Umm JMCman,

Point 1

You should look at your ops manual. You can have armed passengers on your flight as part of a protective detail should you be carrying a passenger that requires protecting, like Tony, the Queen, the pope, Prince Charles etc... Atleast that was what the manual said when it was JMC, and before that Flying Colours, and before that airworld... So it is not EXACTLY illegal to carry a firearm aboard an aicraft. You just have to comply with quite a few procedures...

Of course you have to be notified in writing and know the seat location....

Point 2

Every American and United flight was stopped for 4 days, or have you forgotten that? And there have been intermittent stoppages, but usually because the aircraft starts from US controll WE can look at the pax first, and or quietly put as many skymarshals on the aircraft as the threat is deamed to require...


point 3

Yep if requested...


Cheers
Wino (Former JMC, Flying Colours, and Airworld Captain on the A320)


PS Grandpa, NO one just does a highdive anymore, Hopefully they coordinate it. If you are in the North Atlantic you have to turn off your track etc... and if you are in the USA you are going to declare an emergency and notify ATC. I have to question the competency of anyone that would just automatically pin that pax to the ceiling. Anything that explosively decompresses the cabin likely will have caused structural damage, Do you really want to come screaming down hill at barber pole with bloody great big holes in the side of the aircraft? taking 5 min to get to 10 thousand or 2 min won't make any difference to the pax long term health, but it might make a HUGE difference to the health of the airframe...

Wino,

As far as I can see, although passengers may carry firearms on an aircraft, they must be unloaded, and not in an area to which the passengers have access.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Unless anyone can find different the Air Navigation order applies as follows:

Carriage of weapons and of munitions of war
46.—(1) An aircraft shall not carry any munition of war unless:
(a) such munition of war is carried with the written permission of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions relating thereto; and
(b) the commander of an aircraft is informed in writing by the operator before the flight commences of the type, weight or quantity and location of any such munition of war on board or suspended beneath the aircraft and any conditions of the permission of the Authority.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this article it shall be unlawful for an aircraft to carry any weapon or munition of war in any compartment or apparatus to which passengers have access.

(3) It shall be unlawful for a person to carry or have in his possession or take or cause to be taken on board an aircraft, to suspend or cause to be suspended beneath an aircraft or to deliver or cause to be delivered for carriage thereon any weapon or munition of war unless:
(a) the weapon or munition of war:
(i) is either part of the baggage of a passenger on the aircraft or consigned as cargo to be carried thereby;
(ii) is carried in a part of the aircraft, or in any apparatus attached to the aircraft inaccessible to passengers; and
(iii) in the case of a firearm, is unloaded;
(b) particulars of the weapon or munition of war have been furnished by that passenger or by the consignor to the operator before the flight commences; and
(c) without prejudice to paragraph (1) of this article the operator consents to the carriage of such weapon or munition of war by the aircraft.

(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any weapon or munition of war taken or carried on board an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom, if the weapon or munition of war, as the case may be, may under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered be lawfully taken or carried on board for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board.

(5) For the purposes of this article a "munition of war" means any weapon, ammunition or article containing an explosive or any noxious liquid, gas or other thing which is designed or made for use in warfare or against persons, including parts, whether components or accessories, for such weapon, ammunition or article.

-----------------------------------------------------------

However, the ANO is a Statuatary Instrument, and can be ammended by the Privvy council (excuse spelling) which does not take an act of parliament, in other words the ANO could be changed in around 5 minutes......

I binned my brit regs when I joined AA unfortunately, can someone point me to an easy website with the ANO and a good search function (Help me Flying Lawyer)...;

But are you telling me that Tony has to fly a foreign airline? Look at it from that point of view...

Also, can the company ops manual ever supercede the ANO? Can you have a waiver of the ANO as part of your ops manual? (In the USA it can happen that the FAR's can be waivered in the op specs of the company manual, though usually the opspecs are MORE restrictive)

Cheers
Wino

Wino

Just search for the words "Air Navigation Order" on google UK.

A good law search engine is http://www.bailii.org/

Cancompany rules over ride the ANO? No.

I did say that as far as I can find, and I am willing to be contradicted that is the legislation that applies. It means unless there is something else that applies there is no way of carring a loaded firearm on an aircraft. However, as I said at the end the ANO is not an act of parliament, its a Stautory instrument, it means its passed by the Privvey Council, as I recall that means that a group of Privvey councilers stand round The Queen and she agrees there and then to enact the instrument. In other words if what I quoted before is correct, then it can be changed in minutes.

You know as well as I do that President Tony flies British, his security arrangements are not something I can comment on, afterall you are a forigen national.

Think this may be what you are looking for Wino http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf you will need to look at page 54. it is what I remember from my PPL air law. Thankfully being a PPL I should not have to worry about guns and by choice I would not like to be near one if it did concern me.

Well then Final 3 Greens,
The SAS guys on board would indeed seem to solve the problem. Surely the US authorities would have no problem with these well trained guys...and as a bonus, provide a good return for your tax pound Sterling.
A win-win situation, it would appear.
Surely BALPA would not object...?:ooh:

UGGGHHHH,
The only thing worse than reading the FAR's is reading the British equivelent. The only thing worse than that is reading it on a computer screen...

The question appears to be, can a company ops manual "waiver" part of the ANO without having to change thewhole ANO.... I know I saw the clause about security details which would seam to indicate the former. I am gonna PM the ole flying Lawyer and see what he says. Maybe he will jump in here.


Cheers
Wino

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukpa08jan04.html

"The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002 does require that all persons traveling visa free to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program have a biometric chip identifier in their passport by October 26, 2004. Those travelers who use passports issued after October 26, 2004, that do not contain a biometric identifier, will be required to obtain a U.S. visa. That visa will contain biometric information. Those UK travelers who use machine-readable passports lacking a biometric chip but issued before October 26, 2004 will be able to continue to use the Visa Waiver Program until that passport expires. The U.S. Government is aware of the concern among officials of Her Majesty's Government caused by this deadline. UK officials have made clear that they do not anticipate that they will be able to begin issuing passports with biometric chips by that date, raising the possibility that some UK citizens will need to obtain a tourist/business visa for travel to the U.S. We are old friends and long-time allies, and the U.S. Government remains committed to facilitating legitimate travel to the U.S. We will continue to work with Her Majesty's Government in pursuit of a solution to this problem."

This was issued by the US embassy Today. Looks like the Visa and photographing of Pax from the UK will apply to a relatively small number of pax whose passport expires after 26th OCT and who have not been issued with Biometric passport.

I have just shelled out £42 to renew my passport - expires in a few months. How much are the gov going to charge for a biometric passport - £100+?

Haivng returned from New Orleans, I must ask ask: Final 3 Greens - what makes you an expert? The question concerning al-Qaeda and its difference from the terrorism experienced by Europeans was one pointedly discussed in my Master's Course. Feel free to enlighten us.

While I am jumping in here late, I would like to point out a few things.

We make an announcement in the US to not congregate in the forward lav or galley area. That makes the F/As happy because it keeps their area clear of self loading cargo getting in the way of their service. It also keeps the aisleway clear for us to see out if we need to.

Air Marshalls having their guns taken away is pretty damn remote. Training and operational procedures quite ensure that.

The FFDO progam (armed pilots) has been a big success. There are strict rules and procedures and the background checks alone keep the riff raff out. Weapons are only to be available inside the locked cockpit. That is why the F/As also make one other announcement "The flight Deck door is in the front of the aircraft and no unauthorised personnel are allowed in during flight". That is the only warning that needs to be made, if someone comes through that door without warning they are met with lethal force.
The Air Marshals are very supportive of the FFDO program, from talking to many of them. The training is intensive and is at the same standards as any federal law enforcement personnel. The instructors come from every Spec Ops and law enforcement background possible and much more than weapons training is involved.

We as professional pilots must do all we can to prevent our aircraft from being used as weapons. The whole program of security is an ongoing process. Are there mistakes, even silly ones at times? Of course there are but those pale in comparison to the successes and accomplishments. Give the US some slack. We have been the most open and free society for a long time and we have paid the price for letting individual rights be supreme. We have to find the right balance and we will. It just won't happen as quickly as the EU or even Americans want.

This is really part of a huge issue - so big that I'm not sure how to express my thoughts or even where to start, but here goes...

Ever since 11/9/2001 (or 9/11 as the Americans insist on calling it) the Bush administration has made all the wrong decisions.

The correct response to the terrorist attacks would have been to launch an international criminal investigation with a view to putting the culprits on trial.

If that had been done, there might now be some progress in actually tracking down Osama Bin Laden and whoever else is believed responsible for the events of that date.

Becoming involved in a long-running civil war in Afghanistan and launching an unprovoked attack on Iraq were NOT appropriate responses, even if nobody is shedding any tears for the Taliban or for Saddam Hussein.

Over the last two years, the people in the White House have demonstrated repeatedly - by telling blatant lies and by failing to comply with international law - that they have no integrity and no credibility.

Bush's State of the Union address in 2003 was a classic case.

I watched and heard every word of it with stunned disbelief.

I was even more appalled that Bush got a standing ovation, but maybe that's just traditional.

(Unfortunately the people running Australia are no better, because they have blindly sided with Bush the whole way. And I was disgusted that the lying Bush was later invited to address the Australian parliament.)

This ban on congregating near aircraft toilets and the new procedure of fingerprinting foreigners arriving in America are just the latest proofs that lunatics are running the asylum.

There is no reason for innocent people to be treated as criminals - and no, "security" is not a reason.

So how can common sense be brought to bear?

The onus is now on ordinary American voters to get off their arses and exercise their democratic right in November - and, with any luck, toss the (not democratically elected) Bush administration out of office.

Since the USA is the world's only superpower - and one which frequently and brazenly violates international law - ordinary American citizens have a duty of care to the whole world to get it right.

Of course, I'm trusting that the Democrats will come up with a presidential nominee who has the right stuff.

Too bad for all of us if they don't.

As an "alien", I can do no more than appeal to their common sense.

As an Australian citizen living in John Howard's electorate, I will be doing my best to have that sycophant removed from office when we go to the polls (some time this year), even though his parliamentary seat is considered safe.

In the meantime, I will boycott the USA until the paranoia subsides and sanity returns.

And if the situation does not improve, and I never get to visit the USA again, so be it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should not have security.

But every security measure that is taken must be effective, sensible, and commensurate with the threat.

I can't see any sense in taking nail files from little old ladies, making passengers use a plastic knife while still issuing a stainless steel fork, ban people from queuing for the toilet, etc.

It's time to get sensible.

(Edited for punctuation and spelling)

Yawn.. Another anti-Bush diatribe. This has all been said so man y times.

I wonder how long any self respecting Sky Marshal would want the job sitting in a single class Charter Seat on UK Airlines flying to the US??

And it needs to be said again and again and again until the situation is rectified.

The US government directives over alleged security threats have caused massive financial loss to AirFrance and BA.

Interesting that these "intelligence" reports have not been dealt with in a way which causes commercial disadvantage to any US company

Wino

Thats an easy one, try the older laws!!!!!!

I keep saying this, and I will repeated again...Thats the only part of the ANO that I can find that refers to firearms. There may be something else, there may be agreements between the Goverment and the CAA. However I doubt it. Its 7 years since I worked at LHR as a Policeman, however at that stage the carrying of firearms by British Protection officers on British aircraft was not as you described it. I wont comment further on that.

Again to repeat, if this part of the ANO is what applies, and the Goverment decide to use skymarshals, then its a very simple matter to change, but at the moment it seems that its unlawful to carry armed skymarshals.

Spin-Off
 

Juan Francisco Beccera, the tourism minister for The Canary Islands has just announced a huge rise in inquiries by European Companies, relating to Conference and Convention facilities in the Islands. He was proud to announce that over 20 World Class facilities of this type have been completed on the islands in the last 5 years.

The vast majority of the inquiries came from Major Companies who are unwilling to subject their delegates to the time consuming and faintly ridiculous procedures that are coming into force in the USA.

Interestingly enough, most of these conventions would normally have taken place in Florida due to its year round fair climate, so the state that was ultimately responsible for the dubious election of the illustrious Mr Bush, will be the first to suffer.

Poetic justice perchance ??

On track,
You must have no sense of history. Are you aware that 9/11 was the SECOND attack on the WTC by Alqueda. that the first one caused 6 deaths and 1000 injuries when they planted a truck bomb in the basement of the WTC? Are you aware that we tried it your way and actually caught those responsible (it wasn't a suicide attack) for the actual attack and that the result of all that was that less than a decade later another 3000 died in the same place? We tried it your way. It didn't work Now we are trying it OUR way...

And no matter how much spin you put on it. Bush was democratically elected. Even that liberal bastion the NYTimes eventually conceded that fact ( a year or two later)


BJCC,

I concede the ANO. HOWEVER, the question that I have (as yet unanswered) is can the operational specifications of an airline, (THE OPS SPECS) modify the ANO on an individual basis. In other words the blanket ban would stay in effect to keep business and private aircraft from carrying guns.

In the USA that sort of thing can happen. While the OPS SPECS are generally MORE restricted than the FARs (our equivelent) there are occasional waivers of various FAR's granted. The most notorious of those was the "Transcon" exemption that lead to the APA's split from ALPA that allowed on certain city pairs some duty time limits to be exceded so that transcon flights (back in the propliner days) could be done with a single crew... But there are all kinds of other exceptions there including certain lower visibility ops... I suspect that it is exactly the same way for UK airlines. That the ANO may say one thing, and it is promptly waivered somewhere in the company ops manual or operational sepcifications...




Cheers
Wino

HercBird: First, I certainly agree that the US border control has been out of control. The US government is finally giving that some attention. Is it now where it needs to be? No, of course not. The biggest challenges in this regard are not at the airports but rather at the land crossings. The number of people crossing the borders near Detroit, MI, and San Diego, CA are truly staggering. The fact that we've done a bad job of it in the past does not mean that we shouldn't try to do a better job in the future.

Second, I suspect that you do not fit the profile of the person they are looking for. I suspect (and hope) that people who do fit the profile get more scrutiny.

This will close the thread, if nothing does! (finger poised over Submit Reply button...)
This whole issue of security has become confused with the fear and paranoia apparent in the way the US is fighting “terrorism,” and in the process, offending almost the entire rest of the world. “Do it our way, or the highway”. “If you want to fly to the US, follow our rules or don’t come.” Never mind that it is the passengers who are being put off from flying, and if there are no passengers to be carried, the airlines will not WANT to fly to the US.

The attack of 9/11 was very carefully planned, and a team was assembled that was willing to give up their own lives for the cause of religious fanaticism. It took a lot of time, planning and dedication for the plot to work, and they took advantage of some loopholes in security to do so. They needed flights that took off around the same time, were lightly loaded but had full fuel tanks, and could be coordinated for the attack on the WTC and government buildings. It is doubtful that something like it could be done again, since it worked mainly by the element of surprise. There is a story that the US Administration was warned that terrorists intended to take over passenger airplanes and use them to attack targets on the ground. Since the administration refuses to release documents that would prove or disprove this claim, it suggests it might be true.

Had this information been released prior to 9/11, and pilots made aware of the danger, then no flight deck doors would have been opened, and the terrorists would have been denied access, or at least there would have been time for the flight crews to make a Mayday call, alerting others. At the time, the FAA (and therefore the world’s) policy for hijacking was cooperation. Training films were circulated showing terrorists on the flight deck, negotiating with the ground, the Captain participating, in order to save lives. If there had been any idea in the minds of the pilots that there were people out there as evil and suicidal as those on 9/11, they would never have opened the door, no matter the threat.

“But if ground security was any good, the pilots would not have been faced with this decision, so lets give up our rights and freedoms, let them push us around and treat us like criminals, so at least we will be safe!” Never mind that the 9/11 terrorists did not break any rules, and would not have been stopped at security even if it was perfect. They were in the country legally (some had overstayed, but that is not a cause for concern about terrorism) and their weapons were not banned at that time. Even if they had had guns or knives, they had a good chance of getting them through. The private screeners were detecting about 75 percent of all guns and 60 percent of all knives that were taken through by testers, and even the much-vaunted TSA has improved only a few points. Real life guns and knives would be broken down, made of ceramics and hidden from X-ray, so there would be little chance of detection, but the hijackers did not need guns or knives, they only needed a strong will to succeed. Look at the hijackings that took place last year; none used real weapons, apart from a small pocketknife on one flight (unsuccessful). The items used included chopsticks, asthma inhaler, bottle of gasoline, TV remote control (the only one that was successful) and simply fists. Even the shoes of Richard Reid were probably not going to work, since he could not manage to light the fuse, despite several attempts, and nobody knows if they had enough power to do any damage, since the FBI destroyed them before they could be examined. Note that no nail files, computers, cell phones, keys or scissors were used, then or ever. Simply put, perfect ground security is impossible and the effort should be to make security as effective as it can be without disrupting the traveling process.

It is a small step from assuming everyone is a potential terrorist to treating them as the real thing. It is the easy way, of course, and why would we expect the authorities to do it differently? Don’t forget that their bosses are politicians, who by definition are not working for our interests, but their own. Concentrating on objects rather than people is another dead end. Never mind if a few “weapons” get through, it is the person’s intent that matters, not the thing in his bag. When the attack comes, we need the support and cooperation of the passengers. If we have them cowed and beaten before they even step aboard, we are wasting our best resource. Giving women and kids, people in wheel chairs, old men and women and such a hard time is counter-productive. It is obvious to anyone who has a brain bigger than that of a flea that these people are not a threat, and if the resources are wasted this way, the real terrorist will be able to go through with a smile. Proper security does not need this odious, obtrusive pressure, it needs persons with intelligence, who will stand back and observe, sending the hit team in when it is needed, which will not be very often at all. Use the resources where they will be most effective, and this will usually mean out of sight. Of course the authorities do not want their efforts to be invisible; they could not build up their budgets as easily that way.

Only the front gate of the airport is locked. Those thousands of persons who work at the airport, many of whom have direct access to the airplanes, do not go through a comparable level of security. Of course the terrorists know this, so why would they try to gain access or put weapons aboard by going in the front way? Al Gore was given the full treatment on a flight he took, and his aides said he was “happy” to do his bit; “nobody should be exempt.” He had a good opportunity to point out how stupid it all was; if Al Gore is a threat to security then we have already lost. Send Osama a ticket to Washington and a key to the White House. Let him run the insane asylum. He could do no worse.

Commercial aviation has never been safer; even if the numbers killed in the WTC as well as on the four airplanes brought down on 9/11 are included in the stats for 2001, they cause hardly a blip (Much more than a blip to those affected, of course. I can hardly think of that day even now without breaking down). Much more money and effort has been put into “protecting” us from this threat than it needed, and most of it in the wrong places. The only tangible result has been the imminent destruction of the airlines, serious damage to international relations, and encouragement of the paranoia and fear of the population of the USA. It is perhaps time they gave up their claim to be the “home of the brave and land of the free.”

I doubt the real reason for all the changes to security are in our interests; I cynically believe they are for the good of the administration and the government of the US. We have seen the establishment of the world’s largest department, modeled after the similarly named Homeland Security Department of the Nazis in the late 30’s, and restrictions on aviation that have, several times, led to the imminent demise of airlines and airline travel. We all know many people who refuse to fly any longer, and refuse to fly to the US. The rise of Airbus shows the effect on US businesses, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Have there been any improvements made? Of course, things such as stronger flight deck doors are positive. But even so, they can be circumvented easily, unless the crew is extremely vigilant. Putting a meal cart across the door every time a pilot needs to use the toilet is as stupid as I can imagine. It advertises that the door is going to be opened, and do the pilots have to adjust their bladders to the meal service times? What about the smaller airliners that do not have extra cabin crew? Or even a place to fit a door? Much more thinking needs to go on here, but meanwhile the only safety we will see is due to the fact that now we know what these savages are capable of, and we, the flight crew and passengers, will never let it happen again.

Richard Reid’s shoes would not be detected if he were flying today, since they would not set off an X-ray detector, having no metal. There are still no nitrate detectors in use that would do so. Yet millions of people all over the world have to take off their shoes in order to board an airplane. Stupidity does not cover it well enough. Check in baggage is now X-rayed in the concourse area of many airports, and if the explosives detector shows a ‘hit’ the bag is taken to a table and opened by a TSA operator who is ill-trained to handle bombs, and who uses only rubber gloves as an aid, rummaging around in the bag looking for the explosive device. If there was such a device, this type of handling would be bound to set it off, right there in amongst the thousands of milling passengers. LAX had a Crazy shooting at passengers at the El AL check in counter, and he was stopped not by the TSA, or airport police, but by private airline security. Have we learned from this? Not yet. On arrival at LAX you will see that every person employed there in uniform has a gun on his or her hip (sometimes very ample hip, pardon my lack of PC, but it shows a lack of fitness and readiness to use the gun correctly). But on departure, which is not subject to Customs or Immigration supervision, there are no guns. So let’s imagine that a terrorist is stopped at the metal detector with an Uzi? Is he going to say “Woops” and surrender? No, he is going to whip it out and spray everyone around him, and thanks to the system, there will be hundreds of targets for him. How will the TSA react? Do they have a SWAT team ready to go? Maybe they do, but how does it get into the crowded hall, and how do they take down the terrorist without shooting the innocents around him? Does anyone in authority have any brains?

Now we see High Tech passports, restrictions on visas, fingerprinting and photographs (after landing? How does that help?), rules against congregating near the toilets (terrorists are only going to congregate AFTER they take over the airplane. Will they then sit down when the hostess makes the standard announcement?), airplanes “escorted” by F16s (presumably to be shot down if they stray. Tell me again how that makes us safer), huge No-Flying zones around the Pres and others, seemingly in fear of his subjects, that disrupt general aviation to the point that many operators have gone out of business, pilots have lost their jobs, many training establishments have no students (since those students cannot obtain visas), sensitive information is being sent out ahead of flights into the US, demands on foreign airlines to carry armed marshals (we go to so much trouble to keep guns off airplanes then we put some on board? Who thinks of these things?), canceling flights because someone on board has the same name as a terrorist suspect, and so on, ad Nauseum.

Either the authorities come to their senses soon, or the people force them to do so, or we might as well give up now and save ourselves the grief that is to come.