lousy alarm clock and does a lot more damage than a bullet.

[Airbubba]

Last Updated: Monday, 29 December, 2003, 02:03 GMT

Armed air marshals on UK flights

Undercover air marshals will be employed on some flights

Undercover armed air marshals are to be introduced to some UK flights for the first time early this week.
They have all been trained by the Metropolitan Police, and have a police or military background.

The move was a "responsible and prudent step" in response to the heightened state of terror alert in the US, Home Secretary David Blunkett said.

But the plan is opposed by the British Airline Pilots Association, which says many pilots may refuse to fly.


Balpa general secretary Jim McAuslan said: "For a start we don't believe that guns and air travel mix."

He said marshals could only be used under certain conditions, including that the pilot knew when one was aboard.

"The commander needs to retain authority over the whole of the aircraft."

The air marshals will be used on a small number of transatlantic flights where it was deemed right for the situation, BBC correspondent Margaret Gilmore said.

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have declined to comment.

Warnings

The announcement follows a number of security scares involving airports in recent days.

On Wednesday six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles were cancelled amid fears of a terror attack.

In a separate warning on Sunday, the government said it believed terrorists could be in the final stages of planning an attack in Saudi Arabia.

British nationals have already been warned against all but essential travel to the kingdom following attacks in Riyadh in May and November this year.

A joint statement issued by the home secretary and Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said it was still safe for the public to fly and that the increase in security levels in the US in recent days meant the UK should propose a "proportionate and appropriate level of response".

Mr Blunkett said the police and security services were already operating at the highest levels.

"I can assure the travelling public that if we believed it was not safe for them to travel or fly we would say so. What we are proposing are some sensible additional security measures."

'Dangerous' move

The French prime minister ordered flights between Charles de Gaulle airport and Los Angeles to be cancelled on Wednesday and Thursday after US intelligence suggested al-Qaeda members posing a "credible threat" were due to board.

And hours later, the Delta Airlines terminal at New York's LaGuardia Airport was evacuated in a scare.

We don't want guns on planes, it's dangerous to have guns on planes and there are other things you can do like investing in security measures on the ground

The Conservatives welcomed the move, but said it should have been made earlier.

Patrick Mercer, shadow minister for homeland security, said: "I would have liked to have seen it at least a year ago, if not more than that."

US marshals

Sunday's announcement follows similar moves by the Australian Government to use armed guards on many flights between Australia and Singapore.

A deal between the Australian Government and national airline Qantas to use sky marshals was announced on Friday and there are also plans to allow Singaporean security officers to guard flights between the two countries.

Air marshals have been used in America since before the 11 September terror attacks on New York when there were just 33 sky marshals, flying mainly on international flights.

Since then the programme has been greatly expanded in response to the attacks, although the exact number of marshals is classified.

Captain Dennis Breslin, an American Airlines pilot, said he would not fly without their protection.

"Because between the door of the cockpit and the cabin, if the door is breached and those pilots are taken out as they were on 9/11, you're all doomed," he told the BBC.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3352717.stm

[Wino]

Oh that's just rich.

BALPA won't stand up and protect JOBS. They won't stand up and do something about FATIGUE which has killed and in the future will kill many more people in airplanes than guns ever will (even if simply handed to terrorists as they board the aircraft)

Talk about making yourself irrelevant...

Cheers
Wino

[ShotOne]

It is astonishing that such a step has been taken against the objections of the professional flight crew who are supposed to be in command of the aircraft. It was lax US security procedures that allowed sept 11th to happen. Why are they now telling the world how to do it?

[openfly]

Dont Panic Mr Mannering......

It would appear, at first sight, that this whole subject and announcement, has come from one man. He runs the compamy that is hoping to supply armed guards to airlines. He was interviewed on the BBC Breakfast TV prog. No self interest then?
Strange that!!??
.......he was followed by an interview with Michael Jackson.
Says it all really.

[HolyMoley]

This is all so typical.....Let's beef up security so that no-one can take so much as a nail file on board.....then start bringing guns on! An earlier point was well made - how do we know that the man standing up and drawing a gun is on our side? So if we're told in advance who he is, are we all sure no-one else (e.g. a terrorist) will find out?

[aviate1138]

HolyMoly posted 29th December 2003 08:54 ___ _ _ __ _


"This is all so typical.....Let's beef up security so that no-one can take so much as a nail file on board.....then start bringing guns on! An earlier point was well made - how do we know that the man standing up and drawing a gun is on our side? So if we're told in advance who he is, are we all sure no-one else (e.g. a terrorist) will find out?"

Aviate ponders......

When was the last time an El Al flight was hijacked? Every El Al flight has a skymarshall/s on board. And has had for years. Any bullet holes from within the cabin? QED

Aviate 1138

[ETOPS]

Picking up on an earlier point:- What good is it having armoured/locked doors on some carriers, if others are flagrantly ignoring this line of defence?

Check out these recent pictures, there are clearly some airlines that have still to learn.....

Are these two Aussies mad? (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/480173/M/)

Dangerous n'est-ce pas? (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/478126/M/)

A-300 cruise missile? (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/480130/M/)

[HolyMoley]

1138:
Well, that's ok if all countries and all airlines can afford the level of security that El Al have. Also, would all passengers on a normal European or US airline put up with a 3 hour check-in and all the other rigmarole that you have to go through to travel to and from Tel Aviv? I think not. Don't forget that Israel, and El Al, are special cases. People will put up with this for various reasons - nationalistic, idealistic amongst them. In addition, When you fly with El Al you know it is a target and that you are flying to, for want of a better phrase, a war zone. You make allowances for that. If you are a pilot and you are advocating the same procedures and measures as El Al, you are voting yourself out of a job, sunshine, as your airline will go down the toilet in this economic climate. Let's have more sense. Read these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3353439.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3352717.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3039583.stm)

[Sean Dell]

I would imagine that behind the scenes, Dubya has whispered into Tony Blairs ear. "Either you put sky marshalls on x % of your trans Atlantic flights or they will be turned back" Or maybe I'm just a tad too cynical.

[jafo33]

As a passenger, I'd be more concerned with these sky marshalls getting involved with a drunken brawl caused by the pax. The louts on their annual booze flight are more risk to us than hijackers.

Will the sky marshall sit quietly while yet another stewardess get punched/kicked/beaten or abused by some of the scum we carry as pax? Obviously no. But then as he is trying to take down the aggressor six drunken mates decide to join in and beat up the 'pig'. You now have a free for all with a gun involved.

As several posters have said these guys could use lots of other arms rather than high velocity projectile weapons.

As flight deck, will these guys have to declare themselves to us and also as previously said, does that indicate a higher state of risk to the flight?

If so, would I be within my rights to inform the passengers that there is a high state of risk and/or to walk off the flight??

What about the cabin crew? Do they have the right to know or the right to walk off?

[Half a Mexican]

El Al?

A lot of people seem to be using El Al as an example of how Sky Marshals have ensured protection against terrorist threats.

What seems to be forgotten is that El Al uses countless other stringent security methods that are not in use in other airlines.

For example their ultra cautious passenger profiling system even considers lone pregnant women a security threat. The reasoning behind this is that they may have fallen head over heels in love with a terrorist (who fathered the child) and therefore be a threat. I.E. the terrorist puts explosives in woman's bag, shoes etc.

Since Sep.11th there has been a big, big change in the mentality of both pax and crew. Before then the consensus was along the lines of "don't agitate the terrorist and no one gets hurt". The all just expected to get stuck on an obscure runway for a week reading out demands while their release was negotiated.

Now the reaction to a terrorist on board a flight would be totally different. I strongly doubt the terrorist would last 5 minutes before being battered by pax.
Even if they did get as far as the F/D door there is not a chance in hell the the flight crew would open it. Even if they tried to break it down a few sharp movements of the control column would soon put a stop to that.

I just don't think that 4 terrorists could really win against 300ish people who know that they will die if they don't act now.

A far greater threat are "shoe bomber" type incedents or some
sort of surface to air missile on finals; both of which Sky Marshals could do precious little about.

[MerchantVenturer]

Woff 1965

Trotting out odd second-hand tales about apparent malpractices by some police officers vis-a-vis firearms with the implied suggestion that they might be the norm is like saying that because an occasional airline pilot falls foul of drink regulations the majority are alcoholics.

I am not talking about police officers who might belong to a gun club and who might or might not be authorised police firearms officers. I am not talking about police officers who used to ‘supervise’ gun clubs. These officers were usually local beat officers who were almost certainly not authorised police firearms users, and probably did not want to be (most police officers don’t). Their job was to ensure the red tape surrounding gun clubs was adhered to and that the necessary security precautions were in place regarding storage of weapons etc.

I am not even talking about ‘ordinary’ police firearms officers, thorough though their training and selection is. I am talking about some of the officers of SO 19, Metropolitan Police, the best of the best. This branch knows who they are, and they are not necessarily all under 35 years of age as seems to be the popular view of ‘sky marshals’.

If these people are used common sense says there will always be a risk but it will be the least risk commensurate with human frailty.

This does not mean that I agree with putting armed ‘marshals’ on UK aircraft. As I said before, I don’t know enough about the aviation industry and aircraft to feel qualified to have an opinion.

[Flypuppy]

If this rule only applies to UK registered aircraft then what about the myriad of foreign operators that work the UK FIR? There are a huge number of Irish registered aircraft and a Belgian carrier that operate internal services within the UK. Would their "terriotorial" or "soveriegnty" rights be put in doubt if British armed officers were placed on board without first consulting their country's government? Would this be possible if intelligence was forthcoming at short notice about a potential terrorist event involving one of these operators?

As has been mentioned before the locked cockpit door policy is seems tobe only enforced in the UK, as I have first hand experience of visiting other european registered aircraft flight decks recently.

[Danny]

There are a few trolls on here who would like to make out that BALPA are doing nothing about the security issues whereas that is not the case but it obviously suits their own position as they tend to be from the US where gun culture is very different from our own attitudes. What the complaint is about has nothing to do with the danger of a bullet hole being made in the fuselage whilst in flight although that point is not to be ignored totally.

What we have is an announcement that on 'selected' flights armed 'Sky Marshalls' may be deployed. There was a post on PPRuNe about a year ago, just after the UK announced that they would be training an undisclosed number of police officers in the art of 'Sky Marshalling' and when called upon they would be deployed as necessary. Well, that post caused me no end of problems as one poster who claimed to be a member of the special police unit involved in armed training revealed that the number of officers who would be trained up to 'Sky Marshall' status was quite low. Taking into account the number of UK scheduled flights to the US every day and the paltry number of officers to be trained, the odds of having just one armed 'Sky Marshall' on board your US-UK flight is about 1%-5%. Still, I suppose that is some sort of deterrent. I suspect that the numbers quoted were fairly accurate as the police then tried to get me to give them the posters details as sensitive security information had been leaked. They issued a court order using a breach the Official Secrets Act to try and get the identity of the source. Unfortunately, by the time the order was made the poster had managed to take advantage of the automatic deletion of their details by changing their email address to an invalid one.

The point being made is that either we go for proper security and not some half hearted attempt at cosmetic window dressing. One thing about the El Al situation is that they don't go around making dramatic announcements about what they do with regards to security. They have armed security personnel on ALL their flights, long haul and short haul. More importantly though is the security that is in place to prevent potential hijackers getting anywhere near an aircraft in the first place. As has been pointed out in other posts, it is expensive and requires a commitment that isn't just farmed off to the cheapest private sector quote. Their passengers are profiled before they even get to the check-in desk. Compare that to what we have elsewhere; A busy groundstaff person who asks "Did you pack your own bags, have they been with you at all times and has anyone given you anything to carry for them?". All this is asked as they try to allocate you a seat and check your bags in.

What we appear to have here is excessive hype with very little substance. The government give a teeny amount to the various departments to train up a few 'Sky Marshalls' and hope the gullible travelling public will fall for it. Security has a price but the government are not prepared to pay for it and no doubt, neither are the public. BALPA are correct, in my view, when the call for much money to be spent on better security to prevent hijackers getting on board an a/c in the first place rather than the current 'drop in the ocean', knee jerk response to US pressures. There is little point in comparing the US and the UK methods. There is a distinct difference in gun cultures between the two societies and that is reflected in the debate. There is no point in trying to persuade one side that their methods are better. September 11th happened. There was a massive break down in intelligence and security that day. Many things have changed since then in the way we operate and how we deal with hijackers should they get aboard an aircraft. What has not changed significantly is the way governments deal with security issues. If it costs money then it has to be raised and spent. Continuous and repetitive pronouncements that there is a security risk and therefore some new measure is being implemented but... only in a few selected or random cases is nothing more than a cheap option and barely useful except as a cosmetic dab at the problem.

All the fanfare about unspecified security threats and the 'band-aid' knee-jerk response which has been going on since 9/11 is typical of governments who have very little idea about how to deal with the problem. If they were doing their jobs properly they would be doing so quietly, in the background using all their intelligence sources. If they want to implement security measures then they should be done covertly and in consultation with those of us who have to deal with them. This continuous and apparent need for public pronouncements is supposed to make the travelling public feel safe but what they, the public, fail to realise is that all they are doing is telling the potential hijackers that it is a lottery but with odds very much in their favour that they will be able to find a way through all the hype and cosmetic 'noise' if they are going to try and get aboard one of our flights. The terrorists will exploit every weakness and all these government announcements are doing is pointing out where they should not bother looking.

Having armed and highly trained Sky Marshalls on flights is not an issue in itself as long as they are on all flights and we as operating crew are consulted. What is an issue is the lack of effort going into preventing an armed Sky Marshall having to use his or her skills in the first place. Much more investment and effort needs to be put into ground security and i don't mean the pretty pathetic use of bottlenecking security checkpoints we have at the moment. We need profiling by highly trained people who work with up to date intelligence from the various agencies. Once we have a proper system in place that is designed to spot potential terrorist hijackers before they even get to the check-in desk then we can go further and put guns on the aircraft. Will the pilots of an aircraft carrying an armed Sky Marshall still have to give up their nail clippers though?

[airship]

Whatever the merits for having armed air marshals aboard, why limit them to just US-destined flights? Sept 11, 2001 consisted of US-built aircraft operated by US-airlines on internal flights with US-trained but unarmed terrorist/pilots. Logic proposes that it is the rest of the world who should be demanding more security for flights FROM the USA?

Propositions to improve security:

1) Make aeroplanes more difficult to fly.

2) Aircraft would be equipped with a "self-destruct" capability. Each passenger seat would be equipped with "voting" buttons. On the basis that any hijacker/s could only physically threaten a minority of passengers at any given moment, a central computer (with backups not operating on Windows) would be able to interpret passenger feeling, which together with aircraft position data in relation to possible targets, would determine whether the aircraft did indeed represent a clear and present danger. I suggest that a 2/3rds majority vote during a 90 second period should be sufficient to prevent abuse. "Self-destruction" after an audible countdown of 180 seconds would follow. A built-in safeguard allowing an automatic "reset" could be accomplished by at least 1/3rd of passengers voting for, during any 10 second period following the countdown. All this should ensure that even an armed air marshall who was in fact a terrorist would not be successful.

3) If it doesn't put the aviation industry out, perhaps we should consider mandatory anaesthesia for at least all east-bound trans-Atlantic air travellers? NASA and the ESA could provide valuable input. After all, if in the future we will be sending people out to the edges of the solar system, we should already be developing the technology to allow safe sleeping in Economy class.

4) We no longer have supersonic flights trans-Atlantic, so let's go all the way and just stop flying it altogether. We could build quite a few more Queen Marys...! Flight deck crew worried about their futures should be aware that on the larger merchant ships, officers can travel with their families. Navigation and seamanship is mainly 2 dimensional, so your skills even without the numerous electronic aids to navigation you have become accustomed to should be adequate. Large tankers these days even have swimming pools. Also, armed sea marshals will have more time to identify suspects in greater comfort, before using firearms which may have an undesired impact on passengers.

[OFBSLF]

When you use the phrase "highly trained firearms officers" he usally goes very pale and then laughs. He can tell you stories about these guys that you would not belive.I have no experience with police officers in the UK, so I cannot comment on their competency with firearms. I will say that here in the US, the marksmanship level of the average police officer is poor. They simply do not get enough initial and recurrent training. The US police officers who are highly skilled with firearms are either on special units (e.g., SWAT) or learned marksmanship on their own.

That said, the US sky marshalls are not your average police officer. Their level of training and marksmanship is far beyond that of the average police officer and their qualification test is quite stringent. I have 160 hours of formal marksmanship training. I've easily passed qualification tests similar to those used by most US police forces. I've fired a US sky marshall qualification test and did not pass. I greatly respect those who can pass that test.

I strongly suspect that the UK sky marshalls will be equally well trained.

[Wino]

Danny,

While I agree with what you said, the corps of Skymarshals for total coverage would be too big to believe, and we both know it.

HOWEVER, a small band of skymarshals CAN be usefull. The issue of AirFrance last week would be a case in point. Simply canceling the flights does virtually nothing, (The guy they really wanted with the pilot's training just no showed when he heard flights were being canceled) and actually hands the terrorists a win, when a credible threat is detected. By interupting Airfrance operations, even though no aircraft were hijacked, the terrorists won a small victory. But worse, like the PANAM hijacking, they could have simply borded a different aircraft out of Paris...

Ideally, if there was a credible threat the planes were going to to be hijacked, everyone except the terrorist should have been "bumped" and replaced with soldiers trained in close quarters combat. Now obviously that is not going to happen either, and unfortuantely credible threats mights not be specific enough to get it down to one flight anyway.

BUT, if you receive a credible but maybe not specific threat the ability to place a few airmashals on the planes would be worth while? Air france canceled 5 flights. 10 or 15 available airmarshals could have put decent coverage on the flights in question, and the disruptions never would have happened. Most likely nothing would have happened anyway, and if anyone HAD tried to hijack the aircraft hopefully they would have been shot dead...

As you are aware, at the end of the day you have to be able to go about your day inspite of these things. There is an eternal flame at a certain pizza parlor now that is still doing great business that proves just that.

Cheers
Wino

[Longtimer]

Seems that the US has changed their requirements to fly into the US.

US requires foreign airlines to put cops on planes
1 hour, 55 minutes ago Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (AFP) - US officials announced that any foreign airliner entering US airspace could be required to have armed police on board.


AFP/File Photo



"We are asking international air carriers to take the protective action as part of our ongoing effort to make air travel safe for Americans and visitors alike," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in a statement.


The announcement came after US officials said intercepted intelligence indicated that al-Qaeda may try to hijack foreign airliners for a repeat of the September 11, 2001 attacks in which 3,000 died.


Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said US officials would notify foreign carriers when air marshals are needed.


"It is on a flight-by-flight basis. We will notify airlines when we have information on a specific flight," he told AFP.


Murphy said the carrier's country would have to provide the law enforcement personnel who are to be armed, trained and qualified to protect the passengers, crew and the plane.


The rule "requires the same level of cooperation from all airlines," he said. "We are getting voluntary cooperation from several airlines. This makes cooperation mandatory, not voluntary."


A total of six Air France flights -- three to Los Angeles from Paris and three returning to Paris -- were canceled on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day at the request of US officials, amid fears that the planes could be used as weapons against US targets.


The new requirement was issued under an emergency amendment to existing regulations, Homeland Security said.


It applies to all passenger and cargo planes.


"Reactions from the airlines is understanding and the reactions from the governments involved is understanding and cooperation," Murphy said.


Specifically, France and Britain have been warned that their craft could be targeted.


The British government said Sunday it was deploying an unspecified number of armed sky marshals on British passenger planes "in response to the present heightened state of alert in the USA."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1520&ncid=1520&e=1&u=/afp/20031229/pl_afp/us_attacks_air_marshals_031229143043

[mesh]

To answer an earlier question I believe the guys concerned with British Marshall status will all be ex SO19. Also to my knowledge the captain of the aircraft has to be informed that they are on board etc. They will be deployed when there is a highlighted threat ie we know an attack is going to happen on a certain day, certain aircraft but not sure which one. Makes you think, if you were the captain would you take off?

[kaikohe76]

I am yet to be totally convinced, whether the presence of a Sky Marshal on a UK registered aircraft will greatly increase the security on the flight.
A possible senario could well be, bad guy pulls out gun, good guy pulls out gun, quick thinking pax overpower good guy thinking he is one of the bad guys because he has pulled out a gun, result chaos.
If the carrying of Sky Marshals on UK reg aircraft does in fact come about, those men or women will surely have to be very highly trained indeed. Will the personnel be drawn from the Police, where I would suggest most of the officers would not be nearly trained or experienced enough, or drawn from the Armed Services, most of whoom including the chaps from Hereford are on duty in the Gulf and unavailable.
Aircraft security must start on the ground with the screening
of pax and staff and must include EVERYBODY, Security personnel themselves, Customs, Police, Airport Executives etc.
A final suggestion, why not recruite far more top quality professional Security Staff for Airport duty, highly train them in all aspects, including customer relations, ensure constant recurrent training takes place, pay them a good sensible fair salary, give them fair conditions of service and make sure their managers etc are subject to the same training. All this, unlike a certain airport in the UK, where the idea seems to be to cut security staff numbers, give them minimal training, and poor salaries and other conditions of service.

[Rotary Pongo]

Given the standard of some coppers and the SO 19 punters I would be quite concerned about giving them firearms, letting them shout yeehah and taking on a load of armed terrorists on an airliner. I have the utmost respect for police officers but their mentality, fitness and so on isn't suited to this sort of role.

The only real effective deterrent would be a team of guys, probably Military Special Forces, who would have had the years of training and the aggressiveness and breadth of experience to be effective against a concerted and organised terrorist threat. Britain certainly doesn't have the numbers of guys with such training to do it consistently and I feel that one old copper with a Browning is going to be able to do ****** all against any more than a single guy armed with a knitting needle. In fact he'll probably cause more harm than anything else.

If it's a deterrent then that's one thing but if this is supposed to be an effective option to disable terrorists mid air they've got to be joking for the reasons I've already mentioned.

[Wino]

Kaikoho and pongo,


The training of the cop BEFORE he starts the airmarshal training program (you aren't really thinking they are just gonna pull a guy of the beat and put him and a gun in an airplane do you?) is almost irrelevant. It is the training program that they THEN go to that will make the difference. Don't expect the pass rate to be very high either... That is one of the reasons that ramping up the airmashals in the USA proved so difficult. Even when they were using swat team and Special forces guys on TDY for it, they had a hard time getting them through the programs...

So just because you have no respect at all for your local cop on the beat, doesn't mean he is incapable of being trained to be something more...



Now for your scenario pongo.
Okay, if the passengers overpower the wrong guy and they both had guns, does it really matter anyway? If there had been no airmarshal on the aicraft in the first place the airplane will still be shot down if the cockpit is breached. On the otherhand, the potential upside is that the hijacker gets shot dead or captured and the passengers get to live another day. No down side that I can see in your scenario, but certainly a potential upside.

Cheers
Wino

Edited to add the following.

Well, I was wondering why the press would make such a big deal about it, or even be told. Besides the fact that the captain will have to be advised about it, the fact that it has been publicized somewhat reduces the possibility of Pongo's scenario... (Public won't be suprised to see an armed cop onboard and react badly to it)

[Rotary Pongo]

Mate, that' not really what I'm on about. British policing is very different to that of the US, only SO 19 and some other specialists are trained in the use of firearms and they don't train in the same way that US SWAT does.

Only really our SF guys have the capability to do the sort of role that's being discussed and as they're all a bit busy I can't see that happening.

If I was a civvy Captain I would be pretty unhappy about letting a firearm on to the plane.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I made a couple of points this morning which were calmly shot down by people who understood the subject a little better than I. Fair enough, that's what a forum like this is for.

But one I made hasn't, and it strikes me that it influences most of the argument above. USE OF NONLETHAL WEAPONS.

I don't believe that there aren't accurate, nonlethal, instantly incapacitating weapons (or the technology to manufacture them) that can be used on board an aircraft without endangering the aircraft. Surely such weapons should pretty much satisfy every concern I've read above or heard about on the news today?

G

[Wino]

I think we are talking past each other pongo.

My point was that by the time these british officers finish their airmarshal training, they will have nothing in common with their standard civilian counterpart. They will be quite expert in the use of small weapons in enclosed places, and quite capable of shooting strait and knowing where not to miss...If they aren't they won't graduate and they will return to their previous duties.

No one has said they are simply going to take police and put them in an aircraft. There is going to be a quite rigorous training program before that, which should sort out any deficiencies in experience and skill long before they get in a plane. Presumeably these branches of thepolice force haven't been infiltrated with sleepers so the chances of a bad guy getting through would be quite small...

Cheers
Wino

[Tony_EM]

Just heard a news item about it on 5 news where they claim that American authorities have demanded that armed sky marshalls be used on flights to the US, and that British authorities are just preempting that requirement.

Before I get shot at ;) , I'm just relaying what I heard and know better than to believe anything I hear from today's media.

Could this be true?

[Donkey Duke]

Flying with Air Marshals in the US is no big deal anymore. They are very professional and they give you an added layer of security. The revenue that would have been produced with that same seat is now given in the form of a tax credit to the airline.
Here is what I just read about BALPA:


"The British pilots' association, however, wants to give its members the right to not fly planes with armed agents on board, according to the association's Web site.

"The introduction of another official on board civil aircraft confuses lines of command, which need to be absolutely clear when there is an emergency," the British Air Line Pilots Association said in an online statement of its security policy."


Sure, you can fly planes without them---just not to the US. It is a new reality we must face.

[419]

According to today's papers, the armed sky marshals will not have to check in with the passengers. Instead, they will by-pass the departure lounges, and will be seated before the passengers embark. So, if a terrorist makes sure he gets on the aircraft fairly early, and looks for any single men already seated, he will be able to narrow down who the guards are.
It was also stated that the marshals might carry Tazers and pepper/mace spray. Okay, the Tazers might be a good idea, but what would happen if a can of pepper spray was discharged in an aircraft at 35,000 ft?. I've had a very small sniff of this stuff, and I didn't stop coughing for 15 minutes. Surely it would affect all the pax, as well as the marshals.

419

[wryly smiling]

"Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said US officials would notify foreign carriers when air marshals are needed.
"It is on a flight-by-flight basis. We will notify airlines when we have information on a specific flight," he told AFP. "


does this mean that homeland security will be paying any costs incurred?

[Wino]

No you just get top operate the flight instead of having it canceled like Airfrance's were, I would guess.

Consider it a safety feature like a life raft in an aircraft. Life rafts and life preservers cost the airlines hundreds of millions of dollars a year in extra fuel cost due to the weight of carrying them around. Balanced against the number of aicraft that have actually ditched vs. been hijacked its a better return on your investment than the requirement to carry rafts...

Cheers
Wino

[M.Mouse]

Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said US officials would notify foreign carriers when air marshals are needed.

Ah, so we will rely on American Intelligence. That's OK then.

[OFBSLF]

I don't believe that there aren't accurate, nonlethal, instantly incapacitating weapons (or the technology to manufacture them) that can be used on board an aircraft without endangering the aircraft. Surely such weapons should pretty much satisfy every concern I've read above or heard about on the news today?Genghis: Ok, then give us a pointer to these wonder weapons. I'd sure love to see them.

Let's consider the non-lethal weapons that do exist.

Tasers certainly don't match the requirement. There are two types of Tasers. The first is a contact model that you have to hold up against the person. That's hard to do when the assailant is resisting. Even in the best possible case, they take 10-15 seconds to disable someone.

The second type of Taser throws two projectiles through the air, with wire leads attached to them. You only have one shot, and if you miss, then it doesn't work. If the assailant pulls the projectile barbs off his chest, it doesn't work. And even if the barbs stay in, they have failed to subdue more than a few EDPs.

As for defensive aerosol sprays, the main one used these days is OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray. Any US police officer will tell you that sometimes they work. And sometimes they don't. A committed assailant can fight through the spray.

There are three main varieties of OC spray: 1) stream, 2) fog, and 3) foam. Both fog and stream will result in the OC being recirculated throughout the cabin -- sure hope the pilots don their masks beforehand. Foam won't be recirculated throughout the cabin but it can be defeated relatively easily with sunglasses and be thrown back at the officer.

Some US police forces use bean-bag projectiles that are shot from pump-action shotguns. It would be rather difficult for a sky marshal to conceal a pump-action shotgun and a pump-action shotgun is a tad unwieldy for CQB in an aircraft. This could also probably be defeated in several ways using improvised soft body armor and/or creative use of a seat cushion.

There are various types of batons that can be used. For this purpose, the likeliest candidate is a collapsible baton like the ASP. It is a contact weapon, meaning that the officer must come into arms reach of the assailant (something that is always risky). It certainly isn't instantly disabling. Batons can be deadly if used inappropriately. And the likelihood of success is a function of both the officer's skill and the assailant's skill at CQB.

Sorry, but putting phasers on stun only works in Star Trek.

[newarksmells]

For all of you worrying about bullets flying all over the plane and de-pressurization as well as man-to-man shootouts..It ain't going to happen.

Skymarshals in the U.S are explcitly trained to avoid this sort of behaviour.

And guess what, you don't have any idea how many Sky Marshalls were on fights for the Winter Olympics in 2002 in SLC.....I have a pretty good idea though.....and guess what, nothing happened.

As the saying goes, all we have to fear is fear itself.

Newark

[Ex Oggie]

The presence of Sky Marshalls on some transatlantic flights is not a prudent measure by the UK Govt, but pandering to the requirements of G Dubbya. As I understand it from the official releases so far, its either armed guards or you don't fly in out airspace! Okay, not a bad idea with non-lethal weapons, but howsabout some effort into getting a sensible security program up and running with more widespread consultation.

Like some of the other posters, I would be very uncomfortable having UK cops with handguns anywhere near my aircraft, irrelevant of training and previous attachments. I would be far happier with a few ex-SF guys. The big difference in the UK is very few firearms trained police have operational experience, whereas the Mil guys do, and have often been in potential and actual armed confrontations. If the choice is highly trained or highly trained with experience, I know which I would go for.

Whilst some of the security arrangements bought in post 9/11 (some of which have been operating in the UK for years) are sensible, some are just plain crazy. A secondhand story from an aquitance. One of his colleagues was stopped from carrying his Leatherman on a flight despite protesting it was a piece of essential equipment for flight crew. Fair enough I guess, but then before departure, he is handed a couple of plastic bags with small 'sharp instruments' that belonged to passengers and which had to stay in his safe keeping until after de-planing and return to the pax. Logic? there aint none!

Back to the point in hand. Anybody know for definate if the flight crew will know if their flight has Sky Marshalls aboard? If not, is this not (hypothetically) risky ground as far as the ANO is concerned?

Worried of Warwickshire

[419]

"For all of you worrying about bullets flying all over the plane and de-pressurization as well as man-to-man shootouts..It ain't going to happen."

2 planes crashing in-to the World Trade centre. A few years ago, everyone would have said "it ain't going to happen"

Terrorists managing to get close enough to the USS Cole, to set off a bomb. If you had said 10 years ago that this could happen, everyone would have said it was impossible.

Men walking on the moon. Never.

Everything is impossible until the first time it actually happens.

Ex Oggie, from what I read in todays news (not confirmed), the aircrew will know if there are armed marshals on board, as they will get on the aircraft before the rest of the passengers, and will not pass through the normal security process.

419

[Donkey Duke]

419,

That is how it works in the states---but people are pre-boarded all of the time---and if they do detect that they may be onboard, then we foiled them yet again. It is better to have security that not to have it.

Ex-Oggie,

So, let's do nothing. Are you French? Everyone will feel better that security may be onboard, and the terrorists will be wondering whether or not there is any extra security. If they know that most transatlantic flights have it---they may go elsewhere. EL AL doesn't seem to have many threats---because they always have security and those people do not take this lightly---like some other people. Yeah, you may not like the rules, and we don't like your LHR rules about allowing only 2 American airlines in, while Air Turkimenistan is allowed a daily 757 with a 35% load factor. If you want your airlines to fly into the US, then follow the rules. And, of course the PIC and crew would know about the marshals. This is standard practice over here and everyone likes it. They are very professional and really take the job seriously. Cheers!

[BOING]

The Sky Marshall program in the US is working quite smoothly after a few start-up problems. It is not perfect but it is working.

The Captain always knows if a Sky Marshall is on board. Both parties know their limits and duties. There is no real additional conflict with Captain's authority since historically there have been similar cases of federal authority over-riding the Captain. The FAMs have been taught about Captain's authority and they are usually pleasingly polite. The FAM/Crew working relationship seems quite good.

Some points from earlier posts. Some posters imagine there is a reserve of people somewhere experienced in FAM type scenarios. Not true. The aircraft scenario is sufficiently different from ANYTHING that previously existed, military or civilian, that a whole new training course is required, even for experienced law enforcement personnel. There is no reason a person from any previous discipline should not allowed to be a FAM, presuming that person passes the required training course. Myself, I think self-discipline, cunning and timing are probably at least as important as firearms ability and strength.

There is no credible replacement for a firearm (reasons already explained on previous posts). Within the range of available firearms and ammunition there are better or worse choices for the job. The FAM program has selected a reasonable compromise in hardware.

[surely not]

Someone earlier referred to the Air France cancellations as if they were a failure in security. Personally I'd say it was the ultimate in security. Absolutely no risk whatsoever of the aircraft hitting anything either by design or default

As a passenger I'd rather the flight never got off the ground if there was a risk of it becoming either an aerial cruise missile or an out of control missile after vigilante action by a sky marshall or pax like the 757 on 9/11.

If not capturing the 'target' terrorist is an issue, let the pax airside, delay the flights for some spurious reason, then send in guys to arrest the 'targets'

As a side issue, who is expected to pay for all this additional security?

Most of the posts talk about flights TO the USA, but surely it must also affect flights ex USA? After all it was US security that was breached for the 9/11 flights. If so then the number of 'Marshalls' is set to double as they cannot be expected to turn straight round and go back on the same flight, they will need the same minimum rest as the crew. You certainly wouldn't want your Marshall to be jet lagged and too tired to be of use!!

How can the Israeli situation be considered a success? After all this time and still they need armed minders on their flights.

Perhaps if people could see some political effort into resolving the key issues that have caused the problems they would be more accepting of the imposition of Sky Marshalls. Presently it is difficult to see them ever becoming redundant.

[pilgrim]

Mmmm, another Blunkett #$#%up lets introduce Firearms to Aircraft, any more knee jerk re-jerk reactions and he will ruin the industry. And who will Pay for this brilliant headline grabbing policy?

[BizJetJock]

A very quick perusal of ANO article 59 reveals that it is illegal for a UK registered aircraft to take off with any "weapon or munition of war" either in a compartment accessible to passengers or loaded. So until there is some amendment to the law, a Captain can be prosecuted for NOT refusing to fly with a sky marshall on board:O

[Macaw_1884]

I have been told that both the Australian and US governments have issued directives regarding international air travel to and from their airspace:
If you want to fly in their airspace, you must have Sky Marshals; hence the British government stating that on CERTAIN flights from the UK, Air Marshals will be required.

[Paterbrat]

The fact of the matter is that sky marshals are here, and will be on board certain flights. They will act as a deterrent, will be carrying firearms, and unless you want to walk you will accept that this is the way things happen now. They have been a part of the aviation scene for some years now and it is simply a matter of some people getting a reality check and realising that the dangers posed by the events of 9/11 changed the world for everyone for ever.

[Hilico]

For a thread that anticipated this discussion by several months, see 'Do we need armed sky marshalls' on Questions.

I must admit, several of the contributions are from me - I saw an job advert on the back of a magazine while I was signing on. The ad didn't explicitly say 'must have been member of the SAS' (mind you, there are quite a few units in the British Army, doing similar jobs, that are rather less well known than that).

[boeingbus2002]

Newarksmells...

Skymarshals in the U.S are explcitly trained to avoid this sort of behaviour

Something doesnt quite make sense about Highly trained people from US with guns. They all seem Trigger Happy. Think of all the blue on blue incidents!

[ShotOne]

There is one extremely serious aspect which overshadows this whole thread. Of all the opinions expressed both for and against having skymarshals on UK flights, none has been either considered or discussed before taking this very major step.

The simple fact is that it has been commanded by the US government and so Tony Blair has meekly and obediently complied. No consideration has been given to possible pitfalls or the objections raised by BALPA and UK pilots in general. Just who runs the UK? Evidently not anyone that we got to vote for.

[Donkey Duke]

ShotOne,

It is a new rule in the US concerning foreign airlines. Either you obey it or you don't fly to the lucrative US market. The US Gov't is not targeting just the UK, but everyone. This will probably send a strong message to the terrorists. Don't think Bush is just telling Blair to follow---he is telling the terrorists to stay off airplanes flying to the US. Can you please list some possible pitfalls to this new rule? (what exactly would Balpa object to? our ALPA thinks it is great)

[BOING]

Can't help thinking that this is going to complicate the cabotage discussions!

[Scud-U-Like]

There is no such thing as 100% airline security. The most innocuous looking item can be used or adapted as a weapon. No matter what passenger profiling you carry out, potential terrorists cannot always be detected by such methods. In terms of risk management, the provision of armed air marshals, as an additional (and possibly last) line of defence, can only be a good thing.

Just as all aircraft passengers are asked to trust that their captain is competent to do his job, so aircraft captains are going to have to trust that air marshals are competent to do theirs. It ought to go without saying that it would not be prudent to brief airline crew on the training and methods of operation of air marshals, though, as the Transport Secretary has confirmed, captains will be made aware, when air marshals are to be deployed on their aircraft.

Part of the deterrent effect of deploying air marshals is to give their introduction maximum publicity. If BALPA's very public carping is any more than a clever DFT co-ordinated effort, to publicise the new measure, BALPA really needs to ask itself if it is acting responsibly.

[Paterbrat]

There is a quite understandable mindset that simply refuses to accept the notion that some individual who has already accepted the concept of his own self destruction in a cause, can and will, quite coldbloodedly cut a hostesses throat in order to try and blackmail his way into the cockpit. A group will start killing hostages one by one to achieve this. Mohammed Attar had learned and trained in unarmed combat in order to be better prepared to achieve his objective. His success is a matter of history. The present attitude of some that bleat that guns are dangerous in a plane is to have an ostrich like mentality that is mindboggling in it's naiivity.
It's rather like the present CNN presentation where the jounalists were bemoaning the fact that battlefield reporting was dangerous and some of them were actualy getting killed, they were DEMANDING the military give them assurances that the extra mile would be taken to see that this did not happen. Lets get real, it's like saying 'I want an assurance that I will live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in my bed surrounded by my loving family'.
It appears that the US is confronting the menace head on and not taking the PC namby pamby 'lets talk to them and perhaps they will go away' attitude. Turn the other cheek to this menace we face today and you will lose it. Simply hoping that the menace won't get on your plane simply is no longer an option. The powers that be, have detirmined that there will be a credible deterrent, and the fact that this is being complied by airlines wishing to fly to the US, is simply an acknowledgement of that situation. In our society 'force majeur' still dictates policy.
All the genteel expressions of how ruffianly this is all becoming are quite frankly a waste of breath. The white gloves and tea and crumpets on the silver service in the back are a but pleasant memory of happier times, the fact is that anybody who steps on a plane today had better realise that it is a method of travel that is dangerous and has been targeted by some extremely fanatical and ruthless people.

[fredbare]

Let us not forget that one of our main security aims is to prevent weapons coming onto aircraft. Now we are to condone the carriage of guns, ready to fire, on the aircraft and on the airside of airports. How can I be sure I can trust the carrier of these weapons that his aims are not to hijack my aircraft or to hand on the weapon to a possible hijacker?
We have to lock our doors to prevent the aircraft being used as a weapon, will the Sky Marshalls not now be the source of arms for the hijacker? He may be highly trained, he may be motivated but so are these terrorists.
To the american "if you want to fly into the states, follow the rules" brigade. How about "if you want to fly into the lucrative UK/Europe market how about following our rules. NO GUNS

[miss d point]

Matblack agree entirely,

The problem to me is that when this govenment does something, usually it's all show and glitz but no real substance, take for instance the directive making pilots remove overcoats !!! how stupid can you get !
I recently heard that the armed police squad (special branch) guarding the Queen had big problems getting through security at manchester because "what if their car had a bomb under it" after it was explained to them that it had been in a secure lot, but if it had a bomb under it what would they do since if they didn't get through neither could the Queen they were told that special branch would be called !!!!!

This is the general mentallity of the DTR, think they come up with this stuff between pop idol breaks.

oh, is the 'sky marshall' the little fat tubby woman sitting at the front !!!!

always bet on black
:ok:

[mesh]

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?

[arcniz]

These are extraordinary times.

I do not doubt for a moment that Great Britain can scare up some hundreds of sober, level- headed crack shots who will serve ably as protection from aerial terrorism. They may not succeed in every case, but they can certainly give it a good try. And those who cannot trust their official protectors should just sit it out along a quiet stream somewhere.

This is a particularly delicate moment in history, but one that will pass soon enough. With immense resources available and a clear international sense of purpose now crystalized by the atrocities of recent years, the root sources of organized global terrorism will be methodically found and either cured or exterminated by an allied team of powerful nations - who appear to agree on this purpose even when they differ about nearly everythng else. Anarchists always get the short straw in the last draw, but the root solution to this problem is to cure the social and political privations that, even now, are breeding the next generations of people desperate enough to become terrorists.

It makes strong sense to afford reasonable protection and assurance to air travelers in this period of reaction to the new, unpleasant context that came with 9/11. We all appreciate that bureaucracies and international agendas are a slow-moving means for change in contrast to the action of closely organized, trained individuals working as a group. So let us put our own sharp players in the game to fill the gap until the more fundamental problems can be successfully addressed.

The near-term health of aviation depends very much on the public perception of commitment to prevention of terrorist activity in the sky.

[Budgie69]

Whilst not denying that skymarshals could be an effective cockpit defence, it must be recognised that there are certain disadvantages - introducing a gun into the cabin etc. etc.

I believe that we also ought to consider radically different cockpit defences, and to this end I propose a moat and drawbridge. The moat would be perhaps 6 feet wide and would be directly behind the cockpit door, filled with water/fuel/toilet fluid. The retractable walkway used on larger flight simulators would make an excellent drawbridge. The skymarshal could then be in the cockpit, armed with a crossbow and firing through suitable slits in the cockpit bulkhead. Cabin crew could be trained in the pouring of boiling oil.

I am aware that there are certain technical issues to overcome regarding longitudinal accelerations and balanced flight, but I feel sure that the contributors to this forum can devise suitable solutions.

[Capt H Peacock]

I am profoundly concerned not only with the prospect of an individual in the cabin with a gun, but with the way the government have thrust this upon us. Doubtless they have been armtwisted by Uncle Sam, but they do themselves no credit in the way they seem to be driven by events, and not master to them.

The whole concept behind our current rationale has been to proscribe the boarding of any weapon, putative or otherwise. The use of ‘sky marshals’ flies in the face of this policy, by relieving the criminal of the task of clandestinely boarding a weapon. Over the period of a long haul flight, the ‘sky marshal’ will become evident by his/her demeanour and consequently will be vulnerable to being overpowered by the criminals.

I shall now be faced with the situation of an armed struggle in the cabin which is completely outside my control. Stray rounds would present an unacceptable risk to the passengers, the aircraft and its systems. In short chaos would ensue.

If Mr Bush has decided that guns shall be carried on my aircraft, then I would prefer that I shall carry it. That way, I know where the weapon is at all times, who will discharge it, and at whom and what.

The current situation is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, and has been introduced in the same kind of casual uninformed manner that we have come to expect of on-the-hoof, reactionary policymaking by Millbank.

Good for BALPA for insisting that we discuss this in a consultative and rational debate.

[ShotOne]

Donky breath, etc Yes I can see quite a few pitfalls and unanswered questions with this plan. Who are these skymarshals. How are they trained. Under whose control are they working? What safeguards will be there to ensure their weapon doesn't get into the wrong hands?? None of these questions have been discussed, let alone answered.

I am prepared to be convinced. The trouble is that there has been no discussion or consideration of any of these arguments. We don't even get to choose which flights to put them on -that will be directed by the director of Homeland Security!

Blair is simply responding to a blunt order from President George to his minions in Europe. Just consider for a moment how the US government would respond if they received a similar demand from a European government.

[TRF4EVR]

How can the Israeli situation be considered a success? After all this time and still they need armed minders on their flights.


uh. No hijackings?

Oh, forgot. This isn't about preventing terrorism. It's about how the US is "once again" steamrolling European sovereignty by making rules about how people get to use our airspace. :rolleyes:

[NURSE]

Whilst not a pilot or aircrew i as a passenger would like to make a few comments.
The introduction of sky marshals is a regretable step but in light of events of 9/11. I feel specially trained personnel on aircraft is a good idea. The Israelis have had armed security on their flights for many years.
The sugestion of using incapaciting agents on an airliner is ridiculous. Having been exposed to CS gas in a confined area i know it won't only affect the target it will end up in the aircirculation equipment and effect everyone aboard. TASER uses large bursts of electricity to stun an assailant but doesn't that also put out an electromagnatic signature that may affect avionics.
If a skymarshal system is being introduced why not go for an air police? who could assist cabincrew where necessary. Equiped with firearms with frangeible rounds or rounds were the probability of them over-penetrating is low. And training specially designed for working in an airline enviroment. I know mainland police forces have a poor reputation when it comes to firearms training but the RUC trained their officers to a high standard as they all had to be armed. Or why not get them trained by the SAS.
I certainly think this is a better solution than the inital American response of arming the pilots.

[Scud-U-Like]

Capt HP

You have got to be kidding. Do you really imagine your strutting out of the cockpit like Calamity Jane would help matters? What sort of ensuing chaos do you envisage being worse than having your throat cut and your aircraft piled into a skyscraper?

Proscribing the boarding of any weapon is a very laudable aim, but an impossible one. Are you going to proscribe that handy metal club (also known as the fire extinguisher) or any of the other 101 things on your aircraft that could be used as a weapon?

Yes, let's have a big debate, so we know exactly how many sky marshals there are, how they are trained, what their mode of operation and rules of engagement are, who controls them and what weapons they carry. Why, they could even have open days at their training centre. Better still, let's post their profiles on a "sky marshals website", so we can all get to know them better.

[Pot Noodle]

.. break a compact disk in half, ..two five and a half inch blades with the effectiveness of a pocket knife. Or go one stage further, the protective layer in a laptop screen could produce a rather handy fourteen inch blade. And what about all those duty free bottles?

We cannot assume terrorists are stupid so apart from the complete banning of any hand luggage and the cutting off of passengers fists, probably sky marshalls have to be accepted as a forward step.

[wbryce]

Firstly, how good would the sky marshals job be? just sitting and flying constantly! wonder how long it will take till they get DVT!

Secondly as someone mentioned, theres no such thing as 100% security in the aviation business, and there never will be, even with the most robust system theres too many possible situations that can arise to cause a disaster!

This all leads back to 9/11, if the US handled the war on terrorism better, IE used special forces to combat terrorism than your average foot monkey who shoots there own planes down and if the US didn't commit to promises to the public. I believe, if this was delt with behind the scenes (i.e. public not knowning) then the publics fear would settle, but it seems every thing that can relate to a disaster is being publicised to death! IE the drunken pilots. Airliners nearly colliding although they where 1.5miles apart. Plots to blow up planes. It is hurting the industry as its constantly refreshing the elements of fear, and we can only say thanks to Mr Bush and Mr Blair for throwing there toys out the play pen and commiting to promises that to fullfill seem a life time away, you kill one terrorist, two more spawn.

Why dont airlines adapt the conair approach and lock all pax in cages! :O

[Airbubba]

Ridge Hails Response to Air Marshal Order

Location: Washington

Posted: December 30, 2003 8:56 AM EST

Washington (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Tuesday hailed the response of other nations so far in the U.S. quest to get air marshals deployed, if necessary, to protect commercial airplanes against terrorist attack.

"I'd put the family on the plane," Ridge said when asked about how strongly he felt about new safety measures the Bush administration has undertaken. Ridge made the rounds of morning news shows a day after the Department of Homeland Security issued a new directive giving the government the option of denying access to U.S. airspace to airlines which do not cooperate.

"Working with our partners around the world, I think we have made great progress in this area," said Ridge. Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" show, he called the move "an added level of security."

"People travel. People must travel," Ridge said. "We cannot submit to the fear associated with the continuous scream that they (terrorists) would use aviation as a means of attack."

Under the new policy, foreign airlines risk being denied access to American airspace if they don't obey the new directive that some international flights crossing over or headed to the United States must carry an armed law enforcement officer to thwart terrorists, Homeland Secretary officials said earlier.

"Any sovereign government retains the right to revoke the privilege of flying to and from a country or even over their airspace," Ridge told a news conference Monday. "So ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have." There has been no indication so far that any country will refuse U.S. demands to place guards on designated flights.

Ridge also said the nation would remain at the "Code Orange" high alert through the New Year's holiday and perhaps beyond. "We are as concerned today as we were yesterday," he said Monday. "We'll be concerned as much this week as we were last week."

The new directive requires selected international flights that enter U.S. airspace to carry an armed law enforcement officer aboard. The Homeland Security Department will require such officers on airplanes where intelligence information leads to a specific concern about that flight.

For months, U.S. security officials have feared that al-Qaida operatives would again hijack planes to use them as missiles. The most recent concerns centered not on domestic passenger flights, but on airliners or cargo planes that take off from overseas and cross over U.S. airspace, either on their way to a U.S. airport or to a foreign one.

"I think the level of security this time around within the United States is absolutely unprecedented," Ridge said on CBS's "The Early Show."

"International aviation security isn't just a priority for the United States," said Ridge, who called it "an international priority."

On ABC, Ridge said the notion of grounding another nation's commercial flight would be "seen as a last alternative" if the United States cannot resolve concerns about passengers on a given flight before that plane's scheduled takeoff.

The administration raised the terrorism alert level to orange, or high, on Dec. 21, citing nonspecific but credible threats of an imminent terrorist attack.

Air France canceled six flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Wednesday and Thursday, after security discussions between U.S. and French officials.

Aviation security experts said the announcement marks a significant change in that, up until now, international security guidelines have been voluntary.

"In the past, no country has ever tried to impose on other countries any measures of aviation security," said Rafi Ron, president of New Age Security Solutions, a Washington-based consultancy, and the former security director for the Israeli Airport Authority.

The next logical step will be for the international community to push for global aviation security standards, including mandated reinforced cockpit doors and better airport perimeter defenses.

Homeland Security officials said governments frequently set security and other standards for planes bound for their airspace.

Homeland Security reviews the passenger and crew manifests of all planes bound for U.S. airspace, generally after the plane has taken off, because passenger lists are usually finalized only minutes before the plane taxis from the gate, department spokesman Dennis Murphy said.

Some passenger lists are reviewed beforehand, he said.

Some international airlines said Monday they would cooperate with the new U.S. requirement. Others, including airlines in Canada and Germany, said they already were using armed marshals on some flights.

Britain said Sunday it had tightened security for trans-Atlantic flights and suggested, as it has in the past, that it might put armed sky marshals on some planes.

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1203/115494.html

[con-pilot]

Sorry old boy, we never locked up our passengers (?) in cages on "Con-Air". However I have been on airline flights that some passangers should have been placed in cages.

[Tripower455]

Guys, we are all entitled to our opinions, but there are an awful lot of "chicken little" type predictions being made here, that, imho, are just that.

It is a fact that people have been legally carrying guns on US airplanes for many years without a single incident. The presence of a firearm in the proper hands is far less dangerous than an airplane in the improper hands. It's simply a non issue.

Non lethal weapons are not the answer. If you get to the point where you need to use it, it simply cannot be relied on to incapacitate the bad guy, no matter which one we are discussing. Police carry them as a bridge between verbal control and lethal control, in a very different environment than will be present in the case of an air piracy attempt. And they have a firearm as a backup.

Prior to 9/11 there were less than 100 Air Marshalls. While the number is classified, I would estimate the number to be well into the thousands by now, and many more are being trained. Their deterrent factor then was much less than it is now.

Having had lots of interaction with these folks, I am glad to have them aboard. They are, without exception, a professional bunch. We are briefed by them when they board.

I am a fairly proficient shooter (I have qualed on several LEO courses), and I would have a hard time passing the FAM qual. course. They are VERY good and their training is specifically tailored to their very unique situation.

The issue of penetrating the hull is a concern, but in the big scheme of things, I'd much rather deal with possible partial loss of pressurization, or a system loss than have the aircraft used as a missile or equally bad (for those on the plane) is getting shot down by a future first officer in an F-Teen.

While I am the first to criticize the screening efforts on the ground, I am not sure at what point we could ever 100% prevent bad guys from getting on the aircraft, and still carry passengers.

Layered security, starting with foriegn policy and ending with armed pilots is, IMHO, the answer to limiting the onboard threats posed by these fanatics.

As for the stingers, bombs in cargo etc. It should be obvious that Air Marshalls will have less effect on these things than a liferaft will have on an engine fire. ;)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Surely a couple of sky marshals are easily defeated?

Terrorist 1 stands up and puts his weapon to a cabin crew members throat and drags them all the way to the front of the aircraft shouting about a hijack.

Terrorist 2, 3, 4 & 5 remain in their seats to watch the Sky marshals leap into action. When they do then the terrorists tap them on the shoulder from behind and disable them.

Thus gaining a couple of pistols.

Its hardly rocket science is it?

And then what going to happen to Johnny Skymarshal when he jumps from his seat, pulls a gun and starts shooting people? I suggest the passengers will panic and jump on him.

Pointless window dressing at a time when they don't routinely stop and search arab males travelling alone because it could be construed as racist.

And whats the point of armed police, X ray machines, sniffer dogs and all the palava when at many international airport - if its dark - you can just walk up to an aircraft from the fields as long as you are wearing a hi vis vest and vaguely look as if you know what you are about?

I reckon they should beef up the flightdeck armour, improve the flightdeck camera system and thats all we need. If we can see something is not right and the flightdeck really is impregnable, then we are not flying into any buildings today - are we?

Oh - and *is* someone doing proper background checks on people applying for CPL's? Elsewise it might all be rather embarassing when the newly recruited FO turns out to be Al Qaeda... With a fire hatchet attached to his seat and an impregnable door behind him...

Cheers

WWW

[Tripower455]

Surely a couple of sky marshals are easily defeated?

As easily defeated as unarmed/untrained passenger and crewmembers? ;)

[Danny]

The fact that armed sky marshalls operate on other countries carriers and have done so for many years is irrelevant to this discussion. If we compare the two main countries for comparison, Israel and the US, we have one country where the sky marshall concept is just one part of a much bigger, better trained and less PR orientated security system and the other where because of their own terrible lapse in security even though they had sky marshalls operating on random flights saw the terrible tragedy of 9/11 and the huge changes to our jobs and the way we now operate.

I think that we are all agreed that the sky marshall is the next to last line of defense against hijackers that are intent on using an aircraft as a missile. The last line being the new reinforced, bullet proof, Kevlar, bolted flight deck doors. What the problem is for many of us here in the UK is that with our different cultures and attitudes towards guns is the fact that this new measure is being introduced with no consultation whatsoever. It is being thrust on us by politicians who are advised by bureaucrats who apparently, have little idea of how to deal with the real security issues apart from making announcements that sound great to the uninformed travelling public and putting large numbers of 'security' staff on display who are supposed to be able to stop weapons from getting on board using an X-ray scanner and an induction loop.

It is all 'cure' and no 'prevention'. Sound bites for egotistical politicians. Why not do this quietly and in the background? According to the latest information it is the US authorities who will dictate which flights must carry an armed guard based on their intelligence (oxymoron) and their past record leaves a lot to be desired. Now we have a crew being informed that their flight is at high risk of a hijack attempt because why else would there be a need for an armed sky marshall? Should the crew have the discretion to refuse to operate under the circumstances? Will their insurance and life policies be void if their flight does come under attack and the knowingly operated the flight which was under high risk?

Personally, I have no problem with highly trained sky marshalls on a flight. What I do have a problem with is the pathetic and feeble effort put into preventing a potential hijacker getting on board in the first place. Knowing how clever and devious the terrorists can be we still have pathetically poor measures in place to stop them getting checked-in and through security. You only have to imagine the scenario where a large number of determined 'martyrs' board one flight having nothing suspicious in their baggage yet after passing 'security' purchase as many glass bottles, some containing highly flammable liquid for use as weapons once on board. How many sky marshalls will be on board? The whole thing stinks of the usual ineptitude and knee jerk reactionism from slimy politicians out to spend as little as possible on so much 'make-up'.

If we're going to have sky marshalls then lets have the rest of the security infrastructure in place to make sure that the sky marshalls are not needed in the first place! We see some of the petty systems in place every time we go to work. We know where many of the flaws are but when it comes to implementation, we are not consulted and are relegated to 'potential terrorist' status. No wonder many of us are not thrilled at the prospect of yet more 'finger in the dyke' pronouncements supposedly meant to make the travelling public feel more secure. If they only knew the half of it!

[Faire d'income]

There are a number of points being thrown around here without any serious analysis.

* ' EL AL have had sky marshals for years with no trouble from hijackers'

This is correct but EL AL also have had the world's strictest ground security measures so it is unreasonable to give all the credit to the redundant sky marshalls.

* This will send out a positive message etc.

I think that those of us living in countries where a gun is a very rare sight will see a sharp drop in bookings at the thought of some armed 'Die Hard' character whose job it is to be a passenger every day. ( How will morale be for these guys flying all day every day? )

* We've had them in the US without any decompressions or other problems.

Since 911 you can't bring a laser pen past security, as captain of an aircraft, because you might use it take control of the flight! Security has gone nuts so these people will perceive that they work in a different climate than their predecessors and I bet will be more trigger happy.

* 'The marshall will be pre-boarded bypassing security'

It has been pointed out that this could make it easier to identify him and now that he is on log-haul flights will he be trained not to fall asleep? I certainly would not want an armed cop asleep on my flight. The terrorist might get the gun without any struggle.


The simple answer is usually the best. If you don't want a hijacker flying the aircraft you make it impossible for him to get to the cockpit. This could be easily done by putting lavatory, rest and eating facilities at the front of the aircraft with no access from the cabin during flight to anyone including cabin crew.

No acccess to cockpit = no point in hijacking

Surely putting a gun in the cabin is the most obvious of security risks. The terrorists task is now not to plan an elaborate scheme to get weapons and himself past security, get on board and gain control...but to find the sky marshal and relieve him of his weapon gaining instant control.

Someone mentioned it being a cultural thing and I tend to agree, as long as the door is left open for a Hollywood ending the Americans will buy it. The rest of us live in the real world.

[Donkey Duke]

WWW,

These Sky Marshals have a plan, and they know about diversions. If 6 or more terrorists get guns onto airplanes, then there are obviously other security problems out there. If you guys in the UK don't want Sky Marshals to fly with you around there or in Europe, then great. But, if you want to fly to the US or over the US---then it must happen. If you are still at Easy, then you should never have to worry about that. And, I do agree with you that there should be some more airline screening for the current pilots out there. Cheers!

[OFBSLF]

Terrorist 2, 3, 4 & 5 remain in their seats to watch the Sky marshals leap into action. When they do then the terrorists tap them on the shoulder from behind and disable them.Easier said than done.

The sky marshalls work in teams. I'm quite sure they are trained to watch their back. I have been trained in handgun retention and close quarters combat. I'm sure the sky marshalls have received far superior training to mine.

[Tripower455]

Tripower455, afraid so - without mentioning lots of possible items, how about the sharpened wooden stakes that a pax used to wound cabin crew??? Get one of those through the neck & your skymarshal days are over.......

I'll ask the question again......

Do you really feel that an intensely (to say the least) trained sky marshall can be defeated as easily as unarmed/untrained passenger and crewmembers?

If we're going to have sky marshalls then lets have the rest of the security infrastructure in place to make sure that the sky marshalls are not needed in the first place! We see some of the petty systems in place every time we go to work. We know where many of the flaws are but when it comes to implementation, we are not consulted and are relegated to 'potential terrorist' status. No wonder many of us are not thrilled at the prospect of yet more 'finger in the dyke' pronouncements supposedly meant to make the travelling public feel more secure. If they only knew the half of it!

Absolutely. The answer is in many layers of protection. Not having all the possible layers IN the aircraft is as short sighted as not having it in the airport.

[Wino]

The final answer to this problem is eventually going to be a change in certification requirements for aircraft. In this day and age of cameras there is absolutely no reason for flight deck access to the cabin. Cameras, including walkaround that the flight attendants can point at a potential problem will do for us what we used to do by leaving the cockpit.

So in the future aircraft are going to have to be designed with the only access to the flight deck area from outside the aircraft with a solid bulkhead between the two. In that cockpit area will be the pilot's own mini Galley and Lav. They will only be able to leave the cockpit on the ground when the airstairs are brought to their own door.

Then it doesn't matter what rude thing you do to the passengers, you will NEVER get controll of the aircraft and hijacking aircraft to use them as a weapon will be over forever.

But that solution is years in the future unfortunately.

CHeers
Wino

[Paterbrat]

It's interesting the number of people who are still more focussed on expressing indignation at 'knuckling under to the US demands', rather than acknowledging that some dedicated gents with a desire to go to eternity with a lot of company are targeting large transport aircraft.

Get mad at the terrorists, mad enough to send a message to them that they stand a chance of having armed resistance on board and lethal force being utilised to stop them, not just a possibility of plastic cuffs, an attourney at the destination and lots of people supporting the idea of them being freed.

[newarksmells]

Had to laugh when I read in a previous post that the U.S was at fault for September 11th because they didn't monitor the terrorist community closely enough. Since when did the U.S have the sole responsibility to monitor terrorists? Where is Europe and the U.K in monitoring this?

If the U.S is as much to blame for September 11th as some people like to believe, you won't be too upset to put Sky Marshalls on your flights to the U.S as this is an obvious U.S response to their failure of September 11th. Of course, the rest of the world can always stop flying to the U.S if they choose which is the next logical step.

Newarksmells

[Airbubba]

U.S. officials: British planes threatened

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 Posted: 1:56 PM EST (1856 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two days after Britain moved to put armed marshals on some flights to the United States, U.S. officials said Tuesday that the United Kingdom had received intelligence recently regarding general threats to Britain's airliners.

British airlines were informed of the intelligence, U.S. officials said, and some, including Virgin Atlantic Airways, began manning flights with armed officers. It is unclear when the airlines began doing so.

The Virgin Atlantic office in London said the company never comments on security operations.

On Sunday, the British Home Office said it was placing sky marshals on certain passenger flights to the United States. A day later, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security called on foreign airlines to put guards on some flights that fly to, from or over the United States.

The British government first announced the move a year ago, but it was not implemented until now.

The threat is not the first time Britain has received such information regarding aircraft. In August, the country canceled flights to Saudi Arabia because of threats on planes coming into the kingdom...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/british.plane.threats/index.html

[Faire d'income]

Had to laugh when I read in a previous post that the U.S was at fault for September 11th because they didn't monitor the terrorist community closely enough. They don't but surely they should closely monitor threats to the US? Since when did the U.S have the sole responsibility to monitor terrorists? Again they don't and try to understand that the world does monitor terrorists and have done so for many years before 911. Where is Europe and the U.K in monitoring this? They pass on almost all info to the US and don't forget it is alleged the Israeli intelligence service gave quite specific info to the White House in august 2001.

If the U.S is as much to blame for September 11th as some people like to believe, you won't be too upset to put Sky Marshalls on your flights to the U.S as this is an obvious U.S response to their failure of September 11th. You forget that most of the world had adequate sucurity pre-911 while the US had nada internally. So it's a bit hard to listen to lectures on security from that government. Of course, the rest of the world can always stop flying to the U.S if they choose which is the next logical step. Now that is an 'obvious US response'. Maybe you should listen to the world instead of lecturing them on topics you discovered yesterday.

[Wino]

Fair D Income,

9/11 would have worked just as well or even EASIER in Europe. How can I say this? Because prior to 9/11 YOU COULD PURCHASE SWISS AMRY KNIVES AIRSIDE AT HEATHROW AND GENEVA. Something that was not avaiable to a would be hijacker in the USA...

So don't you lecture us. The tactis would have worked equally well in Europe. At the time the limitations were a 4 inch blade at heathrow (having flown through many times carrying all sorts of pocket knives and box cutters.) the only restriction was you couldn't hide it, so I made damn sure I threw em in the coin trays.

Cheers
Wino

[newarksmells]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

If the world monitors terrorists as closely as the U.S (which you say they do and I don't believe that for a minute), how come nobody called on September 10th?

To state the U.S had "nada security prior to September 11th" shows your ignorance.

Maybe you need to read a little or more appropriately a lot and if you hate the U.S that much, you should have the bal*s to post it here. If you don't like us, don't come. If you need military help, don't call. If you fly and don't trust security, don't fly here !!

It's amazing how many good folks from all over the world feel differently than you, day in and day out. They come pouring into the U.S by the thousands. Of course, they're probably ignorant stiffs who haven't read your propoganda yet ;-)

Of course if you are French like your name suggests, that says it all. No help, No Fight, No Fly over France = No Ball*


Newarksmells

[Faire d'income]

I have posted a fraction of the words on this thread than you have so I feel justified in feeling as been lectured to rather than the other way around. You ignore the main point regarding there being absolutley zero security pre-911 and talk about penknives.

If a group of Arab men were found with 'box cutters' on the same day a couple of years ago in Heathrow I would suggest it might have roused some suspicion, but I can't be certain. But I am certain the box cutters were never found on 911 because of the then security measures. They were strict for international flights ( non-nationals bad ) but non-existant for internal flights ( US pax good )

You talk of bringing your penknife on board as a weakness in pre-911 european security but now argue in favour of bringing guns on board!

BTW ( less confrontational tone ) what do you think of my suggestion of having all Flight Crew facilities isolated from the cabin inflight? It would cost the airlines a once-off pound or two but it would end the non-sense.

As an aside if they can't use aircraft they will find something else. One of the hijackers held a valid Heavy Goods Vehicle license with a qualification to drive hazardous loads. Imagine a full fuel truck colliding with a building? Would you propose truck marshalls to deal with this?

[maxy101]

I wonder who´ll be paying for their seats? No doubt British airlines will pick up the tab for more "security" whilst every other European airline gets a back handed subsidy....

[newarksmells]

Just announced on CNN that Virgin will be carrying "armed guards' on all flights to the U.S effective immediately.

Newarksmells

[curmudgeon]

Ok fellow Ppruners, I apologise for bringing the subject up again, but here's a roleplay scenario.

You are an armed sky marshall on a Virgin flight to Tokyo. A passenger, who you know by passenger profiling, was previously convicted of actual bodily harm, decides to assault other passangers and threatens to have the crew murdered.

This passanger is obviously causing great alarm in the cabin.

Do you do everyone a favour and shoot Vinnie Jones (obviously not in the head as this probably won't stop him) or do you remain in your seat and see if he actually carries out his threats.

And at the risk of thread hijack, can anyone from Virgin answer the following as yet unanswered questions -

a) Why wasn't he handed over to the Japanese Police on arrival in Tokyo, and

b) Following the incident on this Virgin flight, with whom did he fly back to the UK?

cur

[BOEINGBOY1]

Listen folks, the aviation world changed forever on sept 11th. The majority of pilots on this forum, objecting to armed sky marshalls on our aircraft are British. It seems that the "It will never happen to me " and "not on this side of the pond" syndrome is all to present!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE !! The threat to British aviation interests is no different to that of American registered aircraft. Its all to often the case to sit back, relax, fat, dumb and happy on the flight deck with the thought of having your aircraft hijacked by terrorists being very close to the back of your mind. (as im sure the sept 11th crews day started out)
Yes gun culture is very different this side of the atlantic, but by Christ, the threat of terrorism in is not. Being a little more involved with air transport threat analysis than most, I believe an attempt on a british aircraft is inevitable and sky marshalls are thefore a must. A couple of sky marshals with a sidearm will never be a match for a pair of box cutters!! I would anticipate they would work in pairs, perhaps with one being a "silent" marshal, thus counteracting any diversion tactics.
The sooner the better, for all our sakes.

[Tripower455]

You talk of bringing your penknife on board as a weakness in pre-911 european security but now argue in favour of bringing guns on board!

Good guys with guns vs. bad guys with knives........

Can you comprehend the difference?

[Frankfurt_Cowboy]

That's assuming the "good guys" retain possession of said weapons at all times, obviously.

[newarksmells]

Where did you refer to US "internal" flights ??? And then you have the intestinal fortitude to hide behind the internet and state:


"This shows you know nothing about terrorism which is understandable because it is a fairly recent event in your country, unless you call George Washington a terrorist.

I suggest you use the internet as an educational tool rather than a racist vehicle for your juvenile french bashing and regurgitation of the lunatic right wing media you obviously believe."

Let me state my position once and for all. I was in NYC when the towers were attacked and I went to the Javitz Center to help those who had lost loved ones. I saw the 2nd plane go into the tower in total disbelief.

If i know nothing about terrorism, perhaps you shoud go back into your cave and rot in hell.

Play the ball and not the player .... or the JB Sky Marshalls will be out of their seats .........PPRuNe Radar

Newarksmells

[con-pilot]

I can tell everybody this much about the skill and training of the current ‘Air Marshals’. It is not much, but all that I can tell you.

Some of the guards that flew in the back of the aircraft I flew for the U.S. Marshal Service (a whole different outfit by the way) applied for the ‘Air Marshal’ program. I knew of one woman and five guys that applied. The lady was an ex-cop; two of the guys were ex-special forces, one SEAL and other two ex-military policemen. These people were excellent shots, a hell of a lot better than me (which isn’t saying much).

None of them passed the marksmen test. The skill level required is unbelievably high. They told me that the washout rate is around 90%. From other things they told me there is a great deal of unnecessary concern expressed by many pilots on this thread. That is all I can say. I for one have absolutely no problem with having Air Marshals on board any flight I’m on as a passenger or a pilot.

I realize that I am not a scheduled air carrier pilot, however occasionally I am forced to ride the airlines (kicking and screaming) and having an armed highly trained LEO on board is fine with me.

Of course I am talking about U.S. trained Marshals, I cannot speak for other countries.

(By the way, I loved the comment by somebody about being shot down by a future FO in a F-Teen! That’s one way to get a job.)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Tread lightly US cousins. The UK has been dealing with a competent terrorist threat for over 30 years and has developed a cogent defence system. You guys have had 2 years and you are way behind.

You have a unique gun culture amongst 1st world countries. Moves that seem to impose rules on your closest allies that run contrary to our culture are likely to alienate your allies. That is not in anyones interest.

From our point of view we (as pilots) switched on our televisions one day and were told the Americans have insisted that armed people will be on our aircraft. This is extraordinary. It is worrisome. We don't know how this will work. Its been sprung on us and frankly its a bit scary.

It may be a good idea it may be a bad idea.

But you have to bring people onside whose office is affected by this. Blame, as far as its worth talking about, mostly lies with our politicians who have missmanged this. Still, the US needs to be circumspect, less they - frankly p155 off their allies in arms...

We are all - here - on the side of the good guys. Lets not fall out, lets be considered and lets be polite.

Cheers

WWW

[Wino]

Fair d Income.

Your point about US internal flights is a fair one. When American aircraft were hijacked (not talking about the cuban rash of them in the 70s) it was always an overseas flight. TWA in Athens, Panam in XXX... Never, Southwest Airlines in Texas, Or American Airlines in NY.

So based on past history having the focus on international SEAMED reasonable. Even if the worst happened and an internal flight was hijacked, it was unlikely we would lose controll of it, because it wouldn't have the range to get to beruit, so sooner or later it would land (Still in the USA) get its tires shot out and now the airplane is a building and this is a normal hostage situation, no big deal really....Then 9/11 happened and the game changed.

HOWEVER, by making your point about internal flights in the US you have just made my point. The game has changed you are failing to recognize it. I could have bought weapons that were far more effective at the Swiss army stand, (A 4 inch locking blade is FAR more effective than a box cutters which is what the terrorists used, and was there for the purchasing, btw when the US media says box cutters, the european equivilent is Stanley Knife)

WWW, Comparing the IRA to suicide bombers (basically what the 9/11 group were) is a pretty big stretch. Though the IRA loved bombs and kneecapings and other unpleasantness, I know of no suicide missions launched by them. When you are PLANNING to die as part of your mission, you are playing in a whole new league. You experience with the IRA is not that valuble, because every plan hatched by the IRA had an escape clause. That by definition makes a 9/11 type attack impossible. They might have hijacked an aircraft, but only for the ride and political statement. The USA was AMPLY prepared for that scenario.

Cheers
Wino

[Airbubba]

>>From our point of view we (as pilots) switched on our televisions one day and were told the Americans have insisted that armed people will be on our aircraft. This is extraordinary. It is worrisome. We don't know how this will work. Its been sprung on us and frankly its a bit scary.<<

Don't worry, you'll learn to live with it. We got our first armed sky marshals in 1973.

[Pilotage]

Link to the website for yesterday's Daily Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/12/30/matt.gif

P

[Danny]

WARNING

A few of you are wasting your time participating in this thread. Continual 'willy waving' from the usual culprits about who is responsible for IRA funding or the usual rash of xenophobic rants will be deleted. If you can't stay reasonably 'on-topic' don't bother taking part as your efforts will be deleted. :*

[BlackSword]

For those of a gungho disposition, Sky Marshals obviously seem to be the only viable option in the face of terrorist threats.
But lets apply a bit of aviation logic to the issue:

As some have pointed out, putting Sky Marshalls onboard every flight would require large numbers (and they would surely have to observe similar flight time limitations as aircrew). This probably implies a much more limited number being deployed on particular flights - presumably as a result of specific intelligence. Yet even this does not seem likely to be very effective or reliable either - would there be sufficient Sky Marshalls available on standby?

One assumes that the purpose of putting Sky Marshalls onboard is public safety - not just the safety of Fortress America. Hence Sky Marshalls would/will become a feature of all flights everywhere (and this would certainly bump the required numbers up!). They would carry guns and shoot to kill (and accept pax losses).
Don't we need (many, many) bilateral agreements for this?
Not all States will be happy with armed foreign Nationals operating outside their jurisdiction (and Sky Marshalls on the tarmac would certainly be at risk). Heathrow would be awash with gun-totin' Sky Marshalls of every Nationality - who would police them? Sky Marshalls may work in domestic America or Israel - but would it really work elsewhere?

Taking a gun onboard is asking for trouble and makes an inviting target for a suicidal terrorist. A determined attacker always has the advantage. They just have to wait for an opportunity.

But the problem I have been wrestling with is this: how could such a scheme be made to work without the total cooperation of fully trained cabin and flight deck crew and radical changes in cabin procedures? It is very easy to imagine the cockups that could occur, the mess that would result and the damage that would be done.

There is no point ignoring the terrorist threat, but equally no point in futile gestures. Whatever we put in place, should be proportionate to the real threat and well thought out.

I, for one, can see bigger threats.

[West Coast]

WWW, moderator

Please show a basis of fact for your post. The threat the UK stood was far different from what exists today as posed by OBL boys.

Any nation has the right to deny landing and over flight rights. Your third para speaks not of a legit concern and more of a problem of being left out of the loop.

As far as torquing off an ally. Your concerned about a face saving measure while I worry about a heavy being flown into a Vegas hotel. If the UK mandated some unusual measures not normally observed in the US, we would be obligated to follow them or not operate in your airspace.

[MOR]

Lots of confused thinking all around, it seems.

It is easy to see the American requirement as heavy-handed and arrogant. However, Americans are simply reverting to type: the gun is the solution to everything, be it terrorism or domestic disputes. The gun culture of the US is completely out of step with any definition of civilisation that I can think of.

All that we are seeing is a reversion to history; back then, trains carried guards to keep the Indians at bay. The enemy has changed somewhat, but not the response.

It is also somewhat foolish of our American cousins to belittle the threat to the UK. The threat is identical in the UK; as far as Arab terrorists are concerned, both countries are targets. The British are simply better at countering the threat, and have more fully developed defense mechanisms.

Most of what we are seeing is simply window dressing to allay public fear. The reality is that locked, bulletproof flight deck door neutralises the threat as effectively as a sky marshal could, as far as ground targets are concerned. Similarly, it makes little difference who has the gun in the cabin with such defenses. Decompression won't bring the aircraft down, in fact it will help subdue attackers. The only group who stand to benefit from sky marshals are the occupants of the cabin. They also have a lot to lose from "friendly fire" and "collateral damage", both prominent features of US military action.

What Americans have a lot of trouble understanding is that although they may be comforted by firepower in the cabin, other nationalities don't share their enthusiasm. They also don't seem to understand the nature of the threat, which is precisely zero to US ground targets if cockpit doors are bulletproof and locked (as all UK aircraft doors are now).

Now having said all that, I have no particular problem with armed sky marshals and would welcome them on to my aircraft- however the reasoning behind their deployment is bogus in the extreme.

[Wino]

MOR,

It is overly simplistic to believe that a locked cockpit door is not the end of the problem for targets on the ground.

The only thing that a locked bulletproof cockpit door represents is TIME (It will take time to breach, same as any other castle, but given enough time, any wall can and will be breached). And time is something a terrorist on a translantic flight is going to have plenty of...

That TIME gives the airmarshals a chance to respond, without having to respond INSTANTLY. They can see how the situation shakes out, wait for everyone to show their hand, THEN act.

While on a sector that remains over land all the time it is unlikely that the cockpit door will be breached before the aircraft is safely on the ground, However, get 3 or more hours from land and that door (or the bulkheads around it) will eventually fall to a determined assault.

Incidentally the program of pilots carrying guns in the USA has nothing to do with entering the cabin. It is to set up behind your fortress door and wait incase it is breached, and shoot anyone who then comes through it... Again, just gaining more time for the other pilot to land the aircraft.

All of these measures represent TIME, inorder to give enough time to get the airplane on the ground and turn it into a building, instead of a weapon.

Cheers
Wino

[Raw Data]

Wino

I think it is you who is being overly simplistic. Even if terrorists could breach a cockpit door... using... what? ice tongs?- do you really think the other 300-odd people on the aircraft are going to just watch? Knowing what they do about suicidal terrorists?

And do you really think that ONE sky marshal can adequately monitor and defeat half a dozen terrorists, spread through the cabin- all quite willing to die? Don't think so.

Do you really think your terrorist is going to show his hand early in a flight, early enough to give three hours battering time? And the flight deck crew is doing what during this time? Continuing to destination? Again, I don't think so. Any pilot with half a brain would divert, and ditch en route if necessary- because if they get into the flight deck, everybody is going to die in any case. At least you have a fighting chance if you ditch.

It doesn't matter how long you have, if it is your bare hands plus whatever you can find in the cabin, the cockpit door will likely win.

I have to agree with MOR, there is some very fuzzy thinking going on here..!!!

[Wino]

RAW DATA,


I know of NO instance where an airmarshal has ever been deployed solo...

Furthermore Hijackers spread through the cabin? NOT what happened on 9/11. They clumped together for mutual support then announced their intentions. You are thinking of the old days with a few Palestinians and a few hand grenades, lets go for a ride to Beruit kinda hijacking... Better xray machines make handgrenades a tough thing to get on board these days...


as to ditching to "have a chance" Ditch where? In the North Atlantic? Never been a successfull one of a jet... Water is too damn cold... Fawcette tried it, all they found was a piece of the tail...

My Union has done studies of the new door. It won't hold nearly as long as you think.. We have demonstrated it... Go to this page http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/Media/featured_media.asp and click on the CADC lethal weapons demonstration. That demonstration is for the old doors.

We did the same thing with the new doors, but for obvious reasons are not releasing those video's to the general public. (We did show them to certain members of congress) But suffice it to say, its not hard, and routes of access into the forward galleys and cockpit area are such that a very small number of skilled people can hold off the rest of the cabin for quite a long time. Its a hand to hand combat equivelent of the FULDA GAP. Everyone has to come through a narrow passage so there is limited ability to overwhelm a hijacker at the front of the cabin...

We also did the cabin crew defense class and cockpit crew hand to hand defense classes. The conclusion was a small group of only moderately skilled hand to hand fighters with knives can hold the galley almost forever. (BTW United crashed short, probably because of inexperienced people flying the aircraft eg. the Hijackers, But atleast one of the 9/11 aircraft was flown quite a way by the hijackers, NOT the crew)

Cheers
Wino

[Donkey Duke]

Blacksword,

Our Sec of Homeland Defense, Tom Ridge, said they could deny any airline flying into the United States that does not follow this new directive. Do you think they want to negotiate a billateral? Doesn't sound like it. With the improving economy in the States, this upcoming summer will be a great one with a lot of people flying over to your country and back, spending a lot of money. Do you want any of that money? Does your Government?

We in the States have only praises for these Air Marshals. They are very professional, and have a plan. They are trained to handle any situation, and they understand diversions. I flew a lot into Salt Lake City during the Olympics after 9-11-01, and the security was very very tight. It was great to know that there was someone back there watching and blending in. I really think that psychological profiles are mandatory to figure out which ones are "trigger happy." Also, these guys/girls are pretty good shots, and I don't think there would be many missed shots. The reason you are nervous is because you haven't experienced it yet, and not all of your flights from the UK would have to have them---only ones to the US.

[West Coast]

but I doubt Danny will even throw me this bone. Dead right!

Back to the task at hand.

If the door on your aircraft was being breeched mid pond, would you have want a marshall who is trained and armed or seat 13A doing his best at something he is not trained for. Ice tongs, no likely it will be a weapon. Weapons are making it through security all the time still and not just ours. Weapons could be prepositioned by airport employees. I believe the explosives on Pan Am over Lockerbe were placed by an airline employee. Correct me if I am wrong. I also believe El Al had a situation with a knife smuggled on board an aircraft recently. If it can get on there, any airline is suspect as is any security apparatus, even the vaunted Brit one.

Gonna ditch in Atlantic in December? Theres a plane load of dead people. Don't even think what happens if you make it over here with a known hijack situation. Can you say Fox two? The US government is not going to sit idly by if they know your aircraft is under the command of Osamas boys. It will be shot down. I would rather have one more option added to the short list of possibilities before I have to contemplate the options you offer up along with the ones I have reason to believe will happen. Even if the odds are stacked against the marshal, I would damn sure like to have one doing his best there. The way I look at it, I am a dead man if they make it through the door. Either I have to lawn dart it myself, they slit my throat or I get a salvo of AARAMs up the burner can. Perhaps you have the ultimate faith in the door and some scared passengers armed with ice tongs. I know of at least one fatal flaw in the door you put faith in. If I know about it, then many others do also. I also don't have all the faith in an armed marshall. It does however offer me one more layer protection than what you offer.

[Memetic]

Taking it as a given that all sky marshals have expertly concealed weapons.

What happens when, by some fluke, I as a passenger spot a fellow passenger has a conceled firearm and covertly alert the cabin crew? (The more sky marshals there are the more chance of this happening.)

Do the crew tell me the other passenger is a Sky marshal?

Can I demand to see ID?

Is there a way I can verify this ID independantly? - have any of you seen a UK Sky Marshal ID card? Would you be able to spot a fake?

In this situation could the crew be sure I was not a hijacker trying to identify skymarshalls?

How could I be sure the crew were not being coerced into telling me the gun man was "there for your protection"

Perhaps the best option for a passenger would be to immediatley stand an shout,"that passenger has a gun - get him" and let the mob decide who is a sky marshall.

This could all get very messy.

[bjcc]

To move away from Willy waving again...
I am not happy about sky marshalls, then again I am also not too keen on dying as a result of a hijack either. Shy marshalls are not a perefect idea, but its not a perfect world, comes down to which is the less of 2 evils.

There are many airlines that employ sky marshalls, some of them from not too stable states, and with firearms I wouldn't be happy trying to use.

It comes down to training I suppose, and I have no idea what training they are going to get in the UK. I have seen SO19 in action, and to be frank I am not impressed. But on the plus side they are used to dealing with people, making thier own decisions and looking at the possibilities if it all goes wrong.

As regards to using ex forces, well they may well be good with firearms, but thats not the whole story, they don't have the experience at dealing with situations, and certainly not the experience of it all happening for real in public areas (This not being the same as battle). So on balance if we have to have them, and it seems we do, I would prefer a Policeman doing it. It seems from whats been said though thats not the case.

The other alternative of course is to vote with my feet and not fly, which of course means Mr Terrorist has won without having to do anything.

[West Coast]

Memetic
Trying to make sense of your post. I am not sure what point your trying to make. It is normal at least here in the US for armed passengers to check in with the Captain. He or she will inform that person if there are other armed persons on the plane also. This is to preclude one armed person spotting the other and suspecting he is a bad guy. The Captain will also inform the cabin crew of all armed individuals and their seats.

Can you as a passenger demand to see ID?
I suppose you can demand anything you want, but as a pax and not part of the crew you will likely be told to sit down and shut up.

Can you verify ID independently?
As a pax, its not your place to worry about that. The crew is charged with that. They will know if a person is legit or not.

The rest I leave to some one else.

[Grandpa]

After a number of minor/ major incidents aboard Jumbos, due to undisciplined and intoxicated passengers, more and more airline pilots came to admitt the necessity of a kind of guards integrated in the crew, under Captain's authority, and many of us had the opportunity to appreciate their help and efficiency when needed.

When airborne population increases to that of small city's, the need for police is clear.

Add the possible occurence of terrorist attack (which could lead to many more casualties than souls onboard), and you have to give them weapons.

El Al Airline used this system for years.
Did you hear of any incident caused by their secret police personnel in the appearance of ordinary passengers?

Now that we are all threatened same as they are, we don't have any other solution, with adapted weaponry (lethal and nonlethal with no drastic consequence of their use on aircraft safety ) and make sure all pilots receive lectures and training about this new aspect of their job wich extend their responsability to much more than their aircraft and passengers.

Of course they should keep all personnel onboard under their authority!

[Half a Mexican]

West Coast,

I think Memetic's point was that in a fracas it's going to be pretty difficult for most pax to distinguish between an armed Sky Marshal and a terrorist.

Imagine the scene:

1. There is a hijack attempt in progress.
2. The chap sitting next to you (who has been acting suspiciously since the start) pulls out a gun and heads to the front.

What do you do?

A. Do you best to stop/incapacitate him?
B. Let the armed man continue to the flight deck?

[Danny]

The next person to make reference to WWII in some feeble attempt to try and gain some form of moronic one-upmanship in this debate will find that their efforts will have been wasted. The same goes for anyone else who has trouble keeping the discussion reasonably on topic.

Also, there are a few of you who have a terrible habit of entering into the debate with bits of information that, whilst loosely related to the topic, are in reality just more willy waving in some strange attempt to show off how knowledgeable you are in some area of our profession. Beware that some of you don't cross the line of revelation just because some parts of your operations manual has a 'restricted' section.

Now, just so as I don't have to ban myself for topic diversion, I'll again reiterate why so many of us (certainly not all of us) have objections to the latest news about armed sky marshalls on UK aircraft. By announcing this scheme all the government have done is once again show us that they have not thought this through and are reacting in typical knee-jerk fashion.

The armed sky marshall program has not been implemented properly and we have not been informed about how we are supposed to deal with it. It has been shown to have been forced on us by a foreign government who may be an ally but who have a totally different culture to ours with regards to airport/aircraft security and the use of weapons.

It has also been shown that the numbers required to cover all flights from the UK to the US is never going to be achieved, especially when the numbers were leaked a year ago. In reality, less than 5% of all flights from the UK to the US will have armed sky marshalls on them. The authorities are hoping that the announcement will have a deterrent effect and maybe it will but those terrorists with a martyr complex will use odd like that to their advantage.


The other point is that if you are going to have sky marshalls on board as a last line of defense then you should have a proper security infrastructure on the ground in the first place to prevent the sky marshalls having to make use of their skills and at the risk of becoming repetitive, we all know how feeble the security really is. A few silly questions by a check-in agent followed by an X-ray of your hand baggage which is checked by a bored worker for about 2 seconds and walking through an induction loop is not security.

Everything about this latest debacle is penny pinching and cosmetic covering of the gaping flaws which the terrorists will exploit. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how good your sky marshalls are trained but if they're not on a flight that has the terrorists on board then what was the point in the first place?

[Memetic]

WestCoast

Excuse me if I was not clear I was writing at about 2am for where I was.

At its most simple, how do the crew react when your most nervous pax spots the gun and just jumps up screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN!"


I was thinking of how I would feel if, as an unarmed but un-nervous, security concious passenger, I saw another passenger with a gun.

I tell the crew. They say its ok. What happens if I then say, "Ok i'll relax if you get him to show me ID."

You say that ID confirmation is the crew's responsibility, but is it?

How could I be 100% sure the crew were not under duress, that the guy I spotted was not part of a team that had the crew under control?

I think the only safe option for the whole aircraft would be to push for ID to force a resolution, if the guy refused to show ID I would say all is not well - which could be bad for me as the passenger forcing the issue, but if I did not get the ID I would be yelling my head off to give the rest of the pax a chance to take action. If the Sky Marshal is Genuine, and I see ID that I can trust then I can keep quiet.

Half a Mexican
I think in your example or the one I have tried to explain above, passengers now have it in mind to disable anyone holding a weapon first and ask questions later.

I am sure sky marshalls train to shout commands and control the cabin etc. But so would terrorists. Passengers faced by two people with guns pointed at each other may now try and take out both, just to be sure. Afterall how hard is it to shout "Sky marshall, sit down, sit down..." as you wave a fake ID?

[Tripower455]

Any pilot with half a brain would divert, and ditch en route if necessary- because if they get into the flight deck, everybody is going to die in any case. At least you have a fighting chance if you ditch.

This would be a funny statement, if I didn't think that you were serious!

Deliberate suicide/homicide is preferable to allowing armed law enforcement officers on airplanes?

I am sure sky marshalls train to shout commands and control the cabin etc. But so would terrorists. Passengers faced by two people with guns pointed at each other may now try and take out both, just to be sure. Afterall how hard is it to shout "Sky marshall, sit down, sit down..." as you wave a fake ID?

Not a very likely scenario. as if both had guns, one would shoot as soon as possible. They are not going to stand there, like the movies, telling each other to drop their gun. In this case, exactly how are you worse off than not having a sky marshall on board?

[Airbubba]

Terrorism & Security

U.K. pilots approve armed air marshals pact

Association grudgingly reaches agreement with one airline

Updated: 5:58 a.m. ET Dec. 31, 2003LONDON - Britain's aircraft pilots' body said on Wednesday it had reached an agreement with one airline on rules governing armed air marshals, but added it was still against taking guns onto planes.

"We remain opposed to the whole concept of bringing sky marshal guns on board an aircraft. This will not make flights more safe," said Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) in a statement.

BALPA said it would cooperate with stepped-up security measures announced after six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles were cancelled last week and amid fears of an incident similar to the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.

"We have always said that if the government persists with its decision that sky marshals be used and if our very serious concerns are met, we shall cooperate as best we can," McAuslan said.

Under the agreement, with an unnamed airline, the captain of a plane will be told who the air marshals are and where they sit. The pilot, who will remain in command during the duration of the flight, will also be in regular contact with the guards.

The pact also covers issues such as the weapons that can be used, insurance cover and the crew's legal liability, BALPA said.

The organization, which represents the vast majority of Britain's 9,200 airline pilots, said it hoped to roll out the pact across the airline industry.

An announcement by the United States on Monday that it was ordering foreign airlines to place armed marshals on selected flights drew a mixed reaction from international carriers and airline bodies.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said the measure went into effect on Sunday under emergency amendments to federal aviation regulations.

Britain appeared to anticipate the ruling, saying at the weekend that it would put armed police on flights which could become possible terror targets.

While most airlines publicly fell into line with the decisions, some have expressed their reservations about the policy in the past.

The International Air Transport Association, which represents around 95 percent of airlines operating international flights, has opposed the decision outright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3844998/

[strafer]

How to get hold of a gun on board an aircraft...

At present:- try to smuggle it in your bag. Chances of success - slim.

In the near future:- hit the Sky Marshall over the head with the fire extinguisher and take his. Chances of success - excellent.

PS Did you know that 1 in 6 US police officers who are shot, are shot with their own gun?

[Tripower455]

In the near future:- hit the Sky Marshall over the head with the fire extinguisher and take his. Chances of success - excellent.

I suggest that you try it, and let us know what the results are!;)

[con-pilot]

There was a successful case of a hijacking on a Boeing 747 being stopped due to an armed LEO onboard.

Wino you may be able to help me on this. I can’t remember all the details but the hijacking occurred in the 70s on a Pan Am 747 (I think). The aircraft was on a flight in Southeast Asia. Some guy armed with a weapon of some sort hijacked the aircraft and demanded that the captain land in Hanoi. There was an armed New York City police detective onboard, the captain got the detective’s gun and killed the hijacker.

The airplane landed in Saigon where the captain threw the body of the hijacker out of the aft door onto the ramp (a bit much if you ask me, but what the hell). I can still remember seeing the picture of the body lying under the tail of the airplane.

So having an armed LEO onboard stopped at least one hijacking. Why can’t it work again? You don’t need to have Air Marshals on every flight, just the threat of them being on any flight will help deter a hijacking.

As the people on the pro side of this argument have stated over and over again, it never hurts to have at least one more line of defense in your favor.

[Wino]

I can't remember that one exactly con-pilot but I have heard it talked about. I will look around for it in the Union data bases and get back to you on that.

I do remember that ElAL infact shot dead hijackers onboard one of their aircraft with skymarshals in the late 70s or early 80s I think. The question I have for Danny on that is "Was ELAL profiling yet?" The skymarshals initially on ELAL were jokingly referred to as seat 1b by the flight attendants. Of course they quickly wised up and became random seating.

Stafer,

I have flown cross country 5 times sitting next to an airmarshal (as deadheading crew I get to board first and often listen to the crew briefing so I can be of assistance if there is a problem in the cabin that might require a pilot's eyes, as the cockpit crew can no longer leave for any reason).

I have two points for you. First contrary to what you might think you will NOT be able to pick them out of a crowd. They are not clean cut guys with bad (cheap) haircuts in cheap polyester suits. Everyone of of them was quite different, and they sit randomly through the cabin, and they have a great line of bullsiht to feed you if you sit next to them and try and chat them up.

Now, having met the airmarshals before the flight and taken part in some of their briefings to the crews I have asked to see their weapon. I have seen it. Now even knowing where it is and how they store it, I have looked at them on a 4+ hour sector and even knowing where to look I never saw the slightest hint of a gun.

So any other good suggestions?

Danny, I agree with most of your suggestions, but the question I have for you is what about Aviation has EVER been done right or in anything other than on the cheap as a bandaid? Crew rest? Nope, Runways? Nope, Terminals? Nope, Security? Nope, Training? Nope, Aircraft certification? Nope... Aviation is still held together with the same chewing gum and bailing wire that the Wrights used. Just metaphorically now...

Cheers,
Wino

[cwatters]

Two thoughts on the SM proposal...

What a boring job it would be. Who would would want to spend their working lives riding in the back pretending to be a pax. After a few weeks I would be off looking for something more interesting to do.

Perhaps SM should be trained as paramedics as well - they would probably save many more lives if they had a dual role than as an SM alone.

[flaps to 60]

Have had armed guards on one or two of my flights and had no problems with it. In fact it was comforting to know that they were there especially when the No.1 every now and then lets us know about dodgy looking and oddly behaving passengers

Im sure it has been mentioned before (Cant be bothered to go through over 10 pages) but at the end of the day i'ts the Americans choice and if Balpa and associated L/H pailots are not going to agree then we might as well close down BA Virgin etc etc and save the terrorists the bother.

Why can the French the Germans etc etc have no problems and we have to kick off about it when its going to happen in anycase (If we want to keep our jobs).

If 9/11 had happened on this side of the pond then maybe just maybe UK opinions might be different.

Why also are Balpa talking about this this in such a public arena when prolonged public debate will only scare off more precious customers.

This industry is only just begining to get back on its feet and it seems every day the press and others tries to kill it off again.

[Donkey Duke]

Strafer,

You say these things because you are nervous and have never witnessed any of this before. That is understandable. That is not how it would play out. From what I know, everyone would have to obey their orders, and nobody could "sneak up" and bang him/her on the head. Not going to happen. You are making things up in your head because you do not like the idea. Do you think there aren't any current air marshals on US airline's transatlantic flights? No? Have any of them ditched in the Atlantic? If the UK airlines want to fly to the US, then they will comply. Good day!

[Wino]

Con Pilot, I think this is what you were thinking of...


Pan Am Hijaking in 1972
Janet Elliot

My father was Eugene Vaughn, a Pan Am captain that retired in 1979 after 38 years. He was hijacked in 1972 on a flight from Hong Kong to Saigon by a North Vietnamese sympathizer. The hijacker wanted my father to take the plane to Hanoi and my father flew it on to Saigon while having the cockpit secured by two U.S. Marine passengers. He also gave the on-board sky marshall his 357 Magnum gun.

After landing in Saigon, my father taxied the aircraft to a secured military area. After shutting down the aircraft systems, he then walked to the back of the plane and confronted the hijacker. The hijacker had taken a flight attendant hostage with a knife and a paper bag that he said had plastic explosives in it. My father approached the hijacker and then lunged on him pulling him to the ground. The Sky Marshall then came up and my father ordered the skymarshall to shoot the hijacker. The hijacker was shot 5 times in the chest. My father then got up, opened the rear door of the 747, picked up the dead hijacker's body and threw him on to the ramp.

My dad was a true hero for Pan Am, his passengers and crew. He was awarded the President's Award by Pan Am and also received many other civil and military commendations. He passed away from cancer in 1984. My mother, a former Pan Am stewardess, is still living in Fort Worth, Texas.

I grew up with Pan Am and now both my brother follow in his footsteps as airline pilots. I look so fondly at my charmed life as a daughter of a Pan Am captain.

Janet Elliott (Vaughn)


from this link http://www.panamdoc.com/advenstories/advenstor013.html


CWATTERS,

Shows excellent thinking on your part and infact mirrors the retention problem they are having in the skymarshal program, even though it represents a huge pay jump over previous assignments for most of the marshals...

Don't know about making them paramedics though... They spend an ungodly amount of time in training and recurrent now as it is...


Flaps to 60.
You are right. Similar problem with regular ALPA. Got much bigger problems that are costing lives all the time (Fatigue for example) but rather than talk about that, in a useless excersize to prove they are "relevent" BALPA will take up the losing side of this issue... ALPA often falls on its sword in a similar matter. There is only so much political capital that an organization has... SPend it wisely...

[Frankfurt_Cowboy]

"The Sky Marshall then came up and my father ordered the skymarshall to shoot the hijacker. The hijacker was shot 5 times in the chest. My father then got up, opened the rear door of the 747, picked up the dead hijacker's body and threw him on to the ramp."


Nice to see such a measured response.

[Airbubba]

From the morning news:

Drunk woman allegedly attacks air marshal on Northwest flight

Terry Collins, Star Tribune

Published December 31, 2003 AIR31

A female passenger, who was apparently intoxicated, was arrested after she became disruptive and attempted to choke a federal air marshal on a flight from Pittsburgh to the Twin Cities on Tuesday night, authorities said.

The woman, in her 30s, became loud and obnoxious on Northwest Airlines Flight 1057, said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

A marshal, who didn't identify himself, tried to calm her, said Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Jennifer Marty. When that failed, Marty said, the marshal identified himself and placed her in handcuffs. During another exchange, she tried choking the marshal after complaining that her handcuffs were too tight, Hogan said.

The woman, who wasn't identified, later kicked the marshal and bit another law enforcement officer after she was escorted off the plane when it landed at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport about 8:30 p.m., Marty said.

Hogan said it appears that the woman had been drinking before the flight, and he wasn't sure if the woman continued to drink during the flight. The woman could face federal charges of assault or interfering with a flight crew, Hogan said.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4294780.html

[OFBSLF]

And do you really think that ONE sky marshal can adequately monitor and defeat half a dozen terrorists, spread through the cabin- all quite willing to die? Don't think so.First, there will never be ONE sky marshall on a plane. They work in teams.

I strongly suspect that the sky marshalls goal will be to get to the front of the aircraft and defend the cockpit while the pilots land the aircraft. Attacks towards the sky marshalls will thus have to come up the aisles towards the marshalls. So, can 2 armed sky marshalls, positioned at the front of the aircraft, defeat 6 terrorists armed with contact weapons coming towards them up the aisles or over the seats? I suspect so. Quite easily in fact.

The only way for the terrorists to overpower the marshalls is to close with them in force. If the terrorists spread themselves out in the cabin, then the terrorists cannot concentrate their forces.

Regarding the chances of sky marshalls being disarmed, yes about 20% of police officers in the US who are murdered are murdered with their own guns. As we've discussed previously, marksmanship training for the average US police officer is poor. Similarly, the average US police officer is also poorly trained in handgun retention. For example, many US police officers will get a couple days of handgun retention training during their police academy but never have any retraining nor any qualification.

It is my understanding that the US sky marshalls have excellent marksmanship training. I'm sure they also have excellent training in handgun retention and close quarters combat. Trying to take a gun away from one of these guys would be likely be one step short of suicide.

There are plenty of handgun retention systems. I have been trained in the Lindell and Insights systems, but there are plenty of others. I'm sure the US sky marshalls are trained to a much higher standard than I have been.

[pod1]

I am very surprised by how much conjecture there has been on this site about the use of sky marshals, I fully appreciate there will be some for and against this option and I agree that it is right to discuss these.
However, I do not understand why anyone should want to discuss tactics, how many there are, where they are, what training they have recieved etc etc.
My reason for saying this is that previously it has been suggested that terrorists have conducted much research in open source forums such as this, so I would suggest that technically you are assisting these people in the very things you are trying to protect.
If you are a captain, I am sure you will be informed, but to anyone else by all means discuss the right and wrongs of deploying sky marshals but leave the training and the tactics out of it.

[surely not]

So having got up to date with the postings I conclude the following:

1. The USA is entitled to issue the directive.
2. Travel to/from the USA must therefore be considered highly dangerous.
3. There are a lot of other beautiful countries in the world.
4. I shall avoid travelling to/from the USA whenever possible.
5. The USA economy will probably find a lot of Eurpoeans now deciding to go elsewhere.
6. Many of the contributors from the USA appear to loathe other nationalities, and consider them contemptuous
7. If just once, one of the gung ho USA contributors to this topic would admit that the USA doesn't have all the bright ideas I'd feel so much more trusting of their rhetoric. I'll not hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

[Scud-U-Like]

What a difference a day makes. Looks like BALPA and DFT/Home Office have had to yield to some extent:

Pilots Agree Deal on Air Marshals

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3359267.stm

[Wino]

So surely not, you want us to acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. Okay, YOU tell me what the answer is, and you have to be able to implement this. Pretending 9/11 never happened is not one of the available choices.

This isn't a knee jerk reaction. This has been evolving over a period of years. We did reasonably request that everyone tighten up security, yet the evidence is that at Heathrow it has not. (several major heists airside since 9/11, A BA aircraft landing with a body in the wheel well today etc) And actually security can NEVER be perfect, that is a pipe dream.

So what would you propose actually be DONE about it? Come on, you just said you had the answer.

As to tourist's avoiding America? They may, but the evidence actually points the other say. The dollar is such a bargain right now that tourists are flocking to the USA. And monitoring pax behavior, safety is actually not an issue with passengers. Traffic on an airline doesn't really dip after it suffers a crash, even where the airline is found clearly negligable (valujet). Infact, the only pax that don't come back for Frequent flier miles or a fare sale are the ones that died in the accident. Sad but true.

The problem I have is other than Danny, no one offers a solution. They just bury their heads in the sand.

I have to wonder what kind of pilot would choose to emulate a flightless bird...

As to your point 5. The only people I see whinging about this are some British Pilots. Even Grandpa and I see eye to eye on this (sorry gramps meant to acknowledge that earlier :) ).


SCUD,

Everything there except regular contact with captain during the flight is the same as in the US. Could have been done without all the chest thumping.

However, that regular contact during the flight seams quite stupid as it might make it possible to eyeball skymarshals (maybe they will adopt a better policy for it than I can quickly imagine, but it seams quite foolish.) Maybe they mean regular contact incase the skymarshal has acted which would be sensible and inline with US practise. Why a skymarshal on a quiet flight with nothing happening should keep reporting to the cockpit is beyond me. This smells of a "Captain's authority comittee" which when formed usually do far more harm then good... Got to keep puffing up the captain old chaps...

However, I find BALPA's chest thumping on this issue to be ludicrious when more important things are out there. They also claim to represent the majority of pilots around that world and that is at best a stretch if not an outright lie...(IALPA, (international, not Irish) has taken the opposit stand.


Cheers
Wino

[ott]

I think this may be the solution.
It is not classed as a fire arm. The person fired at are taken out instantly. It is proven that those on drugs feel little or no pain when shot by traditional fire arms where as this method WILL take them out. Does not kill and does not penetrate the aircraft skin. www.taser.com

[con-pilot]

Yes Wino, that was the incident I was thinking of, thanks!

[pod1]

Excellent idea if you guaruntee that there is only ONE criminal/Terrorist and that he or she is less than 21ft away!!!

[Scud-U-Like]

Wino

I have to agree, there does appear to be an element of "my train set" syndrome about BALPA's bellyaching on this matter. If the sort of capt/air marshal contact evisaged was limited to security incidents ( such as that used by El Al, where a secret signal from the marshal alerts the pilot to send the plane into a dive, with the aim of throwing hijackers off balance) that would be very useful. But I suspect this agreement will just lead to a bit of regular cap doffing by air marshal to capt. That said, there's no reason why this couldn't be done by remote signal, without the marshal giving anything away to pax.

Incidentally, as a Brit who thinks the States are a great place to visit, I am more than happy with the idea of air marshals. I know a lot of Brits who feel the same.

[Frankfurt_Cowboy]

Just how will the marshal(s) be communicating with the captain in his locked, armoured flight deck then????

[West Coast]

Surely not
The line for the ride at Disneyland will be one shorter, thanks and bye bye.

Danny
No bones, thats okay. I'll give you credit, you did at least censor your moderators also.

Stafer
You would be dead before you came close to the marshall with it. There are only so many extinguishers, and it would be awfullly strange to see some one not crew with it.

Memetic
If you observed a pax with a weapon your responsibility is to notify the crew. You think your role is greater than it is. It is the crews job to maintain security. You tell them the guy next to you has a weapon, they will likely tell you to keep it to yourself or direct you otherwise. It ISN'T your job to be asking for ID. You might very well compromise the person by these actions. Like it or not when you get on the plane you give up a lot. Others are responsible for your safety, be it flight safety or your well being in the cabin.
To answer your question, yes it is the crews responsibility to verify credentials of armed individuals on the aircraft. You were also concerned about fake ID'S. Whgo would be better at picking out a fake ID, one who sees them on a regular basis or a passenger.

Bottom line, the crew is responsible for your safety, your job is to do what the crew says. If they say to sit down and be quiet, you are obligated to do so. If they say to hop on the guy with the gun ( or fire extinguisher) then do it. They are better informed and trained in the matter than a nervious pax taking matters into their own hands.

Frankfurt cowboy
The same way the flight attendants do now, with the interphone to the cockpit. As a last resort they can talk at a slightly elevated tone next to the door and it can be heard in the cockpit. Especially if the FO is right behind it with the ax. The door is (hopefully) bulletproof, not sound proof

[surely not]

Wino, there have been several suggestions for how to achieve the aim of not having a hijacked flying bomb. The theme has been constant, get it right before the threat gets onto the aircraft. Danny is not the only one to have made this point.

This will need better advance intelligence to be available, computerised check-in systems to be able to access the data at point of check-in (without the c-in agent seeing any personal details) and a warning appearing to alert the Apt police or similar.
Where a specific flight has been identified as at risk, rather than have it take off and have the drama unfold in the air, the flight should be processed normally to the boarding gate where a delay can be announced giving time for the security services to sort out the problems.

It will also require nations to accept that other nations can have good ideas as well!

Whilst the short term might require Sky Marshalls, I cannot subscibe to any position that htey are to become fixtures for ever in flying.

Long term Govts have the responsibility to have meaningful dialogue to resolve the issues that are creating the current unstable situation, but then that's another thread in itself

[419]

Just a quick question for any Americans, do the U.S. air marshals normally get involved in sorting out passenger trouble (air rage, fights etc), or is that left to the cabin staff?. If they do get involved, are they allowed to decide when, or do they have to be asked by the captain to help?

419

[Wino]

419 No

Surely not,

I have never advocated the airmarshals as anything other than a bandaid. My solution would be that there be no access from the cabin to the cockpit period. Access to the cockpit is through it own door in the pressure vessel to the ramp, with the cockpit having its own LAV and galleyand if necesary crew rest space. (not very hard to do, infact if you took a 757 package freighter of UPS design, and put pax seats windows and doors and left the freight bulkhead intact in it you would have just that)

Wouldn't change the load carrying ability of the aircraft much, and then no matter what rude thing you do to the flight attendants or passengers there is simply no way for you to have access to the cockpit. So carrying knives on an aircraft will be a futile excersize. The airplane can never again be used as weapon, and this hysteria ends...

That will be resisted by BALPA because then those ego puffing flight deck visits would forever be a thing of the past. Furthermore, they would have to get up off their ass and make their own tea. But there is no reason in this day and age for pilots to have access to the cabin or vica verca. The flight attendants are trained to handle the peeps, and any problems with the aircraft can have a camera stationed on them or a portable one with a transmitter for the flight attendants to carry around with them to beam pics to the cockpit.

Cheers
Wino

[MOR]

Wino and others

The point about ditching is one of perspective. Of course your chances or surviving a ditching on typical polar/North Atlantic routes are close to zero. The point is that if the terrorists get into the flight deck, your chances of survival are zero. Surely not a difficult point to grasp.

Sure, there may be a team of air marshals on board. Do you not think the terrorists will know that, and plan accordingly? They have moved on a long way since the events you describe.

Of course, with a team of air marshals on board, we now have the exciting prospect of a multiple gun battle with goodness knows how many caught in the crossfire. Mind you I can't see the "team" being more than 2.

I too have some access to security material and regarding flight deck doors, I can only assume that the UK standard is higher than the US one. You aren't going to breach a kevlar/alloy/stainless steel door in a big hurry.

Some seem to think that discussing this is in some way pandering to the terrorists. Do please grow up. The terrorists in question are increasingly sophisticated and would, I am sure, laugh at the idea that they get all their information from pilot websites. I am sure you will find that they have people on the inside, and know a lot more about airline security that some give them credit for. That is the real danger- under-estimating the enemy.

...and whatever you do, don't mention the war... ;)

[pod1]

Some seem to think that discussing this is in some way pandering to the terrorists. Do please grow up. The terrorists in question are increasingly sophisticated and would, I am sure, laugh at the idea that they get all their information from pilot websites.

I wouldn't suggest they get all their info from websites, but why make things easier! and historically they have done this on many occasions

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you will find that they have people on the inside, and know a lot more about airline security that some give them credit for.

You are quite right, you could even argue why bother with any security, if they are on the inside, they could get anything and anyone into place, but why make things easier!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the real danger- under-estimating the enemy.

Never underestimate the enemy, !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are so liberal minded to want to put everything out in the open, let me know which airline you work for, so that I can avoid it!!

Happy and a safe New Year.

[con-pilot]

It is strange to me that all the people that are worried about the terrorist being able smuggle weapons on board so they can ‘shoot it out’ with the Air marshals would not be smart enough to bring some C-4 explosives on board to blow the cockpit door.

Anybody with just limited training on C-4 can breach a cockpit door no matter what it is made of, steel, Kevlar or whatever.

Until airliners are designed or modified as Wino suggests we need all the protection we can get. That includes Air Marshals.

[surely not]

As it is New Years eve, and taking Winos' theme of keeping the flight deck seperate and abusing it, I put forward the following idea.

Airbus and Boeing should start developing a very powerful glider tug which has remote control over the glider unit behind. This should be something capable of hauling a 747, A380 sized glider unit aloft and towing it vast distances. In this way the cockpit will remain sanitised and safe.

I thank you......................the wine is beginning to take its toll I fear.

[Donkey Duke]

Con-pilot,

Sure, they could use c-4, but one negative G push over and they hit the ceiling. There would be some communication from the back or from somewhere, and it probably would not happen.


419,

They understand diversions, and know how to handle all of those types of situations. They are trained professionals, and have been through all of the scenarios.

[West Coast]

MOR
You make my point for me. No secret that if I ditch it in the North Atlantic that everyone is dead. I also know I have a moral obligation to not allow that aircraft to be turned into a weapon. I reluctantly will play God and splash it or lawn dart it and kill the few hundred on board rather than letting it possibly kill thousands. It seems we are on the same sheet of music to this point. So if you plan to kill all onboard by splashing it to avoid the terrorists taking control, whats the danger in a last chance prevention by armed marshals? If they fail, the outcome remains the same, if they are successful then perhaps it won't be a worst case scenario.

I don't for obvious reason wan't to go into it, but my knowledge of the limits of the flight deck door apply not only to doors on US aircraft. There have been problems with the auto locking feature on some BA aircraft, one that required a 744 to have to divurt because of smoke in the cockpit.

I think you see this as more an afront to PIC authority than any other reason.

[MOR]

West Coast

...whats the danger in a last chance prevention by armed marshals? If they fail, the outcome remains the same, if they are successful then perhaps it won't be a worst case scenario.

It's a matter of options. If you are secure behind your door, you have several. If the terrorists overpower your "team" of sky marshals- a distinct possibility- you have less (as they now have the weapons). In addition, intervention by sky marshals will never be "last chance".

I think it is important that we differentiate between FD doors in general, and specific types. The design specification (which I have seen) will do the job. The problems you describe are mainly down to electrical problems that have no impact on the integrity of the door, particularly if you have a manual locking mechanism (as they all should).

I don't see this as an "afront (sic) to PIC authority" at all. I'm not about to blindly follow the instructions of a sky marshal, said sky marshal isn't going to be in a position to insist in any case as he isn't coming into the flight deck, and as far as I know the sky marshal is at no point in command by law.

pod1

Why make things easier? I'm not suggesting we do. I am merely pointing out that the information available here is of a similar level of help as saying "the sky is blue" (except in the UK), or "guns kill". They already know that. You aren't helping them. They aren't stupid.

I, and others contributing to this thread, know a lot more than we are saying here, because we aren't stupid, either.

This argument isn't about sky marshals in any case. It is about the clash of cultures between the USA, where guns are seen as the answer to everything, and the UK, where that view is challenged. For anybody open-minded enough to look closely at the law enforcement practices on both sides of the pond, there is a wealth of evidence that simply escalating the level of weaponry is not the answer. There are smarter ways.

As I am from neither place, I really have no axe to grind on that level. I have no problems with sky marshals per se, but it is a limited, risky and inefficient response to a problem the USA should have seen coming decades ago.

One thing we agree on, the flight deck should be structurally separate from the cabin. The only thing stopping this happening is economics- another sad commentary on where security priorities really lie.

[419]

D.D.
I didn't mean that the marshals would get taken in by diversionary tatics. I just wondered what their role in the air actually covered.
I've been on a couple of flights where air marshals (not necessarily armed) would have come in very handy. I sure that some of the drunken yobs who sometime abuse the cabin staff would think twice if there were a couple of well trained "enforcers" on board. Most of the air crew I've met have been very friendly and helpful, but when it comes to dealing with 6 foot drunkards, they are sometimes out of their depth.

419

[Wino]

Mor,

We have kevlar doors of extremely heavy weight with 6 deadbolt latches all the way around the perimeter.

They added about 2 minutes to the protection of the cockpit over the old one. If you can prove your identity to my union, we will show you the video tapes of every manufacturers door being breached quickily...

If you are privy to airline security briefings you will know some of the modifications to clothes that are also available that turn them into EXCELLENT ways of breaching the cockpit that will not be detected by any of the metal detectors that you have to pass through. The only solution to that problem would be mandatory swabbing of all people, or explosive sniffing, and it can't be done on a large scale.


Cheers
WIno

[MOR]

What is your union? What ID would you like?

You are, it seems to me, assuming an unhindered attack on the door. Not going to happen, unless you have some other weapon with which to subdue pax and cabin crew. I doubt most would-be defenders would be deterred by anything other than a gun or (metal) knife. What you are hinting at takes time.

Whatever the merits of the door as a defence, you have still not made a reasonable case for the sky marshal being an effective deterrent (for reasons already stated by others), or an effective defence when almost certainly outnumbered and out-manouvered.

You also haven't addressed the most important point, which is the efficacy of the whole US approach to security. But then I don't suppose you really can.

As we both agree, this problem will never be solved until the flight deck is structurally separated from the cabin.

[pod1]

I totally agree that the cabin should be independent from the pax, but until it happens, then surely a marshal must be a deterent.
However, I still feel that it is not right or appropriate to discuss tactics in open forum, if it prevents one nutter from an attempted hijack it would be worth it.

[MOR]

As Wino puts it, air marshals are a band-aid, nothing more.

It isn't the one nutter you have to worry about- it is the organised terrorists. The situation where a "team" of air marshals engage a half-dozen or more terrorists is the scenario we should all fear. Of course the bad guys have an extremely high chance of meeting no opposition... somebody explain the point of air marshals again... :confused:

[West Coast]

MOR
Nope, it didn't have any effect on the integrity of the door...they simply couldn't lock it. It remained unlocked for the remainder of the flight.

I don't have to worry about the nutter hijackers, only the serious ones? Relieved to say the least.

I have seen much of what Wino is talking about. If there are any band-aids here, the door is it. It gives great assurance to my 76 yr old mom that her youngest is behind a bullet proof door. I imagine it does the same for pax flying behind it. It does little for my piece of mind. The marshal/gun thing aside, I am curious how we can be so polar on opinion about the door. The evidence shown to me indicates fatal flaws and at best it gives me a small amount of time to get on the PA, get the ax and consider dumping the cabin and giving them a really bad headache (damn dump limits) I wonder what info your union is providing you with, or even worse I hope its not the builder of the door providing you with your tech info.

I also fear a scenario where marshals engage in a fire fight with the terrorists. I also believe as do you any future hijacking with any chance of success will be well organized. In your scenario the baddies go directly to a door that I know can be breached rapidly while others keep the pax at bay. Its a given to me that the scared pax will eventually charge the baddies, so I imagine they have pondered that also and have figured a counter measure. They only need to hold them off for a short period before they breach the door and an impromptu crew change occurs. Actually I hope any of us would as a last act pull the levers into cutoff and point it straight down before the knife crosses their throat. Your logic shows that you are putting all faith into a door that I have seen breeched. I hope we never find out who is right.

A post thought. I wonder how many pax also feel the door is inpenetrable? I wonder if a well intentioned crew thinking of the passengers would not get on the PA and ask for help, because the door of course cannot be breached. I wonder how many would be heroes decide not to risk life and limb trying to stop those silly terrorists trying to breech what can't be breached. I say that tongue in cheek for the most part. However the government did a good job of publcizing the armored door to calm a jittery flying public. Many think its a panacea.

[openfly]

I cannot be the first person to think this...

One of the main reasons that we have to have such a high level of security in UK aviation is because we are such staunch friends of the USA. Perhaps we should choose our friends more wisely in the future.
All this extra security, as per the directive from the US authorities, will cost Virgin, BMI and BA a lot of money. I bet the extra costs for the US carriers will be borne by their government though!

[Wino]

Ummmm,
You bet wrong.
Though the skymarshals may be government employees, the costs of carrying them are staggering as we are not remeimbursed ticket expenses for the, and with Yeild management programs that airlines use to maximize revenue, the last few seats on an aircraft are by far the most valuble. And since they don't know when the skymarshals will be there they don't know when they can sell them and when they can't...

As police officers the skymarshals will be government employees not employees of virgin or BA. Infact, the skymarshals may allow those two companies to slighty lower whatever corporate security they might have....

But, yeah, I BET that is why security is so high for you. Wonder what your life in NI would have been like had we been your ENEMIES....

Unfortunately, 4 hours into the new years I am off on a trip (junior manned :( ) so I didn't have time to finish my research to something that was mentioned here or the other thread on airline security. The big nuclear TUG thing has actually been thought about. There as a model of a nuclear tug pulling 2 C-5s was hoping to find the pic.

No time.

Happy new years all...

Cheers
Wino


Cheers
Wino

[AltHold]

As many people have pointed out, if we wish to fly to the USA we have to abide by there regulations, however as was stated very early on carrying a person with a gun and amunition onboard the aircraft is in contrevention of article 59 of the ANO (as far as I'm aware there is no dispensation to this as yet) therefore as the Captain am I not breaking the law and therefor opening myself up to prosecution should some disgruntled pax decide he is not happy with someone carrying a gun on board.(Does any know if there is legislation in the pipiline to amend the ANO)

Secondly, I'm responsible at all times for the wellfare of the pax. Should a hijack take place and a pax is inadvertently injured/killed by the sky marshel who will be held responsible for the death.

How does this work in the USA

[Max Angle]

however as was stated very early on carrying a person with a gun and amunition onboard the aircraft is in contrevention of article 59 of the ANO (as far as I'm aware there is no dispensation to this as yet) In fact it is already legal in certain circumstances to carry a loaded firearm on a UK registered aircraft. Without going into too much detail, the protection officers of certain individuals are permitted to retain a firearm whilst onboard. There should be a list in your ops. manual of the people to whom this applies. It has happened to me quite a few times and I was informed by the company prior to the flight.

[MOR]

West Coast

I'm sure you are missing the point deliberately. The lone nutter is easily subdued, witness the many recent incidents, from attempted shoe-bombs to mentally ill Africans. Especially now that most pax are aware that without their intervention, they may well all die.

The organised group is completely different animal. I'm sure you must know this. I HOPE you do...:confused:

Regarding doors, we aren't really polarised at all. I too think the present doors are woefully inadequate, badly designed and a safety hazard, and have said so officially (via ASR) several times. I think the incidence of failure is low- in the time since they were introduced, there haven't been that many failures. I haven't had a door failure, but I have had an engine fail in that time.

However, I would far rather have the door than sky marshals. Put the money spent on them, into strengthening the door and surrounding structure.

Perhaps if anything demonstrates the difference between the culture on either side of the Atlantic, it is this:

I wonder what info your union is providing you with, or even worse I hope its not the builder of the door providing you with your tech info.

You see, over here the information comes from the government, not the union. The technical specification for the door likewise comes from the government. I can't imagine why you have to rely on a union for this info.

In your scenario the baddies go directly to a door that I know can be breached rapidly while others keep the pax at bay.

Thank you for making my point for me. How many terrorists are we talking about here? And how many sky marshals? BTW prepare yourself for attacks from those reading this that think you just gave the bad guys a lesson in tactics.... :rolleyes:

No, I don't have a lot of faith in the (present) doors, but I have less in sky marshals. Especially as there are unlikely to be many of them, for the reasons Wino states:

the costs of carrying them are staggering as we are not remeimbursed ticket expenses for the, and with Yeild management programs that airlines use to maximize revenue, the last few seats on an aircraft are by far the most valuble. And since they don't know when the skymarshals will be there they don't know when they can sell them and when they can't...

What is interesting to me is that what we are really polarised about is the US attitude to firearms, ie more is better. "Althold" makes the point well- our legal (and social) framework and law does not allow the same freedom to bear arms, and that has implications for the Captain, should anytinhg happen on a flight- particularly if somebody gets killed by a sky marshal. None of our American friends have yet addressed that point, and it is an important one as much of the present difficulty stems from that difference in thinking. Doors are a side issue. Maybe Michael Moore is the only sane American... :cool:

As Wino has chosen not to respond with details of what union he belongs to, I'll assume that was all bluster.

Must be time for Danny to step in again, I see willy-waving is happening again (but about Northern Ireland this time).

[Danny]

Yep, put yer willies away lads! :*

I am constantly amazed by the depth of discussion, especially by some on possible tactics by either sky marshalls or terrorists. Some of you have obviously never been in the military and even if you have, were never in a combat unit, and if you were, have never been in actual combat. The Hollywood scenario some of you waffle on about is a fantasy and you've been watching too many movies.

The stock news clips of the training by sky marshalls you have seen is just that, training in a controlled environment. You have absolutely no idea of the actual chaos and confusion that really happens in real life and all the rhetoric I read just goes to prove to me how little some of you actually know.

The main point again is prevention rather than cure. It doesn't matter how many guns or knitting needles a granny manages to get onto an aircraft as long as she has no intent to use them for anything malicious. it DOES matter how many guns or knitting needles a granny manages to get on board an aircraft if she DOES have malicious intent. That is exactly what profiling is all about, no matter how un-PC it may be.

We have all seen the extra few pounds or dollars spent on beefing up 'security' after check-in. Lots of nicely uniformed personnel employed either by third party service providers or as in the US by the TSA. What those people are useful for is making the travelling public feel good that every effort is being taken to remove sharp objects from their person. That is it. They have a very limited function and are only trained to minimum spec. There have been so many breaches of their 'security' by journalists already that just proves my point that unless there is intent to use a weapon that has been successfully smuggled past 'security' then it doesn't really matter.

Now lets move on to the highly organised and not so dumb group of terrorists. Assuming that they have managed to stay ahead of any government security service, and we all know that they can if they're good and they're lucky, then all they have to do is make sure they have the proper tickets and nothing on their being that is going to get them stopped at 'security' after they have checked in.

We all know where the security loopholes are. Even the media have shown how they can get 'airside' jobs or even just infiltrate 'airside' to be in a position to smuggle weapons aboard an aircraft. Even the 'insider' is not really required. All the group of now checked-in terrorists need to do is spend some money in Duty Free and all the other shops 'airside'. Once this group are on-board then they will probably have a 1 in 20 (5%) or better chance that their flight won't have a sky marshall on board.

Why not spend more money on really effective deterrents such as proper profiling which is far more likely to spot potential terrorists before they even check-in. It is that deterrent that has protected El Al over the years rather than the sky marshalls. They have gone for the belt and braces option, out of necessity. Sky marshalls and profiling. One without the other is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at deterrent. If I had to choose I know I'd much rather have the profiling.

To anyone who is not a pilot, you really have no idea how mind numbingly tiresome it can be just sitting for many hours trying to stay alert. If you think that being a sky marshall is glamorous then you need your heads examining. As has been stated, the retention factor is a problem. These people are expected to be reasonably alert for 6-8 or more hours at a stretch. Of course, we are assuming these superhumans had a couple of days of proper rest before their flight and have some sort of abnormal ability to remain alert. I'm sure none of them have trouble adjusting to the 'night before a duty' restlessness that most of us normal pilots don't suffer from (or is that really just me? :confused: )

If we're only going to have a limited and random number of flights with sky marshalls why can't we have 100% profiling of pax before they even get to check-in? Surely we deserve that. Oh, I forgot, it's too expensive and not very PC. How much does it cost to train and retain a sky marshall? :rolleyes:

[eastern wiseguy]

I as SLF am frankly considerably more alarmed by the "suicide bomber" who climbs into the wheel well with a pressure switched device....what use the skymarshal then? The problem remains with security breaches on the ground .Deal with them there.

[Flying Felix]

I have a few of the posts on the above subject and feel that a few facts need to be brought to light. Firstly the type of ammunition and firearms used by Sky Marshals, the pistols that will be carried are compact models that can easily concealed even when just wearing shorts. Don't think that just because every cop you have seen in the films carry’s his gun on his belt holster that is the only place to keep it. I have been required to carry a gun and have been searched (patted down) on a number of occasions and it has not been found. The ammunition used is called "Safety Slugs" it is manufactured by Glazer and is a low velocity round (this means it is sub sonic). The projectile consists of a number of steel balls encased in compressed Teflon powder. This ammunition is designed for use on aircraft due to the fact that when the projectile impacts with a target it beaks up resulting in very little penetration. They are incapable of penetrating the foam in the seats never mind the skin of an aircraft. Their lethality depends on where the person is hit and as a result the chance of immediate incapacitation (0.5 Seconds) is very low but that is the price of increased safety of the aircraft.
The persons used as Air Marshals may come from a few areas namely the military SAS, SBS or even the RMP Close Protection Teams, but more likely it will be from the Police SO19, Special Branch Close Protection Teams but not the standard Armed Response Teams.
The use of non lethal weapons has its place but their use is always advocated by people with no experience in them. It is up there with the argument of why did you shoot to kill and not just to wound, it is impossible to shoot to wound, as anybody who has fired a gun will tell. Pepper spray will not stop a man with a gun from shooting you. CS gas is deadly in confined spaces. Knockout gas only exists in films, the levels anaesthetic required to fill the cabin would kill certain groups of people (children, elderly etc).
The reality is that we are faced with an enemy whose ultimate goal in life is to kill himself and if he takes a few members of his enemy with him all the better. They are not called fanatics for nothing. The probability of an armed terrorist on a flight are being reduced daily but as a pilot with intermit knowledge of firearms, explosives and the security forces I welcome Armed Sky Marshals.

[West Coast]

Danny
I don't disagree with most of the measures you advocate, you stop short, however. You praise El Al for their profiling system as a progressive step, along with all the other things they do. Even with all they do El Al, without dispute the most security conscious airline still uses armed air marshals. Does that tell you something? It tells me they believe in a multi layered defense as best. The US and dare I say the UK have a ways to go in all areas of security, I can't see categorically excluding a last chance defense of the cockpit. It is assumed that all the pax and crew will be dead, be it from the terrorists, from the trailing fighter or from the last efforts of the crew to avoid a greater disaster. What do you have to lose from a team of marshals defending you if your likely going to die anyway? I can't quantify what percentage improvement a team of marshals provide, but if they offer me any greater chance of survival than without then they are worth it. I see posters on all sides agreeing the door can be defeated quickly and that money needs to be spent to improve security. All very well but it ignores the hear and now. As of now the door is of questionable value, airport screening personal still miss weapons being carried on aircraft today, stowaways are making it into wheelwells of aircraft. Airport and airline security today are not secure enough. I have to fly a four day tomorrow, not after all the new security measures are in place.

MOR
Just as I told Danny, I have to fly tomorrow. It seems we are both in agreement about the door. The bad guys are not going to play fair and wait till security is improved. I want an additional level of security for my flight tomorrow that you won't have available for months or years. The French believed in the maginot line would keep the Germans out also, I don't have such great faith in the door as I want to discount another layer of safety. The door in its current form and for the near term future is a placebo for those who know no better. You were right about one thing. It speaks volumes about our differing beliefs when you take the government at their word about the door. Much the same here. I would have walked away happy with what I saw if not for a third party (union) investigation.

I don't know why I even ask this as you are entrenched in your position, but as honestly as you can answer this. Do you think the pilots on 9/11 (11/9 for you) wish they had had marshals on board that day? Could the outcome have been any worse for the WTC and Pentagon? No, but the possibility exists there could have been a better outcome. A better question given the new tactical mindset we fly with these days is would you change your mind about marshals if you looked back to see a terrorist in the final stages of breaking into your flight deck? No atheists in a fox hole either.

[Danny]

Do you think the pilots on 9/11 (11/9 for you) wish they had had marshals on board that day?

You are assuming that had they been on board every one of those flights that they'd have been successful. You are trying to use your own belief in your gun culture system. Why not just say "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they had a proper intelligence service looking out for threats." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they had the new reinforced cockpit doors." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish there had been passenger profiling." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they'd had competent security screeners."

The point about El Al is not that I praise their sky marshalls. It is the fact that if you are going to do security properly then do it properly and not in the current knee-jerk, ill thought through diktats from a government that appears to be almost paranoid. Whilst it is understandable why the US is so paranoid that in itself doesn't solve potential problems. It appears to someone who has seen the inside workings of proper security that Tom Ridge and his department are producing an awful lot of rhetoric in an apparent need to justify their existence.

I am not against sky marshalls per se. Just against the cosmetic use they will be considering the numbers involved. All the hoopla around the announcements are because of ill thought through decisions and without the real deterrent and use of proper profiling then there are gaping holes in the security system.

[West Coast]

In a sense of fair play does anyone monitor you when you cross over to participant or are you allowed the bully pulpit?

Your responses are usually clear, this one was a bit less lucid. Your waving YOUR willy with your diatribe about Ridge trying to justify his existance and about American paranoia.

I'll answer your iterations of my question if you properly answer mine. Yes they could have had better intel, yes the screeners could have been better trained. That doesn't eliminate the threat, it only minimizes it. Do you argue otherwise?
How many redundant systems do you have on your aircraft? Why do you need an alternate way to drop the gear if you have a primary system to do it? Same applies to the physical security of your aircraft

Say what you want about intel, screening and all the other aspects of a proper apparatus, all can be defeated. For every measure there's an evolving counter measure. El Al has probably the best of all the security measures in place and they still believe in a human with a weapon is part of the layered deterrant. Indeed recently the best, most secure airline in the world failed to detect a would be terrorist with a knife. What stopped him you ask? Probably the last line of defense, an armed marshal. And of the BA 747 that was damn near taken down by a lone individual, unarmed. The Captain said they were a few seconds away from disaster. The yahoo had control of the columm. I don't see a superior British system at work there. I recognize the whole gun thing may not be for you Brits, but don't be so smug as to dismiss it as American gun culture at work.

Answer my question now, If you had been one of the pilots on 911 would you have wished for armed marshals as the blade neared your throat?
Your comments about better security, better screening are taken and not argued. Now understand my point, future measures do nothing for the pax and crews today.

[Digitalis]

No security system is perfect. The systems that exist in both the US and UK are considerably less than perfect! I too would like to see improved training for security staff, better intelligence, better flight deck security, and more passenger profiling (my airline is one of those that trialled it in UK, I believe). However, those things haven't happened and aren't likely to. Even if they did, I would still have no intrinsic objection to armed security personnel on aircraft - whether or not they could save any or every potential disaster is irrelevent. They provide one more layer of defence and deterrence at a time when we need everything we can get.

The practical applications of 'skymarshals', and their tactics and weaponry are irrelevent in this forum. They have been imposed by the UK Government, at the demand of the US Government (which is probably what's getting up most Brits' noses), and therefore we have to learn to live with them.

Skymarshals have been flying for years. I know of no security situation that's been made worse by them, and there are quite a few that have been resolved successfully by them.

There are more important things to argue about. :hmm:

[Wino]

MOR,

I am an active member of the ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION AlliedPilots.org. I am currently an inactive member of ALPA, stricty for classification, the bargaining agent for American Airlines is the Allied Pilots association, WHen I worked for my previous carrier I was represented by ALPA. I am still very active in ALPA although my bargain agent is APA.

I have to make this quick because the Dominican Hotel only gives me 15 minutes of free internet.


While PROFILING works, in the USA there have been legal challenges (successfull) from Arab American groups. Infact the first computerized profiling system was called CAPS (Civil aviation profiling system, or something similar) Infact it picked off about 15 of the 9/11 hijackers but by court order the airlines were forbidden from doing anything to the people with that info. They were however allowed to use it for the searching of bags, which is why Mohammad Atta's bags didn't make the flight and they had his will and last statements....

Unfortuately racial profiling is a hot button issue and too many liberal judges have hamstrung law enforcement.

Cheers
WIno (less than 1 min left

[MOR]

Danny

I don't quite understand your remark regarding serving in a combat unit having anything at all to do with terrorists on aircraft. I haven't served in combat (and I doubt that you have either), but I have served in a national police service working closely with the anti-terrorism unit and I know that the skills required for the respective tasks are completely different- which is why, as others have said, sky marshals are not drawn from infantry units.

Profiling is an excellent way forward though. One can only wonder at a country which resists the most effective weapon it has in the fight against terrorism, whilst promoting the wholesale slaughter of its citizens by fellow citizens with assault rifles, handguns, whatever... BTW my willy is resting comfortably at the moment. No movement at all.

West Coast

Danny is spot on with most of his last post. Why not use the weapons most effective in dealing with the problem? The recurring thought to a lot of us non-Americans is that American actually want to use guns. They prefer them. The whole American psyche is so locked into the right to bear arms that you automatically turn to the gun first. El Al, on the other hand, employ the sky marshal and weapons as a last resort, and use more efficient methods to prevent the sky marshal ever having to reveal him/herself. Cart after the horse, so to speak.

You completely over-sensationalise the incidents you describe. In the BA case, you seem to be using a tabloid headline as a resource. If the guy had "control of the column" they would all be dead. Aircraft are always seconds away from disaster- nature of the beast. Of course, if the cockpit door had been locked, the situation would never hnave happened, would it?

You didn't see a "superior British system" because there isn't one, and nobody here has said that there is. Put your willy away, my friend. We are ALL learning how to do this, and if you look to the expert (El Al) you will see not just screening, not just sky marshals, but both. However, their first line of defence is profiling or screening. Are we learning yet?

If I had been one of the pilots on 9/11, I wouldn't be wishing for a sky marshal. I'd be wishing for better systems to stop these guys getting on to the aircraft after they had been identified as a risk. Most of all, I'd be wishing that I had locked the door and kept it locked, because I don't believe they would have breached it before being overcome (I am talking about the newer doors here). If all that had failed, I would be wishing that I had a firearm with which to help myself!

Of course the prevailing security attitude to hijackers seconds before the first plane flew into a tower was "give them what they want", so the question is moot.

Wino

Ah, OK. You belong to a breakaway union that serves only one airline. Right. The way you were talking, I thought you were at least an officer of a national, multi-carrier union. Glad I got that sorted out! ;)

[West Coast]

MOR
Pretty tough words twords wino when he is only exchanging ideas. I don't know much about BALPA, but the type of info Wino is talking about makes it down to the lowest levels. I don't know if your side keeps it to at higher levels than line pilots. You can also standby for a blast from Danny about his past military service. I think you will find what the rest have known for awhile about his background, look before you leap.

Your smart @ss comments aside we agree on a fair amount.
I think profiling is a great way of improving security, even with the baggage that comes with it. I think improvements in airport screening is a positive and more needs to be done. I think improvements in intel are probably the best way of preventing future hijackings. The things you have mentioned are the best weapons we have for prevention. Re-read that please, prevention is the best scenario. Prevention however minimizes the threat, it doesn't eliminate them. I am not ready to cede the aircraft because some crafty little devil found a way around the security measures outside of the aircraft. Just the way El Al uses marshals and weapons as a last result, the US air marshal program is a last chance at saving the aircraft. It is not meant to be a substitute for improvements in other areas. That said, the improvements will not be in place today, tomorrow or maybe even a year from now. You and Danny keep harping about if this or that had been done then we wouldn't have to have Marshals. Well it wasn't done and sooner than flogging the horse, we have to deal with what is going on now, not a few years ago when we should have done something. Hind sight is 20/20, but we can't dwell on it.

As to the BA 747 nearly crashing and your trying to minimize it. The tabloid you accuse me of using as a source to "over-sensationalise the incident" is the BBC. I will leave it you to decide if its a tabloid or credible news organization. In any case, don't take my word for it, The following is the Captain of the 747 in his own words.

"If the drama had lasted four or five seconds longer the jet would have flipped on its back and the Co pilot would not have been able to regain control"

Captain Willian Hagen, British Airways.
The whole article is available on the BBC web site, it was the headline news on 29 Dec 2000.

You can further try to dismiss it as a minor event, but you would be disputing the pilot in command of said aircraft.
As to the door being being locked, I don't know. I understand some UK crews left the cockpit door unlocked and even open at times pre 911.

I find your final comments some what amusing. You accuse the US of a rampant gun culture, yet you wish you had a gun if you had been in the seat that day. I agree with your sentiments. They are however a bit non sequitur given your earlier diatribe about guns and aircraft.

[Paterbrat]

There have been one or two voices who have raised the question of the wisdom of discussing this particular subject in such detail. The group that initially started this whole sorry mess is aviation wise, does contain pilots, and may well be monitoring this site. I am amazed that many of you who are service trained are so unsecurity minded. If you happen to think the response is a feeble one why comment on it or indeed explain the weak areas. The fact of the matter is that steps are being taken and the deterrent factor of that alone is at the very least a move in the direction that we all hopefully are hoping for. Unless of course you happen to be one of the ones that is destroying the industry. In which case I hope you rot in hell.

[MOR]

West Coast

Actually I thought Wino was pretty insulting, particularly the reference to Northern Ireland. I forgot that irony isn't a popular form of expression in the USA.

Yes, I am aware of some of Dannys background, and more importantly where, but my point stands- combat skills are more or less irrelevant in a hijack situation. I'm not sure why he felt the need to highlight his background. I'm sure he will deliver a salvo in due course.

There are two discussions going on here. One attempts to justify the current measures. The other is about why those measures should not be necessary.

I'll concede that sky marshals are necessary and the US was right to take the stance it has, if you concede that it is too little, too late, and that other security measures will almost certainly be delayed for years by endless "human rights" arguments- except of course the human right not to be used as a missile. Fair?

Regarding the BA 747, you are still missing the point. Almost any emergency or serious failure, left unchecked, will down the aircraft. If you lose an engine but fail to apply rudder, you will die. You should, as a pilot, be able to see through the headline. Yes, the BA event was serious, but not to the level you imply. Also, the culture then (pre 9/11) did not require the door to be locked.

My last comment was quite deliberate. Pilots should have a last line of defence inside the cockpit. It really doesn't matter what you hit at that point, because if you fail, you die anyway. If your much-vaunted but unproven sky marshal loses his weapon to a bad guy, your chances just dropped through the floor because if the bad guy with the marshals weapon does breach the door, you have no chance whatsoever. The argument isn't about guns per se, it is about sky marshals and their effectiveness- and the risks involved in having them there with weapons in the cabin. The other good reason to arm pilots is the fact that they have an easily defensible position.

The US does have a rampant gun culture, you lose more people to gun crime in the US every year than you do to terrorism by a large margin. Yet what steps do you take to minimise it? I don't expect you ever to admit that America might possibly be wrong in some way, but a little introspection wouldn't go amiss.

As the argument is now essentially circular, I'll drop out (unless provoked!!!)

[Grandpa]

I repeat my statement page 10:

"Did anyone hear of any trouble with Israeli sky marshals, who fly with El Al since years?"

This has nothing to do with politics.

Safety is obtained when you add walls to walls : airport checks PLUS sky marshalls is better.

[BlackSword]

There are way too many personal comments being made here on what is a difficult subject in any case.

Clearly some in this thread - mostly American - can't see the problem with armed Sky Marshals and are mystified, even indignant about any opposition to them. The right to bear arms is clearly embedded in the American psyche. Here in the UK, guns are totally banned (not that the drug community have any trouble getting them!) and anathema - we simply can't understand why anyone would want a gun or want to use them. We also see the gun as the absolute last result - when all else has failed. Surely a gunfight in the cabin is a disaster for security, safety and ticket sales?

So lets not waffle about cultural differences (or get personal about them).

I also fail to see why we should not discuss the subject - does anyone think that its difficult for terrorists to obtain information?
Nothing being discussed here is even remotely secret - the only reason some don't want any discussion, is because the subject has been (badly) politicised - when we should be discussing safety (I'm sure the average airline exec is terrified of the PR consequences, whichever way this goes).

A BA flight to Washington was cancelled today - because of an undisclosed threat - on the advice of the government!
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3362043.stm

The same flight on New Years eve had been given a fighter escort! (presumably to shoot it down if it veered off-course).

So Sky Marshals are clearly not enough!

[newarksmells]

When Sky Marshalls were re-introduced into the US Air population, they haven't shot a single soul.

No emotions, just facts. Hope the folks in the U.K look at that record and try and emulate it.

No hidden agenda...

Newarksmells

[Longtimer]

And of course, thank god, they have never had to draw a weapon in anger. :)

[Ranger One]

Been plowing through this thread and I note that amongst the heat, light, sound, and shrapnel, I still haven't seen the information I'm interested in, here or elsewhere:

Sky marshals - trained by the Met, police or military background. That's about all we're being told. BALPA have a bloody good point:

- employed by whom?
- what is chain of command?
- to whom are they answerable?
- are they sworn constables?
- what are their powers in UK? - airspace and/or on the ground
- ditto for international waters and foreign soil
- what is legal basis for these powers?
- if not serving police or military, how did they get pistol licenses?

None of this stuff is 'need to know'; none of this information is being made public AFAIK. Journos, get digging.

Not totally opposed, but a lot needs clarifying.

Re. El Al comments, I last flew with them STN-EWR as an impecunious student many years ago. Their security was tight, the blatant and unashamed racial/religous profiling was breathtaking - something I've never experienced, before or since. Paraphrased slightly:

'Are you Jewish? What is your religion? Have you ever been to Israel? Can you speak Hebrew? You have a British passport? Why are you flying El Al? OK, you and all the other non-Jews, come with us to the nice security room, we are going to disect your baggage and question you for an hour whilst we decide whether or not you may check in'

Do we *really* want to go down that road?

R1

[cumulus]

Just as a matter of interest, this is an advert that appeared in Pathfinder magazine last September. Path finder is an employment and resettlement magazine aimed at UK armed services.

Air Marshals Required

Salaries to 45,800 GBP PA

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks a new government scheme has initiated airlines introducing Air Marshals on scheduled flights. As such the demand for these highly skilled and qualified personnel has dramatically increased. Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency has been selected by several large international air carriers to provide an Air Marshal Service onboard their flights. Thus the initial requirement is to fulfill 180 Air Marshal placements for the year beginning 2004.

Air Marshals work irregular hours and shifts, whilst deployed have limited personal contact with family and are on call 24 hours per day.They perform regular and extended travel, on both foreign and domestic flights and spend time in countries that are sometimes politically or economically unstable.

Duties include responding to criminal incidents aboard national air carriers,as well as other in-flight emergencies while preserving the safety of aircraft, crew, and passengers. Other duties involve performing inspections and evaluations to determine compliance with procedures affecting aviation security.Air Marshals are authorised to carry stun guns and make arrests.

A good standard of education is required. Although military/law enforcement backgrounds are advantageous, they are not essential, as all suitable candidates will attend a three-month intense training course which includes pass/fail components for weapons and close-quarters counter-measures.

Candidates must be eligible for and maintain a security clearance based upon an adjudicated special background investigation and will be required to produce this at their own expense. Candidates must hold full EEC passport and provide at least 2 references that have direct knowledge of the candidate's professional or educational accomplishments and job-related skills and abilities. Candidates must be physically fit and over 21 years of age at time of application.
Assessment procedure is as follows;

1. Enrolement and application appraisal with security clearance check.

2. Interviews with SAM Recruitment Agency and Airline personnel

3. Medical examination, including a psychological test prior to allocation to Air Marshal course

An attractive renumeration package is offered including a basic salary starting from 19,100 GBP PA- 45,800 GBP PA dependant on qualifications ans experience. Full details of salaries, expenses, contracts, terms and conditions, benefits, duties, training, refresher courses and promotion prospects are given within the comprehensive application and information pack.

If you have the relevant abilities and skills required for the demanding role of Air Marshal, please apply in writing, including your CV to the address below:

Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency
15 St Johns Court
Rochdale
Lancashire OL16 5TF

e-mail: [email protected]



only serious applicants need apply

strictly no phone enquiries

Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency operates an equal opportunities employment policy

[miss d point]

the most numbing job in the world !! sitting on your todd not going out with the crew at the hotel, perhaps going to a secure holding tank of 'sky marshalls' !

If the press are reading this have you noticed how busy this site has become in recent weeks, i think aircrew are getting sick and tired of someone at a desk forcing these decisions on us day in and day out - flight deck access - no sharp nail clippers - etc etc etc -the list is endless from the department of silly ideas and now we have blokes running around with guns !

what happens if the terrorists decide to become 'sky marshalls' - whilst the dot are endlessly trying to justify their jobs and creating whole new bandwagons daily who is 'under marshalling' the undergrounds ?
who is the 'water marshalling' the water supplies ? and why recently did immigration raid airline crew catering company up north (uk) and find half the workforce illegal ? (someone could have taken out half the flights in a jiffy with some poison).

Thanks to the political correct brigade we have no idea who is in the country for fear of hurting their 'human rights', it's about time these public stunts stopped and some real security put in place.

:mad: - forgive the rant !

[Dog's Bone]

After 14 pages of going round in circles we find that roughly 50%
agree and 50% do not agree. Does that really surprise anyone? A trans
atlantic divide?

Well that's fine the US will do what they think needs to be done. End of story.

So where does the would be terrorist goes from here?

Is it only me that remembers the blood bath in the Amsterdam Terminal
departures hall following a Bader Meinhof visit?

If the travelling public are getting screamish now, if a Terminal
bloodbath occurred again, and again and again, that would make all these
impregnable aircraft redundant, as there would be few customers, few
airlines and only ground (not sky) marshals, left to protect them as
they bake in desert storage.

Why go for the aircraft (yes it is dramatic) when there are many, many
other opportunities on the ground, and not just at airports.

The end result will be the same: it's hardly rocket science, is it?

[bjcc]

MM.. That advert's a worry really.

It sems that these Marshalls will be employed by a private company, sub contracted to either the goverment or the airlines. So very little accountability, the ad appeared in a Forces Retirment magazine, so the majority of applicants will be from the forces. That in its self is OK, but where does there experience of reading situations come? The forces way of doing things is fairly clear cut, and the way to deal with it follows rigid guide lines, as serveral incidents in NI have shown. The Police may or may not have the same experience of weapons training, but from what I have seen have better people skills and much more expeience of dealing with confrontational situations. Both of these skills take a long time to learn, and as very little of what the advert says these SM's will do involves terrorists I can foresee a few very nasty incidnets coming up.

At the end of the day the goverment and or the US have decided that we will have them. I don't like the idea, nor do a large number of people here. But if we are going to have to have them then they should be from the right background and employer, not a private company.

[Jackonicko]

Better by far, surely, to infringe people's personal freedom, liberty etc. by rigorous screening, X-ray checks and meaningful body/hand baggage searches than to deliberately introduce weapons into the aircraft cabin?

When terrorists are willing to die it's easy to think of scenarios in which one or two of a group could be used to provoke a reaction from the Sky Marshalls, who, once identified, might be easy for the remaining hi-jackers to deal with.

[Faire d'income]

Jackonicko I tend to agree. Witness the recent case of an Air Marshall arresting a drunk female passenger. Why did he come forward and reveal himself?

It has been suggested here that the Marshalls shall work in teams on 'certain' flights. It is argued that this might be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a hijacking.

Just a couple of questions:

How many marshallers would a team comprise of?

What is a sufficient ratios of 'Marshalled' flights to 'unmarshalled' flights to successfully intimidate would be terrorists?

If we assume working conditions better than the average airline pilot ( they could hardly be worse! ) and considering how horrendousy boring a 50 hour week as a passenger would be that is reasonable, this leaves us as follows:

Lets say 4 to a team and 10% of flights marshalled ( which is hardly a deterrent ) you are taking about the number of marshalls possibly becoming as high as 25-30% of the number of commercial pilots in the UK! If you want 20% or higher marshalled the number is much higher.

This raises more questions, some of which have already been asked here:

If there are 2000 air marshalls can any government or private agency give a 100% guarantee that none of them will have any links or sympathies with a terrorist organisation ever? Because if the answer is anything less than 100% we will now have given the terrorist a gun on board, something the 911 mob didn't manage.

With the drastic increase in marshalls worldwide the likelihood of mistakes will also increase, particularly in societies that most people have never even seen a handgun. What is the liability of the Commander who will have allowed the handgun on board?

To me this is sadly just a political stunt. Very media friendly but not thought through.

If the States want them in their jurisdiction that's fine but why should they be allowed ram their ideas down the throats of other countries? :sad:

[Wino]

I suspect that this might be for an airline's internal security. Not the Federal Skymarshals that would be provided by the government. I could be wrong though.


The numbers of skymarshals required for 100 percent coverage will always be staggering and therefor impossible. The best you can hope for is to cover the high threat flights combined with good intel.

Canceling the flights outright probably isn't the best solution either as it hands them a win (economic disruption) at no cost to the terrorist, plus they are still available to hijack another flight...

Tough situation when a hijacking can no longer be tolerated (it WAS tolerated before)

Cheers
Wino

[Faire d'income]

Finally something I think we can agree on.

While no country could claim to be used to terrorism on the scale of 911 there are many countries ( especially the UK ) that have had active terrorist cells for years. The object of these cells was always maximum disruption which gains maximum media coverage. Despite the enormous loss of life the same could be said of 911.

I agree when you say cancelling flights hands a victory to the terrorists and also agree when you say it is no cost to the terrorists. They get worldwide media coverage yet again and lose nothing.

I just don't accept that skymarshalls will have even the slightest impact on the situation. Consider that Heathrow had 460,000 movements in 2000 and imagine how many movements there are internally in the States, it is impossible to guarantee the level of security that the government are suggesting. What good would a marshall have been in Lockerbie other than creating another grieving family?

The removal of the causes of terrorism is the only solution but that's another story...

[Jackonicko]

If HMG had the balls to say: "No guns on UK registered aircraft, wherever they fly", then the USG would presumably ban UK aircraft from entering or operating in US air space. It's unlikely that HMG would then have the balls to impose a reciprocal ban by saying "no guns on board any civil aircraft operating in UK airspace'. It's a stand-off and the USA has the muscle to insist on its way, I guess.

[FEBA]

Foreign carriers have been flying ACM's or Sky Marshalls into the UK for years and the Met police have been holding their weapons secure whilst they are og UK. Your arguement is pointless.

[Jackonicko]

My my FEBA, so you use your customary courtesy here as well as on Mil Aircrew?

God forbid that anyone should change an established policy, or that anyone should offer a 'pointless' argument by suggesting such a change.....

;)

[Airbubba]

Dispute over marshals canceled flight

Same British Airways flight under scrutiny for four days

WASHINGTON (CNN) --A dispute between the British pilots' union and the British government over armed marshals -- not security concerns -- led to the cancellation of Friday's British Airways flight from London to Washington, a Bush administration official said Saturday.

Flight 223 has been the subject of intense scrutiny for four days.

Saturday's flight was delayed 3.5 hours at the request of U.S. security officials who wanted more information about it, airline officials said. It landed without incident at 9:13 p.m.

Thursday's flight was canceled because of security concerns, according to British and U.S. officials. On Wednesday, it was escorted to Washington's Dulles International Airport by U.S. fighter jets.

The officials said intelligence from an informant and other sources involving the flight number suggested the flight could be a terrorist target.

A Bush administration official said the flight was canceled Friday because of a dispute between the British Air Line Pilots Association and the British government over carrying armed marshals on flights.

The British government recently announced it would require armed undercover marshals on some international flights.

The union opposes the rule, saying flying with armed marshals is dangerous. The group says the money should instead be spent on improving ground security.

The union said pilots agreed that if a credible threat were to emerge for one of their flights, they would cancel rather than fly with a marshal aboard.

The group said the dispute was the reason Fight 223 was canceled both days. The U.S. administration official said the dispute contributed to only Friday's cancellation.

The United States and Britain were prepared to allow the flight to take off, but pilots refused to travel with a marshal aboard, the official said.

Flight 223 was disrupted for the fourth time on Saturday. The flight ultimately took off several hours late.

It was not announced whether Saturday's flight had a marshal aboard. The British government has said it will not announce which flights carry marshals.

The pilots union has begun talks with airlines to reach agreements on allowing marshals aboard trans-Atlantic flights.

One airline -- Virgin Airways -- signed a deal with the British government Wednesday.

The agreement calls for the marshal to be introduced to the pilot and other crew members, and for the marshal's weapon to be approved.

It also states that marshals be former members of a police force, that their training program will be approved by the union, and that the flight captain remains the ultimate authority.

Several other international flights also have been affected in the past two days by the security concerns, but none more so than Flight 223. (Full story)

U.S. officials said there was some question about the credibility of the intelligence information, which they said had nothing to do with the passenger list but focused instead on the flight number. Still, they said the U.S. government would not take chances.

Asa Hutchinson, U.S. undersecretary for border and transportation security, said Friday that such cancellations of international flights would not take place without "specific intelligence" indicating a possible attack.

"We make the judgments based upon the security measures that are in place, the risk that's assessed, coordination with the other government -- and I think we've made some really good decisions," he said.

Hutchinson would not elaborate on the intelligence.

Administration officials said Saturday that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge spoke with British Home Secretary David Blunkett on Friday about how to expedite the scrutiny of passenger manifests and minimize inconvenience to passengers.

The officials said the phone call lasted about 20 minutes and was "very productive."

[Yessir, I understand now, perfectly...]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/03/flight.cancel/index.html

[paulo]

Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer

Controversial plans to put armed guards on British passenger planes were in disarray last night after British Airways effectively refused to fly with them aboard because it would mean there was a 'significant threat' to passengers.

An internal BA memo obtained by The Observer makes clear that executives are deep-seatedly opposed to the scheme unveiled by the Government last week as a vital new step to protect aircraft against hijackers.

The memo - sent on Friday from Mike Street, BA's operations director - said the airline 'would not operate a single flight unless we were satisfied totally that it was safe to do so'. The sky marshals will be deployed only on flights where there has been a specific warning, prompting some pilots to voice concerns about security that a guard may be unable to prevent.

He added: 'If there is security information about a particular flight that gives us cause for concern, then we will not operate that flight. That remains our policy regardless of the Government's capability to deploy armed police officers.'

A spokesman for the British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa), which also opposes the policy, said BA's statement was expected to be followed by other airlines and would rule out the use of sky marshals, as proposed.

'We now believe sky marshals will never fly,' said the spokesman. 'If you're told there's a perceived risk, you're not going to run it. No one in their right mind would say "Don't worry, we'll put sky marshals aboard it".'

Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, has refused to give details of the sky marshals, but Balpa said it was told armed guards would be used only when a specific threat had been made.

Because the marshals would not be used at random as a general deterrent - as in the US and Israel - it is also thought that only 24 are planned. They are likely to be former police officers and would use low-velocity bullets so as not to pierce the fuselage.

Critics condemned the plans as unworkable, with too few sky marshals. Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat spokesman for London, said Ministers were 'trying to sound tough'. 'I think it was not token at the beginning, they were trying to cover all bases and thought this would do that,' he added. 'Then they have been pressured into doing something which is the minimum they could do to keep the States happy. To that extent, it's token.'

Balpa said passengers had been misled. In France, for example, every flight to the US now carries between two and six sky marshals, depending on how full they are.

'The [British] public seem to have the impression there will be one on every plane: it's nothing like that,' said the Balpa spokesman.

A Department for Transport official said he could not comment on when sky marshals would be used, how many would be recruited, how they would be trained, how they would operate, or any other details. 'We don't discuss that,' he said.

Balpa has already signed a deal over sky marshals with Virgin and could do a deal with BA this week. The union will meet government officials tomorrow in a bid to strike a national agreement instead. Under a deal with Virgin, the airline has promised its pilots will be introdcued to marshals used on their planes, and told where the guard is sitting. The pilots will be in control at all times, including emergencies.

Airlines or the Government will have to take responsibility for any accident on board and for pilots' insurance if they are refused personal cover, as some US pilots have been, said Balpa.

The union wants better land-based security instead. 'The Twin Towers [terrorist attacks in New York in 2001] happened not because there were no sky marshals but because there was lax security on the ground,' added the spokesman.

Original Article (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1115868,00.html)

[Previous summary post deleted]

[hadagutful]

It's very plain to me that this stupid decision by incompetent politicians to have armed skymarshals on commercial airline flights is an admission of TOTAL FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE AVIATION SECURITY BEFORE EMBARKATION.
I for one certainly wouldn't feel any safer with an armed guard in the cabin.

For goodness sake, let's have some commonsense and undertake the security prior to boarding and not just rely on a potential shootout in flight.

If we must have security staff on board, surely they could be armed with disabling spray rather than supposedly 'safe' soft-nosed bullets.

What do the aircrews think ??

[marcopolosnr]

I think this says it all

Date:September 9, 2002 Type:Investigation
Summary:Houston: Seventy-one of 143 indicted airport workers from Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, TX, have been arrested on various charges including making false statements on security badge applications and use of false social security cards and immigration documents. Arrest warrants for the remaining 72 workers are being served by teams consisting of special agents from DOT OIG, the FBI, INS, Social Security Administration OIG, and the Houston Police Department.

Boston: Michel Ange Aspilaire, Somerville, MA, a former jet fuel transporter and refueler at Boston’s Logan International Airport, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Boston to making false statements on his application for a security badge at the airport, possession of a counterfeit alien registration card, and misuse of a social security number. He is the 4th of 20 defendants to plead guilty. Aspilaire will be on supervised probation for 1 year or until he is deported to his native Canada.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel02/operationtarmac_arrests_pr.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txs/releases/September%202002/020909-tarmac_english.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/oig/executive_operations/eyeonoig/eyeoig04302002.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0CWU/2002_Sept_9/91219352/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_txt.php?id=757

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/12/1008155283.html

http://portland.fbi.gov/pressrel/2002/sheik2.htm

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/oig401.htm

The U.S. PATRIOT Act is not just a problem for Arab-Americans in this country. The INS audited 9,000 airport workers in Salt Lake City and found that 271 people, mostly Latin American airport workers, had names which did not match their Social Security numbers. Sixty-three were indicted for using false Social Security cards and six for lying about their arrest records on their job applications (which is a criminal offense). Also, 202 other people who worked in less secure areas at the airport were fired for similar Social Security and immigration violations. http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.2002.02/PT.2002.02.3.html

The INS checked the records of 2,000 Portland International Airport employees and identified 124 workers as working illegally -- 30 were arrested by federal INS officials for what they considered serious offenses. They worked in baggage handling and loading, construction, and food and janitorial services.

http://www.freep.com/news/metro/nindic30_20020830.htm

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0208/30/a01-575099.htm

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1775069,00.html

http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=2152A89F-0780-49A3-84D6-EDE507B469B2

so if you combine the above and

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html

the flying Wyatt Earps should be on the ground in the US airports nicking the illegal infiltrated ramp workers

Incredible really

[MOR]

No wonder our US cousins are so keen to shoot it out in the skies- with security so lax on the ground, they will probably have to before long.

As you say- incredible. :uhoh:

[MasterBates]

May I suggest that we have one armed jerk in the cockpit, pointing at the pilots. Behind the door another one is ready with explosives to knock the door if the first one goes ape****. Behind the bomber we´ll have another gunman, just for added security if the explosive guy loses it. After about 100 marshals standing like that aiming at the guy in front (Depending on aircraft size) this leaves only one tiny problem. The last man standing in the aft galley! I suppose we might then have a remotely operated device of small destruction strapped to his arse, and another marshal in a bombproof shelter on the ground ready. This still leaves a tiny problem..........................
This way we dont have to worry about the pax, there won´t be any seats for them.

I think the American way of life is a bit troubled today, eh.
:sad:

MB

[Airbubba]

>>the flying Wyatt Earps should be on the ground in the US airports nicking the illegal infiltrated ramp workers<<

Well, the "right" to be in the U.S. illegally is devoutly defended by "advocacy" groups. In some of the airport sweeps mentioned above racism was claimed since many of those arrested were "minorities".

Here's a quote from today's Washington Post:

"...Undocumented workers now pay billions of dollars annually into Social Security but do not collect benefits because they give their employers fraudulent Social Security numbers.

Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, said he fears the Social Security plan could be used as an incentive for workers to go home instead of settling in the United States, which could create what he called 'a permanent class of temporary workers with no political power.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52647-2004Jan3.html

The term "illegal alien" has fallen out of favor since "illegal" has negative connotations in some cultures. "Undocumented migrant" is the more politically correct term these days.

[miss d point]

:p :p :p :p

great masterbates, brightened up my sunday :p :p

how about all passengers who board an a/c have a small tag sealed on their persons and in the event of them mis-behaving we type in a corresponding code in the flight deck and just electrocute them !!!

all a/c terrorism solved !

:p :p

[Blue Bug]

Air marshal or no air marshal - do you think either would stop a suicide bomber??! No hijack involved.

Better the terrorist isn't allowed on the plane in the first place eh?
...perhaps keep the guns out of the aircraft too!

Banning all carry on hand luggage so that passengers only carry a ticket and passport, and thorough searching of all passengers prior to boarding would surely make air marshals redundant?!


BB :confused:

(sorry if someone already made that point - i didnt make it through all 15 pages!)

[Paterbrat]

In a perfect world we would of course have none of these tiresome problems, so sad we live in a real world, which of course we do.
It appears though, that quite a few people here have been fairly well insulated from some of the more unpleasant realities of life and protest vigorously when they come up against it.
Shocked indignation however is a poor defence against what is now the present danger and that has been so graphicaly illustrated not so long ago, or do they perhaps think that it:-
a) wouldn't happen to them
b) was simply a one off situation.
c) is now fully under controll
d) 9/11 was all a product of a slow news day and has simply been blown out of proportion by the media?

[Wino]

BlueBug,
A suicide bomber requires carrying a BOMB on the airplane. That security MIGHT be able to catch. There are actually several ways to catch them. Xray machines, Bomb sniffing devices, bomb sniffing dogs etc.

The guy that wants to fight with small bladed weapons will be much harder to stop. Security will never be able to keep knives off of airplanes. They can't keep em out of prisons where prisoners get strip searched with body cavity searches at will and have no "Rights". Yet every day in prisons around the world, prisoners are sticking shivs in each other...

Richard Reid did and didn't defeat security. Though AA corporate security picked him off, though he missed the flight the first night, the FRENCH GOVERNMENT orded AA to carry him the next day, a power they no longer have, but did at the time. At the time France was telling us we couldn't exclude anyone without cause, and though we were suspicious, we never found the bomb in his shoe. Now we can in limited circumstances refuse to carry someone. But that is part of the problem of being a "common carrier". To be fair most government had similar polices.


As to banning all hand luggage. Ummm I would love that idea myself and so would most flight attendants. But what would you do with people's purses? How about people who have to take a lot of medication? What about contact lens gear... etc. Unfortunately, though I would love to see those big rollaboard bags banned, that simply isn't going to happen in this day and age, what about those big puffy Goose Down jackets? After all they could easily be stuffed with C4. And lets not forget SHOES. Everyperson who ever complains about having to take their shoes off can thank a Richard Reid... NOT AMERICA....

Cheers
Wino

[BlackSword]

Many pages ago I wondered:

How could such a (Sky Marshall) scheme be made to work without the total cooperation of fully and specifically trained cabin and flight deck crew - and radical changes in cabin procedures?
(code phrases, simulated turbulence etc). It seems to me that flight and cabin crew would need practical training in real-life scenarios.

For example, Sky Marshals have been intervening with drunken passengers, so in what circumstances (if any) do the cabin crew ask for Sky Marshal help (so potentially revealing themselves to hi-jackers)? Drunken, drugged or panicked pax have attempted to enter the cockpit before......

Any ideas?

[Mick Stability]

The problem is the cultural chasm that exists between us the Europeans and you the Americans. I’m a frequent traveller to the USA, and I don’t think you guys realise just how introspective you are over there.

For you, guns are normal workaday items of apparel. You see guns on the street, guns in the movies, guns on the television, shootings on the news, you probably have your own just in case. People getting blown away feature in all forms of media, and it barely raises an eyebrow.

For those of us on this side of the Atlantic, guns are extreme, last resort, extraordinary weapons, rarely encountered, and greatly feared. The prospect of coming into contact with guns on a routine basis is something that’s unthinkable in this society.

We could debate the rights and wrongs of guns in society until the cows come home. But before you drive a stagecoach through our culture, please just take a moment try to understand why we’re upset.

[curmudgeon]

Agreeing with Mick, I'm a Brit, professional, respectable, etc. I used to hold a world record at under 18 for shooting with very dangerous weapons.

Notwithstanding this, its still illegal for me to own a handgun in my country.

cur

[Aeropig1]

While reading through the thread and respecting evryone has a view on this emotive subject the main points seem to have been lost.

First the decision to train 'marshalls' in the UK was announced early last year so the idear that the scheme was rushed into existence to please the US is false. The announcement was made after the training of those involved had been completed.

Second, The US as any other sovreign state has the right to take whatever measures are necessary to protect their citizens in the air or, and this is the biggy, on the ground. Marshalls are just one measure that is in place to achieve this along with phase2 doors and ground measures have also been increased so to look at the issue in isolation can be misleading. I am not privvy, like most of us to the intelligence and information in the hands of the governments but I do recognise that sometimes difficult decisions have to be made and I conclude that the measures being sought are an alternative to grounding the fleets.

Many have reffered to historic hijacking and many have acknowledged times have changed. The problem for the authorities is major, they have a duty to protect their citizens and to maintain the ability for them to travel freely without making security so intrusive that pax opt not to travel. If the idear is to prevent an aircraft being used as a weapon then the mathematics of risk must be taken into account - potential loss on the aircraft v potential loss on the ground. Not a nice problem to have.

Some of you are concerned about the marshalls being the problem. As earlier posts have said I can find no case of this. If this is to be used as an argument to oppose deployment then what do we do about the possiblity of flight crew endangering or destroying the aircraft? after all there are cases of that.

I am not a marshall or a government worker and only time will tell if this has been the right move. The fact is the situation is with us and is not going away and it is in evrybody's interest to work this out. I suspect that the lack of genral information (training, research, rules of engagement) has not helped ease doubts and I wish that these would be released.

I sincerely wish you all safe flying

[MasterBates]

We can of course all fly naked, pax will be stripped and a cork with FBI seal put up their a***, just in case, after a thorough cavity search performed by TSA. Their toenails will be trimmed before departure by a authorized TSA toe nail clipping team(TSA-TNCT), watched by FBI nail clipping Marshals (FBI-NCM). We all know that toenails can easily be turned into weapons of mass destruction. Then all cargo holds will be filled with polyurethane and sealed with another FBI seal. All luggage will be towed by sea in a special TSA raft, by a naked TSA crew, just in case. This means business for the American (read;Mexican) clothing industry because we arrive in the US naked, and there is probably capital punishment for such a gross offence there.

:8

[Tripower455]

Air marshal or no air marshal - do you think either would stop a suicide bomber??!

No more effectively than pulling the fire hand to lower the flaps.





For those of us on this side of the Atlantic, guns are extreme, last resort, extraordinary weapons, rarely encountered, and greatly feared.

Precisely the point at which an air marshall need a firearm. It is a last resort in an extreme situation.

[jammers]

Very useful comment MJ......now try applying the same reasoning at NJE your presumed place of employment and the lads might oneday offer you a position where even you could make a difference..........hip#okrit

[cargo boy]

I believe that Jim McAuslan will be making a statement tomorrow morning after his meeting with the government regarding BALPA's stance on armed sky marshals on UK registered aircraft.

Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive.shtml?link for the Radio Five Live breakfast show about 7.30am UK time.

[miss d point]

Anyone see the bbc news tonight where the female reporter walked through a fence straight onto the ramp at humberside where a brit 757 was boarding ?

[412A]

On top of all the other issues that plague BA at the moment, will the latest focus on BA as a specific target of Al-Queda be the final 'nail in the coffin'..? The press coverage here in the US is unrelenting in showing BA as the 'main' target of an imminent terrorist threat. I fear that this will result in a massive drop-off in forward bookings for the airline. I have always liked and respected BA, both for it's service, good natured crews, and innovative features, and I am genuinly worried that the airline is subject to a situation that is spinning rapidly out of control.

What is the feeling in the UK about this issue?

Best of luck to all at BA.


ps. I believe BALPA's initial position on the issue of sky marshals was short-sighted and devoid of logic....comments?

[Donkey Duke]

It probably won't help their summer bookings, and it might help the US airlines because people may think that BA is lax with security. The Balpa pilots not wanting air marshals will not help their cause. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Airbubba]

Poor airport security in the UK is nothing new. Any attempt to rectify the situation will be blamed on "foreign interests".

I walked onto the ramp at Heathrow without showing an ID a few years ago. Since Lockerbie things have improved but raising security to American standards is still a very novel concept as you can see from other threads here.

[Wino]

My understanding was that there were 3 frequencies a day on that route and they rolled the pax over to other flights. So BA's load factors probably went up. So oddly enough they have probably profited from it, unless the loads were significantly over 66 percent on all three flights to start with...

Atleast in the short term. In the long term, who knows. Bookings may have dipped on the UK side of the flight, but all evidence is that the US side traffic is rebounding quite rapidly still...

Cheers
Wino

[Speed of Sound]

To be honest, from this side of the water it is the US security that is being seen as a joke. (Have just heard that Flight 233 has been delayed again!)

There is either a problem with the aircraft, the baggage or a member or members of the passenger list. Why has this taken over four days to sort out?

As far as sky marshalls are concerned, I think you will find that most people here find the idea of anybody carrying a gun on an aircraft as greatly increasing the danger to that aircraft rather than decreasing it.

Rather than complying with the request for air marshals to travel on flights to the US, maybe our government should be thinking of banning all flights into UK airspace where it is known there are any armed passengers aboard.

SoS

[412A]

SOS, I appreciate that those of you who aren't citizens/residents of the USA have a 'detached' view of things as they develop here, but that doesn't change the fact that the US gov has a mandate to do everything they can to protect the citizens of this country. There is strong reason to believe that an imminent attempt is to be made to attack a BA aircraft (..read, one of YOURS!). What other way do you suggest that we/you handle it? I realise it is fashionable to think the US as a bully/thick/unsophisticated...etc, but it wasn't Westminster Abbey/St Pauls cathedral that was destroyed by a terrorist group bent on murdering as many citizens of the 'west' that they can. Perhaps you could consider the fact that western civilization is under attack by a new threat that could very well result in the destruction of whole cities if they succeed in obtaining and using the weapons that they seek. I suggest that the people who live in other western nations start to wake up to the grave threat we face, and appreciate the fact that the US is probably the only country in the world with the resources and WILL to sacrifice their own young soldiers (not to in any way devalue the soldiers of our allies) in a war that could last for decades. The world has changed and the 'old' ways will no longer suffice. You don't have to like our President, but don't question his conviction that the terrorist groups that have trained and grown over the past 10 years or so must be utterly destroyed. If you don't believe this is necessary, perhaps you could explain how you intend to 'negotiate' with people who think that the mere fact you are a 'westerner' is tantamount to being the 'spawn of hell' and that you should be destroyed....?

SOS, a further aside: The Israelies have had sky marshals for over 30 years. I would suggest that their safety record speaks for itself... What was that you were saying about armed men on board..?

[Danny]

The Israelies have had sky marshals for over 30 years. I would suggest that their safety record speaks for itself... What was that you were saying about armed men on board..?You can't introduce that argument unless you are prepared to admit that you have sensible security AND intelligence co-operation between your intelligence and security agencies in the first place. The Israelis also have competent passenger profiling and don't go into colour coded sound bites which hightens the sense of imminent danger every few weeks. They are at a normal level of alertness against terrorist attack and not reacting in a knee jerk fashion.

[SLF3]

Why doesn't the European Union ban flights WITH sky marshalls on board? If the Americans can impose having sky marshalls, presumably we can impose not having them.

Personally, I'm not sure that I would want the kind of person to whom the role of sky marshall would appeal as a career defending me in an emergency, or around me the rest of the time.

[miss d point]

:mad:

So the problem is that the govenment in the uk are failing us all.

Whilst they are obsessed with press announcements we who work at airports know that you can go into airport carparks and 'throw things over the fence' 'airside' or you if you have a mind can walk onto the apron (see bbc reporter at humberside yesterday) through a fence - (actually there wasn't even a fence)

Make no mistake the public are being mis-led by idiodtic politicians who haven't a clue what they are talking about and managers at airports who 'take the money' for adding new shopping malls.

what the public 'see' is strict security in the departure lounge but taking nail files from people is just utter nonsense and everyone knows it.

[bjcc]

There is a lot of fuss being made over these Marshals, firstly I am not in favour of them, for many reasons not just the 'what if they shoot the aircraft' argument.

However, the US side of this argument is right, if the US decides that they will only allow flights in if a proportion of them have sky marshals, then they have ever right to do it. If our goverment decides it wont allow aircraft with sky marshals to fly in our airspace then thats the way it is.

Whats been forgotten in all the hype though is sky marshals are not anything new as far as non UK airlines are concerned. Saudia carry them, El Al, numoeus African States' airlines have them and same goes for Gulf states. These airlines fly into our major airports everyday with Armed Marshals. Its rare if ever that you hear of an incident concerning these airlines, and lets face it if something did happen then it would hit the press before the dust had settled.

The US suddenly found out about international terrorism on Sept 11th. The rest of us knew all about it and had done so for years. I can imagine that in the early 70's if the internet had exisited then the indignation would have been aimed at us for introducing searching of passengers prrior to boarding. It is obvious that the security at US airports before Sept 11th was C***, the americans are obviously trying to improve it, yes they may seem over the top, but its thier county. At the end of the day the sort of terror the Americans are trying to stop is not the same as the IRA, or the Red Brigade or ETA, this lot are much more organised and willing to die in the act.

Better inteligence does help, so does better searching of pax/staff all the Americans are trying to do is have belt and braces by insisting on sky marsals.

I think everyone would be better accepting that they are going to be a fact of life but insisting that if we have to have them they are the right kind of people with the right training.

[Seat 32F]

Haven't waded through the whole of this thread, but I'm curious to know what the insurers' angle is on this? If the security situation is serious enough to warrant an armed anonymous passenger on board the aircraft, surely the airline's insurers would have something to say about the flight being allowed to proceed?

[Basil]

Unfortunately we often see kneejerk reactions from our politicians, both US and EU, who must be seen to do something by powerful news companies. Any important decision requires discussion and councelling BEFORE you blow the mofos away and glass their grass (irony warning - that means the last bit is not intended to be taken seriously!)
I'm not yet convinced that aircrew armed guards (please lets stop calling them skymarshals) are the answer. I'm no security expert yet I can think of one or two ways of circumventing them. I am however open to reasoned argument and if it is decided that we need them then that's the plan.
If the US requires armed guards on aircraft operating in US sovereign airspace then compliance will be a prerequisite of obtaining a clearance. I just hope that all countries required to comply will carefully select and train their guards. I regret that this will almost certainly not be the case.
Never forget that this is all due to a political situation in which we've become embroiled but discussion of that aspect is not permitted on this website.
As I've said before, I hope that there's a lot going on in the background that we don't know about and that those of us who know about commercial aircraft procedures are careful about what we post in public. Don't forget that a lot of PPRuNers are not commercial flightcrew despite efforts by some to appear so.
Finally, as Danny has said in so many words already, some of the trans-Atlantic rhetoric (in both directions) sounds like cowboys talking in the old films and we aren't cowboys, are we?


Seat 32F,
You'd probably be as surprised as I at some of the places we can operate to without an insurance surcharge.

[rotornut]

Airline rejects guns on flights
06.01.2004 [08:52]


Britain's biggest holiday flight operator, Thomas Cook Airlines, has become the first carrier to display open dissent to the government's new security requirements by refusing to carry sky marshals on flights to the US.
The company, which operates 40 flights a week through US airspace, broke ranks over measures viewed as draconian by many airlines and pilots.
Thomas Cook said if it were asked to carry armed marshals on any aircraft it would cancel the flight. It operates regular charter flights from Britain to Miami and Orlando in Florida, as well as services to Mexican and Caribbean resorts which fly over US territory.
A spokesman for the German-owned airline, formerly known as JMC, criticised the government for "rushing in" requirements "without proper consultation".
"Our view is that the skipper of an aircraft must be in overall command," he said. "We have a general concern about guns in aircraft cabins."
The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) will today meet the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, to argue vig orously against air marshals. It is worried about accidental injuries to passengers, for which it believes pilots could be held legally responsible.
Other airlines have privately taken the same position as Thomas Cook, although few are prepared to speak out.
British Airways is believed to be sceptical. At a meeting with pilots' representatives yesterday, the national carrier said it would not operate flights where there was any cause for concern over security. Insiders said this effectively ruled out the use of marshals.
Jim McAuslan, general secretary of Balpa, said talks with BA were continuing on how to react if the government insisted on deploying marshals randomly.
BA's twice cancelled afternoon service to Washington, flight 223, suffered another delay yesterday. More than 200 passengers had to wait three hours at Heathrow while US authorities examined the passenger list before clearing it for takeoff.
Mr Darling said suggestions that the service had been disrupted because BA was resisting marshals were "rubbish". Decisions to ground aircraft were taken when the government concluded it was the only safe thing to do, he said.



The Guardian Tuesday January 6, 2004

[alpha charlie]

Has anyone though to ask the travelling public what their opinion is, also the cabin crew? Where I am the first to respect the authority of the Commander of a flight in normal operation, once the cabin is siezed and he is locked behind his bullet proof cockpit door there is little the Captain can do control whats happening behind him, save dumping cabin pressure or throwing the aircraft around a bit and getting it on the ground, that I'd argue is enough to be getting on with in the situation, why resist additional help down the back? Yes, there are caveats on the training of the sky marshalls and the type of weapons employed etc. all I agree should be co-ordinated with airlines and their procedures established, that naturally offers a sensible approach.

The Sky Marshalls proposal is a last line of defence and offers a better bet than being without them. The risks of firearms in the cabin argument doesn't hold water, security people have been flying around with guns on board since flying began. Given the world we are living today, and the events we have witnessed over the past few years- thinking has to change- 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys. Every obstacle presented to a would be hijacker is the potential for failure, I as a travelling member of the public certainly support covert sky marshalling and Thomas Cook Airlines is one that I will avoid.

[Wino]

Not that bold a move because Thomas cook is a charter operator. Big deal, flights are always sold out (so not a big risk, its the low load flights that were targeted before) and as a charter airline you aren't selling direct tickets on the flight exactly but with in an interim buffer (you really don't know who you are flying when you book a package tour). Makes them extremely unuseable by a terrorist and they had virtually no chance of having a skymarshal on theplane in the first place because there would be no threat...

Lots of bluster there, but no risk because there will be no threats so no canceled flights. Or even better, since they subservice (wetlease) all the time, if they get a threat, flight still goes, just operated by another charter operator with skymarshal onboard. The only part that gets canceled is the TCA crew and plane. Pax will never know...

For BA, it will be a different can of worms and the question will be do they want to live with the canceled flights. There scope clause won't allow subservice so the only choice would be to cancel. That seams to be the compromise. Governments that have opted out, have agreed to cancel flights if there is a perceived threat against them.

It gets down to whether you think canceling the flight is the answer. Interestingly when the decision was made to cancel the flights, suposedly the "Wife and Children" test was used. (Would you put your wife and children on these flights) If that is the criteria they really used to cancel the flights, I guess I can't fault them. As a check airman that is the criteria I would use when signing a guy off...

Cheers
Wino

[412A]

Gosh Danny, you jumped on my 'Israeli' comment pretty quickly...!

You make a good point about the 'whole' picture regarding the intelligence aspects as well as the sky marshals, but I do detect a bit of 'NIVH' here syndrome when I hear Brits drone on about the 'obsessive US gun culture' and our 'bullying' demand to put onboard sky marshals...etc. Before you accuse me of being just another paranoid 'yank', I was born and raised in the UK for my first 20 years before immigrating to the US. It never ceases to amaze me how ill-informed other nationalities are about the USA and its people. The stereotypical branding and xenephobic outlook against the US is a constant source of amazement to me. Before anyone criticises the 'US gun culture', perhaps you could refer to the Economist magazines supplement on Crime, published about 3 years ago. It showed statistically that , EXCLUDING INNER CITY CRIME (...isolated areas where certain ethnic groups congregate) crime levels were LESS in the USA than EVERY other western nation. Yes, I am sure many of you will immediately be deeply offended at this....but perhaps you could review the Economist article first before slagging off this information. New York now has a lower crime rate than London, Paris and any other major city you wish to name. Perhaps it is time to wake up to the fact that the insular culture of the UK to guns is no longer sustainable.

Sky marshals are HIGHLY trained, and in the event of a major terrorist attempt to commandeer an aircraft will be your greatest asset. If I was commanding an aircraft and an attempt was being made to breach the cockpit door, the knowledge that a sky marshal was concealed in the passenger cabin would be of GREAT comfort. Time to accept that the Americans are setting the new standard of security....at least on any aircraft flying over MY head.

[McC]

Alpha Charlie

" 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys"

I'm a Captain and a BALPA member. I support BALPA in it's attempt to establish the correct protocol. We have had too many rushed and ill considered proposals pushed through by Govt departments which have done little to improve security. Take my swiss army knife from me at security but allow me access to a fire axe in the cockpit?

BALPA accept the inevitability of armed guards but are trying to make sure it is done properly. The principle of who is in command will no doubt be tested in a court in the future when an innocent passenger is injured and the Commander held responsible. I'm sure most UK armed guards would like the protocols agreed as well. We can't have their thoughts made public. There are no greater supporters of safety and common sense than Pilots.

Airlines like Thos Cook may also be under pressure from their insurers. Nothing is simple, but don't make ill informed criticism of my union please.

Peter McCambridge

[Seat 32F]

... and Bruce Willis like, the sky marshall springs from his economy seat and simultaneously manages to 'neutralise' all of a determined team or terrorists single handedly? At least that's how it works in the movies ... but in reality, would a single guard be enough on say a 747? Can't really visualise it myself ...

Personally I subscribe to the 'don't let the blighters get on the flight' school of thought. Having managed to walk through the security screens unchallenged at LHR with my mobile phone in my shirt pocket, and upon pointing this out to the security personnel there that said 'yeah that happens sometimes', it seems obvious that the thing to do before taking this crazy step is to beef up the existing arrangements so that they are at least adequate.

[Tripower455]

Personally I subscribe to the 'don't let the blighters get on the flight' school of thought.


This is a great idea, but, as with everything else in aviation, is better with several backups.

What need is there on an aircraft for auxiliary hydraulic systems, when the engineers could just design them not to fail in the first place?

Prevent engine fires by designing an engine that can't catch fire.

Prevent engine failures by designing engines that don't fail.

While stricter ground security is absolutely necessary, it cannot be relied on to keep the bad guys off passenger aircraft.

The maginot line worked great for our French brothers, didn't it?!

[Seat 32F]

This is a great idea, but, as with everything else in aviation, is better with several backups

Yep, so perhaps secondary security screening at the gate just before boarding would be an idea?

[Tripower455]

The Sky Marshalls proposal is a last line of defence and offers a better bet than being without them.

Not to be argumentative, but they are the second to last (third to last in the US) line of defense, the last being the future new hire in the F-Teen.








On another point, does the use of sky marshals now mean that pilots in the US (and UK) will now be allowed to start taking their nail clippers and Swiss Army knifes again or is that piece of stupidity still in force?

Nope. Even the armed pilots can have a gun, but can't have Swiss Army Knives....... :rolleyes: