Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
It is a sad but inescapable fact of life that there will always be those in our huddled masses whose inability to grasp some of the unpleasant realities of life will put the rest of the herd in danger by their unwillingness to come to grips with the present situation. To simply focus obsessively on the fact that it is uncivilised and dangerous to have armed men/mashalls on our aircraft while completely ignoring the uncivilised actions of those terrorist who would actively do so while persuing their nihilistic agendas is being naiively dangerous. Sadly we retain vast numbers of people who simply do not yet grasp what some individuals are capable of and will happily try to do in the name of their cause until of course it is too late.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paterbrat,
“It is a sad but inescapable fact of life that there will always be those in our huddled masses whose inability to grasp some of the unpleasant realities of life will put the rest of the herd in danger by their unwillingness to come to grips with the present situation. To simply focus obsessively on the fact that it is uncivilised and dangerous to have armed men/mashalls on our aircraft while completely ignoring the uncivilised actions of those terrorist who would actively do so while persuing their nihilistic agendas is being naiively dangerous. Sadly we retain vast numbers of people who simply do not yet grasp what some individuals are capable of and will happily try to do in the name of their cause until of course it is too late.”
In the above piece you have spoken of “huddled masses whose inability to grasp some of the unpleasant realities of life”. I would be so bold as to say that you are part of that grouping. You are well aware that the only totally secure way to ensure that no terrorist ever flies a plane into a building again is to cease air travel. It is necessary to view security as a filter rather than a shield. As a result of this many of the “security initiatives” are no more or less than PR exercises.
As has been said in these hallowed threads many times you take a risk getting up every morning. By the same token the placing of armed “SkyMarshals” on any flight is a tacit acceptance that the rest of the security measures designed to protect the passengers, crew and plane have flaws. Sky Marshals are the aviation equivalent of papering of the cracks or re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Keeps people busy without any real useful purpose.
Cheers
BHR
“It is a sad but inescapable fact of life that there will always be those in our huddled masses whose inability to grasp some of the unpleasant realities of life will put the rest of the herd in danger by their unwillingness to come to grips with the present situation. To simply focus obsessively on the fact that it is uncivilised and dangerous to have armed men/mashalls on our aircraft while completely ignoring the uncivilised actions of those terrorist who would actively do so while persuing their nihilistic agendas is being naiively dangerous. Sadly we retain vast numbers of people who simply do not yet grasp what some individuals are capable of and will happily try to do in the name of their cause until of course it is too late.”
In the above piece you have spoken of “huddled masses whose inability to grasp some of the unpleasant realities of life”. I would be so bold as to say that you are part of that grouping. You are well aware that the only totally secure way to ensure that no terrorist ever flies a plane into a building again is to cease air travel. It is necessary to view security as a filter rather than a shield. As a result of this many of the “security initiatives” are no more or less than PR exercises.
As has been said in these hallowed threads many times you take a risk getting up every morning. By the same token the placing of armed “SkyMarshals” on any flight is a tacit acceptance that the rest of the security measures designed to protect the passengers, crew and plane have flaws. Sky Marshals are the aviation equivalent of papering of the cracks or re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Keeps people busy without any real useful purpose.
Cheers
BHR
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
As per Bill sounds good but you have in fact said f all, unless that is argue against yourself. If we are papering the cracks rearranging the deck chairs then it really would be pointless to travel at all and simply giving up and staying in bed is a viable option. If I was to subscribe to your school of thought I would indeed roll over and refuse to leave my bed instead of advocating vigorous action and endorsing steps that confront the menace. I would therefor put it to you dear Bill that in fact I do not believe that sky marshals are 'papering the cracks' 're-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' or indeed any other of the cute and quaint phrases you would like to come up with in your pathetic and apathetic stance to some of the problems facing those involved in the air transport industry today, all of whom do in fact have a real purpouse despite your thoughts and those of your ilk. Life is indeed dangerous, always has been always will be as indeed your recent marriage will have shown you, lots of excitement remains for those who venture outside the pit.
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
Has the method of armed sky marshals aboard passenger aircraft been employed on a long term basis? Yes.
Can the presence of armed sky marshals aboard passenger aircraft have acted as an active deterent? Yes.
Is it a viable option as compared to stopping all passanger flights? Yes.
Is it the complete answer? No.
Are we talking about trying to seek solutions or talking about a game of cricket? The last two commentators have contributed nothing towards the solution and have appeared simply to take issue with the requests by the US government that positive steps as detailed be taken by carriers wishing to fly to the US. That is where a major part of the danger in fact lies, part with the terrorist and part with the sheep like reactions of those who would do nothing.
Can the presence of armed sky marshals aboard passenger aircraft have acted as an active deterent? Yes.
Is it a viable option as compared to stopping all passanger flights? Yes.
Is it the complete answer? No.
Are we talking about trying to seek solutions or talking about a game of cricket? The last two commentators have contributed nothing towards the solution and have appeared simply to take issue with the requests by the US government that positive steps as detailed be taken by carriers wishing to fly to the US. That is where a major part of the danger in fact lies, part with the terrorist and part with the sheep like reactions of those who would do nothing.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: France
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biased expression!
Sorry Paterbrat, YOUR post was irrelevant on last page, mixing personnal allegation about Bill with a non-logical chain of words leading nowhere.
If you just had read my previous posts on this subject in this thread and others related, you could have realised I'M NOT AGAINST AIRMARSHALL.
I expressed the view it could be usefull, to help fill the breach in Airport security....but also that their implementation should be done according to principles of law:
They should be under Captain's authority.
Their work should be under control (duty time, rest...) not to add another source of danger.
Their armament should be carefully designed for the same reason.
All crews should be trained on their new duties concerning security to increase synergy.
And last but not least their presence onboard should not result from any ukase by Big Brother but from a decision of national authorities, after the points above had been solved by consultation in ICAO, IATA, IFALPA......
Hope you consider it a constructive contribution....if you read it now!
If you just had read my previous posts on this subject in this thread and others related, you could have realised I'M NOT AGAINST AIRMARSHALL.
I expressed the view it could be usefull, to help fill the breach in Airport security....but also that their implementation should be done according to principles of law:
They should be under Captain's authority.
Their work should be under control (duty time, rest...) not to add another source of danger.
Their armament should be carefully designed for the same reason.
All crews should be trained on their new duties concerning security to increase synergy.
And last but not least their presence onboard should not result from any ukase by Big Brother but from a decision of national authorities, after the points above had been solved by consultation in ICAO, IATA, IFALPA......
Hope you consider it a constructive contribution....if you read it now!
Last edited by Grandpa; 24th Jan 2004 at 02:38.
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
Grandpa since we seem to be in agreement about sky marshalls then what might I ask was this submission all about???
" Out!
Your ball seems to have hit out of the line : your effort was easy to notice....but wrong direction.
Sorry.
Try another! "
This really was an example of a nonlogical chain of words leading nowhere I really have no objection to debating the issue however that rather incoherent offfering is a liitle difficult to even attempt to answer.
Since however according to you we both are in agreement over the thread topic I see little use in trying to continue here since all you seem to wish to do is take issue with me rather than the subject except perhaps to offer support to your mate Bill.
Bill, can it be statisticaly proven that there have been less hijacks of El Al aircraft? If so can any conclusions be drawn from the facts?
" Out!
Your ball seems to have hit out of the line : your effort was easy to notice....but wrong direction.
Sorry.
Try another! "
This really was an example of a nonlogical chain of words leading nowhere I really have no objection to debating the issue however that rather incoherent offfering is a liitle difficult to even attempt to answer.
Since however according to you we both are in agreement over the thread topic I see little use in trying to continue here since all you seem to wish to do is take issue with me rather than the subject except perhaps to offer support to your mate Bill.
Bill, can it be statisticaly proven that there have been less hijacks of El Al aircraft? If so can any conclusions be drawn from the facts?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pater,
I will wager that there are many national carriers that have never had a hijack and do not carry marshalls. Do you dispute this fact?
Furthermore, I will agree to your premise that El-Al is safer due to its use of marshals if you can present a single example of a terrorist that was dissuaded from a hijacking attempt on an El-Al flight due to the fact that the flight may have been carrying a marshal. Deal?
I am not being facetious or sarcastic. Please take my post at face value.
Cheers
BHR
I will wager that there are many national carriers that have never had a hijack and do not carry marshalls. Do you dispute this fact?
Furthermore, I will agree to your premise that El-Al is safer due to its use of marshals if you can present a single example of a terrorist that was dissuaded from a hijacking attempt on an El-Al flight due to the fact that the flight may have been carrying a marshal. Deal?
I am not being facetious or sarcastic. Please take my post at face value.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHR,
El-Al is no doubt the #1 target for hijackers due to politics. Also, airplanes flying US colors as well as foreign heavies are also more likely to be targeted due to political leanings. Thus, if you have a greater threat against you, it would be prudent to be more pro-active in your defense.
Also, I would argue that having skymarshals on board an aircraft can be compared to an increased police presence in a city. If police are out and visible, then crime is lower. If police are absent, more than likely crime will be higher. How you prove it statistically I don't know, but it is simple cause and effect.
And since I know many of you hate Bush, I just bought a tape of "The Best of Will Ferrell" - he was a comedian on the American TV show "Saturday Night Live." If you get a chance, it is wihtout a doubt the funniest impersonations you will ever see of Bush and Gore. (My favorite had Bush in the oval office with a Hibachi BBQ on the desk and a keg behind him....)
How is that Master's class going?
El-Al is no doubt the #1 target for hijackers due to politics. Also, airplanes flying US colors as well as foreign heavies are also more likely to be targeted due to political leanings. Thus, if you have a greater threat against you, it would be prudent to be more pro-active in your defense.
Also, I would argue that having skymarshals on board an aircraft can be compared to an increased police presence in a city. If police are out and visible, then crime is lower. If police are absent, more than likely crime will be higher. How you prove it statistically I don't know, but it is simple cause and effect.
And since I know many of you hate Bush, I just bought a tape of "The Best of Will Ferrell" - he was a comedian on the American TV show "Saturday Night Live." If you get a chance, it is wihtout a doubt the funniest impersonations you will ever see of Bush and Gore. (My favorite had Bush in the oval office with a Hibachi BBQ on the desk and a keg behind him....)
How is that Master's class going?
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
Dear Bill, since my computer seems to be downloading at a glacial rate and we appear to be arguing for the sake of argument rather than debating the point forgive me for not checking however I believe that a particularly famous female Palistinian hijacker Laela Khalil? was in fact aprehended by El Al sky marshals while attempting to hijack an El AL flight to join the others three aircraft in Jordan where they had already taken a VC10 and a Swiss Air 707 tgether with a Pan Am aircraft at an airfield in Jordan. She was handed over to Bristish authorities and later exchanged by the British government in return for the release of the Black Septemeber hostages. All the aircraft were destroyed.
One single example was what you required.
One single example was what you required.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pater,
"I will agree to your premise that El-Al is safer due to its use of marshals if you can present a single example of a terrorist that was dissuaded from a hijacking attempt on an El-Al flight due to the fact that the flight may have been carrying a marshal"
Thanks for making my point for me with you last post. Laela Khalil was not deterred by the presence of the Sky Marshals and they had to arrest her.
Do you know where to look for stats on hijackings?
46Driver,
“I would argue that having skymarshals on board an aircraft can be compared to an increased police presence in a city. If police are out and visible, then crime is lower. If police are absent, more than likely crime will be higher. How you prove it statistically I don't know, but it is simple cause and effect.”
I would agree with you in this in regards to visible policing, however, as far as I have read the proposals state that the Sky Marshals will be undercover and not readily noticeable.
Cheers
BHR
"I will agree to your premise that El-Al is safer due to its use of marshals if you can present a single example of a terrorist that was dissuaded from a hijacking attempt on an El-Al flight due to the fact that the flight may have been carrying a marshal"
Thanks for making my point for me with you last post. Laela Khalil was not deterred by the presence of the Sky Marshals and they had to arrest her.
Do you know where to look for stats on hijackings?
46Driver,
“I would argue that having skymarshals on board an aircraft can be compared to an increased police presence in a city. If police are out and visible, then crime is lower. If police are absent, more than likely crime will be higher. How you prove it statistically I don't know, but it is simple cause and effect.”
I would agree with you in this in regards to visible policing, however, as far as I have read the proposals state that the Sky Marshals will be undercover and not readily noticeable.
Cheers
BHR
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you are nitpicking over irrelevances for the sake of argument. The armed skymarshalls on El Al and other Israeli airlines are just a small part in an overall complete security regime.
The Israeli authorities have in place a system that is designed to prevent them having to use their armed sky marshalls in the first place. They are the first to concede that if their sky marshalls have to be used then their system has failed. Here in the UK, and I have no doubt in the US and many other countries, the system is farcical.
What we have is SOME flights, POSSIBLY protected by an armed sky marshall. Taking into account the pathetic smokescreen we have at the moment that people call 'airport security', any potential terrorist with more than an ounce of intelligence aiming to have a go at an airliner only has to do a bit of delving and they can see it is all smoke and mirrors. Nothing but an exercise in PR and bovine manure for the benefit of the travelling public with the aim of giving them a sense of security, false or otherwise.
Arguing about Leila Khaled or the other terrorists who were shining examples of weak government giving in to terrorist demands and the furthering of air piracy are irrelevant. It was from those incidents that the current regime of total air security was developed by the Israelis.
What we have here and in the US, with the high visibility harrassment of the travelling public, is exactly what the terrorists need - the obvious that needs to be avoided - thereby making it just that much easier for them to take us by complete suprise the next time they finalised their planning.
Armed sky marshalls are only a small part of the deterrent but with the current farce of airport security theyr're about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. What we have is political lightweights making decisions that look good for their soundbites but are in reality miserable failings in common sense and an invitation to the terrorists to rub our noses in it at some future date.
The Israeli authorities have in place a system that is designed to prevent them having to use their armed sky marshalls in the first place. They are the first to concede that if their sky marshalls have to be used then their system has failed. Here in the UK, and I have no doubt in the US and many other countries, the system is farcical.
What we have is SOME flights, POSSIBLY protected by an armed sky marshall. Taking into account the pathetic smokescreen we have at the moment that people call 'airport security', any potential terrorist with more than an ounce of intelligence aiming to have a go at an airliner only has to do a bit of delving and they can see it is all smoke and mirrors. Nothing but an exercise in PR and bovine manure for the benefit of the travelling public with the aim of giving them a sense of security, false or otherwise.
Arguing about Leila Khaled or the other terrorists who were shining examples of weak government giving in to terrorist demands and the furthering of air piracy are irrelevant. It was from those incidents that the current regime of total air security was developed by the Israelis.
What we have here and in the US, with the high visibility harrassment of the travelling public, is exactly what the terrorists need - the obvious that needs to be avoided - thereby making it just that much easier for them to take us by complete suprise the next time they finalised their planning.
Armed sky marshalls are only a small part of the deterrent but with the current farce of airport security theyr're about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. What we have is political lightweights making decisions that look good for their soundbites but are in reality miserable failings in common sense and an invitation to the terrorists to rub our noses in it at some future date.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you just love the Americans. They are so honest ......
Posted on Sun, Jan. 25, 2004
Woman Gets Past Air Security With Knife
Associated Press
DENVER - A woman passed through security screening at New York's LaGuardia Airport with a stun gun and knife in her purse - but later discovered the mistake herself and alerted authorities.
The woman realized she was carrying the items Saturday after a short layover in Detroit and on her way to Denver.
"She immediately went, `Oh, my God, I'm not supposed to have these here,' and called the flight attendant over," said Spirit Airlines spokeswoman Laura Bennett.
The pilot alerted Denver International Airport; police met the plane at the gate and took the woman into custody for questioning. She was released without charges.
"She did the right thing by giving up the items voluntarily, and she was never malicious," Bennett said. "We never considered her a threat."
Transportation Security Administration officials had no comment on the security slip. TSA official Darrin Kayser said the agency would investigate.
"It was an honest but odd mistake," Bennett said. "But it's true that people often don't think about what's in their luggage."
Posted on Sun, Jan. 25, 2004
Woman Gets Past Air Security With Knife
Associated Press
DENVER - A woman passed through security screening at New York's LaGuardia Airport with a stun gun and knife in her purse - but later discovered the mistake herself and alerted authorities.
The woman realized she was carrying the items Saturday after a short layover in Detroit and on her way to Denver.
"She immediately went, `Oh, my God, I'm not supposed to have these here,' and called the flight attendant over," said Spirit Airlines spokeswoman Laura Bennett.
The pilot alerted Denver International Airport; police met the plane at the gate and took the woman into custody for questioning. She was released without charges.
"She did the right thing by giving up the items voluntarily, and she was never malicious," Bennett said. "We never considered her a threat."
Transportation Security Administration officials had no comment on the security slip. TSA official Darrin Kayser said the agency would investigate.
"It was an honest but odd mistake," Bennett said. "But it's true that people often don't think about what's in their luggage."
