Air Marshal Uses Gun to Subdue "Noncompliant" Pax
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMD,
You're right, I would also be upset if someone wasn't doing their job properly. However I feel the job of skymarshal is unneccesary in the U.S. if proper security procedures are used on the ground.
UK airlines have flown in and out of Belfast in Northern Ireland, which up until recently was a terrorist heartland, without the need for a skymarshal and without incident. The money and effort used to train skymarsals would be better spent on effective security on the ground, by the time some mad mullah gets on an aircraft it is too late.
Bush aka "Big Guy"!
P.S. 4lla, let me know of any grammar or speling mistakes.
You're right, I would also be upset if someone wasn't doing their job properly. However I feel the job of skymarshal is unneccesary in the U.S. if proper security procedures are used on the ground.
UK airlines have flown in and out of Belfast in Northern Ireland, which up until recently was a terrorist heartland, without the need for a skymarshal and without incident. The money and effort used to train skymarsals would be better spent on effective security on the ground, by the time some mad mullah gets on an aircraft it is too late.
Bush aka "Big Guy"!
P.S. 4lla, let me know of any grammar or speling mistakes.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down t' south
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HKGPax
Seems to me you've been studying your philosophy, with all this talk of logic and wrestling with concepts!
It is a good point you make about how do we know he is really a air marshal or not. However, surely the issue here is that it matters not because he has managed to smuggle a gun on board. Your argument implies that we are caught in a dilemma in a perfect security environment - if anyone points a gun at your head it is wise to do what he says, sky marshal or otherwise!
An air marshal would surely be a reactionary person, unlikely to start waving a gun around without reason. An air marshal is also unlikely to rush the cockpit, in typical hijacker style. Similarly, I think if such an event occured, the captain over the PA could probably give some guidance to the pax over who was the genuine guy.
So I think you have a good point, but it is more a playing with concepts rather than a likely circumstance. I think a "No, I'm Sparticus!" situation is no more likely to develop than a situation where a man tries to hold up a bank, and the hostages are unsure of who is the robber and who the police.
Just my thoughts anyway - the important thing here is to make sure security is effective enough to keep idiots with guns off the aircraft in the first place!
Seems to me you've been studying your philosophy, with all this talk of logic and wrestling with concepts!
It is a good point you make about how do we know he is really a air marshal or not. However, surely the issue here is that it matters not because he has managed to smuggle a gun on board. Your argument implies that we are caught in a dilemma in a perfect security environment - if anyone points a gun at your head it is wise to do what he says, sky marshal or otherwise!
An air marshal would surely be a reactionary person, unlikely to start waving a gun around without reason. An air marshal is also unlikely to rush the cockpit, in typical hijacker style. Similarly, I think if such an event occured, the captain over the PA could probably give some guidance to the pax over who was the genuine guy.
So I think you have a good point, but it is more a playing with concepts rather than a likely circumstance. I think a "No, I'm Sparticus!" situation is no more likely to develop than a situation where a man tries to hold up a bank, and the hostages are unsure of who is the robber and who the police.
Just my thoughts anyway - the important thing here is to make sure security is effective enough to keep idiots with guns off the aircraft in the first place!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Bear
OK, point taken.
But there is an issue here which I think is important. If passengers see a hijack situation developing, should they sit tight and wait for the air marshall to do something, or should they wade in and risk being clocked as one of the hijackers by the air marshall should he materialise?
Obviously, air marshalls do not declare themselves to passengers, as they do to flight and cabin crew. So one of your best assets in defence against hijack has been neutralised because passengers are now not sure of what is expected of them.
Should they sit still with their hands in the air like good little passengers or should they take responsibility for their own fates? Conflicting messages and ambiguous expectations lead to cock-ups.
I suppose my point develops HKGpax's a little further so that we're no longer talking about a case of mistaken identity between a hijacker and a sky marshall, which I concede is unlikely.
There is, however, a question of responsibility. Should we act like sheep (or SLF), or should we act like human beings who have some control over their own destiny? The existence of air marshalls, who may or may not be present on any given flight, conceivably leaves the role of the passenger open to question in the event of a hijack.
[edited for clarity and typo]
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
OK, point taken.
But there is an issue here which I think is important. If passengers see a hijack situation developing, should they sit tight and wait for the air marshall to do something, or should they wade in and risk being clocked as one of the hijackers by the air marshall should he materialise?
Obviously, air marshalls do not declare themselves to passengers, as they do to flight and cabin crew. So one of your best assets in defence against hijack has been neutralised because passengers are now not sure of what is expected of them.
Should they sit still with their hands in the air like good little passengers or should they take responsibility for their own fates? Conflicting messages and ambiguous expectations lead to cock-ups.
I suppose my point develops HKGpax's a little further so that we're no longer talking about a case of mistaken identity between a hijacker and a sky marshall, which I concede is unlikely.
There is, however, a question of responsibility. Should we act like sheep (or SLF), or should we act like human beings who have some control over their own destiny? The existence of air marshalls, who may or may not be present on any given flight, conceivably leaves the role of the passenger open to question in the event of a hijack.
[edited for clarity and typo]
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al, Cov,
Thanks for developing this - that was where I was trying to get to.
If we think of the probable Pax aborted Hijack of 9 11, and we assume that it really was a Pax anti-Hijack attempt - that to me is the right attitude, and if we gotta go - not the worst way to go.
So do we have to say - you have Sky Marshal(s) and they are fully competent to think for you. Because that brings the biggest dilema of all. The crew knows that we have the marshals, but they are NOT on every flight - so I the PAX, who just happen to be in the majority if we ever decide to go back to flying - don't know that.
SO WHEN DO I START AND STOP THINKING - Boy George you have created another foot in your mouth, because if a sky marshal screws up, with the american (let your lawyer help himself and perhaps you as well) legal system, if I was on board, I guess my wife's pension plan is just dandy, knowing our lawyer.
Sorry for convoluted asides in the text, but its way past my jet lagged bed time.
Thanks for developing this - that was where I was trying to get to.
If we think of the probable Pax aborted Hijack of 9 11, and we assume that it really was a Pax anti-Hijack attempt - that to me is the right attitude, and if we gotta go - not the worst way to go.
So do we have to say - you have Sky Marshal(s) and they are fully competent to think for you. Because that brings the biggest dilema of all. The crew knows that we have the marshals, but they are NOT on every flight - so I the PAX, who just happen to be in the majority if we ever decide to go back to flying - don't know that.
SO WHEN DO I START AND STOP THINKING - Boy George you have created another foot in your mouth, because if a sky marshal screws up, with the american (let your lawyer help himself and perhaps you as well) legal system, if I was on board, I guess my wife's pension plan is just dandy, knowing our lawyer.
Sorry for convoluted asides in the text, but its way past my jet lagged bed time.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw an interview with Senator Debbie Stabenow on "the O'Reilly Factor / FoxNews" last night. Stabenow was one of the passengers on the flight from PIT to DCA. she said she was very impressed with how the air marshals handled the situation. You can see the whole interview at FoxNEWS (pay-per-view unfortunately).
And maybe the European airport security isn't as "superior" as we've thought/claimed.. I've included the the following from the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten;
Airport security under fire
An international agency has given Oslo's airport at Gardermoen poor marks regarding its security measures. A host of practices at the airport can threaten passenger safety, the agency claims in a report.
The report by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is being held back by Norwegian aviation officials, and not even Norway's Transportation Minister has been informed of its contents.
Newspaper Aftenposten Aften says it has been put out by the ECAC, however, and points up several flaws. Aircraft, for example, are not kept under security observation when parked overnight at Gardermoen. Private cars continue to be allowed to drive right up to the terminal building without being checked. The report also claims baggage checks are poor, nor are packages properly examined. The airport also fails to subject personnel to security checks. The report is the result of a thorough, four-day examination of procedures at Gardermoen by the ECAC, of which Norway is a member. Airport officials claim the report is a preliminary one, but that it is "useful." They declined, however, to further comment on its contents.
And maybe the European airport security isn't as "superior" as we've thought/claimed.. I've included the the following from the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten;
Airport security under fire
An international agency has given Oslo's airport at Gardermoen poor marks regarding its security measures. A host of practices at the airport can threaten passenger safety, the agency claims in a report.
The report by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is being held back by Norwegian aviation officials, and not even Norway's Transportation Minister has been informed of its contents.
Newspaper Aftenposten Aften says it has been put out by the ECAC, however, and points up several flaws. Aircraft, for example, are not kept under security observation when parked overnight at Gardermoen. Private cars continue to be allowed to drive right up to the terminal building without being checked. The report also claims baggage checks are poor, nor are packages properly examined. The airport also fails to subject personnel to security checks. The report is the result of a thorough, four-day examination of procedures at Gardermoen by the ECAC, of which Norway is a member. Airport officials claim the report is a preliminary one, but that it is "useful." They declined, however, to further comment on its contents.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an American and an experienced professional pilot, I must comment on some of the comments here. I have been fortunate to travel through many parts of the world, Europe, Middle East, Africa, South Pacific and Asia. After what I have seen in Europe and the Middle East, I have not been too impressed on what I have seen for security here after 9/11. It is my opinion that much of the changes are window dressing. The National Guard trops in the terminals. As far as I have been able to determine they have not had any special training for this. It is my understanding that the Border Police troops in Germany train for almost a year to do just that duty. The weapons used by the NG are unsuited for the enviroment. Yes, they will do the job, but ricohets from the 5.56mm are unpredicable. Fortunately, I will not have to be the one the write a letter saying your Husband (or wife, or child) is dead because the National Command Authority is stupid. They do not appear to have enough supervision, as I have personally observed conduct from them that is unprofessional. I brought that issue up to a sargent. His comment was that the weapons were not loaded. Sorry I was trained differently. If there is a clip in the weapon, you assume the weapon is loaded. If there is not a clip in the weapon, you assume the weapon is loaded. The first time you don't, someone is going to die.
As for the Senator being impressed. It is easy to impress a politican. Who else would spend millions of dollars for a job that they can keep for only 2, 4 or 6 years and pays $200,000 a year or less? Unfortunately, we as Americans get what we pay for.
I am concerned about the marshall pulling his weapon. According to the above reports, there were three marshalls on board. By regulation, they have to be informed of each other and any other armed officers on board. And it being extremely unlikely that the passenger was armed, they could have controlled the situation without drawing a weapon. Yes, I am Monday morning quarterbacking here. But not without some background here. I have had many flights with armed personnel on board. Including some 'interesting' situations, and I have yet to see these people pull a weapon. Most of the time it is not necessary. From what I have heard here, to me it appears to be the case here also. As for a firearm going off at 20,000 feet. First of all, being 15 minutes from DCA, the aircraft would not be at 20K. From the times I have gone into DCA, they have me down to 10K 40 miles from the airport. And in that east coast corridor they tend to keep everyone 16,000 or below. It doesn't make much difference what altitude that aircraft is at 20,000 or 1 foot, you don't what that to happen. From personal experience, it is not fun. In my case it was not a marshall, it was a stupid SOB who thought his shotgun was empty when he put it in the gun case, with the safety off. On short final a bit of a bump and 'BOOM'. There were several upset people. Starting with me, after I got my heart started again. Then my boss, because of the hole in the side of the King Air. And a couple his fellow passengers whose bags were ventilated.
As for the screeners. They are now going to be federal employees. The government is taking the heavy stick route. When the carrot and the stick route would have been much better. Their so-called security experts are military trained and are being pushed by the military. These are the guys that the Generals and Admirals like. They didn't make them look bad. We should have used the ass kickers who did their jobs right and got kicked out of the military for making these Generals and admirals look bad.
Not that I have stepped off my soapbox, I have a few suggestions. First the other employees around airports need better security training and support. Right now we are being treated like criminals and poor relations. We see a whole lot more than security management realizes. Second, we a aviation professionals worldwide need to change our collective thought processes and work together to make our enviroment, both work and home, safer, more secure and better. We can do that be communicating, not only among ourselves but with other profesional groups and with our public officials. When we see thing that are not right, dangerous or just plain stupid, we need to communicate that also.
The best thing we can do is to always be aware of our enviroment. Like my old sargent always said: "Stay Alert, Stay Alive" it's still good advice.
As for the Senator being impressed. It is easy to impress a politican. Who else would spend millions of dollars for a job that they can keep for only 2, 4 or 6 years and pays $200,000 a year or less? Unfortunately, we as Americans get what we pay for.
I am concerned about the marshall pulling his weapon. According to the above reports, there were three marshalls on board. By regulation, they have to be informed of each other and any other armed officers on board. And it being extremely unlikely that the passenger was armed, they could have controlled the situation without drawing a weapon. Yes, I am Monday morning quarterbacking here. But not without some background here. I have had many flights with armed personnel on board. Including some 'interesting' situations, and I have yet to see these people pull a weapon. Most of the time it is not necessary. From what I have heard here, to me it appears to be the case here also. As for a firearm going off at 20,000 feet. First of all, being 15 minutes from DCA, the aircraft would not be at 20K. From the times I have gone into DCA, they have me down to 10K 40 miles from the airport. And in that east coast corridor they tend to keep everyone 16,000 or below. It doesn't make much difference what altitude that aircraft is at 20,000 or 1 foot, you don't what that to happen. From personal experience, it is not fun. In my case it was not a marshall, it was a stupid SOB who thought his shotgun was empty when he put it in the gun case, with the safety off. On short final a bit of a bump and 'BOOM'. There were several upset people. Starting with me, after I got my heart started again. Then my boss, because of the hole in the side of the King Air. And a couple his fellow passengers whose bags were ventilated.
As for the screeners. They are now going to be federal employees. The government is taking the heavy stick route. When the carrot and the stick route would have been much better. Their so-called security experts are military trained and are being pushed by the military. These are the guys that the Generals and Admirals like. They didn't make them look bad. We should have used the ass kickers who did their jobs right and got kicked out of the military for making these Generals and admirals look bad.
Not that I have stepped off my soapbox, I have a few suggestions. First the other employees around airports need better security training and support. Right now we are being treated like criminals and poor relations. We see a whole lot more than security management realizes. Second, we a aviation professionals worldwide need to change our collective thought processes and work together to make our enviroment, both work and home, safer, more secure and better. We can do that be communicating, not only among ourselves but with other profesional groups and with our public officials. When we see thing that are not right, dangerous or just plain stupid, we need to communicate that also.
The best thing we can do is to always be aware of our enviroment. Like my old sargent always said: "Stay Alert, Stay Alive" it's still good advice.
