Federal Air Marshals Bail Out.

[BOING]

Long article in USA Today (always accurate, right!)

Federal Air Marshals are retiring in disgust over how the programme is being run.
Quote:

1. Now it's (the FAM programme) spoiled to the point that it's rotten.

2. Folks were lured over here (to the FAM programme) and were told they'd be flying three days a week with a day for training. Now they're flying five days a week and never train. Apparently FAM's are falling asleep on flights.

3. Training ammunition in short supply, but it's OK to buy their own.

4. Marksmanship test simplified to increase course success rates. One FAM said "like security guard training for the mall".

Etc. Etc.

It's OK though. Tom Quinn, head of the programme says "the complaining marshals represent only a small number of disgruntled individuals who are total amateurs..... Professionals embrace change. Amateurs cling to the past and what somebody may have said to them along the way".
It appears Mr. Quinn needs to explain a few points.

Number one, why was the FAM selection process so poor that an apparently quite large group of people who subsequently turned out to be "amateurs" got in?

Number two is, surely, even amateurs, have a right to expect that "what somebody may have said to them along the way" would be the truth and a valid promise?

Number three, why should professionals embrace change even if they do not agree with it? Surely a competent manager should find out why his professionals are not embracing change rather than just ramming change down their throats?

Sounds like the old saying "Flexibility is the key to air power! - meaning of course, that I, your leader, don't know what the hell I'm doing and I just screwed up but I expect you guys to suffer to save my backside.

[Smokie]

A similar attitude prevails in our company, no suprises there.:eek: :eek:

[Konkordski]

I get the distinct impression that half the people who applied to be FAMs were expecting to be involved in a heroic in-flight gun battle once a week, and were hoping to impress their mates with their new-found "frontline of airborne defence" status.

Reality is that virtually none of these people is ever going to come within sniffing distance of a hijacker, leaving them with the prospect of spending week after week, month after month, simply as an extra piece of cargo. I'd be bored rigid.

[GlueBall]

With improved armored cockpit doors and bulkheads, the Air Marshal has become superfluous. From what's been happening in the Middle East, it's become more obvious that the ultimate threat is suicide bombers. Individuals who are intent on blowing themselves up don't need access to the flight deck, they just need to get themselves aboard, either with plastic explosives wrapped around their bodies or with explosives in their checked baggage. The scary part is that most checked baggage is not screened for explosives. Needless to say, aviation security must be focused at the airport, with emphasis on explosives dedectors at screening points.

[OzPax1]

Glueball, Here in the UK ALL checked bags are x-ray screened before they are loaded onto the aircraft. As well as this 100% bag matching is carried out as the passengers present themselves at the gate for boarding..! If a passenger with checked the luggage doesn't show up the the aircraft is delayed until the bags come off...!! As for rush bags, the screening is even tougher than for normal checked bags. For obvious reasons I won't go into the details of them here. All this is something the USA hasn't fully implemented yet...!

As for Armed Sky Marshells I am a liitle concerned that passengers may not 'recognise' him/her as a friendly in the heat off the moment ,(they will be pointing a gun after all) and will tackle both the potential hijacker and the marshal! What are your thoughts on this?

[BOING]

You have it backwards Glueball. If suicide bombers are the problen then effective Air Marshals are even more important on the aircraft. A suicide bomber, an individual, is going to try to take over the aircraft or at least advertise his presence before blowing himself up. Otherwise the bomb could just as easily be put in the cargo as you mentioned.

The time when the terrorist announces his intention to the World in order to publicise his beliefs is the time when an Air Marshal would have a chance to intervene. There will be a delay between the time the terrorist announces his intent and the time he pulls the pin. The terrorist needs this time and will manipulate it to get maximum publicity. That's the time to act and only an armed person on the aircraft can intervene. (Unless you prefer to have yourself shot down rather than blown up).

As you correctly state the cargo hold, and other areas of the aircraft, are totally vulnerable. The business and political pressures of the industry will probably make this problem insurmountable. What we have now is airlines in poor financial shape and not willing to pay for effective security. We have enormously expensive government security measures being put into operation with no end in sight as to the final cost of the system. The airlines employ any labour that they can get, regardless of background, as long as they are cheap. The protections against employing "unfriendly" individuals are very minor. Basically, the whole problem of "rampside" security has yet to be approached with anything like the intensity applied to "passenger side" security and in many ways it is a far tougher problem.

What we are seeing is a falling airline business which is resulting in a reduction of the number of airline flights and reduced numbers of passengers while the cost of moving those passengers increases astronomically.

There is a total disconnect in reality. For example, UAL looks as though it will be turned down for 1.8 B$ of loan guarantees - not cash- loan guarantees. Meanwhile the government is spending an extra 5.1B$ - in cash- to maintain the security services.

At some point here there will have to be a cost/benefit analysis. How much taxpayer money can the government commit to provide very expensive services to a relatively small part of the population (For example, would more lives be saved each year by putting the same money into improved health care?). Unfortunately, what appeared to be a reasonable response to Sept. 11 has become an economic and political nightmare. No politician is going to back away from a commitment to US national security but no politician realised how expensive the final cost would be. How long will the population put up with paying extra taxes that only benefit air travellers? How big will the US federal deficit be allowed to grow in the name of security before (including various wars as well as homeland security) before it causes national, international, economic problems?

If the general health of the airline industry does not improve we will just about finish putting the last security screener in position as the last airline goes bankrupt.

[RatherBeFlying]

All that money would be better spent on training and keeping current the cabin crew on hijack resistance so that once the current FAM program fades away, as did its predecessor, the barn door will not be left open.

That would be a real solution instead of a temporary sop to the public until the hue and cry dies down.

[GlueBall]

OzPax1: Yes I've been through LHR and had my checked baggage x'd, and matched. But did the x-ray include an explosives scan?

You had raised a good point about concerned pax mistaking an Air Marshall for a terrorist during an onboard crisis.

Boeing: The Air Marshall couldn't sniff out a suicidal bomber. As I said before, a suicide bomber does not require to announce his presence, nor does he require access to the cockpit to blow himself up or to remotely detonate his checked suitcase bomb while aboard a fully fueled and loaded 747 that's climbing out over a large metropolitan area.

Suicide bombers don't confront people, soldiers or police, they just get on a bus or into a crowded mall and blow themselves up and everyone in proximity. That's why it's important to include explosive scanners at all pax and checked baggage screening points.

[BOING]

GlueBall, thats BOING not Boeing.

You are off track again because you are still thinking in terms of "traditional" suicide bombers. A suicide bomber in Israel does not need to identify himself, all he needs to do is kill people. The present airline situation is very different. The Al Quaeda terrorists want the whole world to know who was responsible for the actions, it's part of their modus operandi. They seek two things, to disrupt the Western way of life and to demonstrate the power of committed muslims in standing up to the infidels. They want and need publicity to show they are not yet beaten. You can bet that if they use suicide bombers on aircraft they will let the whole world know they were responsible, that despite the US goverment's best efforts they can still strike back. Let's face it, if you are going to light the fuse you might as well get the maximum amount of effect for your sacrifice. My bet would be on a "hijacking" by a suicide bomber followed up by the big bang when enough publicity had been achieved.

In this case a good sky marshal could just save the day.

[lofty50]

Boing

That's not necessarily so, they did not seek to announce during the 9/11 attacks who they were, they just did it. Later videos etc. appeared. No doubt the same would occur in a suicide bomb on a airplane. It seems the aim is just to kill as many as possible.

Also in the history of terrorism, and bombings all over the world, by countless organisations, it is pretty standard practice to "claim responsibility" afterwards. Publicity obtained.

[S76Heavy]

At some point in time we, as in "the Western civilisations", need to address the reasons WHY people are prepared to kill themselves and many others for their cause. If people feel they have nothing to live for, but a lot to die for, we will continue to be hounded by this problem.
But until such a long term solution can be made to work we need proper security measures to address the current threat.