Skymarshals now? Where do we go from here? [Archive]

JetAgeHobo

13th Sep 2001, 04:50

One thing is to wake up those folks doing the carry-on x-ray.

After hearing that the hijackers used box knives and plastic knives I checked my briefcase: amoung the contents: Swiss army knife with 5cm blade(kinda sharp) one of those disposable knives with the snap off blades with about 10cm of VERY sharp blade left. (tools of the trade, leather goods. From the sound of it I am at least as well armed as the hijackers.

Now, what's scary is in the past month, carrying these two objects, I've been through security at LAX,TPE,HKG,BKK,CAN, and not once even been challenged by security. Oh yeah, they checked at one airport to make sure my cellphone was real.

Television here said if they weren't doing airport security, these people would be flippin' burgers at McDonalds. When I heard that statement last night, I thought it was rather mean and crude. Now to think of it, I'm not so sure.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: JetAgeHobo ]

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: JetAgeHobo ]

Wino

13th Sep 2001, 04:59

Untill today, those items were not illegal on an aircraft.

Everyone always thought in terms of guns and explosives or flamibles when thinking of Hijack.

I had a pax break into the cockpit 2 years ago, and I have been thinking long and hard about it ever since. Even an unarmed man will be able to overpower a pilot who is strapped in at the controlls. I'm 5'7 and kinda out of shape. During the depositions in the above mentioned case, I had the biggest baddest manchester cop sit at the controlls of the A320 I was flying at the time and I got the better of him till he yelled uncle.

The skymarshals better be here to stay, because that is really the only chance, especially now that it has been demonstrated so vividly for the world just how easy it is. As a fringe benefit, federal skymarshals will make the prosecution of air rage simple.

In the long term, access to the cockpit needs to be from a seperate door with no connection at all to the main cabin.

Cheers
Wino

BJBATMAN

13th Sep 2001, 05:47

44 Mags for the Crew with a gun port in the Cockpit Door!!

zerozero

13th Sep 2001, 05:53

As a passenger and a member of the traveling public I might support an aircraft that was designed with a flight deck to be inaccessible in flight.

However, as a pilot, I'm not sure I would like to fly an airplane where I have no access to back of the aircraft (for whatever reason).

The idea certainly merits consideration.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: zerozero ]

zerozero

13th Sep 2001, 05:56

My associate Batman beat me to the punch.

He's a retired armored truck driver. ;)

Apollo

13th Sep 2001, 06:16

Putting an armed skymarshal onto the A/C is putting a weapon into the cabin were there was never one to begin with. The intentions are good but it's not the answer. Aircraft security on the ground is paramount. What goes into that aircraft (food carts,reading materials, people) must be checked, re-checked, tripl-checked and quad-riple checked. Passanger profiles at booking times must be thouroughly checked by federal or local law-enforcement agencies.

There is so much more we can do to prevent these types of accidents without introducing armed personel to the A/C cabin.

Roadtrip

13th Sep 2001, 06:23

Apollo -
I think you mis-spoke. This was no accident. This was mass-murder. To a dedicated suicidal terrorist, the last line of defense will be an armed flightcrew up front behind a hardened door. There is no alternative. Arm the pilots and you give them a fighting chance after the rest of the system has failed.

Quadriple checks on everything and detailed background investigations on boarding pax are impractical in the depth I think you are suggesting. And when they have failed, what will you tell my widow and children - "Your husband was very brave but still shouldn't have had the right to defend his aircraft because he couldn't be trusted with lethal force?" The only thing I worry about with armed flightcrew is if they would keep their weapons in good operational condition, considering that they would virtually never get used.

You, sir, do not have to fly everyday under this demonstrated and deadly threat. I do.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

QTSOA

13th Sep 2001, 07:05

Theres a lot that needs to be done. On a British Airways flight from Singapore to London not more that a couple of years ago, I (after asking a junior FA) was allowed to sit in the jump seat for take off, a couple of hours in flight, and for the landing. I noticed the flight deck door held loosely shut with a womens stocking wrapped around it. Beyond the jokes the flight crew shared with me, they explained that they did that so not to wake resting crew in the bunks when the door closed. On landing, the door flew open. I know that it is a bit more secure in the US, but even still, how in hell is a wafer thin door going to stop someone so determined to bring the aircraft down that he/she would take their life! I could be a psycho with a razor blade in my pocket. There was no consideration of this in the 15+ flights ive been able to get into the flight deck just by asking. The doors need to be replaced! I have no problem with some form of alternative security. Perhaps even recruit some flight attendants that have worked as security guards in the past. I personally think that there should be a locked flight deck door on all airlines. Look at BA last year, when some nut case tried to nose dive the aircraft. It happens every day. Lock the doors. Design a little hatch that flight attendants can pass meals and other items through, so that the door can stay shut for the whole flight unless absolutely necessary. Thats what I think anyway.

FreqyFlyer

13th Sep 2001, 07:06

I'm not a pilot - but as a business traveler, I spend as much time in the air as many who are.
The whole airport security thing has been a joke. The metal detector/xray's are manned by contract personnel that have little training and little paychecks.
I have PERSONALLY had several recent instances, when they were busy, that I walked thru the detector and it went off - yet I was not stopped or challenged. Regardless - the 'weapons' used by the hijackers wouldn't have alarmed Barney Fife.
Arming the crew is one of the answers. Shoot first...answer questions later...in the words of Crocadile Dundee: "That's no knife [boxcutter]...THIS is a knife [9mm]!"

Someone mentioned fingerprint scanners...I would suggest an even easier solution (not all 'known' terrorists have prints on file)...as part of the 'enhanced' security precautions, eliminate all "Walk up" ticketing - reservations must be made several hours in advance. Then link the airline resv computers to the FBI/Secret Svc./Etc. Require Driver Lic/State ID numbers as part of the res process (or Passport #'s for international travel or non US Citizens). This link could alert officials to potential/known terrorists or other dangerous people. They could then be waiting for them.
The airlines would probably like this, too - they would have more info, and it would entice more travelers to join their Frequent Flyer Programs. (As a member of many programs, including "Platinum" and "Million Mile" status, several airlines have a TON of info on me - including cell phone numbers, email, etc)
There is one other (little known) technology that could be utilized - many large casinos use 'face recognition' software to identify known casino cheats...let's make THIS part of the metal detector/xray stop!
I'm not looking forward to getting back in the air soon...I'm frankly a little scared...but I'm also PISSED! The days of George W's dad's 'kindler, gentler' attitude are over! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: FreqyFlyer ]

Flying_Steph

13th Sep 2001, 07:18

If I recall corectly, the last time somebody tried to hijack a Royal Jordanian Airbus the guy's been shot down by a skymarshal (during cruise).

I'm glad this guy didn't do his homework before the flight, and also that the marshal knew how to use his weapon !

Cyclic Hotline

13th Sep 2001, 07:36

U.S. Approves Limited Air Service, Bans Knives

By John Crawley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government cleared airlines for limited service on Wednesday and imposed tougher security requirements for airports and airlines, including bans on knives and curbside check-ins.

The nation's airspace was shut down on Tuesday after knife-wielding hijackers seized four commercial airliners, two of which slammed into and destroyed New York's World Trade Center towers. A third hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed in western Pennsylvania.

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said that commercial and cargo aircraft diverted from their normal flight paths to other airports during the emergency could proceed to their final destinations as soon as airlines and airports met tougher security standards.

Only original passengers on those flights will be allowed to board, under extremely tight security. The government will also allow airlines to move empty planes to position them to resume scheduled service.

But Mineta said he could not authorize the resumption of full service because of security concerns.

Mineta said a determination was made at the White House to put off operations until "we are sufficiently secure in our own information'' about when to resume them. "I can't give you a date or a time,'' he added.

FEAR OF FURTHER HIJACKINGS

A U.S. official, who requested anonymity, said authorities wanted to be sure that "everything is done to tighten up airport security'' in case there are associates of the suspected hijackers "who might want to perpetrate similar atrocities.''

"I know all Americans want us to move as quickly and prudently as possible to return our transportation system to normal, and we will as soon as we can do so safely,'' Mineta said.

While Mineta did not give a timetable for full service, at least two U.S. lawmakers said they were told in a meeting with him that the Transportation Department hoped to lift the flight ban early on Thursday morning.

The government issued new permanent security guidelines on Wednesday for airports and airlines. According to FAA and lawmakers, they include:

-- Armed plainclothes guards, also known as federal air marshals, to be placed on domestic flights.

-- No curbside or off-airport check-ins. All passengers must go to ticket counters to check in.

-- Boarding areas restricted to passengers. Only those with tickets and photo identification will be allowed to proceed past airport security barriers.

MEAL SERVICE AFFECTED

-- No knives of any material allowed to be carried on board. Federal rules previously allowed up to a four-inch blades. Metal knives for food service also will be banned.

-- Vehicles near airport terminals to be monitored more closely.

-- A thorough search and security check of all planes before passengers are allowed to board aircraft.

There are roughly 40,000 departures of aircraft a day in scheduled air service in the United States, and at any time on a typical weekday morning, more than 4,000 planes are in the air, according to the FAA.

It was unclear how many flights would take advantage of the limited service authorization. It also was unclear if the order on limited service affected international flights diverted to Canada.

U.S. Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House of Representatives subcommittee on aviation, said his committee was likely to hold hearings soon on airport screening and security. FAA officials will be called to testify.

Mica said he stressed to Mineta that it was necessary to place security personnel on domestic flights immediately, that it was "absolutely essential'' that the public understand "we have taken some steps to at least give passengers and crew a fighting chance.''

"We need to get back to normal and have the traveling public feel confident,'' Mica said.

Roadtrip

13th Sep 2001, 08:15

freq flyer -
Do you think you would be more safe or less safe with armed and trained pilots up front?

BTW, when in NY and you get on a subway at night, do you get on the car with a armed policeman on it, or the car 5 down with the baggy pants crowd on it?

I thought so, so do I.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

Apollo

13th Sep 2001, 08:28

Roadtrip...

Sorry....Mass murder, terrorism, stupidity, accident....whatever you call it.

What your saying then is to "Arm" the flight crews? Lets get serious. It takes highly trained personel of a military if not "Special Forces" background in order to effectivly use small arms inside a pressurized aircraft enviroment. As flight crew, it "IS" your resposibility for the safety of pax and crew but you must draw the line somewhere. It ain't your job. Whats your company's procedure for a hijacking attempt? Pull out your snub nosed 38 and shoot the guy? Start to wrestle with the guy within the confines of the flight deck? And what if there is more than one? All armed with "utility knives".

It starts on the ground, at the gate, in the terminal. Get rid of these contracted out security guards that rummage through your bags and are so busy yacking to one another in their foerign language that they ain't paying attention. No more pen knives, and swiss army knives on-board.

Lets find these weapons and question these maniacs at the security checkpoints before you get buttoned up and call for push-back.

Roadtrip

13th Sep 2001, 09:36

Apollo - "whatever you call it"???? It's mass-murder, not an accident, not stupidity.

Airport security is the first line. An armed flightdeck crew is the LAST line. As was proved on the 11th, the first line failed and can be expected to fail in the future regardless of improvements.

If you think preboarding security can be improved to 100%, then you won't mind my weapon, because it'll be neatly packed within grasp and never taken out. THE DEFENSE OF MY LIFE AND THOSE OF MY CREW AND PASSENGERS BECOMES MY JOB WHEN THE OTHER MEASURES HAVE FAILED. An armed flight deck crew is the last line of defense and MAYBE the difference between a dead hijacker or thousands of dead Americans. If you were the pilot on one of our hijacked airplanes with a suicidal terrorist, would you want a weapon at your disposal, or would you rather thousands of Americans die to satisfy your firearm phobias. How many days a year to you spend airborne doing your job and what risk to you expose yourself to day in and day out?

I, however, understand your thinking. My next door neighbor is a Canadian who moved from Canada years ago because of the mindless liberal mindset (plus decent medical care, etc). I thought he was exagerating when he told me about it, but I'm beginning to see his point.

FreqyFlyer

13th Sep 2001, 09:36

Roadtrip - You misunderstood me - I AM for arming the crews...but was also pointing out ways to alleviate the problems BEFORE these idiots board.

Apollo - you make good points. Perhaps the answer is to not use traditional 'firearms'...there are alternatives...Stun Guns, pepper spray, etc.
I agree that the FIRST line of defense must be at the airport, but some secondary, IN THE AIR, defense needs to be in place for when the first line is circumvented.

Roadtrip

13th Sep 2001, 09:45

FreqFlyer -
I understood ya. My points were meant to emphasize your own remarks.

The mindless aversion to self-defense is truly remarkable in our society today. At the end of the day, in air and in the aircraft, WE ourselves are responsible for our security. 911 doesn't work, except to relay last good-byes to our loved ones.

Gentleman Aviator

13th Sep 2001, 10:08

I believe that we should consider how to combat this latest form of airborne terrorism.
The mass and velocity of an aeroplane, when targeted at a ground feature will cause enormous damage. In order to target the aeroplane, a pliot on the flightdeck has to be coerced into using his aircraft as a weapon, or replaced by another pilot who is prepared to die for his cause.

Both of these scenarios require an assailant to gain access to the flightdeck. Once the terrorist is on the flightdeck he or she will probably require some form of personal weapon to take control.

X-ray and other form of pre-departure screening should ensure that bombs, rifles, guns, grenades etc do not make it onboard the passenger or freight compartment. Ensuring that small blades, shards of glass, garrotte wire etc do not make it into the passenger compartment is almost impossible.

If we accept that a motivated assailant could use hundreds of potential weapons that are readily available on an aeroplane then we must accept that our aeroplanes are vulnerable. They are vulnerable because potential attackers can gain access to the flightdeck.

We should ensure that the flightdeck is a sterile environment. The door should be locked throughout the flight. The door should be secure enough to prevent unauthorised access. Rest areas should be available within the secure flightdeck area for cruise pilots.

If a potential adversary cannot smuggle weaponry onboard to destroy the aircraft, nor take control of the aeroplane due to a lack of access, attacks of the type seen recently will not occur again.

In short, lock a secure flightdeck door for the duration of the flight and never open it, irrespective of what is occurring on the other side.

Comments?

N380UA

13th Sep 2001, 10:09

Firstly I should like to express my deepest condolences and sympathies to all who have suffered in this despicable act of terror.

I echo the sentiments of Apollo entirely. Of course it was Mass murder by incredible stupidity, no doubt about that, especially after seeing that the "pilots" were some of us. However, the flight deck, the cabin and for all I care the cargo bays and wheel wells MUST be held sterile. This means no weapons and/or explosives whatsoever. Accordingly, the security and safety agencies, whatever their abbreviation may be, but as well as the airlines have to ensure the professional safety of PAX, crew and equipment; not the crew. What strikes me especially worrying is the fact that four airplanes from to companies could get high jacked in the first place with absolutely on one even suspecting any foul play at work. Should by any chance a Sky Marshall have been on these flights, I am not at all sure whether it would have had any difference to the outcome of the tragedy.

There should be no weapons on any flight; there should be a closer screening of anyone involved with the aircraft; we should be able to rely on our Intel. Services, and law enforcement and our employers to guarantee a "sterile" flight.

ace1

13th Sep 2001, 10:33

My condolonces to all in this terrible tragedy. This mass murder has to stop and the question is how??? :mad:
Having sky marshals is not the answer and I believe that it MUST start from the ground. We must tighten the security, from the passengers right up to the workers in the airport.
As an aviator, there is nothing much we can do once up in the air.... be it with sky marshals or not. With these people highly trained and more sophisticated nowadays. It of no use tackling them in the air when we should be doing it on the ground.
Furthermore, with the limited space in the aircraft, we can't do much.

Fellow aviators.... let us rally around and find means to end this tragedy. All acts of terrorism must stop!!! :mad:

Leviathan

13th Sep 2001, 10:37

Gentleman Aviator,

You make some good points sir, I believe no amount of security will prevent a well motivated terrorist force from at least trying to achieve it's objectives...

There is no doubt that security has to be increased to reduce the risk but ultimately every aircraft Commander should at least have a LAST LINE OF DEFENCE, whether firearms training or a non-lethal means of disabling assailants, In my own mind I believe a highly trained Sky Marshall (an archaic analogy perhaps but remember the shotgun riders on the old stagecoaches) is one of the most flexible ways to achieve some of the touted resolutions.

The most frightening aspect of this whole tragedy was it's devastating success, we have to give ourselves half a chance of making sure it never happens again........

tony draper

13th Sep 2001, 10:56

Someone suggested to me a idea, I don't know how much merit it has or how practical it would be.
If you had a situation where cabin crew and passengers are being threatened or killed in order to force the pilots to unlock the cockpit door, could not the pilot be given the ability to depressurise the cabin, I mean a very fast depressurisation?.

The Guvnor

13th Sep 2001, 11:57

Sometimes, I wonder if some of you live in the real world! OK, Tuesday's events might have seemed like a bad Bruce Willis movie, but that's no need to advocate a Rambo response, people!

Let's look at the options.

1. Reinforced door

Nice idea - but what happens when the bad guys start killing cabin crew members and/or passengers, unless you open up? Are you going to have their lives on your conscience? Nope, didn't think so.

2. Arming pilots

One of the crazier ideas. First, how are you going to get access to your weapons sitting down - let alone having a decent firing stance? If the idea is that the flight deck crew would come out of the cockpit, guns blazing, what happens when they get drilled by the guy they didn't see?

3. Skymarshals aboard every flight

It's been done before, and looks like it's going to be done again. At least these people are professionals, and properly trained in the use of firearms on board aircraft. However, you're talking about a very significant cost which is going to be passed onto the airlines - and onto passengers - as well as the loss of two or more revenue seats.

And, for those who know what to look for - and believe me, 'organised' terrorists/hijackers know what to look for - Skymarshals stand out like a sore thumb and would be taken out first.

Remember, 'organised' terrorists/hijackers (as distinct from lone nutters) work in teams of a minimum of three - one of whom will not 'show' until the aircraft has been secured, in case a Skymarshal is on board.

There's no doubt that security needs to be tightened in the US. In Europe - especially post Lockerbie - security has generally been to a reasonable standard. Let's face it - if the US was a foreign country, the FAA would have given it Category 2 long ago - and it says a lot for the power of big business there that the FAA allows itself to be dictated to not just on safety issues but also maintenance by major airlines. That has to stop.

There's no doubt that the US airline industry has to change beyond recognition after Tuesday's events. Costs will be very much higher, and air travel will no longer be as convenient - resulting in many passengers no longer flying. This will put a number of airlines out of business; certainly stringent cost reduction programmes will be introduced to pay for all of the additional security measures so you can expect substantial pay and/or job cuts.

At the end of the day, though, the risks of a hijack - or a repeat of Tuesday's events - are minimal for any given crew/aircraft. And it's always going to be a case of if someone is determined enough then he's going to get through any security shield.

As the IRA said post Brighton: "We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky all the time."

Brakes...beer

13th Sep 2001, 18:05

Who else, but The Guvnor, could weave the necessity for substantial pay cuts into this debate?

The flying gunman

13th Sep 2001, 20:20

I am a police officer of 15 years service and at present I am a member of a team that provides armed protection to senior members of the UK government including the PM and believe I am qualified to give my opinion on this subject

Spookily enough i compiled a report on this subject for a 'low cost carrier' in the UK about 3 months ago.

Tactically having armed personnel on an aircraft is an option though a minimum of three persons would be required.Arming the flight crew or cabin crew is not an option,they have their own jobs to do in an emergency of any kind.
Contrary to popular belief firearms could be discharged in an aircraft without a rapid decompression taking place,handguns that we in the Metropolitan police use(Glock 17) with low grain rounds would not penetrate an aircrafts structure,but I agree the confines of a cabin would make an unattractive battleground.
IF the UK were to go down this road the armed personnel would have to be police officers, our laws do not provide for any other government or private agency to carry firearms(except the military but this takes us into a different ball park).
The Guvnor states that 'skymarshalls' would stand out like a sore thumb.If I were in charge that is exactly what I would want.When we protect the PM you can see us a mile off-prevention is better than cure.Also we are not gun totting thugs looking to shoot the next innocent person...On an aircraft you would have highly trained officers who can see 'if someone is not right' hopefully before anything takes place.Having armed police officers on an aircraft makes it a thousand times more unattractive as a terrorist target.
Having said all that this government would not even consider this as an option.
So this leads us onto unarmed private airline security personnel an option that I favour.
I am talking about highly trained people here not your uniformed security men from Tescos. Again at least three men(or women).Here you still have a deterent from your would be terrorist,people who can spot when things are not right,who have superior physical skills and hostage negotiation skills.Personnel who can be used on a daily basis also to deal with and prevent air rage and yobbish behaviour. But this is not attractive to the airlines because 1) you are usng three revenue seats on each flight
2) he airlines would have to recruit people with these skills from the police and military so you would be lookind at salaries of 40-50K pa to attract the right people( police officers in London protecting the PM earn in excess of this amount).

To summarise
Airliners at present are soft targets not only for terrorists but also for your drunken thug
Highly trained law enforcment or private personnel would prevent rather than cure
Safety in the air should be paramount and not based on financial considerations but i understand that airlines are in the business of making money.

These are my personal views and not those of the Metropolitan police .

Or you could always employ someone like me who finishes ATPL at the end of the year!!!

tony draper

13th Sep 2001, 20:31

I'm a bit suprised to hear you say a low grain round wouldn't penetrate the skin of a aircraft, I will assume you mean after it has used up its kinetic energy on a target? what about stray rounds?.
I know sky marshalls carry hand guns, and its not something I can say I've ever thought about, perhaps a small hole wouldn't present that many problems, but what about cable looms?. ;)

SunSeaSandfly

13th Sep 2001, 20:57

Guvnor,
Locked doors.
According to reports, the passengers on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania became aware of the intent of the terrorists, and decided to risk their own certain death against the possibility of further "collateral deaths" , and took some kind of action. The aircraft went down in an unpopulated area, and did not cause the considerable mayhem it might have. If these reports are true, there were some truly brave people on that aircraft.
My point in an earlier post was that now the Capt may have to determine whether to risk certain death for many against probable deaths of some. Not an easy decision, but "the lesser of the two evils" might well be thew choice.

Firing position for the crew.
With a locked door, there would be some notice before the terrorist managed to force his way in. Presumably when he finally broke in he would be looking straight down the barrel of at least one weapon.

Skymarshals
I think there have been several incidents with skymarshals where there was an acceptable outcome, but I do not have access to some of the classified info.
It is notable that El Al do not have much trouble with inflight interference of any type. They must be doing something right.

The Guvnor

13th Sep 2001, 20:58

It's interesting that The flying gunman - as a serving officer in (I assume) DRPG rather than SO19 favours the 'overt' rather than 'covert' approach.

That approach works well with the average nutter or drunk (read air rage passenger) where the sight of an obvious CPO (usually wearing the de rigeur shades) is enough to put them off any thoughts they may have of getting a few minutes of fame.

However, that approach - in my view - would be counter productive in the case of a 'professional' attack. Identifiable security officers would be neutralised first; and it is significant that both the US Skymarshals and those used on El Al are in civvies.

Weapons to be utilised would also be a critical choice - they must be powerful enough to put the target down yet at the same time not overpenetrate and hit innocent pax. Pancake rounds or rounds like the Glaser or HydraShok would be the most effective; and indeed so would be Tasers although care would need to be taken with them on 'electric' aircraft.

I agree that a minimum team of three would be required (which coincidentally is the minimum number needed for a potentially successful hijack) who would need to be spread throughout the aircraft. The costs involved - at say £50k pa each for the right calibre of people, which is senior FO pay on a sizeable airline and Captain pay (or more) on smaller ones - would be prohibitive, especially as one team would be required per crew; and the loss of revenue resulting from the occupation of three seats would also have to be factored in.

Under present rules, in the UK the only people that would be permitted to provide an armed escort service would be police officers; and to source say 7,500 qualified officers (500 aircraft x 5 sets of a 3 person team) would be completely impossible!

So that leaves you with civilian officers who would have to be unarmed under existing rules. They might be fit and well trained - but so would be the people they are going up against. And unless full body searches are introduced, the chances of detecting composite or ceramic weapons will be minimal - as is the case with certain types of explosives. Profiling helps, but is far from infalible - and again, the pros know exactly what is being looked for and will act accordingly.

The most difficult thing to counteract is the sleeper - someone who gets employment with a specific company or industry and works perfectly normally for an extended period until they are 'activated' and carry out required tasks. These sleepers could well include pilots.

Today's terrorist is usually highly intelligent, well resourced and funded - and represents a clear and present danger to us all.

cyclops

14th Sep 2001, 00:02

I know that RJ were working on how much power was required to get a bullet to penetrate the aircraft skin. Their riccochets were coming into my classroom :eek:
I guess that once it became common knowledge that RJ and El Al carried "air marshalls", terrorists decided other air lines would be much easier targets.
Certainly the do-gooders and weak management have screwed around long enough with aircraft security. Now terrorists need to know that they will not be the only ones on board who are dedicated to a cause.

alosaurus

14th Sep 2001, 00:04

Sincere condolences to all those who have lost loved ones,as the individual stories come out it moves us all.
Gentleman Aviator,Flying Gunman & Leviathan....you all make good points.
The Guvnor..you last sentance is correct so why do you only offer problems/criticism?Any senior manager worth his salt demands solutions not just more problems.

We must not just be reactive but be proactive in our approch to ensure we are not wrongfooted by these people thinking one step ahead of us.
Does anyone know of an instance where the skymarshal approach has failed?These people are a deterrent and that is their primary role.For this you would need a maximum of two.
-Round figures £100,000/year..500 flights/year=£200/flight.As low cost carriers are still very much in the minority this typically represents around 1% of ticket price.The increase in fuel costs which will ultimately fall out of this are going to be significantly more than that.
Regulation will simply have to be changed to allow these trained individuals to carry weapons on a UK aircraft.While you are at it train them in cabin crew evacution techniques and reduce the cabin crew requirement by one.
At the end of the day extra security on the ground can easily be avoided;I know of no airfield where the unlit perimeter fence could not be scaled by even the most amateur.Once the implements of terrorism are there the rest is easy...unless you have skymarshals.The public is going to have to pay,and you won't find too many of them complaining about it.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: alosaurus ]

The Guvnor

14th Sep 2001, 01:02

alosaurus, you've already heard from an expert that a minimum of three people would be required - and I agree with that.

So, that's £150k per team, plus allowances/per diems, accommodation, training, cost of lost revenue seats, etc etc - say a further £100k or so. So per team, you're looking at £250,000. You need one team per crew - I'll use a figure of five crews per aircraft (you use however many crews per aircraft your airline has), so that's £1.25m per aircraft. In the case of an airline like BA with 200+ aircraft, that's over quarter of a billion pounds added to the overhead. How many airlines do you know of that are making sufficient profit to pay that sort of cost? And don't you think that they are trying to maximise revenue already - so it's not as easy as you think to "just add on a pound or two per ticket"!

The old saying prevention is better than cure applies here. Security on the ground has to be improved to the point that nothing can get through - and that's another cost that's going to be passed on to the airlines and from them to the diminishing numbers of passengers prepared to check in three hours in advance of a one hour flight.

You asked whether there have been instances where the Skymarshal approach has failed: the answer is yes, many times - I can think of instances in Iran, Russia and China where shootouts have led to the aircraft going down.

SeaSunSandFly - interesting perspective, but I'd refer you to some of the air rage threads earlier where it was pointed out that a pilot's job - and priority - is to fly an aircraft. It takes a particular mindset to be able to use a firearm on another human deing - no matter what's going on - and having been in that position myself I can say that it's not as easy as just pulling a trigger - no matter what the movies might show! Some people certainly could do it - but everyone? And how would the crew act in the event that a passenger or member of the cabin crew is being used as a human shield - would they hand over their weapons or see that person killed before their eyes? A sobering thought.

Nor is there much room for manoeveur on most flight decks - one exception being the L1011!

Whilst El Al's on-board security team might be an effective deterrent (all of whom are in plain clothes and spread around the aircraft, btw) I'd attribute the lack of any occurrences on board their aircraft to vigilant and exhaustive ground security checks - which corroborates my point above.

SkytrekHH

14th Sep 2001, 01:24

Concerning the access to the cockpit from the cabin - remember the Tupolev 104 (early 60's). It had completely divided cabin and cockpit areas; there was no way to get from one part to another during flight (maybe except via underfloor cargo and electronic bays). The problem is additional weight - pilots need their own lavatories etc.
But, after the horrible attacks last Tuesday, maybe someone remembers this concept.

billbliss

14th Sep 2001, 02:52

I agree that arming the flight deck isn't the answer. Pilots have enough to do as it is. To ensure in-flight security, you're talking about a new, dedicated job function in commercial aviation, just as you have with cabin crew, loadmasters, ticket agents, and so on.

I do not believe the airlines should be asked to solve this problem, however. Not only are there the obvious revenue pressures, but we've seen how effective the US air carriers are at ensuring airport security, and that's not a model I want to see repeated.

I would pay a surcharge of $5 or $10 a ticket to fund a new function of the US federal government for US flagged carriers--a joint venture between the FAA and the FBI/Armed Forces/Secret Service, say. This would pay for the skymarshals or whatever we'd call them. I think a lot of people would agree with me on this after what just happened on Tuesday...

(And for the record, this should be in addition to increased airport and ground security measures too.)

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: MrBill ]

Guern

14th Sep 2001, 03:32

Surely arming FD crew would increase everyones chances?

Apollo

14th Sep 2001, 04:29

I still think that the introduction of a weapon into the aircraft enviroment is the wrong approach. If everybody knows that skymarshals are on board, and at least three of them, why plain cloths? Give them an MP5 machine gun! Exterior vest's! Tactical clothing. That would be a far greater deterrent to hijackers with knives, than plain cloths marshals scattered throughout the A/C.

Wing Commander Fowler

14th Sep 2001, 05:17

Sunseasandfly, In answer to your question regarding Finger print identification, just such a system is currently in operation in Tel-Aviv. Having operated out here from Ben Gurion for a few months now I can say that Airmarshalls are quite a reassuring presence on the aeroplane. However, 3 of them on an ATR42 would be somewhat overkill Gov.

maus-warra

14th Sep 2001, 08:08

Chloroform - equip each aircraft with a chloroform (or other knockout drug) discharge system, activated from the cockpit at the first sign of trouble. Flight deck don masks b4 discharge and head for nearest suitable..

Possibly overkill in many circumstances...but effective.

tony draper

14th Sep 2001, 10:29

Perhaps its time that everybody over the age of say 18 has to carry a fool proof id card containing finger print/retinal pattern and instantly verifiable information that can be checked on airport computers.
We,ve been to coy over the years on this subject.
Apart from the civil liberties people who will scream at anything, what the hell is the objection?.
Most of us no matter what job we have had to carry some kind of id for years, most of us carry all sorts of stuff ie credit cards with personel information .
I have never understood peoples reluctance to carry ID, it seems a bit like the cctv systems if you not a scallywag whats the objection to them.

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

Jackonicko

14th Sep 2001, 13:45

If Skymarshals were known to be used by a particular airline, would they have to be carried on every flight in order to be a deterrent. It all complicates a terrorist's thinking: "If we target a XYZ airlines jet, there could be skymarshals on board..."

cyclops

14th Sep 2001, 13:48

With regard to Air marshalls - do you require one team per crew? All that is required is that the airline is known to have them, they do fly and this aircraft could have them on board. Something like a speed control camera box. Is there a camera inside?

Ai marshalls will not be the only solution. There must be greater security on the ground, personal IDs (everyone in the US is immediately identified by security no. why not something like this in Europe and the rest of the world), countries that do not boost security to be boycotted.

The time has come where governments must stop saying that they must fight by the rules. There are no rules. How many more innocents are going to die while the politicians pontificate? Force is understood by the terrorist (witness the kidnapping of a USSR citizen in Beirut in the 80s), words are seen to be a sign of weakness.

The Guvnor

14th Sep 2001, 14:15

Cyclops - in my opinion, you'd need them on every flight as it would be relatively easy for a 'professional' terrorist to gain information as to whether or not there were likely to be Skymarshals on board a particular flight; or even worse manipulate their schedules so that they weren't on hoard a given flight.

Meanwhile, the Americans are talking about using Delta Force (their equivalent of our SAS) as Skymarshals ...

From ATWonline:

US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta said yesterday that DOT has appealed to the Dept. of Defense "for expeditious treatment and action…to give us some Delta Force folks" to put on commercial aircraft to act as a deterrent and last line of defense against future acts of terrorism. "They are already trained on high-risk situations," he said. Citing an urgent need for such action, Mineta pointed out that it would take at least several weeks to train "people we might get [from inside the government]--INS agents or border patrol or others in terms of being competent to be federal air marshals."

In addition to airport security steps outlined Wednesday that permitted resumption of airline services effective at 11 a.m. EDT Thursday (ATWOnline, Sept. 13), Mineta also said that uniformed agents from the Justice and Treasury departments will be deployed at airports across the country. But he was cautious on the call by the industry and others (see next item) to transfer responsibility for the security and screening process at US airports from airlines to the federal government. "If we federalize it, who's going to be doing the work? Are they civil service employees, or are we just going to be federalizing it in the sense that the FAA/DOT is now going to take over the contract and then are we going to go around asking for the lowest bid from contractors? What have we netted then? All we've done is to move it from a low-cost/low-bid contract awarded by an airline to [a low-cost/low-bid contract] awarded by FAA/DOT...That doesn't improve security."

But if the choice is to have actual government employees do the job, "I'm not sure Congress is willing to accept that that kind of additional cost be borne by taxpayers." Alternatively, charging airlines for security may not be a "healthy thing for the economy…given the shaky condition of airlines right now."

Elsewhere, around the country most airlines began limited services yesterday. Among larger carriers, Continental, United and Southwest all decided to delay a restart until today. As FAA opened the airways, there remained confusion over passenger processing rules. An FAA spokesperson told ATWOnline that all passengers must check in at ticket counters before proceeding through security, while two Major airlines contacted by this website said that passengers without baggage to check and holding paper tickets or printed e-ticket receipts and itineraries could clear security before checking in.

Airlines ask government to take over airport security

In a blunt statement, US airlines represented by the Air Transport Assn. called on the
federal government to stop avoiding what is "virtually, by definition, governmental functions and responsibilities" and assume control of security at airports and on aircraft. "In the fight against terrorism…the government has long sought to focus most intensively on only the last line of defense--countermeasures--and to pass that responsibility to the aviation industry. Recent events demand a change in this approach," the organization stated.

ATA wants the government to look seriously at nationalizing the air passenger screening process; to deploy a high-visibility, armed, uniformed presence at airports, including both law enforcement and military personnel, and to resurrect and expand the sky marshal program that puts armed agents on aircraft. Quoting former FAA Chief Counsel Clark Onstad, ATA noted that the airline industry "is the only place in America where law enforcement has been delegated to private companies. The airlines are not the 82nd Airborne. They catch the insane, they catch the sloppy and they catch the ignorant, but they're not going to catch a sophisticated terrorist."

Both ATA and the Air Line Pilots Assn. have worked with FAA to make immediate changes in the security system, including better passenger-screening and baggage-inspection procedures, prohibition of all knives and sharp objects beyond the screening point and mandatory searching of aircraft prior to passenger boarding. In addition, ALPA wants to see significantly tighter restrictions on ramp access and a temporary suspension of cargo and mail on passenger aircraft. ATA focused on increased random checking of baggage and an explosive detection system/explosive trace detection screening or manual search of selected passenger baggage.

The flying gunman

14th Sep 2001, 18:44

Guvnor

It is refreshing to hear views such as those of yours that are obviously informed. I would be interested to know your background.You are quite correct I am RDPG now but I was SO19 prior to this. If we are to have armed or unarmed security on an airliner we are talking about protection are we not.One of the basic principles of protection is a show that 'we are here and you have got to got through us first'. When we protect the PM or Royalty we don't send them out on their own and pretend they have no protection and then pounce should something happen.No we have uniformed officers all around and obvious personal protection officers around the principal.Overt protection(skymarshalls if you like) are what is required on an airliner.
Tony Draper
A low grain semi jacketed 9mm round would not penetrate an airframe structure on a PA28 let alone an airliner.They travel at approx 1450 feet per second and kinetic energy is dissapated over a 6 feet square area.It is no secret that if you get shot by a police officer with a handgun on a winters day with your thick coat and jumpers on you will probably still make the pub for last orders. No specialist rounds would be required in an aircraft,

SPRINTING RABBIT

14th Sep 2001, 22:39

Having seen all these events unfold from the very first minute live here on US TV, I am amazed at some peoples extreme reactions.
Firstly, Skymarshals have been operating here for many years on flights all around the USA (mainly on 'suspect' flights) and they are not something of a novelty.
To this end, just how many flights do you all think there are flying around the world and how many Skymarshalls do you think this would require?!
Armed personnel on board aircraft are not the answer, as hijackers will normally outnumber them, firing shots around a pressurised cabin is not a clever move (explosive decompression is NOT a safe option) and if the hijackers have only knives then they now have the possibilty of gaining a firearm.
As for more strict forms of ID, thats fine , but remember folks, these guys were all 'clean' and were all fully aware that they would never see another day, so had little regard for other humans life.
There will always be fundamentalists who will do anything to anybody in the name of their cause, all we can do is keep security as tight as possible and keep focussed on reality.
What has happened is truly tragic, but revenge in the form of war and firearms on board aircraft will not help undo what has happened.
I believe these people will do ANYTHING to accomplish their mission so lets not get drawn into a war of attacking innocent civilians.
More options will come to light, but lets not go the gung-ho way and equip airborne personnel with arms. Better to seal the flightdeck than that~!
And no I'm not a tree hugging pacifist, I'm just a realist. :confused:

Feetwet

14th Sep 2001, 23:08

I'm sure we need to improve the safety of flights, however some of the ideas I've seen posted worry me.
As many have said, arming the Flight or Cabin Crew, has to pose more problems than it would solve. Sim checks/route checks/CRM/SEP/Medical recurrant training...you now want to add shooting. To what standards...what situations do we train under. How often do we have to handle a gun to remain proficient in under the most stressfull situations.......will we have time to fly?

No, I'm all for safety, but truly believe it has to be a robust ground based item. Yes we will be vigilant on board, but the onus has to be to have really checked people out prior to boarding.

I.D. cards for all, photo, retinal scans, thumb prints. Positive ID to get a Ticket.

It may sound a bit 'Big Brother' but if thats what it takes...

My prayers to all the crew, their Families, and colleagues, and those of the other victims.

Minima

15th Sep 2001, 06:02

Sky marshalls or Air Guards as they used to be known as used to fly as plain clothes pax on the airline that I work for.They could be spotted from a mile away sitting in First Class ordering the Cabin Crew around and asking for refills periodically.The appearance of a military man even without uniform is pretty easily distinguishable with a Crew cut hairstyle and some having curled up moustaches.One of my friend happened to be occupying the seat adjacent to the Air Guard once and narrated a horrifying incident.The Air Guard apparently after completing his 10 COURSE MEAL dozed off and his loaded gun slid out of his pocket onto the floor without him realizing it.My friend picked up the gun and put it behind the magazines in the rack upfront.When the Air Guard got up,he instantly felt for his gun which was not there and freaked out.While conducting a frantic search for it he questioningly looked at my friend and my friend asked him what seemed to me wrong.He apologetically told him that he had misplaced his gun.My friend told him where it was and the Air Guard sheepishly apologised for his carelessness.
The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to have somebody onboard who has a loaded weapon.He can be over powered by a trained terrorist and basically you have laid grounds for a hijacking in a plate for the terrorist.

heloplt

15th Sep 2001, 06:39

Apollo just doesn't get the message here...criminals love unarmed victims! He is advocating showing up (by default) for a knife/gun fight with his wife's best friend in his hand for armament. When that hijacker enters the "sterile" cockpit...he is the only SOB with a weapon (using Apollo's line of thought). Now just who do you think is going to win that fight?

You fret about a decompression or some other hole appearing in the aircraft...consider what the WTC did as it came throught the windscreen , Apollo.

The Captain has the final responsiblity for the safe operation of the aircraft....if it means having an old fashioned Dodge City shootout at FL 30 something...then belly up to the bar sport! This is the real world of modern commerical aviation. Airmail pilots were issued sidearms during the early years of aviation...maybe it is time to resume that practice.

As for me...knowing a couple or three well trained , armed Sky Marshals were standing between me and the bad guys ,would bring peace of mind. At least they could whittle down the odds a bit before I had to use my glib sense of humor on a hijacker bound upon flying me and everyone with me into a building at near Mach speed!

Get real Apollo...evil people got guns and knives...better to die standing up than lying down! :mad:

Apollo

15th Sep 2001, 08:47

heloplt....

Don't get me wrong, armed skymarshals ARE going to be a fact of life for commercial aviation. I just think that ALOT more needs to be done on the ground. I work at a major International airport and I see on a daily basis the level of security .....AND IT SUCKS!

In the last three days, I've had to submitt to having my vehicle searched, my body frisked, my lunch box searched and periodic spot checks in the terminal by RCMP. I don't mind this. It's about time. And the flying public will also have to subject to this type of treatment, even more rigidly.

I just don't think that having weapons on A/C is a good Idea. Cost to airlines as mentioned on a previous post is a factor. How many skymarshal crews must be assembled?
Do they get involved in cases of air rage and drunk passengers? Where is the line drawn for when they are to get involved?
They then become more of a "SKY COP". Should they carry a ticket book and hand out fines?
Obviously they will be on-board A/C from now on, but alot of questions need to be answered, and procedures need to be thought out? I do know they have been used before so maybe the rules and regulations have already been drawn up.

By the way...I don't think mail carriers carried handguns for fear of hijacking. They would have been used more for shooting animals for food if the Bi-plane went down in unpopulated back-country in the early 20's and 30's.

And yea pal....I do get real. Every day at work, keeping aircraft in the air. I see lot's of faces in those windows, and this act of terrorism really hits home. It hits all of us in this industry.

This world changed on Tuesday morning, and it will take a long, long time for a level of normality to return to our lives.

MaxDiff

15th Sep 2001, 10:34

Fix it on the ground would be best. Some sort of inflight defence sounds good, however, what are those stats on guns in the home being used / cause of fatalities against the owner ?

The N.R.A. are gonna love this.
:confused:

Alpine Flyer

15th Sep 2001, 11:25

Fixing (most of) the problem on the ground seems more reasonable to me. I, too, have the impression, that on-ground security still has many holes that can and should be covered.

Putting more weapons on the flights, whether in the hands of trained (and expensive) sky marshals or - I am tempted to say "god forbid" - in the hands of flight (why not cabin?) crew simply means that EVERY flight is going to be a flight with weapons on board then.

How do all the guys advocating armed flight crew envisage the defensive use of such weapons. How are we, sitting face-forward, to attack someone coming from behind. There is numerous evidence that "self-defence" weapons are quite often used against their bearers because they lack the determination to properly use them, a fault clearly absent for the villains.

Sky marshals might not be handicapped in that way but could still be overcome by a "sleeper" terrorist. Of course you can also have "sleeper" marshal, etc. but that game can be carried on until the whole airplane half loaded with nonrevenue security agents.....

I don't think the cost of marshals would create competitive disadvantag for a single airline, even if the marshals are not paid by governments - something quite inconceivable in the EU's climate of every branch of transport having to bear its own costs (except for trains, cars and metrot transport, of course :-)

If all airlines have the same "marshal standards" or pay a fixed fee to the government for marshal services than the industry as a whole would be disadvantaged but not any single airline.

As for locking up the flight deck, that doesn't really make sense unless you have all the facilities required forward of that (secure) door. What use is a steel door if you have to open it to go to the loo? (As for food, we'll get used to the lunch boxes and after some time won't miss the first class meals........)

As for the threat of killing the pax or hosties one after the other to gain access to the flight deck, I think that's rather real. Even if you agreed to fly the airplane anywhere a hijacker demands, how could he be certain you really do as he wants, don't communicate raiding plans, etc., unless he is on the flight deck?

While increasing screening, profiling, whatever might seem a good idea, any measure curtailing constitutional liberties should be veeeery tightly scrutinized. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that those willing to give up a little liberty to defend liberty would wake up to find that they have no liberty left to descend.

A very thoughtful editorial in the Financial Times of Sep 12 argued that no measures, however complicated and elaborate, could prevent a duplication of Tuesdays attack in even a totalitarian state, much less in a "free" society. It is therefore important to not only work on the symptoms but also on the cause of terrorism. We have to remove the conflicts that lead deranged minds to think that terrorism is a valid means of resolve to remove terrorism.

That will still leave us with the insane and ordinary criminals but "ordinary" security, threats, etc. work quite well against those, but not against fanatics prepared for suicide.

Remember, even if we manage at great cost to plug all the holes in civil aviation, there remain numerous other ways to terrorize and attack an "open" society. Even if we agree to live in a (secret) police controlled state - something not desirable to me , some clever deranged minds will find a workaround.

I am shocked as any of you about Tuesday's attacks but while implementing better security in our profession we should look beyond the obvious for a lasting solution.

tony draper

15th Sep 2001, 12:21

I think the terrorists will give he airlines a miss for a while, lord knows they have plenty of other options.
Once you have people that are willing to kill themselves they have simplified their operations a thousand fold, no timing devices necessary, no complex escape routes, no chance of your people giving information to the security services.
A car driven into a tunnel, or a vehicle of homemade explosives driven onto something like the Golden Gate Bridge,hell, they dion't even need explosives, a road tanker full of petrolium is a very effective bomb.
We are a target rich envoirement as they say.
Before all this happened I was wondering how long it would be untill those folks swarming at the French end of the channel tunnel try to physicaly hijack a train, they all also in a no lose situation, they don't care if they are caught, as long as they are caught on the English side.
We live in interesting times, fortress Europe and America??.
Ironic, we may have to build our own iron curtain.

marshall

15th Sep 2001, 13:24

Airline safety has proven to be not as safe as once believed. Not only can planes be hijacked but are now regarded as “flying bombs”
Airports need to provide the strictest security possible but it needs to be finically viable. Sure it may seem the easiest way to avoid such a tragedy lies with the airport but the way hijackers are managed in the air needs a considerable amount of review also. Baggage handlers and security can only do so much.

The need for an inaccessible cockpit seems like a favorable alternative. If access to the cockpit is stopped then the disaster that took place during the week could have been avoided. A far fetched idea is also the possibility of inducing a sleeping agent into the cabin. The Captain and First Officer would both be sealed in the cockpit with there oxygen masks and with a press of a button, the cabin would be sprayed. Hijackers and passengers alike would both be unconscious and the flight crew could land ASAP. The hijackers could been arrested without the chance of further bloodshed. Of course many problems may arise. Pregnant woman, elderly people and kids but if a safe, effective solution could be found, this would reduce any successful hijackings. Just a thought.

I am just a shocked as everyone, my brother was even at the twin towers. He saw the second plane hit and the following collapse of the towers. It is such a tragedy that hopefully will never be repeated again.

God bless all that are affected. My prays are with you all.

The Guvnor

15th Sep 2001, 13:40

Seems like Transport Secretary Stephen Byers is a PPRuNer! :D

From today's Telegraph:

Planes may have armed guards: Byers

Armed guards on board planes, and isolated
cockpits to protect pilots, could be introduced, Transport Secretary Stephen Byers says.

Mr Byers, who has met fellow EU transport
ministers to agree common security procedures, says Israeli airline El Al had cockpits which could be isolated from the rest of the aircraft and security personnel on board.

He added: "This is a measure we will need to consider in the light of what happened (the terrorist attacks in America). This is a new form of terrorism and we need to respond to it in the appropriate way."

Mr Byers said: "What we need to do is to respond to the things we saw. We need to mourn the dead, we have to protect the living and we have to make sure our normal way of life is protected."

Mr Byers said the prospect of a suicidal terrorist, prepared to kill himself and all passengers, was a threat "our existing security measures had not taken into account".

SunSeaSandfly

15th Sep 2001, 14:29

Guvnor
I know we differ on this issue, but a change in my domain is taking place.
I have always been the final link in the safety chain. I have accepted this responsibilty because I have had very large sums of money spent on my training, years of experience, and I feel reasonably competent to fulfil my duties to my passengers.
You are now telling me the I could well end up a mere spectator in God knows what, because the last effective link may be several steps prior to me.
When all other links have failed, and the terrorist is battering his way through the cockpit door, I have to pick up my spare headset and the ops manual and turn to defend myself and my passengers, wielding my woeful weapons.
The only real weapon I will have is the expectation of certain death, and the unspeakable rage that helplessness will bring.

The Guvnor

15th Sep 2001, 16:23

Seasunsandfly - as a Captain, your ultimate responsibility is the safety of your aircraft, passengers and crew. Until Tuesday it was always assumed that hijackers were generally not kamikaze types but (vaguely) rational types that would want something for nothing - like a free trip to Cuba or Tripoli and lots of publicity for their cause.

Therefore, the previous mindset was: do nothing to antagonise them and everything will work out OK.

As of Tuesday, those rules changed.

I don't have any answers - all I have is the knowledge that aviation has changed forever. It's going to become a lot more expensive and inconvenient for everyone - including crews - and a lot of airlines are going to go to the wall as a result.

Personally, my view is that bringing back the Skymarshals will be the only viable option - the debate is going to be whether this is overt, covert or a combination of the two. Probably the latter from a PR viewpoint, though I'd prefer totally covert.

We've had the debate before about whether or not flight deck should get involved with air rage incidents - and I recall the concensus was an overwhelming no.

From a practical viewpoint, if we assume that your employer gives you a Glock and you're sitting doing your stuff and a professional terrorist bursts in without warning - what are you going to do? Trying to use a firearm from a seated position is extremely difficult - I know, I've done it. Trying to use it on someone behind you, in the confines of a cramped cockpit, is all but impossible. You're then in a very difficult situation - the hijacker wants your weapon, and your FO is going to be killed if you don't hand it over. What do you do?

Or take scenario B. You're carrying Skymarshals and there has been a successful takeover - they've been neutralised. You have the flight deck door secured, but there's a terrorist on the other side who's telling you to open it - and to make his point, he's just killed one of your cabin crew. He has a female passenger as a human shield - you have 10 seconds to open the door or she gets killed as well. What do you do?

I'll tell you one thing - I hope never to be in a position where I have to make any decisions like those.

Tan

15th Sep 2001, 16:53

Hi Apollo
Just a little history...

NWA mail pilots carried arms officially, up until the '60's.

Some AC pilots armed themselves after our first hijacking, I know, I was there. I spoke, read drank, with many US pilots who admitted carrying arms in their flight bags into the '70's.
Remember that it was probably more or less legal (?) in those days to carry arms.

There was great discussion among the world pilot group in those days as whether or not the carrying of arms was a good idea. Sound familiar..

We are in a new century and things have taken a very tragic turn. What to do? I don't know...Every solution seems to present unforeseen other problems.

SunSeaSandfly

15th Sep 2001, 16:58

But Guvnor, by the time the terrorist is kicking his way into the cockpit, he has already either got superior weaponry to the Skymarshal, or has taken the marshal down and has his weapon, so it is immaterial to him whether or not there is a weapon in the cockpit. He will already have killed at least one in the cabin and will have no compunction in killing the cockpit crew. The cockpit will certainly be aware something is amiss.
Things are desperate.
I am not going to sit quietly in the drivers seat, am I ? If the a/p is working it will be on , and I, and probably f/o too, will be out of the direct line of fire if at all possible. I admit in present equipment I will have c/b indents all over me for a long time, but say what.
All we have left is me, or the f/o , or else it's the empire state, eiffel tower, or what have you.
You think I won't have the fear/courage to shoot to kill?

Self Loading Freight

15th Sep 2001, 23:38

While better screening of pax is an option, it is more of a problem with international flights. If I fly over to the US and want to make internal flights, will I have be registered on some central database? To be honest, I can see the introduction of global citizen registration being one of the long-term effects of the September 11th attack -- and if you're not registered, you don't get in to Europe or America. Even longer term, this could be the start of the World State, with all that implies for terrorism and our personal liberties (which, after all, we are trying to defend). Don't forget that any such tools are potentially vulnerable to compromise and corruption by terrorists.

We will never be utterly safe from attack, no matter what precautions we take. For me, that's an acceptable risk in return for the benefits of aviation and as a pax I'm prepared to accept responsibility for following the rules and not adding to the risk through stupidity or selfishness.

Security is everyone's business, and I hope that message is made clear in the aftermath.

R

Dagger Dirk

16th Sep 2001, 01:27

The answer to defeating unlawful interference might lie with this solution:

CLICK this LINK (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

The Guvnor

16th Sep 2001, 02:02

Much better idea - how about remotely controlling the aircraft from the ground? That at least would completely negate the value of hijacking an aircraft as it wouldn't make the slightest difference to those on the ground - and unless it was blown up in mid air there's nothing that a hijacker could do to use it as an airborne weapon.

Of course, one slight drawback is that pilots would become surplus to requirements - but that's the price you've got to pay for safety! :D :D :D

Eboy

16th Sep 2001, 02:31

Union says pilots must be aggressive. "The pilot must be prepared to kill a cockpit intruder."

http://www.wjla.com/showstory.hrb?f=n&s=17179&f1=n

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Eboy ]

bunyip

16th Sep 2001, 03:02

In the knee jerk responses we have seen so far, it is absolutely true that we are doing the terrorist's work for him in taking away our own freedoms and destroying our own economies and way of life in the guise of increasing 'security'. In a world that is lead by the truly stupid, what else can we expect?

In blaming every other country, including the UK and Canada for their own failings, the US risks destroying the relationships forged in blood.

Many countries categorise the PIC as a "special constable" and as part of maritime tradition he has a responsibility to his crew and passengers. If this means he must be armed, then that is the end of the discussion. If he does not want to be armed when that is a requirement for the job, let him get a new job.

Put a secure electronic lock on the flight deck door, operated by a four digit code set by the PIC before every flight. He can give the code to the purser or not, as company policy dictates. He can still open it from his seat as before, so if the cabin crew want access they can call ahead. But no-one gets into the cabin unless he allows it. He should also have a panic button which will put a solid lock on the door, so that it cannot be kicked in or forced (maybe a stronger door needed, with no blowout panels or smaller ones). In an emergency he can set this lock, which cannot be released in flight. No matter the threats, he will not be able to open the door.

This would solve the problem we saw in this attack, but make other attacks harder to combat. Is it what we want?

Top Loadie

16th Sep 2001, 03:56

The security question needs to be addressed at the many "lines of defence".
As has been said before, Airline Security begins at the point of check-in. Vetting may be incorporated at the booking stage but as previously noted, a large database would be needed and may not help with "clean" terrorist operatives.
Check-in security must be much stricter. Any kind of knife, pen-knife or blade must be carried in checked in luggage (carried in inacessible holds) or confiscated at the x-ray/security/customs. Maybe further x-rays/frisk searches at the jet bridge or gate.
As for carrying AirMarshalls, the deterrent element would be there. If someone knows an AirMarshall is carried on a particular airline, maybe there is less chance of someone attempting to take over the aircraft. SkyMarshalls should not be a "visible" deterrent, being in uniform would single that person out for the first attack/incapacitation. (I'm guessing a "sleeper" is non-visible). By introducing a firearm into a secure environment you are providing the attacker with a means of threatening the crew/passengers. Sounds dodgy to me.
Maybe it would be possible to carry prefilled, one-shot syringes, containing an incapacitation drug, concealed at various points in the aircraft (under seats/in galleys/on the flight deck). This would require being in close quarters but could be administered to the arm, leg or hand (maybe while you are keeping your head down in the isle seat).
The last line of defence is actually the flight deck door and not the flight deck crew. If the attacker gets the flight deck door open then you are already in trouble. the door does not need to be fully open to point a gun barrel inside!

There will no doubt be many suggestions on how security can be improved. We should all hope that the powers that be look into it as much, if not more intensely as we PPruners.

Clang, clang...the sound of stable doors closing!

My thoughts and prayers to all those affected by these tragic events, especially those of the FDNY who lost their lives going in to help...

"When I'm called to duty God, wherever flames may rage, give me the strength to save a life, whatever be their age...."(Firemans Prayer)

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Top Loadie ]

BOING

16th Sep 2001, 04:22

A stronger flight deck door would help. When was the present deliberately weakened flight deck door last needed for an emergency rescue? Unfortunately this strengthened door could lead to a situation where the pilots sit safely behind the door as the F/A's and passengers are individually murdered trying to force access. Not much fun.

Removal of all potential weapons at a security check point is a non-starter. All that is needed for a weapon, for instance, is a modified ball-point pen (solid steel tip, high strength plastic shank). The World aviation system can not work with the extensive checks that would be needed. Nice idea but would in effect shut down the airline industry. The six pax who got through the security check would not want to pay for the whole cost of the flight.

Properly trained sky marshals could help. We would need a whole bunch of them (what would there duty time be?) and there is the obvious cost. Who would pay, the airline or the government? If the airlines paid we would get more $7.50 an hour, 25 IQ, renta-cops - comforting thought! Does the sky marshal override the wishes of the Captain as an incident unfolds? What size aircraft must have a sky marshal, only "big" jets or commuters as well?

Arm a crew-member? In this case it may have helped and certainly could not have hurt. If you know everyone on the aircraft is going to die you might as well lose just a few to flying bullets because you are going to lose them all if you do nothing. You have an oxygen mask in case of depressurisation, why not a pistol in case of hijack? Liability? Training? Firearm issued by seniority or by ablity?

tony draper

16th Sep 2001, 04:38

Pardon me if I'm talking out of my arse here, but is it not possible for any aircraft to pull a zero g parabolic dive as in that NASA Vomit Comet?,again probably not a very practical way of disarming someone.

SunSeaSandfly

16th Sep 2001, 04:51

Guvnor
Your idea although not without merit, is perhaps a little ahead of its time.
It is not as though it is a banking system computer which only causes much irritation when it is down. When it glitches, people die.
Think of it, if every time your ATM, or office computer went funny, two or three hundred people died, population would be under control in two shakes of a duck's tail.
I have recently transitioned from steam driven to high tech, and the amount of glitches and "wierd sh*t" that I have come across allow me to state with some certainty that the human touch is not likely to be redundant for some time yet. :cool: :cool:

Apollo

16th Sep 2001, 08:04

Dagger Dirk....

Interesting Solution. But reliability would be a serious question. I don't use INOP stickers on the flightdeck all to often, but they are there at times. I'd hate for that system to have a brainfart and think that boggy marsh 50 miles to the east is an 11'000
foot ashphalt runway. Or worse, black out the cockpit, at night over the north atlantic. I'm starting to think maybe the skymarshal bit is possibly the best course of action.

Like others, I can't get certain images outta my head. And to prevent the cause of those images is going to be tough job. A costly job. A never ending job.

I'll just sit here and shake my head......

speechless......

Chris Lock

16th Sep 2001, 08:34

Should pilots be armed? No, one more thing
to worry about and train for. We fly the
airplane. Solution? One armed guard in the
jumpseat and one in the cabin. Right now.

Dagger Dirk

16th Sep 2001, 17:02

Apollo

That was a bit of a dismissive red herring old chap. ("thinking that boggy marsh 50 miles to the east is an 11'000
foot ashphalt runway...). simply because.....

If you look at the credentials of the chap (Rainman) giving the endorsement of the whole idea, he is THE Boeing and McDD auto-flight control expert. He writes extensively upon the subject on the Bluecoat glass-cockpit technician's closed forum. He has many years in the field; in fact many more years than the autoland systems that he does the design accreditation of. Those systems are fail-safe and that is the key. Having the Robolander as a fall-back position would at least avoid the thousands of casualties (that will now grow exponentially because of the many years of war to come).

The religious wars of the 21st Century are going to go on for many decades and will despoil the earth and deprive my children of what might have otherwise been a quite joyous life. And what's more worrying, I am not at all convinced that, once a Jihad is called by the clerics, that Freedom and Democracy will prevail. We lack the mindless conviction of the other side and just may not make it through to "Last Man Standing".

My government has decided to invest in a significant number of Global Hawks. They only did that after looking at the warrantied failure probabilities. They are far lower than your chances of winning the national lottery.

The concept is described in detail at this URL (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

elliottgr

16th Sep 2001, 20:17

As for arming Sky Marshalls: you might arm them with a non-lethal weapon that shoots short lengths of charged wire behind a dart (e.g. Taser). These get the attention of most people when the first one lands. That stops the problem of bullets whizzing around, but I can't begin to imagine what the 50,000 volt discharge will do to radio communications.

AwarePlayer

16th Sep 2001, 21:09

elliottgr,surely by then, QRM is the least of the problems, take the man down, then talk on the radios.
It is said that El Al has never had a successful hijack incident, but I believe they have had several instancess of dead terrorists on board. Their security people are armed I understand, so they seem to have figured it out. It is probably not rocket science, only good training in sensible techniques.

fireflybob

16th Sep 2001, 21:54

Another factor which I would like to throw into this thread is the number of personnel on the flightdeck.

Years ago many aircraft would usually have four or more crew members on the flightdeck, the extra personnel being flight engineers, navigators, even radio operators in early days of flying. These "extra" crew members must have given an extra layer of protection between the cabin and those up the sharp edge who are controlling the machine.

Perhaps some consideration should be given to having an extra person on the flight deck specifically tasked with security and equipped accordingly.

Reference the previous comments on El Al I believe they first put skyguards on their aircraft many years ago. Not long after there was an attempted hijack and the skyguards immediately shot the hijackers in the air. I don't recall that they have had any problems since then!

Amok Air

16th Sep 2001, 22:19

As a charter operator working in and out of the bush in northern Canada, I've had the misfortune from time to time to have to deal with unruly pax in the back who've been drinking, etc. For those who've flown up here before, they're commonly known as rig pigs. The equipment we use is exclusively the Piper Chieftain, which is a far simpler aircraft than the 757 or 767, so please excuse my ignorance relative to the following question.

Twice we've had pax who've decided for whatever reason they're going to try and join us in the front end during flight. One time I had told the pax if he moved from his seat again I would land and turn him over to the Mounties. My co-pilot told me he was coming forward, and with everyone else belted in, I pushed the stick (no where near load limits) and when he stumbled and fell, he was grabbed by the other guys in the cabin.

Not having any experience whatsoever with a heavy, I have to ask the question. If everyone was strapped in, and the only people moving about in the cabin are the bad guys, could aggressive action such as would be carried out for collision avoidance at least slow them down enough to prepare for their advance to the cockpit?

Again, if what I ask is foolish, it's a question borne of lack of experience in your environment. But I can't help wondering what I would try and do in such a horrible circumstance.

May God Bless them all, and give comfort to their families.

Amok Air