Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Unfortunately we often see kneejerk reactions from our politicians, both US and EU, who must be seen to do something by powerful news companies. Any important decision requires discussion and councelling BEFORE you blow the mofos away and glass their grass (irony warning - that means the last bit is not intended to be taken seriously!)
I'm not yet convinced that aircrew armed guards (please lets stop calling them skymarshals) are the answer. I'm no security expert yet I can think of one or two ways of circumventing them. I am however open to reasoned argument and if it is decided that we need them then that's the plan.
If the US requires armed guards on aircraft operating in US sovereign airspace then compliance will be a prerequisite of obtaining a clearance. I just hope that all countries required to comply will carefully select and train their guards. I regret that this will almost certainly not be the case.
Never forget that this is all due to a political situation in which we've become embroiled but discussion of that aspect is not permitted on this website.
As I've said before, I hope that there's a lot going on in the background that we don't know about and that those of us who know about commercial aircraft procedures are careful about what we post in public. Don't forget that a lot of PPRuNers are not commercial flightcrew despite efforts by some to appear so.
Finally, as Danny has said in so many words already, some of the trans-Atlantic rhetoric (in both directions) sounds like cowboys talking in the old films and we aren't cowboys, are we?
Seat 32F,
You'd probably be as surprised as I at some of the places we can operate to without an insurance surcharge.
I'm not yet convinced that aircrew armed guards (please lets stop calling them skymarshals) are the answer. I'm no security expert yet I can think of one or two ways of circumventing them. I am however open to reasoned argument and if it is decided that we need them then that's the plan.
If the US requires armed guards on aircraft operating in US sovereign airspace then compliance will be a prerequisite of obtaining a clearance. I just hope that all countries required to comply will carefully select and train their guards. I regret that this will almost certainly not be the case.
Never forget that this is all due to a political situation in which we've become embroiled but discussion of that aspect is not permitted on this website.
As I've said before, I hope that there's a lot going on in the background that we don't know about and that those of us who know about commercial aircraft procedures are careful about what we post in public. Don't forget that a lot of PPRuNers are not commercial flightcrew despite efforts by some to appear so.
Finally, as Danny has said in so many words already, some of the trans-Atlantic rhetoric (in both directions) sounds like cowboys talking in the old films and we aren't cowboys, are we?
Seat 32F,
You'd probably be as surprised as I at some of the places we can operate to without an insurance surcharge.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No gunslingers on our planes
Airline rejects guns on flights
06.01.2004 [08:52]
Britain's biggest holiday flight operator, Thomas Cook Airlines, has become the first carrier to display open dissent to the government's new security requirements by refusing to carry sky marshals on flights to the US.
The company, which operates 40 flights a week through US airspace, broke ranks over measures viewed as draconian by many airlines and pilots.
Thomas Cook said if it were asked to carry armed marshals on any aircraft it would cancel the flight. It operates regular charter flights from Britain to Miami and Orlando in Florida, as well as services to Mexican and Caribbean resorts which fly over US territory.
A spokesman for the German-owned airline, formerly known as JMC, criticised the government for "rushing in" requirements "without proper consultation".
"Our view is that the skipper of an aircraft must be in overall command," he said. "We have a general concern about guns in aircraft cabins."
The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) will today meet the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, to argue vig orously against air marshals. It is worried about accidental injuries to passengers, for which it believes pilots could be held legally responsible.
Other airlines have privately taken the same position as Thomas Cook, although few are prepared to speak out.
British Airways is believed to be sceptical. At a meeting with pilots' representatives yesterday, the national carrier said it would not operate flights where there was any cause for concern over security. Insiders said this effectively ruled out the use of marshals.
Jim McAuslan, general secretary of Balpa, said talks with BA were continuing on how to react if the government insisted on deploying marshals randomly.
BA's twice cancelled afternoon service to Washington, flight 223, suffered another delay yesterday. More than 200 passengers had to wait three hours at Heathrow while US authorities examined the passenger list before clearing it for takeoff.
Mr Darling said suggestions that the service had been disrupted because BA was resisting marshals were "rubbish". Decisions to ground aircraft were taken when the government concluded it was the only safe thing to do, he said.
The Guardian Tuesday January 6, 2004
06.01.2004 [08:52]
Britain's biggest holiday flight operator, Thomas Cook Airlines, has become the first carrier to display open dissent to the government's new security requirements by refusing to carry sky marshals on flights to the US.
The company, which operates 40 flights a week through US airspace, broke ranks over measures viewed as draconian by many airlines and pilots.
Thomas Cook said if it were asked to carry armed marshals on any aircraft it would cancel the flight. It operates regular charter flights from Britain to Miami and Orlando in Florida, as well as services to Mexican and Caribbean resorts which fly over US territory.
A spokesman for the German-owned airline, formerly known as JMC, criticised the government for "rushing in" requirements "without proper consultation".
"Our view is that the skipper of an aircraft must be in overall command," he said. "We have a general concern about guns in aircraft cabins."
The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) will today meet the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, to argue vig orously against air marshals. It is worried about accidental injuries to passengers, for which it believes pilots could be held legally responsible.
Other airlines have privately taken the same position as Thomas Cook, although few are prepared to speak out.
British Airways is believed to be sceptical. At a meeting with pilots' representatives yesterday, the national carrier said it would not operate flights where there was any cause for concern over security. Insiders said this effectively ruled out the use of marshals.
Jim McAuslan, general secretary of Balpa, said talks with BA were continuing on how to react if the government insisted on deploying marshals randomly.
BA's twice cancelled afternoon service to Washington, flight 223, suffered another delay yesterday. More than 200 passengers had to wait three hours at Heathrow while US authorities examined the passenger list before clearing it for takeoff.
Mr Darling said suggestions that the service had been disrupted because BA was resisting marshals were "rubbish". Decisions to ground aircraft were taken when the government concluded it was the only safe thing to do, he said.
The Guardian Tuesday January 6, 2004
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone though to ask the travelling public what their opinion is, also the cabin crew? Where I am the first to respect the authority of the Commander of a flight in normal operation, once the cabin is siezed and he is locked behind his bullet proof cockpit door there is little the Captain can do control whats happening behind him, save dumping cabin pressure or throwing the aircraft around a bit and getting it on the ground, that I'd argue is enough to be getting on with in the situation, why resist additional help down the back? Yes, there are caveats on the training of the sky marshalls and the type of weapons employed etc. all I agree should be co-ordinated with airlines and their procedures established, that naturally offers a sensible approach.
The Sky Marshalls proposal is a last line of defence and offers a better bet than being without them. The risks of firearms in the cabin argument doesn't hold water, security people have been flying around with guns on board since flying began. Given the world we are living today, and the events we have witnessed over the past few years- thinking has to change- 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys. Every obstacle presented to a would be hijacker is the potential for failure, I as a travelling member of the public certainly support covert sky marshalling and Thomas Cook Airlines is one that I will avoid.
The Sky Marshalls proposal is a last line of defence and offers a better bet than being without them. The risks of firearms in the cabin argument doesn't hold water, security people have been flying around with guns on board since flying began. Given the world we are living today, and the events we have witnessed over the past few years- thinking has to change- 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys. Every obstacle presented to a would be hijacker is the potential for failure, I as a travelling member of the public certainly support covert sky marshalling and Thomas Cook Airlines is one that I will avoid.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that bold a move because Thomas cook is a charter operator. Big deal, flights are always sold out (so not a big risk, its the low load flights that were targeted before) and as a charter airline you aren't selling direct tickets on the flight exactly but with in an interim buffer (you really don't know who you are flying when you book a package tour). Makes them extremely unuseable by a terrorist and they had virtually no chance of having a skymarshal on theplane in the first place because there would be no threat...
Lots of bluster there, but no risk because there will be no threats so no canceled flights. Or even better, since they subservice (wetlease) all the time, if they get a threat, flight still goes, just operated by another charter operator with skymarshal onboard. The only part that gets canceled is the TCA crew and plane. Pax will never know...
For BA, it will be a different can of worms and the question will be do they want to live with the canceled flights. There scope clause won't allow subservice so the only choice would be to cancel. That seams to be the compromise. Governments that have opted out, have agreed to cancel flights if there is a perceived threat against them.
It gets down to whether you think canceling the flight is the answer. Interestingly when the decision was made to cancel the flights, suposedly the "Wife and Children" test was used. (Would you put your wife and children on these flights) If that is the criteria they really used to cancel the flights, I guess I can't fault them. As a check airman that is the criteria I would use when signing a guy off...
Cheers
Wino
Lots of bluster there, but no risk because there will be no threats so no canceled flights. Or even better, since they subservice (wetlease) all the time, if they get a threat, flight still goes, just operated by another charter operator with skymarshal onboard. The only part that gets canceled is the TCA crew and plane. Pax will never know...
For BA, it will be a different can of worms and the question will be do they want to live with the canceled flights. There scope clause won't allow subservice so the only choice would be to cancel. That seams to be the compromise. Governments that have opted out, have agreed to cancel flights if there is a perceived threat against them.
It gets down to whether you think canceling the flight is the answer. Interestingly when the decision was made to cancel the flights, suposedly the "Wife and Children" test was used. (Would you put your wife and children on these flights) If that is the criteria they really used to cancel the flights, I guess I can't fault them. As a check airman that is the criteria I would use when signing a guy off...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona,USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh Danny, you jumped on my 'Israeli' comment pretty quickly...!
You make a good point about the 'whole' picture regarding the intelligence aspects as well as the sky marshals, but I do detect a bit of 'NIVH' here syndrome when I hear Brits drone on about the 'obsessive US gun culture' and our 'bullying' demand to put onboard sky marshals...etc. Before you accuse me of being just another paranoid 'yank', I was born and raised in the UK for my first 20 years before immigrating to the US. It never ceases to amaze me how ill-informed other nationalities are about the USA and its people. The stereotypical branding and xenephobic outlook against the US is a constant source of amazement to me. Before anyone criticises the 'US gun culture', perhaps you could refer to the Economist magazines supplement on Crime, published about 3 years ago. It showed statistically that , EXCLUDING INNER CITY CRIME (...isolated areas where certain ethnic groups congregate) crime levels were LESS in the USA than EVERY other western nation. Yes, I am sure many of you will immediately be deeply offended at this....but perhaps you could review the Economist article first before slagging off this information. New York now has a lower crime rate than London, Paris and any other major city you wish to name. Perhaps it is time to wake up to the fact that the insular culture of the UK to guns is no longer sustainable.
Sky marshals are HIGHLY trained, and in the event of a major terrorist attempt to commandeer an aircraft will be your greatest asset. If I was commanding an aircraft and an attempt was being made to breach the cockpit door, the knowledge that a sky marshal was concealed in the passenger cabin would be of GREAT comfort. Time to accept that the Americans are setting the new standard of security....at least on any aircraft flying over MY head.
You make a good point about the 'whole' picture regarding the intelligence aspects as well as the sky marshals, but I do detect a bit of 'NIVH' here syndrome when I hear Brits drone on about the 'obsessive US gun culture' and our 'bullying' demand to put onboard sky marshals...etc. Before you accuse me of being just another paranoid 'yank', I was born and raised in the UK for my first 20 years before immigrating to the US. It never ceases to amaze me how ill-informed other nationalities are about the USA and its people. The stereotypical branding and xenephobic outlook against the US is a constant source of amazement to me. Before anyone criticises the 'US gun culture', perhaps you could refer to the Economist magazines supplement on Crime, published about 3 years ago. It showed statistically that , EXCLUDING INNER CITY CRIME (...isolated areas where certain ethnic groups congregate) crime levels were LESS in the USA than EVERY other western nation. Yes, I am sure many of you will immediately be deeply offended at this....but perhaps you could review the Economist article first before slagging off this information. New York now has a lower crime rate than London, Paris and any other major city you wish to name. Perhaps it is time to wake up to the fact that the insular culture of the UK to guns is no longer sustainable.
Sky marshals are HIGHLY trained, and in the event of a major terrorist attempt to commandeer an aircraft will be your greatest asset. If I was commanding an aircraft and an attempt was being made to breach the cockpit door, the knowledge that a sky marshal was concealed in the passenger cabin would be of GREAT comfort. Time to accept that the Americans are setting the new standard of security....at least on any aircraft flying over MY head.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Ayrshire, UK
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Charlie
" 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys"
I'm a Captain and a BALPA member. I support BALPA in it's attempt to establish the correct protocol. We have had too many rushed and ill considered proposals pushed through by Govt departments which have done little to improve security. Take my swiss army knife from me at security but allow me access to a fire axe in the cockpit?
BALPA accept the inevitability of armed guards but are trying to make sure it is done properly. The principle of who is in command will no doubt be tested in a court in the future when an innocent passenger is injured and the Commander held responsible. I'm sure most UK armed guards would like the protocols agreed as well. We can't have their thoughts made public. There are no greater supporters of safety and common sense than Pilots.
Airlines like Thos Cook may also be under pressure from their insurers. Nothing is simple, but don't make ill informed criticism of my union please.
Peter McCambridge
" 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys"
I'm a Captain and a BALPA member. I support BALPA in it's attempt to establish the correct protocol. We have had too many rushed and ill considered proposals pushed through by Govt departments which have done little to improve security. Take my swiss army knife from me at security but allow me access to a fire axe in the cockpit?
BALPA accept the inevitability of armed guards but are trying to make sure it is done properly. The principle of who is in command will no doubt be tested in a court in the future when an innocent passenger is injured and the Commander held responsible. I'm sure most UK armed guards would like the protocols agreed as well. We can't have their thoughts made public. There are no greater supporters of safety and common sense than Pilots.
Airlines like Thos Cook may also be under pressure from their insurers. Nothing is simple, but don't make ill informed criticism of my union please.
Peter McCambridge
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and Bruce Willis like, the sky marshall springs from his economy seat and simultaneously manages to 'neutralise' all of a determined team or terrorists single handedly? At least that's how it works in the movies ... but in reality, would a single guard be enough on say a 747? Can't really visualise it myself ...
Personally I subscribe to the 'don't let the blighters get on the flight' school of thought. Having managed to walk through the security screens unchallenged at LHR with my mobile phone in my shirt pocket, and upon pointing this out to the security personnel there that said 'yeah that happens sometimes', it seems obvious that the thing to do before taking this crazy step is to beef up the existing arrangements so that they are at least adequate.
Personally I subscribe to the 'don't let the blighters get on the flight' school of thought. Having managed to walk through the security screens unchallenged at LHR with my mobile phone in my shirt pocket, and upon pointing this out to the security personnel there that said 'yeah that happens sometimes', it seems obvious that the thing to do before taking this crazy step is to beef up the existing arrangements so that they are at least adequate.
Moderator
Personally I subscribe to the 'don't let the blighters get on the flight' school of thought.
This is a great idea, but, as with everything else in aviation, is better with several backups.
What need is there on an aircraft for auxiliary hydraulic systems, when the engineers could just design them not to fail in the first place?
Prevent engine fires by designing an engine that can't catch fire.
Prevent engine failures by designing engines that don't fail.
While stricter ground security is absolutely necessary, it cannot be relied on to keep the bad guys off passenger aircraft.
The maginot line worked great for our French brothers, didn't it?!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a great idea, but, as with everything else in aviation, is better with several backups
Moderator
The Sky Marshalls proposal is a last line of defence and offers a better bet than being without them.
On another point, does the use of sky marshals now mean that pilots in the US (and UK) will now be allowed to start taking their nail clippers and Swiss Army knifes again or is that piece of stupidity still in force?
Moderator
Yep, so perhaps secondary security screening at the gate just before boarding would be an idea?
Layers are the best defense.
Sky marshalls, better doors and armed pilots are the layers between the ground security and the final layer.....the future new hire in the F-Teen!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba
What happened "a few years ago" is irrelevant. I managed to walk around a secure area (by mistake, as it happens) at a major US airport without ID, uniform or a hi-viz jacket. Never challenged by the dozen or so people I walked past.
In order to reach US standards of security, we would need to:
Find security chiefs willing to turn up to work drunk
Employ vast numbers of illegal aliens with no valid papers
Should I go on? Probably not...
Yes, it would take a bit to raise our standards that high...
412A
No, it wasn't, but we did lose a sizeable chunk of a Scottish town when a US jumbo fell on it after a terrorist attack... oh, but that doesn't count, does it... didn't happen in America.
We did... many years ago. We are very pleased that you are finally catching up.
Edited to remove irrelevant comments destined to derail the thread.
I walked onto the ramp at Heathrow without showing an ID a few years ago. Since Lockerbie things have improved but raising security to American standards is still a very novel concept as you can see from other threads here.
In order to reach US standards of security, we would need to:
Find security chiefs willing to turn up to work drunk
Employ vast numbers of illegal aliens with no valid papers
Should I go on? Probably not...
Yes, it would take a bit to raise our standards that high...
412A
it wasn't Westminster Abbey/St Pauls cathedral that was destroyed by a terrorist group bent on murdering as many citizens of the 'west' that they can.
I suggest that the people who live in other western nations start to wake up to the grave threat we face
Edited to remove irrelevant comments destined to derail the thread.
Last edited by Danny; 7th Jan 2004 at 01:20.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McC/Peter
Sorry, but I am indeed critical of your unions public approach and I am informed on the matter. If BALPA by their openly resistive public stance on the matter is seeking some kind of public support I'd be interested to know who they think its coming from.
From the onset its been one of resistance to what is, in my mind, a very sensible reaction to todays threats. And I would say Peter, that as to BALPA accepting the inevitability of sky marsalling, that was not the impression conveyed. However just watching the news this evening I am happy to see that a somewhat more cooperative approach by BALPA is being taken. I agree about nail clippers and the likes, however we're not discussing that. It has been the confrontational nature taken in public by professionals, for who I might add I have the greatest of respect , that has surprised me. I would have expected a quiet and considered reaction to something that affects not only the pilots but the travelling public as well. The response such as I witnessed on the telly and radio in this past week did nothing for BALPA 's members image , IMHO. I regret we differ in our views on the matter.
Further, why is reported that Virgin have a deal and BA don't? Why should there be any difference. (and that is a honest request for info)
Sorry, but I am indeed critical of your unions public approach and I am informed on the matter. If BALPA by their openly resistive public stance on the matter is seeking some kind of public support I'd be interested to know who they think its coming from.
From the onset its been one of resistance to what is, in my mind, a very sensible reaction to todays threats. And I would say Peter, that as to BALPA accepting the inevitability of sky marsalling, that was not the impression conveyed. However just watching the news this evening I am happy to see that a somewhat more cooperative approach by BALPA is being taken. I agree about nail clippers and the likes, however we're not discussing that. It has been the confrontational nature taken in public by professionals, for who I might add I have the greatest of respect , that has surprised me. I would have expected a quiet and considered reaction to something that affects not only the pilots but the travelling public as well. The response such as I witnessed on the telly and radio in this past week did nothing for BALPA 's members image , IMHO. I regret we differ in our views on the matter.
Further, why is reported that Virgin have a deal and BA don't? Why should there be any difference. (and that is a honest request for info)
Last edited by alpha charlie; 7th Jan 2004 at 01:31.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe things are changing??
From the New York Times:
A pilots' union says it reluctantly accepts the use of armed sky marshals on British flights, but it wants assurances from the government about dealing with the ``unknown risks'' of the policy. Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the pilot's union BALPA, speaking Tuesday before a meeting with Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said it was crucial that pilots remain in command of the plane at all times and know the identity of sky marshals and where they are sitting. ``We still have a fundamental problem about having ballistics in a pressurized cabin,'' McAuslan told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. ``But given that that's going to happen then we have to look at ... the consequences of that and how do pilots and professionals minimize the risks involved.''
From the New York Times:
A pilots' union says it reluctantly accepts the use of armed sky marshals on British flights, but it wants assurances from the government about dealing with the ``unknown risks'' of the policy. Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the pilot's union BALPA, speaking Tuesday before a meeting with Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said it was crucial that pilots remain in command of the plane at all times and know the identity of sky marshals and where they are sitting. ``We still have a fundamental problem about having ballistics in a pressurized cabin,'' McAuslan told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. ``But given that that's going to happen then we have to look at ... the consequences of that and how do pilots and professionals minimize the risks involved.''
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Charlie, does your job description include an obligation to knowingly put yourself and those under your care in harms way? Unless you are member of a security service I very much doubt it.
Our union has been asking for a meeting with the minister and the civil servants concerned with the implementation of the armed police crew member scheme announced over a year ago but they were not interested. Considering we are one of the most highly regulated professions that have to abide by the ANO, which is law, not some set of rules arbitrarily agreed on by management, the government are now asking us to bend those laws to suit their 'orders' from the USA.The rules for allowing us to carry armed personnel on a Public Transport aircraft allow the commander to have the final decision.
Now, consider this, does your life and other insurances cover you if you knowingly put yourself in a situation that is believed to be under a specific threat from terrorism? If anything should happen would your family be compensated for the loss should you have knowingly put yourself in harms way?
The way this whole saga has unfolded is a farce and shows the total lack of real understanding of the problems by those who make the ultimate decisions. The government announced to the public - not the pilots or crews - that they were implementing the carriage of armed police on specific flights that were deemed to be under a threat based on what they called intelligence. How would you feel if all of a sudden you were told that your flight has been targetted and they are going to put an armed policeman on for your protection because they feel you need it?
Our union is taking the correct stance. They have been asking for talks ever since the announcement was made over a year ago and the government ignored the request and all of a sudden try to implement their decision without considering all the implications. you only had to listen to Alastair Darling being interviewed this evening on Radio Five Live. The interviewer introduced the talk about a secret european 'safety' blacklist that has been leaked today and Darling was clearly confused between 'safety' and 'security'. It all reeks of ineptitude and sound bite politics designed to fool the travelling public.
Either we expect our ministers to be properly briefed by their underlings or else we complain and make a fuss as we are doing now. At least we are highlighting some of the glaring (to us) inadequacies in the security. The band-aid solution of a few sky marshalls on the odd flight here and there does nothing to make any of us who work in this environment feel any safer. If only the public really knew how pathetic security really is and the terrorists will be exploiting those weaknesses. Never, ever expect the obvious from those suicide terrorists. What have we been given? An obvious placebo which as far as we are concerned is likely to be as bad for us as it may be good.
Our union has been asking for a meeting with the minister and the civil servants concerned with the implementation of the armed police crew member scheme announced over a year ago but they were not interested. Considering we are one of the most highly regulated professions that have to abide by the ANO, which is law, not some set of rules arbitrarily agreed on by management, the government are now asking us to bend those laws to suit their 'orders' from the USA.The rules for allowing us to carry armed personnel on a Public Transport aircraft allow the commander to have the final decision.
Now, consider this, does your life and other insurances cover you if you knowingly put yourself in a situation that is believed to be under a specific threat from terrorism? If anything should happen would your family be compensated for the loss should you have knowingly put yourself in harms way?
The way this whole saga has unfolded is a farce and shows the total lack of real understanding of the problems by those who make the ultimate decisions. The government announced to the public - not the pilots or crews - that they were implementing the carriage of armed police on specific flights that were deemed to be under a threat based on what they called intelligence. How would you feel if all of a sudden you were told that your flight has been targetted and they are going to put an armed policeman on for your protection because they feel you need it?
Our union is taking the correct stance. They have been asking for talks ever since the announcement was made over a year ago and the government ignored the request and all of a sudden try to implement their decision without considering all the implications. you only had to listen to Alastair Darling being interviewed this evening on Radio Five Live. The interviewer introduced the talk about a secret european 'safety' blacklist that has been leaked today and Darling was clearly confused between 'safety' and 'security'. It all reeks of ineptitude and sound bite politics designed to fool the travelling public.
Either we expect our ministers to be properly briefed by their underlings or else we complain and make a fuss as we are doing now. At least we are highlighting some of the glaring (to us) inadequacies in the security. The band-aid solution of a few sky marshalls on the odd flight here and there does nothing to make any of us who work in this environment feel any safer. If only the public really knew how pathetic security really is and the terrorists will be exploiting those weaknesses. Never, ever expect the obvious from those suicide terrorists. What have we been given? An obvious placebo which as far as we are concerned is likely to be as bad for us as it may be good.
Last edited by Danny; 7th Jan 2004 at 02:04.
Moderator
If only the public really knew how pathetic security really is and the terrorists will be exploiting those weaknesses. Never, ever expect the obvious from those suicide terrorists.
Even the best ground security program in the world (El Al) has been breached recently.
What have we been given? An obvious placebo which as far as we are concerned is likely to be as bad for us as it may be good.
I am quite sure that the liability concerns for the PIC will be addressed, and if they aren't, then it's a no brainer. SOS. I do agree that if a specific flight is targeted, then placing the sky marshall and flying the flight is foolish. Better to be safe than sorry and cancel. For the rest of them, having them on random, possible risk flights is prudent and a deterrent.
Then again, would I rather be alive to answer the libility charges or be bleeding out on the galley floor, whilst the aircraft that I was responsible for is heading for some valuable real estate?
Tough issue.......
edit:
Danny,
If it's any comfort, from one Captain to another, I've been dealing with these guys for over 2 years now, on a regular basis, and to a man/woman, they've been nothing but consummate professionals. I am also privy to a quite a bit of their training, and can say without any reservation, that you are far better off with them back there, than not, if the bad guys are on board. I am, of course, assuming that the UK guys will be trained similarly to their US brethren..... just more of my $.02!!!!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No offense, but how are sky marshalls bad for you?
You may have worked with them for two years and you may have been briefed before they were implemented but over here that is not the case. I have also worked with sky marshalls but what I know about that I'm not at liberty to divulge here suffice it to say that without some form of pax profiling they are not an effective deterrent. Because we were told that they would only be deployed on flights which were known to under threat how do you think we feel about it?
Moderator
At the risk of becoming repetitive I'll mention it again... there is nothing wrong with properly trained sky marshals as long as they are part of a 'complete' security package and over here nothing has been made clear to us that that is the case. The government have made an pronouncement without any thought about those of us who have to work with these guys.
I understand and agree that there is more to it than just throwing armed marshalls on planes (in fact, I stated as much in the above post), but, again, how does having them on board hurt you?
You may have worked with them for two years and you may have been briefed before they were implemented but over here that is not the case.
I have also worked with sky marshalls but what I know about that I'm not at liberty to divulge here suffice it to say that without some form of pax profiling they are not an effective deterrent.
Because we were told that they would only be deployed on flights which were known to under threat how do you think we feel about it?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as an ignorant SLF, would it be fairly accurate to assume that on Mr. Boeings Big Jet, the sky marshal will always be placed on the upper deck?
So you then have a situation where the marshal is not one of 350 but one of 20.
And with online check-in, the passengers can choose exactly where they want to sit.......2 on the upper deck to disarm the marshal and die for their cause, 5 on the lower deck to sieze the cockpit once the disarmament is complete.....
And everyone keeps telling me about low-velocity rounds not puncturing aircraft skin. What about a window?
I think it goes back to the argument "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I wouldn't expect anything less from a country where billboards proclaim
"Society is safer when you don't know who's armed."
So you then have a situation where the marshal is not one of 350 but one of 20.
And with online check-in, the passengers can choose exactly where they want to sit.......2 on the upper deck to disarm the marshal and die for their cause, 5 on the lower deck to sieze the cockpit once the disarmament is complete.....
And everyone keeps telling me about low-velocity rounds not puncturing aircraft skin. What about a window?
I think it goes back to the argument "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I wouldn't expect anything less from a country where billboards proclaim
"Society is safer when you don't know who's armed."
Moderator
And with online check-in, the passengers can choose exactly where they want to sit.......2 on the upper deck to disarm the marshal and die for their cause, 5 on the lower deck to sieze the cockpit once the disarmament is complete.....
And everyone keeps telling me about low-velocity rounds not puncturing aircraft skin. What about a window?
I think it goes back to the argument "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
I wouldn't expect anything less from a country where billboards proclaim
"Society is safer when you don't know who's armed."
"Society is safer when you don't know who's armed."
I'll decline comment on what I think about some of the UK's philosophies. I am a big fan of most of the UK's pop stars of the '60's and '70's, and ironically enough, think that you folks make some of the best piston air rifles in the world!