European armed guards on board

[reversegreen]

The European commision has just passed legislation permitting the presence of armed guards on board European airliners. Having flown many times with special security guards on board when flying to "sensitive" destinations ( note, they were not armed but were specially trained in unarmed combat) and they were directly placed under the authority of the captain. If this is allowed or indeed becomes compulsory,it will lead to is a very delicate legal situation concerning the captains historical overall responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and passengers. Could he refuse, in conscience , to have an armed guard aboard , as this contradicts his overall authority and responsibility ,if he considers it more dangerous. If a guard is onboard who decides when arms can be used.? How has the FAA and the ALPA solved this problem?What do the European pilots unions have to say on this subject?

[F14]

After Plods spectacular failure to "apprehend" the Glasgow terrorists. I mean this really was missing an open goal!:ugh:

I think we have nothing to fear, I would be supprised if they are real guns.(probably against health and safety)

[Human Factor]

I would be supprised if they are real guns.

If they are, just wear a yellow jacket. You'll be fine.:}

[matt_hooks]

F14, the ones the American "Sky Marshalls" carry are extremely real! There would be no point having a replica after all would there. If the marshall is forced to draw his weapon then we can assume that the person it's being drawn against is posing a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the aircraft, and the threat of a replica gun wouldn't do much good in those circumstances!

What I'm wondering is how they'll cope with the different firearms legislations in each country. In order to even touch a live handgun in the UK you need special dispensation from the home secretary. I assume this will have to be obtained for each of these marshalls?

[mason]

I think this could have been the American government putting pressure on the EU so they could legally have armed guards on there flights coming and going to Europe.It was in the news a while ago that they wanted this.Due to threats of terrorism !more scare mongering .

[Dushan]

matt_hooks:
There would be no point having a replica after all would there. If the marshall is forced to draw his weapon then we can assume that the person it's being drawn against is posing a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the aircraft, and the threat of a replica gun wouldn't do much good in those circumstances!


Well said. One person feels the threat of a loaded gun, two of an empty one.

[transilvana]

I don´t agree with having arms on board or even in ground, I´m against arms, these yanks think they still are John wayne in his horse riding and killing every bad guy on his way.

The problem of having amrs on board is that they may not be used as they should be. Personally I have flown with many police on duty whose arms where handled to the captain when boarding and returned to them on leaving the aircraft. 15 Years ago when I was trainned in the army against terrorist attacks (Spain, we suffered that for a long time), we were also trainned to use no arms and in close contact is more effective.

Now, where is the point of no return? that´s too complicated for us to discuss here, terrorists have found a way to be on the news avery 5 min because an aicraft accident or incident is more spectacular that any other. The moment they find something to get on the news more time they will leave the aircrafts alone. Hundreds of people die every week in Iraq due to bomb attacks, but they get only a couple of minutes in the news. That´s my point of view.

[Airbubba]

I don´t agree with having arms on board or even in ground, I´m against arms, these yanks think they still are John wayne in his horse riding and killing every bad guy on his way.

Kinda reminds me of the old bumper sticker "If you don't like the Police, next time you need help, call a hippie"

Spain has shown its true colors in the fight against terrorism. :ok:

[GlueBall]

Europe continues to be bullied by the roque superpower across the pond into adopting its terrorism paranoia. :suspect:

[Reimers]

If the marshall is forced to draw his weapon then we can assume that the person it's being drawn against is posing a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the aircraft,

Well, experience shows that so far no armed marshall has ever done anything against a real terrorist, however at least one passenger was murdered by one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702565.html

[FrequentSLF]

Spain has shown its true colors in the fight against terrorism. :ok:

If you are not with me, you are against me. :=
Before making such statements I suggest you to check how many terrorist attacks had to face Spain or many other European Countries in the 70's and 80's.

As a SLF I am against armed men on board. What will happend if the good guy goes berserk? If he is unarmed could be easily restrained :oh:

FrequestSLF

[Stubenfliege 2]

I would think that selection, training and control of these guards are the cruical point.

There were long bitter "gunfights" between terrorists and armed guards in the past: Remember the several bloodbaths on Aeroflot aircrafts back in the 80´s soviet times, when the armed cockpit crew or guards tried to overpower hijacker at gunpoint, which lead to long gunfights between them and terrorists (and the fare paying passengers in the middel). Or that infamous battle between palestinian terrorists and iraqi secret service guys on board of a Iraqi AW B737 in 1987, which resulted in many deaths and the crashlanding of the aircraft in Saudi Arabia. What I know from these occurences let me ask, what thugs are be used from the UdSSR or Iraq for this important and sensitive job.

On the other hand, the "Skymarshal" procedure seems to work very good at Israeli civil aircraft. But Israel (as far as I know, correct me if I´m wrong) have very due diligence and harsh training for their Skymarshals and cabin crew.

In short: As SLF I have no problem with armed guards, as far as I can trust them.

[fendant]

This is "old" news. Lufthansa and Swiss (Swissair) always had security officers on board on certain routes. El Al is said to have armed guards on every flight.

Frank

[reversegreen]

Any American captains out there who can give us some information on how the FAA,unions or their airlines SOPs integrate the fact of having an armed guard onboard,from a legal responsibility point of view. I agree with several posts who say that this may have come about because of "political" pressure from across the Atlantic,maybe during the Open Skies negotiations.

Frank --I have also flown with security guards onboard but they were never armed and that makes a hell of a difference

reversegreen

[Agaricus bisporus]

If the marshals are to be put on flights at random then it is an utter waste of effort, the chances of them coinciding with a terrorist event must be 1 in several million - pointless.

If they are to be put on board as a result of intelligence info then the flight should either not depart, or be subject to such security that there cannot be any possibility of baddies or contraband on board. Simple!



FrequentSLF. That argument, if I may so misuse the word, is equally valid against having pilots in aircraft. Thus all aircraft are to be grounded? Granted, it will solve the hijack problem, but...

Brilliant!

[Double Zero]

Possibly what F-14 was inferring was the use of 'non-lethal' weapons, a suject which has seen a great deal of research for a while now.

I have no idea what level they have reached in operational use, but published items years ago included a gun which would fire a mini-'bean-bag' with enough force to knock any baddie off his feet/ wind him, the obvious various 'stun' guns and even a job which covered the bad guy with quick-setting glue !

As SLF, though, I'd much prefer a good guy with a real, hole-making gun to one faced against some nutter & only equipped with harsh language...

[Strongresolve]

I´m spanish and I support the right of carriage guns on board the airplanes.

I been in the army, and I have been trainning to use arms, and we have some cool people over here that knows very well how to use it on board planes, with no risk to the aircraft or the passengers, and a lot of risk for the lives of the bad boys.

With the proper training a gun on an aircraft is an extra measure of safety, and with the new plastic frangible munitions that the US airmarshalls and the El Al security personel usually carry, there is not risk at all of damaging the aircraft.

The only problem of guns is the fear of unkwnowledge, but this is overcome easily if you get used to them, and know the procedures that the security personel is going to apply in each case or critical situation.

You need to have active security on board, because sooner or later all pasive security means will be bypassed or fouled, and some of us are going to live disgusting experiences.
Personaly I want to have another barrier or better said, another "tool" to solve potential crisis inside my plane.

The problem of my country is that we are still cultural rednecks and we are full of cowards, and we dont know in which world are we living. Probe of that is our new elected goverment. They have tried to end the ETA terrorist threat making a deal with them, and the result is more killings, but this didnt matter for more than 10 million of spainyards that have voted for the socialist party again.

I can say proudly that I´m not one of them, and I feel shame of my country and my goverment.

[Double Zero]

" Carriage Guns " ?!

I really think a cannon might be a step too far, and would be hard to keep inconspicuous, would probably block the aisle for the drinks trolley too !

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I do respect what you are saying though.

[FrequentSLF]

Agaricus bisporus

FrequentSLF. That argument, if I may so misuse the word, is equally valid against having pilots in aircraft. Thus all aircraft are to be grounded? Granted, it will solve the hijack problem, but...

Brilliant!

You are twisting my words... pilots are a must and most of the times there are two of them on an aircraft, and one of the reasons is "redundancy" in case one becomes incapacited.
Marshalls are not a must, you do not need them to fly the aircraft. One wonders why do we need marshalls on board, is because the ground security is not efficient as it should be?
what about this scenario...one terrorist unarmed attracts the attention of the marshall, who shots him, unfortunately on the same aircraft there are several other unarmed terrorist who are able to subdue the marshall and take control of his gun...

FrequentSLF

[Matt101]

I still firmly believe that the reason Gun Crime is so much more prevalent in the US is because everyone and their wife seems to deem it necessary to have a gun. Odd considering the British are no longer coming for anything other than a holiday.

Our Police in general do not carry arms unless it is deemed necessary and, as has been said before, if someone thinks that a threat against an aircraft is severe enough to warrant an armed officer onboard it should not depart in the first place.

Concentrate on making it impossible to get onboard the aircraft and present a threat in the first place. We all know that even one chap onboard with a pistol is going to present very little resistance to a group of well trained terrorists. Or even one acting covertly with a block of HE.

Just my two cents.

PS Guns go on the top of ships and tanks. if it goes in your hands it is likely to be a rifle or a pistol. :E

[max_cont]

I have an easy solution to problems with armed guards.
If an armed marshal gets on...I get off…end of problem.

[FrequentSLF]

PS Guns go on the top of ships and tanks. if it goes in your hands it is likely to be a rifle or a pistol. :E

Italian speaking here, however a search on the net found: :)

Gun
–noun 1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance. 2.any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver. 3.a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory. 4.any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun

gun

1339, gunne "an engine of war that throws rocks, arrows or other missiles," probably a shortening of woman's name Gunilda, found in M.E. gonnilde "cannon" and in an Anglo-L. reference to a specific gun from a 1330 munitions inventory of Windsor Castle ("...una magna balista de cornu quae Domina Gunilda ..."), from O.N. Gunnhildr, woman's name (from gunnr + hildr, both meaning "war, battle"); the identification of women with powerful weapons is common historically (cf. Big Bertha, Brown Bess, etc.); meaning shifted with technology, from cannons to firearms as they developed 15c. Great guns (cannon, etc.) distinguished from small guns (such as muskets) from c.1408. First applied to pistols and revolvers 1744.


Not very important, but I found the results pretty interesting.
Regards

FrequentSLF

[boredcounter]

In the Uk we have no armed Police on the streets so to speak. The Bobby on the beat has little more than a stick and a can of pepper spray. (I also believe the voters of the UK will keep it that way) The UK guys with guns (I believe) are highly shink tested and trained. I for one will stop when a copper says so, the mere mention of armed police will drop me to the floor.

Just who will make up the EU marshal force? On a G reg, drawn from our own forces, or will we have to 'accept' other forces that are armed for day to day walks around the streets?

I am but a humble groundie, however, the question is:

If the 'Purser' is responsible for the cabin,
The 'Captain' or more importantly, the 'Commander' is responsible for the craft, under who's command is an armed guard?

If the guy with the gun must fly 1/ who pays, 2/ what limits on his 'duty' and 3/ as with every other member of the crew, will commander's discresion apply.

Back to my main question, who is in command, therefore liable when it all goes Pete Tong?


Bored

[Double Zero]

As I mentioned, personally I support armed good guys on board, ideally with non-lethal ( ie non-fuselage / other people puncturing ) weapons or the real thing.

I suspect airport security will always be a joke, inconveniencing people like say, the pilots and legitimate passsengers, while the bad guys will always find a way - for a start have a look at the typical catering re-packers, who prepares that 'food' etc, etc...

I was rather hoping for armed good guys rather higher trained ( ex-S.F. ? ) than the armed plod we see - shooting a naked man in his bedroom, a chap carrying a bit of wood in his carrier bag, or indeed the famous

" I bet you I could jump that turnstyle " incident...

So, armed 'sky marshalls' yes, but only highly trained & with the most suitable kit possible.

[boredcounter]

So, armed 'sky marshalls' yes, but only highly trained & with the most suitable kit possible.

The kit will be vetted check-in agents and security guards at airports paid (as i earn) an Ops controller salary, not minimum wage.

With a half livable wage comes customer service and pride in the job, no mater how boring. rather than have small arms, as yet uncontrolled, how about proper security?

[GeeJay]

Some years ago, flight from ABJ to BRU. Doors are ready to be closed but at the last minute a minister of the local government arrives with his escort, two armed guards. Our security confiscate the guns and ask me what to do with them. As we were ready to go and the cargo and bulk doors were already closed I said: "give me the guns that I will hold in the cockpit and put the ammunitions in the aircraft safe". Then advise Brussels of the situation coz I want to give the guns to airport security officers instead of the body guards.:ok:

I almost ended up in deep mess coz according to the Belgian law only the Royal Family body guards can bring fire arms on board. In all other cases fire arms have to be in special sealed boxes in cargo hold. Ooops.

With the habitual celerity that European States transpose European recommendation in their law book I don't see tomorrow armed guards or marshal traveling on board.:ugh:

The other concern I have is that when it will be known that someone is carrying a gun it means that a gun is already introduced on board. Would be terrorist need only to identify the guy or girl (most probably the one with a crew cut and very rigid attitude) wait till he or she fells asleep (or gently help with some spray) and substitute the weapon. Then we will have a real problem.:D

Happy landings

GJ

[Strongresolve]

If a terrorist group really want or plan to take over our plane, all of us have a chance of 99,9% of ending screwed up.
So, if anyway were are going to the hell (If the terrorist dont bring down the plane, the Air Force will do) why just go to the hell, when you can go to the hell fighting, and may get inside that tiny percentage of 0,01% of survive.
I agree that the best option is to stay in the ground, but do you think that the terrorist are going to tell you when they are comming to hijack a plane?
If you are hijacked by Sep-11 type terrorist, guns or no guns, you have a very clear destination or present future in your view.
Guns only will give us a little advantage, but this can be a very important in a critical situation.
May the armed guards can buy time for the crew holding clear critical areas of the plane like front galley, or if the are disarmed and killed, may the terrorist finds more easy to shot at the passengers rather than trying to bring the cockpit door down.
I think (sorry about the passengers) that this scenarios are good for us and the people on the ground, that are not going to see another jet airplane crashing agains their buildings.
The othe options is to die with one hand in the yoke/sidestick, and the other in the crowbar.

Politics will choose.

[FrequentSLF]

If a terrorist group really want or plan to take over our plane, all of us have a chance of 99,9% of ending screwed up

Based on which figures you have got the 99.9%? I strongly disagree with such number. It means that only 1 person out of 1000 have survived aircraft hijaking...

[Strongresolve]

I´m only refering to a Sep 11th type or style terrorist group.
If one of this groups takes or hijacks your plane, I think that a probability of 1 between 1000 of survive is high, but I have to give a chance to someone.

At the time the chances of surviving to this kind of hijack inside a plane is 0%.

They took over 4 planes and crashed down 4 planes with no survivors, plus klling a lot of people on the ground.

That are my figures.

I think that have some support in that scenario is a good and a healthy thing.

[2Planks]

Double Zero - I think you underestimate our armed police - you mention 3 incidents over the last 10 years (the last during a period of high tension). The Met Poilce alone have about 2000 armed reponses a year. So the actual rate of mistake making is very low. Please do not undermine them - there are a lot of armed scrotes out there who are dealt with to keep the public safe.

[max_cont]

An armed scrote is not a trained terrorist. The police are good at dealing with untrained criminals.

When the target is highly trained and motivated, HMG send in a different bunch of lads/lasses with a more appropriate set of skills.

Now I'm a civvy I have the right not to operate in a combat zone.

I will elect not to work the day they deem it necessary to place an armed marshal on my aircraft.

[reversegreen]

I will elect not to work the day they deem it necessary to place an armed marshal on my aircraft.

max_cont

I totally agree with you , it would also be my way of refusing an armed guard on an aircraft . Now retired though , so not directly concerned. I find it suprising that there have been no posts from our American colleagues who live with this situation every day, but then maybe in the prevailing "gun culture " over there it just doesn't strike them as an important subject

reversegreen

[FrequentSLF]

Strongresolve

What about the several other istances where by negotiation the situation was solved without loss of life?

[DISCOKID]

My understanding is that U.S. sky marshalls operate with special low velocity weapons less likely to blow a hole in the fuselage.

My last AA flight to new york had 2 sky marshalls - when you land and go to immigration watch for the hard looking guys from your flight who storm straight through without needing to queue up.

[mid_life_pilot]

I would imagine the Captain wouldn't have direct control over such armed personnel and I think that's probably the right thing given the situations these people are trained to respond to.

If something kicks off on the plane then the first few minutes will be crucial to the overall outcome and any delayed reaction due to waiting for authorisation could be costly to all on board including the Captain!

Like the responses to this thread have shown, some Captains are OK with the idea, some aren't, so to have them on board where the Captain was uneasy about their presence and who could possibly veto any action they are trained to take defeats the whole purpose of having them in the first place.

To be honest, if I was a Captain I can't imagine NOT being happy for someone armed standing between me and the bad guys! Infact, rather than a concealed weapon how about having the marshall armed to the :mad: teeth terminator stylee and in full view of everyone!

On a serious note, yes the chances of a terrorist event are slim however that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for them - I'm sure the PAX on Flight 93 would have appreciated an air marshall. And don't you just love it when people accuse the US Govt of peddling terrorism paranoia - if someone was trying to kill you or your way of life I think that's reason enough to be paranoid don't you? I'm not saying I agree 100% with everything they've done since however we should at least cut them some slack?

Peace!

MLP

[Smilin_Ed]

Since there are not enough U.S. Air Marshals to deploy them on every flight, there will be flights with and without them. You never know whether you will have one or more on any given flight, however, during times when there is a perceived need for increased security, certain flights will be manned based on intelligence.

Air marshals were first employed before Sept. 11 and have subdued unruly passengers, sometimes with the help of other passengers. Since Sept. 11, passengers have become more aware and willing to help flight crews.

I am not aware of any instance where an Air Marshal has fired a weapon in flight. However, I'm sure I would know if there had been. I'm not even aware that a Marshal has ever had to draw a weapon. Their training generally precludes that even being necessary.

And no, I am not a Marshal or otherwise involved in law enforcement, but as a passenger or crew member, I'd be most pleased to have that extra security available in the cabin.

[Skutac]

Non leathal measures can be over come with simple measures such as newspapers under the shirt to defeat a stun gun. The only way to stop a threat is permanently. Aircraft remain the terrorists favoured target for the press coverage and potentially higher body count.

Air marshals make the call as to when and how to respond - no input required from the Captain and the marshals are responsible for the out come of their actions.

Hundreds of armed personnel (not just Air Marshals) fly every day without a single problem in the USA and I for one am glad for every single one of them that flies - not too mention the armed pilot programme in the USA.

Uk's murder rate is very similar to that of the USA despite the easy access to guns in the USA.

Finally to quote someone far smarter than me: when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.

[fr8tmastr]

perhaps some of you should look up the data on violent crime since the UK decided that guns cause crime.

Scotland yard produced the data I have seen.

[transilvana]

Anyhow, I´m pilot and I´ve been airline ground manager, I had to deal several times with flights to Telaviv on the 90´s. The security screening of those flights were far much better than today´s security at any airport I´ve been. We had to screen every passenger at the gate, x-rays baggage (when it was not standard) and empty all purses, hand bags, etc...

bomb dogs were use to sniffer aircraft, buses, terminal, catering vans, departing door, pax, it took nearly 4 hours to handle on of these flights and almost 2 hours screening for 150pax.

Once one dog sniffed something on a catering tray, we almost had to cancel the flight, finally it was only a perfum bottle that use glicerine in one of its components and was not tight closed.

By the way, I´ve seen german police armed officers (x3) fly on board Lufthansa and condor flights, show up last minute, no comments, only captain informed.

[Strongresolve]

SLF Freighter

Yes, that´s true, a lot of hijacks has been resolved by negociation. Normally they are carried out by one or two persons, and very often they are people with mental problems rather than terrorists.

But I think that in the after Sep 11th world, we are going to ban the access of the terrorist/guy with mental problems to the cockpit, and anyway that can put the lives of the passengers at risk, because in this scenario the hijacker will opt to harm the hostages to gain access, and he will start to hiting or killing people until you open the door or someone stops him.

If you dont have a skymarshall, may be you can land fast, an let the local authority deal with it. End of the problem. That is what normally happends.

But when you have one or two skymarshalls, they can deal or dispatch the threat without the need of deadly force and no risk to the passengers at all, and you can continue you flight with not risk or land with no aditional stress in the closest airport. That´s what normally happends in this scenario when a skymarshall/security agent is onboard.
Probably, the agent, will never show or handle his gun or stunt weapon.

Is very unusual (I hope it never happen) to have an agent shooting multiple terrorist in the plane, I think that this has never happend, only you can see it in the movies, and I believe that if the skymarshall get´s overcome by multiple terrorists he or she will choose to mantain a low profile, evaluate and wait the right moment to do an intervention or not do anything at all.

Wouldnt be a salad of bullets until is absolute, absolute, necesary to protect the lives of the people in the air and the ground, and when this happen, (if this happens again) this probably will give the ocupants of the aircraft some chances of surviving in a no survive situation.

Cheers.

[rottenray]

Speaking from the perspective of an infrequent (commercial) flyer, I can only say this...


Since the 9/11 disaster, more people have been killed on US soil by TSA than have been killed by terrorists.

Good job or not, you decide.


Since Lockerbie, more people have been killed by miscommunication and poor maintenance than terrorists.

Good job or not, you decide.


Guns on planes? I'm on the fence - but I'd certainly be in favor of cooler attitudes and a lot more wrenches...


///

[2Planks]

Skutac #39 suggested that murder rates in the USA and UK were similar - here are some facts with souces:

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.
In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).
_________________________
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006a). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Long-term trends. Available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Weapons used. Available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
Home Office (undated). ‘Homicide’ - long-term national recorded crime trends. Available from: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp.

[Double Zero]

If faced with 9/11 type nuts, that's the whole new ball game and ' negotiation ' would not appear to be an option...

Though it always amazes me that folk are so dumb that when they are told " commit suicide and kill as many innocent others as possible, you'll go straight to heaven with bountiful virgins " - why doesn't someone say " OK smarta*se, if it's such a good idea why don't you do it ?!

There is also the sad fact that like it or not, more than the aircraft and people inside are at stake - one has to consider the potentially lot more victims if the terrorists are allowed reach their target.

I know other measures as well as secured flight deck doors are in place, but frankly I go for the armed ( whatever kit suits ) sky marshall/s - and Yes, I do think this is a good route for retired Special Forces ! ) and possibly the film ' Flight 93 ' should be made mandatory viewing - with a bit more time & luck the pax - who I understand included a pilot, albeit a PPL or similar - may well have got away with it at least to an extent.

'Immodium' would need to be standard issue before screening the film though !

[OFBSLF]

I still firmly believe that the reason Gun Crime is so much more prevalent in the US is because everyone and their wife seems to deem it necessary to have a gun. Odd considering the British are no longer coming for anything other than a holiday.

Of course, after the UK banned handguns, their crime rate went --- up!

And when Australia spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying back semi-automatic firearms, their crime rate went --- up!.

Here in the states, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have very liberal firearms laws. For example, concealed carry does not need any permit in Vermont. New Hampshire and Maine require permits for concealed carry, but those permits are shall issue for anyone who is not legally disqualified (e.g., has a criminal history).

Now Massachusetts, on the other hand has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US. Guess which of these states has the highest crime rate? Massachusetts has a far higher rate of murder, attempted murder, and other violent crimes than the other states mentioned.

Gun control proponents use this argument all the time: UK has few guns and low crime, US has many guns and higher crime, therefore guns cause crime.

However, they seem to ignore many countries which are counter examples. For example, Switzerland has very liberal gun laws, many guns, and very little crime. Mexico has very, very strict gun laws and a huge murder rate. South Africa has very strict gun laws and a huge murder rate. The supposed correlation between gun laws and murder rate doesn't exist.

The reality is that the gun control laws don't work. They don't control the murder rate. There are many, many social issues that determine the murder rate. But it is a lot easier for a politician to pass a gun law and claim that they are "doing something" about the murder rate, than to actually solve the problem.

[Sallyann1234]

Of course, after the UK banned handguns, their crime rate went --- up!

Do you have a reference for that?

[Dushan]

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm)

[Sallyann1234]

Ah yes, that report:

"The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting...."

[boardingpass]

well, as a member of cabin crew, I'm not sure how helpful an armed guard would be on board. I know any terrorist or crazy nut can't access the flightdeck, so I'd rather not have bullets flying about the cabin where I am thank you very much. Yes, a bullet would be easier when dealing with some rude pax, but sorry, I can't understand how guns on board are helpful in such a confined tight space like a cabin. I'd rather have them put the money to having a nurse on every flight to deal with medical situations than a marshal.

[keltic]

As a passengers, I don´t really want a gun in the cabin on the plane I am travelling. I hope the airlines will tell their passengers, that a gun has been permitted while I am searched for micro knifes, pointless umbrellas, and other senseless items not to be taken on board.

If I am told that a cabin could suddenly become a combat zone, becuase our policies have to be shapped by other countries paranoias, I want to have the right to decide, if I am flying that airline or not.

If passengers decide to flee away from airlines, with these policies, I am sure they would think first it first. I want to choice and I want to know. It´s my right as passenger. :=

[p7lot]

Where in the cabin could be deemed an acceptable place to discharge a firearm???
Would the marshalls be aware of where in the fuselage lie my control cables????
Or the consequences of an explosive decompression??????
Centre fuel tank resistance to puncture?????
As it stands at the moment, bring a firearm onto my aircraft and you will be left with no flight crew to fly you anywhere.

[WhatsaLizad?]

" Where in the cabin could be deemed an acceptable place to discharge a firearm???"

Most likely into the sternum, hip bones or brain stem of those with intent on slaughtering you, your passengers and maybe thousands of innocents in a large gathering on the ground. Obviously, a discharge anywhere else in the cabin is not good.

" Would the marshalls be aware of where in the fuselage lie my control cables????"

They might be aware, then again this might be a factor if they are attacked by a group of terrorist midgets which would require aiming at the deck covering your control cables. How many shots would it take to sever them all? My guess is they don't carry enough ammo for that task.

"Or the consequences of an explosive decompression??????"

A fews holes aren't going to dump a cabin, especially those created by the typical handgun.

"Centre fuel tank resistance to puncture?????"

Another shot aimed at the floor? Sarcasm aside, any new fuels leaks are obviously a problem. Instant combustion is unlikely unless tracer shells are used.

" As it stands at the moment, bring a firearm onto my aircraft and you will be left with no flight crew to fly you anywhere. "

And what will be your rostering choice if a unfriendly group ends up on board armed with ceramic blades? Good luck.

[Oh that's super!]

I may be stupid, but since the government or security experts or whoever appear to think that flight crew are not security vetted enough (through the very fact that they are put through the security and items being confiscated), I'd like to know how they can confidently say that armed guards are security vetted enough to ensure that they are not one of the 'bad ones'.

[boardingpass]

Since 2001, the only hijackings I'm aware of are when they've accessed the flight deck, which in Europe isn't possible if SOPs are followed. The Air Mauritanie hijacking in 2007, where an armed pax couldn't access the flightdeck, was resolved thanks to clever flight and cabin crew - good CRM i'd say.

The pilot spoke to the passengers and crew in French, warning them that upon landing he was going to brake hard and then accelerate, to throw the hijacker off balance and give the passengers and crew a chance to overpower him. On landing, the pilot did so, and the hijacker fell to the floor, dropping one of his pistols. Flight attendants poured boiling water from the coffee machine on him and ten passengers and members of the crew beat him until they considered him sufficiently subdued.

[Captain_djaffar]

True FrequentSLf,but its not only if the 'good guy' goes bersek dear friend,also what if the 'good guy' gets owned by the terroz???:8:8:8

That would be a real true live working killing gun in the hands of the hijackers


Lets imagine another scenerio:

some screw-minded MR.Terro hijacks an aircraft,he is armed with guns,and 'luckily' on board there sit-in the rows a marshall,MrXXX!!!!
How will the passengers know who the good or bad guys are?They'll both be gun in hand during the tense period.
Mr.Terro might say he is infact the real marshall (showing a fake badge)and get the pax to help him!

Mr.XXX showing his federal badge might not help him too much in such a confusion.(or he might also have requested the help of other passengers from other rows too,leading to a more profound confusion and a two sided battle,each party growing bigger and bigger depending on the mouth to mouth information sharing)

I've been a bit far i know:E:E:E..........just to say that...in anycase,in any situation,there is far more greater possibility that guns may create more trouble than solutions.

[FrequentSLF]

Most likely into the sternum, hip bones or brain stem of those with intent on slaughtering you, your passengers and maybe thousands of innocents in a large gathering on the ground.

I wonder how many times we have been saved in such way:confused: None which I can recall.

They might be aware, then again this might be a factor if they are attacked by a group of terrorist midgets which would require aiming at the deck covering your control cables. How many shots would it take to sever them all? My guess is they don't carry enough ammo for that task

Hmmm... if you severe the right (or worng) cable one shoot might be sufficient:mad: IMHO there is a big chance of a bullet hitting a cable, considering the km of cables that are installed on an a/c.

Another shot aimed at the floor? Sarcasm aside, any new fuels leaks are obviously a problem. Instant combustion is unlikely unless tracer shells are used.

or a source of ignition...i.e. sparks:ugh:

Keltic...well said :D

Captain_djaffar...
Correct!

Let me ask a simple question...who is checking and making sure that the person boarding the plane is a sky marshal and is not a terrorist preteding to be a sky marshal? What are the checks?
IMHO no matter how many checks or vetting...keeping the guns out the planes is the safest check!

Frequent SLF

[Captain_djaffar]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466



By DIANA RUGG / WCNC
E-mail Diana: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?emailimage=8cb9d4ba59f24ece1bc604a2abc52d6c

CHARLOTTE, N.C.-- A US Airways pilot’s gun accidentally discharged during a flight from Denver to Charlotte Saturday, according to as statement released by the airline. The statement said the discharge happened on Flight 1536, which left Denver at approximately 6:45am and arrived in Charlotte at approximately 11:51am. The Airbus A319 plane landed safely and none of the flight’s 124 passengers or five crew members was injured, according to the statement. It was a full flight. And airline spokeswoman said the plane has been taken out of service to make sure it is safe to return to flight. A Transportation Safety Administration spokeswoman reached by WCNC Sunday said the pilot is part of TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which trains pilots to carry guns on flights. Andrea McCauley said the gun discharged in the cockpit, but she could not release how the gun was being transported at the time. She did not release the pilot’s name, but said he was authorized to carry the weapon and was last requalified in the FFDO program last November. A statement from TSA said the airplane was never in danger, and the TSA and the Federal Air Marshals Service are investigating the incident. WCNC reporter Diana Rugg is following up on this story. If you or someone you know were on that flight, please e-mail her at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?emailimage=61e446367d943745af398ef97a8aded2.

[Spunky Monkey]

It is quite simple really nowadays.
Anybody suspected of being upto no good is going to be lynched by the other passengers. Pretty damned quick.
It has happened several times in the last few years.

When was the last incident in Western Europe that involved a Hijacking or REAL terrorist incident?
I cannot remember, was it Richard Reid in Dec 01?

I would not want an armed sky marshall on my flight. How do you know that they havent lost the plot through marriage difficulties etc?

I am sure that a great deal of people on here have never seen the effect of a "short" on flesh etc. Due to the slower velocity the range is a lot shorter. A wet balnket will stop a browning 9mm at about 40m, however the slug at short range could in theory punch out a window. Then the problem becomes far worse. Old Airframe, High cycles, Aloha Airlines style decompression.

I would not work for a compay that insisted on armed guards aboard.

[Contacttower]

El Al, widely regarded as the world's most secure airline have sky marshals...and certainly as a passenger I would feel safer with them on board.

[ads1963]

How stupid can the pilot be? Was he toying with his gun inside the cockpit?

Maybe he should visit this webpage before he starts again and even attempting to touch a gun:

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

Know how to use the gun safely.
Before handling a gun, learn how it operates. Know its basic parts, how to safely open and close the action and remove any ammunition from the gun or magazine. Remember, a gun's mechanical safety device is never foolproof. Nothing can ever replace safe gun handling.

[EcosseYYZ]

Here's a much better idea: -

Take the FO's license from him/her, shred it, and make them think very closely about what the hell they were doing with a firearm on FINAL APPROACH - or even having it out its container in an unsafe state for god's sake before being allowed anywhere near the pointy end again.

It's incidents like this that clearly illustrate firearms in the flight deck are dangerous, and have no place in a locked container or shoulder holster of the Wyatt Earp wannabes of US aviation.

[misd-agin]

SLF? - don't care to have a loaded gun onboard? You'll never know for sure if there are, or aren't, armed individuals onboard.

Flight crew? - good luck bucking the system if it's approved.

Far from being a gun nut, but today's schedule includes sending rounds downrange with my child. :ok:

[rjay259]

Having been in the UK forces and fully trained in the use of firearms and now having spent a very large amount of my own money getting my backside into the flight deck for one of the best careers in the entire world.

I find it compleatly insane that there are people who want a firearm onboard an aircraft. The money that would go to financing the training, the salaries, the purchasing of the weapons themselves should go into better training for the 'happy' security guards and better screening for any threats that could possibly arise.

Prevention is better than cure.

259

[twochai]

Hear, hear!!

[misd-agin]

Prevention is nice, being cured is better.

[Dushan]

Spunky Monkey:
How do you know that they havent lost the plot through marriage difficulties etc?


I guess the same way we know you haven't lost your plot, sitting in the left seat commanding a 100 ton machine. We don't.

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hi,

Mr.XXX showing his federal badge might not help him too much in such a confusion.(or he might also have requested the help of other passengers from other rows too,leading to a more profound confusion and a two sided battle,each party growing bigger and bigger depending on the mouth to mouth information sharing)

I've been a bit far i know:E:E:E..........just to say that...in anycase,in any situation,there is far more greater possibility that guns may create more trouble than solutions.

You are not so far....

Ages ago I was on a Air France plane with destination Luanda.
Just at the end of embarking ... a fight begin between two white men and a black man.....
Peoples on near seats take the defense of the blackman and fight with the two others....
At end of story it was a legally expulsed allien accompanied by two policemen :)
The captain call the "Police de l'Air et des Frontières" (and come in situ!)for put manu military black man and policemen out the plane and apologise for the inconvenient.
Two passangers were with bruises and some blood ........
One old women filled a complain.....
A nice delay of course....

Regards.

[Spunky Monkey]

Dusan
Quite right.
However there are two of us up there. at least there is a fighting chance.
So are there going to be two guards incase one goes loopy? Prehaps 3 incase the other two are in a conspiracy?

This is a nuts idea. Anyone who wants to carry a loaded weapon on an aircraft is also nuts with a Rambo affliction.
Therefore they should be dicounted from the selection process.

Therefore there should be nobody carry a weapon and we would all be safer from this insane paranoia that has gripped the US and UK.

:}

[Dushan]

Spenky

However there are two of us up there. at least there is a fighting chance.


There were two on Egypt Air. One went for a wiz, the other went berserk.

What irks me is that all the opponents of guns and "gun culture" immediately assume, that just because they don't like guns, those that do must be somehow mentally unbalanced and could not be trusted. There are millions of law abiding, normal, citizens that have and love guns. Just like people like books, or model airplanes, or cars, we love guns. That does not automatically makes us loony and unstable. I don't like cats, but I don't think that people who do are mental. I accept their admiration for something I have no interest in. I let them be. Please don't psychoanalyze me (us) based on my ability and desire to use a perfectly legal object when circumstances dictate.

[PBL]

Dushan,

I think your rhetoric is inaccurate, missed the point, and allows you to be hoisted on your own petard. As follows.

What irks me is that all the opponents of guns and "gun culture" immediately assume, that ...... those that do must be somehow mentally unbalanced and could not be trusted.


Obviously not true. There are plenty of people who oppose civilian uses of firearms who do not consider their neighbor untrustworthy or unbalanced because he (and it is predominantly males) is a licensed hunter. Even in Europe.

I don't like cats, but I don't think that people who do are mental. I accept their admiration for something I have no interest in. I let them be.

One difference is that domestic cats do not kill 20,000 people a year in the U.S. Indeed, except for cars and guns, everything that might do so is highly restricted or banned in the U.S. And some of us don't tolerate these kinds of figures with cars, either.

We are not talking on this thread about recreational use of firearms. We are talking explicitly about civilian use of firearms as anti-personnel weaponry. No one talks of cars or cats as anti-personnel weaponry. But the firearm on a law enforcement officer's belt has one and only one purpose, as an anti-personnel weapon. As does the the truncheon (or night-stick, as you might prefer to call it).

If you are pleading for tolerance, live-and-let-live, then you could apply this attitude yourself to those who have a different attitude to the role of firearms in civil society than you do.

For example, the reaction of the British to a school massacre in Dunblane in the 1990's was to ban all civil ownership of almost all firearms. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Germany allows civil possession of recreational firearms, and has had a couple of mass shootings recently. In the U.S., it went from 4 kids killed in a Stockton schoolyard shooting in the 70's to repeated massacres of dozens thirty years later. Such events should worry anybody, and they are obviously related to whatever the civil culture of firearms may be in a particular country.

There are lots of Brits who are now unable to pursue their hobby (there are no British participants in the shooting events at the Olympics, for example, unless they have moved out of the country), but many, even of those, consider it a worthy price to have paid to break the chain of availability that led to thirty of my former neighbors losing their family. So one might say: it seems to work. Why not try it?

Hence the argument that the appropriate approach is to eliminate anti-personnel weapons entirely from aircraft cabins and cockpits.

It may not be possible to ensure that perfectly, but equally one should consider the number of incidents in the U.S. in which law enforcement officers have been injured or killed with their own weapons and ask whether that would happen on civil aircraft also. As a hijacker, you might want to use a metal detector to identify who is carrying heat and then two of you incapacitate himher and take the gun. What's the likelihood of that happening? You don't know and neither do I, so we might well reasonably come down on different sides.

PBL

[42psi]

I find it difficult to be persuaded that in the current security situation an armed guard is appropriate.

Prior to 9/11 I think I could agree that it could have been ...

Since then both the threat and the methods used to counter it have changed.

The current premise must surely be that any potential terrorist cannot have a ballistic weapon and is unlikely to have a significant sharp weapon ?

With cockpit doors more secure the ability to influence the route/result of the flight is reduced.

Given the current focus on preventing liquids etc. if we accept that this is because it really is the highest threat then succesfully getting them on board is surely unlikely to provide a potential target for an armed skymarshall??

Will they open fire on anyone shaking that baby's bottle to mix the contents - if they don't it will be too late....


It seems unlikely that the armed guard is there to counter a similarly armed bad guy(s) .... so what are they there to do??



I've always understood that a premise of security was that as you improved control/protection in one area by improvment of perimter control the threat actually moved further out ..... this would seem to validated by the UK experience where driving a vehicle into the terminal building became the next step.

[PBL]

I've always understood that a premise of security was that as you improved control/protection in one area by improvment of perimter control the threat actually moved further out

The locus classicus for this is Edward N. Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, Belknap Press, Harvard U.P., 1987/2001. Very much worth a read.

PBL

[Dushan]

PBL,
Many good points regarding the guns and marshals on flights. Some I agree with, some I don't. That was not the point of my original post, which was in response to Spunky Monkey's statement:

How do you know that they havent lost the plot through marriage difficulties etc?

I said, we don't. Not any more than knowing the guy sitting next to you (left or right) hasn't lost the plot...

He then came back with:

This is a nuts idea. Anyone who wants to carry a loaded weapon on an aircraft is also nuts with a Rambo affliction.
Therefore they should be dicounted from the selection process.


That is what I said irks me. That anyone who wants to be associated with guns, in the eyes of those that don't, must be nuts, loopy etc.

It is equally irresponsible to say that, as it would be to say, that anyone who wants to fly a plane is nuts with Chuck Yeager affliction, constantly attempting to push the envelope and should be immediately be discounted from the selection process.

[PBL]

Dushan,

I understand now that you were reacting to an extreme statement. Thanks for the clarification.

PBL

[Bellthorpe]

And when Australia spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying back semi-automatic firearms, their crime rate went --- up!.

Really? There's a fairly straightforward refutation of that here (http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp).