Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights

[BlackSword]

Many pages ago I wondered:

How could such a (Sky Marshall) scheme be made to work without the total cooperation of fully and specifically trained cabin and flight deck crew - and radical changes in cabin procedures?
(code phrases, simulated turbulence etc). It seems to me that flight and cabin crew would need practical training in real-life scenarios.

For example, Sky Marshals have been intervening with drunken passengers, so in what circumstances (if any) do the cabin crew ask for Sky Marshal help (so potentially revealing themselves to hi-jackers)? Drunken, drugged or panicked pax have attempted to enter the cockpit before......

Any ideas?

[Mick Stability]

The problem is the cultural chasm that exists between us the Europeans and you the Americans. I’m a frequent traveller to the USA, and I don’t think you guys realise just how introspective you are over there.

For you, guns are normal workaday items of apparel. You see guns on the street, guns in the movies, guns on the television, shootings on the news, you probably have your own just in case. People getting blown away feature in all forms of media, and it barely raises an eyebrow.

For those of us on this side of the Atlantic, guns are extreme, last resort, extraordinary weapons, rarely encountered, and greatly feared. The prospect of coming into contact with guns on a routine basis is something that’s unthinkable in this society.

We could debate the rights and wrongs of guns in society until the cows come home. But before you drive a stagecoach through our culture, please just take a moment try to understand why we’re upset.

[curmudgeon]

Agreeing with Mick, I'm a Brit, professional, respectable, etc. I used to hold a world record at under 18 for shooting with very dangerous weapons.

Notwithstanding this, its still illegal for me to own a handgun in my country.

cur

[Aeropig1]

While reading through the thread and respecting evryone has a view on this emotive subject the main points seem to have been lost.

First the decision to train 'marshalls' in the UK was announced early last year so the idear that the scheme was rushed into existence to please the US is false. The announcement was made after the training of those involved had been completed.

Second, The US as any other sovreign state has the right to take whatever measures are necessary to protect their citizens in the air or, and this is the biggy, on the ground. Marshalls are just one measure that is in place to achieve this along with phase2 doors and ground measures have also been increased so to look at the issue in isolation can be misleading. I am not privvy, like most of us to the intelligence and information in the hands of the governments but I do recognise that sometimes difficult decisions have to be made and I conclude that the measures being sought are an alternative to grounding the fleets.

Many have reffered to historic hijacking and many have acknowledged times have changed. The problem for the authorities is major, they have a duty to protect their citizens and to maintain the ability for them to travel freely without making security so intrusive that pax opt not to travel. If the idear is to prevent an aircraft being used as a weapon then the mathematics of risk must be taken into account - potential loss on the aircraft v potential loss on the ground. Not a nice problem to have.

Some of you are concerned about the marshalls being the problem. As earlier posts have said I can find no case of this. If this is to be used as an argument to oppose deployment then what do we do about the possiblity of flight crew endangering or destroying the aircraft? after all there are cases of that.

I am not a marshall or a government worker and only time will tell if this has been the right move. The fact is the situation is with us and is not going away and it is in evrybody's interest to work this out. I suspect that the lack of genral information (training, research, rules of engagement) has not helped ease doubts and I wish that these would be released.

I sincerely wish you all safe flying

[MasterBates]

The final solution

We can of course all fly naked, pax will be stripped and a cork with FBI seal put up their a***, just in case, after a thorough cavity search performed by TSA. Their toenails will be trimmed before departure by a authorized TSA toe nail clipping team(TSA-TNCT), watched by FBI nail clipping Marshals (FBI-NCM). We all know that toenails can easily be turned into weapons of mass destruction. Then all cargo holds will be filled with polyurethane and sealed with another FBI seal. All luggage will be towed by sea in a special TSA raft, by a naked TSA crew, just in case. This means business for the American (read;Mexican) clothing industry because we arrive in the US naked, and there is probably capital punishment for such a gross offence there.

[Tripower455]

Air marshal or no air marshal - do you think either would stop a suicide bomber??!

No more effectively than pulling the fire hand to lower the flaps.

For those of us on this side of the Atlantic, guns are extreme, last resort, extraordinary weapons, rarely encountered, and greatly feared.

Precisely the point at which an air marshall need a firearm. It is a last resort in an extreme situation.

[jammers]

Very useful comment MJ......now try applying the same reasoning at NJE your presumed place of employment and the lads might oneday offer you a position where even you could make a difference..........hip#okrit

[cargo boy]

I believe that Jim McAuslan will be making a statement tomorrow morning after his meeting with the government regarding BALPA's stance on armed sky marshals on UK registered aircraft.

Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive.shtml?link for the Radio Five Live breakfast show about 7.30am UK time.

[miss d point]

security

Anyone see the bbc news tonight where the female reporter walked through a fence straight onto the ramp at humberside where a brit 757 was boarding ?

[412A]

Do the latest BA security threats doom the airline..?

On top of all the other issues that plague BA at the moment, will the latest focus on BA as a specific target of Al-Queda be the final 'nail in the coffin'..? The press coverage here in the US is unrelenting in showing BA as the 'main' target of an imminent terrorist threat. I fear that this will result in a massive drop-off in forward bookings for the airline. I have always liked and respected BA, both for it's service, good natured crews, and innovative features, and I am genuinly worried that the airline is subject to a situation that is spinning rapidly out of control.

What is the feeling in the UK about this issue?

Best of luck to all at BA.


ps. I believe BALPA's initial position on the issue of sky marshals was short-sighted and devoid of logic....comments?

[Donkey Duke]

It probably won't help their summer bookings, and it might help the US airlines because people may think that BA is lax with security. The Balpa pilots not wanting air marshals will not help their cause. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Airbubba]

Poor airport security in the UK is nothing new. Any attempt to rectify the situation will be blamed on "foreign interests".

I walked onto the ramp at Heathrow without showing an ID a few years ago. Since Lockerbie things have improved but raising security to American standards is still a very novel concept as you can see from other threads here.

[Wino]

My understanding was that there were 3 frequencies a day on that route and they rolled the pax over to other flights. So BA's load factors probably went up. So oddly enough they have probably profited from it, unless the loads were significantly over 66 percent on all three flights to start with...

Atleast in the short term. In the long term, who knows. Bookings may have dipped on the UK side of the flight, but all evidence is that the US side traffic is rebounding quite rapidly still...

Cheers
Wino

[Speed of Sound]

To be honest, from this side of the water it is the US security that is being seen as a joke. (Have just heard that Flight 233 has been delayed again!)

There is either a problem with the aircraft, the baggage or a member or members of the passenger list. Why has this taken over four days to sort out?

As far as sky marshalls are concerned, I think you will find that most people here find the idea of anybody carrying a gun on an aircraft as greatly increasing the danger to that aircraft rather than decreasing it.

Rather than complying with the request for air marshals to travel on flights to the US, maybe our government should be thinking of banning all flights into UK airspace where it is known there are any armed passengers aboard.

SoS

[412A]

SOS, I appreciate that those of you who aren't citizens/residents of the USA have a 'detached' view of things as they develop here, but that doesn't change the fact that the US gov has a mandate to do everything they can to protect the citizens of this country. There is strong reason to believe that an imminent attempt is to be made to attack a BA aircraft (..read, one of YOURS!). What other way do you suggest that we/you handle it? I realise it is fashionable to think the US as a bully/thick/unsophisticated...etc, but it wasn't Westminster Abbey/St Pauls cathedral that was destroyed by a terrorist group bent on murdering as many citizens of the 'west' that they can. Perhaps you could consider the fact that western civilization is under attack by a new threat that could very well result in the destruction of whole cities if they succeed in obtaining and using the weapons that they seek. I suggest that the people who live in other western nations start to wake up to the grave threat we face, and appreciate the fact that the US is probably the only country in the world with the resources and WILL to sacrifice their own young soldiers (not to in any way devalue the soldiers of our allies) in a war that could last for decades. The world has changed and the 'old' ways will no longer suffice. You don't have to like our President, but don't question his conviction that the terrorist groups that have trained and grown over the past 10 years or so must be utterly destroyed. If you don't believe this is necessary, perhaps you could explain how you intend to 'negotiate' with people who think that the mere fact you are a 'westerner' is tantamount to being the 'spawn of hell' and that you should be destroyed....?

SOS, a further aside: The Israelies have had sky marshals for over 30 years. I would suggest that their safety record speaks for itself... What was that you were saying about armed men on board..?

[Danny]

The Israelies have had sky marshals for over 30 years. I would suggest that their safety record speaks for itself... What was that you were saying about armed men on board..?

You can't introduce that argument unless you are prepared to admit that you have sensible security AND intelligence co-operation between your intelligence and security agencies in the first place. The Israelis also have competent passenger profiling and don't go into colour coded sound bites which hightens the sense of imminent danger every few weeks. They are at a normal level of alertness against terrorist attack and not reacting in a knee jerk fashion.

[SLF3]

Why doesn't the European Union ban flights WITH sky marshalls on board? If the Americans can impose having sky marshalls, presumably we can impose not having them.

Personally, I'm not sure that I would want the kind of person to whom the role of sky marshall would appeal as a career defending me in an emergency, or around me the rest of the time.

[miss d point]

So the problem is that the govenment in the uk are failing us all.

Whilst they are obsessed with press announcements we who work at airports know that you can go into airport carparks and 'throw things over the fence' 'airside' or you if you have a mind can walk onto the apron (see bbc reporter at humberside yesterday) through a fence - (actually there wasn't even a fence)

Make no mistake the public are being mis-led by idiodtic politicians who haven't a clue what they are talking about and managers at airports who 'take the money' for adding new shopping malls.

what the public 'see' is strict security in the departure lounge but taking nail files from people is just utter nonsense and everyone knows it.

[bjcc]

There is a lot of fuss being made over these Marshals, firstly I am not in favour of them, for many reasons not just the 'what if they shoot the aircraft' argument.

However, the US side of this argument is right, if the US decides that they will only allow flights in if a proportion of them have sky marshals, then they have ever right to do it. If our goverment decides it wont allow aircraft with sky marshals to fly in our airspace then thats the way it is.

Whats been forgotten in all the hype though is sky marshals are not anything new as far as non UK airlines are concerned. Saudia carry them, El Al, numoeus African States' airlines have them and same goes for Gulf states. These airlines fly into our major airports everyday with Armed Marshals. Its rare if ever that you hear of an incident concerning these airlines, and lets face it if something did happen then it would hit the press before the dust had settled.

The US suddenly found out about international terrorism on Sept 11th. The rest of us knew all about it and had done so for years. I can imagine that in the early 70's if the internet had exisited then the indignation would have been aimed at us for introducing searching of passengers prrior to boarding. It is obvious that the security at US airports before Sept 11th was C***, the americans are obviously trying to improve it, yes they may seem over the top, but its thier county. At the end of the day the sort of terror the Americans are trying to stop is not the same as the IRA, or the Red Brigade or ETA, this lot are much more organised and willing to die in the act.

Better inteligence does help, so does better searching of pax/staff all the Americans are trying to do is have belt and braces by insisting on sky marsals.

I think everyone would be better accepting that they are going to be a fact of life but insisting that if we have to have them they are the right kind of people with the right training.

[Seat 32F]

Haven't waded through the whole of this thread, but I'm curious to know what the insurers' angle is on this? If the security situation is serious enough to warrant an armed anonymous passenger on board the aircraft, surely the airline's insurers would have something to say about the flight being allowed to proceed?