Sky Marshals - The Joke has started...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky Marshals - The Joke has started...
First, we weren't going to find out how many sky marshals there are, now they claim that 22 of them have started operations this past weekend.
Second, now there is a dispute over who pays for the sky marshals...
See my ***comments*** included in the report below.
Marshals: row over who pays
By Sid Marris and Steve Creedy
24dec01
THE grand plan of travellers being protected from terrorist acts by air marshals is in danger of being hijacked by a squabble over who pays for them.
As the first 22 marshals began operations at the weekend, a dispute broke out between the federal Government and airlines over who foots the bill – although in the final reckoning it's almost certain to be travellers.
Airlines and government authorities are still to finalise many details of the scheme, which has been rushed into action without the usual planning or safety assessments.
***Safety assessments, gee what a novel idea***
The program is expected to cost between $20 million and $30 million, and could add about $1 to the price of every ticket if the airlines are forced to pay.
***Only $1, who cares, you can't even buy a coffee for $1, but we pay $10 for every ticket towards Ansett. Which is for the greater good?***
Since the September 11 terror attacks in the US, passengers are being charged extra for insurance cover, on top of the $10 Ansett levy, $38 departure tax for international travel and the Sydney airport noise levy.
Eventually the Government plans to have 111 marshals, under the supervision of the Australian Protective Service, on domestic and international flights.
***Oh, a final number, it gets even better!***
The APS is a user-pays public service organisation, which has led to the dispute over who funds the marshals.
The Government insists the marshals enhance the safety and security of airline services, delivering a benefit for which aviation companies should pay. This was discussed at a meeting between Transport Minister John Anderson and industry representatives on Thursday.
***But it is the government more than the airlines, which is rallying for this to be implemented***
Civil liberties groups are questioning the legal basis of the marshals' power to carry firearms and arrest people on domestic flights.
The Australian has learnt that the marshals are permitted to carry guns by an order of the secretary of the Department of Transport.
Australian Council for Civil Liberties secretary Cameron Murphy said it was unclear what right the marshals had to act against suspects, arrest them or fire weapons.
With the marshals operating under cover, there were serious questions about identification and the obligation of citizens to follow their directions. "It could be the case there are people on a plane at the moment who are using a firearm and may be doing so illegally," Mr Murphy said.
The fight over the cost of the marshals is the latest in a series of disagreements over the costs of upgrading aviation security.
Sydney airport has already increased its service charges to airlines for additional security costs, but funding for upgrades in security infrastructure remains unresolved.
The May federal Budget allocated $19 million for upgrading aviation infrastructure – an amount the industry believes is now woefully inadequate.
Australian airlines and airports have had since the 2000 Olympics the sophisticated equipment that detects the type of plastic explosive used in the security scare in the US yesterday.
***But only in bagagge, not in someone's shoe, which goes through a metal detector, and 100% of bags are still not being scanned***
Meanwhile, Qantas has received approval to strengthen the cockpit doors on its fleet..
Some US airlines have already moved to reinforce doors but the situation in Australia had been complicated by regulations governing modifications to aircraft.
But legal experts at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are believed to have found a way of allowing the modifications to proceed.
***Amazing, thanks CASA!***
There are safety worries about modifications overseas, and Qantas pilots are concerned that changes to doors do not impede the crew's ability to escape in an emergency.
***I'd take a roof hatch escape anyday over letting unauthorised people into the cockpit***
Second, now there is a dispute over who pays for the sky marshals...
See my ***comments*** included in the report below.
Marshals: row over who pays
By Sid Marris and Steve Creedy
24dec01
THE grand plan of travellers being protected from terrorist acts by air marshals is in danger of being hijacked by a squabble over who pays for them.
As the first 22 marshals began operations at the weekend, a dispute broke out between the federal Government and airlines over who foots the bill – although in the final reckoning it's almost certain to be travellers.
Airlines and government authorities are still to finalise many details of the scheme, which has been rushed into action without the usual planning or safety assessments.
***Safety assessments, gee what a novel idea***
The program is expected to cost between $20 million and $30 million, and could add about $1 to the price of every ticket if the airlines are forced to pay.
***Only $1, who cares, you can't even buy a coffee for $1, but we pay $10 for every ticket towards Ansett. Which is for the greater good?***
Since the September 11 terror attacks in the US, passengers are being charged extra for insurance cover, on top of the $10 Ansett levy, $38 departure tax for international travel and the Sydney airport noise levy.
Eventually the Government plans to have 111 marshals, under the supervision of the Australian Protective Service, on domestic and international flights.
***Oh, a final number, it gets even better!***
The APS is a user-pays public service organisation, which has led to the dispute over who funds the marshals.
The Government insists the marshals enhance the safety and security of airline services, delivering a benefit for which aviation companies should pay. This was discussed at a meeting between Transport Minister John Anderson and industry representatives on Thursday.
***But it is the government more than the airlines, which is rallying for this to be implemented***
Civil liberties groups are questioning the legal basis of the marshals' power to carry firearms and arrest people on domestic flights.
The Australian has learnt that the marshals are permitted to carry guns by an order of the secretary of the Department of Transport.
Australian Council for Civil Liberties secretary Cameron Murphy said it was unclear what right the marshals had to act against suspects, arrest them or fire weapons.
With the marshals operating under cover, there were serious questions about identification and the obligation of citizens to follow their directions. "It could be the case there are people on a plane at the moment who are using a firearm and may be doing so illegally," Mr Murphy said.
The fight over the cost of the marshals is the latest in a series of disagreements over the costs of upgrading aviation security.
Sydney airport has already increased its service charges to airlines for additional security costs, but funding for upgrades in security infrastructure remains unresolved.
The May federal Budget allocated $19 million for upgrading aviation infrastructure – an amount the industry believes is now woefully inadequate.
Australian airlines and airports have had since the 2000 Olympics the sophisticated equipment that detects the type of plastic explosive used in the security scare in the US yesterday.
***But only in bagagge, not in someone's shoe, which goes through a metal detector, and 100% of bags are still not being scanned***
Meanwhile, Qantas has received approval to strengthen the cockpit doors on its fleet..
Some US airlines have already moved to reinforce doors but the situation in Australia had been complicated by regulations governing modifications to aircraft.
But legal experts at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are believed to have found a way of allowing the modifications to proceed.
***Amazing, thanks CASA!***
There are safety worries about modifications overseas, and Qantas pilots are concerned that changes to doors do not impede the crew's ability to escape in an emergency.
***I'd take a roof hatch escape anyday over letting unauthorised people into the cockpit***
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oztralia, near MEL
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a sad day in Oz when some twit in the government puts some other twit in an aircraft with, not only a lethal weapon but one with the potential to damage the aircraft to the point it cannot continue in controlled flight.
I read on another post that the pistols provided use a projectile which is designed not to penetrate the fuselage however there was no mention of all the very important bits ‘n pieces which are inside the fuselage and quiet vulnerable. Wiring and hydraulics are the first things to spring to mind, but I’m guessing that in some A/C fuel would be an issue too.
Then from the point of view of someone with minimal training in self-defence, I am still very aware of just how easy it is to remove a weapon from someone, particularly in a confined space where they cannot arrange clear space around themselves. It seems to me to be an instant provision of firearms to a terrorist, rather than a preventive measure.
It worries me to the point where I will certainly think twice about boarding a flight, if I have other options, such as driving.
My suggestion would be that a couple of highly trained marshals armed with hand to hand combat skills would be much safer. The hand (as a weapon) cannot be taken away and used against them, and it won’t damage essential A/C systems when used in anger either. Possibly another point in it’s favour is the fact that it can be used in a non lethal manner, or otherwise as appropriate, and it’s use is much easier to control in that respect.
OK that my thoughts on the matter, next……………
I read on another post that the pistols provided use a projectile which is designed not to penetrate the fuselage however there was no mention of all the very important bits ‘n pieces which are inside the fuselage and quiet vulnerable. Wiring and hydraulics are the first things to spring to mind, but I’m guessing that in some A/C fuel would be an issue too.
Then from the point of view of someone with minimal training in self-defence, I am still very aware of just how easy it is to remove a weapon from someone, particularly in a confined space where they cannot arrange clear space around themselves. It seems to me to be an instant provision of firearms to a terrorist, rather than a preventive measure.
It worries me to the point where I will certainly think twice about boarding a flight, if I have other options, such as driving.
My suggestion would be that a couple of highly trained marshals armed with hand to hand combat skills would be much safer. The hand (as a weapon) cannot be taken away and used against them, and it won’t damage essential A/C systems when used in anger either. Possibly another point in it’s favour is the fact that it can be used in a non lethal manner, or otherwise as appropriate, and it’s use is much easier to control in that respect.
OK that my thoughts on the matter, next……………
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The issue of "Sky Marshalls" combines a little of the good 'ol American Wild West, with a dash of Rambo and Arnie Schwartznegger to pacify the Yanks, and the Oz legislators who are hanging off their shirt tails.
Organised terrorism is, no doubt, at least one (if not two) steps ahead of any of the amateurish bs dreamt up by the people who profess to be responsible for air travellers' safety. A small can of pressurised pepper spray, or mace, will be all that it takes to disable even the most proficient exponent of unarmed combat Sky Marshall).
As the latest would-be terrorist on American Airlines has demonstrated, not all hijackers NEED to take control of an aircraft to destroy it - he was willing to sacrifice himself, if it meant he could achieve his objective.
Pre-boarding security has still not reached an effective level. Almost EVERYTHING being done at present, is an overt display, meant to pacify the public in general, but a JOKE from the professional hijackers' point of view - the confiscation of nail cutters and nail files being just one case in point.
The best defence against these b@st@rds is only now beginning to be sourced - the other passengers!!!
It took the events of Sept. 11 to make slf realise they CAN make a difference.
Organised terrorism is, no doubt, at least one (if not two) steps ahead of any of the amateurish bs dreamt up by the people who profess to be responsible for air travellers' safety. A small can of pressurised pepper spray, or mace, will be all that it takes to disable even the most proficient exponent of unarmed combat Sky Marshall).
As the latest would-be terrorist on American Airlines has demonstrated, not all hijackers NEED to take control of an aircraft to destroy it - he was willing to sacrifice himself, if it meant he could achieve his objective.
Pre-boarding security has still not reached an effective level. Almost EVERYTHING being done at present, is an overt display, meant to pacify the public in general, but a JOKE from the professional hijackers' point of view - the confiscation of nail cutters and nail files being just one case in point.
The best defence against these b@st@rds is only now beginning to be sourced - the other passengers!!!
It took the events of Sept. 11 to make slf realise they CAN make a difference.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of simple maths......
If there is 22 Skymarshals and the cost is between $20 and $30 mill per annum, the annual cost per Marshal is between $909,091 and $1,363,636.
If 111 Marshals, the annual cost per Marshal is between $180,180 and $270,270.
Buggar flying! Where do I apply?
If there is 22 Skymarshals and the cost is between $20 and $30 mill per annum, the annual cost per Marshal is between $909,091 and $1,363,636.
If 111 Marshals, the annual cost per Marshal is between $180,180 and $270,270.
Buggar flying! Where do I apply?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just can't believe that the government wants to post another tax on aviation and the Australian public to employ un-necessary public servents as a knee jerk reacion to a problem in anither country. Mind you, I can see many public servents chomping at the bitt trying to get themselves into the glamor industry that aviation is <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
For my vote.....sky martials GO AWAY. I don't want to pay your wages.
For the public servants, some advice, sitting on aeroplanes becomes DEADLY boring. Hop you enjoy your jollies at other peoples expense.
Will the government have to pay for the martials seats each flight, because on a full flight it's one less revenue seat......somebody has to pay for that too.
For my vote.....sky martials GO AWAY. I don't want to pay your wages.
For the public servants, some advice, sitting on aeroplanes becomes DEADLY boring. Hop you enjoy your jollies at other peoples expense.
Will the government have to pay for the martials seats each flight, because on a full flight it's one less revenue seat......somebody has to pay for that too.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld Aust
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M,
I don't always agree with your points of view but on this occasion I am 100% with you on what you say. Decisions on these "Sky Marshalls" is a typical wild west type approach that will not work and on occasions could cause havoc. What happens when a shot is fired at FL390 and takes out a window. Just how much knowledge do these gun toting enforcers have of aircraft and systems and the damage a stray projectile can do in the cabin of a pressurised aircraft. A sad day indeed and as you said in your last post the passengers and the cabin crew are probably the best defence on the aircraft. The airport security has still a lot to be desired.
[ 25 December 2001: Message edited by: Pole Vaulter ]</p>
I don't always agree with your points of view but on this occasion I am 100% with you on what you say. Decisions on these "Sky Marshalls" is a typical wild west type approach that will not work and on occasions could cause havoc. What happens when a shot is fired at FL390 and takes out a window. Just how much knowledge do these gun toting enforcers have of aircraft and systems and the damage a stray projectile can do in the cabin of a pressurised aircraft. A sad day indeed and as you said in your last post the passengers and the cabin crew are probably the best defence on the aircraft. The airport security has still a lot to be desired.
[ 25 December 2001: Message edited by: Pole Vaulter ]</p>
Interesting to think how relvant a Sky Marshall is in today's climate.
Under the previous paradigm of terrorist action - that of taking control of an aircraft and spending several hours flying it to another destination, then a Sky Marshall had time to plan, and take action - and even then they were really only considered by very high risk target airlines in the Middle East.
Now think about the most recent attack - the flight attendant was the first to realise what was happening - as is to be expected, she called for help and recieved it from all of the closest (presumably male) passengers.
What help would a Sky Marshall have been?
Arriving at the pile of bodies, dancing around the edge, waving his pistol, shouting "I am the authority here?"
I suppose that after the guy was under control, people would be grateful for a token "official" to arrest and watch over the guy who was actually taken into custody by the passengers.
[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Checkboard ]</p>
Under the previous paradigm of terrorist action - that of taking control of an aircraft and spending several hours flying it to another destination, then a Sky Marshall had time to plan, and take action - and even then they were really only considered by very high risk target airlines in the Middle East.
Now think about the most recent attack - the flight attendant was the first to realise what was happening - as is to be expected, she called for help and recieved it from all of the closest (presumably male) passengers.
What help would a Sky Marshall have been?
Arriving at the pile of bodies, dancing around the edge, waving his pistol, shouting "I am the authority here?"
I suppose that after the guy was under control, people would be grateful for a token "official" to arrest and watch over the guy who was actually taken into custody by the passengers.
[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Checkboard ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally would prefer some " Twit ", as you put it, to shoot out some window,assuming he/she is that bad a shot, causing me to take the relevant actions for an emergency descent as opposed to being killed by some demented freak with a knife or explosives.
There are many ways of making a gun, if that is their chosen weapon, aircraft friendly, synthetic bullets using low velocity loads of powder( sub sonic ).
As a pilot how well trained are you to cope with terrorists ?, any help is good as far as I am concerned.
Criticism may be directed to their training course being only a few week long, some of these people are quite talented and no doubt reasonably intellegent, former soldiers, police.
So far there has been a fair amount of conjecture regarding who's in command, is there any other way to put it, DERRR!, The Captain will always be in command of the aircraft.
Having a person on board who's capable of kicking arse and breaking necks will certainly be a usefull comodity in a real situation, remember, the most important person on the aircraft in the marshalls mind is the Pilots.
If there are any Sky Marshalls on PPRUNE, you've earnt my respect, you doing your job properly is as important to my longevity as is the work of all the LAME/AME.
There are many ways of making a gun, if that is their chosen weapon, aircraft friendly, synthetic bullets using low velocity loads of powder( sub sonic ).
As a pilot how well trained are you to cope with terrorists ?, any help is good as far as I am concerned.
Criticism may be directed to their training course being only a few week long, some of these people are quite talented and no doubt reasonably intellegent, former soldiers, police.
So far there has been a fair amount of conjecture regarding who's in command, is there any other way to put it, DERRR!, The Captain will always be in command of the aircraft.
Having a person on board who's capable of kicking arse and breaking necks will certainly be a usefull comodity in a real situation, remember, the most important person on the aircraft in the marshalls mind is the Pilots.
If there are any Sky Marshalls on PPRUNE, you've earnt my respect, you doing your job properly is as important to my longevity as is the work of all the LAME/AME.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was traveling MEL-BNE on Monday. The guy next to me had a weapon under his jacket - I think. I had two choices:
a) Alert the crew to an armed potential hijacker.
b) Keep quiet for fear of blowing the sky marshall's cover.
OK, this didn't really happen, but, what if.....
a) Alert the crew to an armed potential hijacker.
b) Keep quiet for fear of blowing the sky marshall's cover.
OK, this didn't really happen, but, what if.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With reference to the potential hijackers gaining control over the sky marshalls weapon.
Wasn't there a development several years ago, that had the owner of the guns hand and finger print in it's memory, so that only he could actually fire the thing?
Might be costly, but as someone said above, 20-30 million...might as well go the whole hog and show some real forsight.
Wasn't there a development several years ago, that had the owner of the guns hand and finger print in it's memory, so that only he could actually fire the thing?
Might be costly, but as someone said above, 20-30 million...might as well go the whole hog and show some real forsight.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The gun actually exists and was developed I think by a Qlder.
Being developed in the US
Will only fire for the person who has the code, can't recall what the code method was but was sufficiently discreet for you to be able to safely give the gun to an attacker if you felt so moved to do.
Being developed in the US
Will only fire for the person who has the code, can't recall what the code method was but was sufficiently discreet for you to be able to safely give the gun to an attacker if you felt so moved to do.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera,
I think you're talking about Metal Storm... a whole series of guns that are electronically controlled and require a some kind of pin to operate. Interesting technology (Australian!) but doesn't seem to have taken hold yet. Seems to be marketed fairly strongly at law enforcement and the military.
<a href="http://www.metalstorm.com" target="_blank">www.metalstorm.com</a>
Lancer
I think you're talking about Metal Storm... a whole series of guns that are electronically controlled and require a some kind of pin to operate. Interesting technology (Australian!) but doesn't seem to have taken hold yet. Seems to be marketed fairly strongly at law enforcement and the military.
<a href="http://www.metalstorm.com" target="_blank">www.metalstorm.com</a>
Lancer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancer: I don't think thats what Woomera is talking about. I saw a brief item on TV about it some time back and it was not MetalStorm.
The gun I think Woomera referred to looked to be a conventional pistol but was bulkier around the trigger guard where the coding mechanism was.
It was being shown by the American inventor.
[ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: henry crun ]</p>
The gun I think Woomera referred to looked to be a conventional pistol but was bulkier around the trigger guard where the coding mechanism was.
It was being shown by the American inventor.
[ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: henry crun ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera 1 v Lancer 0
Metal Storm fires approx. 1,000,000 rounds/minute.
If the Skymarshal is carrying one of those, then HE'S THE MAN.
Info on handgun quite correct... several different ways of initialising the gun. By Code or proximity (close) to an electronic device, usually a ring for a man, or a metal dildo around the waist, for a woman.
Metal Storm fires approx. 1,000,000 rounds/minute.
If the Skymarshal is carrying one of those, then HE'S THE MAN.
Info on handgun quite correct... several different ways of initialising the gun. By Code or proximity (close) to an electronic device, usually a ring for a man, or a metal dildo around the waist, for a woman.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: gold coast, Qld: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How secret is the presence of these persons on board meant to be ? I haven't yet heard that the Captain will be advised (and he should be).
Imagine what would happen should it be learned by the crew that it was believed there was a person on board with a firearm. An arrangement would be made to tackle and disarm him, tie him up with the possibility of a little blood letting. OR a nice approach like " Excuse me sir I hate to disturb you but are you an air marshall or a terrorist?"
Just think about what has been started here as I won't elaborate further but I think you get my drift. (Does your CRM cover this)?
Imagine what would happen should it be learned by the crew that it was believed there was a person on board with a firearm. An arrangement would be made to tackle and disarm him, tie him up with the possibility of a little blood letting. OR a nice approach like " Excuse me sir I hate to disturb you but are you an air marshall or a terrorist?"
Just think about what has been started here as I won't elaborate further but I think you get my drift. (Does your CRM cover this)?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arguments for or against sky marshals will continue in a circular fashion depending on whether you are for or against the carriage of weapons in the cabin of an aircraft.
It is not possible to answer the question as to whether the carriage of sky marshals onboard the Sep 11th aircraft would have changed the outcome. Since that time however, the measures of increased security at aiports and strengthening of flight deck doors (when considered cumulatively) could make the presence of sky marshals a bonus.
QF has just released its instructions as to how sky marshals will be deployed and interact with the crew. I would obviously never discuss these issues in an open public forum. Suffice to say that many possible scenarios have been considered. How these measures will work in practice remains to be seen, but if the Government are comitted to the carriage of sky marshals, then the regulations will be amended in due course.
Personally, I feel that with appropriate recruitment standards, suitable training regimes and workable operating procedures, sky marshals should be an effective countermeasure against potential hijackings.
It is not possible to answer the question as to whether the carriage of sky marshals onboard the Sep 11th aircraft would have changed the outcome. Since that time however, the measures of increased security at aiports and strengthening of flight deck doors (when considered cumulatively) could make the presence of sky marshals a bonus.
QF has just released its instructions as to how sky marshals will be deployed and interact with the crew. I would obviously never discuss these issues in an open public forum. Suffice to say that many possible scenarios have been considered. How these measures will work in practice remains to be seen, but if the Government are comitted to the carriage of sky marshals, then the regulations will be amended in due course.
Personally, I feel that with appropriate recruitment standards, suitable training regimes and workable operating procedures, sky marshals should be an effective countermeasure against potential hijackings.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun "Sunday Herald Sun"
Marshals pose as tourists
By SIMON KEARNEY
30dec01
MALE and female sky marshals are posing as holidaying couples on flights in Australia in their undercover work to protect passengers against terrorism.
The first details of how the new sky marshals are operating, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, reveals they are working in teams of two.
The air security officers will carry sub-machine guns with specially designed ammunition designed not to penetrate aircraft walls or windows.
They will also examine flight bookings and intelligence from ASIO and overseas agencies, such as the CIA, to determine what flights are at risk.
People suspected of being linked to terrorists or terrorist organisations can expect armed security officers to be on their flights, the Federal Government warned. A spokesman for Justice Minister Chris Ellison told The Sunday Telegraph that air security officers would work in tandem, with a minimum of two on aircraft chosen after detailed threat assessments.
The teams will be deployed on regional, domestic and international flights using Australian registered aircraft.
The Justice Minister's office also revealed the new ground rules established last week between the Government and airlines to ensure new sky marshals act only when it is necessary.
"They won't be there to stop a drunken holiday maker pinching a flight attendant on the bum," the spokesman said.
"They will act where the structural integrity of the aircraft is going to be compromised and where the threat against passengers is clear, exceptional and obvious."
And, the new air security officers will have absolute control over their actions aboard the aircraft.
As such they will not answer to the captain who would normally have ultimate control of the plane.
By the end of 2002 air security officers will be flying every day in Australia.
The first 22 graduated last weekend and a further 89 will be trained in the coming year.
Mr Ellison's spokesman said the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had assisted in the marshals' training.
The final part of their training involved simulations inside aircraft alongside working air crew, Mr Ellison's spokesman said.
An FAA factsheet details how their training involves building up exceptional close-quarters weapons' skills and rigorous psychological testing of candidates.
The FAA also makes sky marshals undergo training exercises before each flight.
Many of the Australian air security officers have moved into the jobs from work in the counter-terrorist units of state police forces.
No legislation was needed to put the marshals on Australian flights.
Marshals pose as tourists
By SIMON KEARNEY
30dec01
MALE and female sky marshals are posing as holidaying couples on flights in Australia in their undercover work to protect passengers against terrorism.
The first details of how the new sky marshals are operating, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, reveals they are working in teams of two.
The air security officers will carry sub-machine guns with specially designed ammunition designed not to penetrate aircraft walls or windows.
They will also examine flight bookings and intelligence from ASIO and overseas agencies, such as the CIA, to determine what flights are at risk.
People suspected of being linked to terrorists or terrorist organisations can expect armed security officers to be on their flights, the Federal Government warned. A spokesman for Justice Minister Chris Ellison told The Sunday Telegraph that air security officers would work in tandem, with a minimum of two on aircraft chosen after detailed threat assessments.
The teams will be deployed on regional, domestic and international flights using Australian registered aircraft.
The Justice Minister's office also revealed the new ground rules established last week between the Government and airlines to ensure new sky marshals act only when it is necessary.
"They won't be there to stop a drunken holiday maker pinching a flight attendant on the bum," the spokesman said.
"They will act where the structural integrity of the aircraft is going to be compromised and where the threat against passengers is clear, exceptional and obvious."
And, the new air security officers will have absolute control over their actions aboard the aircraft.
As such they will not answer to the captain who would normally have ultimate control of the plane.
By the end of 2002 air security officers will be flying every day in Australia.
The first 22 graduated last weekend and a further 89 will be trained in the coming year.
Mr Ellison's spokesman said the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had assisted in the marshals' training.
The final part of their training involved simulations inside aircraft alongside working air crew, Mr Ellison's spokesman said.
An FAA factsheet details how their training involves building up exceptional close-quarters weapons' skills and rigorous psychological testing of candidates.
The FAA also makes sky marshals undergo training exercises before each flight.
Many of the Australian air security officers have moved into the jobs from work in the counter-terrorist units of state police forces.
No legislation was needed to put the marshals on Australian flights.
