GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 992 times:
It is being widely reported today that the UK Government has announced that Air Marshalls will be used on selected international flights. This has caused some concern with the British Airline Pilots Association who are saying that their members may refuse to fly.
I' like to hear your views on these issues, particularly if you are a UK Pilot, or anyone with a reasoned point of view on the UK introducing Air Marshalls on flights.
Ryangooner From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 964 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 974 times:
I am not a pilot but with a reasoned view:-
My opinion is that they are a good idea and could well be a deterant if not maybe a savour should their services be required in flight.
you may never know whether your flight actually has an air marshall on board, could make flying alot safer, im not just talking about terrorism but drunk abusive passengers that may jeppordise the flight.Only last month i assisted LHR immigration in the deportation of an illegal immigrant by escorting him all the way to kuwait.He was a problem and was placed on board kicking and screaming, i offered my services and the flight with him went without a hitch!
Im not an air marshall but the application form is in the post!!!!!!!! lol
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 932 times:
Ryan, thanks for your input. I also happen to think that they are a good idea given the current situation with terrorism, and as you rightly point out, abusive or dangerous passengers.
They could be a final line of defence should a terrorist get through all other security that has been put in place. So why are the Pilots Association objecting to this?
Is it that they simply don't want guns onboard an aircraft, or are they just unhappy that there hasn't been more consultation with them?
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7695 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 899 times:
Personally i don't have a problem with having air marshalls on board, but i can see why BALPA obect to it. What if there is a fire-fight inflight and someone blows a hole in the fuselage in the middle of a scuffle? Sure, these guys will be highly trained marksman, but so will a terrorist. Sky marshalls WILL be a help though when it comes to disruptive and abusive passengers.
Dmerinop From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 155 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 901 times:
Hi,
So they are introducing Air Marshalls in "some" international routes. Well I think that´s not right. First of all, If they are introducing them, they should do It in every route, not only in some routes, that my opinion.
So for example,
they introduce Air Marshalls on LHR-JFK and LHR-ORD. Ok? Well what about LAX, EWR, SFO... does that mean that hijackers can easily go on this routes and not have much resistance on their action??? Well that´s not right. If they are going to put Air Marshalls, they should put them in every single route or at least in every International route.
Any opinions on this... meaby I´m not right, but thats what I think.
Ryangooner From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 964 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 885 times:
Dani
They (as i see it) will be put only on some routes, those routes we will never know, so you can never presume you dont have an air marshall thats actually on board your flight - i cant see them advertising "marshall only on LHR-ORD" for instance!!!! - no point!
The amunition that they will use will not be able to penetrate the skin of an aircraft thereby no holes in aircraft after a firefight!
Im not sure on this fact but ive heard that even the pilots will not know if they have an air marshall on board - can anyone clarify this?
Trident2e From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1327 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 880 times:
I think this is a very bad idea as it sends out a message that the UK Government does not have confidence in its ability to prevent or detect terrorism BEFORE a terrorist gets on a plane. As the leader of BALPA said on the news today, if you have to wait until the terrorist is on the plane, then it's already too late. It also has to be remembered that the British Home Secretary has a political reputation as a bit of a gung-ho macho man so this could be seen as another example of his bluster. The most worrying thing though is that the UK Governmenr has announced that these marshalls will operate on selected flights to the USA - does this mean that any terrorist with half a brain will simply target flights NOT going to the USA?
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 872 times:
Arsenal@LHR: I can see your point (and that of BALPA) about a fire-fight in the cabin and the danger that could pose, but if it comes to the point where a terrorist has managed to get onboard with a gun surely it is better to have an air marshall with a gun between him and the cockpit?
Dmerinop: I think that they would decide which flights to put them on based on intelligence at any given time that might suggest an increased risk to a particular, route, airline, or flight. The problem with that of course is that the terrorsits aren't stupid, and could find a way round this.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7695 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 868 times:
If security on the ground and at the airport was sufficient, why should there be terrorists onboard?
MD88Captain From United States, joined Nov 2001, 1165 posts, RR: 16 Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 818 times:
I think the reason for air marshalls on board is that the British government knows that airport security is not sufficient to thwart all attacks. You think that the British airport security is impenetrable (it is not), but what about return flights to Britain from Madrid, Lisbon, Moscow, Paris, or just fill in the blank. The compentancy of airport security varies all over Europe form good to not so good. And holes in security can always be found. Air Marshalls are just another needed layer against terrorists willing to die for Allah.
Also recent intelligence points to the UK as a BIG target.
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 798 times:
It also has to be remembered that the British Home Secretary has a political reputation as a bit of a gung-ho macho man so this could be seen as another example of his bluster. The most worrying thing though is that the UK Governmenr has announced that these marshalls will operate on selected flights to the USA - does this mean that any terrorist with half a brain will simply target flights NOT going to the USA?
So do you think that this is a case of Blunket jumping on a band-wagon, or maybe the UK government trying to appease the US by putting Air Marshalls on UK-US flights only?
LMP737 From United States, joined May 2002, 3606 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 773 times:
Arsenal@LHR:
It's a known fact that EL-AL has the best security of any airline. The chances of an armed terrorist getting on board are slim. However EL-AL takes the added precaution of having sky marshalls aboard. A layered defense approach to security.
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 759 times:
Sounds like a sensible approach to security...no point in putting all your eggs in the one basket (screening etc) better to have a final line of defence on the aircraft itself.
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 754 times:
MD88Captain: "You think that the British airport security is impenetrable (it is not), but what about return flights to Britain from Madrid, Lisbon, Moscow, Paris, or just fill in the blank."
On the contrary, I don't think anyone here thinks that British Airport security is impenetrable. You only have to look at the stunts pulled by various reporters trying to breach security to get a story out of it to realise that it is far from perfect.
Richard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1395 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 710 times:
I'm against the idea.
It would seem that in any hostage situation, the action must be to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible, whilst keeping the cockpit secure.
The measures already put in place since 9/11 (in strengthening the doors and placiing video camera's) helps to ensure this.
I'm unsure what good a sky marshall would be in this situation, other than to possibly disarm the terrorist, in which case great, however, in the case of there being more than one terrorist, the chances of the marshall being overwhelmed increase, and thus gives the possibility of a gun getting into the wrong hands.
As mentioned above, a mid air shoot out could also cause structural problems to the aircraft, or cause lose of cabin pressure, which in its self could do the terrorists job for them.
My feelings are that the biggest threat comes from explosives carried on board, which its very unlikely the marshall could help (the shoe bomber being caught was very fortunate to say the least), or from surface to air missiles, which again no marshall could assist with.
This move "ups the anti" still further, puts people in a state of fear, and is generally not thought through.
The only possible advantage I could see is it being one of a deterant, however anti-west feelings are at an all time high, so I see little evidence of this.
TedStriker From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 688 times:
The BBC website are saying that US authorities are demanding international planes carry a law enforcement officer at certain times;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3354577.stm
This could well explain the timing of the announcement here in the UK. I assume this means other countries will have to follow suit?
"Im not sure on this fact but ive heard that even the pilots will not know if they have an air marshall on board - can anyone clarify this?"
Have heard on the radio today they are saying the captain would be aware but not the cabin crew, this apparently is to stop one of the cabin crew being forced to give away the identity of the sky marshall if placed under duress.
PiedmontGirl From United States, joined Nov 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 686 times:
GLAguy:
Sounds like a sensible approach to security...no point in putting all your eggs in the one basket (screening etc) better to have a final line of defence on the aircraft itself.
I think it's sensible, too. And your point about not putting all your eggs in one basket is a good one. Security is better in some places than it is in others and some security screeners are better at what they do than others.
I've flown many times with U.S. Air Marshals on board and they are very unobtrusive. They're in plain clothes and blend in nicely with the other passengers.
Just the knowledge that they might well be there serves as a deterrent. Terrorists are not afraid of dying. They are afraid of failing. Air Marshals increase the possibility of their failure to an enormous degree.
El Al has AMs on every flight. There is one who is assigned to protect the cockpit. That is his only job. Once you lose the cockpit, you've lost the whole plane and everyone on it.
As an aside, U.S. Air Marshals do not deal with passengers who are simply rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. They would, however, deal with a passenger who had decided to beat someone up or was setting fires in the plane. The passenger has to become dangerous and/or violent before the AMs are involved. I would think the U.K. would have similar guidelines for involvement of their Marshals.
Air Marshals are there to protect the flight. They are not there to be in command of the flight. That's the Captain's job.
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 639 times:
TedStriker: The BBC website are saying that US authorities are demanding international planes carry a law enforcement officer at certain times..."
"This could well explain the timing of the announcement here in the UK. I assume this means other countries will have to follow suit?"
It will be very interesting to see if other countries do follow suit and it poses the question: If the US have "demanded" that this be done, will they deny access to flights from or via countries who haven't complied by putting Air Marshalls onboard?
GLAguy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 623 times:
PiedmontGirl:
Terrorists are not afraid of dying. They are afraid of failing. Air Marshals increase the possibility of their failure to an enormous degree.
You made an extremely important point - What we feel about Air Marshalls being onboard is nothing compared to the increased possibility of failure that a terrorist faces should there be one present on a flight that he/she wishes to take over. If this is sufficient deterrent then surely having armed Air Marshalls is a small price to pay
I feel safer flying on US airlines knowing that there are likely to be Air Marshalls aboard than I do on British carriers where there is one less level of security/deterrent because until now we haven't adopted this.
PiedmontGirl From United States, joined Nov 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 611 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 65 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 964 posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 155 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2002, 3606 posts,