Your Thoughts On Sky Marshals On Domestic Flights?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think everyone agrees it would be better to stop these lunatic hijackers before they board the aircraft, but they don't seem to be able to........ <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
You mentioned about the cost, possibly that may change, see following where the Widow of a passenger killed on September 11 is suing United Airlines. A few law suits may change their ideas on cost..... <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
(QUOTE)
Sept 11 widow sues airline
From AP
21dec01
AN American whose husband died aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center is suing the airline, alleging company negligence led to the September 11 hijacking.
Ellen Mariani, of Derry, New Hampshire, filed the lawsuit today in the US District Court for the southern district of New York.
Her husband, Louis Mariani, 58, was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to hit the centre.
The couple were taking separate flights to California to attend the wedding of Ellen Mariani's daughter.
Initially, Louis Mariani had planned to stay home, thinking it was too expensive for both of them to go.
But his wife raised money through yard sales to buy him a surprise ticket so he could see his stepdaughter walk down the aisle.
Mariani's lawyer, Don Nolan, said the airline had a duty to "exercise the highest degree of care" for safety and should have stopped the hijackers from boarding the plane.
Hid did not elaborate on what the airline should have done differently.
Nolan said Mariani has decided not to apply for money from the federal Victims Compensation Fund, which is open only to those families who agree not to sue anyone for damages.
"Mrs Mariani doesn't want the taxpayers' money," he said. "She wants her day in court with United Airlines."
Officials at United Airlines could not immediately be reached for comment today. The phone line was busy at the airline's corporate offices in Chicago.
You mentioned about the cost, possibly that may change, see following where the Widow of a passenger killed on September 11 is suing United Airlines. A few law suits may change their ideas on cost..... <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
(QUOTE)
Sept 11 widow sues airline
From AP
21dec01
AN American whose husband died aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center is suing the airline, alleging company negligence led to the September 11 hijacking.
Ellen Mariani, of Derry, New Hampshire, filed the lawsuit today in the US District Court for the southern district of New York.
Her husband, Louis Mariani, 58, was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to hit the centre.
The couple were taking separate flights to California to attend the wedding of Ellen Mariani's daughter.
Initially, Louis Mariani had planned to stay home, thinking it was too expensive for both of them to go.
But his wife raised money through yard sales to buy him a surprise ticket so he could see his stepdaughter walk down the aisle.
Mariani's lawyer, Don Nolan, said the airline had a duty to "exercise the highest degree of care" for safety and should have stopped the hijackers from boarding the plane.
Hid did not elaborate on what the airline should have done differently.
Nolan said Mariani has decided not to apply for money from the federal Victims Compensation Fund, which is open only to those families who agree not to sue anyone for damages.
"Mrs Mariani doesn't want the taxpayers' money," he said. "She wants her day in court with United Airlines."
Officials at United Airlines could not immediately be reached for comment today. The phone line was busy at the airline's corporate offices in Chicago.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it is so simple, Sky Marshals, go for it, I'm there 100%, no, make that 110%.
My grasp on it all is that the public expect the flight crew to get them from A to B smooth enough for the meal to be eaten, the video to be watched and to be able to get out at the other end without being crumpled by an extremely bad landing.
I would also think that they only expect the cabin crew to feed them, pamper them and to get them out the exits if it all goes to s..hit.
I do not think that they expect any of us to also be the security staff and save them from any two bit assailant.
AND sorry I don't want to, nor will I, take the John Wayne trip, I'm too old for that.
If Sky Marshals mean I can triple deadlock the cockpit door and worry about doing my job without thinking that I have to be Bruce Willis as well, I offer my thanks.
Do I care if I am told if and who the sky marshalls are onboard... NO. Do I care if I can tell them that I am the Kapitano and can make them do what ever I want them to do and they tell me to sit on it...NO. And why should I, my ego extends only to doing MY job well.
Really, I feel SOME of you guys out there think you know more about everything than anyone else but get real, realize that you just fly the aeroplane for gods sake. (Actually it would seem that some of you guys post as if you are God)
Surely you can be satisfied with the best seat in the office block, without having to be the CEO, HRM, MP etc etc.
After Sept you might very well find that the public may be very happy to have security on board that is quite separate from the dashing Kaptain up front, in fact I would be surprised if they didn't expect security.
And I support it to the point that I want it for my family every time they fly thank you very much. To steal a phrase "I fly and I vote."
As for the training of these guys, get real, does it really need your stamp of approval. How many of you that have posted on this issue would really know what is good and what it not ref this issue.
My grasp on it all is that the public expect the flight crew to get them from A to B smooth enough for the meal to be eaten, the video to be watched and to be able to get out at the other end without being crumpled by an extremely bad landing.
I would also think that they only expect the cabin crew to feed them, pamper them and to get them out the exits if it all goes to s..hit.
I do not think that they expect any of us to also be the security staff and save them from any two bit assailant.
AND sorry I don't want to, nor will I, take the John Wayne trip, I'm too old for that.
If Sky Marshals mean I can triple deadlock the cockpit door and worry about doing my job without thinking that I have to be Bruce Willis as well, I offer my thanks.
Do I care if I am told if and who the sky marshalls are onboard... NO. Do I care if I can tell them that I am the Kapitano and can make them do what ever I want them to do and they tell me to sit on it...NO. And why should I, my ego extends only to doing MY job well.
Really, I feel SOME of you guys out there think you know more about everything than anyone else but get real, realize that you just fly the aeroplane for gods sake. (Actually it would seem that some of you guys post as if you are God)
Surely you can be satisfied with the best seat in the office block, without having to be the CEO, HRM, MP etc etc.
After Sept you might very well find that the public may be very happy to have security on board that is quite separate from the dashing Kaptain up front, in fact I would be surprised if they didn't expect security.
And I support it to the point that I want it for my family every time they fly thank you very much. To steal a phrase "I fly and I vote."
As for the training of these guys, get real, does it really need your stamp of approval. How many of you that have posted on this issue would really know what is good and what it not ref this issue.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ejector Pump,
I fully concur. Some of these guys think pilots are the only ones who receive any sort of training. That the captain is some ‘supreme being' who makes infallible decisions, on any issue affecting the lives and decision making processes of several hundred independent ‘units' following the cockpit slipstream.
Once doors are closed those passengers and crew become an autonomous community, isolated from any form of physical intervention (apart from missile attack) until doors open at the destination. The events of September 11th further compound issues if one considers that such an autonomous community may revert to a missile of destruction against people far removed from all things aviation.
What other community with the potential to cause untold destruction to an industry, impact financially upon nations, levy incalculable costs in litigation and to commence across border wars, is permitted to exist without some form of policing!
For twenty-five years I have transported police and more specifically emergency response teams throughout the state. Such teams are highly skilled and trained in their craft and selected for their personal attributes. Their knowledge encompasses law, psychology, ballistics and various sciences associated with the job they do. Such people are not some muscle brained security guard who may nick your pocket knife at the gate lounge as you head for the cockpit. These people work as a team and complement each other in achieving a peaceful outcome to very difficult situations. Force is a last resort and used to the minimum extent necessary.
During flight operations I am always consulted on the possible hazards to ourselves and the risks posed to themselves and victims if delays or diversions are necessary. They are particularly mindful of the nature of their firearms, incendiary and gas equipment and possible loss of life if discharged at 41,000 feet and 8 psi cabin diff.
No hijacker is going to tempt fate and fail in his mission against the possibility of confrontation with a well trained, armed adversary. It is painfully obvious that Al-Qaeda selected soft targets on September 11th and not the more formidable Israeli carrier.
Surely aircraft captains have more important issues at hand than leaving the cockpit to attend some issue with a troublesome passenger. Law enforcement and associated decisions should be left to well trained experts, after all they are on the spot and fully understand the ramifications of a botched job!
I fully concur. Some of these guys think pilots are the only ones who receive any sort of training. That the captain is some ‘supreme being' who makes infallible decisions, on any issue affecting the lives and decision making processes of several hundred independent ‘units' following the cockpit slipstream.
Once doors are closed those passengers and crew become an autonomous community, isolated from any form of physical intervention (apart from missile attack) until doors open at the destination. The events of September 11th further compound issues if one considers that such an autonomous community may revert to a missile of destruction against people far removed from all things aviation.
What other community with the potential to cause untold destruction to an industry, impact financially upon nations, levy incalculable costs in litigation and to commence across border wars, is permitted to exist without some form of policing!
For twenty-five years I have transported police and more specifically emergency response teams throughout the state. Such teams are highly skilled and trained in their craft and selected for their personal attributes. Their knowledge encompasses law, psychology, ballistics and various sciences associated with the job they do. Such people are not some muscle brained security guard who may nick your pocket knife at the gate lounge as you head for the cockpit. These people work as a team and complement each other in achieving a peaceful outcome to very difficult situations. Force is a last resort and used to the minimum extent necessary.
During flight operations I am always consulted on the possible hazards to ourselves and the risks posed to themselves and victims if delays or diversions are necessary. They are particularly mindful of the nature of their firearms, incendiary and gas equipment and possible loss of life if discharged at 41,000 feet and 8 psi cabin diff.
No hijacker is going to tempt fate and fail in his mission against the possibility of confrontation with a well trained, armed adversary. It is painfully obvious that Al-Qaeda selected soft targets on September 11th and not the more formidable Israeli carrier.
Surely aircraft captains have more important issues at hand than leaving the cockpit to attend some issue with a troublesome passenger. Law enforcement and associated decisions should be left to well trained experts, after all they are on the spot and fully understand the ramifications of a botched job!
Gentlemen,
Before this important discussion goes the way of most on Dunnunda, there is one inescapeable fact.
The CAR/CAOs and company ops manuals make absolutely no mention of 'sky marshalls'. The legislation, as it stands, clearly lays out the responsibilities and powers of the pilot in command and also of the subordinate crew members. It also is quite specific about dangerous goods,be they loaded glocks or capsicum spray.
There has been no advice to the contrary, so why suddenly is this behaviour legal without any change to the rules by which we are compelled to abide by.
If a flight attendant in the cabin were to notify me that he/she believed that one of the passengers was armed, I would have no alternative but to declare an emergency and get the aircraft on the deck ASAP. How could you react any other way? You must assume, unless notified prior, that this person would pose a serious threat to the safety of the passengers, crew and aircraft.
Do to anything else would be incredibly foolish.
Before this important discussion goes the way of most on Dunnunda, there is one inescapeable fact.
The CAR/CAOs and company ops manuals make absolutely no mention of 'sky marshalls'. The legislation, as it stands, clearly lays out the responsibilities and powers of the pilot in command and also of the subordinate crew members. It also is quite specific about dangerous goods,be they loaded glocks or capsicum spray.
There has been no advice to the contrary, so why suddenly is this behaviour legal without any change to the rules by which we are compelled to abide by.
If a flight attendant in the cabin were to notify me that he/she believed that one of the passengers was armed, I would have no alternative but to declare an emergency and get the aircraft on the deck ASAP. How could you react any other way? You must assume, unless notified prior, that this person would pose a serious threat to the safety of the passengers, crew and aircraft.
Do to anything else would be incredibly foolish.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NSW, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sure this has been said before but please let me indulge and purge some frustration that has been building up over the last few months !
Airport security is a joke and 95% of the changes they've made post Sept 11 are purely for show.
Security at checkiin is the biggest joke, there is absolutely no standardisation between different airports or even between staff at the same airport. A comprehensive half day course and you get a badge and an attitude to match. The security industry by its very nature attracts the wrong sort of people for this work.
Propperly trained (and paid) people should be manning the gates making sure people arent bringing weapons airside.
My biggest gripe though was with access to the GA apron at a large regional airport recently. After meeting my pax in the terminal, I had to go through the metal detectors and x-ray machines (which I have no problems with - although making me take my shoes and socks off was a bit much) then wait 25 minutes for the friggin AIRPORT MANAGER to escort me and my pax out of the terminal to my aircraft !. The irony being that if I was serious about getting airside i could have walked outside and made a few cuts to the 6' cyclone fence...... terrorists do have access to sidecutters !!
At another international airport it took me nearly 40 minutes to get LAND SIDE !. I could have just flowin in in my chieftan filled to MTOW with daisy cutters etc and they wouldnt have known yet their security is so tight that I cant even get OFF the aerodrome !!
The govt etc are obviously not serious about airport security.... every measure Ive seen so far I have managed to find a way around with very little thought..... any half decent terrorist could surely do much better than myself.
Get serious about airport security or go home and let us all get on with our jobs.
I feel a lot better now.
Airport security is a joke and 95% of the changes they've made post Sept 11 are purely for show.
Security at checkiin is the biggest joke, there is absolutely no standardisation between different airports or even between staff at the same airport. A comprehensive half day course and you get a badge and an attitude to match. The security industry by its very nature attracts the wrong sort of people for this work.
Propperly trained (and paid) people should be manning the gates making sure people arent bringing weapons airside.
My biggest gripe though was with access to the GA apron at a large regional airport recently. After meeting my pax in the terminal, I had to go through the metal detectors and x-ray machines (which I have no problems with - although making me take my shoes and socks off was a bit much) then wait 25 minutes for the friggin AIRPORT MANAGER to escort me and my pax out of the terminal to my aircraft !. The irony being that if I was serious about getting airside i could have walked outside and made a few cuts to the 6' cyclone fence...... terrorists do have access to sidecutters !!
At another international airport it took me nearly 40 minutes to get LAND SIDE !. I could have just flowin in in my chieftan filled to MTOW with daisy cutters etc and they wouldnt have known yet their security is so tight that I cant even get OFF the aerodrome !!
The govt etc are obviously not serious about airport security.... every measure Ive seen so far I have managed to find a way around with very little thought..... any half decent terrorist could surely do much better than myself.
Get serious about airport security or go home and let us all get on with our jobs.
I feel a lot better now.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its any help, our mob only use sky marshals (we call them tail-gunners) for flights on certain "riskey" routes. The tail-gunner is authorised to take whatever action is necesary to elimate the threat (including blowing the pr!ck away) in the cabin. In the cockpit I have that responsebility (captain has a .38)
The sky marshal only makes himself known to the Purser at a pre-determined time. Not even I know who the hell he is.
So far no shot has been made in anger but there was some saber-rattling by the marshal a couple of months ago on a flight when some drunk arabs got physical about how r@gheads are being treated by the commie government.
The sky marshal only makes himself known to the Purser at a pre-determined time. Not even I know who the hell he is.
So far no shot has been made in anger but there was some saber-rattling by the marshal a couple of months ago on a flight when some drunk arabs got physical about how r@gheads are being treated by the commie government.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ejector Pump, Blue Hauler et al,
All very sensible and valid points...
Indeed Sky Marshalls would probably have prevented the Sept 11 attacks. Sept 11 however was an exceptionally isolated case (never happened before!), and generally hijackings in the past have been resolved peacefully. Also, historically the most catasrophic form of airline terrorism simply involved a bomb in the hold. Sky Marshalls can't do all that much in those cases.
If you want to argue the point about being effective combatants of 'air rage' incidents, consider we have unarmed uniformed guards on trains nowdays that do exactly the same thing...
The liklihood of having another attack is so remote I don't see how armed marshalls on board an aircraft can be justified. There are better places to spend the finances and resources on aviation security as the Marshalls can only be 100% effective on the aircraft they're on, and they won't be on all.
How many times has an Australian aircraft NEEDED to have an armed guard on board. I cannot think of one. This seems to be an overreaction to placate a nervous travelling public (parhaps that is the main reason?) and needs more consideration and definately more consultation for all involved.
Perhaps we will all know a little more and be in a better position to comment when details are made available.
Hopefully any resolution will ensure that the skies remain safe, and that the crew can still interact effectively without being inhibited by complicated legislation or procedures.
Lancer
All very sensible and valid points...
Indeed Sky Marshalls would probably have prevented the Sept 11 attacks. Sept 11 however was an exceptionally isolated case (never happened before!), and generally hijackings in the past have been resolved peacefully. Also, historically the most catasrophic form of airline terrorism simply involved a bomb in the hold. Sky Marshalls can't do all that much in those cases.
If you want to argue the point about being effective combatants of 'air rage' incidents, consider we have unarmed uniformed guards on trains nowdays that do exactly the same thing...
The liklihood of having another attack is so remote I don't see how armed marshalls on board an aircraft can be justified. There are better places to spend the finances and resources on aviation security as the Marshalls can only be 100% effective on the aircraft they're on, and they won't be on all.
How many times has an Australian aircraft NEEDED to have an armed guard on board. I cannot think of one. This seems to be an overreaction to placate a nervous travelling public (parhaps that is the main reason?) and needs more consideration and definately more consultation for all involved.
Perhaps we will all know a little more and be in a better position to comment when details are made available.
Hopefully any resolution will ensure that the skies remain safe, and that the crew can still interact effectively without being inhibited by complicated legislation or procedures.
Lancer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ozland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Baron has hit on the point I was trying to make.
If the law reflects the presence of Sky Marshall, and it is sensibly framed, then you're better protected. But I'm not aware of any changes - has someone seen the amendment? Might be a while, given it's a regulation stemming from an Act of Parliament.
So if a situation does turn out dry, and the Captain is available (alive) for accountability afterward, if there is ANY way some slimeball regulator/laywer can twist it, then they're going to stand on the law and try to blame the easiest, legal, scapegoat.
And spare me this idea that it won't happen because it's not reasonable. The law isn't about reason, or justice, it's simply the most convenient way for the State to deal with disputes. In many cases, that amounts to finding someone with a legal ant trail running up his leg, and following that, sacrificing the individual to save the institutions.
I heard the Captain of the Phillipines Airlines A300 (A310?) that was hijacked a couple of years ago, speak at a conference last year. A fruit loop with pistol and hand grenade had threatened them for an hour or two, including holding a gun at the Cabin Crew to gain access to a locked flight deck, and firing a shot into the flight deck wardrobe. He finally jumped out with his home made parachute from an aft door, and was killed instantly by impacting on the hinge mechanism. Unfortunately, his body hung up, with the hand holding the grenade still inside. So the Cabin Manager/Purser went into the airblast in the doorway to push his body free, and let the grenade fall away. In the days following authorities were considering, probably goaded on by some bleeding hearts, charging this guy with murder, on the basis he had pushed the hijacker out.... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
No, the Captain of an aircraft doesn't really receive any worthwhile training for this sort of thing. The odds of him/her being in an unlawful interference, and the situation developing to where he can infuence the outcome, are miniscule. But if those odds do come up, as far as I can tell, you're still responsible, lack of training or not. I guess that's what the money is about, a sort of insurance policy that maybe, somewhere in your career, you're going to be faced with an awful situation for which there can be no preparation. Sadly, we know that just happened to four unfortunate crews, God Rest Their Souls.
So if the Sky Marshall is handling it like 007, then it's a pretty reasonable command decision to say "Carry on, and buzz when you're finished." But what if you are absolutely convinced that the actions of the Sky Marshall are placing the aircraft in greater danger? Are you allowed, by the law or your own integrity, to do nothing? That's the point, what can you do, when he's got the frazzin' gun? Of course, if they change the law so that from the start of the unlawful interference you are subordinated to the Sky Marshall, then that takes care of that part.....
That's why I posted my concern. When they put something in the Act, or the Regs, I take it seriously, and if I have to make command decisions that are contrary, prefer to at least have the intent on my side. Conflicts of law have a habit of sitting dormant for a long time, then reaching out and biting some poor bastard on the arse. Maybe we should sort it out now. It doesn't keep me awake at night, as I think my odds of having to face the problem are the same as winning Lotto, but then, who would have believed what we have to face, if you'd tried to tell them on September 10?
Sometimes, you know, the job entails a little bit more than just flying the aircraft.
Merry Christmas to all.
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Zone 5 ]</p>
If the law reflects the presence of Sky Marshall, and it is sensibly framed, then you're better protected. But I'm not aware of any changes - has someone seen the amendment? Might be a while, given it's a regulation stemming from an Act of Parliament.
So if a situation does turn out dry, and the Captain is available (alive) for accountability afterward, if there is ANY way some slimeball regulator/laywer can twist it, then they're going to stand on the law and try to blame the easiest, legal, scapegoat.
And spare me this idea that it won't happen because it's not reasonable. The law isn't about reason, or justice, it's simply the most convenient way for the State to deal with disputes. In many cases, that amounts to finding someone with a legal ant trail running up his leg, and following that, sacrificing the individual to save the institutions.
I heard the Captain of the Phillipines Airlines A300 (A310?) that was hijacked a couple of years ago, speak at a conference last year. A fruit loop with pistol and hand grenade had threatened them for an hour or two, including holding a gun at the Cabin Crew to gain access to a locked flight deck, and firing a shot into the flight deck wardrobe. He finally jumped out with his home made parachute from an aft door, and was killed instantly by impacting on the hinge mechanism. Unfortunately, his body hung up, with the hand holding the grenade still inside. So the Cabin Manager/Purser went into the airblast in the doorway to push his body free, and let the grenade fall away. In the days following authorities were considering, probably goaded on by some bleeding hearts, charging this guy with murder, on the basis he had pushed the hijacker out.... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
No, the Captain of an aircraft doesn't really receive any worthwhile training for this sort of thing. The odds of him/her being in an unlawful interference, and the situation developing to where he can infuence the outcome, are miniscule. But if those odds do come up, as far as I can tell, you're still responsible, lack of training or not. I guess that's what the money is about, a sort of insurance policy that maybe, somewhere in your career, you're going to be faced with an awful situation for which there can be no preparation. Sadly, we know that just happened to four unfortunate crews, God Rest Their Souls.
So if the Sky Marshall is handling it like 007, then it's a pretty reasonable command decision to say "Carry on, and buzz when you're finished." But what if you are absolutely convinced that the actions of the Sky Marshall are placing the aircraft in greater danger? Are you allowed, by the law or your own integrity, to do nothing? That's the point, what can you do, when he's got the frazzin' gun? Of course, if they change the law so that from the start of the unlawful interference you are subordinated to the Sky Marshall, then that takes care of that part.....
That's why I posted my concern. When they put something in the Act, or the Regs, I take it seriously, and if I have to make command decisions that are contrary, prefer to at least have the intent on my side. Conflicts of law have a habit of sitting dormant for a long time, then reaching out and biting some poor bastard on the arse. Maybe we should sort it out now. It doesn't keep me awake at night, as I think my odds of having to face the problem are the same as winning Lotto, but then, who would have believed what we have to face, if you'd tried to tell them on September 10?
Sometimes, you know, the job entails a little bit more than just flying the aircraft.
Merry Christmas to all.
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Zone 5 ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: none of your business
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by some replies to this post, I hope that the majority of you guys are not skippers or else I think with have a bigger problem than hijackers and sky marshalls on our aircraft.
Just a few points:
1. APS does NOT provide a security service at airports. It provides counter terrorism patrols and response. Although members do get called upon from SACL to resolve situations that the security guards cannot. Usually because they themselves have no idea and just manage to make a situaton much worse.
2. I totally disagree that Air Marshalls should be sourced from the police force.(Let me assure you that APS officers can actually shoot straight!) I have trained officers from both organisations.
3. SAS are great. I have really close mates in some units. Some are actually hunting Bin Laden the scumbag. Although guys, SAS are trained in many skills ONE being aircraft counter terorism. My point is, that these guys from APS are basically undertaking this unit of training. YES INDEED! They are chosen very carefully, then put through a very mentally and physically demanding course. The standards are set very high and many will not make the grade.
4. Finally. Next year will see the first, off the street recruit course start. To anyone that has applied. Good luck! And to anyone that is accepted and thinks it will just be a 13 week holiday. More Good luck to you! Because you are going to need it in bundles.
K A O S. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Just a few points:
1. APS does NOT provide a security service at airports. It provides counter terrorism patrols and response. Although members do get called upon from SACL to resolve situations that the security guards cannot. Usually because they themselves have no idea and just manage to make a situaton much worse.
2. I totally disagree that Air Marshalls should be sourced from the police force.(Let me assure you that APS officers can actually shoot straight!) I have trained officers from both organisations.
3. SAS are great. I have really close mates in some units. Some are actually hunting Bin Laden the scumbag. Although guys, SAS are trained in many skills ONE being aircraft counter terorism. My point is, that these guys from APS are basically undertaking this unit of training. YES INDEED! They are chosen very carefully, then put through a very mentally and physically demanding course. The standards are set very high and many will not make the grade.
4. Finally. Next year will see the first, off the street recruit course start. To anyone that has applied. Good luck! And to anyone that is accepted and thinks it will just be a 13 week holiday. More Good luck to you! Because you are going to need it in bundles.
K A O S. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancer,
[quote]How many times has an Australian aircraft NEEDED to have an armed guard on board. I cannot think of one.<hr></blockquote>
Two occasions spring to mind.
16th July 1960 a TAA Lockheed Electra was hijacked between Sydney and Brisbane. Two shots were fired. The offender was overpowered by passengers.
16th November 1972 Ansett F27 was hijacked between Adelaide and Alice Springs. The crew had no option but to allow the offender to leave the aircraft with a flight attendant as hostage. A police officer posing as a navigator lunged at the offender enabling the flight attendant to escape. The officer was shot four times and seriously injured. Police eventually shot the hijacker and he died later.
The goal posts have moved. Even if a repeat of September 11th is remote, risk management dictates the necessity of serious counter measures. Terrorists are prepared to self-sacrafice for their beliefs. Airlines and governments must now re-think all counter hijacking measures. A repeat occurrence would be intolerable in the eyes of the public!
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Blue Hauler ]</p>
[quote]How many times has an Australian aircraft NEEDED to have an armed guard on board. I cannot think of one.<hr></blockquote>
Two occasions spring to mind.
16th July 1960 a TAA Lockheed Electra was hijacked between Sydney and Brisbane. Two shots were fired. The offender was overpowered by passengers.
16th November 1972 Ansett F27 was hijacked between Adelaide and Alice Springs. The crew had no option but to allow the offender to leave the aircraft with a flight attendant as hostage. A police officer posing as a navigator lunged at the offender enabling the flight attendant to escape. The officer was shot four times and seriously injured. Police eventually shot the hijacker and he died later.
The goal posts have moved. Even if a repeat of September 11th is remote, risk management dictates the necessity of serious counter measures. Terrorists are prepared to self-sacrafice for their beliefs. Airlines and governments must now re-think all counter hijacking measures. A repeat occurrence would be intolerable in the eyes of the public!
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Blue Hauler ]</p>
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better screening has got to be worth more than armed guards.
Question, would a sky marshall or better screening have stopped the recent incident on AA (the guy with the bomb in his shoe, and a 3 day old British passport)?
The crew and pax made short work of this guy.
Good work guys and gals.
Question, would a sky marshall or better screening have stopped the recent incident on AA (the guy with the bomb in his shoe, and a 3 day old British passport)?
The crew and pax made short work of this guy.
Good work guys and gals.
