Skymarshals Won't Work - BA
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skymarshals Won't Work - BA
From today's Scotsman
Growing doubts over ‘sky marshals’
AS AIRLINES across the world review security procedures, a rising number do not believe armed guards on planes are the answer.
British Airways is still to decide whether to use undercover "sky marshals", but company sources believe they would easily be overpowered by terrorists, who could then use their weapons to take control of the aircraft. One source said: "Undercover armed guards stand out like a sore thumb."
Captain Ian Hibberd, of the British Airline Pilots’ Association, believes the answer is to use a hi-tech security system with a central database into which information on passengers can be fed.
He said: "The focus must be on preventing disruptive passengers from boarding our aircraft in the first place."
AS AIRLINES across the world review security procedures, a rising number do not believe armed guards on planes are the answer.
British Airways is still to decide whether to use undercover "sky marshals", but company sources believe they would easily be overpowered by terrorists, who could then use their weapons to take control of the aircraft. One source said: "Undercover armed guards stand out like a sore thumb."
Captain Ian Hibberd, of the British Airline Pilots’ Association, believes the answer is to use a hi-tech security system with a central database into which information on passengers can be fed.
He said: "The focus must be on preventing disruptive passengers from boarding our aircraft in the first place."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guv -
Interesting article, but I think overstated. Sky marshalls are a good idea. I don't agree that they necessarily stand-out. Security should be composed of several layers.
First, intelligence that can be easily accessed/crosschecked with pax lists. Like it or not, some form of electronic picture ID is necessary to prevent thugs from easily assuming another identity. This ID would be cross-checked via secure computer database when making a reservation and again at check-in. To most Americans, this sounds onerous, but is a by-product of the times we live in. Possessing this ID would be a condition of carriage.
The second layer is sky-marshals on aircraft. Firearms with electronic safeguards are already developed that allow only the owner to fire them.
The third layer is the pax themselves. Given this new era of the suicidal muslim fanatic, there needs to be a fundamental shift of pax mindset to intervene, if necessary, to save themselves. Once in the aluminum tube, all the police in the world aren't going to do you any good.
The fourth layer is the cockpit door and flightcrew awareness/warning. There needs to be a way for the cockpit to monitor the cabin (cctv etc), electronic distress signals, etc. The cockpit doors need to reinforced and armored to prevent forced entry - perhaps a double door system, too.
The final layer of protection is from the filghtcrew themselves. This means a last-ditch lethal defense - a compact firearm with suitable ammunition permanently stored in quick access lockboxes beside each crew position. No longer can we surrender control of the aircraft to anyone for any reason. If a concern is losing control of the weapon (virtually impossible given the time and warning that would be afforded by the other safeguards), then a disposal chute could be installed permitting the weapon to be dropped through the floor into an inaccessible area of the aircraft.
Procedural methods and policy should be developed along side the physical ones and should not be published.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Interesting article, but I think overstated. Sky marshalls are a good idea. I don't agree that they necessarily stand-out. Security should be composed of several layers.
First, intelligence that can be easily accessed/crosschecked with pax lists. Like it or not, some form of electronic picture ID is necessary to prevent thugs from easily assuming another identity. This ID would be cross-checked via secure computer database when making a reservation and again at check-in. To most Americans, this sounds onerous, but is a by-product of the times we live in. Possessing this ID would be a condition of carriage.
The second layer is sky-marshals on aircraft. Firearms with electronic safeguards are already developed that allow only the owner to fire them.
The third layer is the pax themselves. Given this new era of the suicidal muslim fanatic, there needs to be a fundamental shift of pax mindset to intervene, if necessary, to save themselves. Once in the aluminum tube, all the police in the world aren't going to do you any good.
The fourth layer is the cockpit door and flightcrew awareness/warning. There needs to be a way for the cockpit to monitor the cabin (cctv etc), electronic distress signals, etc. The cockpit doors need to reinforced and armored to prevent forced entry - perhaps a double door system, too.
The final layer of protection is from the filghtcrew themselves. This means a last-ditch lethal defense - a compact firearm with suitable ammunition permanently stored in quick access lockboxes beside each crew position. No longer can we surrender control of the aircraft to anyone for any reason. If a concern is losing control of the weapon (virtually impossible given the time and warning that would be afforded by the other safeguards), then a disposal chute could be installed permitting the weapon to be dropped through the floor into an inaccessible area of the aircraft.
Procedural methods and policy should be developed along side the physical ones and should not be published.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone capable of overpowering an armed guard and taking their weapons is ALREADY capable of overpowering the unarmed cabin and flight crew, so the terrorist taking the guards weapons doesn't increase their ability. They would already have had it. BUT, the armed guards would certainly be capable of foiling an attack of a lesser magnitude, AND would be there as a federal witness in cases of air rage (which is reason enough to have federal guards on aircraft).
Cheers
Wino
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive my cynicism, but do you really think HM Gov and Customs are going to allow an aircraft registered weapon (pistol/stun device) on board a UK aircraft when they are against the law. To change these laws would involve pretty fundamental changes in UK law, which would lead to more of a US approach to being able to defend yourself and your home. Wasn't it only a few years ago that handguns were banned totlally from the UK after the Dunblane massacre? I would suggest it would be next to impossible to get such a law changed in the face of such a strong pressure group. I think that there will be a typical "UK" approach to this incident, i.e more standing in queues, more parking restrictions and higher prices. I hope that I'm wrong..... 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that there is a definite division in the 'skymarshalls' idea, between the US and certainly the UK. There has always been a gun culture in the States which can seem very strange to people in other (eg) European cultures. I suspect a number of people to the East of the 'pond' will struggle with the concept that the more guns there are on our A/C the safer we all are!
As an example, many people handle ,and for all I know, own handguns at very young ages in the States, but can't buy a beer 'til they are 21. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just different.
The idea of some of the people I fly with having access to a handgun in the flightdeck terrifies me as much as a crazy hijacker.
As far as re-inforced cockpit doors is concerned, let's get this all in perspective, how many aeroplanes have been deliberately brought down by passengers, and how many by suicidal pilots?? I think the scores are pretty close!
In my very humble opinion the answer lies in cutting edge technology in security screening. Not as sexy as all these guns, guns, guns, but probably far more effective in the long run.
Incidentally, perhaps the most ridiculous measure so far - plastic cutlery!
As an example, many people handle ,and for all I know, own handguns at very young ages in the States, but can't buy a beer 'til they are 21. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just different.
The idea of some of the people I fly with having access to a handgun in the flightdeck terrifies me as much as a crazy hijacker.
As far as re-inforced cockpit doors is concerned, let's get this all in perspective, how many aeroplanes have been deliberately brought down by passengers, and how many by suicidal pilots?? I think the scores are pretty close!
In my very humble opinion the answer lies in cutting edge technology in security screening. Not as sexy as all these guns, guns, guns, but probably far more effective in the long run.
Incidentally, perhaps the most ridiculous measure so far - plastic cutlery!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor -
Lethal cockpit defense is the last ditch defense. It's a sad commentary on your the pilots you work with to say that you don't trust them with a firearm. Maybe if they're not trustworthy/responsible enough to be trusted, then maybe they shouldn't be trusted with the lives of their crew, passengers, and a multi-million dollar aircraft.
There would likely be 6000 more people alive today if the crew had some means lethal defense.
When the system has failed and three suicidal maniacs are beating your door to the cockpit down, what do you want to be holding, a firearm or your d**k?
Lethal cockpit defense is the last ditch defense. It's a sad commentary on your the pilots you work with to say that you don't trust them with a firearm. Maybe if they're not trustworthy/responsible enough to be trusted, then maybe they shouldn't be trusted with the lives of their crew, passengers, and a multi-million dollar aircraft.
There would likely be 6000 more people alive today if the crew had some means lethal defense.
When the system has failed and three suicidal maniacs are beating your door to the cockpit down, what do you want to be holding, a firearm or your d**k?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are afraid of the person next to you in the cockpit with a gun, How do you get up to go to the bathroom? Obviously by your statement, your fellow pilots at your airline are not to be trusted.
As to the cockpit door locks, and the ratio of suicidal pilots to pax bringing down the aircraft. If the PILOT wants to bring down the airplane, there is nothing that a pax could do once he makes the decision, even if there is a captain on board, as proved by EGYPT AIR. HOWEVER, that locked door will most certainly keep out the terrorist if it is strong enough.
Cheers
Wino
As to the cockpit door locks, and the ratio of suicidal pilots to pax bringing down the aircraft. If the PILOT wants to bring down the airplane, there is nothing that a pax could do once he makes the decision, even if there is a captain on board, as proved by EGYPT AIR. HOWEVER, that locked door will most certainly keep out the terrorist if it is strong enough.
Cheers
Wino
Paxing All Over The World
Irrespective of the combination of solutions, the pax in Biz are going to be a whole lot less interested in asking for rows 1 and 2!!!
Of course, the ones who fancy themselves leaping up to overpower the terrorist and save the ship will still want 1C or D.
Of course, the ones who fancy themselves leaping up to overpower the terrorist and save the ship will still want 1C or D.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resistance to increased security on board was proven, by he events of 11Sept01 to be a totally outdated concept.
Changing a few laws to facilitate the provision of armed Sky Marshalls is fairly insignificant, compared with World War 3.
"Armed" does not necessarily mean with conventional firearms.
Changing a few laws to facilitate the provision of armed Sky Marshalls is fairly insignificant, compared with World War 3.
"Armed" does not necessarily mean with conventional firearms.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not absolutely certain, but, I think that if you check the poster's locations, you may be drawn to the same conclusions as me. In other words there IS a cultural difference between the two sides of the Atlantic.
Why, if the threat was so well understood in the States, wasn't security the same on domestic flights, as it has been for years in Europe? We have learned that terrorists are only tempted by vulnerable targets.
As regards the age for buying guns and beer, what is the legal age for buying guns/ owning guns in the US?
I don't have an axe to grind (honest) I just seek to highlight the different cultures.
If the result of all this is the US imposing certain restrictions on other nation's operators flying into the US, then I think we could be excused from thinking, why didn't you get your **** together before now!!!
I am genuinely sorry if what I have said causes any distress, but, perhaps we all have to look inwards, not outwards for answers.
Let's find a joint (and effective) response!
Why, if the threat was so well understood in the States, wasn't security the same on domestic flights, as it has been for years in Europe? We have learned that terrorists are only tempted by vulnerable targets.
As regards the age for buying guns and beer, what is the legal age for buying guns/ owning guns in the US?
I don't have an axe to grind (honest) I just seek to highlight the different cultures.
If the result of all this is the US imposing certain restrictions on other nation's operators flying into the US, then I think we could be excused from thinking, why didn't you get your **** together before now!!!
I am genuinely sorry if what I have said causes any distress, but, perhaps we all have to look inwards, not outwards for answers.
Let's find a joint (and effective) response!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Between LHR and LGW
Age: 67
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is daft! Pistols accessible by each pilot will mean that a lot of them will get nicked (How many cleaners go through security in the US on the way home)? All pilots would have to go through an even more thorough vetting than they do to obtain an airport ID and then attend a weapons training course. There is no way that hand guns can be secured by each position with adequate security. The only way is to have double flight deck doors and locked cabinets only opened by sky marshals with the relevant keys. Besides I reckon the UK GCN (Gun Control Network) would rather the pax died and the aircraft crash anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know Jack about the aircrew cabin procedures etc., but I'm afraid that the reality is that you will NEVER eliminate any possibility of a commercial aircraft from being hijacked. That being said, the best you can do is make the odds in your favour. Obviously increased scrutiny of passengers BEFORE they board is essential. I think Sky Marshals should definitely be considered, and if they prove to be more of a danger than a help then the idea should be discarded. Personally I can't see how an inconspicuous person with a non-lethal weapon can be more of a hindrance than a help in 99% of cases. It also adds some uncertainty to the terrorist side of the equation...
Moderator
This is daft! Pistols accessible by each pilot will mean that a lot of them will get nicked (How many cleaners go through security in the US on the way home)?
All pilots would have to go through an even more thorough vetting than they do to obtain an airport ID and then attend a weapons training course.
WE are the LAST line of defense (until the sidewinder enters the cabin), so why not give us the tools to defend the ship? If the terrorist gains access to the cockpit, it is all over. All of the "security" measures taken on the ground, profiling of passengers, banning nail clippers, checking the flight crew's ID on through flights is for naught once the animals get into the cockpit. The ONLY recourse we have is the laws of physics, which may or may not work!
There is no way that hand guns can be secured by each position with adequate security.
The only way is to have double flight deck doors and locked cabinets only opened by sky marshals with the relevant keys.
Besides I reckon the UK GCN (Gun Control Network) would rather the pax died and the aircraft crash anyway.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no security "breach" on those flights. These people could not be denied boarding just because they were mid-eastern. Their weapons were ordinary everyday tools that were turned into weapons. There were several of them on each flight. The pax were conditioned to be passive (don't worry, the government will come to the rescue). The crew was conditioned by years of invalid indoctrination to be passive. There was no security personnel on the aircraft. AND, once it was obvious that these islamic fanatics were bent on mass-murder and massive destruction, the crew had no lethal means of defense. End result 6000 slaughtered, 100,000 people out-of-work in the aviation industry alone, and on-and-on.
What simple thing may have saved thousands of lives? -- Yes, a last ditch lethal defense of the cockpit -- A strong door and armed pilots. Any system to screen, sift, passengers etc will fail sooner or later, especially against suicidal fanatics. This is a no-brainer gentlemen. You must have a last-ditch defense. To not have the will and simple weapons to save lives is not only stupid, it's plainly immoral, IMHO.
What simple thing may have saved thousands of lives? -- Yes, a last ditch lethal defense of the cockpit -- A strong door and armed pilots. Any system to screen, sift, passengers etc will fail sooner or later, especially against suicidal fanatics. This is a no-brainer gentlemen. You must have a last-ditch defense. To not have the will and simple weapons to save lives is not only stupid, it's plainly immoral, IMHO.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The federal air marshall scheme wasnt that sucessful before, thats why it got canned. The key to stopping more incidents like this, is improved screaning pasengers, and making it more effectively, and improved shared intelligence between agencies. Probably the only really benifit to the air marshall program is improving consumer confidence in flying again.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few of the earlier posts touched on a key point regarding sky marshals - if the terrorists can overpower a highly trained and professional law enforcement officer who is heavily armed then they probably are already in the cockpit doing whatever they choose! These are people who are doing whatever they can to kill as many of us as they can - each flight should be equipped to fight back. Who cares of the marshal is easily identified. A 300 lb linebacker type known to be armed may be just the deterrent needed if not for terrorists than at least for the loony air ragers.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines with sky marshals and good security don't have hijacks.
Now that should be a fairly simple thing for regulators, airlines, aviators, PPRuNers and journalists to grasp.
Now that should be a fairly simple thing for regulators, airlines, aviators, PPRuNers and journalists to grasp.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A state of denial
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to look at this from a different angle. Why not give everyone who checks in a crash axe. That way as soon as someone decided they wanted to break wind in the halls of the mighty with Allah, the rest of the pax could ensure that that happened long before they got to the cockpit.
Sorry - thought this thread was getting a bit too heavy. Guns in the cockpit indead!
Sorry - thought this thread was getting a bit too heavy. Guns in the cockpit indead!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gentlemen,
I understand the reasons why a lot of pilots are asking to be armed but the ignorance of some people is astounding!.Tripower 455 states that a firearm is simple to use and is only a tool.
OK I am serving police officer and I provide armed protection to the Prime Minister and other senior Government ministers so I feel qualified to comment here
Yes,anyone can fire a gun but what requires immense training is tatics.On an aircraft you would require at least three highly trained'skymarshalls'(I personally would recommend four).To get to the standard that I am at has taken eighteen weeks of firearms and tatics training alone,these courses have an 80% failure rate.So if we send pilots on these courses what happens to the 80% that fail.There is then constant training (five days every six weeks in my case).So pilots would now have all this on top of their training.Any lower standard is totally unacceptable.
My point is that a highly trained team would be very succesful on an aircraft.Pilots with basic firearms training would be a danger to everyone.Stick to flying the plane guys.
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: The flying gunman ]
I understand the reasons why a lot of pilots are asking to be armed but the ignorance of some people is astounding!.Tripower 455 states that a firearm is simple to use and is only a tool.
OK I am serving police officer and I provide armed protection to the Prime Minister and other senior Government ministers so I feel qualified to comment here
Yes,anyone can fire a gun but what requires immense training is tatics.On an aircraft you would require at least three highly trained'skymarshalls'(I personally would recommend four).To get to the standard that I am at has taken eighteen weeks of firearms and tatics training alone,these courses have an 80% failure rate.So if we send pilots on these courses what happens to the 80% that fail.There is then constant training (five days every six weeks in my case).So pilots would now have all this on top of their training.Any lower standard is totally unacceptable.
My point is that a highly trained team would be very succesful on an aircraft.Pilots with basic firearms training would be a danger to everyone.Stick to flying the plane guys.
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: The flying gunman ]