Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Controversial, moi?
Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said US officials would notify foreign carriers when air marshals are needed.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe that there aren't accurate, nonlethal, instantly incapacitating weapons (or the technology to manufacture them) that can be used on board an aircraft without endangering the aircraft. Surely such weapons should pretty much satisfy every concern I've read above or heard about on the news today?
Let's consider the non-lethal weapons that do exist.
Tasers certainly don't match the requirement. There are two types of Tasers. The first is a contact model that you have to hold up against the person. That's hard to do when the assailant is resisting. Even in the best possible case, they take 10-15 seconds to disable someone.
The second type of Taser throws two projectiles through the air, with wire leads attached to them. You only have one shot, and if you miss, then it doesn't work. If the assailant pulls the projectile barbs off his chest, it doesn't work. And even if the barbs stay in, they have failed to subdue more than a few EDPs.
As for defensive aerosol sprays, the main one used these days is OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray. Any US police officer will tell you that sometimes they work. And sometimes they don't. A committed assailant can fight through the spray.
There are three main varieties of OC spray: 1) stream, 2) fog, and 3) foam. Both fog and stream will result in the OC being recirculated throughout the cabin -- sure hope the pilots don their masks beforehand. Foam won't be recirculated throughout the cabin but it can be defeated relatively easily with sunglasses and be thrown back at the officer.
Some US police forces use bean-bag projectiles that are shot from pump-action shotguns. It would be rather difficult for a sky marshal to conceal a pump-action shotgun and a pump-action shotgun is a tad unwieldy for CQB in an aircraft. This could also probably be defeated in several ways using improvised soft body armor and/or creative use of a seat cushion.
There are various types of batons that can be used. For this purpose, the likeliest candidate is a collapsible baton like the ASP. It is a contact weapon, meaning that the officer must come into arms reach of the assailant (something that is always risky). It certainly isn't instantly disabling. Batons can be deadly if used inappropriately. And the likelihood of success is a function of both the officer's skill and the assailant's skill at CQB.
Sorry, but putting phasers on stun only works in Star Trek.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
calm Down
For all of you worrying about bullets flying all over the plane and de-pressurization as well as man-to-man shootouts..It ain't going to happen.
Skymarshals in the U.S are explcitly trained to avoid this sort of behaviour.
And guess what, you don't have any idea how many Sky Marshalls were on fights for the Winter Olympics in 2002 in SLC.....I have a pretty good idea though.....and guess what, nothing happened.
As the saying goes, all we have to fear is fear itself.
Newark
Skymarshals in the U.S are explcitly trained to avoid this sort of behaviour.
And guess what, you don't have any idea how many Sky Marshalls were on fights for the Winter Olympics in 2002 in SLC.....I have a pretty good idea though.....and guess what, nothing happened.
As the saying goes, all we have to fear is fear itself.
Newark
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Walmington on Sea
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The presence of Sky Marshalls on some transatlantic flights is not a prudent measure by the UK Govt, but pandering to the requirements of G Dubbya. As I understand it from the official releases so far, its either armed guards or you don't fly in out airspace! Okay, not a bad idea with non-lethal weapons, but howsabout some effort into getting a sensible security program up and running with more widespread consultation.
Like some of the other posters, I would be very uncomfortable having UK cops with handguns anywhere near my aircraft, irrelevant of training and previous attachments. I would be far happier with a few ex-SF guys. The big difference in the UK is very few firearms trained police have operational experience, whereas the Mil guys do, and have often been in potential and actual armed confrontations. If the choice is highly trained or highly trained with experience, I know which I would go for.
Whilst some of the security arrangements bought in post 9/11 (some of which have been operating in the UK for years) are sensible, some are just plain crazy. A secondhand story from an aquitance. One of his colleagues was stopped from carrying his Leatherman on a flight despite protesting it was a piece of essential equipment for flight crew. Fair enough I guess, but then before departure, he is handed a couple of plastic bags with small 'sharp instruments' that belonged to passengers and which had to stay in his safe keeping until after de-planing and return to the pax. Logic? there aint none!
Back to the point in hand. Anybody know for definate if the flight crew will know if their flight has Sky Marshalls aboard? If not, is this not (hypothetically) risky ground as far as the ANO is concerned?
Worried of Warwickshire
Like some of the other posters, I would be very uncomfortable having UK cops with handguns anywhere near my aircraft, irrelevant of training and previous attachments. I would be far happier with a few ex-SF guys. The big difference in the UK is very few firearms trained police have operational experience, whereas the Mil guys do, and have often been in potential and actual armed confrontations. If the choice is highly trained or highly trained with experience, I know which I would go for.
Whilst some of the security arrangements bought in post 9/11 (some of which have been operating in the UK for years) are sensible, some are just plain crazy. A secondhand story from an aquitance. One of his colleagues was stopped from carrying his Leatherman on a flight despite protesting it was a piece of essential equipment for flight crew. Fair enough I guess, but then before departure, he is handed a couple of plastic bags with small 'sharp instruments' that belonged to passengers and which had to stay in his safe keeping until after de-planing and return to the pax. Logic? there aint none!
Back to the point in hand. Anybody know for definate if the flight crew will know if their flight has Sky Marshalls aboard? If not, is this not (hypothetically) risky ground as far as the ANO is concerned?
Worried of Warwickshire
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"For all of you worrying about bullets flying all over the plane and de-pressurization as well as man-to-man shootouts..It ain't going to happen."
2 planes crashing in-to the World Trade centre. A few years ago, everyone would have said "it ain't going to happen"
Terrorists managing to get close enough to the USS Cole, to set off a bomb. If you had said 10 years ago that this could happen, everyone would have said it was impossible.
Men walking on the moon. Never.
Everything is impossible until the first time it actually happens.
Ex Oggie, from what I read in todays news (not confirmed), the aircrew will know if there are armed marshals on board, as they will get on the aircraft before the rest of the passengers, and will not pass through the normal security process.
419
2 planes crashing in-to the World Trade centre. A few years ago, everyone would have said "it ain't going to happen"
Terrorists managing to get close enough to the USS Cole, to set off a bomb. If you had said 10 years ago that this could happen, everyone would have said it was impossible.
Men walking on the moon. Never.
Everything is impossible until the first time it actually happens.
Ex Oggie, from what I read in todays news (not confirmed), the aircrew will know if there are armed marshals on board, as they will get on the aircraft before the rest of the passengers, and will not pass through the normal security process.
419
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
419,
That is how it works in the states---but people are pre-boarded all of the time---and if they do detect that they may be onboard, then we foiled them yet again. It is better to have security that not to have it.
Ex-Oggie,
So, let's do nothing. Are you French? Everyone will feel better that security may be onboard, and the terrorists will be wondering whether or not there is any extra security. If they know that most transatlantic flights have it---they may go elsewhere. EL AL doesn't seem to have many threats---because they always have security and those people do not take this lightly---like some other people. Yeah, you may not like the rules, and we don't like your LHR rules about allowing only 2 American airlines in, while Air Turkimenistan is allowed a daily 757 with a 35% load factor. If you want your airlines to fly into the US, then follow the rules. And, of course the PIC and crew would know about the marshals. This is standard practice over here and everyone likes it. They are very professional and really take the job seriously. Cheers!
That is how it works in the states---but people are pre-boarded all of the time---and if they do detect that they may be onboard, then we foiled them yet again. It is better to have security that not to have it.
Ex-Oggie,
So, let's do nothing. Are you French? Everyone will feel better that security may be onboard, and the terrorists will be wondering whether or not there is any extra security. If they know that most transatlantic flights have it---they may go elsewhere. EL AL doesn't seem to have many threats---because they always have security and those people do not take this lightly---like some other people. Yeah, you may not like the rules, and we don't like your LHR rules about allowing only 2 American airlines in, while Air Turkimenistan is allowed a daily 757 with a 35% load factor. If you want your airlines to fly into the US, then follow the rules. And, of course the PIC and crew would know about the marshals. This is standard practice over here and everyone likes it. They are very professional and really take the job seriously. Cheers!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 77
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sky Marshall program in the US is working quite smoothly after a few start-up problems. It is not perfect but it is working.
The Captain always knows if a Sky Marshall is on board. Both parties know their limits and duties. There is no real additional conflict with Captain's authority since historically there have been similar cases of federal authority over-riding the Captain. The FAMs have been taught about Captain's authority and they are usually pleasingly polite. The FAM/Crew working relationship seems quite good.
Some points from earlier posts. Some posters imagine there is a reserve of people somewhere experienced in FAM type scenarios. Not true. The aircraft scenario is sufficiently different from ANYTHING that previously existed, military or civilian, that a whole new training course is required, even for experienced law enforcement personnel. There is no reason a person from any previous discipline should not allowed to be a FAM, presuming that person passes the required training course. Myself, I think self-discipline, cunning and timing are probably at least as important as firearms ability and strength.
There is no credible replacement for a firearm (reasons already explained on previous posts). Within the range of available firearms and ammunition there are better or worse choices for the job. The FAM program has selected a reasonable compromise in hardware.
The Captain always knows if a Sky Marshall is on board. Both parties know their limits and duties. There is no real additional conflict with Captain's authority since historically there have been similar cases of federal authority over-riding the Captain. The FAMs have been taught about Captain's authority and they are usually pleasingly polite. The FAM/Crew working relationship seems quite good.
Some points from earlier posts. Some posters imagine there is a reserve of people somewhere experienced in FAM type scenarios. Not true. The aircraft scenario is sufficiently different from ANYTHING that previously existed, military or civilian, that a whole new training course is required, even for experienced law enforcement personnel. There is no reason a person from any previous discipline should not allowed to be a FAM, presuming that person passes the required training course. Myself, I think self-discipline, cunning and timing are probably at least as important as firearms ability and strength.
There is no credible replacement for a firearm (reasons already explained on previous posts). Within the range of available firearms and ammunition there are better or worse choices for the job. The FAM program has selected a reasonable compromise in hardware.
Someone earlier referred to the Air France cancellations as if they were a failure in security. Personally I'd say it was the ultimate in security. Absolutely no risk whatsoever of the aircraft hitting anything either by design or default
As a passenger I'd rather the flight never got off the ground if there was a risk of it becoming either an aerial cruise missile or an out of control missile after vigilante action by a sky marshall or pax like the 757 on 9/11.
If not capturing the 'target' terrorist is an issue, let the pax airside, delay the flights for some spurious reason, then send in guys to arrest the 'targets'
As a side issue, who is expected to pay for all this additional security?
Most of the posts talk about flights TO the USA, but surely it must also affect flights ex USA? After all it was US security that was breached for the 9/11 flights. If so then the number of 'Marshalls' is set to double as they cannot be expected to turn straight round and go back on the same flight, they will need the same minimum rest as the crew. You certainly wouldn't want your Marshall to be jet lagged and too tired to be of use!!
How can the Israeli situation be considered a success? After all this time and still they need armed minders on their flights.
Perhaps if people could see some political effort into resolving the key issues that have caused the problems they would be more accepting of the imposition of Sky Marshalls. Presently it is difficult to see them ever becoming redundant.
As a passenger I'd rather the flight never got off the ground if there was a risk of it becoming either an aerial cruise missile or an out of control missile after vigilante action by a sky marshall or pax like the 757 on 9/11.
If not capturing the 'target' terrorist is an issue, let the pax airside, delay the flights for some spurious reason, then send in guys to arrest the 'targets'
As a side issue, who is expected to pay for all this additional security?
Most of the posts talk about flights TO the USA, but surely it must also affect flights ex USA? After all it was US security that was breached for the 9/11 flights. If so then the number of 'Marshalls' is set to double as they cannot be expected to turn straight round and go back on the same flight, they will need the same minimum rest as the crew. You certainly wouldn't want your Marshall to be jet lagged and too tired to be of use!!
How can the Israeli situation be considered a success? After all this time and still they need armed minders on their flights.
Perhaps if people could see some political effort into resolving the key issues that have caused the problems they would be more accepting of the imposition of Sky Marshalls. Presently it is difficult to see them ever becoming redundant.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: where the money takes me
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm, another Blunkett #$#%up lets introduce Firearms to Aircraft, any more knee jerk re-jerk reactions and he will ruin the industry. And who will Pay for this brilliant headline grabbing policy?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very quick perusal of ANO article 59 reveals that it is illegal for a UK registered aircraft to take off with any "weapon or munition of war" either in a compartment accessible to passengers or loaded. So until there is some amendment to the law, a Captain can be prosecuted for NOT refusing to fly with a sky marshall on board
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told that both the Australian and US governments have issued directives regarding international air travel to and from their airspace:
If you want to fly in their airspace, you must have Sky Marshals; hence the British government stating that on CERTAIN flights from the UK, Air Marshals will be required.
If you want to fly in their airspace, you must have Sky Marshals; hence the British government stating that on CERTAIN flights from the UK, Air Marshals will be required.
Last edited by Macaw_1884; 16th Jul 2004 at 14:57.
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
The fact of the matter is that sky marshals are here, and will be on board certain flights. They will act as a deterrent, will be carrying firearms, and unless you want to walk you will accept that this is the way things happen now. They have been a part of the aviation scene for some years now and it is simply a matter of some people getting a reality check and realising that the dangers posed by the events of 9/11 changed the world for everyone for ever.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a thread that anticipated this discussion by several months, see 'Do we need armed sky marshalls' on Questions.
I must admit, several of the contributions are from me - I saw an job advert on the back of a magazine while I was signing on. The ad didn't explicitly say 'must have been member of the SAS' (mind you, there are quite a few units in the British Army, doing similar jobs, that are rather less well known than that).
I must admit, several of the contributions are from me - I saw an job advert on the back of a magazine while I was signing on. The ad didn't explicitly say 'must have been member of the SAS' (mind you, there are quite a few units in the British Army, doing similar jobs, that are rather less well known than that).
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newarksmells...
Something doesnt quite make sense about Highly trained people from US with guns. They all seem Trigger Happy. Think of all the blue on blue incidents!
Skymarshals in the U.S are explcitly trained to avoid this sort of behaviour
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one extremely serious aspect which overshadows this whole thread. Of all the opinions expressed both for and against having skymarshals on UK flights, none has been either considered or discussed before taking this very major step.
The simple fact is that it has been commanded by the US government and so Tony Blair has meekly and obediently complied. No consideration has been given to possible pitfalls or the objections raised by BALPA and UK pilots in general. Just who runs the UK? Evidently not anyone that we got to vote for.
The simple fact is that it has been commanded by the US government and so Tony Blair has meekly and obediently complied. No consideration has been given to possible pitfalls or the objections raised by BALPA and UK pilots in general. Just who runs the UK? Evidently not anyone that we got to vote for.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne,
It is a new rule in the US concerning foreign airlines. Either you obey it or you don't fly to the lucrative US market. The US Gov't is not targeting just the UK, but everyone. This will probably send a strong message to the terrorists. Don't think Bush is just telling Blair to follow---he is telling the terrorists to stay off airplanes flying to the US. Can you please list some possible pitfalls to this new rule? (what exactly would Balpa object to? our ALPA thinks it is great)
It is a new rule in the US concerning foreign airlines. Either you obey it or you don't fly to the lucrative US market. The US Gov't is not targeting just the UK, but everyone. This will probably send a strong message to the terrorists. Don't think Bush is just telling Blair to follow---he is telling the terrorists to stay off airplanes flying to the US. Can you please list some possible pitfalls to this new rule? (what exactly would Balpa object to? our ALPA thinks it is great)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no such thing as 100% airline security. The most innocuous looking item can be used or adapted as a weapon. No matter what passenger profiling you carry out, potential terrorists cannot always be detected by such methods. In terms of risk management, the provision of armed air marshals, as an additional (and possibly last) line of defence, can only be a good thing.
Just as all aircraft passengers are asked to trust that their captain is competent to do his job, so aircraft captains are going to have to trust that air marshals are competent to do theirs. It ought to go without saying that it would not be prudent to brief airline crew on the training and methods of operation of air marshals, though, as the Transport Secretary has confirmed, captains will be made aware, when air marshals are to be deployed on their aircraft.
Part of the deterrent effect of deploying air marshals is to give their introduction maximum publicity. If BALPA's very public carping is any more than a clever DFT co-ordinated effort, to publicise the new measure, BALPA really needs to ask itself if it is acting responsibly.
Just as all aircraft passengers are asked to trust that their captain is competent to do his job, so aircraft captains are going to have to trust that air marshals are competent to do theirs. It ought to go without saying that it would not be prudent to brief airline crew on the training and methods of operation of air marshals, though, as the Transport Secretary has confirmed, captains will be made aware, when air marshals are to be deployed on their aircraft.
Part of the deterrent effect of deploying air marshals is to give their introduction maximum publicity. If BALPA's very public carping is any more than a clever DFT co-ordinated effort, to publicise the new measure, BALPA really needs to ask itself if it is acting responsibly.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 30th Dec 2003 at 15:09.
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 is a quite understandable mindset that simply refuses to accept the notion that some individual who has already accepted the concept of his own self destruction in a cause, can and will, quite coldbloodedly cut a hostesses throat in order to try and blackmail his way into the cockpit. A group will start killing hostages one by one to achieve this. Mohammed Attar had learned and trained in unarmed combat in order to be better prepared to achieve his objective. His success is a matter of history. The present attitude of some that bleat that guns are dangerous in a plane is to have an ostrich like mentality that is mindboggling in it's naiivity.
It's rather like the present CNN presentation where the jounalists were bemoaning the fact that battlefield reporting was dangerous and some of them were actualy getting killed, they were DEMANDING the military give them assurances that the extra mile would be taken to see that this did not happen. Lets get real, it's like saying 'I want an assurance that I will live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in my bed surrounded by my loving family'.
It appears that the US is confronting the menace head on and not taking the PC namby pamby 'lets talk to them and perhaps they will go away' attitude. Turn the other cheek to this menace we face today and you will lose it. Simply hoping that the menace won't get on your plane simply is no longer an option. The powers that be, have detirmined that there will be a credible deterrent, and the fact that this is being complied by airlines wishing to fly to the US, is simply an acknowledgement of that situation. In our society 'force majeur' still dictates policy.
All the genteel expressions of how ruffianly this is all becoming are quite frankly a waste of breath. The white gloves and tea and crumpets on the silver service in the back are a but pleasant memory of happier times, the fact is that anybody who steps on a plane today had better realise that it is a method of travel that is dangerous and has been targeted by some extremely fanatical and ruthless people.
It's rather like the present CNN presentation where the jounalists were bemoaning the fact that battlefield reporting was dangerous and some of them were actualy getting killed, they were DEMANDING the military give them assurances that the extra mile would be taken to see that this did not happen. Lets get real, it's like saying 'I want an assurance that I will live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in my bed surrounded by my loving family'.
It appears that the US is confronting the menace head on and not taking the PC namby pamby 'lets talk to them and perhaps they will go away' attitude. Turn the other cheek to this menace we face today and you will lose it. Simply hoping that the menace won't get on your plane simply is no longer an option. The powers that be, have detirmined that there will be a credible deterrent, and the fact that this is being complied by airlines wishing to fly to the US, is simply an acknowledgement of that situation. In our society 'force majeur' still dictates policy.
All the genteel expressions of how ruffianly this is all becoming are quite frankly a waste of breath. The white gloves and tea and crumpets on the silver service in the back are a but pleasant memory of happier times, the fact is that anybody who steps on a plane today had better realise that it is a method of travel that is dangerous and has been targeted by some extremely fanatical and ruthless people.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us not forget that one of our main security aims is to prevent weapons coming onto aircraft. Now we are to condone the carriage of guns, ready to fire, on the aircraft and on the airside of airports. How can I be sure I can trust the carrier of these weapons that his aims are not to hijack my aircraft or to hand on the weapon to a possible hijacker?
We have to lock our doors to prevent the aircraft being used as a weapon, will the Sky Marshalls not now be the source of arms for the hijacker? He may be highly trained, he may be motivated but so are these terrorists.
To the american "if you want to fly into the states, follow the rules" brigade. How about "if you want to fly into the lucrative UK/Europe market how about following our rules. NO GUNS
We have to lock our doors to prevent the aircraft being used as a weapon, will the Sky Marshalls not now be the source of arms for the hijacker? He may be highly trained, he may be motivated but so are these terrorists.
To the american "if you want to fly into the states, follow the rules" brigade. How about "if you want to fly into the lucrative UK/Europe market how about following our rules. NO GUNS