reversegreen

The European commision has just passed legislation permitting the presence of armed guards on board European airliners. Having flown many times with special security guards on board when flying to "sensitive" destinations ( note, they were not armed but were specially trained in unarmed combat) and they were directly placed under the authority of the captain. If this is allowed or indeed becomes compulsory,it will lead to is a very delicate legal situation concerning the captains historical overall responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and passengers. Could he refuse, in conscience , to have an armed guard aboard , as this contradicts his overall authority and responsibility ,if he considers it more dangerous. If a guard is onboard who decides when arms can be used.? How has the FAA and the ALPA solved this problem?What do the European pilots unions have to say on this subject?

F14

After Plods spectacular failure to "apprehend" the Glasgow terrorists. I mean this really was missing an open goal!

I think we have nothing to fear, I would be supprised if they are real guns.(probably against health and safety)

Human Factor

If they are, just wear a yellow jacket. You'll be fine.

matt_hooks

F14, the ones the American "Sky Marshalls" carry are extremely real! There would be no point having a replica after all would there. If the marshall is forced to draw his weapon then we can assume that the person it's being drawn against is posing a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the aircraft, and the threat of a replica gun wouldn't do much good in those circumstances!

What I'm wondering is how they'll cope with the different firearms legislations in each country. In order to even touch a live handgun in the UK you need special dispensation from the home secretary. I assume this will have to be obtained for each of these marshalls?

mason

I think this could have been the American government putting pressure on the EU so they could legally have armed guards on there flights coming and going to Europe.It was in the news a while ago that they wanted this.Due to threats of terrorism !more scare mongering .

Dushan

matt_hooks:
Well said. One person feels the threat of a loaded gun, two of an empty one.

transilvana

I don´t agree with having arms on board or even in ground, I´m against arms, these yanks think they still are John wayne in his horse riding and killing every bad guy on his way.

The problem of having amrs on board is that they may not be used as they should be. Personally I have flown with many police on duty whose arms where handled to the captain when boarding and returned to them on leaving the aircraft. 15 Years ago when I was trainned in the army against terrorist attacks (Spain, we suffered that for a long time), we were also trainned to use no arms and in close contact is more effective.

Now, where is the point of no return? that´s too complicated for us to discuss here, terrorists have found a way to be on the news avery 5 min because an aicraft accident or incident is more spectacular that any other. The moment they find something to get on the news more time they will leave the aircrafts alone. Hundreds of people die every week in Iraq due to bomb attacks, but they get only a couple of minutes in the news. That´s my point of view.

Airbubba

Kinda reminds me of the old bumper sticker "If you don't like the Police, next time you need help, call a hippie"

Spain has shown its true colors in the fight against terrorism.

GlueBall

Europe continues to be bullied by the roque superpower across the pond into adopting its terrorism paranoia.

Reimers

Well, experience shows that so far no armed marshall has ever done anything against a real terrorist, however at least one passenger was murdered by one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120702565.html

FrequentSLF

If you are not with me, you are against me.
Before making such statements I suggest you to check how many terrorist attacks had to face Spain or many other European Countries in the 70's and 80's.

As a SLF I am against armed men on board. What will happend if the good guy goes berserk? If he is unarmed could be easily restrained

FrequestSLF

Stubenfliege 2

I would think that selection, training and control of these guards are the cruical point.

There were long bitter "gunfights" between terrorists and armed guards in the past: Remember the several bloodbaths on Aeroflot aircrafts back in the 80´s soviet times, when the armed cockpit crew or guards tried to overpower hijacker at gunpoint, which lead to long gunfights between them and terrorists (and the fare paying passengers in the middel). Or that infamous battle between palestinian terrorists and iraqi secret service guys on board of a Iraqi AW B737 in 1987, which resulted in many deaths and the crashlanding of the aircraft in Saudi Arabia. What I know from these occurences let me ask, what thugs are be used from the UdSSR or Iraq for this important and sensitive job.

On the other hand, the "Skymarshal" procedure seems to work very good at Israeli civil aircraft. But Israel (as far as I know, correct me if I´m wrong) have very due diligence and harsh training for their Skymarshals and cabin crew.

In short: As SLF I have no problem with armed guards, as far as I can trust them.

fendant

This is "old" news. Lufthansa and Swiss (Swissair) always had security officers on board on certain routes. El Al is said to have armed guards on every flight.

Frank

reversegreen

Any American captains out there who can give us some information on how the FAA,unions or their airlines SOPs integrate the fact of having an armed guard onboard,from a legal responsibility point of view. I agree with several posts who say that this may have come about because of "political" pressure from across the Atlantic,maybe during the Open Skies negotiations.

Frank --I have also flown with security guards onboard but they were never armed and that makes a hell of a difference

reversegreen

Agaricus bisporus

If the marshals are to be put on flights at random then it is an utter waste of effort, the chances of them coinciding with a terrorist event must be 1 in several million - pointless.

If they are to be put on board as a result of intelligence info then the flight should either not depart, or be subject to such security that there cannot be any possibility of baddies or contraband on board. Simple!



FrequentSLF. That argument, if I may so misuse the word, is equally valid against having pilots in aircraft. Thus all aircraft are to be grounded? Granted, it will solve the hijack problem, but...

Brilliant!

Double Zero

Possibly what F-14 was inferring was the use of 'non-lethal' weapons, a suject which has seen a great deal of research for a while now.

I have no idea what level they have reached in operational use, but published items years ago included a gun which would fire a mini-'bean-bag' with enough force to knock any baddie off his feet/ wind him, the obvious various 'stun' guns and even a job which covered the bad guy with quick-setting glue !

As SLF, though, I'd much prefer a good guy with a real, hole-making gun to one faced against some nutter & only equipped with harsh language...

Strongresolve

I´m spanish and I support the right of carriage guns on board the airplanes.

I been in the army, and I have been trainning to use arms, and we have some cool people over here that knows very well how to use it on board planes, with no risk to the aircraft or the passengers, and a lot of risk for the lives of the bad boys.

With the proper training a gun on an aircraft is an extra measure of safety, and with the new plastic frangible munitions that the US airmarshalls and the El Al security personel usually carry, there is not risk at all of damaging the aircraft.

The only problem of guns is the fear of unkwnowledge, but this is overcome easily if you get used to them, and know the procedures that the security personel is going to apply in each case or critical situation.

You need to have active security on board, because sooner or later all pasive security means will be bypassed or fouled, and some of us are going to live disgusting experiences.
Personaly I want to have another barrier or better said, another "tool" to solve potential crisis inside my plane.

The problem of my country is that we are still cultural rednecks and we are full of cowards, and we dont know in which world are we living. Probe of that is our new elected goverment. They have tried to end the ETA terrorist threat making a deal with them, and the result is more killings, but this didnt matter for more than 10 million of spainyards that have voted for the socialist party again.

I can say proudly that I´m not one of them, and I feel shame of my country and my goverment.

Double Zero

" Carriage Guns " ?!

I really think a cannon might be a step too far, and would be hard to keep inconspicuous, would probably block the aisle for the drinks trolley too !

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I do respect what you are saying though.

FrequentSLF

Agaricus bisporus

You are twisting my words... pilots are a must and most of the times there are two of them on an aircraft, and one of the reasons is "redundancy" in case one becomes incapacited.
Marshalls are not a must, you do not need them to fly the aircraft. One wonders why do we need marshalls on board, is because the ground security is not efficient as it should be?
what about this scenario...one terrorist unarmed attracts the attention of the marshall, who shots him, unfortunately on the same aircraft there are several other unarmed terrorist who are able to subdue the marshall and take control of his gun...

FrequentSLF

Matt101

I still firmly believe that the reason Gun Crime is so much more prevalent in the US is because everyone and their wife seems to deem it necessary to have a gun. Odd considering the British are no longer coming for anything other than a holiday.

Our Police in general do not carry arms unless it is deemed necessary and, as has been said before, if someone thinks that a threat against an aircraft is severe enough to warrant an armed officer onboard it should not depart in the first place.

Concentrate on making it impossible to get onboard the aircraft and present a threat in the first place. We all know that even one chap onboard with a pistol is going to present very little resistance to a group of well trained terrorists. Or even one acting covertly with a block of HE.

Just my two cents.

PS Guns go on the top of ships and tanks. if it goes in your hands it is likely to be a rifle or a pistol.