Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bahrain Lad,
Atleast in the USA I have never heard of a skymarshal being deployed solo. They are always part of a team the size of which can vary as does their placement. They don't all need to be within site of the cockpit door. I am sure you can imagine some sort of pager arrangement...
Here is an interesting question for all the naysayers. Properly used Guns have been on airplanes since the beginning of time. The Skymarshals have been in the USA since mid 70s, flight deck crew members were required to be armed on any flight carrying the US mail untill well into the 70s, pilots were permitted to carry guns untill 1987 and they still carry guns in the cockpit of military transports. Many other countries have skymarshals as well and guns in the cockpit.
Can anyone point to ANY problem that has occured as a result of an armed airmarshal or pilot in that whole time? I can point to a couple of saves by them. But if they are such a disaster surely there must have been a problem. Point to one please! Just one! Come on, with all this vitriolic opposition, someone must have found a case where it went wrong by now... IF not then a large body of evidence is just being ignored.
Seams like a British problem to me... (Okay, that last crack was a little gratuitious, but why is it that the brit pilots are having such troubles with their government that are not shared by the rest of the world?)
Okay, so you are conceding that no pilot or skymarshal ran amok with their guns and depressurized an aircraft (many carrying high velocity jacketed rounds), How about a terrorist taking the guns from these people? Comeon, the gauntlet is laid out down for you!
Cheers
Wino
Atleast in the USA I have never heard of a skymarshal being deployed solo. They are always part of a team the size of which can vary as does their placement. They don't all need to be within site of the cockpit door. I am sure you can imagine some sort of pager arrangement...
Here is an interesting question for all the naysayers. Properly used Guns have been on airplanes since the beginning of time. The Skymarshals have been in the USA since mid 70s, flight deck crew members were required to be armed on any flight carrying the US mail untill well into the 70s, pilots were permitted to carry guns untill 1987 and they still carry guns in the cockpit of military transports. Many other countries have skymarshals as well and guns in the cockpit.
Can anyone point to ANY problem that has occured as a result of an armed airmarshal or pilot in that whole time? I can point to a couple of saves by them. But if they are such a disaster surely there must have been a problem. Point to one please! Just one! Come on, with all this vitriolic opposition, someone must have found a case where it went wrong by now... IF not then a large body of evidence is just being ignored.
Seams like a British problem to me... (Okay, that last crack was a little gratuitious, but why is it that the brit pilots are having such troubles with their government that are not shared by the rest of the world?)
Okay, so you are conceding that no pilot or skymarshal ran amok with their guns and depressurized an aircraft (many carrying high velocity jacketed rounds), How about a terrorist taking the guns from these people? Comeon, the gauntlet is laid out down for you!
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that Sky Marshalls present a procedural and logistical nightmare and make them almost pointless.
And in return for this pointlessness, you get a weapon aboard an aircraft.
Absolute b____ks. You seem to be assuming that terrorists on aircraft will result in the automatic loss of the aircraft.
If Richard Reid had been killed by an air marshall but a bullet had punctured the skin of the aircraft he was in in the exchange, some people who are now alive would be in small bits in the Atlantic.
It's a well-known campaign run by the
California Rifle and Pistol Association.
I think I might file this little comment under "Greatest Misunderstandings in the 21st Century". THE POINT IS THAT EVERY PROBLEM IS NOT A NAIL. But we've been here before......
And in return for this pointlessness, you get a weapon aboard an aircraft.
Moot point though, since it make no difference in the big scheme of things, during an attempted air piracy.
If Richard Reid had been killed by an air marshall but a bullet had punctured the skin of the aircraft he was in in the exchange, some people who are now alive would be in small bits in the Atlantic.
I've never seen that billboard.
California Rifle and Pistol Association.
But would you use anything but a hammer to drive a nail? It is the right tool for the job.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Richard Reid had been killed by an air marshall but a bullet had punctured the skin of the aircraft he was in in the exchange, some people who are now alive would be in small bits in the Atlantic.
Umm how do you figure? So you get a small hole in the airplane. No bid deal. Ever use the sink in the lav? Where do you think the water runs out (and how do you think people get away with smoking in the lav's by theway? They take the stopper out of the old sinks, or the leave the water running in the new sinks...)
When people have been sucked out of aircraft because of holes it has been because of structural failures that open great big holes in the sides of the airplanes where the rip stop has failed (a phenomema where fatigue cracks line up)...
You are watching too much hollywood. Everyone thinks it would be like in goldfinger...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: denmark/BLL/KRP
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So as the US uses concerns for their safety (on the ground) to demand that foreign carriers put armed personel on airliners, or the airline is not allowed into US airspace - does that mean that other contries can/will demand that if a carrier carries armed personel into their airspace the plane is denied access with refference to concerns for safety in the air?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know if the US demand was definitely for Sky Marshalls with guns, or just Sky Marshalls?
The reason I ask is that Saturday's Guardian claimed that the French Marshalls don't carry guns.
The reason I ask is that Saturday's Guardian claimed that the French Marshalls don't carry guns.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny
You ask,
'does your job description include an obligation to knowingly put yourself and those under your care in harms way?'
No, and I am sure yours doesn’t either. Of course I am not suggesting that you operate with a known threat on board to be dealt with by your trusty sky marshal and in truth, it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is asking you to do that. Dispensations to protect your position regarding firearms under parts of the ANO/Reg can be organised overnight if the will is there. You speak a lot about the politics of the situation, I’d liked to have heard your union in the first instance reassure the public that our aircrew support the idea of an additional tier of security, and work through the issues as required, something that only now appears to be happening.
The fundamental question as to whether a sky marshal/s, in extremist is going to increase the chances of survival during the type of terrorist threat that exists today is, in my view, yes. Whether you're a professional pilot or not, one doesn't have to stretch the imagination too much to realise, that although we know our Captain up the front is going to do all he can to protect our well being, its down the back that the problem is going to occur in the first instance. The ultimate decision as to what happens in that situation may well not be yours. I'd also like to think the cabin crew might have some support if that happens at 30W.
Aviation security, is not 100% few systems are, so why not have another tier of defence, covert by nature and deployed to act as a further deterrent. All the other issues surrounding the enhancement of security, profiling etc. must be introduced urgently and I say include sky marshals in that. But as part of a strategy, surely sky marshals are valid and I don’t see a case against that holds water.
You ask,
'does your job description include an obligation to knowingly put yourself and those under your care in harms way?'
No, and I am sure yours doesn’t either. Of course I am not suggesting that you operate with a known threat on board to be dealt with by your trusty sky marshal and in truth, it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is asking you to do that. Dispensations to protect your position regarding firearms under parts of the ANO/Reg can be organised overnight if the will is there. You speak a lot about the politics of the situation, I’d liked to have heard your union in the first instance reassure the public that our aircrew support the idea of an additional tier of security, and work through the issues as required, something that only now appears to be happening.
The fundamental question as to whether a sky marshal/s, in extremist is going to increase the chances of survival during the type of terrorist threat that exists today is, in my view, yes. Whether you're a professional pilot or not, one doesn't have to stretch the imagination too much to realise, that although we know our Captain up the front is going to do all he can to protect our well being, its down the back that the problem is going to occur in the first instance. The ultimate decision as to what happens in that situation may well not be yours. I'd also like to think the cabin crew might have some support if that happens at 30W.
Aviation security, is not 100% few systems are, so why not have another tier of defence, covert by nature and deployed to act as a further deterrent. All the other issues surrounding the enhancement of security, profiling etc. must be introduced urgently and I say include sky marshals in that. But as part of a strategy, surely sky marshals are valid and I don’t see a case against that holds water.
Last edited by alpha charlie; 7th Jan 2004 at 05:59.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The bar of the Frog and Peach
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment from your payload
I am fully behind BALPA. I guess their question is: What is the point of these armed aircrew guards? To have a deterrent effect you have to train and fly a great many so that there is a high probability that the terrorist mission will fail. You could get up to the standards of the Israelis as already discussed.
If you can't support that many guards then you've got to use intelligence to decide which flights to cover, which ones are believed to be at risk. This currently leads to the delays and cancellations we have seen. Once the guards are used instead, the passengers and flight crew are effectively being used as bait because the flight has been allowed to proceed.
I will not be flying on an airline that allows itself to be used in this way.
I am fully behind BALPA. I guess their question is: What is the point of these armed aircrew guards? To have a deterrent effect you have to train and fly a great many so that there is a high probability that the terrorist mission will fail. You could get up to the standards of the Israelis as already discussed.
If you can't support that many guards then you've got to use intelligence to decide which flights to cover, which ones are believed to be at risk. This currently leads to the delays and cancellations we have seen. Once the guards are used instead, the passengers and flight crew are effectively being used as bait because the flight has been allowed to proceed.
I will not be flying on an airline that allows itself to be used in this way.
Moderator
Absolute b____ks. You seem to be assuming that terrorists on aircraft will result in the automatic loss of the aircraft.
If Richard Reid had been killed by an air marshall but a bullet had punctured the skin of the aircraft he was in in the exchange, some people who are now alive would be in small bits in the Atlantic.
It's a well-known campaign run by the
California Rifle and Pistol Association.
California Rifle and Pistol Association.
I think I might file this little comment under "Greatest Misunderstandings in the 21st Century". THE POINT IS THAT EVERY PROBLEM IS NOT A NAIL. But we've been here before......
Bahrain Lad
Do a search about outflow valves, or place a question in the tech forums on the prune. That should take care of any concerns about bullet holes ripping the pressure vessel apart ala Hollywood films.
Do a search about outflow valves, or place a question in the tech forums on the prune. That should take care of any concerns about bullet holes ripping the pressure vessel apart ala Hollywood films.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alpha charlie you asked about the difference between BA and Virgin with respect to armed skymarshalls on board. One of the major differences is that Virgin is more heavily dependent on the North Atlantic than BA. As a result, both the company and the BALPA company committee saw the need for the pilots' concerns to be addressed before a contentious issue became a commercial one. Basically, Virgin agreed to a protocol that answers all the points that BALPA is asking for on a national basis. This may have placed the company out on a limb (it presumably had to give guarantees about government liability which may not yet have been fully clarified by the main BALPA negotiators), but it was sufficient to avoid a problem between the company and its workforce. As far as I know, neither the company nor its pilots welcome the deployment of these marshals, but both recognise that their deployment is mandated by our government and is therefore inevitable.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that the deployment of marshals is not necessarily related to any direct threat to any specific flight or destination, and that therefore the presence of marshals does not imply that a particular flight is at any unusual risk. It's also perhaps superfluous to suggest that the numbers deployed an any aircraft will be appropriate to the type and the load.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that the deployment of marshals is not necessarily related to any direct threat to any specific flight or destination, and that therefore the presence of marshals does not imply that a particular flight is at any unusual risk. It's also perhaps superfluous to suggest that the numbers deployed an any aircraft will be appropriate to the type and the load.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One passengers view
Greetings to all!
Many competent points (and some not so impressive, lol) have been made both for and against the introduction of armed security personell(sp?) in aircraft that up until now haven´t had them. I´d just like to throw in my view as a passenger.
I feel that the more layers of "resistance" any group of people that have hostile intentions are confronted with (pre-flight screening, armed security onboard, protected cockpit doors etc) the better. The purpose of onboard security people can´t be to have a 100% coverage (too costly) but to show terrorists that there is a possibility that they may be up against a, for them, large problem. The more "problems" that the terrorists face, the less chance there is that they will pursue a difficult solution to reach their goal. Think about it as if it is you that would try to "make a statement", kill lots of people or whatever their goal might be. Wouldn´t it be easier for the terrorist to try another approach than one that is now being scrutinized? I won´t mention all the other possibilities a terrorist organization have, but I think we can agree that there are many. The sad part is that we can´t stick our heads in the sand and hope that no terrorists will ever again try a repeat of 9/11.
So, in my view the introduction of armed security is one more barrier that lessens the chance of a group of terrorists being in the same plane as myself... The downside? Well, the only real downside that I see is that someone has to pay for this. Is that the taxpayers (assuming that the Marshals are American) or the passengers?
Many competent points (and some not so impressive, lol) have been made both for and against the introduction of armed security personell(sp?) in aircraft that up until now haven´t had them. I´d just like to throw in my view as a passenger.
I feel that the more layers of "resistance" any group of people that have hostile intentions are confronted with (pre-flight screening, armed security onboard, protected cockpit doors etc) the better. The purpose of onboard security people can´t be to have a 100% coverage (too costly) but to show terrorists that there is a possibility that they may be up against a, for them, large problem. The more "problems" that the terrorists face, the less chance there is that they will pursue a difficult solution to reach their goal. Think about it as if it is you that would try to "make a statement", kill lots of people or whatever their goal might be. Wouldn´t it be easier for the terrorist to try another approach than one that is now being scrutinized? I won´t mention all the other possibilities a terrorist organization have, but I think we can agree that there are many. The sad part is that we can´t stick our heads in the sand and hope that no terrorists will ever again try a repeat of 9/11.
So, in my view the introduction of armed security is one more barrier that lessens the chance of a group of terrorists being in the same plane as myself... The downside? Well, the only real downside that I see is that someone has to pay for this. Is that the taxpayers (assuming that the Marshals are American) or the passengers?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on this as a humble passenger is that up until now I have always assumed that a flight that I board is pretty safe on that basis that the pilots are hardly going to knowingly put their own lives and limbs at risk if there is any cause for doubt based on their professional judgement. OK, mistakes might happen from time to time, but it's rare that things go badly wrong on this basis.
Now I am beginning to think that this blind faith is a tad naive, or am I reading all of this wrong? Are you guys saying that even in the knowledge that there is a tangible threat to the security of a specific flight, you would be happy to take to the skies safe in the knowledge that one or more armed "sky marshall" will be able to subdue or eliminate whatever threat that a team of hi-jackers happen to impose?
Even worse, are you contractually required to fly even if you don't feel happy about the situation?
Now I am beginning to think that this blind faith is a tad naive, or am I reading all of this wrong? Are you guys saying that even in the knowledge that there is a tangible threat to the security of a specific flight, you would be happy to take to the skies safe in the knowledge that one or more armed "sky marshall" will be able to subdue or eliminate whatever threat that a team of hi-jackers happen to impose?
Even worse, are you contractually required to fly even if you don't feel happy about the situation?
Moderator
Now I am beginning to think that this blind faith is a tad naive, or am I reading all of this wrong? Are you guys saying that even in the knowledge that there is a tangible threat to the security of a specific flight, you would be happy to take to the skies safe in the knowledge that one or more armed "sky marshall" will be able to subdue or eliminate whatever threat that a team of hi-jackers happen to impose?
Even worse, are you contractually required to fly even if you don't feel happy about the situation?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are contractually and LEGALLY required to cancel or have the situation rectified, if we even think that safety of flight is in jeopordy
Moderator
That is reassuring, but I wonder how this principle reconciles with a security situation that has become so bad that it warrants armed personnel to be present on a flight?
The armed marshalls, imho, are no different (and potentially less dangerous) than the oxygen generators installed on aircraft. Since O2 generators can possibly cause fires, shoud we cancel any flight with them installed, on the remote chance of that happening?
There is always the remote possibility that an engine will catch fire in flight. Does accepting this possibility somehow make the flight less safe, or do we accept the remote risk and train to deal with it?
Marshalls are another backup emergency system, like pax o2, redundant hydraulic/electrical/fuel/air systems etc.
Just how much training have these "sky marshalls" had for the job? What is their background etc? How well have they been screened?
Big difference between (ex) SAS personnel and perhaps, ahem, certain private companies which are used, say, to guard some of our prisoners in the UK.
Could terrorist groups infiltrate the "sky marshall" network?
I am very pleased that BALPA are making representations on behalf of the pilots. My perception is, contrary to Alistair Darling's recent statement, that there has been very little if any consultation with such bodies and I would rather trust pilots to make such decisions based on the facts rather than politicians who have other vested interests at heart!
Big difference between (ex) SAS personnel and perhaps, ahem, certain private companies which are used, say, to guard some of our prisoners in the UK.
Could terrorist groups infiltrate the "sky marshall" network?
I am very pleased that BALPA are making representations on behalf of the pilots. My perception is, contrary to Alistair Darling's recent statement, that there has been very little if any consultation with such bodies and I would rather trust pilots to make such decisions based on the facts rather than politicians who have other vested interests at heart!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern is how are these skymarshalls going to be selected/trained? Hopefully not a farce like PanAm where dogs were taken out of kennels for abandonned canines and placed at the feet of quickly seconded security men just to please the media post-Lockerbie. Although i am not in that particular line of work, i stick with the British crews. Security on the ground is the answer. If the flight is threatened or implicated with a security issue...DONT OPERATE IT!
Putting a loaded gun on an aircraft is absolute madness, and to be dictated to by the US Government that we must is ridiculous. Still, i work for a Company that puts bullet proof doors on there fleet just in case an express package decides to have a go............and still doesnt allow business jumpseaters on the airplane, outside of the cockpit. Say no more...............
Putting a loaded gun on an aircraft is absolute madness, and to be dictated to by the US Government that we must is ridiculous. Still, i work for a Company that puts bullet proof doors on there fleet just in case an express package decides to have a go............and still doesnt allow business jumpseaters on the airplane, outside of the cockpit. Say no more...............
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that since just about any flight can be considered a terrorist target, that we cancel all of them?
In any case it's not the sky marshalls that I'm saying necessarily represent the danger, it's the mere fact that they are required to be present that I would have thought would cause a worry.
As I understand it, not every flight will have them as there won't be nearly enough for this, at least for the foreseeable future (or at least I would hope that the training standards required would be so high that not just anyone who can fire a weapon is qualified) So it's a fair assumption that if they are deployed on your flight, it's because the perceived risk of a terrorist incident is higher than on a non-attended flight.
Put it another way: if, say, you got into your car and were advised by the police that for your drive to work you should have an armed escort, would you just accept that or think long and hard about going? I think I know what I'd do ...
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just how much training have these "sky marshalls" had for the job? What is their background etc? How well have they been screened?
Big difference between (ex) SAS personnel and perhaps, ahem, certain private companies which are used, say, to guard some of our prisoners in the UK."
In the first instance they will be UK police officers, probably the best of the Metropolitan Police SO 19 Dept. They will have been given specialist training.
Given that in Britain the only armed law enforcement people are the police and the military when called to aid the civil power (the police), I find it hard to believe that private organisations will be called upon except as a last resort.
I suspect that if the drain on police manpower is too great then serving military personnel, probably with a special forces background (eg SAS and SBS but there are other military organisations as well) and again specifically trained for the work, may be called in to assist.
There are certain private organisation in the UK that employ former special service personnel for work in the UK and abroad (eg 'body guarding vulnerable private individuals). I suppose these people might be used in the future if the situation called for blanket 'sky marshalling', but I cannot see the UK government being too keen on this. But if their US masters demand all-out coverage on aircraft then the devil might drive.
Big difference between (ex) SAS personnel and perhaps, ahem, certain private companies which are used, say, to guard some of our prisoners in the UK."
In the first instance they will be UK police officers, probably the best of the Metropolitan Police SO 19 Dept. They will have been given specialist training.
Given that in Britain the only armed law enforcement people are the police and the military when called to aid the civil power (the police), I find it hard to believe that private organisations will be called upon except as a last resort.
I suspect that if the drain on police manpower is too great then serving military personnel, probably with a special forces background (eg SAS and SBS but there are other military organisations as well) and again specifically trained for the work, may be called in to assist.
There are certain private organisation in the UK that employ former special service personnel for work in the UK and abroad (eg 'body guarding vulnerable private individuals). I suppose these people might be used in the future if the situation called for blanket 'sky marshalling', but I cannot see the UK government being too keen on this. But if their US masters demand all-out coverage on aircraft then the devil might drive.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Security Statement.
Just received by e-mail;
Dear Customer,
As a British Airways customer we want to keep you fully up-to-date with developments within British Airways regarding the recent security alerts.
Our number one priority is, and will continue to be, the safety and security of our customers. We talk to the Government on a regular basis and we will not operate a flight unless we believe it is safe to do so.
We are not opposed to the deployment of sky marshals when and where appropriate and will accept the presence of an armed police officer onboard our flights if we are satisfied safety would be enhanced to an acceptable level for flights to take place.
To ensure your safety and security we have put in place numerous measures since the tragic attacks on September 11 in the USA and we spend in excess of £100 million a year on our security operation.
Some of the measures include:
- The installation of the very latest strengthened cockpit doors across our fleet.
- The installation of CCTV systems on all of our aircraft so the pilot can see who is outside the cabin door.
- Extra baggage searches
- Extra hand baggage searches and customer searches at the gate
Please be assured that we are working with all the relevant authorities on a continuous basis to ensure the ongoing safety of our customers and our operation.
For latest information on our operations you can always visit http://ba.com
Yours sincerely,
Geoff Want
Director Safety Security and Risk Management
Dear Customer,
As a British Airways customer we want to keep you fully up-to-date with developments within British Airways regarding the recent security alerts.
Our number one priority is, and will continue to be, the safety and security of our customers. We talk to the Government on a regular basis and we will not operate a flight unless we believe it is safe to do so.
We are not opposed to the deployment of sky marshals when and where appropriate and will accept the presence of an armed police officer onboard our flights if we are satisfied safety would be enhanced to an acceptable level for flights to take place.
To ensure your safety and security we have put in place numerous measures since the tragic attacks on September 11 in the USA and we spend in excess of £100 million a year on our security operation.
Some of the measures include:
- The installation of the very latest strengthened cockpit doors across our fleet.
- The installation of CCTV systems on all of our aircraft so the pilot can see who is outside the cabin door.
- Extra baggage searches
- Extra hand baggage searches and customer searches at the gate
Please be assured that we are working with all the relevant authorities on a continuous basis to ensure the ongoing safety of our customers and our operation.
For latest information on our operations you can always visit http://ba.com
Yours sincerely,
Geoff Want
Director Safety Security and Risk Management