Your Thoughts On Sky Marshals On Domestic Flights?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your Thoughts On Sky Marshals On Domestic Flights?
I, and probably many other PPRuNers, would like to know the thoughts of Domestic Pilots to having these armed sky marshals on board your aircraft?
(QUOTE)
Fed Govt urged to release details of sky marshal program
The Federal Government is under pressure to release more details about plans to place armed security officers on domestic flights.
The Police Federation and unions are criticising the Government's handling of security at Australia's airports.
The Federal Government says armed air marshals will be on all domestic flights by Christmas, a move which has the Police Federation concerned.
Chief executive Mark Burgess there are not enough details.
"We know very little about what is proposed we know virtually nothing about the training that these people will be afforded," he said.
Warren Bennett from the Board of Airline Representatives says he understands why the plans are being put in place, but says airlines are wary of the move.
"It's always a bit of a concern to the captain that there would be anyone with some sort of weapon on the plane," he said.
Unions are also worried saying workers at airports are not being given adequate training to cope with upgraded security measures after the terrorist attacks of September 11.
(END QUOTE)
Your thoughts please........
(QUOTE)
Fed Govt urged to release details of sky marshal program
The Federal Government is under pressure to release more details about plans to place armed security officers on domestic flights.
The Police Federation and unions are criticising the Government's handling of security at Australia's airports.
The Federal Government says armed air marshals will be on all domestic flights by Christmas, a move which has the Police Federation concerned.
Chief executive Mark Burgess there are not enough details.
"We know very little about what is proposed we know virtually nothing about the training that these people will be afforded," he said.
Warren Bennett from the Board of Airline Representatives says he understands why the plans are being put in place, but says airlines are wary of the move.
"It's always a bit of a concern to the captain that there would be anyone with some sort of weapon on the plane," he said.
Unions are also worried saying workers at airports are not being given adequate training to cope with upgraded security measures after the terrorist attacks of September 11.
(END QUOTE)
Your thoughts please........
Grandpa Aerotart
If the individual is not a highly trained and current serving member of the SAS(or at the very least recently serving) I would not be comfortable.
I can see this going out to tender and the lowest bidder winning.
The Israelis use MOSAD but you can bet the Ozzies will use some uneducated moron who gets a hard on 'cause he gets to carry a gun and play at 007.
Chuck.
PS. Beyond a general statement that 'Sky Marshals' will be on aircraft the public and media should not hear syllable one! As I have said on other similar threads you will never stop a nutter getting on an aircraft without destroying the industry, all you can do is control the outcome!
[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
I can see this going out to tender and the lowest bidder winning.
The Israelis use MOSAD but you can bet the Ozzies will use some uneducated moron who gets a hard on 'cause he gets to carry a gun and play at 007.
Chuck.
PS. Beyond a general statement that 'Sky Marshals' will be on aircraft the public and media should not hear syllable one! As I have said on other similar threads you will never stop a nutter getting on an aircraft without destroying the industry, all you can do is control the outcome!
[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: World
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets think about this...we spend xxx millions preventing weapons getting onto an aircraft and then by law want to willingly introduce them onto an aircraft???
What happens if the "Air Marshal" is subdued by a spiked drink, multiple hijackers, etc? Now we have a gun onboard in the wrong hands! No lethal weapon should be aft of the flight deck, if carried at all in the cabin.
Certainly a hot topic to debate.
What happens if the "Air Marshal" is subdued by a spiked drink, multiple hijackers, etc? Now we have a gun onboard in the wrong hands! No lethal weapon should be aft of the flight deck, if carried at all in the cabin.
Certainly a hot topic to debate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okay, what about maybe just the idea of these armed sky marshals as a deterrent?
You could advertise everywhere that these armed sky marshals are on every flight, highly trained individuals to combat any hijackers, show film of all their training etc in the media, but don't actually have them on the flights.......
Then again maybe that IS the plan.....
You could advertise everywhere that these armed sky marshals are on every flight, highly trained individuals to combat any hijackers, show film of all their training etc in the media, but don't actually have them on the flights.......
Then again maybe that IS the plan.....
Evertonian
The sad part for me is the bickering between the agencies wanting the job! If they can't agree on who should do it, how the hell are they going to decide when to stand up & shoot!
Sorry lame, I'm not a pilot, just another punter on an aircraft and I strongly disagree with putting a gun on a plane. Maybe we could get Charlton Heston to lower himself into a cockpit from a Herc whenever there's trouble!!!!
Sorry lame, I'm not a pilot, just another punter on an aircraft and I strongly disagree with putting a gun on a plane. Maybe we could get Charlton Heston to lower himself into a cockpit from a Herc whenever there's trouble!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skymarshals have already been recruited into the APS, which is the security side of the AFP.
To be run and trained by a couple of very reicent EX SAS senior NCOs.
I belive, but as yet unconfirmed that even one of our very own Pruners may be involved, any comment K.
I do think that many here would be plesantly surprised by the tactics and weapons used by these officers, including very low velocity bullets and non leathal incapacitation devices. I don't belive that all the info will be released to the public, but am very sure that an appropriate and blunt demo will be made and shown to the public in the very near future.
Now, no system of weapons on aircraft is perfect, but I certinaly give this one a big thumbs up.
To be run and trained by a couple of very reicent EX SAS senior NCOs.
I belive, but as yet unconfirmed that even one of our very own Pruners may be involved, any comment K.
I do think that many here would be plesantly surprised by the tactics and weapons used by these officers, including very low velocity bullets and non leathal incapacitation devices. I don't belive that all the info will be released to the public, but am very sure that an appropriate and blunt demo will be made and shown to the public in the very near future.
Now, no system of weapons on aircraft is perfect, but I certinaly give this one a big thumbs up.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now it is getting a little worrying....
(QUOTE)
Sky guards get a licence to kill
By TANYA TARGETT and CHRISTINE JACKMAN
19dec01
AUSTRALIA'S new anti-terrorist air marshals will have a licence to kill when they take to the skies next week.
The airborne security squad will carry semi-automatic pistols and will be authorised to "shoot first and ask questions later", the Herald Sun can reveal.
"They are authorised to use lethal force if necessary," a senior intelligence informant said. "If there is a terrorist with a machine gun or something running towards the cockpit, there's not going to be a lot of time to say, 'stop'."
The marshals, who graduate tomorrow, will carry Heckler & Koch semi-automatic pistols (pictured above) with special bullets that can kill without piercing an aircraft's fuselage.
The sky force members will wear bulletproof vests and carry batons, but are unlikely to be armed with knives as are their Israeli counterparts.
About 6000 men and women have applied to be air security officers, including an 85-year-old Victorian man who fought in World War II.
It is believed the man, who had retired from the prisons system, wanted to die serving his country.
Airlines and police have reservations about the shoot-to-kill guards. But Attorney-General Daryl Williams said the marshals had received training from police and US guards.
Mr Williams said yesterday the 22 new graduates could be in the air as early as next week. A total of 111 marshals are expected to patrol domestic and international flights by the end of next year.
The top-secret agents will use fake identities and cover stories to blend in with other passengers.
They will also have to conceal their true occupation from family and friends. All the graduates from the five-week course were former counter-terrorist specialists from the Australian Protective Service, the Federal Government's specialist security team.
But police have argued that the guards should have been drawn from police ranks.
Police Federation chief executive Mark Burgess yesterday told the Herald Sun police were better trained for the job than most of the APS.
"It's almost the same as putting two security guards in a police car and letting them go out on patrol," Mr Burgess said.
Airlines also have reservations about the shoot-to-kill guards.
Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said there had been no consultations between the airline and the Government despite operational and safety concerns.
"At this stage we are not clear as to how this will improve safety on board the aircraft," Mr Huttner said.
"Some of our pilots have expressed concern about the specifics . . . and that is why we've asked for clarification."
Mr Williams said the air marshals' program had been developed in co-operation with state and federal police and the US air marshals division.
Sources said several would-be air marshals were kicked out of the program for failing to meet high standards of marksmanship, physical aptitude and psychological testing.
Senior intelligence officers said about 2 per cent of the applications were from "nutters" who offered to bring their own weapons to save on the cost of ammunition.
Suspected terrorists face a 48-hour solitary grilling from ASIO agents under a new anti-terror dragnet endorsed by Federal Cabinet yesterday.
And Mr Williams said terrorism offences would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
(END QUOTE)
(QUOTE)
Sky guards get a licence to kill
By TANYA TARGETT and CHRISTINE JACKMAN
19dec01
AUSTRALIA'S new anti-terrorist air marshals will have a licence to kill when they take to the skies next week.
The airborne security squad will carry semi-automatic pistols and will be authorised to "shoot first and ask questions later", the Herald Sun can reveal.
"They are authorised to use lethal force if necessary," a senior intelligence informant said. "If there is a terrorist with a machine gun or something running towards the cockpit, there's not going to be a lot of time to say, 'stop'."
The marshals, who graduate tomorrow, will carry Heckler & Koch semi-automatic pistols (pictured above) with special bullets that can kill without piercing an aircraft's fuselage.
The sky force members will wear bulletproof vests and carry batons, but are unlikely to be armed with knives as are their Israeli counterparts.
About 6000 men and women have applied to be air security officers, including an 85-year-old Victorian man who fought in World War II.
It is believed the man, who had retired from the prisons system, wanted to die serving his country.
Airlines and police have reservations about the shoot-to-kill guards. But Attorney-General Daryl Williams said the marshals had received training from police and US guards.
Mr Williams said yesterday the 22 new graduates could be in the air as early as next week. A total of 111 marshals are expected to patrol domestic and international flights by the end of next year.
The top-secret agents will use fake identities and cover stories to blend in with other passengers.
They will also have to conceal their true occupation from family and friends. All the graduates from the five-week course were former counter-terrorist specialists from the Australian Protective Service, the Federal Government's specialist security team.
But police have argued that the guards should have been drawn from police ranks.
Police Federation chief executive Mark Burgess yesterday told the Herald Sun police were better trained for the job than most of the APS.
"It's almost the same as putting two security guards in a police car and letting them go out on patrol," Mr Burgess said.
Airlines also have reservations about the shoot-to-kill guards.
Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said there had been no consultations between the airline and the Government despite operational and safety concerns.
"At this stage we are not clear as to how this will improve safety on board the aircraft," Mr Huttner said.
"Some of our pilots have expressed concern about the specifics . . . and that is why we've asked for clarification."
Mr Williams said the air marshals' program had been developed in co-operation with state and federal police and the US air marshals division.
Sources said several would-be air marshals were kicked out of the program for failing to meet high standards of marksmanship, physical aptitude and psychological testing.
Senior intelligence officers said about 2 per cent of the applications were from "nutters" who offered to bring their own weapons to save on the cost of ammunition.
Suspected terrorists face a 48-hour solitary grilling from ASIO agents under a new anti-terror dragnet endorsed by Federal Cabinet yesterday.
And Mr Williams said terrorism offences would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
(END QUOTE)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main point is that sky marshalls in the US did not achieve a thing. Lets use the money that would otherwise be wasted on these marshalls to increase security on the ground and stop these people boarding the aircraft in the first place.
At the very least, as the captain of a High Capacity RPT aircraft, I would expect a notice to crew prior to boarding, detailing the seating position of said 'sky marshall' on board and the nature and quantity of any dangerous goods that he/she/it has brought on board. This could be similar to the notification received for PICs. As for the training standard, while I have complete faith in the SAS, I am dubious about these people.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Far East
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever since one of our 747's was hijacked about 15 years age the operator I work for is required by law to carry a minimum of 3 armed air marshals on each flight (the only exception is flights to and from the USA - US FAA requirement). These personal fly on full fare tickets paid for by the government, hence no loss to the airline.
My opinion as to their value is mixed as there is no attempt by these personal to be covert. They in fact stamp their authority on the pax by doing a final carry on baggege search at the door as the pax board.
There instructions if something was to occur is confidential (even from the Captain) but I can assure you that since Sept11 the policy is now much more robust.
I suppose you would have to say the policy is successful as there has been no attempts since these personal have been carried.
Will the system be successful here, that is a 64 dollar question. I guess it all depends on the perceived threat.
Have a nice day
My opinion as to their value is mixed as there is no attempt by these personal to be covert. They in fact stamp their authority on the pax by doing a final carry on baggege search at the door as the pax board.
There instructions if something was to occur is confidential (even from the Captain) but I can assure you that since Sept11 the policy is now much more robust.
I suppose you would have to say the policy is successful as there has been no attempts since these personal have been carried.
Will the system be successful here, that is a 64 dollar question. I guess it all depends on the perceived threat.
Have a nice day
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no easy answer, but in general, the only people who oppose this sort of action are the civil libertarians, and those who want to do the wrong thing on board.
Personally, I don't have a problem, and it would even give me some confidence when paxing to have a John Wayne or two on board. I think psychological testing would be a good idea in the selection process.
As a Captain, I have been involved in a number of disruptive pax incidents, and it is uncomfortable for everyone, and on each occasion, has consumed a huge amount of our time. It's disruptive to our duties, and therefore a potential safety problem.
I say that the advantages of having a properly trained and equipped air marshall available to deal with these incidents is a move in the right direction. Just the deterrent factor is worth considering.
Personally, I don't have a problem, and it would even give me some confidence when paxing to have a John Wayne or two on board. I think psychological testing would be a good idea in the selection process.
As a Captain, I have been involved in a number of disruptive pax incidents, and it is uncomfortable for everyone, and on each occasion, has consumed a huge amount of our time. It's disruptive to our duties, and therefore a potential safety problem.
I say that the advantages of having a properly trained and equipped air marshall available to deal with these incidents is a move in the right direction. Just the deterrent factor is worth considering.
Grandpa Aerotart
I disagree that the sky marshals should get involved in anything other than an individual, whether armed or no, who gets up and tries to hijack the aircraft. That would leave them too exposed. Imagine a smart hijacker(and the really bad ones are anything but dumb/untrained) having an accomplice cause a disturbance which exposes the sky marshals, rather defeats the purpose IMHO.
If the SAS are training them then I have few concerns. They trained me when I was with 1 Commando(Reserves) in Sydney a very long time ago They are very very good at what they do and if they demand the highest standards, as this situation requires, then we will be in good hands.
As far as shoot first, question after? My experience of the SAS is that if they decide to pull the trigger there are few questions that need answering later! I feel that this side of things is probably being overstated by the press for effect anyway.
Forget all the crap that you see on TV, be it Rambo or Channel 10 news, anything they come up with will bear virtually no likeness to the reality of the situation.
As far as the captain needing to know exact details, I wouldn't/don't feel that need. What I would like is a gaurded switch in the cockpit that sets off a beeper in the sky marshals pocket, that's all I need.
The police? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
That we need this in Oz skies at all is very sad, but undeniable.
Chuck.
If the SAS are training them then I have few concerns. They trained me when I was with 1 Commando(Reserves) in Sydney a very long time ago
They are very very good at what they do and if they demand the highest standards, as this situation requires, then we will be in good hands.As far as shoot first, question after? My experience of the SAS is that if they decide to pull the trigger there are few questions that need answering later! I feel that this side of things is probably being overstated by the press for effect anyway.
Forget all the crap that you see on TV, be it Rambo or Channel 10 news, anything they come up with will bear virtually no likeness to the reality of the situation.
As far as the captain needing to know exact details, I wouldn't/don't feel that need. What I would like is a gaurded switch in the cockpit that sets off a beeper in the sky marshals pocket, that's all I need.
The police? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
That we need this in Oz skies at all is very sad, but undeniable.
Chuck.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: OZTRAYA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern is what could happen if the hijackers outnumber the sky marshalls (eg twelve to three) on one aircraft? It may be possible to reduce the number of hijack attempts, but a well organised, committed group could still take over an aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: mars
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The increased security at the gates is valid - however these are not unsophisticated people, their ops are meticulously planned and researched for months, maybe years ahead, and they would surely find ways to bypass any type of security at the gate if they so wished.
Increasing cockpit door strength is also not the answer. How many flight crew would be able to keep the door locked while FA's and pax were having their throats slit just the other side, not to mention the old "we have a bomb" ruse to lure the crew out - maybe in the hope that these guys weren't planning on taking any buildings out.
The brainwashed Sept 11 twats were armed only with stanley knives. Surely history would be different today if those flights had armed marshalls on board.
With new info (substantiated or not) that there were plans afoot to take out the Rialto - maybe still are, anyone who questions the validity of marshalls in Ozzie skies is at best foolhardy. We are no longer immune to such attacks, and would be considered a soft target.
Additionally it would most certainly increase the travelling publics confidence.
I'm done
Increasing cockpit door strength is also not the answer. How many flight crew would be able to keep the door locked while FA's and pax were having their throats slit just the other side, not to mention the old "we have a bomb" ruse to lure the crew out - maybe in the hope that these guys weren't planning on taking any buildings out.
The brainwashed Sept 11 twats were armed only with stanley knives. Surely history would be different today if those flights had armed marshalls on board.
With new info (substantiated or not) that there were plans afoot to take out the Rialto - maybe still are, anyone who questions the validity of marshalls in Ozzie skies is at best foolhardy. We are no longer immune to such attacks, and would be considered a soft target.
Additionally it would most certainly increase the travelling publics confidence.
I'm done
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ozland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the immediate scenario is being played out, having armed Sky Marshals on board is a bit like a car alarm - useful in some situations, not in others. You'll never really know until it starts to unfold. To experienced offenders such things are often just a nuisance.
My real concern would be the possible situations where it drags out into a standoff. What if the unlikely circumstances coincide where there is some form of contact between the Marshall and the aircraft Captain, but a disagreement, probably under time and emotional pressure, about the course of action? Will said Sky Marshall be correctly trained, AND not ignore such training, about the very real, very legal and very absolute authority the Captain has for the safety of the aircraft? Or will he decide he is the man, and calls all the shots? (Sorry) Overlapping terms of reference, backed by real authority (legal/tradition vs Glock), are a recipe for disaster in any complex situation.
Maybe now the Captain will have to deal with two threats to the safety of his/her aircraft.....
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
My real concern would be the possible situations where it drags out into a standoff. What if the unlikely circumstances coincide where there is some form of contact between the Marshall and the aircraft Captain, but a disagreement, probably under time and emotional pressure, about the course of action? Will said Sky Marshall be correctly trained, AND not ignore such training, about the very real, very legal and very absolute authority the Captain has for the safety of the aircraft? Or will he decide he is the man, and calls all the shots? (Sorry) Overlapping terms of reference, backed by real authority (legal/tradition vs Glock), are a recipe for disaster in any complex situation.
Maybe now the Captain will have to deal with two threats to the safety of his/her aircraft.....
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zone 5
Good one, that question is being treated like a black snake in this context.
When and where does the Captains legal authority begin and end??.
I suspect "from when the aircraft first moves under it's own power to somewhere about when it vacates the runway after landing ". is the only legal answer currently available.?
Who cops it if the "Marshall" brings down the aircraft and when and under what/which instrument was control of the aircraft passed to the "Marshall".
Good one, that question is being treated like a black snake in this context.
When and where does the Captains legal authority begin and end??.
I suspect "from when the aircraft first moves under it's own power to somewhere about when it vacates the runway after landing ". is the only legal answer currently available.?
Who cops it if the "Marshall" brings down the aircraft and when and under what/which instrument was control of the aircraft passed to the "Marshall".
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a real mess though isn't it.... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Who cops it if the Captain prevents the Marshal from doing his job, and the hijacker brings the aircraft down?...... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
IS the Captain always in absolute command/authority, what happens IF an aircraft is hijacked, is the Captain still responsible for whatever happens, even though he has NO control?..... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
You would hope all this would be sorted out BEFORE they put these Sky Marshals on the aircraft....... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Who cops it if the Captain prevents the Marshal from doing his job, and the hijacker brings the aircraft down?...... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
IS the Captain always in absolute command/authority, what happens IF an aircraft is hijacked, is the Captain still responsible for whatever happens, even though he has NO control?..... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
You would hope all this would be sorted out BEFORE they put these Sky Marshals on the aircraft....... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: dubai uae
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot believe (yes I can), that our lucky country has "researched" "best international practice" ( or HAVE they?) on the planet, and YET AGAIN selected the worst option. Will not enter the debate re;- "trained killer" verses "psychopath" pax. ( although with the "new" 35 year old "white rat" lunchbox), I can understand a new version of "boxaphobia"...bringing new standards to criminal behaviour in the air.
ENOUGH.
WE DO NOT NEED ARMED "SKY MARSHALLS" OR ARMED PAX ON AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
STOP them BOTH before they board. Perhaps, if the APS can be involved in being "Sky Marshalls", they MAY? even be adaptable enough to to trained in REAL airport GROUND security.
Probably won't happen though, as a friend, who is a bit of cynic said the other day, " they are still not screening pax and bags in a lot of US airports.......NOT enough money in it". !!
Just hope "Rambo" is not sitting behind me and the good lady whilst we are on annual leave travel with his "UZI" pointed at my ****. Rubber bullets my arse, I'd rather have the screaming dribbling "rugrat" who seems to always travel in the seat behind me when we are passengers.
In an alumnium pressurized tube, GUNS ARE DUMB.
STOP THE PROBLEM BEFORE THERE IS ONE............
ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
ENOUGH.
WE DO NOT NEED ARMED "SKY MARSHALLS" OR ARMED PAX ON AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
STOP them BOTH before they board. Perhaps, if the APS can be involved in being "Sky Marshalls", they MAY? even be adaptable enough to to trained in REAL airport GROUND security.
Probably won't happen though, as a friend, who is a bit of cynic said the other day, " they are still not screening pax and bags in a lot of US airports.......NOT enough money in it". !!
Just hope "Rambo" is not sitting behind me and the good lady whilst we are on annual leave travel with his "UZI" pointed at my ****. Rubber bullets my arse, I'd rather have the screaming dribbling "rugrat" who seems to always travel in the seat behind me when we are passengers.
In an alumnium pressurized tube, GUNS ARE DUMB.
STOP THE PROBLEM BEFORE THERE IS ONE............
ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">