Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
I'm sure you are missing the point deliberately. The lone nutter is easily subdued, witness the many recent incidents, from attempted shoe-bombs to mentally ill Africans. Especially now that most pax are aware that without their intervention, they may well all die.
The organised group is completely different animal. I'm sure you must know this. I HOPE you do...
Regarding doors, we aren't really polarised at all. I too think the present doors are woefully inadequate, badly designed and a safety hazard, and have said so officially (via ASR) several times. I think the incidence of failure is low- in the time since they were introduced, there haven't been that many failures. I haven't had a door failure, but I have had an engine fail in that time.
However, I would far rather have the door than sky marshals. Put the money spent on them, into strengthening the door and surrounding structure.
Perhaps if anything demonstrates the difference between the culture on either side of the Atlantic, it is this:
You see, over here the information comes from the government, not the union. The technical specification for the door likewise comes from the government. I can't imagine why you have to rely on a union for this info.
Thank you for making my point for me. How many terrorists are we talking about here? And how many sky marshals? BTW prepare yourself for attacks from those reading this that think you just gave the bad guys a lesson in tactics.... 
No, I don't have a lot of faith in the (present) doors, but I have less in sky marshals. Especially as there are unlikely to be many of them, for the reasons Wino states:
What is interesting to me is that what we are really polarised about is the US attitude to firearms, ie more is better. "Althold" makes the point well- our legal (and social) framework and law does not allow the same freedom to bear arms, and that has implications for the Captain, should anytinhg happen on a flight- particularly if somebody gets killed by a sky marshal. None of our American friends have yet addressed that point, and it is an important one as much of the present difficulty stems from that difference in thinking. Doors are a side issue. Maybe Michael Moore is the only sane American... 
As Wino has chosen not to respond with details of what union he belongs to, I'll assume that was all bluster.
Must be time for Danny to step in again, I see willy-waving is happening again (but about Northern Ireland this time).
I'm sure you are missing the point deliberately. The lone nutter is easily subdued, witness the many recent incidents, from attempted shoe-bombs to mentally ill Africans. Especially now that most pax are aware that without their intervention, they may well all die.
The organised group is completely different animal. I'm sure you must know this. I HOPE you do...
Regarding doors, we aren't really polarised at all. I too think the present doors are woefully inadequate, badly designed and a safety hazard, and have said so officially (via ASR) several times. I think the incidence of failure is low- in the time since they were introduced, there haven't been that many failures. I haven't had a door failure, but I have had an engine fail in that time.
However, I would far rather have the door than sky marshals. Put the money spent on them, into strengthening the door and surrounding structure.
Perhaps if anything demonstrates the difference between the culture on either side of the Atlantic, it is this:
I wonder what info your union is providing you with, or even worse I hope its not the builder of the door providing you with your tech info.
In your scenario the baddies go directly to a door that I know can be breached rapidly while others keep the pax at bay.
No, I don't have a lot of faith in the (present) doors, but I have less in sky marshals. Especially as there are unlikely to be many of them, for the reasons Wino states:
the costs of carrying them are staggering as we are not remeimbursed ticket expenses for the, and with Yeild management programs that airlines use to maximize revenue, the last few seats on an aircraft are by far the most valuble. And since they don't know when the skymarshals will be there they don't know when they can sell them and when they can't...
As Wino has chosen not to respond with details of what union he belongs to, I'll assume that was all bluster.
Must be time for Danny to step in again, I see willy-waving is happening again (but about Northern Ireland this time).
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, put yer willies away lads! 
I am constantly amazed by the depth of discussion, especially by some on possible tactics by either sky marshalls or terrorists. Some of you have obviously never been in the military and even if you have, were never in a combat unit, and if you were, have never been in actual combat. The Hollywood scenario some of you waffle on about is a fantasy and you've been watching too many movies.
The stock news clips of the training by sky marshalls you have seen is just that, training in a controlled environment. You have absolutely no idea of the actual chaos and confusion that really happens in real life and all the rhetoric I read just goes to prove to me how little some of you actually know.
The main point again is prevention rather than cure. It doesn't matter how many guns or knitting needles a granny manages to get onto an aircraft as long as she has no intent to use them for anything malicious. it DOES matter how many guns or knitting needles a granny manages to get on board an aircraft if she DOES have malicious intent. That is exactly what profiling is all about, no matter how un-PC it may be.
We have all seen the extra few pounds or dollars spent on beefing up 'security' after check-in. Lots of nicely uniformed personnel employed either by third party service providers or as in the US by the TSA. What those people are useful for is making the travelling public feel good that every effort is being taken to remove sharp objects from their person. That is it. They have a very limited function and are only trained to minimum spec. There have been so many breaches of their 'security' by journalists already that just proves my point that unless there is intent to use a weapon that has been successfully smuggled past 'security' then it doesn't really matter.
Now lets move on to the highly organised and not so dumb group of terrorists. Assuming that they have managed to stay ahead of any government security service, and we all know that they can if they're good and they're lucky, then all they have to do is make sure they have the proper tickets and nothing on their being that is going to get them stopped at 'security' after they have checked in.
We all know where the security loopholes are. Even the media have shown how they can get 'airside' jobs or even just infiltrate 'airside' to be in a position to smuggle weapons aboard an aircraft. Even the 'insider' is not really required. All the group of now checked-in terrorists need to do is spend some money in Duty Free and all the other shops 'airside'. Once this group are on-board then they will probably have a 1 in 20 (5%) or better chance that their flight won't have a sky marshall on board.
Why not spend more money on really effective deterrents such as proper profiling which is far more likely to spot potential terrorists before they even check-in. It is that deterrent that has protected El Al over the years rather than the sky marshalls. They have gone for the belt and braces option, out of necessity. Sky marshalls and profiling. One without the other is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at deterrent. If I had to choose I know I'd much rather have the profiling.
To anyone who is not a pilot, you really have no idea how mind numbingly tiresome it can be just sitting for many hours trying to stay alert. If you think that being a sky marshall is glamorous then you need your heads examining. As has been stated, the retention factor is a problem. These people are expected to be reasonably alert for 6-8 or more hours at a stretch. Of course, we are assuming these superhumans had a couple of days of proper rest before their flight and have some sort of abnormal ability to remain alert. I'm sure none of them have trouble adjusting to the 'night before a duty' restlessness that most of us normal pilots don't suffer from (or is that really just me? )
If we're only going to have a limited and random number of flights with sky marshalls why can't we have 100% profiling of pax before they even get to check-in? Surely we deserve that. Oh, I forgot, it's too expensive and not very PC. How much does it cost to train and retain a sky marshall?
I am constantly amazed by the depth of discussion, especially by some on possible tactics by either sky marshalls or terrorists. Some of you have obviously never been in the military and even if you have, were never in a combat unit, and if you were, have never been in actual combat. The Hollywood scenario some of you waffle on about is a fantasy and you've been watching too many movies.
The stock news clips of the training by sky marshalls you have seen is just that, training in a controlled environment. You have absolutely no idea of the actual chaos and confusion that really happens in real life and all the rhetoric I read just goes to prove to me how little some of you actually know.
The main point again is prevention rather than cure. It doesn't matter how many guns or knitting needles a granny manages to get onto an aircraft as long as she has no intent to use them for anything malicious. it DOES matter how many guns or knitting needles a granny manages to get on board an aircraft if she DOES have malicious intent. That is exactly what profiling is all about, no matter how un-PC it may be.
We have all seen the extra few pounds or dollars spent on beefing up 'security' after check-in. Lots of nicely uniformed personnel employed either by third party service providers or as in the US by the TSA. What those people are useful for is making the travelling public feel good that every effort is being taken to remove sharp objects from their person. That is it. They have a very limited function and are only trained to minimum spec. There have been so many breaches of their 'security' by journalists already that just proves my point that unless there is intent to use a weapon that has been successfully smuggled past 'security' then it doesn't really matter.
Now lets move on to the highly organised and not so dumb group of terrorists. Assuming that they have managed to stay ahead of any government security service, and we all know that they can if they're good and they're lucky, then all they have to do is make sure they have the proper tickets and nothing on their being that is going to get them stopped at 'security' after they have checked in.
We all know where the security loopholes are. Even the media have shown how they can get 'airside' jobs or even just infiltrate 'airside' to be in a position to smuggle weapons aboard an aircraft. Even the 'insider' is not really required. All the group of now checked-in terrorists need to do is spend some money in Duty Free and all the other shops 'airside'. Once this group are on-board then they will probably have a 1 in 20 (5%) or better chance that their flight won't have a sky marshall on board.
Why not spend more money on really effective deterrents such as proper profiling which is far more likely to spot potential terrorists before they even check-in. It is that deterrent that has protected El Al over the years rather than the sky marshalls. They have gone for the belt and braces option, out of necessity. Sky marshalls and profiling. One without the other is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at deterrent. If I had to choose I know I'd much rather have the profiling.
To anyone who is not a pilot, you really have no idea how mind numbingly tiresome it can be just sitting for many hours trying to stay alert. If you think that being a sky marshall is glamorous then you need your heads examining. As has been stated, the retention factor is a problem. These people are expected to be reasonably alert for 6-8 or more hours at a stretch. Of course, we are assuming these superhumans had a couple of days of proper rest before their flight and have some sort of abnormal ability to remain alert. I'm sure none of them have trouble adjusting to the 'night before a duty' restlessness that most of us normal pilots don't suffer from (or is that really just me?
)If we're only going to have a limited and random number of flights with sky marshalls why can't we have 100% profiling of pax before they even get to check-in? Surely we deserve that. Oh, I forgot, it's too expensive and not very PC. How much does it cost to train and retain a sky marshall?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I as SLF am frankly considerably more alarmed by the "suicide bomber" who climbs into the wheel well with a pressure switched device....what use the skymarshal then? The problem remains with security breaches on the ground .Deal with them there.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Sky Marshals
I have a few of the posts on the above subject and feel that a few facts need to be brought to light. Firstly the type of ammunition and firearms used by Sky Marshals, the pistols that will be carried are compact models that can easily concealed even when just wearing shorts. Don't think that just because every cop you have seen in the films carry’s his gun on his belt holster that is the only place to keep it. I have been required to carry a gun and have been searched (patted down) on a number of occasions and it has not been found. The ammunition used is called "Safety Slugs" it is manufactured by Glazer and is a low velocity round (this means it is sub sonic). The projectile consists of a number of steel balls encased in compressed Teflon powder. This ammunition is designed for use on aircraft due to the fact that when the projectile impacts with a target it beaks up resulting in very little penetration. They are incapable of penetrating the foam in the seats never mind the skin of an aircraft. Their lethality depends on where the person is hit and as a result the chance of immediate incapacitation (0.5 Seconds) is very low but that is the price of increased safety of the aircraft.
The persons used as Air Marshals may come from a few areas namely the military SAS, SBS or even the RMP Close Protection Teams, but more likely it will be from the Police SO19, Special Branch Close Protection Teams but not the standard Armed Response Teams.
The use of non lethal weapons has its place but their use is always advocated by people with no experience in them. It is up there with the argument of why did you shoot to kill and not just to wound, it is impossible to shoot to wound, as anybody who has fired a gun will tell. Pepper spray will not stop a man with a gun from shooting you. CS gas is deadly in confined spaces. Knockout gas only exists in films, the levels anaesthetic required to fill the cabin would kill certain groups of people (children, elderly etc).
The reality is that we are faced with an enemy whose ultimate goal in life is to kill himself and if he takes a few members of his enemy with him all the better. They are not called fanatics for nothing. The probability of an armed terrorist on a flight are being reduced daily but as a pilot with intermit knowledge of firearms, explosives and the security forces I welcome Armed Sky Marshals.
The persons used as Air Marshals may come from a few areas namely the military SAS, SBS or even the RMP Close Protection Teams, but more likely it will be from the Police SO19, Special Branch Close Protection Teams but not the standard Armed Response Teams.
The use of non lethal weapons has its place but their use is always advocated by people with no experience in them. It is up there with the argument of why did you shoot to kill and not just to wound, it is impossible to shoot to wound, as anybody who has fired a gun will tell. Pepper spray will not stop a man with a gun from shooting you. CS gas is deadly in confined spaces. Knockout gas only exists in films, the levels anaesthetic required to fill the cabin would kill certain groups of people (children, elderly etc).
The reality is that we are faced with an enemy whose ultimate goal in life is to kill himself and if he takes a few members of his enemy with him all the better. They are not called fanatics for nothing. The probability of an armed terrorist on a flight are being reduced daily but as a pilot with intermit knowledge of firearms, explosives and the security forces I welcome Armed Sky Marshals.
Danny
I don't disagree with most of the measures you advocate, you stop short, however. You praise El Al for their profiling system as a progressive step, along with all the other things they do. Even with all they do El Al, without dispute the most security conscious airline still uses armed air marshals. Does that tell you something? It tells me they believe in a multi layered defense as best. The US and dare I say the UK have a ways to go in all areas of security, I can't see categorically excluding a last chance defense of the cockpit. It is assumed that all the pax and crew will be dead, be it from the terrorists, from the trailing fighter or from the last efforts of the crew to avoid a greater disaster. What do you have to lose from a team of marshals defending you if your likely going to die anyway? I can't quantify what percentage improvement a team of marshals provide, but if they offer me any greater chance of survival than without then they are worth it. I see posters on all sides agreeing the door can be defeated quickly and that money needs to be spent to improve security. All very well but it ignores the hear and now. As of now the door is of questionable value, airport screening personal still miss weapons being carried on aircraft today, stowaways are making it into wheelwells of aircraft. Airport and airline security today are not secure enough. I have to fly a four day tomorrow, not after all the new security measures are in place.
MOR
Just as I told Danny, I have to fly tomorrow. It seems we are both in agreement about the door. The bad guys are not going to play fair and wait till security is improved. I want an additional level of security for my flight tomorrow that you won't have available for months or years. The French believed in the maginot line would keep the Germans out also, I don't have such great faith in the door as I want to discount another layer of safety. The door in its current form and for the near term future is a placebo for those who know no better. You were right about one thing. It speaks volumes about our differing beliefs when you take the government at their word about the door. Much the same here. I would have walked away happy with what I saw if not for a third party (union) investigation.
I don't know why I even ask this as you are entrenched in your position, but as honestly as you can answer this. Do you think the pilots on 9/11 (11/9 for you) wish they had had marshals on board that day? Could the outcome have been any worse for the WTC and Pentagon? No, but the possibility exists there could have been a better outcome. A better question given the new tactical mindset we fly with these days is would you change your mind about marshals if you looked back to see a terrorist in the final stages of breaking into your flight deck? No atheists in a fox hole either.
I don't disagree with most of the measures you advocate, you stop short, however. You praise El Al for their profiling system as a progressive step, along with all the other things they do. Even with all they do El Al, without dispute the most security conscious airline still uses armed air marshals. Does that tell you something? It tells me they believe in a multi layered defense as best. The US and dare I say the UK have a ways to go in all areas of security, I can't see categorically excluding a last chance defense of the cockpit. It is assumed that all the pax and crew will be dead, be it from the terrorists, from the trailing fighter or from the last efforts of the crew to avoid a greater disaster. What do you have to lose from a team of marshals defending you if your likely going to die anyway? I can't quantify what percentage improvement a team of marshals provide, but if they offer me any greater chance of survival than without then they are worth it. I see posters on all sides agreeing the door can be defeated quickly and that money needs to be spent to improve security. All very well but it ignores the hear and now. As of now the door is of questionable value, airport screening personal still miss weapons being carried on aircraft today, stowaways are making it into wheelwells of aircraft. Airport and airline security today are not secure enough. I have to fly a four day tomorrow, not after all the new security measures are in place.
MOR
Just as I told Danny, I have to fly tomorrow. It seems we are both in agreement about the door. The bad guys are not going to play fair and wait till security is improved. I want an additional level of security for my flight tomorrow that you won't have available for months or years. The French believed in the maginot line would keep the Germans out also, I don't have such great faith in the door as I want to discount another layer of safety. The door in its current form and for the near term future is a placebo for those who know no better. You were right about one thing. It speaks volumes about our differing beliefs when you take the government at their word about the door. Much the same here. I would have walked away happy with what I saw if not for a third party (union) investigation.
I don't know why I even ask this as you are entrenched in your position, but as honestly as you can answer this. Do you think the pilots on 9/11 (11/9 for you) wish they had had marshals on board that day? Could the outcome have been any worse for the WTC and Pentagon? No, but the possibility exists there could have been a better outcome. A better question given the new tactical mindset we fly with these days is would you change your mind about marshals if you looked back to see a terrorist in the final stages of breaking into your flight deck? No atheists in a fox hole either.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think the pilots on 9/11 (11/9 for you) wish they had had marshals on board that day?
You are assuming that had they been on board every one of those flights that they'd have been successful. You are trying to use your own belief in your gun culture system. Why not just say "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they had a proper intelligence service looking out for threats." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they had the new reinforced cockpit doors." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish there had been passenger profiling." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they'd had competent security screeners."
The point about El Al is not that I praise their sky marshalls. It is the fact that if you are going to do security properly then do it properly and not in the current knee-jerk, ill thought through diktats from a government that appears to be almost paranoid. Whilst it is understandable why the US is so paranoid that in itself doesn't solve potential problems. It appears to someone who has seen the inside workings of proper security that Tom Ridge and his department are producing an awful lot of rhetoric in an apparent need to justify their existence.
I am not against sky marshalls per se. Just against the cosmetic use they will be considering the numbers involved. All the hoopla around the announcements are because of ill thought through decisions and without the real deterrent and use of proper profiling then there are gaping holes in the security system.
You are assuming that had they been on board every one of those flights that they'd have been successful. You are trying to use your own belief in your gun culture system. Why not just say "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they had a proper intelligence service looking out for threats." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they had the new reinforced cockpit doors." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish there had been passenger profiling." Or... "do you think the pilots on 9/11 wish they'd had competent security screeners."
The point about El Al is not that I praise their sky marshalls. It is the fact that if you are going to do security properly then do it properly and not in the current knee-jerk, ill thought through diktats from a government that appears to be almost paranoid. Whilst it is understandable why the US is so paranoid that in itself doesn't solve potential problems. It appears to someone who has seen the inside workings of proper security that Tom Ridge and his department are producing an awful lot of rhetoric in an apparent need to justify their existence.
I am not against sky marshalls per se. Just against the cosmetic use they will be considering the numbers involved. All the hoopla around the announcements are because of ill thought through decisions and without the real deterrent and use of proper profiling then there are gaping holes in the security system.
In a sense of fair play does anyone monitor you when you cross over to participant or are you allowed the bully pulpit?
Your responses are usually clear, this one was a bit less lucid. Your waving YOUR willy with your diatribe about Ridge trying to justify his existance and about American paranoia.
I'll answer your iterations of my question if you properly answer mine. Yes they could have had better intel, yes the screeners could have been better trained. That doesn't eliminate the threat, it only minimizes it. Do you argue otherwise?
How many redundant systems do you have on your aircraft? Why do you need an alternate way to drop the gear if you have a primary system to do it? Same applies to the physical security of your aircraft
Say what you want about intel, screening and all the other aspects of a proper apparatus, all can be defeated. For every measure there's an evolving counter measure. El Al has probably the best of all the security measures in place and they still believe in a human with a weapon is part of the layered deterrant. Indeed recently the best, most secure airline in the world failed to detect a would be terrorist with a knife. What stopped him you ask? Probably the last line of defense, an armed marshal. And of the BA 747 that was damn near taken down by a lone individual, unarmed. The Captain said they were a few seconds away from disaster. The yahoo had control of the columm. I don't see a superior British system at work there. I recognize the whole gun thing may not be for you Brits, but don't be so smug as to dismiss it as American gun culture at work.
Answer my question now, If you had been one of the pilots on 911 would you have wished for armed marshals as the blade neared your throat?
Your comments about better security, better screening are taken and not argued. Now understand my point, future measures do nothing for the pax and crews today.
Your responses are usually clear, this one was a bit less lucid. Your waving YOUR willy with your diatribe about Ridge trying to justify his existance and about American paranoia.
I'll answer your iterations of my question if you properly answer mine. Yes they could have had better intel, yes the screeners could have been better trained. That doesn't eliminate the threat, it only minimizes it. Do you argue otherwise?
How many redundant systems do you have on your aircraft? Why do you need an alternate way to drop the gear if you have a primary system to do it? Same applies to the physical security of your aircraft
Say what you want about intel, screening and all the other aspects of a proper apparatus, all can be defeated. For every measure there's an evolving counter measure. El Al has probably the best of all the security measures in place and they still believe in a human with a weapon is part of the layered deterrant. Indeed recently the best, most secure airline in the world failed to detect a would be terrorist with a knife. What stopped him you ask? Probably the last line of defense, an armed marshal. And of the BA 747 that was damn near taken down by a lone individual, unarmed. The Captain said they were a few seconds away from disaster. The yahoo had control of the columm. I don't see a superior British system at work there. I recognize the whole gun thing may not be for you Brits, but don't be so smug as to dismiss it as American gun culture at work.
Answer my question now, If you had been one of the pilots on 911 would you have wished for armed marshals as the blade neared your throat?
Your comments about better security, better screening are taken and not argued. Now understand my point, future measures do nothing for the pax and crews today.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No security system is perfect. The systems that exist in both the US and UK are considerably less than perfect! I too would like to see improved training for security staff, better intelligence, better flight deck security, and more passenger profiling (my airline is one of those that trialled it in UK, I believe). However, those things haven't happened and aren't likely to. Even if they did, I would still have no intrinsic objection to armed security personnel on aircraft - whether or not they could save any or every potential disaster is irrelevent. They provide one more layer of defence and deterrence at a time when we need everything we can get.
The practical applications of 'skymarshals', and their tactics and weaponry are irrelevent in this forum. They have been imposed by the UK Government, at the demand of the US Government (which is probably what's getting up most Brits' noses), and therefore we have to learn to live with them.
Skymarshals have been flying for years. I know of no security situation that's been made worse by them, and there are quite a few that have been resolved successfully by them.
There are more important things to argue about.
The practical applications of 'skymarshals', and their tactics and weaponry are irrelevent in this forum. They have been imposed by the UK Government, at the demand of the US Government (which is probably what's getting up most Brits' noses), and therefore we have to learn to live with them.
Skymarshals have been flying for years. I know of no security situation that's been made worse by them, and there are quite a few that have been resolved successfully by them.
There are more important things to argue about.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR,
I am an active member of the ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION AlliedPilots.org. I am currently an inactive member of ALPA, stricty for classification, the bargaining agent for American Airlines is the Allied Pilots association, WHen I worked for my previous carrier I was represented by ALPA. I am still very active in ALPA although my bargain agent is APA.
I have to make this quick because the Dominican Hotel only gives me 15 minutes of free internet.
While PROFILING works, in the USA there have been legal challenges (successfull) from Arab American groups. Infact the first computerized profiling system was called CAPS (Civil aviation profiling system, or something similar) Infact it picked off about 15 of the 9/11 hijackers but by court order the airlines were forbidden from doing anything to the people with that info. They were however allowed to use it for the searching of bags, which is why Mohammad Atta's bags didn't make the flight and they had his will and last statements....
Unfortuately racial profiling is a hot button issue and too many liberal judges have hamstrung law enforcement.
Cheers
WIno (less than 1 min left
I am an active member of the ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION AlliedPilots.org. I am currently an inactive member of ALPA, stricty for classification, the bargaining agent for American Airlines is the Allied Pilots association, WHen I worked for my previous carrier I was represented by ALPA. I am still very active in ALPA although my bargain agent is APA.
I have to make this quick because the Dominican Hotel only gives me 15 minutes of free internet.
While PROFILING works, in the USA there have been legal challenges (successfull) from Arab American groups. Infact the first computerized profiling system was called CAPS (Civil aviation profiling system, or something similar) Infact it picked off about 15 of the 9/11 hijackers but by court order the airlines were forbidden from doing anything to the people with that info. They were however allowed to use it for the searching of bags, which is why Mohammad Atta's bags didn't make the flight and they had his will and last statements....
Unfortuately racial profiling is a hot button issue and too many liberal judges have hamstrung law enforcement.
Cheers
WIno (less than 1 min left
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny
I don't quite understand your remark regarding serving in a combat unit having anything at all to do with terrorists on aircraft. I haven't served in combat (and I doubt that you have either), but I have served in a national police service working closely with the anti-terrorism unit and I know that the skills required for the respective tasks are completely different- which is why, as others have said, sky marshals are not drawn from infantry units.
Profiling is an excellent way forward though. One can only wonder at a country which resists the most effective weapon it has in the fight against terrorism, whilst promoting the wholesale slaughter of its citizens by fellow citizens with assault rifles, handguns, whatever... BTW my willy is resting comfortably at the moment. No movement at all.
West Coast
Danny is spot on with most of his last post. Why not use the weapons most effective in dealing with the problem? The recurring thought to a lot of us non-Americans is that American actually want to use guns. They prefer them. The whole American psyche is so locked into the right to bear arms that you automatically turn to the gun first. El Al, on the other hand, employ the sky marshal and weapons as a last resort, and use more efficient methods to prevent the sky marshal ever having to reveal him/herself. Cart after the horse, so to speak.
You completely over-sensationalise the incidents you describe. In the BA case, you seem to be using a tabloid headline as a resource. If the guy had "control of the column" they would all be dead. Aircraft are always seconds away from disaster- nature of the beast. Of course, if the cockpit door had been locked, the situation would never hnave happened, would it?
You didn't see a "superior British system" because there isn't one, and nobody here has said that there is. Put your willy away, my friend. We are ALL learning how to do this, and if you look to the expert (El Al) you will see not just screening, not just sky marshals, but both. However, their first line of defence is profiling or screening. Are we learning yet?
If I had been one of the pilots on 9/11, I wouldn't be wishing for a sky marshal. I'd be wishing for better systems to stop these guys getting on to the aircraft after they had been identified as a risk. Most of all, I'd be wishing that I had locked the door and kept it locked, because I don't believe they would have breached it before being overcome (I am talking about the newer doors here). If all that had failed, I would be wishing that I had a firearm with which to help myself!
Of course the prevailing security attitude to hijackers seconds before the first plane flew into a tower was "give them what they want", so the question is moot.
Wino
Ah, OK. You belong to a breakaway union that serves only one airline. Right. The way you were talking, I thought you were at least an officer of a national, multi-carrier union. Glad I got that sorted out!
I don't quite understand your remark regarding serving in a combat unit having anything at all to do with terrorists on aircraft. I haven't served in combat (and I doubt that you have either), but I have served in a national police service working closely with the anti-terrorism unit and I know that the skills required for the respective tasks are completely different- which is why, as others have said, sky marshals are not drawn from infantry units.
Profiling is an excellent way forward though. One can only wonder at a country which resists the most effective weapon it has in the fight against terrorism, whilst promoting the wholesale slaughter of its citizens by fellow citizens with assault rifles, handguns, whatever... BTW my willy is resting comfortably at the moment. No movement at all.
West Coast
Danny is spot on with most of his last post. Why not use the weapons most effective in dealing with the problem? The recurring thought to a lot of us non-Americans is that American actually want to use guns. They prefer them. The whole American psyche is so locked into the right to bear arms that you automatically turn to the gun first. El Al, on the other hand, employ the sky marshal and weapons as a last resort, and use more efficient methods to prevent the sky marshal ever having to reveal him/herself. Cart after the horse, so to speak.
You completely over-sensationalise the incidents you describe. In the BA case, you seem to be using a tabloid headline as a resource. If the guy had "control of the column" they would all be dead. Aircraft are always seconds away from disaster- nature of the beast. Of course, if the cockpit door had been locked, the situation would never hnave happened, would it?
You didn't see a "superior British system" because there isn't one, and nobody here has said that there is. Put your willy away, my friend. We are ALL learning how to do this, and if you look to the expert (El Al) you will see not just screening, not just sky marshals, but both. However, their first line of defence is profiling or screening. Are we learning yet?
If I had been one of the pilots on 9/11, I wouldn't be wishing for a sky marshal. I'd be wishing for better systems to stop these guys getting on to the aircraft after they had been identified as a risk. Most of all, I'd be wishing that I had locked the door and kept it locked, because I don't believe they would have breached it before being overcome (I am talking about the newer doors here). If all that had failed, I would be wishing that I had a firearm with which to help myself!
Of course the prevailing security attitude to hijackers seconds before the first plane flew into a tower was "give them what they want", so the question is moot.
Wino
Ah, OK. You belong to a breakaway union that serves only one airline. Right. The way you were talking, I thought you were at least an officer of a national, multi-carrier union. Glad I got that sorted out!
MOR
Pretty tough words twords wino when he is only exchanging ideas. I don't know much about BALPA, but the type of info Wino is talking about makes it down to the lowest levels. I don't know if your side keeps it to at higher levels than line pilots. You can also standby for a blast from Danny about his past military service. I think you will find what the rest have known for awhile about his background, look before you leap.
Your smart @ss comments aside we agree on a fair amount.
I think profiling is a great way of improving security, even with the baggage that comes with it. I think improvements in airport screening is a positive and more needs to be done. I think improvements in intel are probably the best way of preventing future hijackings. The things you have mentioned are the best weapons we have for prevention. Re-read that please, prevention is the best scenario. Prevention however minimizes the threat, it doesn't eliminate them. I am not ready to cede the aircraft because some crafty little devil found a way around the security measures outside of the aircraft. Just the way El Al uses marshals and weapons as a last result, the US air marshal program is a last chance at saving the aircraft. It is not meant to be a substitute for improvements in other areas. That said, the improvements will not be in place today, tomorrow or maybe even a year from now. You and Danny keep harping about if this or that had been done then we wouldn't have to have Marshals. Well it wasn't done and sooner than flogging the horse, we have to deal with what is going on now, not a few years ago when we should have done something. Hind sight is 20/20, but we can't dwell on it.
As to the BA 747 nearly crashing and your trying to minimize it. The tabloid you accuse me of using as a source to "over-sensationalise the incident" is the BBC. I will leave it you to decide if its a tabloid or credible news organization. In any case, don't take my word for it, The following is the Captain of the 747 in his own words.
"If the drama had lasted four or five seconds longer the jet would have flipped on its back and the Co pilot would not have been able to regain control"
Captain Willian Hagen, British Airways.
The whole article is available on the BBC web site, it was the headline news on 29 Dec 2000.
You can further try to dismiss it as a minor event, but you would be disputing the pilot in command of said aircraft.
As to the door being being locked, I don't know. I understand some UK crews left the cockpit door unlocked and even open at times pre 911.
I find your final comments some what amusing. You accuse the US of a rampant gun culture, yet you wish you had a gun if you had been in the seat that day. I agree with your sentiments. They are however a bit non sequitur given your earlier diatribe about guns and aircraft.
Pretty tough words twords wino when he is only exchanging ideas. I don't know much about BALPA, but the type of info Wino is talking about makes it down to the lowest levels. I don't know if your side keeps it to at higher levels than line pilots. You can also standby for a blast from Danny about his past military service. I think you will find what the rest have known for awhile about his background, look before you leap.
Your smart @ss comments aside we agree on a fair amount.
I think profiling is a great way of improving security, even with the baggage that comes with it. I think improvements in airport screening is a positive and more needs to be done. I think improvements in intel are probably the best way of preventing future hijackings. The things you have mentioned are the best weapons we have for prevention. Re-read that please, prevention is the best scenario. Prevention however minimizes the threat, it doesn't eliminate them. I am not ready to cede the aircraft because some crafty little devil found a way around the security measures outside of the aircraft. Just the way El Al uses marshals and weapons as a last result, the US air marshal program is a last chance at saving the aircraft. It is not meant to be a substitute for improvements in other areas. That said, the improvements will not be in place today, tomorrow or maybe even a year from now. You and Danny keep harping about if this or that had been done then we wouldn't have to have Marshals. Well it wasn't done and sooner than flogging the horse, we have to deal with what is going on now, not a few years ago when we should have done something. Hind sight is 20/20, but we can't dwell on it.
As to the BA 747 nearly crashing and your trying to minimize it. The tabloid you accuse me of using as a source to "over-sensationalise the incident" is the BBC. I will leave it you to decide if its a tabloid or credible news organization. In any case, don't take my word for it, The following is the Captain of the 747 in his own words.
"If the drama had lasted four or five seconds longer the jet would have flipped on its back and the Co pilot would not have been able to regain control"
Captain Willian Hagen, British Airways.
The whole article is available on the BBC web site, it was the headline news on 29 Dec 2000.
You can further try to dismiss it as a minor event, but you would be disputing the pilot in command of said aircraft.
As to the door being being locked, I don't know. I understand some UK crews left the cockpit door unlocked and even open at times pre 911.
I find your final comments some what amusing. You accuse the US of a rampant gun culture, yet you wish you had a gun if you had been in the seat that day. I agree with your sentiments. They are however a bit non sequitur given your earlier diatribe about guns and aircraft.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been one or two voices who have raised the question of the wisdom of discussing this particular subject in such detail. The group that initially started this whole sorry mess is aviation wise, does contain pilots, and may well be monitoring this site. I am amazed that many of you who are service trained are so unsecurity minded. If you happen to think the response is a feeble one why comment on it or indeed explain the weak areas. The fact of the matter is that steps are being taken and the deterrent factor of that alone is at the very least a move in the direction that we all hopefully are hoping for. Unless of course you happen to be one of the ones that is destroying the industry. In which case I hope you rot in hell.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
Actually I thought Wino was pretty insulting, particularly the reference to Northern Ireland. I forgot that irony isn't a popular form of expression in the USA.
Yes, I am aware of some of Dannys background, and more importantly where, but my point stands- combat skills are more or less irrelevant in a hijack situation. I'm not sure why he felt the need to highlight his background. I'm sure he will deliver a salvo in due course.
There are two discussions going on here. One attempts to justify the current measures. The other is about why those measures should not be necessary.
I'll concede that sky marshals are necessary and the US was right to take the stance it has, if you concede that it is too little, too late, and that other security measures will almost certainly be delayed for years by endless "human rights" arguments- except of course the human right not to be used as a missile. Fair?
Regarding the BA 747, you are still missing the point. Almost any emergency or serious failure, left unchecked, will down the aircraft. If you lose an engine but fail to apply rudder, you will die. You should, as a pilot, be able to see through the headline. Yes, the BA event was serious, but not to the level you imply. Also, the culture then (pre 9/11) did not require the door to be locked.
My last comment was quite deliberate. Pilots should have a last line of defence inside the cockpit. It really doesn't matter what you hit at that point, because if you fail, you die anyway. If your much-vaunted but unproven sky marshal loses his weapon to a bad guy, your chances just dropped through the floor because if the bad guy with the marshals weapon does breach the door, you have no chance whatsoever. The argument isn't about guns per se, it is about sky marshals and their effectiveness- and the risks involved in having them there with weapons in the cabin. The other good reason to arm pilots is the fact that they have an easily defensible position.
The US does have a rampant gun culture, you lose more people to gun crime in the US every year than you do to terrorism by a large margin. Yet what steps do you take to minimise it? I don't expect you ever to admit that America might possibly be wrong in some way, but a little introspection wouldn't go amiss.
As the argument is now essentially circular, I'll drop out (unless provoked!!!)
Actually I thought Wino was pretty insulting, particularly the reference to Northern Ireland. I forgot that irony isn't a popular form of expression in the USA.
Yes, I am aware of some of Dannys background, and more importantly where, but my point stands- combat skills are more or less irrelevant in a hijack situation. I'm not sure why he felt the need to highlight his background. I'm sure he will deliver a salvo in due course.
There are two discussions going on here. One attempts to justify the current measures. The other is about why those measures should not be necessary.
I'll concede that sky marshals are necessary and the US was right to take the stance it has, if you concede that it is too little, too late, and that other security measures will almost certainly be delayed for years by endless "human rights" arguments- except of course the human right not to be used as a missile. Fair?
Regarding the BA 747, you are still missing the point. Almost any emergency or serious failure, left unchecked, will down the aircraft. If you lose an engine but fail to apply rudder, you will die. You should, as a pilot, be able to see through the headline. Yes, the BA event was serious, but not to the level you imply. Also, the culture then (pre 9/11) did not require the door to be locked.
My last comment was quite deliberate. Pilots should have a last line of defence inside the cockpit. It really doesn't matter what you hit at that point, because if you fail, you die anyway. If your much-vaunted but unproven sky marshal loses his weapon to a bad guy, your chances just dropped through the floor because if the bad guy with the marshals weapon does breach the door, you have no chance whatsoever. The argument isn't about guns per se, it is about sky marshals and their effectiveness- and the risks involved in having them there with weapons in the cabin. The other good reason to arm pilots is the fact that they have an easily defensible position.
The US does have a rampant gun culture, you lose more people to gun crime in the US every year than you do to terrorism by a large margin. Yet what steps do you take to minimise it? I don't expect you ever to admit that America might possibly be wrong in some way, but a little introspection wouldn't go amiss.
As the argument is now essentially circular, I'll drop out (unless provoked!!!)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: France
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience!
I repeat my statement page 10:
"Did anyone hear of any trouble with Israeli sky marshals, who fly with El Al since years?"
This has nothing to do with politics.
Safety is obtained when you add walls to walls : airport checks PLUS sky marshalls is better.
"Did anyone hear of any trouble with Israeli sky marshals, who fly with El Al since years?"
This has nothing to do with politics.
Safety is obtained when you add walls to walls : airport checks PLUS sky marshalls is better.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are way too many personal comments being made here on what is a difficult subject in any case.
Clearly some in this thread - mostly American - can't see the problem with armed Sky Marshals and are mystified, even indignant about any opposition to them. The right to bear arms is clearly embedded in the American psyche. Here in the UK, guns are totally banned (not that the drug community have any trouble getting them!) and anathema - we simply can't understand why anyone would want a gun or want to use them. We also see the gun as the absolute last result - when all else has failed. Surely a gunfight in the cabin is a disaster for security, safety and ticket sales?
So lets not waffle about cultural differences (or get personal about them).
I also fail to see why we should not discuss the subject - does anyone think that its difficult for terrorists to obtain information?
Nothing being discussed here is even remotely secret - the only reason some don't want any discussion, is because the subject has been (badly) politicised - when we should be discussing safety (I'm sure the average airline exec is terrified of the PR consequences, whichever way this goes).
A BA flight to Washington was cancelled today - because of an undisclosed threat - on the advice of the government!
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3362043.stm
The same flight on New Years eve had been given a fighter escort! (presumably to shoot it down if it veered off-course).
So Sky Marshals are clearly not enough!
Clearly some in this thread - mostly American - can't see the problem with armed Sky Marshals and are mystified, even indignant about any opposition to them. The right to bear arms is clearly embedded in the American psyche. Here in the UK, guns are totally banned (not that the drug community have any trouble getting them!) and anathema - we simply can't understand why anyone would want a gun or want to use them. We also see the gun as the absolute last result - when all else has failed. Surely a gunfight in the cabin is a disaster for security, safety and ticket sales?
So lets not waffle about cultural differences (or get personal about them).
I also fail to see why we should not discuss the subject - does anyone think that its difficult for terrorists to obtain information?
Nothing being discussed here is even remotely secret - the only reason some don't want any discussion, is because the subject has been (badly) politicised - when we should be discussing safety (I'm sure the average airline exec is terrified of the PR consequences, whichever way this goes).
A BA flight to Washington was cancelled today - because of an undisclosed threat - on the advice of the government!
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3362043.stm
The same flight on New Years eve had been given a fighter escort! (presumably to shoot it down if it veered off-course).
So Sky Marshals are clearly not enough!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since September 11th, 2001
When Sky Marshalls were re-introduced into the US Air population, they haven't shot a single soul.
No emotions, just facts. Hope the folks in the U.K look at that record and try and emulate it.
No hidden agenda...
Newarksmells
No emotions, just facts. Hope the folks in the U.K look at that record and try and emulate it.
No hidden agenda...
Newarksmells
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been plowing through this thread and I note that amongst the heat, light, sound, and shrapnel, I still haven't seen the information I'm interested in, here or elsewhere:
Sky marshals - trained by the Met, police or military background. That's about all we're being told. BALPA have a bloody good point:
- employed by whom?
- what is chain of command?
- to whom are they answerable?
- are they sworn constables?
- what are their powers in UK? - airspace and/or on the ground
- ditto for international waters and foreign soil
- what is legal basis for these powers?
- if not serving police or military, how did they get pistol licenses?
None of this stuff is 'need to know'; none of this information is being made public AFAIK. Journos, get digging.
Not totally opposed, but a lot needs clarifying.
Re. El Al comments, I last flew with them STN-EWR as an impecunious student many years ago. Their security was tight, the blatant and unashamed racial/religous profiling was breathtaking - something I've never experienced, before or since. Paraphrased slightly:
'Are you Jewish? What is your religion? Have you ever been to Israel? Can you speak Hebrew? You have a British passport? Why are you flying El Al? OK, you and all the other non-Jews, come with us to the nice security room, we are going to disect your baggage and question you for an hour whilst we decide whether or not you may check in'
Do we *really* want to go down that road?
R1
Sky marshals - trained by the Met, police or military background. That's about all we're being told. BALPA have a bloody good point:
- employed by whom?
- what is chain of command?
- to whom are they answerable?
- are they sworn constables?
- what are their powers in UK? - airspace and/or on the ground
- ditto for international waters and foreign soil
- what is legal basis for these powers?
- if not serving police or military, how did they get pistol licenses?
None of this stuff is 'need to know'; none of this information is being made public AFAIK. Journos, get digging.
Not totally opposed, but a lot needs clarifying.
Re. El Al comments, I last flew with them STN-EWR as an impecunious student many years ago. Their security was tight, the blatant and unashamed racial/religous profiling was breathtaking - something I've never experienced, before or since. Paraphrased slightly:
'Are you Jewish? What is your religion? Have you ever been to Israel? Can you speak Hebrew? You have a British passport? Why are you flying El Al? OK, you and all the other non-Jews, come with us to the nice security room, we are going to disect your baggage and question you for an hour whilst we decide whether or not you may check in'
Do we *really* want to go down that road?
R1
Pprune Voyeur
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: hampshire
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
air marshals recruitment ad
Just as a matter of interest, this is an advert that appeared in Pathfinder magazine last September. Path finder is an employment and resettlement magazine aimed at UK armed services.
Air Marshals Required
Salaries to 45,800 GBP PA
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks a new government scheme has initiated airlines introducing Air Marshals on scheduled flights. As such the demand for these highly skilled and qualified personnel has dramatically increased. Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency has been selected by several large international air carriers to provide an Air Marshal Service onboard their flights. Thus the initial requirement is to fulfill 180 Air Marshal placements for the year beginning 2004.
Air Marshals work irregular hours and shifts, whilst deployed have limited personal contact with family and are on call 24 hours per day.They perform regular and extended travel, on both foreign and domestic flights and spend time in countries that are sometimes politically or economically unstable.
Duties include responding to criminal incidents aboard national air carriers,as well as other in-flight emergencies while preserving the safety of aircraft, crew, and passengers. Other duties involve performing inspections and evaluations to determine compliance with procedures affecting aviation security.Air Marshals are authorised to carry stun guns and make arrests.
A good standard of education is required. Although military/law enforcement backgrounds are advantageous, they are not essential, as all suitable candidates will attend a three-month intense training course which includes pass/fail components for weapons and close-quarters counter-measures.
Candidates must be eligible for and maintain a security clearance based upon an adjudicated special background investigation and will be required to produce this at their own expense. Candidates must hold full EEC passport and provide at least 2 references that have direct knowledge of the candidate's professional or educational accomplishments and job-related skills and abilities. Candidates must be physically fit and over 21 years of age at time of application.
Assessment procedure is as follows;
1. Enrolement and application appraisal with security clearance check.
2. Interviews with SAM Recruitment Agency and Airline personnel
3. Medical examination, including a psychological test prior to allocation to Air Marshal course
An attractive renumeration package is offered including a basic salary starting from 19,100 GBP PA- 45,800 GBP PA dependant on qualifications ans experience. Full details of salaries, expenses, contracts, terms and conditions, benefits, duties, training, refresher courses and promotion prospects are given within the comprehensive application and information pack.
If you have the relevant abilities and skills required for the demanding role of Air Marshal, please apply in writing, including your CV to the address below:
Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency
15 St Johns Court
Rochdale
Lancashire OL16 5TF
e-mail: [email protected]
only serious applicants need apply
strictly no phone enquiries
Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency operates an equal opportunities employment policy
Air Marshals Required
Salaries to 45,800 GBP PA
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks a new government scheme has initiated airlines introducing Air Marshals on scheduled flights. As such the demand for these highly skilled and qualified personnel has dramatically increased. Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency has been selected by several large international air carriers to provide an Air Marshal Service onboard their flights. Thus the initial requirement is to fulfill 180 Air Marshal placements for the year beginning 2004.
Air Marshals work irregular hours and shifts, whilst deployed have limited personal contact with family and are on call 24 hours per day.They perform regular and extended travel, on both foreign and domestic flights and spend time in countries that are sometimes politically or economically unstable.
Duties include responding to criminal incidents aboard national air carriers,as well as other in-flight emergencies while preserving the safety of aircraft, crew, and passengers. Other duties involve performing inspections and evaluations to determine compliance with procedures affecting aviation security.Air Marshals are authorised to carry stun guns and make arrests.
A good standard of education is required. Although military/law enforcement backgrounds are advantageous, they are not essential, as all suitable candidates will attend a three-month intense training course which includes pass/fail components for weapons and close-quarters counter-measures.
Candidates must be eligible for and maintain a security clearance based upon an adjudicated special background investigation and will be required to produce this at their own expense. Candidates must hold full EEC passport and provide at least 2 references that have direct knowledge of the candidate's professional or educational accomplishments and job-related skills and abilities. Candidates must be physically fit and over 21 years of age at time of application.
Assessment procedure is as follows;
1. Enrolement and application appraisal with security clearance check.
2. Interviews with SAM Recruitment Agency and Airline personnel
3. Medical examination, including a psychological test prior to allocation to Air Marshal course
An attractive renumeration package is offered including a basic salary starting from 19,100 GBP PA- 45,800 GBP PA dependant on qualifications ans experience. Full details of salaries, expenses, contracts, terms and conditions, benefits, duties, training, refresher courses and promotion prospects are given within the comprehensive application and information pack.
If you have the relevant abilities and skills required for the demanding role of Air Marshal, please apply in writing, including your CV to the address below:
Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency
15 St Johns Court
Rochdale
Lancashire OL16 5TF
e-mail: [email protected]
only serious applicants need apply
strictly no phone enquiries
Security Air Marshals Recruitment Agency operates an equal opportunities employment policy
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the most numbing job in the world !! sitting on your todd not going out with the crew at the hotel, perhaps going to a secure holding tank of 'sky marshalls' !
If the press are reading this have you noticed how busy this site has become in recent weeks, i think aircrew are getting sick and tired of someone at a desk forcing these decisions on us day in and day out - flight deck access - no sharp nail clippers - etc etc etc -the list is endless from the department of silly ideas and now we have blokes running around with guns !
what happens if the terrorists decide to become 'sky marshalls' - whilst the dot are endlessly trying to justify their jobs and creating whole new bandwagons daily who is 'under marshalling' the undergrounds ?
who is the 'water marshalling' the water supplies ? and why recently did immigration raid airline crew catering company up north (uk) and find half the workforce illegal ? (someone could have taken out half the flights in a jiffy with some poison).
Thanks to the political correct brigade we have no idea who is in the country for fear of hurting their 'human rights', it's about time these public stunts stopped and some real security put in place.
- forgive the rant !
If the press are reading this have you noticed how busy this site has become in recent weeks, i think aircrew are getting sick and tired of someone at a desk forcing these decisions on us day in and day out - flight deck access - no sharp nail clippers - etc etc etc -the list is endless from the department of silly ideas and now we have blokes running around with guns !
what happens if the terrorists decide to become 'sky marshalls' - whilst the dot are endlessly trying to justify their jobs and creating whole new bandwagons daily who is 'under marshalling' the undergrounds ?
who is the 'water marshalling' the water supplies ? and why recently did immigration raid airline crew catering company up north (uk) and find half the workforce illegal ? (someone could have taken out half the flights in a jiffy with some poison).
Thanks to the political correct brigade we have no idea who is in the country for fear of hurting their 'human rights', it's about time these public stunts stopped and some real security put in place.
- forgive the rant !