European armed guards on board
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have Gun Will Travel . . .
 

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

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

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

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

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

FrequestSLF

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

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

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

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

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

Frank

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

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

reversegreen

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

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



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

Brilliant!

'Real Guns'
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" Carriage Guns " ?!

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

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I do respect what you are saying though.

Agaricus bisporus

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

FrequentSLF

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

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

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

Just my two cents.

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

I have an easy solution to problems with armed guards.
If an armed marshal gets on...I get off…end of problem.

Italian speaking here, however a search on the net found: :)

Gun
–noun 1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance. 2.any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver. 3.a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory. 4.any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun

gun

1339, gunne "an engine of war that throws rocks, arrows or other missiles," probably a shortening of woman's name Gunilda, found in M.E. gonnilde "cannon" and in an Anglo-L. reference to a specific gun from a 1330 munitions inventory of Windsor Castle ("...una magna balista de cornu quae Domina Gunilda ..."), from O.N. Gunnhildr, woman's name (from gunnr + hildr, both meaning "war, battle"); the identification of women with powerful weapons is common historically (cf. Big Bertha, Brown Bess, etc.); meaning shifted with technology, from cannons to firearms as they developed 15c. Great guns (cannon, etc.) distinguished from small guns (such as muskets) from c.1408. First applied to pistols and revolvers 1744.


Not very important, but I found the results pretty interesting.
Regards

FrequentSLF

Under who's authority?
 

In the Uk we have no armed Police on the streets so to speak. The Bobby on the beat has little more than a stick and a can of pepper spray. (I also believe the voters of the UK will keep it that way) The UK guys with guns (I believe) are highly shink tested and trained. I for one will stop when a copper says so, the mere mention of armed police will drop me to the floor.

Just who will make up the EU marshal force? On a G reg, drawn from our own forces, or will we have to 'accept' other forces that are armed for day to day walks around the streets?

I am but a humble groundie, however, the question is:

If the 'Purser' is responsible for the cabin,
The 'Captain' or more importantly, the 'Commander' is responsible for the craft, under who's command is an armed guard?

If the guy with the gun must fly 1/ who pays, 2/ what limits on his 'duty' and 3/ as with every other member of the crew, will commander's discresion apply.

Back to my main question, who is in command, therefore liable when it all goes Pete Tong?


Bored

As I mentioned, personally I support armed good guys on board, ideally with non-lethal ( ie non-fuselage / other people puncturing ) weapons or the real thing.

I suspect airport security will always be a joke, inconveniencing people like say, the pilots and legitimate passsengers, while the bad guys will always find a way - for a start have a look at the typical catering re-packers, who prepares that 'food' etc, etc...

I was rather hoping for armed good guys rather higher trained ( ex-S.F. ? ) than the armed plod we see - shooting a naked man in his bedroom, a chap carrying a bit of wood in his carrier bag, or indeed the famous

" I bet you I could jump that turnstyle " incident...

So, armed 'sky marshalls' yes, but only highly trained & with the most suitable kit possible.

So, armed 'sky marshalls' yes, but only highly trained & with the most suitable kit possible.

The kit will be vetted check-in agents and security guards at airports paid (as i earn) an Ops controller salary, not minimum wage.

With a half livable wage comes customer service and pride in the job, no mater how boring. rather than have small arms, as yet uncontrolled, how about proper security?

Some years ago, flight from ABJ to BRU. Doors are ready to be closed but at the last minute a minister of the local government arrives with his escort, two armed guards. Our security confiscate the guns and ask me what to do with them. As we were ready to go and the cargo and bulk doors were already closed I said: "give me the guns that I will hold in the cockpit and put the ammunitions in the aircraft safe". Then advise Brussels of the situation coz I want to give the guns to airport security officers instead of the body guards.:ok:

I almost ended up in deep mess coz according to the Belgian law only the Royal Family body guards can bring fire arms on board. In all other cases fire arms have to be in special sealed boxes in cargo hold. Ooops.

With the habitual celerity that European States transpose European recommendation in their law book I don't see tomorrow armed guards or marshal traveling on board.:ugh:

The other concern I have is that when it will be known that someone is carrying a gun it means that a gun is already introduced on board. Would be terrorist need only to identify the guy or girl (most probably the one with a crew cut and very rigid attitude) wait till he or she fells asleep (or gently help with some spray) and substitute the weapon. Then we will have a real problem.:D

Happy landings

GJ

If a terrorist group really want or plan to take over our plane, all of us have a chance of 99,9% of ending screwed up.
So, if anyway were are going to the hell (If the terrorist dont bring down the plane, the Air Force will do) why just go to the hell, when you can go to the hell fighting, and may get inside that tiny percentage of 0,01% of survive.
I agree that the best option is to stay in the ground, but do you think that the terrorist are going to tell you when they are comming to hijack a plane?
If you are hijacked by Sep-11 type terrorist, guns or no guns, you have a very clear destination or present future in your view.
Guns only will give us a little advantage, but this can be a very important in a critical situation.
May the armed guards can buy time for the crew holding clear critical areas of the plane like front galley, or if the are disarmed and killed, may the terrorist finds more easy to shot at the passengers rather than trying to bring the cockpit door down.
I think (sorry about the passengers) that this scenarios are good for us and the people on the ground, that are not going to see another jet airplane crashing agains their buildings.
The othe options is to die with one hand in the yoke/sidestick, and the other in the crowbar.

Politics will choose.

Based on which figures you have got the 99.9%? I strongly disagree with such number. It means that only 1 person out of 1000 have survived aircraft hijaking...

I´m only refering to a Sep 11th type or style terrorist group.
If one of this groups takes or hijacks your plane, I think that a probability of 1 between 1000 of survive is high, but I have to give a chance to someone.

At the time the chances of surviving to this kind of hijack inside a plane is 0%.

They took over 4 planes and crashed down 4 planes with no survivors, plus klling a lot of people on the ground.

That are my figures.

I think that have some support in that scenario is a good and a healthy thing.

Double Zero - I think you underestimate our armed police - you mention 3 incidents over the last 10 years (the last during a period of high tension). The Met Poilce alone have about 2000 armed reponses a year. So the actual rate of mistake making is very low. Please do not undermine them - there are a lot of armed scrotes out there who are dealt with to keep the public safe.

An armed scrote is not a trained terrorist. The police are good at dealing with untrained criminals.

When the target is highly trained and motivated, HMG send in a different bunch of lads/lasses with a more appropriate set of skills.

Now I'm a civvy I have the right not to operate in a combat zone.

I will elect not to work the day they deem it necessary to place an armed marshal on my aircraft.

I will elect not to work the day they deem it necessary to place an armed marshal on my aircraft.

max_cont

I totally agree with you , it would also be my way of refusing an armed guard on an aircraft . Now retired though , so not directly concerned. I find it suprising that there have been no posts from our American colleagues who live with this situation every day, but then maybe in the prevailing "gun culture " over there it just doesn't strike them as an important subject

reversegreen

Strongresolve

What about the several other istances where by negotiation the situation was solved without loss of life?

My understanding is that U.S. sky marshalls operate with special low velocity weapons less likely to blow a hole in the fuselage.

My last AA flight to new york had 2 sky marshalls - when you land and go to immigration watch for the hard looking guys from your flight who storm straight through without needing to queue up.

I would imagine the Captain wouldn't have direct control over such armed personnel and I think that's probably the right thing given the situations these people are trained to respond to.

If something kicks off on the plane then the first few minutes will be crucial to the overall outcome and any delayed reaction due to waiting for authorisation could be costly to all on board including the Captain!

Like the responses to this thread have shown, some Captains are OK with the idea, some aren't, so to have them on board where the Captain was uneasy about their presence and who could possibly veto any action they are trained to take defeats the whole purpose of having them in the first place.

To be honest, if I was a Captain I can't imagine NOT being happy for someone armed standing between me and the bad guys! Infact, rather than a concealed weapon how about having the marshall armed to the :mad: teeth terminator stylee and in full view of everyone!

On a serious note, yes the chances of a terrorist event are slim however that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for them - I'm sure the PAX on Flight 93 would have appreciated an air marshall. And don't you just love it when people accuse the US Govt of peddling terrorism paranoia - if someone was trying to kill you or your way of life I think that's reason enough to be paranoid don't you? I'm not saying I agree 100% with everything they've done since however we should at least cut them some slack?

Peace!

MLP

Air Marshall Effectiveness
 

Since there are not enough U.S. Air Marshals to deploy them on every flight, there will be flights with and without them. You never know whether you will have one or more on any given flight, however, during times when there is a perceived need for increased security, certain flights will be manned based on intelligence.

Air marshals were first employed before Sept. 11 and have subdued unruly passengers, sometimes with the help of other passengers. Since Sept. 11, passengers have become more aware and willing to help flight crews.

I am not aware of any instance where an Air Marshal has fired a weapon in flight. However, I'm sure I would know if there had been. I'm not even aware that a Marshal has ever had to draw a weapon. Their training generally precludes that even being necessary.

And no, I am not a Marshal or otherwise involved in law enforcement, but as a passenger or crew member, I'd be most pleased to have that extra security available in the cabin.

Non leathal measures can be over come with simple measures such as newspapers under the shirt to defeat a stun gun. The only way to stop a threat is permanently. Aircraft remain the terrorists favoured target for the press coverage and potentially higher body count.

Air marshals make the call as to when and how to respond - no input required from the Captain and the marshals are responsible for the out come of their actions.

Hundreds of armed personnel (not just Air Marshals) fly every day without a single problem in the USA and I for one am glad for every single one of them that flies - not too mention the armed pilot programme in the USA.

Uk's murder rate is very similar to that of the USA despite the easy access to guns in the USA.

Finally to quote someone far smarter than me: when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.

perhaps some of you should look up the data on violent crime since the UK decided that guns cause crime.

Scotland yard produced the data I have seen.

Anyhow, I´m pilot and I´ve been airline ground manager, I had to deal several times with flights to Telaviv on the 90´s. The security screening of those flights were far much better than today´s security at any airport I´ve been. We had to screen every passenger at the gate, x-rays baggage (when it was not standard) and empty all purses, hand bags, etc...

bomb dogs were use to sniffer aircraft, buses, terminal, catering vans, departing door, pax, it took nearly 4 hours to handle on of these flights and almost 2 hours screening for 150pax.

Once one dog sniffed something on a catering tray, we almost had to cancel the flight, finally it was only a perfum bottle that use glicerine in one of its components and was not tight closed.

By the way, I´ve seen german police armed officers (x3) fly on board Lufthansa and condor flights, show up last minute, no comments, only captain informed.

SLF Freighter

Yes, that´s true, a lot of hijacks has been resolved by negociation. Normally they are carried out by one or two persons, and very often they are people with mental problems rather than terrorists.

But I think that in the after Sep 11th world, we are going to ban the access of the terrorist/guy with mental problems to the cockpit, and anyway that can put the lives of the passengers at risk, because in this scenario the hijacker will opt to harm the hostages to gain access, and he will start to hiting or killing people until you open the door or someone stops him.

If you dont have a skymarshall, may be you can land fast, an let the local authority deal with it. End of the problem. That is what normally happends.

But when you have one or two skymarshalls, they can deal or dispatch the threat without the need of deadly force and no risk to the passengers at all, and you can continue you flight with not risk or land with no aditional stress in the closest airport. That´s what normally happends in this scenario when a skymarshall/security agent is onboard.
Probably, the agent, will never show or handle his gun or stunt weapon.

Is very unusual (I hope it never happen) to have an agent shooting multiple terrorist in the plane, I think that this has never happend, only you can see it in the movies, and I believe that if the skymarshall get´s overcome by multiple terrorists he or she will choose to mantain a low profile, evaluate and wait the right moment to do an intervention or not do anything at all.

Wouldnt be a salad of bullets until is absolute, absolute, necesary to protect the lives of the people in the air and the ground, and when this happen, (if this happens again) this probably will give the ocupants of the aircraft some chances of surviving in a no survive situation.

Cheers.