Skymarshals now? Where do we go from here?
U.S. Approves Limited Air Service, Bans Knives
By John Crawley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government cleared airlines for limited service on Wednesday and imposed tougher security requirements for airports and airlines, including bans on knives and curbside check-ins.
The nation's airspace was shut down on Tuesday after knife-wielding hijackers seized four commercial airliners, two of which slammed into and destroyed New York's World Trade Center towers. A third hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed in western Pennsylvania.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said that commercial and cargo aircraft diverted from their normal flight paths to other airports during the emergency could proceed to their final destinations as soon as airlines and airports met tougher security standards.
Only original passengers on those flights will be allowed to board, under extremely tight security. The government will also allow airlines to move empty planes to position them to resume scheduled service.
But Mineta said he could not authorize the resumption of full service because of security concerns.
Mineta said a determination was made at the White House to put off operations until "we are sufficiently secure in our own information'' about when to resume them. "I can't give you a date or a time,'' he added.
FEAR OF FURTHER HIJACKINGS
A U.S. official, who requested anonymity, said authorities wanted to be sure that "everything is done to tighten up airport security'' in case there are associates of the suspected hijackers "who might want to perpetrate similar atrocities.''
"I know all Americans want us to move as quickly and prudently as possible to return our transportation system to normal, and we will as soon as we can do so safely,'' Mineta said.
While Mineta did not give a timetable for full service, at least two U.S. lawmakers said they were told in a meeting with him that the Transportation Department hoped to lift the flight ban early on Thursday morning.
The government issued new permanent security guidelines on Wednesday for airports and airlines. According to FAA and lawmakers, they include:
-- Armed plainclothes guards, also known as federal air marshals, to be placed on domestic flights.
-- No curbside or off-airport check-ins. All passengers must go to ticket counters to check in.
-- Boarding areas restricted to passengers. Only those with tickets and photo identification will be allowed to proceed past airport security barriers.
MEAL SERVICE AFFECTED
-- No knives of any material allowed to be carried on board. Federal rules previously allowed up to a four-inch blades. Metal knives for food service also will be banned.
-- Vehicles near airport terminals to be monitored more closely.
-- A thorough search and security check of all planes before passengers are allowed to board aircraft.
There are roughly 40,000 departures of aircraft a day in scheduled air service in the United States, and at any time on a typical weekday morning, more than 4,000 planes are in the air, according to the FAA.
It was unclear how many flights would take advantage of the limited service authorization. It also was unclear if the order on limited service affected international flights diverted to Canada.
U.S. Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House of Representatives subcommittee on aviation, said his committee was likely to hold hearings soon on airport screening and security. FAA officials will be called to testify.
Mica said he stressed to Mineta that it was necessary to place security personnel on domestic flights immediately, that it was "absolutely essential'' that the public understand "we have taken some steps to at least give passengers and crew a fighting chance.''
"We need to get back to normal and have the traveling public feel confident,'' Mica said.
By John Crawley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government cleared airlines for limited service on Wednesday and imposed tougher security requirements for airports and airlines, including bans on knives and curbside check-ins.
The nation's airspace was shut down on Tuesday after knife-wielding hijackers seized four commercial airliners, two of which slammed into and destroyed New York's World Trade Center towers. A third hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed in western Pennsylvania.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said that commercial and cargo aircraft diverted from their normal flight paths to other airports during the emergency could proceed to their final destinations as soon as airlines and airports met tougher security standards.
Only original passengers on those flights will be allowed to board, under extremely tight security. The government will also allow airlines to move empty planes to position them to resume scheduled service.
But Mineta said he could not authorize the resumption of full service because of security concerns.
Mineta said a determination was made at the White House to put off operations until "we are sufficiently secure in our own information'' about when to resume them. "I can't give you a date or a time,'' he added.
FEAR OF FURTHER HIJACKINGS
A U.S. official, who requested anonymity, said authorities wanted to be sure that "everything is done to tighten up airport security'' in case there are associates of the suspected hijackers "who might want to perpetrate similar atrocities.''
"I know all Americans want us to move as quickly and prudently as possible to return our transportation system to normal, and we will as soon as we can do so safely,'' Mineta said.
While Mineta did not give a timetable for full service, at least two U.S. lawmakers said they were told in a meeting with him that the Transportation Department hoped to lift the flight ban early on Thursday morning.
The government issued new permanent security guidelines on Wednesday for airports and airlines. According to FAA and lawmakers, they include:
-- Armed plainclothes guards, also known as federal air marshals, to be placed on domestic flights.
-- No curbside or off-airport check-ins. All passengers must go to ticket counters to check in.
-- Boarding areas restricted to passengers. Only those with tickets and photo identification will be allowed to proceed past airport security barriers.
MEAL SERVICE AFFECTED
-- No knives of any material allowed to be carried on board. Federal rules previously allowed up to a four-inch blades. Metal knives for food service also will be banned.
-- Vehicles near airport terminals to be monitored more closely.
-- A thorough search and security check of all planes before passengers are allowed to board aircraft.
There are roughly 40,000 departures of aircraft a day in scheduled air service in the United States, and at any time on a typical weekday morning, more than 4,000 planes are in the air, according to the FAA.
It was unclear how many flights would take advantage of the limited service authorization. It also was unclear if the order on limited service affected international flights diverted to Canada.
U.S. Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House of Representatives subcommittee on aviation, said his committee was likely to hold hearings soon on airport screening and security. FAA officials will be called to testify.
Mica said he stressed to Mineta that it was necessary to place security personnel on domestic flights immediately, that it was "absolutely essential'' that the public understand "we have taken some steps to at least give passengers and crew a fighting chance.''
"We need to get back to normal and have the traveling public feel confident,'' Mica said.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
freq flyer -
Do you think you would be more safe or less safe with armed and trained pilots up front?
BTW, when in NY and you get on a subway at night, do you get on the car with a armed policeman on it, or the car 5 down with the baggy pants crowd on it?
I thought so, so do I.
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Do you think you would be more safe or less safe with armed and trained pilots up front?
BTW, when in NY and you get on a subway at night, do you get on the car with a armed policeman on it, or the car 5 down with the baggy pants crowd on it?
I thought so, so do I.
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roadtrip...
Sorry....Mass murder, terrorism, stupidity, accident....whatever you call it.
What your saying then is to "Arm" the flight crews? Lets get serious. It takes highly trained personel of a military if not "Special Forces" background in order to effectivly use small arms inside a pressurized aircraft enviroment. As flight crew, it "IS" your resposibility for the safety of pax and crew but you must draw the line somewhere. It ain't your job. Whats your company's procedure for a hijacking attempt? Pull out your snub nosed 38 and shoot the guy? Start to wrestle with the guy within the confines of the flight deck? And what if there is more than one? All armed with "utility knives".
It starts on the ground, at the gate, in the terminal. Get rid of these contracted out security guards that rummage through your bags and are so busy yacking to one another in their foerign language that they ain't paying attention. No more pen knives, and swiss army knives on-board.
Lets find these weapons and question these maniacs at the security checkpoints before you get buttoned up and call for push-back.
Sorry....Mass murder, terrorism, stupidity, accident....whatever you call it.
What your saying then is to "Arm" the flight crews? Lets get serious. It takes highly trained personel of a military if not "Special Forces" background in order to effectivly use small arms inside a pressurized aircraft enviroment. As flight crew, it "IS" your resposibility for the safety of pax and crew but you must draw the line somewhere. It ain't your job. Whats your company's procedure for a hijacking attempt? Pull out your snub nosed 38 and shoot the guy? Start to wrestle with the guy within the confines of the flight deck? And what if there is more than one? All armed with "utility knives".
It starts on the ground, at the gate, in the terminal. Get rid of these contracted out security guards that rummage through your bags and are so busy yacking to one another in their foerign language that they ain't paying attention. No more pen knives, and swiss army knives on-board.
Lets find these weapons and question these maniacs at the security checkpoints before you get buttoned up and call for push-back.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip - You misunderstood me - I AM for arming the crews...but was also pointing out ways to alleviate the problems BEFORE these idiots board.
Apollo - you make good points. Perhaps the answer is to not use traditional 'firearms'...there are alternatives...Stun Guns, pepper spray, etc.
I agree that the FIRST line of defense must be at the airport, but some secondary, IN THE AIR, defense needs to be in place for when the first line is circumvented.
Apollo - you make good points. Perhaps the answer is to not use traditional 'firearms'...there are alternatives...Stun Guns, pepper spray, etc.
I agree that the FIRST line of defense must be at the airport, but some secondary, IN THE AIR, defense needs to be in place for when the first line is circumvented.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo - "whatever you call it"???? It's mass-murder, not an accident, not stupidity.
Airport security is the first line. An armed flightdeck crew is the LAST line. As was proved on the 11th, the first line failed and can be expected to fail in the future regardless of improvements.
If you think preboarding security can be improved to 100%, then you won't mind my weapon, because it'll be neatly packed within grasp and never taken out. THE DEFENSE OF MY LIFE AND THOSE OF MY CREW AND PASSENGERS BECOMES MY JOB WHEN THE OTHER MEASURES HAVE FAILED. An armed flight deck crew is the last line of defense and MAYBE the difference between a dead hijacker or thousands of dead Americans. If you were the pilot on one of our hijacked airplanes with a suicidal terrorist, would you want a weapon at your disposal, or would you rather thousands of Americans die to satisfy your firearm phobias. How many days a year to you spend airborne doing your job and what risk to you expose yourself to day in and day out?
I, however, understand your thinking. My next door neighbor is a Canadian who moved from Canada years ago because of the mindless liberal mindset (plus decent medical care, etc). I thought he was exagerating when he told me about it, but I'm beginning to see his point.
Airport security is the first line. An armed flightdeck crew is the LAST line. As was proved on the 11th, the first line failed and can be expected to fail in the future regardless of improvements.
If you think preboarding security can be improved to 100%, then you won't mind my weapon, because it'll be neatly packed within grasp and never taken out. THE DEFENSE OF MY LIFE AND THOSE OF MY CREW AND PASSENGERS BECOMES MY JOB WHEN THE OTHER MEASURES HAVE FAILED. An armed flight deck crew is the last line of defense and MAYBE the difference between a dead hijacker or thousands of dead Americans. If you were the pilot on one of our hijacked airplanes with a suicidal terrorist, would you want a weapon at your disposal, or would you rather thousands of Americans die to satisfy your firearm phobias. How many days a year to you spend airborne doing your job and what risk to you expose yourself to day in and day out?
I, however, understand your thinking. My next door neighbor is a Canadian who moved from Canada years ago because of the mindless liberal mindset (plus decent medical care, etc). I thought he was exagerating when he told me about it, but I'm beginning to see his point.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FreqFlyer -
I understood ya. My points were meant to emphasize your own remarks.
The mindless aversion to self-defense is truly remarkable in our society today. At the end of the day, in air and in the aircraft, WE ourselves are responsible for our security. 911 doesn't work, except to relay last good-byes to our loved ones.
I understood ya. My points were meant to emphasize your own remarks.
The mindless aversion to self-defense is truly remarkable in our society today. At the end of the day, in air and in the aircraft, WE ourselves are responsible for our security. 911 doesn't work, except to relay last good-byes to our loved ones.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: England and France
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that we should consider how to combat this latest form of airborne terrorism.
The mass and velocity of an aeroplane, when targeted at a ground feature will cause enormous damage. In order to target the aeroplane, a pliot on the flightdeck has to be coerced into using his aircraft as a weapon, or replaced by another pilot who is prepared to die for his cause.
Both of these scenarios require an assailant to gain access to the flightdeck. Once the terrorist is on the flightdeck he or she will probably require some form of personal weapon to take control.
X-ray and other form of pre-departure screening should ensure that bombs, rifles, guns, grenades etc do not make it onboard the passenger or freight compartment. Ensuring that small blades, shards of glass, garrotte wire etc do not make it into the passenger compartment is almost impossible.
If we accept that a motivated assailant could use hundreds of potential weapons that are readily available on an aeroplane then we must accept that our aeroplanes are vulnerable. They are vulnerable because potential attackers can gain access to the flightdeck.
We should ensure that the flightdeck is a sterile environment. The door should be locked throughout the flight. The door should be secure enough to prevent unauthorised access. Rest areas should be available within the secure flightdeck area for cruise pilots.
If a potential adversary cannot smuggle weaponry onboard to destroy the aircraft, nor take control of the aeroplane due to a lack of access, attacks of the type seen recently will not occur again.
In short, lock a secure flightdeck door for the duration of the flight and never open it, irrespective of what is occurring on the other side.
Comments?
The mass and velocity of an aeroplane, when targeted at a ground feature will cause enormous damage. In order to target the aeroplane, a pliot on the flightdeck has to be coerced into using his aircraft as a weapon, or replaced by another pilot who is prepared to die for his cause.
Both of these scenarios require an assailant to gain access to the flightdeck. Once the terrorist is on the flightdeck he or she will probably require some form of personal weapon to take control.
X-ray and other form of pre-departure screening should ensure that bombs, rifles, guns, grenades etc do not make it onboard the passenger or freight compartment. Ensuring that small blades, shards of glass, garrotte wire etc do not make it into the passenger compartment is almost impossible.
If we accept that a motivated assailant could use hundreds of potential weapons that are readily available on an aeroplane then we must accept that our aeroplanes are vulnerable. They are vulnerable because potential attackers can gain access to the flightdeck.
We should ensure that the flightdeck is a sterile environment. The door should be locked throughout the flight. The door should be secure enough to prevent unauthorised access. Rest areas should be available within the secure flightdeck area for cruise pilots.
If a potential adversary cannot smuggle weaponry onboard to destroy the aircraft, nor take control of the aeroplane due to a lack of access, attacks of the type seen recently will not occur again.
In short, lock a secure flightdeck door for the duration of the flight and never open it, irrespective of what is occurring on the other side.
Comments?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I should like to express my deepest condolences and sympathies to all who have suffered in this despicable act of terror.
I echo the sentiments of Apollo entirely. Of course it was Mass murder by incredible stupidity, no doubt about that, especially after seeing that the "pilots" were some of us. However, the flight deck, the cabin and for all I care the cargo bays and wheel wells MUST be held sterile. This means no weapons and/or explosives whatsoever. Accordingly, the security and safety agencies, whatever their abbreviation may be, but as well as the airlines have to ensure the professional safety of PAX, crew and equipment; not the crew. What strikes me especially worrying is the fact that four airplanes from to companies could get high jacked in the first place with absolutely on one even suspecting any foul play at work. Should by any chance a Sky Marshall have been on these flights, I am not at all sure whether it would have had any difference to the outcome of the tragedy.
There should be no weapons on any flight; there should be a closer screening of anyone involved with the aircraft; we should be able to rely on our Intel. Services, and law enforcement and our employers to guarantee a "sterile" flight.
I echo the sentiments of Apollo entirely. Of course it was Mass murder by incredible stupidity, no doubt about that, especially after seeing that the "pilots" were some of us. However, the flight deck, the cabin and for all I care the cargo bays and wheel wells MUST be held sterile. This means no weapons and/or explosives whatsoever. Accordingly, the security and safety agencies, whatever their abbreviation may be, but as well as the airlines have to ensure the professional safety of PAX, crew and equipment; not the crew. What strikes me especially worrying is the fact that four airplanes from to companies could get high jacked in the first place with absolutely on one even suspecting any foul play at work. Should by any chance a Sky Marshall have been on these flights, I am not at all sure whether it would have had any difference to the outcome of the tragedy.
There should be no weapons on any flight; there should be a closer screening of anyone involved with the aircraft; we should be able to rely on our Intel. Services, and law enforcement and our employers to guarantee a "sterile" flight.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: hell
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My condolonces to all in this terrible tragedy. This mass murder has to stop and the question is how??? 
Having sky marshals is not the answer and I believe that it MUST start from the ground. We must tighten the security, from the passengers right up to the workers in the airport.
As an aviator, there is nothing much we can do once up in the air.... be it with sky marshals or not. With these people highly trained and more sophisticated nowadays. It of no use tackling them in the air when we should be doing it on the ground.
Furthermore, with the limited space in the aircraft, we can't do much.
Fellow aviators.... let us rally around and find means to end this tragedy. All acts of terrorism must stop!!!
Having sky marshals is not the answer and I believe that it MUST start from the ground. We must tighten the security, from the passengers right up to the workers in the airport.
As an aviator, there is nothing much we can do once up in the air.... be it with sky marshals or not. With these people highly trained and more sophisticated nowadays. It of no use tackling them in the air when we should be doing it on the ground.
Furthermore, with the limited space in the aircraft, we can't do much.
Fellow aviators.... let us rally around and find means to end this tragedy. All acts of terrorism must stop!!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentleman Aviator,
You make some good points sir, I believe no amount of security will prevent a well motivated terrorist force from at least trying to achieve it's objectives...
There is no doubt that security has to be increased to reduce the risk but ultimately every aircraft Commander should at least have a LAST LINE OF DEFENCE, whether firearms training or a non-lethal means of disabling assailants, In my own mind I believe a highly trained Sky Marshall (an archaic analogy perhaps but remember the shotgun riders on the old stagecoaches) is one of the most flexible ways to achieve some of the touted resolutions.
The most frightening aspect of this whole tragedy was it's devastating success, we have to give ourselves half a chance of making sure it never happens again........
You make some good points sir, I believe no amount of security will prevent a well motivated terrorist force from at least trying to achieve it's objectives...
There is no doubt that security has to be increased to reduce the risk but ultimately every aircraft Commander should at least have a LAST LINE OF DEFENCE, whether firearms training or a non-lethal means of disabling assailants, In my own mind I believe a highly trained Sky Marshall (an archaic analogy perhaps but remember the shotgun riders on the old stagecoaches) is one of the most flexible ways to achieve some of the touted resolutions.
The most frightening aspect of this whole tragedy was it's devastating success, we have to give ourselves half a chance of making sure it never happens again........
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone suggested to me a idea, I don't know how much merit it has or how practical it would be.
If you had a situation where cabin crew and passengers are being threatened or killed in order to force the pilots to unlock the cockpit door, could not the pilot be given the ability to depressurise the cabin, I mean a very fast depressurisation?.
If you had a situation where cabin crew and passengers are being threatened or killed in order to force the pilots to unlock the cockpit door, could not the pilot be given the ability to depressurise the cabin, I mean a very fast depressurisation?.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sometimes, I wonder if some of you live in the real world! OK, Tuesday's events might have seemed like a bad Bruce Willis movie, but that's no need to advocate a Rambo response, people!
Let's look at the options.
1. Reinforced door
Nice idea - but what happens when the bad guys start killing cabin crew members and/or passengers, unless you open up? Are you going to have their lives on your conscience? Nope, didn't think so.
2. Arming pilots
One of the crazier ideas. First, how are you going to get access to your weapons sitting down - let alone having a decent firing stance? If the idea is that the flight deck crew would come out of the cockpit, guns blazing, what happens when they get drilled by the guy they didn't see?
3. Skymarshals aboard every flight
It's been done before, and looks like it's going to be done again. At least these people are professionals, and properly trained in the use of firearms on board aircraft. However, you're talking about a very significant cost which is going to be passed onto the airlines - and onto passengers - as well as the loss of two or more revenue seats.
And, for those who know what to look for - and believe me, 'organised' terrorists/hijackers know what to look for - Skymarshals stand out like a sore thumb and would be taken out first.
Remember, 'organised' terrorists/hijackers (as distinct from lone nutters) work in teams of a minimum of three - one of whom will not 'show' until the aircraft has been secured, in case a Skymarshal is on board.
There's no doubt that security needs to be tightened in the US. In Europe - especially post Lockerbie - security has generally been to a reasonable standard. Let's face it - if the US was a foreign country, the FAA would have given it Category 2 long ago - and it says a lot for the power of big business there that the FAA allows itself to be dictated to not just on safety issues but also maintenance by major airlines. That has to stop.
There's no doubt that the US airline industry has to change beyond recognition after Tuesday's events. Costs will be very much higher, and air travel will no longer be as convenient - resulting in many passengers no longer flying. This will put a number of airlines out of business; certainly stringent cost reduction programmes will be introduced to pay for all of the additional security measures so you can expect substantial pay and/or job cuts.
At the end of the day, though, the risks of a hijack - or a repeat of Tuesday's events - are minimal for any given crew/aircraft. And it's always going to be a case of if someone is determined enough then he's going to get through any security shield.
As the IRA said post Brighton: "We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky all the time."
Let's look at the options.
1. Reinforced door
Nice idea - but what happens when the bad guys start killing cabin crew members and/or passengers, unless you open up? Are you going to have their lives on your conscience? Nope, didn't think so.
2. Arming pilots
One of the crazier ideas. First, how are you going to get access to your weapons sitting down - let alone having a decent firing stance? If the idea is that the flight deck crew would come out of the cockpit, guns blazing, what happens when they get drilled by the guy they didn't see?
3. Skymarshals aboard every flight
It's been done before, and looks like it's going to be done again. At least these people are professionals, and properly trained in the use of firearms on board aircraft. However, you're talking about a very significant cost which is going to be passed onto the airlines - and onto passengers - as well as the loss of two or more revenue seats.
And, for those who know what to look for - and believe me, 'organised' terrorists/hijackers know what to look for - Skymarshals stand out like a sore thumb and would be taken out first.
Remember, 'organised' terrorists/hijackers (as distinct from lone nutters) work in teams of a minimum of three - one of whom will not 'show' until the aircraft has been secured, in case a Skymarshal is on board.
There's no doubt that security needs to be tightened in the US. In Europe - especially post Lockerbie - security has generally been to a reasonable standard. Let's face it - if the US was a foreign country, the FAA would have given it Category 2 long ago - and it says a lot for the power of big business there that the FAA allows itself to be dictated to not just on safety issues but also maintenance by major airlines. That has to stop.
There's no doubt that the US airline industry has to change beyond recognition after Tuesday's events. Costs will be very much higher, and air travel will no longer be as convenient - resulting in many passengers no longer flying. This will put a number of airlines out of business; certainly stringent cost reduction programmes will be introduced to pay for all of the additional security measures so you can expect substantial pay and/or job cuts.
At the end of the day, though, the risks of a hijack - or a repeat of Tuesday's events - are minimal for any given crew/aircraft. And it's always going to be a case of if someone is determined enough then he's going to get through any security shield.
As the IRA said post Brighton: "We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky all the time."
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am a police officer of 15 years service and at present I am a member of a team that provides armed protection to senior members of the UK government including the PM and believe I am qualified to give my opinion on this subject
Spookily enough i compiled a report on this subject for a 'low cost carrier' in the UK about 3 months ago.
Tactically having armed personnel on an aircraft is an option though a minimum of three persons would be required.Arming the flight crew or cabin crew is not an option,they have their own jobs to do in an emergency of any kind.
Contrary to popular belief firearms could be discharged in an aircraft without a rapid decompression taking place,handguns that we in the Metropolitan police use(Glock 17) with low grain rounds would not penetrate an aircrafts structure,but I agree the confines of a cabin would make an unattractive battleground.
IF the UK were to go down this road the armed personnel would have to be police officers, our laws do not provide for any other government or private agency to carry firearms(except the military but this takes us into a different ball park).
The Guvnor states that 'skymarshalls' would stand out like a sore thumb.If I were in charge that is exactly what I would want.When we protect the PM you can see us a mile off-prevention is better than cure.Also we are not gun totting thugs looking to shoot the next innocent person...On an aircraft you would have highly trained officers who can see 'if someone is not right' hopefully before anything takes place.Having armed police officers on an aircraft makes it a thousand times more unattractive as a terrorist target.
Having said all that this government would not even consider this as an option.
So this leads us onto unarmed private airline security personnel an option that I favour.
I am talking about highly trained people here not your uniformed security men from Tescos. Again at least three men(or women).Here you still have a deterent from your would be terrorist,people who can spot when things are not right,who have superior physical skills and hostage negotiation skills.Personnel who can be used on a daily basis also to deal with and prevent air rage and yobbish behaviour. But this is not attractive to the airlines because 1) you are usng three revenue seats on each flight
2) he airlines would have to recruit people with these skills from the police and military so you would be lookind at salaries of 40-50K pa to attract the right people( police officers in London protecting the PM earn in excess of this amount).
To summarise
Airliners at present are soft targets not only for terrorists but also for your drunken thug
Highly trained law enforcment or private personnel would prevent rather than cure
Safety in the air should be paramount and not based on financial considerations but i understand that airlines are in the business of making money.
These are my personal views and not those of the Metropolitan police .
Or you could always employ someone like me who finishes ATPL at the end of the year!!!
Spookily enough i compiled a report on this subject for a 'low cost carrier' in the UK about 3 months ago.
Tactically having armed personnel on an aircraft is an option though a minimum of three persons would be required.Arming the flight crew or cabin crew is not an option,they have their own jobs to do in an emergency of any kind.
Contrary to popular belief firearms could be discharged in an aircraft without a rapid decompression taking place,handguns that we in the Metropolitan police use(Glock 17) with low grain rounds would not penetrate an aircrafts structure,but I agree the confines of a cabin would make an unattractive battleground.
IF the UK were to go down this road the armed personnel would have to be police officers, our laws do not provide for any other government or private agency to carry firearms(except the military but this takes us into a different ball park).
The Guvnor states that 'skymarshalls' would stand out like a sore thumb.If I were in charge that is exactly what I would want.When we protect the PM you can see us a mile off-prevention is better than cure.Also we are not gun totting thugs looking to shoot the next innocent person...On an aircraft you would have highly trained officers who can see 'if someone is not right' hopefully before anything takes place.Having armed police officers on an aircraft makes it a thousand times more unattractive as a terrorist target.
Having said all that this government would not even consider this as an option.
So this leads us onto unarmed private airline security personnel an option that I favour.
I am talking about highly trained people here not your uniformed security men from Tescos. Again at least three men(or women).Here you still have a deterent from your would be terrorist,people who can spot when things are not right,who have superior physical skills and hostage negotiation skills.Personnel who can be used on a daily basis also to deal with and prevent air rage and yobbish behaviour. But this is not attractive to the airlines because 1) you are usng three revenue seats on each flight
2) he airlines would have to recruit people with these skills from the police and military so you would be lookind at salaries of 40-50K pa to attract the right people( police officers in London protecting the PM earn in excess of this amount).
To summarise
Airliners at present are soft targets not only for terrorists but also for your drunken thug
Highly trained law enforcment or private personnel would prevent rather than cure
Safety in the air should be paramount and not based on financial considerations but i understand that airlines are in the business of making money.
These are my personal views and not those of the Metropolitan police .
Or you could always employ someone like me who finishes ATPL at the end of the year!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit suprised to hear you say a low grain round wouldn't penetrate the skin of a aircraft, I will assume you mean after it has used up its kinetic energy on a target? what about stray rounds?.
I know sky marshalls carry hand guns, and its not something I can say I've ever thought about, perhaps a small hole wouldn't present that many problems, but what about cable looms?.
I know sky marshalls carry hand guns, and its not something I can say I've ever thought about, perhaps a small hole wouldn't present that many problems, but what about cable looms?.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: tropical jewel
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor,
Locked doors.
According to reports, the passengers on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania became aware of the intent of the terrorists, and decided to risk their own certain death against the possibility of further "collateral deaths" , and took some kind of action. The aircraft went down in an unpopulated area, and did not cause the considerable mayhem it might have. If these reports are true, there were some truly brave people on that aircraft.
My point in an earlier post was that now the Capt may have to determine whether to risk certain death for many against probable deaths of some. Not an easy decision, but "the lesser of the two evils" might well be thew choice.
Firing position for the crew.
With a locked door, there would be some notice before the terrorist managed to force his way in. Presumably when he finally broke in he would be looking straight down the barrel of at least one weapon.
Skymarshals
I think there have been several incidents with skymarshals where there was an acceptable outcome, but I do not have access to some of the classified info.
It is notable that El Al do not have much trouble with inflight interference of any type. They must be doing something right.
Locked doors.
According to reports, the passengers on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania became aware of the intent of the terrorists, and decided to risk their own certain death against the possibility of further "collateral deaths" , and took some kind of action. The aircraft went down in an unpopulated area, and did not cause the considerable mayhem it might have. If these reports are true, there were some truly brave people on that aircraft.
My point in an earlier post was that now the Capt may have to determine whether to risk certain death for many against probable deaths of some. Not an easy decision, but "the lesser of the two evils" might well be thew choice.
Firing position for the crew.
With a locked door, there would be some notice before the terrorist managed to force his way in. Presumably when he finally broke in he would be looking straight down the barrel of at least one weapon.
Skymarshals
I think there have been several incidents with skymarshals where there was an acceptable outcome, but I do not have access to some of the classified info.
It is notable that El Al do not have much trouble with inflight interference of any type. They must be doing something right.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's interesting that The flying gunman - as a serving officer in (I assume) DRPG rather than SO19 favours the 'overt' rather than 'covert' approach.
That approach works well with the average nutter or drunk (read air rage passenger) where the sight of an obvious CPO (usually wearing the de rigeur shades) is enough to put them off any thoughts they may have of getting a few minutes of fame.
However, that approach - in my view - would be counter productive in the case of a 'professional' attack. Identifiable security officers would be neutralised first; and it is significant that both the US Skymarshals and those used on El Al are in civvies.
Weapons to be utilised would also be a critical choice - they must be powerful enough to put the target down yet at the same time not overpenetrate and hit innocent pax. Pancake rounds or rounds like the Glaser or HydraShok would be the most effective; and indeed so would be Tasers although care would need to be taken with them on 'electric' aircraft.
I agree that a minimum team of three would be required (which coincidentally is the minimum number needed for a potentially successful hijack) who would need to be spread throughout the aircraft. The costs involved - at say £50k pa each for the right calibre of people, which is senior FO pay on a sizeable airline and Captain pay (or more) on smaller ones - would be prohibitive, especially as one team would be required per crew; and the loss of revenue resulting from the occupation of three seats would also have to be factored in.
Under present rules, in the UK the only people that would be permitted to provide an armed escort service would be police officers; and to source say 7,500 qualified officers (500 aircraft x 5 sets of a 3 person team) would be completely impossible!
So that leaves you with civilian officers who would have to be unarmed under existing rules. They might be fit and well trained - but so would be the people they are going up against. And unless full body searches are introduced, the chances of detecting composite or ceramic weapons will be minimal - as is the case with certain types of explosives. Profiling helps, but is far from infalible - and again, the pros know exactly what is being looked for and will act accordingly.
The most difficult thing to counteract is the sleeper - someone who gets employment with a specific company or industry and works perfectly normally for an extended period until they are 'activated' and carry out required tasks. These sleepers could well include pilots.
Today's terrorist is usually highly intelligent, well resourced and funded - and represents a clear and present danger to us all.
That approach works well with the average nutter or drunk (read air rage passenger) where the sight of an obvious CPO (usually wearing the de rigeur shades) is enough to put them off any thoughts they may have of getting a few minutes of fame.
However, that approach - in my view - would be counter productive in the case of a 'professional' attack. Identifiable security officers would be neutralised first; and it is significant that both the US Skymarshals and those used on El Al are in civvies.
Weapons to be utilised would also be a critical choice - they must be powerful enough to put the target down yet at the same time not overpenetrate and hit innocent pax. Pancake rounds or rounds like the Glaser or HydraShok would be the most effective; and indeed so would be Tasers although care would need to be taken with them on 'electric' aircraft.
I agree that a minimum team of three would be required (which coincidentally is the minimum number needed for a potentially successful hijack) who would need to be spread throughout the aircraft. The costs involved - at say £50k pa each for the right calibre of people, which is senior FO pay on a sizeable airline and Captain pay (or more) on smaller ones - would be prohibitive, especially as one team would be required per crew; and the loss of revenue resulting from the occupation of three seats would also have to be factored in.
Under present rules, in the UK the only people that would be permitted to provide an armed escort service would be police officers; and to source say 7,500 qualified officers (500 aircraft x 5 sets of a 3 person team) would be completely impossible!
So that leaves you with civilian officers who would have to be unarmed under existing rules. They might be fit and well trained - but so would be the people they are going up against. And unless full body searches are introduced, the chances of detecting composite or ceramic weapons will be minimal - as is the case with certain types of explosives. Profiling helps, but is far from infalible - and again, the pros know exactly what is being looked for and will act accordingly.
The most difficult thing to counteract is the sleeper - someone who gets employment with a specific company or industry and works perfectly normally for an extended period until they are 'activated' and carry out required tasks. These sleepers could well include pilots.
Today's terrorist is usually highly intelligent, well resourced and funded - and represents a clear and present danger to us all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know that RJ were working on how much power was required to get a bullet to penetrate the aircraft skin. Their riccochets were coming into my classroom 
I guess that once it became common knowledge that RJ and El Al carried "air marshalls", terrorists decided other air lines would be much easier targets.
Certainly the do-gooders and weak management have screwed around long enough with aircraft security. Now terrorists need to know that they will not be the only ones on board who are dedicated to a cause.
I guess that once it became common knowledge that RJ and El Al carried "air marshalls", terrorists decided other air lines would be much easier targets.
Certainly the do-gooders and weak management have screwed around long enough with aircraft security. Now terrorists need to know that they will not be the only ones on board who are dedicated to a cause.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Northwich
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sincere condolences to all those who have lost loved ones,as the individual stories come out it moves us all.
Gentleman Aviator,Flying Gunman & Leviathan....you all make good points.
The Guvnor..you last sentance is correct so why do you only offer problems/criticism?Any senior manager worth his salt demands solutions not just more problems.
We must not just be reactive but be proactive in our approch to ensure we are not wrongfooted by these people thinking one step ahead of us.
Does anyone know of an instance where the skymarshal approach has failed?These people are a deterrent and that is their primary role.For this you would need a maximum of two.
-Round figures £100,000/year..500 flights/year=£200/flight.As low cost carriers are still very much in the minority this typically represents around 1% of ticket price.The increase in fuel costs which will ultimately fall out of this are going to be significantly more than that.
Regulation will simply have to be changed to allow these trained individuals to carry weapons on a UK aircraft.While you are at it train them in cabin crew evacution techniques and reduce the cabin crew requirement by one.
At the end of the day extra security on the ground can easily be avoided;I know of no airfield where the unlit perimeter fence could not be scaled by even the most amateur.Once the implements of terrorism are there the rest is easy...unless you have skymarshals.The public is going to have to pay,and you won't find too many of them complaining about it.
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: alosaurus ]
Gentleman Aviator,Flying Gunman & Leviathan....you all make good points.
The Guvnor..you last sentance is correct so why do you only offer problems/criticism?Any senior manager worth his salt demands solutions not just more problems.
We must not just be reactive but be proactive in our approch to ensure we are not wrongfooted by these people thinking one step ahead of us.
Does anyone know of an instance where the skymarshal approach has failed?These people are a deterrent and that is their primary role.For this you would need a maximum of two.
-Round figures £100,000/year..500 flights/year=£200/flight.As low cost carriers are still very much in the minority this typically represents around 1% of ticket price.The increase in fuel costs which will ultimately fall out of this are going to be significantly more than that.
Regulation will simply have to be changed to allow these trained individuals to carry weapons on a UK aircraft.While you are at it train them in cabin crew evacution techniques and reduce the cabin crew requirement by one.
At the end of the day extra security on the ground can easily be avoided;I know of no airfield where the unlit perimeter fence could not be scaled by even the most amateur.Once the implements of terrorism are there the rest is easy...unless you have skymarshals.The public is going to have to pay,and you won't find too many of them complaining about it.
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: alosaurus ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
alosaurus, you've already heard from an expert that a minimum of three people would be required - and I agree with that.
So, that's £150k per team, plus allowances/per diems, accommodation, training, cost of lost revenue seats, etc etc - say a further £100k or so. So per team, you're looking at £250,000. You need one team per crew - I'll use a figure of five crews per aircraft (you use however many crews per aircraft your airline has), so that's £1.25m per aircraft. In the case of an airline like BA with 200+ aircraft, that's over quarter of a billion pounds added to the overhead. How many airlines do you know of that are making sufficient profit to pay that sort of cost? And don't you think that they are trying to maximise revenue already - so it's not as easy as you think to "just add on a pound or two per ticket"!
The old saying prevention is better than cure applies here. Security on the ground has to be improved to the point that nothing can get through - and that's another cost that's going to be passed on to the airlines and from them to the diminishing numbers of passengers prepared to check in three hours in advance of a one hour flight.
You asked whether there have been instances where the Skymarshal approach has failed: the answer is yes, many times - I can think of instances in Iran, Russia and China where shootouts have led to the aircraft going down.
SeaSunSandFly - interesting perspective, but I'd refer you to some of the air rage threads earlier where it was pointed out that a pilot's job - and priority - is to fly an aircraft. It takes a particular mindset to be able to use a firearm on another human deing - no matter what's going on - and having been in that position myself I can say that it's not as easy as just pulling a trigger - no matter what the movies might show! Some people certainly could do it - but everyone? And how would the crew act in the event that a passenger or member of the cabin crew is being used as a human shield - would they hand over their weapons or see that person killed before their eyes? A sobering thought.
Nor is there much room for manoeveur on most flight decks - one exception being the L1011!
Whilst El Al's on-board security team might be an effective deterrent (all of whom are in plain clothes and spread around the aircraft, btw) I'd attribute the lack of any occurrences on board their aircraft to vigilant and exhaustive ground security checks - which corroborates my point above.
So, that's £150k per team, plus allowances/per diems, accommodation, training, cost of lost revenue seats, etc etc - say a further £100k or so. So per team, you're looking at £250,000. You need one team per crew - I'll use a figure of five crews per aircraft (you use however many crews per aircraft your airline has), so that's £1.25m per aircraft. In the case of an airline like BA with 200+ aircraft, that's over quarter of a billion pounds added to the overhead. How many airlines do you know of that are making sufficient profit to pay that sort of cost? And don't you think that they are trying to maximise revenue already - so it's not as easy as you think to "just add on a pound or two per ticket"!
The old saying prevention is better than cure applies here. Security on the ground has to be improved to the point that nothing can get through - and that's another cost that's going to be passed on to the airlines and from them to the diminishing numbers of passengers prepared to check in three hours in advance of a one hour flight.
You asked whether there have been instances where the Skymarshal approach has failed: the answer is yes, many times - I can think of instances in Iran, Russia and China where shootouts have led to the aircraft going down.
SeaSunSandFly - interesting perspective, but I'd refer you to some of the air rage threads earlier where it was pointed out that a pilot's job - and priority - is to fly an aircraft. It takes a particular mindset to be able to use a firearm on another human deing - no matter what's going on - and having been in that position myself I can say that it's not as easy as just pulling a trigger - no matter what the movies might show! Some people certainly could do it - but everyone? And how would the crew act in the event that a passenger or member of the cabin crew is being used as a human shield - would they hand over their weapons or see that person killed before their eyes? A sobering thought.
Nor is there much room for manoeveur on most flight decks - one exception being the L1011!
Whilst El Al's on-board security team might be an effective deterrent (all of whom are in plain clothes and spread around the aircraft, btw) I'd attribute the lack of any occurrences on board their aircraft to vigilant and exhaustive ground security checks - which corroborates my point above.