Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights

[miss d point]

Matblack agree entirely,

The problem to me is that when this govenment does something, usually it's all show and glitz but no real substance, take for instance the directive making pilots remove overcoats !!! how stupid can you get !
I recently heard that the armed police squad (special branch) guarding the Queen had big problems getting through security at manchester because "what if their car had a bomb under it" after it was explained to them that it had been in a secure lot, but if it had a bomb under it what would they do since if they didn't get through neither could the Queen they were told that special branch would be called !!!!!

This is the general mentallity of the DTR, think they come up with this stuff between pop idol breaks.

oh, is the 'sky marshall' the little fat tubby woman sitting at the front !!!!

always bet on black

[mesh]

Sky Marshalls

Have been thinking about this for some time and still not sure but as the politicians, police, captains and airline owners have to I have made a few decisions. Firstly I agree that the prime objective is to stop these guys getting on the aircraft in the first place as it is to stop possible SAM attacks etc. This is still not happening, countless passengers on wrong plane etc, How does someone manage to fly to the wrong country these days with a ticket for some other destination?

Ok, lets get to the on board scenario. I must say that I don't like the way we seem to follow the US on policy lately but we haveto admit that we have entered into a new era of terrorism. Pilots can no longer open the crew door and talk to or try and negotiate with these guys, end of story. They have one job and that is to get the aircraft safely on the ground. It seems that a stray bullet is not likely to bring the a/c down unless it hits something major. With this in mind I advocate on board armed security. The Captain is there to command the a/c from point A to point B. His secondary duty is to his cargo 'in normal operations'. When a fundamentalist steps onto an a/c it is not his/hers responsibility, this is then taken away from him and given to our security service governed by government and the public. It would be lovely to think that there is a middle ground that we could all be happy with. Views so far seem to be from the U.S guys "we need them, they have allways worked in the past" Rubbish, they have not been tested in the past. Maybe on a few occassions with 1 person who might have a little go with his fists, but not post 9/11 when all those nutters can see that it works! Then we have the very well behaved Brits. of which I am one. Lets have a nice chat with all these pilots because they know all about anti terrorism and see if we can come up with some softer option. Maybe like a sand bag that pops out of a gun and knocks them down, dirty rotters.

Countries that have developed the most effective counter terorism teams are those that have had the most experience such as the uk and Israel. The US have been rocked by 9/11 but in terms of experience they have little. Don't get me wrong, this is not a competition. I am just trying to justify my unease with this apparent sheep like behaviour that our government works under. The way that this country has dealt with aggressors to it in the past has been to crush them. Win the firefight, that's the only way. If you have some nutters on an aircraft willing to die for some god then you must wipe them out as quickly as possible. If a couple of passengers get slaughtered in the cross fire then that's just bad luck. 1 dead passenger 2 dead terrorists is a success to me. Let's not sit in our little holes here. You get on an a/c and you know it has 6 guys that are intent on killing you. Do you a) Not require help from some armed security. You might be able to talk them out of it, the pilot might be able to get us on the ground where those lovely men that saved lives like mine in the Iranian Embassy will help. b) Have a guy with a gun that could have a go and possibly avert a dissaster, oh and maybe save my life c) have a friend with a gun that will help me and like minded citizens fight to the end like those guys on the last downed 9/11. It's like the JARs people, more than one right answer but pick the best one.

AND IF ONE PERSON REPLIES WITH I WOULDN'T GET ON THE AIRPLANE OR SOME SIMILAR SMART ARSE REPLY I WILL KILL MYSELF.

I don't agree with the way the US government are fighting this battle in Iraq. It stinks of desperation and you don't beat these guys by being afraid. You beat them by letting them and the voters know that if they kick off on an aircraft then they will be killed. The only question that you haveto ask yourself is do you want to be killed with them?

[arcniz]

These are extraordinary times.

I do not doubt for a moment that Great Britain can scare up some hundreds of sober, level- headed crack shots who will serve ably as protection from aerial terrorism. They may not succeed in every case, but they can certainly give it a good try. And those who cannot trust their official protectors should just sit it out along a quiet stream somewhere.

This is a particularly delicate moment in history, but one that will pass soon enough. With immense resources available and a clear international sense of purpose now crystalized by the atrocities of recent years, the root sources of organized global terrorism will be methodically found and either cured or exterminated by an allied team of powerful nations - who appear to agree on this purpose even when they differ about nearly everythng else. Anarchists always get the short straw in the last draw, but the root solution to this problem is to cure the social and political privations that, even now, are breeding the next generations of people desperate enough to become terrorists.

It makes strong sense to afford reasonable protection and assurance to air travelers in this period of reaction to the new, unpleasant context that came with 9/11. We all appreciate that bureaucracies and international agendas are a slow-moving means for change in contrast to the action of closely organized, trained individuals working as a group. So let us put our own sharp players in the game to fill the gap until the more fundamental problems can be successfully addressed.

The near-term health of aviation depends very much on the public perception of commitment to prevention of terrorist activity in the sky.

[Budgie69]

Cockpit Defences

Whilst not denying that skymarshals could be an effective cockpit defence, it must be recognised that there are certain disadvantages - introducing a gun into the cabin etc. etc.

I believe that we also ought to consider radically different cockpit defences, and to this end I propose a moat and drawbridge. The moat would be perhaps 6 feet wide and would be directly behind the cockpit door, filled with water/fuel/toilet fluid. The retractable walkway used on larger flight simulators would make an excellent drawbridge. The skymarshal could then be in the cockpit, armed with a crossbow and firing through suitable slits in the cockpit bulkhead. Cabin crew could be trained in the pouring of boiling oil.

I am aware that there are certain technical issues to overcome regarding longitudinal accelerations and balanced flight, but I feel sure that the contributors to this forum can devise suitable solutions.

[Capt H Peacock]

I am profoundly concerned not only with the prospect of an individual in the cabin with a gun, but with the way the government have thrust this upon us. Doubtless they have been armtwisted by Uncle Sam, but they do themselves no credit in the way they seem to be driven by events, and not master to them.

The whole concept behind our current rationale has been to proscribe the boarding of any weapon, putative or otherwise. The use of ‘sky marshals’ flies in the face of this policy, by relieving the criminal of the task of clandestinely boarding a weapon. Over the period of a long haul flight, the ‘sky marshal’ will become evident by his/her demeanour and consequently will be vulnerable to being overpowered by the criminals.

I shall now be faced with the situation of an armed struggle in the cabin which is completely outside my control. Stray rounds would present an unacceptable risk to the passengers, the aircraft and its systems. In short chaos would ensue.

If Mr Bush has decided that guns shall be carried on my aircraft, then I would prefer that I shall carry it. That way, I know where the weapon is at all times, who will discharge it, and at whom and what.

The current situation is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, and has been introduced in the same kind of casual uninformed manner that we have come to expect of on-the-hoof, reactionary policymaking by Millbank.

Good for BALPA for insisting that we discuss this in a consultative and rational debate.

[ShotOne]

Donky breath, etc Yes I can see quite a few pitfalls and unanswered questions with this plan. Who are these skymarshals. How are they trained. Under whose control are they working? What safeguards will be there to ensure their weapon doesn't get into the wrong hands?? None of these questions have been discussed, let alone answered.

I am prepared to be convinced. The trouble is that there has been no discussion or consideration of any of these arguments. We don't even get to choose which flights to put them on -that will be directed by the director of Homeland Security!

Blair is simply responding to a blunt order from President George to his minions in Europe. Just consider for a moment how the US government would respond if they received a similar demand from a European government.

[TRF4EVR]

How can the Israeli situation be considered a success? After all this time and still they need armed minders on their flights.

uh. No hijackings?

Oh, forgot. This isn't about preventing terrorism. It's about how the US is "once again" steamrolling European sovereignty by making rules about how people get to use our airspace.

[NURSE]

Whilst not a pilot or aircrew i as a passenger would like to make a few comments.
The introduction of sky marshals is a regretable step but in light of events of 9/11. I feel specially trained personnel on aircraft is a good idea. The Israelis have had armed security on their flights for many years.
The sugestion of using incapaciting agents on an airliner is ridiculous. Having been exposed to CS gas in a confined area i know it won't only affect the target it will end up in the aircirculation equipment and effect everyone aboard. TASER uses large bursts of electricity to stun an assailant but doesn't that also put out an electromagnatic signature that may affect avionics.
If a skymarshal system is being introduced why not go for an air police? who could assist cabincrew where necessary. Equiped with firearms with frangeible rounds or rounds were the probability of them over-penetrating is low. And training specially designed for working in an airline enviroment. I know mainland police forces have a poor reputation when it comes to firearms training but the RUC trained their officers to a high standard as they all had to be armed. Or why not get them trained by the SAS.
I certainly think this is a better solution than the inital American response of arming the pilots.

[Scud-U-Like]

Capt HP

You have got to be kidding. Do you really imagine your strutting out of the cockpit like Calamity Jane would help matters? What sort of ensuing chaos do you envisage being worse than having your throat cut and your aircraft piled into a skyscraper?

Proscribing the boarding of any weapon is a very laudable aim, but an impossible one. Are you going to proscribe that handy metal club (also known as the fire extinguisher) or any of the other 101 things on your aircraft that could be used as a weapon?

Yes, let's have a big debate, so we know exactly how many sky marshals there are, how they are trained, what their mode of operation and rules of engagement are, who controls them and what weapons they carry. Why, they could even have open days at their training centre. Better still, let's post their profiles on a "sky marshals website", so we can all get to know them better.

[Pot Noodle]

.. break a compact disk in half, ..two five and a half inch blades with the effectiveness of a pocket knife. Or go one stage further, the protective layer in a laptop screen could produce a rather handy fourteen inch blade. And what about all those duty free bottles?

We cannot assume terrorists are stupid so apart from the complete banning of any hand luggage and the cutting off of passengers fists, probably sky marshalls have to be accepted as a forward step.

[wbryce]

Firstly, how good would the sky marshals job be? just sitting and flying constantly! wonder how long it will take till they get DVT!

Secondly as someone mentioned, theres no such thing as 100% security in the aviation business, and there never will be, even with the most robust system theres too many possible situations that can arise to cause a disaster!

This all leads back to 9/11, if the US handled the war on terrorism better, IE used special forces to combat terrorism than your average foot monkey who shoots there own planes down and if the US didn't commit to promises to the public. I believe, if this was delt with behind the scenes (i.e. public not knowning) then the publics fear would settle, but it seems every thing that can relate to a disaster is being publicised to death! IE the drunken pilots. Airliners nearly colliding although they where 1.5miles apart. Plots to blow up planes. It is hurting the industry as its constantly refreshing the elements of fear, and we can only say thanks to Mr Bush and Mr Blair for throwing there toys out the play pen and commiting to promises that to fullfill seem a life time away, you kill one terrorist, two more spawn.

Why dont airlines adapt the conair approach and lock all pax in cages!

[Airbubba]

Ridge Hails Response to Air Marshal Order

Location: Washington

Posted: December 30, 2003 8:56 AM EST

Washington (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Tuesday hailed the response of other nations so far in the U.S. quest to get air marshals deployed, if necessary, to protect commercial airplanes against terrorist attack.

"I'd put the family on the plane," Ridge said when asked about how strongly he felt about new safety measures the Bush administration has undertaken. Ridge made the rounds of morning news shows a day after the Department of Homeland Security issued a new directive giving the government the option of denying access to U.S. airspace to airlines which do not cooperate.

"Working with our partners around the world, I think we have made great progress in this area," said Ridge. Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" show, he called the move "an added level of security."

"People travel. People must travel," Ridge said. "We cannot submit to the fear associated with the continuous scream that they (terrorists) would use aviation as a means of attack."

Under the new policy, foreign airlines risk being denied access to American airspace if they don't obey the new directive that some international flights crossing over or headed to the United States must carry an armed law enforcement officer to thwart terrorists, Homeland Secretary officials said earlier.

"Any sovereign government retains the right to revoke the privilege of flying to and from a country or even over their airspace," Ridge told a news conference Monday. "So ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have." There has been no indication so far that any country will refuse U.S. demands to place guards on designated flights.

Ridge also said the nation would remain at the "Code Orange" high alert through the New Year's holiday and perhaps beyond. "We are as concerned today as we were yesterday," he said Monday. "We'll be concerned as much this week as we were last week."

The new directive requires selected international flights that enter U.S. airspace to carry an armed law enforcement officer aboard. The Homeland Security Department will require such officers on airplanes where intelligence information leads to a specific concern about that flight.

For months, U.S. security officials have feared that al-Qaida operatives would again hijack planes to use them as missiles. The most recent concerns centered not on domestic passenger flights, but on airliners or cargo planes that take off from overseas and cross over U.S. airspace, either on their way to a U.S. airport or to a foreign one.

"I think the level of security this time around within the United States is absolutely unprecedented," Ridge said on CBS's "The Early Show."

"International aviation security isn't just a priority for the United States," said Ridge, who called it "an international priority."

On ABC, Ridge said the notion of grounding another nation's commercial flight would be "seen as a last alternative" if the United States cannot resolve concerns about passengers on a given flight before that plane's scheduled takeoff.

The administration raised the terrorism alert level to orange, or high, on Dec. 21, citing nonspecific but credible threats of an imminent terrorist attack.

Air France canceled six flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Wednesday and Thursday, after security discussions between U.S. and French officials.

Aviation security experts said the announcement marks a significant change in that, up until now, international security guidelines have been voluntary.

"In the past, no country has ever tried to impose on other countries any measures of aviation security," said Rafi Ron, president of New Age Security Solutions, a Washington-based consultancy, and the former security director for the Israeli Airport Authority.

The next logical step will be for the international community to push for global aviation security standards, including mandated reinforced cockpit doors and better airport perimeter defenses.

Homeland Security officials said governments frequently set security and other standards for planes bound for their airspace.

Homeland Security reviews the passenger and crew manifests of all planes bound for U.S. airspace, generally after the plane has taken off, because passenger lists are usually finalized only minutes before the plane taxis from the gate, department spokesman Dennis Murphy said.

Some passenger lists are reviewed beforehand, he said.

Some international airlines said Monday they would cooperate with the new U.S. requirement. Others, including airlines in Canada and Germany, said they already were using armed marshals on some flights.

Britain said Sunday it had tightened security for trans-Atlantic flights and suggested, as it has in the past, that it might put armed sky marshals on some planes.

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1203/115494.html

[con-pilot]

Sorry old boy, we never locked up our passengers (?) in cages on "Con-Air". However I have been on airline flights that some passangers should have been placed in cages.

[Tripower455]

Guys, we are all entitled to our opinions, but there are an awful lot of "chicken little" type predictions being made here, that, imho, are just that.

It is a fact that people have been legally carrying guns on US airplanes for many years without a single incident. The presence of a firearm in the proper hands is far less dangerous than an airplane in the improper hands. It's simply a non issue.

Non lethal weapons are not the answer. If you get to the point where you need to use it, it simply cannot be relied on to incapacitate the bad guy, no matter which one we are discussing. Police carry them as a bridge between verbal control and lethal control, in a very different environment than will be present in the case of an air piracy attempt. And they have a firearm as a backup.

Prior to 9/11 there were less than 100 Air Marshalls. While the number is classified, I would estimate the number to be well into the thousands by now, and many more are being trained. Their deterrent factor then was much less than it is now.

Having had lots of interaction with these folks, I am glad to have them aboard. They are, without exception, a professional bunch. We are briefed by them when they board.

I am a fairly proficient shooter (I have qualed on several LEO courses), and I would have a hard time passing the FAM qual. course. They are VERY good and their training is specifically tailored to their very unique situation.

The issue of penetrating the hull is a concern, but in the big scheme of things, I'd much rather deal with possible partial loss of pressurization, or a system loss than have the aircraft used as a missile or equally bad (for those on the plane) is getting shot down by a future first officer in an F-Teen.

While I am the first to criticize the screening efforts on the ground, I am not sure at what point we could ever 100% prevent bad guys from getting on the aircraft, and still carry passengers.

Layered security, starting with foriegn policy and ending with armed pilots is, IMHO, the answer to limiting the onboard threats posed by these fanatics.

As for the stingers, bombs in cargo etc. It should be obvious that Air Marshalls will have less effect on these things than a liferaft will have on an engine fire.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Surely a couple of sky marshals are easily defeated?

Terrorist 1 stands up and puts his weapon to a cabin crew members throat and drags them all the way to the front of the aircraft shouting about a hijack.

Terrorist 2, 3, 4 & 5 remain in their seats to watch the Sky marshals leap into action. When they do then the terrorists tap them on the shoulder from behind and disable them.

Thus gaining a couple of pistols.

Its hardly rocket science is it?

And then what going to happen to Johnny Skymarshal when he jumps from his seat, pulls a gun and starts shooting people? I suggest the passengers will panic and jump on him.

Pointless window dressing at a time when they don't routinely stop and search arab males travelling alone because it could be construed as racist.

And whats the point of armed police, X ray machines, sniffer dogs and all the palava when at many international airport - if its dark - you can just walk up to an aircraft from the fields as long as you are wearing a hi vis vest and vaguely look as if you know what you are about?

I reckon they should beef up the flightdeck armour, improve the flightdeck camera system and thats all we need. If we can see something is not right and the flightdeck really is impregnable, then we are not flying into any buildings today - are we?

Oh - and *is* someone doing proper background checks on people applying for CPL's? Elsewise it might all be rather embarassing when the newly recruited FO turns out to be Al Qaeda... With a fire hatchet attached to his seat and an impregnable door behind him...

Cheers

WWW

[Tripower455]

Surely a couple of sky marshals are easily defeated?

As easily defeated as unarmed/untrained passenger and crewmembers?

[Danny]

The fact that armed sky marshalls operate on other countries carriers and have done so for many years is irrelevant to this discussion. If we compare the two main countries for comparison, Israel and the US, we have one country where the sky marshall concept is just one part of a much bigger, better trained and less PR orientated security system and the other where because of their own terrible lapse in security even though they had sky marshalls operating on random flights saw the terrible tragedy of 9/11 and the huge changes to our jobs and the way we now operate.

I think that we are all agreed that the sky marshall is the next to last line of defense against hijackers that are intent on using an aircraft as a missile. The last line being the new reinforced, bullet proof, Kevlar, bolted flight deck doors. What the problem is for many of us here in the UK is that with our different cultures and attitudes towards guns is the fact that this new measure is being introduced with no consultation whatsoever. It is being thrust on us by politicians who are advised by bureaucrats who apparently, have little idea of how to deal with the real security issues apart from making announcements that sound great to the uninformed travelling public and putting large numbers of 'security' staff on display who are supposed to be able to stop weapons from getting on board using an X-ray scanner and an induction loop.

It is all 'cure' and no 'prevention'. Sound bites for egotistical politicians. Why not do this quietly and in the background? According to the latest information it is the US authorities who will dictate which flights must carry an armed guard based on their intelligence (oxymoron) and their past record leaves a lot to be desired. Now we have a crew being informed that their flight is at high risk of a hijack attempt because why else would there be a need for an armed sky marshall? Should the crew have the discretion to refuse to operate under the circumstances? Will their insurance and life policies be void if their flight does come under attack and the knowingly operated the flight which was under high risk?

Personally, I have no problem with highly trained sky marshalls on a flight. What I do have a problem with is the pathetic and feeble effort put into preventing a potential hijacker getting on board in the first place. Knowing how clever and devious the terrorists can be we still have pathetically poor measures in place to stop them getting checked-in and through security. You only have to imagine the scenario where a large number of determined 'martyrs' board one flight having nothing suspicious in their baggage yet after passing 'security' purchase as many glass bottles, some containing highly flammable liquid for use as weapons once on board. How many sky marshalls will be on board? The whole thing stinks of the usual ineptitude and knee jerk reactionism from slimy politicians out to spend as little as possible on so much 'make-up'.

If we're going to have sky marshalls then lets have the rest of the security infrastructure in place to make sure that the sky marshalls are not needed in the first place! We see some of the petty systems in place every time we go to work. We know where many of the flaws are but when it comes to implementation, we are not consulted and are relegated to 'potential terrorist' status. No wonder many of us are not thrilled at the prospect of yet more 'finger in the dyke' pronouncements supposedly meant to make the travelling public feel more secure. If they only knew the half of it!

[Faire d'income]

There are a number of points being thrown around here without any serious analysis.

* ' EL AL have had sky marshals for years with no trouble from hijackers'

This is correct but EL AL also have had the world's strictest ground security measures so it is unreasonable to give all the credit to the redundant sky marshalls.

* This will send out a positive message etc.

I think that those of us living in countries where a gun is a very rare sight will see a sharp drop in bookings at the thought of some armed 'Die Hard' character whose job it is to be a passenger every day. ( How will morale be for these guys flying all day every day? )

* We've had them in the US without any decompressions or other problems.

Since 911 you can't bring a laser pen past security, as captain of an aircraft, because you might use it take control of the flight! Security has gone nuts so these people will perceive that they work in a different climate than their predecessors and I bet will be more trigger happy.

* 'The marshall will be pre-boarded bypassing security'

It has been pointed out that this could make it easier to identify him and now that he is on log-haul flights will he be trained not to fall asleep? I certainly would not want an armed cop asleep on my flight. The terrorist might get the gun without any struggle.


The simple answer is usually the best. If you don't want a hijacker flying the aircraft you make it impossible for him to get to the cockpit. This could be easily done by putting lavatory, rest and eating facilities at the front of the aircraft with no access from the cabin during flight to anyone including cabin crew.

No acccess to cockpit = no point in hijacking

Surely putting a gun in the cabin is the most obvious of security risks. The terrorists task is now not to plan an elaborate scheme to get weapons and himself past security, get on board and gain control...but to find the sky marshal and relieve him of his weapon gaining instant control.

Someone mentioned it being a cultural thing and I tend to agree, as long as the door is left open for a Hollywood ending the Americans will buy it. The rest of us live in the real world.

[Donkey Duke]

WWW,

These Sky Marshals have a plan, and they know about diversions. If 6 or more terrorists get guns onto airplanes, then there are obviously other security problems out there. If you guys in the UK don't want Sky Marshals to fly with you around there or in Europe, then great. But, if you want to fly to the US or over the US---then it must happen. If you are still at Easy, then you should never have to worry about that. And, I do agree with you that there should be some more airline screening for the current pilots out there. Cheers!

[OFBSLF]

Terrorist 2, 3, 4 & 5 remain in their seats to watch the Sky marshals leap into action. When they do then the terrorists tap them on the shoulder from behind and disable them.

Easier said than done.

The sky marshalls work in teams. I'm quite sure they are trained to watch their back. I have been trained in handgun retention and close quarters combat. I'm sure the sky marshalls have received far superior training to mine.