Skymarshals Won't Work - BA

[The Guvnor]

From today's Scotsman

Growing doubts over ‘sky marshals’

AS AIRLINES across the world review security procedures, a rising number do not believe armed guards on planes are the answer.

British Airways is still to decide whether to use undercover "sky marshals", but company sources believe they would easily be overpowered by terrorists, who could then use their weapons to take control of the aircraft. One source said: "Undercover armed guards stand out like a sore thumb."

Captain Ian Hibberd, of the British Airline Pilots’ Association, believes the answer is to use a hi-tech security system with a central database into which information on passengers can be fed.

He said: "The focus must be on preventing disruptive passengers from boarding our aircraft in the first place."

[Roadtrip]

Guv -
Interesting article, but I think overstated. Sky marshalls are a good idea. I don't agree that they necessarily stand-out. Security should be composed of several layers.

First, intelligence that can be easily accessed/crosschecked with pax lists. Like it or not, some form of electronic picture ID is necessary to prevent thugs from easily assuming another identity. This ID would be cross-checked via secure computer database when making a reservation and again at check-in. To most Americans, this sounds onerous, but is a by-product of the times we live in. Possessing this ID would be a condition of carriage.

The second layer is sky-marshals on aircraft. Firearms with electronic safeguards are already developed that allow only the owner to fire them.

The third layer is the pax themselves. Given this new era of the suicidal muslim fanatic, there needs to be a fundamental shift of pax mindset to intervene, if necessary, to save themselves. Once in the aluminum tube, all the police in the world aren't going to do you any good.

The fourth layer is the cockpit door and flightcrew awareness/warning. There needs to be a way for the cockpit to monitor the cabin (cctv etc), electronic distress signals, etc. The cockpit doors need to reinforced and armored to prevent forced entry - perhaps a double door system, too.

The final layer of protection is from the filghtcrew themselves. This means a last-ditch lethal defense - a compact firearm with suitable ammunition permanently stored in quick access lockboxes beside each crew position. No longer can we surrender control of the aircraft to anyone for any reason. If a concern is losing control of the weapon (virtually impossible given the time and warning that would be afforded by the other safeguards), then a disposal chute could be installed permitting the weapon to be dropped through the floor into an inaccessible area of the aircraft.

Procedural methods and policy should be developed along side the physical ones and should not be published.

[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

[Wino]

Anyone capable of overpowering an armed guard and taking their weapons is ALREADY capable of overpowering the unarmed cabin and flight crew, so the terrorist taking the guards weapons doesn't increase their ability. They would already have had it. BUT, the armed guards would certainly be capable of foiling an attack of a lesser magnitude, AND would be there as a federal witness in cases of air rage (which is reason enough to have federal guards on aircraft).

Cheers
Wino

[maxy101]

Forgive my cynicism, but do you really think HM Gov and Customs are going to allow an aircraft registered weapon (pistol/stun device) on board a UK aircraft when they are against the law. To change these laws would involve pretty fundamental changes in UK law, which would lead to more of a US approach to being able to defend yourself and your home. Wasn't it only a few years ago that handguns were banned totlally from the UK after the Dunblane massacre? I would suggest it would be next to impossible to get such a law changed in the face of such a strong pressure group. I think that there will be a typical "UK" approach to this incident, i.e more standing in queues, more parking restrictions and higher prices. I hope that I'm wrong..... :mad:

[Tandemrotor]

It seems to me that there is a definite division in the 'skymarshalls' idea, between the US and certainly the UK. There has always been a gun culture in the States which can seem very strange to people in other (eg) European cultures. I suspect a number of people to the East of the 'pond' will struggle with the concept that the more guns there are on our A/C the safer we all are!

As an example, many people handle ,and for all I know, own handguns at very young ages in the States, but can't buy a beer 'til they are 21. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just different.

The idea of some of the people I fly with having access to a handgun in the flightdeck terrifies me as much as a crazy hijacker.

As far as re-inforced cockpit doors is concerned, let's get this all in perspective, how many aeroplanes have been deliberately brought down by passengers, and how many by suicidal pilots?? I think the scores are pretty close!

In my very humble opinion the answer lies in cutting edge technology in security screening. Not as sexy as all these guns, guns, guns, but probably far more effective in the long run.

Incidentally, perhaps the most ridiculous measure so far - plastic cutlery!

[Roadtrip]

Tandemrotor -
Lethal cockpit defense is the last ditch defense. It's a sad commentary on your the pilots you work with to say that you don't trust them with a firearm. Maybe if they're not trustworthy/responsible enough to be trusted, then maybe they shouldn't be trusted with the lives of their crew, passengers, and a multi-million dollar aircraft.

There would likely be 6000 more people alive today if the crew had some means lethal defense.

When the system has failed and three suicidal maniacs are beating your door to the cockpit down, what do you want to be holding, a firearm or your d**k?

[Wino]

If you are afraid of the person next to you in the cockpit with a gun, How do you get up to go to the bathroom? Obviously by your statement, your fellow pilots at your airline are not to be trusted.

As to the cockpit door locks, and the ratio of suicidal pilots to pax bringing down the aircraft. If the PILOT wants to bring down the airplane, there is nothing that a pax could do once he makes the decision, even if there is a captain on board, as proved by EGYPT AIR. HOWEVER, that locked door will most certainly keep out the terrorist if it is strong enough.

Cheers
Wino

[PAXboy]

Irrespective of the combination of solutions, the pax in Biz are going to be a whole lot less interested in asking for rows 1 and 2!!!

Of course, the ones who fancy themselves leaping up to overpower the terrorist and save the ship will still want 1C or D. ;)

[autoflight]

Resistance to increased security on board was proven, by he events of 11Sept01 to be a totally outdated concept.
Changing a few laws to facilitate the provision of armed Sky Marshalls is fairly insignificant, compared with World War 3.
"Armed" does not necessarily mean with conventional firearms.

[Tandemrotor]

I'm not absolutely certain, but, I think that if you check the poster's locations, you may be drawn to the same conclusions as me. In other words there IS a cultural difference between the two sides of the Atlantic.

Why, if the threat was so well understood in the States, wasn't security the same on domestic flights, as it has been for years in Europe? We have learned that terrorists are only tempted by vulnerable targets.

As regards the age for buying guns and beer, what is the legal age for buying guns/ owning guns in the US?

I don't have an axe to grind (honest) I just seek to highlight the different cultures.

If the result of all this is the US imposing certain restrictions on other nation's operators flying into the US, then I think we could be excused from thinking, why didn't you get your **** together before now!!!

I am genuinely sorry if what I have said causes any distress, but, perhaps we all have to look inwards, not outwards for answers.

Let's find a joint (and effective) response!

[CP32]

This is daft! Pistols accessible by each pilot will mean that a lot of them will get nicked (How many cleaners go through security in the US on the way home)? All pilots would have to go through an even more thorough vetting than they do to obtain an airport ID and then attend a weapons training course. There is no way that hand guns can be secured by each position with adequate security. The only way is to have double flight deck doors and locked cabinets only opened by sky marshals with the relevant keys. Besides I reckon the UK GCN (Gun Control Network) would rather the pax died and the aircraft crash anyway.

[pearsonrj]

I know Jack about the aircrew cabin procedures etc., but I'm afraid that the reality is that you will NEVER eliminate any possibility of a commercial aircraft from being hijacked. That being said, the best you can do is make the odds in your favour. Obviously increased scrutiny of passengers BEFORE they board is essential. I think Sky Marshals should definitely be considered, and if they prove to be more of a danger than a help then the idea should be discarded. Personally I can't see how an inconspicuous person with a non-lethal weapon can be more of a hindrance than a help in 99% of cases. It also adds some uncertainty to the terrorist side of the equation...

[Tripower455]

This is daft! Pistols accessible by each pilot will mean that a lot of them will get nicked (How many cleaners go through security in the US on the way home)?

The weapons should be secured on the individual, not the aircraft. Police do not keep their primary firearms in their cars....they are on their belt, where they are secure AND accessible.

All pilots would have to go through an even more thorough vetting than they do to obtain an airport ID and then attend a weapons training course.

That's no problem.......anyone with the intelligence AND judgement to be an airline pilot can be trained to operate a machine as simple as a firearm safely. If they can't, then they REALLY should be looking for a new line of work! The point that a lot of folks are missing is the fact that YOU ALREADY HAVE A WEAPON!!!!!! The airplane! If you can be trusted with the lives of several hundred people in it, not to mention the ones on ground under you, then what is the big deal about trusting you with a gun? A gun is a TOOL.

WE are the LAST line of defense (until the sidewinder enters the cabin), so why not give us the tools to defend the ship? If the terrorist gains access to the cockpit, it is all over. All of the "security" measures taken on the ground, profiling of passengers, banning nail clippers, checking the flight crew's ID on through flights is for naught once the animals get into the cockpit. The ONLY recourse we have is the laws of physics, which may or may not work!

There is no way that hand guns can be secured by each position with adequate security.

See my above comment about police.......

The only way is to have double flight deck doors and locked cabinets only opened by sky marshals with the relevant keys.

Make the pilots the sky marshalls, and you no longer NEED a key OR locked cabinet!

Besides I reckon the UK GCN (Gun Control Network) would rather the pax died and the aircraft crash anyway.

They sound like our communi......errrr....liberal democrats here in the states........

[Roadtrip]

There was no security "breach" on those flights. These people could not be denied boarding just because they were mid-eastern. Their weapons were ordinary everyday tools that were turned into weapons. There were several of them on each flight. The pax were conditioned to be passive (don't worry, the government will come to the rescue). The crew was conditioned by years of invalid indoctrination to be passive. There was no security personnel on the aircraft. AND, once it was obvious that these islamic fanatics were bent on mass-murder and massive destruction, the crew had no lethal means of defense. End result 6000 slaughtered, 100,000 people out-of-work in the aviation industry alone, and on-and-on.

What simple thing may have saved thousands of lives? -- Yes, a last ditch lethal defense of the cockpit -- A strong door and armed pilots. Any system to screen, sift, passengers etc will fail sooner or later, especially against suicidal fanatics. This is a no-brainer gentlemen. You must have a last-ditch defense. To not have the will and simple weapons to save lives is not only stupid, it's plainly immoral, IMHO.

[kelvin]

The federal air marshall scheme wasnt that sucessful before, thats why it got canned. The key to stopping more incidents like this, is improved screaning pasengers, and making it more effectively, and improved shared intelligence between agencies. Probably the only really benifit to the air marshall program is improving consumer confidence in flying again.

[GeofJ]

A few of the earlier posts touched on a key point regarding sky marshals - if the terrorists can overpower a highly trained and professional law enforcement officer who is heavily armed then they probably are already in the cockpit doing whatever they choose! These are people who are doing whatever they can to kill as many of us as they can - each flight should be equipped to fight back. Who cares of the marshal is easily identified. A 300 lb linebacker type known to be armed may be just the deterrent needed if not for terrorists than at least for the loony air ragers.

[BJBATMAN]

The more I read the more I agree with Tripower 455!!!

[autoflight]

Airlines with sky marshals and good security don't have hijacks.
Now that should be a fairly simple thing for regulators, airlines, aviators, PPRuNers and journalists to grasp.

[Dissi Loo Shunned]

I think we need to look at this from a different angle. Why not give everyone who checks in a crash axe. That way as soon as someone decided they wanted to break wind in the halls of the mighty with Allah, the rest of the pax could ensure that that happened long before they got to the cockpit.

Sorry - thought this thread was getting a bit too heavy. Guns in the cockpit indead!

[The flying gunman]

Gentlemen,
I understand the reasons why a lot of pilots are asking to be armed but the ignorance of some people is astounding!.Tripower 455 states that a firearm is simple to use and is only a tool.
OK I am serving police officer and I provide armed protection to the Prime Minister and other senior Government ministers so I feel qualified to comment here
Yes,anyone can fire a gun but what requires immense training is tatics.On an aircraft you would require at least three highly trained'skymarshalls'(I personally would recommend four).To get to the standard that I am at has taken eighteen weeks of firearms and tatics training alone,these courses have an 80% failure rate.So if we send pilots on these courses what happens to the 80% that fail.There is then constant training (five days every six weeks in my case).So pilots would now have all this on top of their training.Any lower standard is totally unacceptable.
My point is that a highly trained team would be very succesful on an aircraft.Pilots with basic firearms training would be a danger to everyone.Stick to flying the plane guys.

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: The flying gunman ]

[Ivan Ivanovich]

I couldn't agree more with the Flying Gunman. What we are arguing on here is the difference in attitude between Americans and possibly the rest of the World with respect to firearms. Basically the Americans are itching to wear one. You only have to walk through Imigration in the US to see all the Immigration Officers uniformed and tooled up. What on earth do they need weapons for? It's threatening and imposing; it doesn't set a welcoming image for visitors to America.

The point is that there is such a different attitude towards guns over there and this is the fundemental argument stand point prevailing on this thread. It sounds like the American pilots can't wait to stroll through airports wearing their six shooters!

[SunSeaSandfly]

The flying gunman
What level of skill/tactics are we talking here?
The system has already failed at least four times.The intelligence, the screening, the weapons scan, the skymarshal(s) have all failed to stop the terrorist. He is about to appear in a fixed frame 6 feet by 4 feet.
This is the last chance for 200 passengers and 6000 people on the ground.
The pilots better have something more than a tin whistle and a flashlight.

[Celtic Emerald]

I saw a programme on Skymarshals recently. There picked & trained to blend in with the pax & not to stand out as security, they could be the fat, middle aged guy with the beer belly or the petite little lady who looks like she hasn't the capability to overpower anything but they are all highly trained fit people who are trained solely to operate in an aircraft environment.

Trouble is it's alright for a small airline like El Al, who with their limited fleet can afford as they claim to have skymarchals on each flight but for large airlines like BA etc the question is would it be economically viable on every aircraft on a long term basis. No doubt the pax would expect a major hike in their ticket price to cover the cost & alot of people are going to need to be trained up for the job.

Personally the presense of a skymarshal in the WTT case would have deterred the pilots giving into the blackmail of opening the cockpit door to come to the rescue of the FA's. Pilots are supposed to fly planes, not be bloody security experts. It's either that or seal off the aircraft from the cabin which it seems poses it's own problems.

I agree that proper screening, security & profiling on the ground is the best option in the case where a bad egg does slip through skymarshals sound like a good but expensive option to me, & let the pilots get on with the job of flying the plane.

Anyway it seems in the case of one of the hijacked aircraft in the WTT incident the hijacker did not have to force his way into the cockpit but was invited courtesy of the crew because he was a pilot. He may have been in there before takeoff & even at the controls, it's just too frightening to think about. Looks like the cockpit is going to end up being a no go area for anyone unknown to the crew be they pax or pilots because of these feckin eejits :mad:

Emerald

[Hooking Fell]

September 11 should have been a wake up call to everyone to implement the highest possible levels of security both at airports and in aircraft.

Just a fortnight later, in this very thread, some people are already concentrating on the niceties or otherwise of handling guns in a plane, conveniently forgetting that the alternative could well be flying yet another airliner into a skyscraper ...or perhaps a nuclear power station.

Can we please have a reality check?!?! We don't hear about many hijackings of El Al planes, do we?

[The Guvnor]

SeaSunSandFly - if you have a secure door you should be ok. Heroics which are more likely to get the flight deck crew taken out (especially if the professional skymarshals have already been neutralised) will result in the almost certain demise of the aircraft and all on board anyway.

In any event, there's a crash axe on pretty much all flight decks - a whack on the gun hand or head with that would be as effective (and as realistic as the crew being able to act as a successful 'last line of defence').

The flying gunman is spot on - if all crews are going to have to be armed, then what happens with the 80%+ that will fail the courses? They won't be permitted to fly? Now that will resolve the pilot glut situation! :D :D :D

I'm rather more concerned about where these skymarshals are going to come from - and who's going to pay for them. We did the economics on an earlier thread, and it's mind boggling. The proportion of police officers approved to carry and use weapons as a percentage of the overall force is small - and the numbers of officers in specialist firearms units is smaller still. No wonder BA don't think it's viable!

Incidentally, as The flying gunman will confirm, a rigorous battery of psychometric tests are used to determine the fitness of an officer to carry a firearm. Not too surprisingly, Rambo-wannabes are given the thumbs down - so on that basis, I think a very large proportion of those strongly advocating their carriage and use by pilots would fail that particular test!

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[Tripower455]

Gentlemen,
I understand the reasons why a lot of pilots are asking to be armed but the ignorance of some people is astounding!.

Were you referring to me?

Tripower 455 states that a firearm is simple to use and is only a tool.

Is it not? Or has a simple, inanimate object been elevated to a mystic stance in YOUR society?

OK I am serving police officer and I provide armed protection to the Prime Minister and other senior Government ministers so I feel qualified to comment here
Yes,anyone can fire a gun but what requires immense training is tatics.


For the purpose of this discussion, the tactics required would be to hit a hostile at close range in a confined space. In MY world (B-737), there isn't room for 2 people to even get into the cockpit quickly, and if the door is reinforced, it would NOT be a surprise. It is a simple matter to have one pilot start down towards an alternate field, while the other guards the door. If the animals get in, it is a simple matter of emptying the mag into a 3x6 foot space. The purpose of arming pilots is not to prevent loss of life in the cabin. That concern went out the window 2 weeks ago. We are now trying to prevent our ship from turning into a cruise missile. The way it is NOW, we have little that we can do to prevent it.....

I agree that training will be required, but we are talking LAST DITCH utilization of the weapon. If the terrorists get control of the aircraft the point is moot.

On an aircraft you would require at least three highly trained'skymarshalls'(I personally would recommend four).

That would be a great comfort, but HIGHLY impractical. Suppose the t's make it into the cockpit, and all 4 sky marshalls are still alive, but the pilots aren't? Do you propose that we train sky marshalls to be airline pilots? Would the sky marshalls force the t's to fly the aircraft? Don't you think it would be easier to train the pilots in the proper use of firearms in this situtaion?

To get to the standard that I am at has taken eighteen weeks of firearms and tatics training alone,these courses have an 80% failure rate.

For your line of work, there are LOTS more variables! VIP protection is so dynamic, that I am not surprised that the training is tough. It should be. We are talking about a very specific situation. With reinforced cockpit doors that are locked from the inside, there would be at least a few seconds to react before the threat is in the cockpit. There is only one way in to the cockpit.

So if we send pilots on these courses what happens to the 80% that fail.There is then constant training (five days every six weeks in my case).

VIP protection is a lot different than the scenario we are discussing.

So pilots would now have all this on top of their training.Any lower standard is totally unacceptable.

Apples and oranges......see above comments....

My point is that a highly trained team would be very succesful on an aircraft.

I agree, but since that ISN'T going to happen, how about the next best thing?

Pilots with basic firearms training would be a danger to everyone.

Actually, I've been around firearms my entire life, and the in my experience, the only person more dangerous with than a pilot with a gun, is a COP with a gun (I've got a hole in the hood of my pickup to PROVE that!)!

I have had concealed weapon permits in 2 states (GASP!) since I was 18. I am now 36, and rarely leave the house unarmed. I shoot a lot, and have NEVER had an AD (I almost always carry a single action auto). I have had several courses in the tactical use of a sidearm (never in the context of an airliner....). I am truly confidant that with proper instruction, that air travel (or at least office workers) will be safer with armed pilots.

Stick to flying the plane guys.

I wish we could....These animals have changed the job immensely!


The point is that there is such a different attitude towards guns over there and this is the fundemental argument stand point prevailing on this thread.

I agree. The hoplophobes over in the UK have you guys afraid of your own shadow. Keep your heads in the sand and we WILL see more civilian aircraft turned into cruise missiles........

It sounds like the American pilots can't wait to stroll through airports wearing their six shooters!

It sounds to me like the rest of you folks can't wait to have your throats slit and your a/c flown into a building!

[Tan]

Hi Tripower455

I have mixed feelings over arming pilots. In the early '70s many of my US peers admitted to the carrying of handguns in their flight bags, but the hijackings still continued. Admittedly the events of Sept 11 have altered the picture radically.

However, what may work on domestic US air travel will not fly on an international scale, because of the difficulties of getting the rest of the world’s laws and opinions on side.

If the world does nothing to improve security the situation is only going to get worse. So trying something different, anything, is a whole lot better then the alternate. The question is what?

Personally I feel that a multi-layered approach is the best way to solve this dilemma. Unfortunially there is no one “magic bullet”

[Tandemrotor]

Tripower455

I was interested to read that you had a permit to carry a concealed weapon at 18. Did you have to wait another 3 years before you could buy a beer?

Or have I got this wrong somewhere?

[Tripower455]

I was interested to read that you had a permit to carry a concealed weapon at 18. Did you have to wait another 3 years before you could buy a beer?

Yup! In NY, it is (was? I got mine in '83, it might have changed.......) legal to get a target permit, which permits you to carry a pistol concealed to and from the gun range, or while hunting. The logic being that since you were the one that went through the backround check etc, the powers that be would rather YOU kept control of the firearm if you stop for gas or milk on the way home.

The funny thing about the law here is that, even at that time, one had to be 21 to buy a pistol from a retail establishment. Private transfers were ok. I am not sure if this has changed since I moved from that state in '87.

As far as the beer, you are correct. I could carry a pistol (under certain circumstances) but was not allowed to drink a beer......makes sense to me too........ :rolleyes:

[Rabbit]

I don't want to be armed in my private life so why would I want to be armed in the cockpit, nor do I want my F/O to be armed. However, for the last 10 years I have operated for a Company that carries several armed Airmarshals on almost every flight. However, there is only one group of routes we are prevented by the authorities from doing so, you guessed it, accross the Atlantic into and out of the US. On the routes to and from the US our airmarshals carry out a final check on all pax as they board as usual but do not travel on those flights. I think that negotiations are currently in progress to correct this.

Having worked this way for the last 10 years I am still in two minds as to whether they (the airmarshals) could be successful. My real worry is that they might get jumped and their weapon used by hyjackers. I personally would prefer that we keep our enhanced final boarding security and not carry armed Airmarshals.

Have a nice day

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: Rabbit ]

[Capt Homesick]

What's been interesting in the last few days is how many of my non-aviation friends (in the UK, mostly fairly anti-gun in their ideas) think I should be armed now. Ok, so it's nice that they think I can be trusted, but I'm not sure about the practicality of it.
It's all very well to sit by the door and wait for the maniacs to try and break in, but would I be able to do that when they are murdering the girls down the back, or would I be tempted to go back there and try to save them? And there goes the whole "fortress flightdeck" idea....

[Ontheairwaves]

Guvnor
SKy Marshalls already fly on US carriers randomly on international flights....perhaps you don't know this but that's because unless you are the flight crew and cabin crew on that particular flight you wouldn't notice them or pick them out.
When i worked on the ground before flying we dealt with Sky Marshalls on a regular basis on international flights and nobody was any the wiser.
They are trained to blend in with their surroundings and are of different shapes and sizes just like ever body around them.
The crew know where they are seat and there isn't anything in the flight log or passenger manifest to indicate that marshalls are on board.
I think that until now a threat had been perceived to be from international and not from within the US and that's why now the FAA are recruiting so many more to have them travelling on domestic flights.
The only problem i can see with them in Europe is the respective country's law regarding people possessing firearms....
Perhaps when the EU next meet they could sort out an agreement to allow such people to operate.

[The Guvnor]

See: Bush to Announce Aviation Security Measures Thursday (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/26/rec.bush.aviation/index.html)

Most importantly:

The sources said the administration also will embrace new measures, both short-term and long-term, designed to improve cockpit security. But the White House firmly opposes the idea of letting pilots carry hand guns in the cockpit, according to several sources who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity.

So it's "no" to the cowboys, then! :D :D :D

[Dagger Dirk]

Some futuristic alternatives to all the knee-jerking and barn-door closing:

at this link (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

[Tan]

Nice toy at this link..
http://www.neosoft.com/~sky/CellGun/

[Tandemrotor]

Right, that's it. I've come to the conclusion that all these American pilots are absolutely bloody spot on! I'm not going to feel safe now until I can carry a HK MP5 machine pistol with me on to the flight deck. The reason? Every single other measure I have seen, or had imposed on me is absolutely bl**dy useless!

When will these t*ss*rs learn, it's a bl**dy dangerous world out there, and none of us are safe until we're more dangerous than 'they' are. Come on CAA / FAA let me at 'em!!!

[Roadtrip]

Careful Tandemrotor, you'll be put on a watch list for having the audacity to want to defend yourself - you cowboy, wild-west, reactionary, gun-nutter.

Looks like arming pilots in the US will not be approved. In the meantime, the politicians and companies rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. What's different about security now from that of 11 Sept? Not much. How about next month? Probably not much.

Won't make much difference to a lot of us anyway -- we'll be out of jobs in the next few months while these buffoons wring their hands, hold committee meetings, and thump their chests about what a wonderful job Jane Garvey is doing at the FAA. It's really embarassing to watch.

Grades:
Government Leadership - zero
Company Leadership -- zero
Common sense used -- zero

[ 27 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

[BOING]

Roadtrip is right.

Enhanced security is a joke. They still have not found my nails scissors after many trips through the X-ray machine. I just make sure they are viewed edge-on rather than flat.

The cockpit door is still the same old flimsy deal, they have not even added a deadbolt. Boeing is "studying" the problem because "it is more complicated problem than it seems".
Sky marshals are being HIRED, god knows when we will see them. Probably three months at least.

Politicians pump hot air. Companies do not want to spend money. Our company wants you to provide ideas but loses interest if your idea is to radical to fit in with their present plans.

Bin Laden must be laughing his socks off and all the copy-cat terrorists are making their plans.

[Farside]

Now not only do I have to battle two engine out approaches in the Sim, we now also will have the Loft session with a crazy Mulla running into the cockpit, trying to grap the controls while we nervously try to get to our guns and start a full shoot out. With the type of instuctors I know they would most probably activate this scenario, passing the outermarker, two engines out, dual hydraulic failure and Cat 3 wx. In the debrief the critism is something like " Good CRM, missed RWY and terrorist!!
Let's get real guys, the last line of defence is not a gun in the cockpit!!

[Julian]

There has been a discussion on another thread regarding this but as regards UK law I dont think it would even be entertained to allow you to land. You are, after all a pilot, you are not police, military or any other organisation! It would be paramount to us saying 'OK, lets allow all our bus drivers to carry firearms'.

Although it may be a viable option for internal US flights, for Transatlantic flights you may have to carry some suitable alternative. Unfortunately stun guns are illegal in the UK as well.

Its going to be a balance between flight deck security and satisfying the laws of the destination country. To look at it another way, the use of Class A drugs is commonplace in some countries around the world but I am sure if US Customs had a plane inbound that was packed full of the stuff for the owners use they would have something to say about it! :rolleyes:

Julian.

[fen boy]

Just a note to those of you calling for the JAA or CAA to take action over arming you - neither body has any remit for security and does not have the powers to make these requirements. In the UK all aviation security is dealt with by the Government through the DTLR.

The FAA is a Government body in the USA and does have this power.

[The Ticketor]

This is a very interesting discussion, but I would like to briefly focus on another problem that we had long before 11SEP, and that is unruly pax. We have all heard about pax being banned for life, for a year or whatever. But what our employers don't say is that there is no system to prevent a banned person from flying. I don't know of one single carrier with a system in place to check if the pax are on the "black-list" or not. There might be one or two, but I seriously doubt it. I know that my airline does not have such a system, because it's borderline illegal (storing personal info without conscent). Well, I think it should be put into the Conditions of Carriage that the carrier has the right to store such info. There is at least one system on the market that checks these things (check out www.fly-safe-com), (http://www.fly-safe-com),) and I think every carrier should have a proper system in place. Right now, the only thing preventing the banned pax to fly is that they don't want to run the risk of being stopped. I have myself stopped one pap from flying, but only because I heard from his tvl agt that he had a problem on one of our flights. I called our flt safety dep, and they told me to not let him go. If I hadn't heard of it, nothin would have stopped him!

If your carrier has another system, it would be nice to hear about it.

[Scotflight Aviation]

Guys & Ladies...I've alraedy stirred things up a bit on this subject in other topic on this forum (ALPA to ask...)
It's good to see comments from both sides of the argument being made with more thought now rather than opinionated ignorance.
trying to summarise all comments..here's my thoughts on this:
it certainly looks like the Americans (at least) are going to have some form of weaponry on board airliners. If that happens, increasing the likelihood of other airlines (including British ones) to be targetted.
Here are the answers I'd make to the following comments I've seen and heard:
*********************************************
Q)WHAT SECURITY MEASURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED?
A)Anything and everything, not soely but as a combination of efforts. Guns, telescopic batons, skymarshalls, armoured cockpits etc, but each one with rigorous thought placed before implementation, training where required, and perhaps all combined. For example, If a skymarshall is on board, why not also allow a cabin crew member to be trained in another form of self-defence (with or without weapon)
*******************************************
Q) SHOULD ALL PILOTS CARRY GUNS?
A) No. Only those who have been police vetted , properly trained, and willing to carry the gun and associated responsibility, and with his or her employer's approval should do so. I also believe that there should be a maximum percentage of pilots who may carry, allowing each pilot to deny posession as required to unwelcome curiosity, and also for easier gun control by the authorities.
*******************************************
Q)SHOULD THE GUN BE KEPT IN THE COCKPIT?
A) No,A gun which fit one person doesn't necessarily fit the next. Each armed pilot should have own gun. Place each gun directly in the responsible hands of only the person vetted as responsible for it. This gun to be kept on the person at all times.
Then there will be no excuse for it going missing.
Also, if each pilot has his or her own gun this gives them more scope for regular practice.
*****************************************
Q) SHOULD PILOTS LEAVE GUNS IN AIRPORT ARMOURY OR TAKE HOME WITH THEM?
A)Take home. If individual is vetted and trained for such responsibility, then why should he or she then be treated as irresponsible once leaving the airport? And especially if heavy penalties are imposed if individual does something stupid, like flash it around or get drunk while carrying or something like that.
Also, many pilots are based between airports and often asked to report at one or the other.
******************************************
Q)PILOTS ARE ONLY CIVILIANS, SO SHOULD THEY CARRY GUNS?
A) Does it matter? Why does this word "civilian" seem to keep accusing people of being irresponsible. The world seems to be full of this "let other people sort the problem out" syndrome.Is the commander of an airliner with lives in the back any less responsible or less capable than a young soldier boy?
*****************************************
Q)THE GUN MIGHT DISCHARGE ACCIDENTALLY
A) Guns don't do that unless someone's being stupid and tampering with it. Firmly fixed into pilots case or holster/wherever, and untouched it won't go off if it has a safety catch. All sensible semi-automatic pistols have safety catches. Revolvers instead have a sliding plate which, when the trigger is not pulled, slides between the hammer and cartridge, so even if the gun was to drop and land on it's hammer , it wouldn't fire.
*****************************************
Q)WHAT ABOUT BULLETS IN PRESSURISED AIRLINER?
A)I used to make my own ammo. It's possible to make man-downing ammunition (large calibre) which wouldn't penetrate a thin sheet of aluminium. I have deliberately tried this and the bullet simply mushroomed and bounced back. The same calibre of bullet with the same charge of gunpowder was enough to humanely kill a large sheep (which I believe have thicker skin and skulls than humans)
Having said that, I'm not sure what strengthening may be advisable to airliner windows.
Careful work has to be done by the ammuntion manufacturer to match the charge of powder to both the calibre and weight of bullet and also the length of gun barrel.
Ammunition suitable for one gun might not be suitable for another, even if it's of same calibre.
Also such low charges may be unsuitable to action a semi-automatic pistol. Revolvers may be required, and they require more training and regular practice to rrapid-fire due to their heavier trigger action.
*******************************************
Q)COULD PILOT SHOOT DOWN 5 OR 6 HIJACKERS?
A)Probably not. But Might get 2 or 3 of them giving others a better chance to overpower, especially if, as I said earlier, each method of defence is combined with others on board...batons, zappers etc.
Besides, Most revolvers only carry 5 or 6 rounds depending on calibre.
Anyway, we're not necessarily talking about 5 or 6. we're probably going to get suicidal loners..equally dangerous, but hopefully easier to overcome.
But isn't the whole idea of this to DETER hijackings in the first place?
*************************************
Q)WHAT ABOUT LOGISTICS OF CO-ORDINATING LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO ALLOW GUN CARRYING?
A)Not my problem.That's for governments to figure out. If I plan to fly to a country which won't allow guns(or have too-high expectation of diverting) then in that case
I won't carry, but will get all crew and ground security to pay attention to the other aspects of whatever security /defence measures we can still carry.
******************************************
Q)WHERE TO ARM/DISARM GUN AT AIRPORT OR NIGHTSTOP?
A)Common sense required here. The law in UK when pistols were legal (for target shooting only) were that guns could only be loaded at firing point on approved shooting range.
Things are going to be different when carrying for defence. How about loading/unloading simply when out of sight of public. In the cockpit,in hotel room, in airline crew office or crew toilet?
Possession of a gun isn't a big deal as long as basic commonsense is applied.Keep it hidden & keep it secure and nobody will get hurt.
*******************************************
Q)DO YOU EXPECT PILOTS TO NIGHTSTOP AND GO TO HOTEL BAR FOR DRINKS WITH A GUN?
A)Again, common sense required. The old law in UK was that gun holders couldn't enter licenced premises. However, when travelling for a 2 day competition, shooters had to eat. The only places that served food in evenings were usually licenced restaurants.I checked this with police at time and their answer was simply to be sensible. Enter to get a meal but stay away from boozing it up at the bar. If a pilot intends to do that sort of thing, then either don't carry gun in first place, or leave gun at airport armoury/police, if such facility exists.
Besides, I think guns and alcohol are a poisonous recipe and would expect some fairly stringent laws saying somthing along the lines of no alcohol whatsoever for several hour prior to, and when in possession of a gun.
*********************************************
Q)HOW MUCH TRAINING WOULD PILOTS NEED TO BE COMPETENT?
A)Lots. I was disturbed during the aftermath of the dunblane tragedy when MPs stated that "there's no skill in shooting...you just point and shoot.."
That's a bit like telling a golfer that there's no skill required to simply hit a ball with a stick..a comment which , even as a non-golfer, I would expect to receive a well-earned torrent of verbal abuse from golfers.
Shooting isn't as straightforward as Hollywood pretends. Even at point-blank range, rapid firing a revolver isn't easy.
For this reason I believe pilots should be able to take guns home in order to have the availablity to visit their nearest police firing range, whenever it suits them.
They should also complete a series of exercises involving rapid fire and slow fire techniques, at differet distances, and pass such shooting competecy checks on a minimum score/minimum number of visits basis.
****************************************
Q)WON'T THE PUBLIC BE EVEN MORE SCARED OF FLYING IF THEY THINK THERE'S A GUN CRAZED LOONY DRIVING THE PLANE?
A)Probably, but I reckon just as many who have beeen scared of flying for fear of hijacking would be reassured that there's a responsible trained individual with a slightly better chance than before of defeating a hijacker.
**************************************
I'd like to extend these comment to electric zappers and cs sprays, but as I've said in previous comments, I know nothing about them and leave those of you who do to educate me on these. Before I sign off, may I say this..
Many people have made comments about "That would be useless.." and "That won't work.." etc but how many times have I flown over the freezing seas with no form of ditching defence except a pathetic lifejacket which will keep us alive for about 5 minutes?
Totally useless, but what harm does it do to carry them?..just in case we ditch next to a ship..?

Keep the comments coming folks.

[Moose]

I have been following the comments on this topic and the ALPA arming flight crew with great interest. For me, the jury on carrying guns on the flight deck is still out.

Being on the east side of the Atlantic, I would prefer not to see fire arms on board an aircraft. Being ex-military and having had experience of the underhand and cowardly way terrorists go about there business, I am surprised nobody has picked up on there evil tactics. The pro gun group have been extolling the virtues of flight crew, in particular the flight deck members citing that if they are capable of commanding an aircraft they are capable of using a lethal tool. Does that hold true when the terroist is at your house holding your family to ransome?

I read in the paper some years ago about a country farmer who was chained to a tractor with an 8000lb homemade bomb in the trailer. He was told to drive it into a military check point close to his farm. He was on his way and was only reprieved from being blown to bits when the trailer bogged in. Why was he driving on a certain death mission? Because he was trying to save his family who were being held hostage. He was dead man. If he refused, he saw his family murdered before he was. If he did as ordered, he was dead but may be his family would be saved.

Will flight crew act in the best interest of the flight when subjected to such pressures? I feel that there will always be a weak link in everbodies character that a well trained terror merchant could exploit. Having lethal force on an aircraft maybe saves the terrorist the job of smuggling equipment on board.

I am glad that these issues are being thoroughly discussed. Out of all the different points being made, may be a solution will be found that protects our industry as best it can from the evil of terrorism.

[Dragonspet]

Well this thread has turned from how to control Terrorist, to a Right to bear arms issue. I will go on record as a pro gun ownership advocate. I have owned a gun since the age of twelve and currently own 32 firearms, with a license to carry a concealed handgun and do so on a regular basis. In light of the fact that I have had in my possession for 25 years a gun/guns, never shooting anyone on propose or accidentally goes to prove that guns alone are not dangerous; guns in the hands of untrained, uneducated person now there is a potential accidental shooting. The key wording is properly trained personnel.
Having discussed this with several pilots not one of them came across as Gung Ho, or portrayed any enthusiasms at all to the concept of carrying a weapon. But all of them stress the desire to protect innocent peoples lives. Several posting from the UK come across as all Americans are barbarians using the words “Redneck” and “Cowboy” we are simply a nation facing an uncertain future; grasping for short term solutions to a problem that has been overlooked for a long time. Whatever measures the US ultimately decides on, will not be forced upon any other country, we are after all a democracy. Perhaps the answer would be arming the appropriate personnel with weapons other than firearms (Tazer, Stun guns, all are effective at incapacitating a man) in the UK with the cultural differences that exist between us, not to mention the US Constitution. Gun control will not stop terrorist! A point to ponder, if a terrorist is on a plane and spots a crazy armed redneck would he not just sit back and enjoy the flight?
The ads for Sky marshals went out, within a week 150,000 people have applied for the job, with that much interest surely the required number would qualify and pass all fire safety/control training as well as the required psychological testing. Pilots are conditioned for recurring training and Psyche testing this would just give them one more leg up when contract negotiations came around.

[ 27 September 2001: Message edited by: Dragonspet ]

[buzz]

There is a case for an individual/s trained (properly) in aviation security to be part of the crew. Whether this individual/s should be armed or readily identifiable is another question.

[Dagger Dirk]

Looks like there's some people in the Bush Administration interested in the IASA RoboLander concept.
Either that, or G.W. is an IASA fan. Or maybe he just reads Air Safety Week.
And of course, Air Safety Week said it first again!

Might develop into his version of JFK's aim "to put man on the Moon by the end of the decade". (which means he'd have to follow through).
We shall see.
But it'd be a nice poke in the eye for terrorism if the WTC outrage were to promote yet another spurt in technology-based Western Prosperity - entirely based on a terrorism-inspired quest for another needed plateau in high tech safety and security.
Doncha just love the irony. :D

Extract from Pres G.W. Bush's Chicago O'Hare Speech on Airline Security (28 Sept 01).

"And third, we will set aside $500 million in new funding for aircraft security. Grants will go to airlines for enhanced cockpit protection. We look forward to working with the pilots and airlines to fortify doors and provide stronger locks so our pilots will always be in command of the airplanes.

We will invest in new technology for aircraft security, with grants to develop transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit; video monitors in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin.

And we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe, and for example including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.

With all these actions, we're returning airlines back to the American people. "
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010927/us/bush_security_text_1.html
http://www.iasa-intl.com/security/text_of_bush_security_speech.html
http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm

[Human Factor]

I've not read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating what others have already said but the cultural differences on each side of the Atlantic WRT guns have already been mentioned.

Tripower suggests that the only secure way to store a handgun onboard an aircraft is for it to be on the pilot's belt, as would be the case for a police officer. Clearly this is the case in the US, but on our side of the pond the police are not routinely armed. The weapons in the Armed Response Vehicles are secured in a locker unless they are required. If we must have guns onboard, then this is how I would like to see it done. Ideally though, there should be a better solution ........

[Do28]

I will also go on record as not only being pro-gun, but a card-carrying, beer drinking NRA member. With respect to the cockpit, however, I think a handgun is the wrong tool for the job. I think we need to look more in the taser/OC foam direction. OC spray can be sucked into the recirc fans and affect unintended people. The foam would at least stick to the target. All of the cabin crew and flight crew should have them. This, in combination with air marshalls AND better screening AND a better flight deck doors is probably the most realistic chance we have. The biggest possible downside that I see is the possiblity of being punished by as many as half a dozen young women in flight attendents uniforms with tasers might attract a certain type of individual to fly. ;)

[Roadtrip]

I wonder if the people on the hijacked airliner wished that the pilots had some means of lethal cockpit defense?

I wonder if their wives, husbands, and children wished the pilots has a means of lethal cockpit defense?

[brain fade]

If my experience is anything to go by, a great percentage of pilots are ex military and therefore must have some degree of expertise in the use of firearms. As someone said elsewhere on the thread, if you are trusted with an aircraft, why not with a firearm? Commercial air transport has changed. We need to try and even up the odds a little. When dealing with determined men who are prepared to sacrifice their own lives
a tangible and effective defence is essential. Please, UK ppruners, try to remember the rest of the world does not share Britains pistol-phobia.

[Capt Homesick]

I'm not sure a Tazer would work. Sure, it would down one hijacker, you might even get two, but they can rush you in the knowledge that once the other 3 get you, they can be revived enough to carry out their mission. A deterrent probably has to be lethal; unless someone figures out how to make a stun gun which puts someone down for hours rather than minutes.
If the terrorist knows that anyone knocked down will be unavailable for the next part of the crime- be it to fly the aircraft, or to control the pax, it makes his job more difficult.

[Mr McGoo]

The best defence is NOT to put all your eggs in one basket but to have a multi-layered defence. ie:

1. Profiling and vetting of pax at check-in.
2. Electronic and physical security checks prior to boarding.
3. Segregation of pax from non-pax once they have been screened.
4. Skymarshalls.
5. Retrain/condition crew and pax not to be passive (half a dozen hijackers will not be able to subdue a hundred or more angry :mad: pax).
6. Secure cockpit doors.
7. Passive means for pilots to disable hijackers.
8. Active means for pilots to disable hijackers.

Sure you could look at each layer individually and find a weakness in it, but that's why you don't rely on one defence only. By having all layers in place a suicidal hijacker would have to overcome all of them to be successfull - and the more defencive layers you have, the harder it is.

[Aloysious]

The sky marshal concept has worked on El Al for many years. I've flown them several times and despite trying to pick them (sm)out, they blend in with the crowd (unlike in the airport, where "undercover" folks appear obvious). Look at it like this: If you have a choice to have sky marshals or not, why the heck would you dismiss this first line of defense? On another topic, the FBI and the media have it all wrong when it comes to Atta's "spending bin Laden's money lavishly on first class seats," etc. He didn't fly first because he wanted to. He had to. All of his other actions/lifestyle/etc. were low key, for obvious reasons. He had to figure out logistically how he'd get into the cabin, and he hoped he could weasel his way in. ("Excuse me, stewardess, but I'm also a pilot. May I have a brief chat with the pilot?" -- professional courtesy and all that.)He needed to see a real time commercial flight, and it is my guess he made it inside on at least one of those flights. I pity the pilot and flight attendant -- and there are probably more than one -- who are sitting somewhere feeling terrible guilt for their utter stupidity. But we'll never find out, because they know it was against FAA rules, and they're not talking.

[Dagger Dirk]

ask Airbus about stun guns(TAZERS) and their potential impact ON their FBW aircraft.

I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry could have a field day postulating with the EMI and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.

[Cee of Gee]

You get a situation, where as the reports indicate, the flight attendants are being attacked. The crew who have firearms do the only thing we all would. But, there is at least, again as the reports indicate, 3 t's on board. The flight deck door becomes insecure and there is then a firearm entering a very confined area that's in a state of high confusion.
Mmmmm, that weapon debate again!
Armed Loadies! You want tea, eh! We'll see!
As the freightdog side of the industry does with boxes; screen the lot of them!!
It's certainly a tough situation to resolve.

[The flying gunman]

Airforceone,

Our weapons are not locked away in armed response vehicles.We have Glock 17 self loading pistols in overt holsters on our belts. We do have MP5 carbines in a safe in the boot of the vehicle which we can access from the car on route to an incident

Cheers

[Celtic Emerald]

Hey Hey Hey Quickdrawmagraw

How are you. Should have known you'd get your teeth into this subject with all your arms training.

Hope the little fella is well

Best Wishes

Emerald/Jade

[Tripower455]

Let's get real guys, the last line of defence is not a gun in the cockpit!!
This is a true statement. The last line of defense is a sidewinder in the butt. If the fighters get there in time. If not, the last line of defense was the ex McDonalds wroker at the "security" checkpoint.

Criminal....

[Human Factor]

Flying Gunman,

Things have obviously changed a little in the past couple of years. Thanks for the correction.

[The Guvrnor]

Am I an idiot????

[cptvon]

did they ever determine whether there were inside people involved on the sept 11th incident? ie people who could bypass security??

also I'm not sure guns on the plane is a good idea..

What do you mean it wouldnt give them an advantage if they overpowered a sky marshall?!?! it certainly would..

If the captain asks me to rush the hijackers, I'm alot more likely to go try to attack a guy with a box cutter or a knife compared to I guy who just stole a sky marshall's gun... I really think guns are a lousy idea -- granted you may not have sky marshalls who can shoot the bad guy.. but then it's most likely the bad guy cant shoot anyone either...

what about a flight computer that could lock in a course and wouldnt deviate without a passcode??

[Buckred]

Lets try the kiss(keep it simple stupid) principal often the simplest of ideas are the most effective!

A reinforced and locked door to the cockpit that cannot be opened while in flight will stop anyone whose business is terror!

Why would anyone try hijacking an aircraft when they know they it is not possible to enter the cockpit and take control aircraft? They will find easier targets!

Hope everyone has their crop dusters safely secured!

[Dagger Dirk]

CPTVON said:
"what about a flight computer that could lock in a course and wouldnt deviate without a passcode?? "

see http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm (and associated links)

being frequently updated.

[Buckred]

Australia is to have armed guards on random domestic and international flights.

For more go Dunnunda forum

[Vindicop]

The majority of the 43 police forces in UK have weapons locked away until authority has been given to deploy them.With the exception of some Protection officers in armed support vehicles.
UK Sky marshalls or In-Flight Security Specialists should be recruited from the Police(firearms officers)as most will have trained in intervention and used Blue Plastic rounds(they are designed not to over penetrate or puncture aircraft skin)The Home secretary should issue a special firearms licence to them(or the company recruiting them) and one should be placed on a flight.Three or four is unworkable.One is enough as the fact will be heavily advertised to attract back punters, reassure crew and with all of the measures Mr McGoo recommends get the would be hijacker thinking about their chance of success(/bullet in the chest). An ex police officer would also be able to deal with air rage by communication as they deal with conflict and ambiguity daily. they are also trained in unarmed defence tactics and control and restraint techniques. There you are solved ;)
PS But it wont be cheap

[The flying gunman]

Vindicop,

Your profile states that you are an ex tactical firearms officer.As a current one I find your statement that one armed officer on an aircraft is enough????. As a deterrent maybe, but should you have to do anything two officers is the absolute minimum for even the most basic firearms tactics. Also what on earth are blue plastic rounds..surely you don't mean simunition

[ 06 October 2001: Message edited by: The flying gunman ]