Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Wino, there have been several suggestions for how to achieve the aim of not having a hijacked flying bomb. The theme has been constant, get it right before the threat gets onto the aircraft. Danny is not the only one to have made this point.
This will need better advance intelligence to be available, computerised check-in systems to be able to access the data at point of check-in (without the c-in agent seeing any personal details) and a warning appearing to alert the Apt police or similar.
Where a specific flight has been identified as at risk, rather than have it take off and have the drama unfold in the air, the flight should be processed normally to the boarding gate where a delay can be announced giving time for the security services to sort out the problems.
It will also require nations to accept that other nations can have good ideas as well!
Whilst the short term might require Sky Marshalls, I cannot subscibe to any position that htey are to become fixtures for ever in flying.
Long term Govts have the responsibility to have meaningful dialogue to resolve the issues that are creating the current unstable situation, but then that's another thread in itself
This will need better advance intelligence to be available, computerised check-in systems to be able to access the data at point of check-in (without the c-in agent seeing any personal details) and a warning appearing to alert the Apt police or similar.
Where a specific flight has been identified as at risk, rather than have it take off and have the drama unfold in the air, the flight should be processed normally to the boarding gate where a delay can be announced giving time for the security services to sort out the problems.
It will also require nations to accept that other nations can have good ideas as well!
Whilst the short term might require Sky Marshalls, I cannot subscibe to any position that htey are to become fixtures for ever in flying.
Long term Govts have the responsibility to have meaningful dialogue to resolve the issues that are creating the current unstable situation, but then that's another thread in itself
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question for any Americans, do the U.S. air marshals normally get involved in sorting out passenger trouble (air rage, fights etc), or is that left to the cabin staff?. If they do get involved, are they allowed to decide when, or do they have to be asked by the captain to help?
419
419
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
419 No
Surely not,
I have never advocated the airmarshals as anything other than a bandaid. My solution would be that there be no access from the cabin to the cockpit period. Access to the cockpit is through it own door in the pressure vessel to the ramp, with the cockpit having its own LAV and galleyand if necesary crew rest space. (not very hard to do, infact if you took a 757 package freighter of UPS design, and put pax seats windows and doors and left the freight bulkhead intact in it you would have just that)
Wouldn't change the load carrying ability of the aircraft much, and then no matter what rude thing you do to the flight attendants or passengers there is simply no way for you to have access to the cockpit. So carrying knives on an aircraft will be a futile excersize. The airplane can never again be used as weapon, and this hysteria ends...
That will be resisted by BALPA because then those ego puffing flight deck visits would forever be a thing of the past. Furthermore, they would have to get up off their ass and make their own tea. But there is no reason in this day and age for pilots to have access to the cabin or vica verca. The flight attendants are trained to handle the peeps, and any problems with the aircraft can have a camera stationed on them or a portable one with a transmitter for the flight attendants to carry around with them to beam pics to the cockpit.
Cheers
Wino
Surely not,
I have never advocated the airmarshals as anything other than a bandaid. My solution would be that there be no access from the cabin to the cockpit period. Access to the cockpit is through it own door in the pressure vessel to the ramp, with the cockpit having its own LAV and galleyand if necesary crew rest space. (not very hard to do, infact if you took a 757 package freighter of UPS design, and put pax seats windows and doors and left the freight bulkhead intact in it you would have just that)
Wouldn't change the load carrying ability of the aircraft much, and then no matter what rude thing you do to the flight attendants or passengers there is simply no way for you to have access to the cockpit. So carrying knives on an aircraft will be a futile excersize. The airplane can never again be used as weapon, and this hysteria ends...
That will be resisted by BALPA because then those ego puffing flight deck visits would forever be a thing of the past. Furthermore, they would have to get up off their ass and make their own tea. But there is no reason in this day and age for pilots to have access to the cabin or vica verca. The flight attendants are trained to handle the peeps, and any problems with the aircraft can have a camera stationed on them or a portable one with a transmitter for the flight attendants to carry around with them to beam pics to the cockpit.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino and others
The point about ditching is one of perspective. Of course your chances or surviving a ditching on typical polar/North Atlantic routes are close to zero. The point is that if the terrorists get into the flight deck, your chances of survival are zero. Surely not a difficult point to grasp.
Sure, there may be a team of air marshals on board. Do you not think the terrorists will know that, and plan accordingly? They have moved on a long way since the events you describe.
Of course, with a team of air marshals on board, we now have the exciting prospect of a multiple gun battle with goodness knows how many caught in the crossfire. Mind you I can't see the "team" being more than 2.
I too have some access to security material and regarding flight deck doors, I can only assume that the UK standard is higher than the US one. You aren't going to breach a kevlar/alloy/stainless steel door in a big hurry.
Some seem to think that discussing this is in some way pandering to the terrorists. Do please grow up. The terrorists in question are increasingly sophisticated and would, I am sure, laugh at the idea that they get all their information from pilot websites. I am sure you will find that they have people on the inside, and know a lot more about airline security that some give them credit for. That is the real danger- under-estimating the enemy.
...and whatever you do, don't mention the war...
The point about ditching is one of perspective. Of course your chances or surviving a ditching on typical polar/North Atlantic routes are close to zero. The point is that if the terrorists get into the flight deck, your chances of survival are zero. Surely not a difficult point to grasp.
Sure, there may be a team of air marshals on board. Do you not think the terrorists will know that, and plan accordingly? They have moved on a long way since the events you describe.
Of course, with a team of air marshals on board, we now have the exciting prospect of a multiple gun battle with goodness knows how many caught in the crossfire. Mind you I can't see the "team" being more than 2.
I too have some access to security material and regarding flight deck doors, I can only assume that the UK standard is higher than the US one. You aren't going to breach a kevlar/alloy/stainless steel door in a big hurry.
Some seem to think that discussing this is in some way pandering to the terrorists. Do please grow up. The terrorists in question are increasingly sophisticated and would, I am sure, laugh at the idea that they get all their information from pilot websites. I am sure you will find that they have people on the inside, and know a lot more about airline security that some give them credit for. That is the real danger- under-estimating the enemy.
...and whatever you do, don't mention the war...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out in the open
Some seem to think that discussing this is in some way pandering to the terrorists. Do please grow up. The terrorists in question are increasingly sophisticated and would, I am sure, laugh at the idea that they get all their information from pilot websites.
I wouldn't suggest they get all their info from websites, but why make things easier! and historically they have done this on many occasions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you will find that they have people on the inside, and know a lot more about airline security that some give them credit for.
You are quite right, you could even argue why bother with any security, if they are on the inside, they could get anything and anyone into place, but why make things easier!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the real danger- under-estimating the enemy.
Never underestimate the enemy, !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are so liberal minded to want to put everything out in the open, let me know which airline you work for, so that I can avoid it!!
Happy and a safe New Year.
I wouldn't suggest they get all their info from websites, but why make things easier! and historically they have done this on many occasions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you will find that they have people on the inside, and know a lot more about airline security that some give them credit for.
You are quite right, you could even argue why bother with any security, if they are on the inside, they could get anything and anyone into place, but why make things easier!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the real danger- under-estimating the enemy.
Never underestimate the enemy, !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are so liberal minded to want to put everything out in the open, let me know which airline you work for, so that I can avoid it!!
Happy and a safe New Year.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is strange to me that all the people that are worried about the terrorist being able smuggle weapons on board so they can ‘shoot it out’ with the Air marshals would not be smart enough to bring some C-4 explosives on board to blow the cockpit door.
Anybody with just limited training on C-4 can breach a cockpit door no matter what it is made of, steel, Kevlar or whatever.
Until airliners are designed or modified as Wino suggests we need all the protection we can get. That includes Air Marshals.
Anybody with just limited training on C-4 can breach a cockpit door no matter what it is made of, steel, Kevlar or whatever.
Until airliners are designed or modified as Wino suggests we need all the protection we can get. That includes Air Marshals.
As it is New Years eve, and taking Winos' theme of keeping the flight deck seperate and abusing it, I put forward the following idea.
Airbus and Boeing should start developing a very powerful glider tug which has remote control over the glider unit behind. This should be something capable of hauling a 747, A380 sized glider unit aloft and towing it vast distances. In this way the cockpit will remain sanitised and safe.
I thank you......................the wine is beginning to take its toll I fear.
Airbus and Boeing should start developing a very powerful glider tug which has remote control over the glider unit behind. This should be something capable of hauling a 747, A380 sized glider unit aloft and towing it vast distances. In this way the cockpit will remain sanitised and safe.
I thank you......................the wine is beginning to take its toll I fear.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con-pilot,
Sure, they could use c-4, but one negative G push over and they hit the ceiling. There would be some communication from the back or from somewhere, and it probably would not happen.
419,
They understand diversions, and know how to handle all of those types of situations. They are trained professionals, and have been through all of the scenarios.
Sure, they could use c-4, but one negative G push over and they hit the ceiling. There would be some communication from the back or from somewhere, and it probably would not happen.
419,
They understand diversions, and know how to handle all of those types of situations. They are trained professionals, and have been through all of the scenarios.
MOR
You make my point for me. No secret that if I ditch it in the North Atlantic that everyone is dead. I also know I have a moral obligation to not allow that aircraft to be turned into a weapon. I reluctantly will play God and splash it or lawn dart it and kill the few hundred on board rather than letting it possibly kill thousands. It seems we are on the same sheet of music to this point. So if you plan to kill all onboard by splashing it to avoid the terrorists taking control, whats the danger in a last chance prevention by armed marshals? If they fail, the outcome remains the same, if they are successful then perhaps it won't be a worst case scenario.
I don't for obvious reason wan't to go into it, but my knowledge of the limits of the flight deck door apply not only to doors on US aircraft. There have been problems with the auto locking feature on some BA aircraft, one that required a 744 to have to divurt because of smoke in the cockpit.
I think you see this as more an afront to PIC authority than any other reason.
You make my point for me. No secret that if I ditch it in the North Atlantic that everyone is dead. I also know I have a moral obligation to not allow that aircraft to be turned into a weapon. I reluctantly will play God and splash it or lawn dart it and kill the few hundred on board rather than letting it possibly kill thousands. It seems we are on the same sheet of music to this point. So if you plan to kill all onboard by splashing it to avoid the terrorists taking control, whats the danger in a last chance prevention by armed marshals? If they fail, the outcome remains the same, if they are successful then perhaps it won't be a worst case scenario.
I don't for obvious reason wan't to go into it, but my knowledge of the limits of the flight deck door apply not only to doors on US aircraft. There have been problems with the auto locking feature on some BA aircraft, one that required a 744 to have to divurt because of smoke in the cockpit.
I think you see this as more an afront to PIC authority than any other reason.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
It's a matter of options. If you are secure behind your door, you have several. If the terrorists overpower your "team" of sky marshals- a distinct possibility- you have less (as they now have the weapons). In addition, intervention by sky marshals will never be "last chance".
I think it is important that we differentiate between FD doors in general, and specific types. The design specification (which I have seen) will do the job. The problems you describe are mainly down to electrical problems that have no impact on the integrity of the door, particularly if you have a manual locking mechanism (as they all should).
I don't see this as an "afront (sic) to PIC authority" at all. I'm not about to blindly follow the instructions of a sky marshal, said sky marshal isn't going to be in a position to insist in any case as he isn't coming into the flight deck, and as far as I know the sky marshal is at no point in command by law.
pod1
Why make things easier? I'm not suggesting we do. I am merely pointing out that the information available here is of a similar level of help as saying "the sky is blue" (except in the UK), or "guns kill". They already know that. You aren't helping them. They aren't stupid.
I, and others contributing to this thread, know a lot more than we are saying here, because we aren't stupid, either.
This argument isn't about sky marshals in any case. It is about the clash of cultures between the USA, where guns are seen as the answer to everything, and the UK, where that view is challenged. For anybody open-minded enough to look closely at the law enforcement practices on both sides of the pond, there is a wealth of evidence that simply escalating the level of weaponry is not the answer. There are smarter ways.
As I am from neither place, I really have no axe to grind on that level. I have no problems with sky marshals per se, but it is a limited, risky and inefficient response to a problem the USA should have seen coming decades ago.
One thing we agree on, the flight deck should be structurally separate from the cabin. The only thing stopping this happening is economics- another sad commentary on where security priorities really lie.
...whats the danger in a last chance prevention by armed marshals? If they fail, the outcome remains the same, if they are successful then perhaps it won't be a worst case scenario.
I think it is important that we differentiate between FD doors in general, and specific types. The design specification (which I have seen) will do the job. The problems you describe are mainly down to electrical problems that have no impact on the integrity of the door, particularly if you have a manual locking mechanism (as they all should).
I don't see this as an "afront (sic) to PIC authority" at all. I'm not about to blindly follow the instructions of a sky marshal, said sky marshal isn't going to be in a position to insist in any case as he isn't coming into the flight deck, and as far as I know the sky marshal is at no point in command by law.
pod1
Why make things easier? I'm not suggesting we do. I am merely pointing out that the information available here is of a similar level of help as saying "the sky is blue" (except in the UK), or "guns kill". They already know that. You aren't helping them. They aren't stupid.
I, and others contributing to this thread, know a lot more than we are saying here, because we aren't stupid, either.
This argument isn't about sky marshals in any case. It is about the clash of cultures between the USA, where guns are seen as the answer to everything, and the UK, where that view is challenged. For anybody open-minded enough to look closely at the law enforcement practices on both sides of the pond, there is a wealth of evidence that simply escalating the level of weaponry is not the answer. There are smarter ways.
As I am from neither place, I really have no axe to grind on that level. I have no problems with sky marshals per se, but it is a limited, risky and inefficient response to a problem the USA should have seen coming decades ago.
One thing we agree on, the flight deck should be structurally separate from the cabin. The only thing stopping this happening is economics- another sad commentary on where security priorities really lie.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.D.
I didn't mean that the marshals would get taken in by diversionary tatics. I just wondered what their role in the air actually covered.
I've been on a couple of flights where air marshals (not necessarily armed) would have come in very handy. I sure that some of the drunken yobs who sometime abuse the cabin staff would think twice if there were a couple of well trained "enforcers" on board. Most of the air crew I've met have been very friendly and helpful, but when it comes to dealing with 6 foot drunkards, they are sometimes out of their depth.
419
I didn't mean that the marshals would get taken in by diversionary tatics. I just wondered what their role in the air actually covered.
I've been on a couple of flights where air marshals (not necessarily armed) would have come in very handy. I sure that some of the drunken yobs who sometime abuse the cabin staff would think twice if there were a couple of well trained "enforcers" on board. Most of the air crew I've met have been very friendly and helpful, but when it comes to dealing with 6 foot drunkards, they are sometimes out of their depth.
419
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mor,
We have kevlar doors of extremely heavy weight with 6 deadbolt latches all the way around the perimeter.
They added about 2 minutes to the protection of the cockpit over the old one. If you can prove your identity to my union, we will show you the video tapes of every manufacturers door being breached quickily...
If you are privy to airline security briefings you will know some of the modifications to clothes that are also available that turn them into EXCELLENT ways of breaching the cockpit that will not be detected by any of the metal detectors that you have to pass through. The only solution to that problem would be mandatory swabbing of all people, or explosive sniffing, and it can't be done on a large scale.
Cheers
WIno
We have kevlar doors of extremely heavy weight with 6 deadbolt latches all the way around the perimeter.
They added about 2 minutes to the protection of the cockpit over the old one. If you can prove your identity to my union, we will show you the video tapes of every manufacturers door being breached quickily...
If you are privy to airline security briefings you will know some of the modifications to clothes that are also available that turn them into EXCELLENT ways of breaching the cockpit that will not be detected by any of the metal detectors that you have to pass through. The only solution to that problem would be mandatory swabbing of all people, or explosive sniffing, and it can't be done on a large scale.
Cheers
WIno
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is your union? What ID would you like?
You are, it seems to me, assuming an unhindered attack on the door. Not going to happen, unless you have some other weapon with which to subdue pax and cabin crew. I doubt most would-be defenders would be deterred by anything other than a gun or (metal) knife. What you are hinting at takes time.
Whatever the merits of the door as a defence, you have still not made a reasonable case for the sky marshal being an effective deterrent (for reasons already stated by others), or an effective defence when almost certainly outnumbered and out-manouvered.
You also haven't addressed the most important point, which is the efficacy of the whole US approach to security. But then I don't suppose you really can.
As we both agree, this problem will never be solved until the flight deck is structurally separated from the cabin.
You are, it seems to me, assuming an unhindered attack on the door. Not going to happen, unless you have some other weapon with which to subdue pax and cabin crew. I doubt most would-be defenders would be deterred by anything other than a gun or (metal) knife. What you are hinting at takes time.
Whatever the merits of the door as a defence, you have still not made a reasonable case for the sky marshal being an effective deterrent (for reasons already stated by others), or an effective defence when almost certainly outnumbered and out-manouvered.
You also haven't addressed the most important point, which is the efficacy of the whole US approach to security. But then I don't suppose you really can.
As we both agree, this problem will never be solved until the flight deck is structurally separated from the cabin.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Mor
I totally agree that the cabin should be independent from the pax, but until it happens, then surely a marshal must be a deterent.
However, I still feel that it is not right or appropriate to discuss tactics in open forum, if it prevents one nutter from an attempted hijack it would be worth it.
However, I still feel that it is not right or appropriate to discuss tactics in open forum, if it prevents one nutter from an attempted hijack it would be worth it.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Wino puts it, air marshals are a band-aid, nothing more.
It isn't the one nutter you have to worry about- it is the organised terrorists. The situation where a "team" of air marshals engage a half-dozen or more terrorists is the scenario we should all fear. Of course the bad guys have an extremely high chance of meeting no opposition... somebody explain the point of air marshals again...
It isn't the one nutter you have to worry about- it is the organised terrorists. The situation where a "team" of air marshals engage a half-dozen or more terrorists is the scenario we should all fear. Of course the bad guys have an extremely high chance of meeting no opposition... somebody explain the point of air marshals again...
MOR
Nope, it didn't have any effect on the integrity of the door...they simply couldn't lock it. It remained unlocked for the remainder of the flight.
I don't have to worry about the nutter hijackers, only the serious ones? Relieved to say the least.
I have seen much of what Wino is talking about. If there are any band-aids here, the door is it. It gives great assurance to my 76 yr old mom that her youngest is behind a bullet proof door. I imagine it does the same for pax flying behind it. It does little for my piece of mind. The marshal/gun thing aside, I am curious how we can be so polar on opinion about the door. The evidence shown to me indicates fatal flaws and at best it gives me a small amount of time to get on the PA, get the ax and consider dumping the cabin and giving them a really bad headache (damn dump limits) I wonder what info your union is providing you with, or even worse I hope its not the builder of the door providing you with your tech info.
I also fear a scenario where marshals engage in a fire fight with the terrorists. I also believe as do you any future hijacking with any chance of success will be well organized. In your scenario the baddies go directly to a door that I know can be breached rapidly while others keep the pax at bay. Its a given to me that the scared pax will eventually charge the baddies, so I imagine they have pondered that also and have figured a counter measure. They only need to hold them off for a short period before they breach the door and an impromptu crew change occurs. Actually I hope any of us would as a last act pull the levers into cutoff and point it straight down before the knife crosses their throat. Your logic shows that you are putting all faith into a door that I have seen breeched. I hope we never find out who is right.
A post thought. I wonder how many pax also feel the door is inpenetrable? I wonder if a well intentioned crew thinking of the passengers would not get on the PA and ask for help, because the door of course cannot be breached. I wonder how many would be heroes decide not to risk life and limb trying to stop those silly terrorists trying to breech what can't be breached. I say that tongue in cheek for the most part. However the government did a good job of publcizing the armored door to calm a jittery flying public. Many think its a panacea.
Nope, it didn't have any effect on the integrity of the door...they simply couldn't lock it. It remained unlocked for the remainder of the flight.
I don't have to worry about the nutter hijackers, only the serious ones? Relieved to say the least.
I have seen much of what Wino is talking about. If there are any band-aids here, the door is it. It gives great assurance to my 76 yr old mom that her youngest is behind a bullet proof door. I imagine it does the same for pax flying behind it. It does little for my piece of mind. The marshal/gun thing aside, I am curious how we can be so polar on opinion about the door. The evidence shown to me indicates fatal flaws and at best it gives me a small amount of time to get on the PA, get the ax and consider dumping the cabin and giving them a really bad headache (damn dump limits) I wonder what info your union is providing you with, or even worse I hope its not the builder of the door providing you with your tech info.
I also fear a scenario where marshals engage in a fire fight with the terrorists. I also believe as do you any future hijacking with any chance of success will be well organized. In your scenario the baddies go directly to a door that I know can be breached rapidly while others keep the pax at bay. Its a given to me that the scared pax will eventually charge the baddies, so I imagine they have pondered that also and have figured a counter measure. They only need to hold them off for a short period before they breach the door and an impromptu crew change occurs. Actually I hope any of us would as a last act pull the levers into cutoff and point it straight down before the knife crosses their throat. Your logic shows that you are putting all faith into a door that I have seen breeched. I hope we never find out who is right.
A post thought. I wonder how many pax also feel the door is inpenetrable? I wonder if a well intentioned crew thinking of the passengers would not get on the PA and ask for help, because the door of course cannot be breached. I wonder how many would be heroes decide not to risk life and limb trying to stop those silly terrorists trying to breech what can't be breached. I say that tongue in cheek for the most part. However the government did a good job of publcizing the armored door to calm a jittery flying public. Many think its a panacea.
Last edited by West Coast; 1st Jan 2004 at 14:52.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot be the first person to think this...
One of the main reasons that we have to have such a high level of security in UK aviation is because we are such staunch friends of the USA. Perhaps we should choose our friends more wisely in the future.
All this extra security, as per the directive from the US authorities, will cost Virgin, BMI and BA a lot of money. I bet the extra costs for the US carriers will be borne by their government though!
One of the main reasons that we have to have such a high level of security in UK aviation is because we are such staunch friends of the USA. Perhaps we should choose our friends more wisely in the future.
All this extra security, as per the directive from the US authorities, will cost Virgin, BMI and BA a lot of money. I bet the extra costs for the US carriers will be borne by their government though!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummmm,
You bet wrong.
Though the skymarshals may be government employees, the costs of carrying them are staggering as we are not remeimbursed ticket expenses for the, and with Yeild management programs that airlines use to maximize revenue, the last few seats on an aircraft are by far the most valuble. And since they don't know when the skymarshals will be there they don't know when they can sell them and when they can't...
As police officers the skymarshals will be government employees not employees of virgin or BA. Infact, the skymarshals may allow those two companies to slighty lower whatever corporate security they might have....
But, yeah, I BET that is why security is so high for you. Wonder what your life in NI would have been like had we been your ENEMIES....
Unfortunately, 4 hours into the new years I am off on a trip (junior manned
) so I didn't have time to finish my research to something that was mentioned here or the other thread on airline security. The big nuclear TUG thing has actually been thought about. There as a model of a nuclear tug pulling 2 C-5s was hoping to find the pic.
No time.
Happy new years all...
Cheers
Wino
Cheers
Wino
You bet wrong.
Though the skymarshals may be government employees, the costs of carrying them are staggering as we are not remeimbursed ticket expenses for the, and with Yeild management programs that airlines use to maximize revenue, the last few seats on an aircraft are by far the most valuble. And since they don't know when the skymarshals will be there they don't know when they can sell them and when they can't...
As police officers the skymarshals will be government employees not employees of virgin or BA. Infact, the skymarshals may allow those two companies to slighty lower whatever corporate security they might have....
But, yeah, I BET that is why security is so high for you. Wonder what your life in NI would have been like had we been your ENEMIES....
Unfortunately, 4 hours into the new years I am off on a trip (junior manned
) so I didn't have time to finish my research to something that was mentioned here or the other thread on airline security. The big nuclear TUG thing has actually been thought about. There as a model of a nuclear tug pulling 2 C-5s was hoping to find the pic.No time.
Happy new years all...
Cheers
Wino
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many people have pointed out, if we wish to fly to the USA we have to abide by there regulations, however as was stated very early on carrying a person with a gun and amunition onboard the aircraft is in contrevention of article 59 of the ANO (as far as I'm aware there is no dispensation to this as yet) therefore as the Captain am I not breaking the law and therefor opening myself up to prosecution should some disgruntled pax decide he is not happy with someone carrying a gun on board.(Does any know if there is legislation in the pipiline to amend the ANO)
Secondly, I'm responsible at all times for the wellfare of the pax. Should a hijack take place and a pax is inadvertently injured/killed by the sky marshel who will be held responsible for the death.
How does this work in the USA
Secondly, I'm responsible at all times for the wellfare of the pax. Should a hijack take place and a pax is inadvertently injured/killed by the sky marshel who will be held responsible for the death.
How does this work in the USA
however as was stated very early on carrying a person with a gun and amunition onboard the aircraft is in contrevention of article 59 of the ANO (as far as I'm aware there is no dispensation to this as yet)