Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Just announced on UK independant TV that some UK airline flights to carry armed marshals .... in civvies of course. Dear God... just as it was getting safe. bm
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of risk analysis is called for here.
I for one strongly believe that in the current climate of terrorism and its threat to aviation, the threat of a terrorist hijack is far more likely, than an inadvertent weapon discharge. However, non lethal weapons such as stun guns are I believe, being studied. Even so, I would openly welcome a trained sky marshal with a lethal fire arm, on to my aircraft and to any aircraft where I might be a passenger. Let’s face it, if a September 11th situation should ever arise again, a sky marshal would certainly level the playing field with the terrorist(s). With the use of special training and weapons, the chances of a terrorist gaining access to the flight deck would be virtually nil. The way that I see it is that the very worst situation that could ever happen would be that the sky marshal is killed, his weapon used on the crew, terrorists then crash aircraft into a building - Well, this would have been the same situation with the same number of people killed, had the sky marshal been on board or not.
I for one strongly believe that in the current climate of terrorism and its threat to aviation, the threat of a terrorist hijack is far more likely, than an inadvertent weapon discharge. However, non lethal weapons such as stun guns are I believe, being studied. Even so, I would openly welcome a trained sky marshal with a lethal fire arm, on to my aircraft and to any aircraft where I might be a passenger. Let’s face it, if a September 11th situation should ever arise again, a sky marshal would certainly level the playing field with the terrorist(s). With the use of special training and weapons, the chances of a terrorist gaining access to the flight deck would be virtually nil. The way that I see it is that the very worst situation that could ever happen would be that the sky marshal is killed, his weapon used on the crew, terrorists then crash aircraft into a building - Well, this would have been the same situation with the same number of people killed, had the sky marshal been on board or not.
So, let's get this straight. A kerfuffle happens on a transatlantic flight, for arguments sake about 4 hours from the nearest landing field. A weapon is fired and the bullet hits a window. As a result of decompression and a limited oxygen supply the aircraft is forced down to about FL140. Fuel consumption goes through the roof and the aircraft is now at severe risk of not reaching any landable destination - the alternative is to subject 300 pax to hypoxia and probably lose a few.
Now there are non-lethal weapons about, such as CS and pepper spray, baton-rounds, and various toys beloved of martial arts practitioners and police forces. If we've got to have somebody armed on board an aeroplane, for goodness sake arm them with something (non-lethal) capable of incapacitating somebody, but not of penetrating a window or aircraft skin (or if it gets into the wrong hands forcing open a cockpit door). If worried about firearms being used by terrorists put yer copper in lightweight body armour.
With intelligence some sense could be made of it. But if we are simply looking at firearms-trained policemen armed with conventional firearms, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
G
Now there are non-lethal weapons about, such as CS and pepper spray, baton-rounds, and various toys beloved of martial arts practitioners and police forces. If we've got to have somebody armed on board an aeroplane, for goodness sake arm them with something (non-lethal) capable of incapacitating somebody, but not of penetrating a window or aircraft skin (or if it gets into the wrong hands forcing open a cockpit door). If worried about firearms being used by terrorists put yer copper in lightweight body armour.
With intelligence some sense could be made of it. But if we are simply looking at firearms-trained policemen armed with conventional firearms, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
G
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28L,
Errm, if "An Aeroplane" does not carry a lot of "Holding Fuel" and therefore has to divert after "10 mins [or so] hold" [due wx etc,] I presume that you have invented a means of "Self Levitation" so's that the Pax [and Crew] can "carry" this a/c to its intended destination?
watp,iktch
Errm, if "An Aeroplane" does not carry a lot of "Holding Fuel" and therefore has to divert after "10 mins [or so] hold" [due wx etc,] I presume that you have invented a means of "Self Levitation" so's that the Pax [and Crew] can "carry" this a/c to its intended destination?
watp,iktch
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gengis Firstly you will never be more than 3hrs, let alone 4hrs from any airfield accross the atlantic. Secondly, by the shear fact that you are flying over such an area you are compelled to carry sufficient fuel for a max distance, low level, anti ice on divertion all in addition to usual fuel reserves.
As I said before, if the situation ever arises where a bullet needs to be fired, ie a hijack by terrorists - and an unlikely stray bullet goes through the window and the aircraft subsequently crashes - then the same result as not carrying a sky marshall occurs. At least this way there is a severe deterant and a level playing field in the case of a suicide hijack situation.
chiglet If "An Aeroplane" does not carry a lot of "Holding Fuel" and therefore has to divert after "10 mins [or so] hold" [due wx etc,] I presume that you have invented a means of "Self Levitation"
err no, I would continue to use my reserve fuel supply
As I said before, if the situation ever arises where a bullet needs to be fired, ie a hijack by terrorists - and an unlikely stray bullet goes through the window and the aircraft subsequently crashes - then the same result as not carrying a sky marshall occurs. At least this way there is a severe deterant and a level playing field in the case of a suicide hijack situation.
chiglet If "An Aeroplane" does not carry a lot of "Holding Fuel" and therefore has to divert after "10 mins [or so] hold" [due wx etc,] I presume that you have invented a means of "Self Levitation"
err no, I would continue to use my reserve fuel supply
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If a security breach occurs on the flightdeck, we have failed. The emphasis of all policy makers, legislators, regulators, manufacturers should be on preventing the problem getting near the airport or onto the aircraft."
From time to time Balpa do come out with something profound. Surely the idea is to prevent firearms getting on to the aircraft at all.
The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters not guns and were able to hijack 4 aircraft simultaneously. This was despite a locked flight deck door policy and to my understanding the US were using Air Marshalls - although not on the aircraft concerned.
The UK government has yet again decided to throw their toys out of the pram at the slightest hint of a problem on the other side of the pond.
I don't know about anyone else but I've never seen any reports on what actually happened on board those aircraft (eg CVR transcripts,) just heard rumours. The last version I heard was the flight crew were lured out of the flight deck by a stewardess being stabbed. If we know what the crew did "wrong" (and that is meant very loosely) then maybe we can all learn something and avoid it - I always thought that was the point of accident investigation.
Don't fix something if it ain't broke! The fact I managed to get on board a flight from JFK to LHR last November with a woman's boarding card for a flight the day before (by accident I must add) would suggest the problem is on the ground not in the air - If they want to take us out a man with a pellet gun won't stop them, merely cause panic - which doesn't much help either.
From time to time Balpa do come out with something profound. Surely the idea is to prevent firearms getting on to the aircraft at all.
The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters not guns and were able to hijack 4 aircraft simultaneously. This was despite a locked flight deck door policy and to my understanding the US were using Air Marshalls - although not on the aircraft concerned.
The UK government has yet again decided to throw their toys out of the pram at the slightest hint of a problem on the other side of the pond.
I don't know about anyone else but I've never seen any reports on what actually happened on board those aircraft (eg CVR transcripts,) just heard rumours. The last version I heard was the flight crew were lured out of the flight deck by a stewardess being stabbed. If we know what the crew did "wrong" (and that is meant very loosely) then maybe we can all learn something and avoid it - I always thought that was the point of accident investigation.
Don't fix something if it ain't broke! The fact I managed to get on board a flight from JFK to LHR last November with a woman's boarding card for a flight the day before (by accident I must add) would suggest the problem is on the ground not in the air - If they want to take us out a man with a pellet gun won't stop them, merely cause panic - which doesn't much help either.
All we need is an armed Marshal with the same sympathies as the American army sergeant who shot a bunch of his colleagues in Iraq and the results don't bear thinking about.
Knowing our politically correct a**hol*s in government and the race relations industry in the UK we'll end up with horses a** of a scheme which will not engender confidence in any of us who have to deal with it on a daily basis...............But then again they could just be saying they are going to do it and not bother .....you know how they like to lie.
Knowing our politically correct a**hol*s in government and the race relations industry in the UK we'll end up with horses a** of a scheme which will not engender confidence in any of us who have to deal with it on a daily basis...............But then again they could just be saying they are going to do it and not bother .....you know how they like to lie.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Crawley UK (that's next door to LGW - 1800m next door!) Handy for work though.
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK government has yet again decided to throw their toys out of the pram at the slightest hint of a problem on the other side of the pond.
While everybody agrees that the emphasis is to prevent the problem reaching the aircraft we have to accept that if aviation is to remain a viable business that people continue to use then we must also accept that there has to be a level of compromise. Security is a multi layered beast and skymarshals are one layer for the 'what if' situation. By not putting such a scheme in place when many other countries are may, it could be argued, leave UK aviation in a more vulnerable position as we could be percieved as being a softer target.
Many posts refer to security issues and one aspect that seems to be forgotten is that security isn't just about those in the air but also protecting those on the ground. Reputation is an important layer in any security system and highlighting errors in public may not be the wisest move. Whilst it is important for policies to be discussed, any specific errors spotted by crew or passengers or airport staff should be directed to the airport authority and if nothing happens about your concerns then direct it to the DfT.
I hope that a better system is found PDQ because the thought of the chaos that a Sky Marshall can cause by shooting off in an aircraft is not a good one.
When will the gung ho realise that it is only in the movies that the good guy only needs one shot to kill the bad guy. Chances are that the ONE Sky Marshall will be outnumbered by the 'bad guys' and that they will lose the battle, leaving the surviving bad guys to wreak their havoc in a mind set of revenge.
Perhaps if the Govts of UK and USA were serious about solving the problems they might start by trying to resolve the issues which have caused the upsurge in terror, and I don't mean by bombing them to hell and back!
When will the gung ho realise that it is only in the movies that the good guy only needs one shot to kill the bad guy. Chances are that the ONE Sky Marshall will be outnumbered by the 'bad guys' and that they will lose the battle, leaving the surviving bad guys to wreak their havoc in a mind set of revenge.
Perhaps if the Govts of UK and USA were serious about solving the problems they might start by trying to resolve the issues which have caused the upsurge in terror, and I don't mean by bombing them to hell and back!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rand land
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now what?
ok so assume we lets these marshalls on and you are 4 hrs from nowhere and you hear a whild west gun fight in the back?
or smell the pepper spray comming in under the cockpit door?
or get a call from the hostee to say there is a WWF showdown back there?
as the captain....uhhh...what exactly are you gonna do???
cant see much calming things down when an armed man is perapred to fight a terrorist. At least cabin crew wont try and act like rambo.
and cents.
or smell the pepper spray comming in under the cockpit door?
or get a call from the hostee to say there is a WWF showdown back there?
as the captain....uhhh...what exactly are you gonna do???
cant see much calming things down when an armed man is perapred to fight a terrorist. At least cabin crew wont try and act like rambo.
and cents.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Predictably perhaps, Balpa is against the increased security:
6:02pm (UK)
'We don't Want Any Guns on Planes' Pilots Warn
By Sam Sheringham, PA News
The Government’s decision to deploy armed sky marshals on UK passenger flights has provoked an angry reaction among pilots, it emerged today.
The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) said it was disappointed not to have been consulted about measures which would do “more harm than good”.
The group said it would be advising pilots who were not happy with the new initiative not to fly their planes – a move which could cause chaos in the airline industry.
Balpa general-secretary Jim McAuslan said: “We take security seriously. We will not put passengers or aircraft at risk.
“But we cannot agree with the Government’s decision to put armed guards on aircraft as we believe this will do more harm than good.
“We do not want guns on planes.”
Mr McAuslan said he believed the Government should be investing in measures to improve security on the ground “where it matters most”.
If air marshals were to be placed on planes, his organisation would insist that the plane’s captain remained in command at all times.
Air safety expert Jonathan Crivon said the introduction of air marshals on UK passenger flights represented a logical step in the improvement of air safety.
Mr Crivon, director of Airline Safety and Protection (ASAP), said: “I think air marshals are a good thing as long as they are produced by specially trained units.”
He played down the dangers of having guns on passenger flights.
“Marshals have been operating on Israeli flights for years without any problems.
“Their weapons will be invisible and it will be impossible to tell who is the marshal.”
Today’s initiative is the latest move to increase security at UK airports and on planes in face of international terrorism threats.
The move follows developments in the United States where the government last week raised the national alert level one notch to orange, the second-highest, warning that the threat of attack was “perhaps greater now than at any point” since the September 11 atrocities in 2001.
In February more than 400 soldiers were drafted in to provide extra security at Heathrow Airport to combat terrorist threats to the capital.
The then Labour Party chairman John Reid said the threat to London was on the same scale as September 11.
“This is not a game,” he said at the time. “This is about a threat of the nature that massacred thousands of people in New York.”
The move at Heathrow prompted a number of UK airports, including Manchester and Cardiff, to step up security levels.
Police patrols were increased and spot checks were carried out by armed officers.
In December last year, the 15 EU nations agreed on a series of joint security measures at airports.
Member countries must now meet a number minimum standards while being allowed to set tougher security measures if they deem them necessary.
As recently as November, it emerged that Edinburgh Airport had failed an undercover Government security test.
Plain clothes officers from the UK Department of Transport got their bags, containing what one newspaper described as two “bomb-like” objects, past security staff and X-ray machines.
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2346415
6:02pm (UK)
'We don't Want Any Guns on Planes' Pilots Warn
By Sam Sheringham, PA News
The Government’s decision to deploy armed sky marshals on UK passenger flights has provoked an angry reaction among pilots, it emerged today.
The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) said it was disappointed not to have been consulted about measures which would do “more harm than good”.
The group said it would be advising pilots who were not happy with the new initiative not to fly their planes – a move which could cause chaos in the airline industry.
Balpa general-secretary Jim McAuslan said: “We take security seriously. We will not put passengers or aircraft at risk.
“But we cannot agree with the Government’s decision to put armed guards on aircraft as we believe this will do more harm than good.
“We do not want guns on planes.”
Mr McAuslan said he believed the Government should be investing in measures to improve security on the ground “where it matters most”.
If air marshals were to be placed on planes, his organisation would insist that the plane’s captain remained in command at all times.
Air safety expert Jonathan Crivon said the introduction of air marshals on UK passenger flights represented a logical step in the improvement of air safety.
Mr Crivon, director of Airline Safety and Protection (ASAP), said: “I think air marshals are a good thing as long as they are produced by specially trained units.”
He played down the dangers of having guns on passenger flights.
“Marshals have been operating on Israeli flights for years without any problems.
“Their weapons will be invisible and it will be impossible to tell who is the marshal.”
Today’s initiative is the latest move to increase security at UK airports and on planes in face of international terrorism threats.
The move follows developments in the United States where the government last week raised the national alert level one notch to orange, the second-highest, warning that the threat of attack was “perhaps greater now than at any point” since the September 11 atrocities in 2001.
In February more than 400 soldiers were drafted in to provide extra security at Heathrow Airport to combat terrorist threats to the capital.
The then Labour Party chairman John Reid said the threat to London was on the same scale as September 11.
“This is not a game,” he said at the time. “This is about a threat of the nature that massacred thousands of people in New York.”
The move at Heathrow prompted a number of UK airports, including Manchester and Cardiff, to step up security levels.
Police patrols were increased and spot checks were carried out by armed officers.
In December last year, the 15 EU nations agreed on a series of joint security measures at airports.
Member countries must now meet a number minimum standards while being allowed to set tougher security measures if they deem them necessary.
As recently as November, it emerged that Edinburgh Airport had failed an undercover Government security test.
Plain clothes officers from the UK Department of Transport got their bags, containing what one newspaper described as two “bomb-like” objects, past security staff and X-ray machines.
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2346415
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
I cannot see that the British government would use anyone but police officers for 'sky marshal' duties ( an unfortunate term as it does not relate to anything in the official British psyche).
If this is the case then I believe that the officers would be from the Metropolitan Police SO 19 branch. This unit has some of the most highly trained and proficient armed police officers in the world.
So far I am reasonably content in that if there must be armed personnel on British aircraft then there could not be any better for this purpose than those from SO 19.
However, I am not a pilot, never have been, neither have I worked in the aviation industry. I must therefore bow to the superior knowledge of those who do/have done so, and it appears there is a real danger that an armed officer (no matter how proficient and well-trained) could be more of a danger than terrorists themselves.
Some posters have said that we should ensure that no terrorist ever gets on board an aircraft where he/she can ply his/her trade. No matter how many systems are put in place, the bottom line is that there is a human input to security at the very sharpest end, and humans are fallible, as are of course 'sky marshals'.
So, is today's announcement a sop (but to who?) and/or mere window dressing?
I don't know. What I do know though is that the more posts I read in this thread the more confused I become.
If this is the case then I believe that the officers would be from the Metropolitan Police SO 19 branch. This unit has some of the most highly trained and proficient armed police officers in the world.
So far I am reasonably content in that if there must be armed personnel on British aircraft then there could not be any better for this purpose than those from SO 19.
However, I am not a pilot, never have been, neither have I worked in the aviation industry. I must therefore bow to the superior knowledge of those who do/have done so, and it appears there is a real danger that an armed officer (no matter how proficient and well-trained) could be more of a danger than terrorists themselves.
Some posters have said that we should ensure that no terrorist ever gets on board an aircraft where he/she can ply his/her trade. No matter how many systems are put in place, the bottom line is that there is a human input to security at the very sharpest end, and humans are fallible, as are of course 'sky marshals'.
So, is today's announcement a sop (but to who?) and/or mere window dressing?
I don't know. What I do know though is that the more posts I read in this thread the more confused I become.
I have a friend who used to run a pistol club (pre Dunblane).
When you use the phrase "highly trained firearms officers" he usally goes very pale and then laughs. He can tell you stories about these guys that you would not belive.
As for the highly trained Met firearms squad - there is the story about the firearms officer who was shooting at a club and put 2 rounds through the table, 2 into the ceiling baffle and the fiftth down range (into someone elses target) - the entire met team had their shooting privilidges withdrawn by the club secretary and were asked to leave the club.
When you use the phrase "highly trained firearms officers" he usally goes very pale and then laughs. He can tell you stories about these guys that you would not belive.
As for the highly trained Met firearms squad - there is the story about the firearms officer who was shooting at a club and put 2 rounds through the table, 2 into the ceiling baffle and the fiftth down range (into someone elses target) - the entire met team had their shooting privilidges withdrawn by the club secretary and were asked to leave the club.