Skymarshals Won't Work - BA

[fen boy]

Just a note to those of you calling for the JAA or CAA to take action over arming you - neither body has any remit for security and does not have the powers to make these requirements. In the UK all aviation security is dealt with by the Government through the DTLR.

The FAA is a Government body in the USA and does have this power.

[The Ticketor]

This is a very interesting discussion, but I would like to briefly focus on another problem that we had long before 11SEP, and that is unruly pax. We have all heard about pax being banned for life, for a year or whatever. But what our employers don't say is that there is no system to prevent a banned person from flying. I don't know of one single carrier with a system in place to check if the pax are on the "black-list" or not. There might be one or two, but I seriously doubt it. I know that my airline does not have such a system, because it's borderline illegal (storing personal info without conscent). Well, I think it should be put into the Conditions of Carriage that the carrier has the right to store such info. There is at least one system on the market that checks these things (check out www.fly-safe-com), and I think every carrier should have a proper system in place. Right now, the only thing preventing the banned pax to fly is that they don't want to run the risk of being stopped. I have myself stopped one pap from flying, but only because I heard from his tvl agt that he had a problem on one of our flights. I called our flt safety dep, and they told me to not let him go. If I hadn't heard of it, nothin would have stopped him!

If your carrier has another system, it would be nice to hear about it.

[Scotflight Aviation]

Guys & Ladies...I've alraedy stirred things up a bit on this subject in other topic on this forum (ALPA to ask...)
It's good to see comments from both sides of the argument being made with more thought now rather than opinionated ignorance.
trying to summarise all comments..here's my thoughts on this:
it certainly looks like the Americans (at least) are going to have some form of weaponry on board airliners. If that happens, increasing the likelihood of other airlines (including British ones) to be targetted.
Here are the answers I'd make to the following comments I've seen and heard:
*********************************************
Q)WHAT SECURITY MEASURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED?
A)Anything and everything, not soely but as a combination of efforts. Guns, telescopic batons, skymarshalls, armoured cockpits etc, but each one with rigorous thought placed before implementation, training where required, and perhaps all combined. For example, If a skymarshall is on board, why not also allow a cabin crew member to be trained in another form of self-defence (with or without weapon)
*******************************************
Q) SHOULD ALL PILOTS CARRY GUNS?
A) No. Only those who have been police vetted , properly trained, and willing to carry the gun and associated responsibility, and with his or her employer's approval should do so. I also believe that there should be a maximum percentage of pilots who may carry, allowing each pilot to deny posession as required to unwelcome curiosity, and also for easier gun control by the authorities.
*******************************************
Q)SHOULD THE GUN BE KEPT IN THE COCKPIT?
A) No,A gun which fit one person doesn't necessarily fit the next. Each armed pilot should have own gun. Place each gun directly in the responsible hands of only the person vetted as responsible for it. This gun to be kept on the person at all times.
Then there will be no excuse for it going missing.
Also, if each pilot has his or her own gun this gives them more scope for regular practice.
*****************************************
Q) SHOULD PILOTS LEAVE GUNS IN AIRPORT ARMOURY OR TAKE HOME WITH THEM?
A)Take home. If individual is vetted and trained for such responsibility, then why should he or she then be treated as irresponsible once leaving the airport? And especially if heavy penalties are imposed if individual does something stupid, like flash it around or get drunk while carrying or something like that.
Also, many pilots are based between airports and often asked to report at one or the other.
******************************************
Q)PILOTS ARE ONLY CIVILIANS, SO SHOULD THEY CARRY GUNS?
A) Does it matter? Why does this word "civilian" seem to keep accusing people of being irresponsible. The world seems to be full of this "let other people sort the problem out" syndrome.Is the commander of an airliner with lives in the back any less responsible or less capable than a young soldier boy?
*****************************************
Q)THE GUN MIGHT DISCHARGE ACCIDENTALLY
A) Guns don't do that unless someone's being stupid and tampering with it. Firmly fixed into pilots case or holster/wherever, and untouched it won't go off if it has a safety catch. All sensible semi-automatic pistols have safety catches. Revolvers instead have a sliding plate which, when the trigger is not pulled, slides between the hammer and cartridge, so even if the gun was to drop and land on it's hammer , it wouldn't fire.
*****************************************
Q)WHAT ABOUT BULLETS IN PRESSURISED AIRLINER?
A)I used to make my own ammo. It's possible to make man-downing ammunition (large calibre) which wouldn't penetrate a thin sheet of aluminium. I have deliberately tried this and the bullet simply mushroomed and bounced back. The same calibre of bullet with the same charge of gunpowder was enough to humanely kill a large sheep (which I believe have thicker skin and skulls than humans)
Having said that, I'm not sure what strengthening may be advisable to airliner windows.
Careful work has to be done by the ammuntion manufacturer to match the charge of powder to both the calibre and weight of bullet and also the length of gun barrel.
Ammunition suitable for one gun might not be suitable for another, even if it's of same calibre.
Also such low charges may be unsuitable to action a semi-automatic pistol. Revolvers may be required, and they require more training and regular practice to rrapid-fire due to their heavier trigger action.
*******************************************
Q)COULD PILOT SHOOT DOWN 5 OR 6 HIJACKERS?
A)Probably not. But Might get 2 or 3 of them giving others a better chance to overpower, especially if, as I said earlier, each method of defence is combined with others on board...batons, zappers etc.
Besides, Most revolvers only carry 5 or 6 rounds depending on calibre.
Anyway, we're not necessarily talking about 5 or 6. we're probably going to get suicidal loners..equally dangerous, but hopefully easier to overcome.
But isn't the whole idea of this to DETER hijackings in the first place?
*************************************
Q)WHAT ABOUT LOGISTICS OF CO-ORDINATING LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO ALLOW GUN CARRYING?
A)Not my problem.That's for governments to figure out. If I plan to fly to a country which won't allow guns(or have too-high expectation of diverting) then in that case
I won't carry, but will get all crew and ground security to pay attention to the other aspects of whatever security /defence measures we can still carry.
******************************************
Q)WHERE TO ARM/DISARM GUN AT AIRPORT OR NIGHTSTOP?
A)Common sense required here. The law in UK when pistols were legal (for target shooting only) were that guns could only be loaded at firing point on approved shooting range.
Things are going to be different when carrying for defence. How about loading/unloading simply when out of sight of public. In the cockpit,in hotel room, in airline crew office or crew toilet?
Possession of a gun isn't a big deal as long as basic commonsense is applied.Keep it hidden & keep it secure and nobody will get hurt.
*******************************************
Q)DO YOU EXPECT PILOTS TO NIGHTSTOP AND GO TO HOTEL BAR FOR DRINKS WITH A GUN?
A)Again, common sense required. The old law in UK was that gun holders couldn't enter licenced premises. However, when travelling for a 2 day competition, shooters had to eat. The only places that served food in evenings were usually licenced restaurants.I checked this with police at time and their answer was simply to be sensible. Enter to get a meal but stay away from boozing it up at the bar. If a pilot intends to do that sort of thing, then either don't carry gun in first place, or leave gun at airport armoury/police, if such facility exists.
Besides, I think guns and alcohol are a poisonous recipe and would expect some fairly stringent laws saying somthing along the lines of no alcohol whatsoever for several hour prior to, and when in possession of a gun.
*********************************************
Q)HOW MUCH TRAINING WOULD PILOTS NEED TO BE COMPETENT?
A)Lots. I was disturbed during the aftermath of the dunblane tragedy when MPs stated that "there's no skill in shooting...you just point and shoot.."
That's a bit like telling a golfer that there's no skill required to simply hit a ball with a stick..a comment which , even as a non-golfer, I would expect to receive a well-earned torrent of verbal abuse from golfers.
Shooting isn't as straightforward as Hollywood pretends. Even at point-blank range, rapid firing a revolver isn't easy.
For this reason I believe pilots should be able to take guns home in order to have the availablity to visit their nearest police firing range, whenever it suits them.
They should also complete a series of exercises involving rapid fire and slow fire techniques, at differet distances, and pass such shooting competecy checks on a minimum score/minimum number of visits basis.
****************************************
Q)WON'T THE PUBLIC BE EVEN MORE SCARED OF FLYING IF THEY THINK THERE'S A GUN CRAZED LOONY DRIVING THE PLANE?
A)Probably, but I reckon just as many who have beeen scared of flying for fear of hijacking would be reassured that there's a responsible trained individual with a slightly better chance than before of defeating a hijacker.
**************************************
I'd like to extend these comment to electric zappers and cs sprays, but as I've said in previous comments, I know nothing about them and leave those of you who do to educate me on these. Before I sign off, may I say this..
Many people have made comments about "That would be useless.." and "That won't work.." etc but how many times have I flown over the freezing seas with no form of ditching defence except a pathetic lifejacket which will keep us alive for about 5 minutes?
Totally useless, but what harm does it do to carry them?..just in case we ditch next to a ship..?

Keep the comments coming folks.

[Moose]

I have been following the comments on this topic and the ALPA arming flight crew with great interest. For me, the jury on carrying guns on the flight deck is still out.

Being on the east side of the Atlantic, I would prefer not to see fire arms on board an aircraft. Being ex-military and having had experience of the underhand and cowardly way terrorists go about there business, I am surprised nobody has picked up on there evil tactics. The pro gun group have been extolling the virtues of flight crew, in particular the flight deck members citing that if they are capable of commanding an aircraft they are capable of using a lethal tool. Does that hold true when the terroist is at your house holding your family to ransome?

I read in the paper some years ago about a country farmer who was chained to a tractor with an 8000lb homemade bomb in the trailer. He was told to drive it into a military check point close to his farm. He was on his way and was only reprieved from being blown to bits when the trailer bogged in. Why was he driving on a certain death mission? Because he was trying to save his family who were being held hostage. He was dead man. If he refused, he saw his family murdered before he was. If he did as ordered, he was dead but may be his family would be saved.

Will flight crew act in the best interest of the flight when subjected to such pressures? I feel that there will always be a weak link in everbodies character that a well trained terror merchant could exploit. Having lethal force on an aircraft maybe saves the terrorist the job of smuggling equipment on board.

I am glad that these issues are being thoroughly discussed. Out of all the different points being made, may be a solution will be found that protects our industry as best it can from the evil of terrorism.

[Dragonspet]

Well this thread has turned from how to control Terrorist, to a Right to bear arms issue. I will go on record as a pro gun ownership advocate. I have owned a gun since the age of twelve and currently own 32 firearms, with a license to carry a concealed handgun and do so on a regular basis. In light of the fact that I have had in my possession for 25 years a gun/guns, never shooting anyone on propose or accidentally goes to prove that guns alone are not dangerous; guns in the hands of untrained, uneducated person now there is a potential accidental shooting. The key wording is properly trained personnel.
Having discussed this with several pilots not one of them came across as Gung Ho, or portrayed any enthusiasms at all to the concept of carrying a weapon. But all of them stress the desire to protect innocent peoples lives. Several posting from the UK come across as all Americans are barbarians using the words “Redneck” and “Cowboy” we are simply a nation facing an uncertain future; grasping for short term solutions to a problem that has been overlooked for a long time. Whatever measures the US ultimately decides on, will not be forced upon any other country, we are after all a democracy. Perhaps the answer would be arming the appropriate personnel with weapons other than firearms (Tazer, Stun guns, all are effective at incapacitating a man) in the UK with the cultural differences that exist between us, not to mention the US Constitution. Gun control will not stop terrorist! A point to ponder, if a terrorist is on a plane and spots a crazy armed redneck would he not just sit back and enjoy the flight?
The ads for Sky marshals went out, within a week 150,000 people have applied for the job, with that much interest surely the required number would qualify and pass all fire safety/control training as well as the required psychological testing. Pilots are conditioned for recurring training and Psyche testing this would just give them one more leg up when contract negotiations came around.

[ 27 September 2001: Message edited by: Dragonspet ]

[buzz]

There is a case for an individual/s trained (properly) in aviation security to be part of the crew. Whether this individual/s should be armed or readily identifiable is another question.

[Dagger Dirk]

Looks like there's some people in the Bush Administration interested in the IASA RoboLander concept.
Either that, or G.W. is an IASA fan. Or maybe he just reads Air Safety Week.
And of course, Air Safety Week said it first again!

Might develop into his version of JFK's aim "to put man on the Moon by the end of the decade". (which means he'd have to follow through).
We shall see.
But it'd be a nice poke in the eye for terrorism if the WTC outrage were to promote yet another spurt in technology-based Western Prosperity - entirely based on a terrorism-inspired quest for another needed plateau in high tech safety and security.
Doncha just love the irony.

Extract from Pres G.W. Bush's Chicago O'Hare Speech on Airline Security (28 Sept 01).

"And third, we will set aside $500 million in new funding for aircraft security. Grants will go to airlines for enhanced cockpit protection. We look forward to working with the pilots and airlines to fortify doors and provide stronger locks so our pilots will always be in command of the airplanes.

We will invest in new technology for aircraft security, with grants to develop transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit; video monitors in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin.

And we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe, and for example including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.

With all these actions, we're returning airlines back to the American people. "
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...ty_text_1.html
http://www.iasa-intl.com/security/te...ty_speech.html
http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm

[Human Factor]

I've not read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating what others have already said but the cultural differences on each side of the Atlantic WRT guns have already been mentioned.

Tripower suggests that the only secure way to store a handgun onboard an aircraft is for it to be on the pilot's belt, as would be the case for a police officer. Clearly this is the case in the US, but on our side of the pond the police are not routinely armed. The weapons in the Armed Response Vehicles are secured in a locker unless they are required. If we must have guns onboard, then this is how I would like to see it done. Ideally though, there should be a better solution ........

[Do28]

I will also go on record as not only being pro-gun, but a card-carrying, beer drinking NRA member. With respect to the cockpit, however, I think a handgun is the wrong tool for the job. I think we need to look more in the taser/OC foam direction. OC spray can be sucked into the recirc fans and affect unintended people. The foam would at least stick to the target. All of the cabin crew and flight crew should have them. This, in combination with air marshalls AND better screening AND a better flight deck doors is probably the most realistic chance we have. The biggest possible downside that I see is the possiblity of being punished by as many as half a dozen young women in flight attendents uniforms with tasers might attract a certain type of individual to fly.

[Roadtrip]

I wonder if the people on the hijacked airliner wished that the pilots had some means of lethal cockpit defense?

I wonder if their wives, husbands, and children wished the pilots has a means of lethal cockpit defense?

[brain fade]

If my experience is anything to go by, a great percentage of pilots are ex military and therefore must have some degree of expertise in the use of firearms. As someone said elsewhere on the thread, if you are trusted with an aircraft, why not with a firearm? Commercial air transport has changed. We need to try and even up the odds a little. When dealing with determined men who are prepared to sacrifice their own lives
a tangible and effective defence is essential. Please, UK ppruners, try to remember the rest of the world does not share Britains pistol-phobia.

[Capt Homesick]

I'm not sure a Tazer would work. Sure, it would down one hijacker, you might even get two, but they can rush you in the knowledge that once the other 3 get you, they can be revived enough to carry out their mission. A deterrent probably has to be lethal; unless someone figures out how to make a stun gun which puts someone down for hours rather than minutes.
If the terrorist knows that anyone knocked down will be unavailable for the next part of the crime- be it to fly the aircraft, or to control the pax, it makes his job more difficult.

[Mr McGoo]

The best defence is NOT to put all your eggs in one basket but to have a multi-layered defence. ie:

1. Profiling and vetting of pax at check-in.
2. Electronic and physical security checks prior to boarding.
3. Segregation of pax from non-pax once they have been screened.
4. Skymarshalls.
5. Retrain/condition crew and pax not to be passive (half a dozen hijackers will not be able to subdue a hundred or more angry pax).
6. Secure cockpit doors.
7. Passive means for pilots to disable hijackers.
8. Active means for pilots to disable hijackers.

Sure you could look at each layer individually and find a weakness in it, but that's why you don't rely on one defence only. By having all layers in place a suicidal hijacker would have to overcome all of them to be successfull - and the more defencive layers you have, the harder it is.

[Aloysious]

The sky marshal concept has worked on El Al for many years. I've flown them several times and despite trying to pick them (sm)out, they blend in with the crowd (unlike in the airport, where "undercover" folks appear obvious). Look at it like this: If you have a choice to have sky marshals or not, why the heck would you dismiss this first line of defense? On another topic, the FBI and the media have it all wrong when it comes to Atta's "spending bin Laden's money lavishly on first class seats," etc. He didn't fly first because he wanted to. He had to. All of his other actions/lifestyle/etc. were low key, for obvious reasons. He had to figure out logistically how he'd get into the cabin, and he hoped he could weasel his way in. ("Excuse me, stewardess, but I'm also a pilot. May I have a brief chat with the pilot?" -- professional courtesy and all that.)He needed to see a real time commercial flight, and it is my guess he made it inside on at least one of those flights. I pity the pilot and flight attendant -- and there are probably more than one -- who are sitting somewhere feeling terrible guilt for their utter stupidity. But we'll never find out, because they know it was against FAA rules, and they're not talking.

[Dagger Dirk]

ask Airbus about stun guns(TAZERS) and their potential impact ON their FBW aircraft.

I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry could have a field day postulating with the EMI and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.

[Cee of Gee]

You get a situation, where as the reports indicate, the flight attendants are being attacked. The crew who have firearms do the only thing we all would. But, there is at least, again as the reports indicate, 3 t's on board. The flight deck door becomes insecure and there is then a firearm entering a very confined area that's in a state of high confusion.
Mmmmm, that weapon debate again!
Armed Loadies! You want tea, eh! We'll see!
As the freightdog side of the industry does with boxes; screen the lot of them!!
It's certainly a tough situation to resolve.

[The flying gunman]

Airforceone,

Our weapons are not locked away in armed response vehicles.We have Glock 17 self loading pistols in overt holsters on our belts. We do have MP5 carbines in a safe in the boot of the vehicle which we can access from the car on route to an incident

Cheers

[Celtic Emerald]

Hey Hey Hey Quickdrawmagraw

How are you. Should have known you'd get your teeth into this subject with all your arms training.

Hope the little fella is well

Best Wishes

Emerald/Jade

[Tripower455]

Let's get real guys, the last line of defence is not a gun in the cockpit!!

This is a true statement. The last line of defense is a sidewinder in the butt. If the fighters get there in time. If not, the last line of defense was the ex McDonalds wroker at the "security" checkpoint.

Criminal....

[Human Factor]

Flying Gunman,

Things have obviously changed a little in the past couple of years. Thanks for the correction.