max_cont

I have an easy solution to problems with armed guards.
If an armed marshal gets on...I get off…end of problem.

FrequentSLF

Italian speaking here, however a search on the net found:

Gun
–noun 1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance. 2.any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver. 3.a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory. 4.any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun

gun

1339, gunne "an engine of war that throws rocks, arrows or other missiles," probably a shortening of woman's name Gunilda, found in M.E. gonnilde "cannon" and in an Anglo-L. reference to a specific gun from a 1330 munitions inventory of Windsor Castle ("...una magna balista de cornu quae Domina Gunilda ..."), from O.N. Gunnhildr, woman's name (from gunnr + hildr, both meaning "war, battle"); the identification of women with powerful weapons is common historically (cf. Big Bertha, Brown Bess, etc.); meaning shifted with technology, from cannons to firearms as they developed 15c. Great guns (cannon, etc.) distinguished from small guns (such as muskets) from c.1408. First applied to pistols and revolvers 1744.


Not very important, but I found the results pretty interesting.
Regards

FrequentSLF

boredcounter

In the Uk we have no armed Police on the streets so to speak. The Bobby on the beat has little more than a stick and a can of pepper spray. (I also believe the voters of the UK will keep it that way) The UK guys with guns (I believe) are highly shink tested and trained. I for one will stop when a copper says so, the mere mention of armed police will drop me to the floor.

Just who will make up the EU marshal force? On a G reg, drawn from our own forces, or will we have to 'accept' other forces that are armed for day to day walks around the streets?

I am but a humble groundie, however, the question is:

If the 'Purser' is responsible for the cabin,
The 'Captain' or more importantly, the 'Commander' is responsible for the craft, under who's command is an armed guard?

If the guy with the gun must fly 1/ who pays, 2/ what limits on his 'duty' and 3/ as with every other member of the crew, will commander's discresion apply.

Back to my main question, who is in command, therefore liable when it all goes Pete Tong?


Bored

Double Zero

As I mentioned, personally I support armed good guys on board, ideally with non-lethal ( ie non-fuselage / other people puncturing ) weapons or the real thing.

I suspect airport security will always be a joke, inconveniencing people like say, the pilots and legitimate passsengers, while the bad guys will always find a way - for a start have a look at the typical catering re-packers, who prepares that 'food' etc, etc...

I was rather hoping for armed good guys rather higher trained ( ex-S.F. ? ) than the armed plod we see - shooting a naked man in his bedroom, a chap carrying a bit of wood in his carrier bag, or indeed the famous

" I bet you I could jump that turnstyle " incident...

So, armed 'sky marshalls' yes, but only highly trained & with the most suitable kit possible.

boredcounter

So, armed 'sky marshalls' yes, but only highly trained & with the most suitable kit possible.

The kit will be vetted check-in agents and security guards at airports paid (as i earn) an Ops controller salary, not minimum wage.

With a half livable wage comes customer service and pride in the job, no mater how boring. rather than have small arms, as yet uncontrolled, how about proper security?

GeeJay

Some years ago, flight from ABJ to BRU. Doors are ready to be closed but at the last minute a minister of the local government arrives with his escort, two armed guards. Our security confiscate the guns and ask me what to do with them. As we were ready to go and the cargo and bulk doors were already closed I said: "give me the guns that I will hold in the cockpit and put the ammunitions in the aircraft safe". Then advise Brussels of the situation coz I want to give the guns to airport security officers instead of the body guards.

I almost ended up in deep mess coz according to the Belgian law only the Royal Family body guards can bring fire arms on board. In all other cases fire arms have to be in special sealed boxes in cargo hold. Ooops.

With the habitual celerity that European States transpose European recommendation in their law book I don't see tomorrow armed guards or marshal traveling on board.

The other concern I have is that when it will be known that someone is carrying a gun it means that a gun is already introduced on board. Would be terrorist need only to identify the guy or girl (most probably the one with a crew cut and very rigid attitude) wait till he or she fells asleep (or gently help with some spray) and substitute the weapon. Then we will have a real problem.

Happy landings

GJ

Strongresolve

If a terrorist group really want or plan to take over our plane, all of us have a chance of 99,9% of ending screwed up.
So, if anyway were are going to the hell (If the terrorist dont bring down the plane, the Air Force will do) why just go to the hell, when you can go to the hell fighting, and may get inside that tiny percentage of 0,01% of survive.
I agree that the best option is to stay in the ground, but do you think that the terrorist are going to tell you when they are comming to hijack a plane?
If you are hijacked by Sep-11 type terrorist, guns or no guns, you have a very clear destination or present future in your view.
Guns only will give us a little advantage, but this can be a very important in a critical situation.
May the armed guards can buy time for the crew holding clear critical areas of the plane like front galley, or if the are disarmed and killed, may the terrorist finds more easy to shot at the passengers rather than trying to bring the cockpit door down.
I think (sorry about the passengers) that this scenarios are good for us and the people on the ground, that are not going to see another jet airplane crashing agains their buildings.
The othe options is to die with one hand in the yoke/sidestick, and the other in the crowbar.

Politics will choose.

FrequentSLF

Based on which figures you have got the 99.9%? I strongly disagree with such number. It means that only 1 person out of 1000 have survived aircraft hijaking...

Strongresolve

I´m only refering to a Sep 11th type or style terrorist group.
If one of this groups takes or hijacks your plane, I think that a probability of 1 between 1000 of survive is high, but I have to give a chance to someone.

At the time the chances of surviving to this kind of hijack inside a plane is 0%.

They took over 4 planes and crashed down 4 planes with no survivors, plus klling a lot of people on the ground.

That are my figures.

I think that have some support in that scenario is a good and a healthy thing.

2Planks

Double Zero - I think you underestimate our armed police - you mention 3 incidents over the last 10 years (the last during a period of high tension). The Met Poilce alone have about 2000 armed reponses a year. So the actual rate of mistake making is very low. Please do not undermine them - there are a lot of armed scrotes out there who are dealt with to keep the public safe.

max_cont

An armed scrote is not a trained terrorist. The police are good at dealing with untrained criminals.

When the target is highly trained and motivated, HMG send in a different bunch of lads/lasses with a more appropriate set of skills.

Now I'm a civvy I have the right not to operate in a combat zone.

I will elect not to work the day they deem it necessary to place an armed marshal on my aircraft.

reversegreen

I will elect not to work the day they deem it necessary to place an armed marshal on my aircraft.

max_cont

I totally agree with you , it would also be my way of refusing an armed guard on an aircraft . Now retired though , so not directly concerned. I find it suprising that there have been no posts from our American colleagues who live with this situation every day, but then maybe in the prevailing "gun culture " over there it just doesn't strike them as an important subject

reversegreen

FrequentSLF

Strongresolve

What about the several other istances where by negotiation the situation was solved without loss of life?

DISCOKID

My understanding is that U.S. sky marshalls operate with special low velocity weapons less likely to blow a hole in the fuselage.

My last AA flight to new york had 2 sky marshalls - when you land and go to immigration watch for the hard looking guys from your flight who storm straight through without needing to queue up.

mid_life_pilot

I would imagine the Captain wouldn't have direct control over such armed personnel and I think that's probably the right thing given the situations these people are trained to respond to.

If something kicks off on the plane then the first few minutes will be crucial to the overall outcome and any delayed reaction due to waiting for authorisation could be costly to all on board including the Captain!

Like the responses to this thread have shown, some Captains are OK with the idea, some aren't, so to have them on board where the Captain was uneasy about their presence and who could possibly veto any action they are trained to take defeats the whole purpose of having them in the first place.

To be honest, if I was a Captain I can't imagine NOT being happy for someone armed standing between me and the bad guys! Infact, rather than a concealed weapon how about having the marshall armed to the teeth terminator stylee and in full view of everyone!

On a serious note, yes the chances of a terrorist event are slim however that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for them - I'm sure the PAX on Flight 93 would have appreciated an air marshall. And don't you just love it when people accuse the US Govt of peddling terrorism paranoia - if someone was trying to kill you or your way of life I think that's reason enough to be paranoid don't you? I'm not saying I agree 100% with everything they've done since however we should at least cut them some slack?

Peace!

MLP

Smilin_Ed

Since there are not enough U.S. Air Marshals to deploy them on every flight, there will be flights with and without them. You never know whether you will have one or more on any given flight, however, during times when there is a perceived need for increased security, certain flights will be manned based on intelligence.

Air marshals were first employed before Sept. 11 and have subdued unruly passengers, sometimes with the help of other passengers. Since Sept. 11, passengers have become more aware and willing to help flight crews.

I am not aware of any instance where an Air Marshal has fired a weapon in flight. However, I'm sure I would know if there had been. I'm not even aware that a Marshal has ever had to draw a weapon. Their training generally precludes that even being necessary.

And no, I am not a Marshal or otherwise involved in law enforcement, but as a passenger or crew member, I'd be most pleased to have that extra security available in the cabin.

Skutac

Non leathal measures can be over come with simple measures such as newspapers under the shirt to defeat a stun gun. The only way to stop a threat is permanently. Aircraft remain the terrorists favoured target for the press coverage and potentially higher body count.

Air marshals make the call as to when and how to respond - no input required from the Captain and the marshals are responsible for the out come of their actions.

Hundreds of armed personnel (not just Air Marshals) fly every day without a single problem in the USA and I for one am glad for every single one of them that flies - not too mention the armed pilot programme in the USA.

Uk's murder rate is very similar to that of the USA despite the easy access to guns in the USA.

Finally to quote someone far smarter than me: when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.

fr8tmastr

perhaps some of you should look up the data on violent crime since the UK decided that guns cause crime.

Scotland yard produced the data I have seen.

transilvana

Anyhow, I´m pilot and I´ve been airline ground manager, I had to deal several times with flights to Telaviv on the 90´s. The security screening of those flights were far much better than today´s security at any airport I´ve been. We had to screen every passenger at the gate, x-rays baggage (when it was not standard) and empty all purses, hand bags, etc...

bomb dogs were use to sniffer aircraft, buses, terminal, catering vans, departing door, pax, it took nearly 4 hours to handle on of these flights and almost 2 hours screening for 150pax.

Once one dog sniffed something on a catering tray, we almost had to cancel the flight, finally it was only a perfum bottle that use glicerine in one of its components and was not tight closed.

By the way, I´ve seen german police armed officers (x3) fly on board Lufthansa and condor flights, show up last minute, no comments, only captain informed.

Strongresolve

SLF Freighter

Yes, that´s true, a lot of hijacks has been resolved by negociation. Normally they are carried out by one or two persons, and very often they are people with mental problems rather than terrorists.

But I think that in the after Sep 11th world, we are going to ban the access of the terrorist/guy with mental problems to the cockpit, and anyway that can put the lives of the passengers at risk, because in this scenario the hijacker will opt to harm the hostages to gain access, and he will start to hiting or killing people until you open the door or someone stops him.

If you dont have a skymarshall, may be you can land fast, an let the local authority deal with it. End of the problem. That is what normally happends.

But when you have one or two skymarshalls, they can deal or dispatch the threat without the need of deadly force and no risk to the passengers at all, and you can continue you flight with not risk or land with no aditional stress in the closest airport. That´s what normally happends in this scenario when a skymarshall/security agent is onboard.
Probably, the agent, will never show or handle his gun or stunt weapon.

Is very unusual (I hope it never happen) to have an agent shooting multiple terrorist in the plane, I think that this has never happend, only you can see it in the movies, and I believe that if the skymarshall get´s overcome by multiple terrorists he or she will choose to mantain a low profile, evaluate and wait the right moment to do an intervention or not do anything at all.

Wouldnt be a salad of bullets until is absolute, absolute, necesary to protect the lives of the people in the air and the ground, and when this happen, (if this happens again) this probably will give the ocupants of the aircraft some chances of surviving in a no survive situation.

Cheers.