Skymarshals now? Where do we go from here?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concerning the access to the cockpit from the cabin - remember the Tupolev 104 (early 60's). It had completely divided cabin and cockpit areas; there was no way to get from one part to another during flight (maybe except via underfloor cargo and electronic bays). The problem is additional weight - pilots need their own lavatories etc.
But, after the horrible attacks last Tuesday, maybe someone remembers this concept.
But, after the horrible attacks last Tuesday, maybe someone remembers this concept.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that arming the flight deck isn't the answer. Pilots have enough to do as it is. To ensure in-flight security, you're talking about a new, dedicated job function in commercial aviation, just as you have with cabin crew, loadmasters, ticket agents, and so on.
I do not believe the airlines should be asked to solve this problem, however. Not only are there the obvious revenue pressures, but we've seen how effective the US air carriers are at ensuring airport security, and that's not a model I want to see repeated.
I would pay a surcharge of $5 or $10 a ticket to fund a new function of the US federal government for US flagged carriers--a joint venture between the FAA and the FBI/Armed Forces/Secret Service, say. This would pay for the skymarshals or whatever we'd call them. I think a lot of people would agree with me on this after what just happened on Tuesday...
(And for the record, this should be in addition to increased airport and ground security measures too.)
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: MrBill ]
I do not believe the airlines should be asked to solve this problem, however. Not only are there the obvious revenue pressures, but we've seen how effective the US air carriers are at ensuring airport security, and that's not a model I want to see repeated.
I would pay a surcharge of $5 or $10 a ticket to fund a new function of the US federal government for US flagged carriers--a joint venture between the FAA and the FBI/Armed Forces/Secret Service, say. This would pay for the skymarshals or whatever we'd call them. I think a lot of people would agree with me on this after what just happened on Tuesday...
(And for the record, this should be in addition to increased airport and ground security measures too.)
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: MrBill ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I still think that the introduction of a weapon into the aircraft enviroment is the wrong approach. If everybody knows that skymarshals are on board, and at least three of them, why plain cloths? Give them an MP5 machine gun! Exterior vest's! Tactical clothing. That would be a far greater deterrent to hijackers with knives, than plain cloths marshals scattered throughout the A/C.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Earth (just)
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunseasandfly, In answer to your question regarding Finger print identification, just such a system is currently in operation in Tel-Aviv. Having operated out here from Ben Gurion for a few months now I can say that Airmarshalls are quite a reassuring presence on the aeroplane. However, 3 of them on an ATR42 would be somewhat overkill Gov.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Paradise...Huh?
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chloroform - equip each aircraft with a chloroform (or other knockout drug) discharge system, activated from the cockpit at the first sign of trouble. Flight deck don masks b4 discharge and head for nearest suitable..
Possibly overkill in many circumstances...but effective.
Possibly overkill in many circumstances...but effective.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps its time that everybody over the age of say 18 has to carry a fool proof id card containing finger print/retinal pattern and instantly verifiable information that can be checked on airport computers.
We,ve been to coy over the years on this subject.
Apart from the civil liberties people who will scream at anything, what the hell is the objection?.
Most of us no matter what job we have had to carry some kind of id for years, most of us carry all sorts of stuff ie credit cards with personel information .
I have never understood peoples reluctance to carry ID, it seems a bit like the cctv systems if you not a scallywag whats the objection to them.
[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]
We,ve been to coy over the years on this subject.
Apart from the civil liberties people who will scream at anything, what the hell is the objection?.
Most of us no matter what job we have had to carry some kind of id for years, most of us carry all sorts of stuff ie credit cards with personel information .
I have never understood peoples reluctance to carry ID, it seems a bit like the cctv systems if you not a scallywag whats the objection to them.
[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]
If Skymarshals were known to be used by a particular airline, would they have to be carried on every flight in order to be a deterrent. It all complicates a terrorist's thinking: "If we target a XYZ airlines jet, there could be skymarshals on board..."
Guest
Posts: n/a
With regard to Air marshalls - do you require one team per crew? All that is required is that the airline is known to have them, they do fly and this aircraft could have them on board. Something like a speed control camera box. Is there a camera inside?
Ai marshalls will not be the only solution. There must be greater security on the ground, personal IDs (everyone in the US is immediately identified by security no. why not something like this in Europe and the rest of the world), countries that do not boost security to be boycotted.
The time has come where governments must stop saying that they must fight by the rules. There are no rules. How many more innocents are going to die while the politicians pontificate? Force is understood by the terrorist (witness the kidnapping of a USSR citizen in Beirut in the 80s), words are seen to be a sign of weakness.
Ai marshalls will not be the only solution. There must be greater security on the ground, personal IDs (everyone in the US is immediately identified by security no. why not something like this in Europe and the rest of the world), countries that do not boost security to be boycotted.
The time has come where governments must stop saying that they must fight by the rules. There are no rules. How many more innocents are going to die while the politicians pontificate? Force is understood by the terrorist (witness the kidnapping of a USSR citizen in Beirut in the 80s), words are seen to be a sign of weakness.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cyclops - in my opinion, you'd need them on every flight as it would be relatively easy for a 'professional' terrorist to gain information as to whether or not there were likely to be Skymarshals on board a particular flight; or even worse manipulate their schedules so that they weren't on hoard a given flight.
Meanwhile, the Americans are talking about using Delta Force (their equivalent of our SAS) as Skymarshals ...
From ATWonline:
Meanwhile, the Americans are talking about using Delta Force (their equivalent of our SAS) as Skymarshals ...
From ATWonline:
US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta said yesterday that DOT has appealed to the Dept. of Defense "for expeditious treatment and action…to give us some Delta Force folks" to put on commercial aircraft to act as a deterrent and last line of defense against future acts of terrorism. "They are already trained on high-risk situations," he said. Citing an urgent need for such action, Mineta pointed out that it would take at least several weeks to train "people we might get [from inside the government]--INS agents or border patrol or others in terms of being competent to be federal air marshals."
In addition to airport security steps outlined Wednesday that permitted resumption of airline services effective at 11 a.m. EDT Thursday (ATWOnline, Sept. 13), Mineta also said that uniformed agents from the Justice and Treasury departments will be deployed at airports across the country. But he was cautious on the call by the industry and others (see next item) to transfer responsibility for the security and screening process at US airports from airlines to the federal government. "If we federalize it, who's going to be doing the work? Are they civil service employees, or are we just going to be federalizing it in the sense that the FAA/DOT is now going to take over the contract and then are we going to go around asking for the lowest bid from contractors? What have we netted then? All we've done is to move it from a low-cost/low-bid contract awarded by an airline to [a low-cost/low-bid contract] awarded by FAA/DOT...That doesn't improve security."
But if the choice is to have actual government employees do the job, "I'm not sure Congress is willing to accept that that kind of additional cost be borne by taxpayers." Alternatively, charging airlines for security may not be a "healthy thing for the economy…given the shaky condition of airlines right now."
Elsewhere, around the country most airlines began limited services yesterday. Among larger carriers, Continental, United and Southwest all decided to delay a restart until today. As FAA opened the airways, there remained confusion over passenger processing rules. An FAA spokesperson told ATWOnline that all passengers must check in at ticket counters before proceeding through security, while two Major airlines contacted by this website said that passengers without baggage to check and holding paper tickets or printed e-ticket receipts and itineraries could clear security before checking in.
Airlines ask government to take over airport security
In a blunt statement, US airlines represented by the Air Transport Assn. called on the
federal government to stop avoiding what is "virtually, by definition, governmental functions and responsibilities" and assume control of security at airports and on aircraft. "In the fight against terrorism…the government has long sought to focus most intensively on only the last line of defense--countermeasures--and to pass that responsibility to the aviation industry. Recent events demand a change in this approach," the organization stated.
ATA wants the government to look seriously at nationalizing the air passenger screening process; to deploy a high-visibility, armed, uniformed presence at airports, including both law enforcement and military personnel, and to resurrect and expand the sky marshal program that puts armed agents on aircraft. Quoting former FAA Chief Counsel Clark Onstad, ATA noted that the airline industry "is the only place in America where law enforcement has been delegated to private companies. The airlines are not the 82nd Airborne. They catch the insane, they catch the sloppy and they catch the ignorant, but they're not going to catch a sophisticated terrorist."
Both ATA and the Air Line Pilots Assn. have worked with FAA to make immediate changes in the security system, including better passenger-screening and baggage-inspection procedures, prohibition of all knives and sharp objects beyond the screening point and mandatory searching of aircraft prior to passenger boarding. In addition, ALPA wants to see significantly tighter restrictions on ramp access and a temporary suspension of cargo and mail on passenger aircraft. ATA focused on increased random checking of baggage and an explosive detection system/explosive trace detection screening or manual search of selected passenger baggage.
In addition to airport security steps outlined Wednesday that permitted resumption of airline services effective at 11 a.m. EDT Thursday (ATWOnline, Sept. 13), Mineta also said that uniformed agents from the Justice and Treasury departments will be deployed at airports across the country. But he was cautious on the call by the industry and others (see next item) to transfer responsibility for the security and screening process at US airports from airlines to the federal government. "If we federalize it, who's going to be doing the work? Are they civil service employees, or are we just going to be federalizing it in the sense that the FAA/DOT is now going to take over the contract and then are we going to go around asking for the lowest bid from contractors? What have we netted then? All we've done is to move it from a low-cost/low-bid contract awarded by an airline to [a low-cost/low-bid contract] awarded by FAA/DOT...That doesn't improve security."
But if the choice is to have actual government employees do the job, "I'm not sure Congress is willing to accept that that kind of additional cost be borne by taxpayers." Alternatively, charging airlines for security may not be a "healthy thing for the economy…given the shaky condition of airlines right now."
Elsewhere, around the country most airlines began limited services yesterday. Among larger carriers, Continental, United and Southwest all decided to delay a restart until today. As FAA opened the airways, there remained confusion over passenger processing rules. An FAA spokesperson told ATWOnline that all passengers must check in at ticket counters before proceeding through security, while two Major airlines contacted by this website said that passengers without baggage to check and holding paper tickets or printed e-ticket receipts and itineraries could clear security before checking in.
Airlines ask government to take over airport security
In a blunt statement, US airlines represented by the Air Transport Assn. called on the
federal government to stop avoiding what is "virtually, by definition, governmental functions and responsibilities" and assume control of security at airports and on aircraft. "In the fight against terrorism…the government has long sought to focus most intensively on only the last line of defense--countermeasures--and to pass that responsibility to the aviation industry. Recent events demand a change in this approach," the organization stated.
ATA wants the government to look seriously at nationalizing the air passenger screening process; to deploy a high-visibility, armed, uniformed presence at airports, including both law enforcement and military personnel, and to resurrect and expand the sky marshal program that puts armed agents on aircraft. Quoting former FAA Chief Counsel Clark Onstad, ATA noted that the airline industry "is the only place in America where law enforcement has been delegated to private companies. The airlines are not the 82nd Airborne. They catch the insane, they catch the sloppy and they catch the ignorant, but they're not going to catch a sophisticated terrorist."
Both ATA and the Air Line Pilots Assn. have worked with FAA to make immediate changes in the security system, including better passenger-screening and baggage-inspection procedures, prohibition of all knives and sharp objects beyond the screening point and mandatory searching of aircraft prior to passenger boarding. In addition, ALPA wants to see significantly tighter restrictions on ramp access and a temporary suspension of cargo and mail on passenger aircraft. ATA focused on increased random checking of baggage and an explosive detection system/explosive trace detection screening or manual search of selected passenger baggage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor
It is refreshing to hear views such as those of yours that are obviously informed. I would be interested to know your background.You are quite correct I am RDPG now but I was SO19 prior to this. If we are to have armed or unarmed security on an airliner we are talking about protection are we not.One of the basic principles of protection is a show that 'we are here and you have got to got through us first'. When we protect the PM or Royalty we don't send them out on their own and pretend they have no protection and then pounce should something happen.No we have uniformed officers all around and obvious personal protection officers around the principal.Overt protection(skymarshalls if you like) are what is required on an airliner.
Tony Draper
A low grain semi jacketed 9mm round would not penetrate an airframe structure on a PA28 let alone an airliner.They travel at approx 1450 feet per second and kinetic energy is dissapated over a 6 feet square area.It is no secret that if you get shot by a police officer with a handgun on a winters day with your thick coat and jumpers on you will probably still make the pub for last orders. No specialist rounds would be required in an aircraft,
It is refreshing to hear views such as those of yours that are obviously informed. I would be interested to know your background.You are quite correct I am RDPG now but I was SO19 prior to this. If we are to have armed or unarmed security on an airliner we are talking about protection are we not.One of the basic principles of protection is a show that 'we are here and you have got to got through us first'. When we protect the PM or Royalty we don't send them out on their own and pretend they have no protection and then pounce should something happen.No we have uniformed officers all around and obvious personal protection officers around the principal.Overt protection(skymarshalls if you like) are what is required on an airliner.
Tony Draper
A low grain semi jacketed 9mm round would not penetrate an airframe structure on a PA28 let alone an airliner.They travel at approx 1450 feet per second and kinetic energy is dissapated over a 6 feet square area.It is no secret that if you get shot by a police officer with a handgun on a winters day with your thick coat and jumpers on you will probably still make the pub for last orders. No specialist rounds would be required in an aircraft,
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deepest Devon
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen all these events unfold from the very first minute live here on US TV, I am amazed at some peoples extreme reactions.
Firstly, Skymarshals have been operating here for many years on flights all around the USA (mainly on 'suspect' flights) and they are not something of a novelty.
To this end, just how many flights do you all think there are flying around the world and how many Skymarshalls do you think this would require?!
Armed personnel on board aircraft are not the answer, as hijackers will normally outnumber them, firing shots around a pressurised cabin is not a clever move (explosive decompression is NOT a safe option) and if the hijackers have only knives then they now have the possibilty of gaining a firearm.
As for more strict forms of ID, thats fine , but remember folks, these guys were all 'clean' and were all fully aware that they would never see another day, so had little regard for other humans life.
There will always be fundamentalists who will do anything to anybody in the name of their cause, all we can do is keep security as tight as possible and keep focussed on reality.
What has happened is truly tragic, but revenge in the form of war and firearms on board aircraft will not help undo what has happened.
I believe these people will do ANYTHING to accomplish their mission so lets not get drawn into a war of attacking innocent civilians.
More options will come to light, but lets not go the gung-ho way and equip airborne personnel with arms. Better to seal the flightdeck than that~!
And no I'm not a tree hugging pacifist, I'm just a realist.
Firstly, Skymarshals have been operating here for many years on flights all around the USA (mainly on 'suspect' flights) and they are not something of a novelty.
To this end, just how many flights do you all think there are flying around the world and how many Skymarshalls do you think this would require?!
Armed personnel on board aircraft are not the answer, as hijackers will normally outnumber them, firing shots around a pressurised cabin is not a clever move (explosive decompression is NOT a safe option) and if the hijackers have only knives then they now have the possibilty of gaining a firearm.
As for more strict forms of ID, thats fine , but remember folks, these guys were all 'clean' and were all fully aware that they would never see another day, so had little regard for other humans life.
There will always be fundamentalists who will do anything to anybody in the name of their cause, all we can do is keep security as tight as possible and keep focussed on reality.
What has happened is truly tragic, but revenge in the form of war and firearms on board aircraft will not help undo what has happened.
I believe these people will do ANYTHING to accomplish their mission so lets not get drawn into a war of attacking innocent civilians.
More options will come to light, but lets not go the gung-ho way and equip airborne personnel with arms. Better to seal the flightdeck than that~!
And no I'm not a tree hugging pacifist, I'm just a realist.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure we need to improve the safety of flights, however some of the ideas I've seen posted worry me.
As many have said, arming the Flight or Cabin Crew, has to pose more problems than it would solve. Sim checks/route checks/CRM/SEP/Medical recurrant training...you now want to add shooting. To what standards...what situations do we train under. How often do we have to handle a gun to remain proficient in under the most stressfull situations.......will we have time to fly?
No, I'm all for safety, but truly believe it has to be a robust ground based item. Yes we will be vigilant on board, but the onus has to be to have really checked people out prior to boarding.
I.D. cards for all, photo, retinal scans, thumb prints. Positive ID to get a Ticket.
It may sound a bit 'Big Brother' but if thats what it takes...
My prayers to all the crew, their Families, and colleagues, and those of the other victims.
As many have said, arming the Flight or Cabin Crew, has to pose more problems than it would solve. Sim checks/route checks/CRM/SEP/Medical recurrant training...you now want to add shooting. To what standards...what situations do we train under. How often do we have to handle a gun to remain proficient in under the most stressfull situations.......will we have time to fly?
No, I'm all for safety, but truly believe it has to be a robust ground based item. Yes we will be vigilant on board, but the onus has to be to have really checked people out prior to boarding.
I.D. cards for all, photo, retinal scans, thumb prints. Positive ID to get a Ticket.
It may sound a bit 'Big Brother' but if thats what it takes...
My prayers to all the crew, their Families, and colleagues, and those of the other victims.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky marshalls or Air Guards as they used to be known as used to fly as plain clothes pax on the airline that I work for.They could be spotted from a mile away sitting in First Class ordering the Cabin Crew around and asking for refills periodically.The appearance of a military man even without uniform is pretty easily distinguishable with a Crew cut hairstyle and some having curled up moustaches.One of my friend happened to be occupying the seat adjacent to the Air Guard once and narrated a horrifying incident.The Air Guard apparently after completing his 10 COURSE MEAL dozed off and his loaded gun slid out of his pocket onto the floor without him realizing it.My friend picked up the gun and put it behind the magazines in the rack upfront.When the Air Guard got up,he instantly felt for his gun which was not there and freaked out.While conducting a frantic search for it he questioningly looked at my friend and my friend asked him what seemed to me wrong.He apologetically told him that he had misplaced his gun.My friend told him where it was and the Air Guard sheepishly apologised for his carelessness.
The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to have somebody onboard who has a loaded weapon.He can be over powered by a trained terrorist and basically you have laid grounds for a hijacking in a plate for the terrorist.
The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to have somebody onboard who has a loaded weapon.He can be over powered by a trained terrorist and basically you have laid grounds for a hijacking in a plate for the terrorist.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo just doesn't get the message here...criminals love unarmed victims! He is advocating showing up (by default) for a knife/gun fight with his wife's best friend in his hand for armament. When that hijacker enters the "sterile" cockpit...he is the only SOB with a weapon (using Apollo's line of thought). Now just who do you think is going to win that fight?
You fret about a decompression or some other hole appearing in the aircraft...consider what the WTC did as it came throught the windscreen , Apollo.
The Captain has the final responsiblity for the safe operation of the aircraft....if it means having an old fashioned Dodge City shootout at FL 30 something...then belly up to the bar sport! This is the real world of modern commerical aviation. Airmail pilots were issued sidearms during the early years of aviation...maybe it is time to resume that practice.
As for me...knowing a couple or three well trained , armed Sky Marshals were standing between me and the bad guys ,would bring peace of mind. At least they could whittle down the odds a bit before I had to use my glib sense of humor on a hijacker bound upon flying me and everyone with me into a building at near Mach speed!
Get real Apollo...evil people got guns and knives...better to die standing up than lying down!
You fret about a decompression or some other hole appearing in the aircraft...consider what the WTC did as it came throught the windscreen , Apollo.
The Captain has the final responsiblity for the safe operation of the aircraft....if it means having an old fashioned Dodge City shootout at FL 30 something...then belly up to the bar sport! This is the real world of modern commerical aviation. Airmail pilots were issued sidearms during the early years of aviation...maybe it is time to resume that practice.
As for me...knowing a couple or three well trained , armed Sky Marshals were standing between me and the bad guys ,would bring peace of mind. At least they could whittle down the odds a bit before I had to use my glib sense of humor on a hijacker bound upon flying me and everyone with me into a building at near Mach speed!
Get real Apollo...evil people got guns and knives...better to die standing up than lying down!
Guest
Posts: n/a
heloplt....
Don't get me wrong, armed skymarshals ARE going to be a fact of life for commercial aviation. I just think that ALOT more needs to be done on the ground. I work at a major International airport and I see on a daily basis the level of security .....AND IT SUCKS!
In the last three days, I've had to submitt to having my vehicle searched, my body frisked, my lunch box searched and periodic spot checks in the terminal by RCMP. I don't mind this. It's about time. And the flying public will also have to subject to this type of treatment, even more rigidly.
I just don't think that having weapons on A/C is a good Idea. Cost to airlines as mentioned on a previous post is a factor. How many skymarshal crews must be assembled?
Do they get involved in cases of air rage and drunk passengers? Where is the line drawn for when they are to get involved?
They then become more of a "SKY COP". Should they carry a ticket book and hand out fines?
Obviously they will be on-board A/C from now on, but alot of questions need to be answered, and procedures need to be thought out? I do know they have been used before so maybe the rules and regulations have already been drawn up.
By the way...I don't think mail carriers carried handguns for fear of hijacking. They would have been used more for shooting animals for food if the Bi-plane went down in unpopulated back-country in the early 20's and 30's.
And yea pal....I do get real. Every day at work, keeping aircraft in the air. I see lot's of faces in those windows, and this act of terrorism really hits home. It hits all of us in this industry.
This world changed on Tuesday morning, and it will take a long, long time for a level of normality to return to our lives.
Don't get me wrong, armed skymarshals ARE going to be a fact of life for commercial aviation. I just think that ALOT more needs to be done on the ground. I work at a major International airport and I see on a daily basis the level of security .....AND IT SUCKS!
In the last three days, I've had to submitt to having my vehicle searched, my body frisked, my lunch box searched and periodic spot checks in the terminal by RCMP. I don't mind this. It's about time. And the flying public will also have to subject to this type of treatment, even more rigidly.
I just don't think that having weapons on A/C is a good Idea. Cost to airlines as mentioned on a previous post is a factor. How many skymarshal crews must be assembled?
Do they get involved in cases of air rage and drunk passengers? Where is the line drawn for when they are to get involved?
They then become more of a "SKY COP". Should they carry a ticket book and hand out fines?
Obviously they will be on-board A/C from now on, but alot of questions need to be answered, and procedures need to be thought out? I do know they have been used before so maybe the rules and regulations have already been drawn up.
By the way...I don't think mail carriers carried handguns for fear of hijacking. They would have been used more for shooting animals for food if the Bi-plane went down in unpopulated back-country in the early 20's and 30's.
And yea pal....I do get real. Every day at work, keeping aircraft in the air. I see lot's of faces in those windows, and this act of terrorism really hits home. It hits all of us in this industry.
This world changed on Tuesday morning, and it will take a long, long time for a level of normality to return to our lives.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: 51.28.4N / 00.27.4W
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fix it on the ground would be best. Some sort of inflight defence sounds good, however, what are those stats on guns in the home being used / cause of fatalities against the owner ?
The N.R.A. are gonna love this.
The N.R.A. are gonna love this.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 448
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixing (most of) the problem on the ground seems more reasonable to me. I, too, have the impression, that on-ground security still has many holes that can and should be covered.
Putting more weapons on the flights, whether in the hands of trained (and expensive) sky marshals or - I am tempted to say "god forbid" - in the hands of flight (why not cabin?) crew simply means that EVERY flight is going to be a flight with weapons on board then.
How do all the guys advocating armed flight crew envisage the defensive use of such weapons. How are we, sitting face-forward, to attack someone coming from behind. There is numerous evidence that "self-defence" weapons are quite often used against their bearers because they lack the determination to properly use them, a fault clearly absent for the villains.
Sky marshals might not be handicapped in that way but could still be overcome by a "sleeper" terrorist. Of course you can also have "sleeper" marshal, etc. but that game can be carried on until the whole airplane half loaded with nonrevenue security agents.....
I don't think the cost of marshals would create competitive disadvantag for a single airline, even if the marshals are not paid by governments - something quite inconceivable in the EU's climate of every branch of transport having to bear its own costs (except for trains, cars and metrot transport, of course :-)
If all airlines have the same "marshal standards" or pay a fixed fee to the government for marshal services than the industry as a whole would be disadvantaged but not any single airline.
As for locking up the flight deck, that doesn't really make sense unless you have all the facilities required forward of that (secure) door. What use is a steel door if you have to open it to go to the loo? (As for food, we'll get used to the lunch boxes and after some time won't miss the first class meals........)
As for the threat of killing the pax or hosties one after the other to gain access to the flight deck, I think that's rather real. Even if you agreed to fly the airplane anywhere a hijacker demands, how could he be certain you really do as he wants, don't communicate raiding plans, etc., unless he is on the flight deck?
While increasing screening, profiling, whatever might seem a good idea, any measure curtailing constitutional liberties should be veeeery tightly scrutinized. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that those willing to give up a little liberty to defend liberty would wake up to find that they have no liberty left to descend.
A very thoughtful editorial in the Financial Times of Sep 12 argued that no measures, however complicated and elaborate, could prevent a duplication of Tuesdays attack in even a totalitarian state, much less in a "free" society. It is therefore important to not only work on the symptoms but also on the cause of terrorism. We have to remove the conflicts that lead deranged minds to think that terrorism is a valid means of resolve to remove terrorism.
That will still leave us with the insane and ordinary criminals but "ordinary" security, threats, etc. work quite well against those, but not against fanatics prepared for suicide.
Remember, even if we manage at great cost to plug all the holes in civil aviation, there remain numerous other ways to terrorize and attack an "open" society. Even if we agree to live in a (secret) police controlled state - something not desirable to me , some clever deranged minds will find a workaround.
I am shocked as any of you about Tuesday's attacks but while implementing better security in our profession we should look beyond the obvious for a lasting solution.
Putting more weapons on the flights, whether in the hands of trained (and expensive) sky marshals or - I am tempted to say "god forbid" - in the hands of flight (why not cabin?) crew simply means that EVERY flight is going to be a flight with weapons on board then.
How do all the guys advocating armed flight crew envisage the defensive use of such weapons. How are we, sitting face-forward, to attack someone coming from behind. There is numerous evidence that "self-defence" weapons are quite often used against their bearers because they lack the determination to properly use them, a fault clearly absent for the villains.
Sky marshals might not be handicapped in that way but could still be overcome by a "sleeper" terrorist. Of course you can also have "sleeper" marshal, etc. but that game can be carried on until the whole airplane half loaded with nonrevenue security agents.....
I don't think the cost of marshals would create competitive disadvantag for a single airline, even if the marshals are not paid by governments - something quite inconceivable in the EU's climate of every branch of transport having to bear its own costs (except for trains, cars and metrot transport, of course :-)
If all airlines have the same "marshal standards" or pay a fixed fee to the government for marshal services than the industry as a whole would be disadvantaged but not any single airline.
As for locking up the flight deck, that doesn't really make sense unless you have all the facilities required forward of that (secure) door. What use is a steel door if you have to open it to go to the loo? (As for food, we'll get used to the lunch boxes and after some time won't miss the first class meals........)
As for the threat of killing the pax or hosties one after the other to gain access to the flight deck, I think that's rather real. Even if you agreed to fly the airplane anywhere a hijacker demands, how could he be certain you really do as he wants, don't communicate raiding plans, etc., unless he is on the flight deck?
While increasing screening, profiling, whatever might seem a good idea, any measure curtailing constitutional liberties should be veeeery tightly scrutinized. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that those willing to give up a little liberty to defend liberty would wake up to find that they have no liberty left to descend.
A very thoughtful editorial in the Financial Times of Sep 12 argued that no measures, however complicated and elaborate, could prevent a duplication of Tuesdays attack in even a totalitarian state, much less in a "free" society. It is therefore important to not only work on the symptoms but also on the cause of terrorism. We have to remove the conflicts that lead deranged minds to think that terrorism is a valid means of resolve to remove terrorism.
That will still leave us with the insane and ordinary criminals but "ordinary" security, threats, etc. work quite well against those, but not against fanatics prepared for suicide.
Remember, even if we manage at great cost to plug all the holes in civil aviation, there remain numerous other ways to terrorize and attack an "open" society. Even if we agree to live in a (secret) police controlled state - something not desirable to me , some clever deranged minds will find a workaround.
I am shocked as any of you about Tuesday's attacks but while implementing better security in our profession we should look beyond the obvious for a lasting solution.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the terrorists will give he airlines a miss for a while, lord knows they have plenty of other options.
Once you have people that are willing to kill themselves they have simplified their operations a thousand fold, no timing devices necessary, no complex escape routes, no chance of your people giving information to the security services.
A car driven into a tunnel, or a vehicle of homemade explosives driven onto something like the Golden Gate Bridge,hell, they dion't even need explosives, a road tanker full of petrolium is a very effective bomb.
We are a target rich envoirement as they say.
Before all this happened I was wondering how long it would be untill those folks swarming at the French end of the channel tunnel try to physicaly hijack a train, they all also in a no lose situation, they don't care if they are caught, as long as they are caught on the English side.
We live in interesting times, fortress Europe and America??.
Ironic, we may have to build our own iron curtain.
Once you have people that are willing to kill themselves they have simplified their operations a thousand fold, no timing devices necessary, no complex escape routes, no chance of your people giving information to the security services.
A car driven into a tunnel, or a vehicle of homemade explosives driven onto something like the Golden Gate Bridge,hell, they dion't even need explosives, a road tanker full of petrolium is a very effective bomb.
We are a target rich envoirement as they say.
Before all this happened I was wondering how long it would be untill those folks swarming at the French end of the channel tunnel try to physicaly hijack a train, they all also in a no lose situation, they don't care if they are caught, as long as they are caught on the English side.
We live in interesting times, fortress Europe and America??.
Ironic, we may have to build our own iron curtain.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline safety has proven to be not as safe as once believed. Not only can planes be hijacked but are now regarded as “flying bombs”
Airports need to provide the strictest security possible but it needs to be finically viable. Sure it may seem the easiest way to avoid such a tragedy lies with the airport but the way hijackers are managed in the air needs a considerable amount of review also. Baggage handlers and security can only do so much.
The need for an inaccessible cockpit seems like a favorable alternative. If access to the cockpit is stopped then the disaster that took place during the week could have been avoided. A far fetched idea is also the possibility of inducing a sleeping agent into the cabin. The Captain and First Officer would both be sealed in the cockpit with there oxygen masks and with a press of a button, the cabin would be sprayed. Hijackers and passengers alike would both be unconscious and the flight crew could land ASAP. The hijackers could been arrested without the chance of further bloodshed. Of course many problems may arise. Pregnant woman, elderly people and kids but if a safe, effective solution could be found, this would reduce any successful hijackings. Just a thought.
I am just a shocked as everyone, my brother was even at the twin towers. He saw the second plane hit and the following collapse of the towers. It is such a tragedy that hopefully will never be repeated again.
God bless all that are affected. My prays are with you all.
Airports need to provide the strictest security possible but it needs to be finically viable. Sure it may seem the easiest way to avoid such a tragedy lies with the airport but the way hijackers are managed in the air needs a considerable amount of review also. Baggage handlers and security can only do so much.
The need for an inaccessible cockpit seems like a favorable alternative. If access to the cockpit is stopped then the disaster that took place during the week could have been avoided. A far fetched idea is also the possibility of inducing a sleeping agent into the cabin. The Captain and First Officer would both be sealed in the cockpit with there oxygen masks and with a press of a button, the cabin would be sprayed. Hijackers and passengers alike would both be unconscious and the flight crew could land ASAP. The hijackers could been arrested without the chance of further bloodshed. Of course many problems may arise. Pregnant woman, elderly people and kids but if a safe, effective solution could be found, this would reduce any successful hijackings. Just a thought.
I am just a shocked as everyone, my brother was even at the twin towers. He saw the second plane hit and the following collapse of the towers. It is such a tragedy that hopefully will never be repeated again.
God bless all that are affected. My prays are with you all.