Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Increases The Number Of Air Marshals  
User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5579 times:

Link

Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- The federal government is scrambling to find ways to comply with President Obama's order to put more air marshals on flights after a botched Christmas Day airline terrorist attack, government sources have told CNN.

Hundreds of additional marshals could be "loaned" from the Secret Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a U.S. official briefed on the investigation said. Another source said marshals could be drawn from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

Additional federal air marshals are needed for high-priority international flights, with other law enforcement personnel filling in on key domestic flights, another source noted.

A good move in my opinion. I have criticized the air marshal program in the past because less than 1% of flights were covered and it was all to obvious to spot an air marshal. I personally thought that the money for this program would have been better spent training F/As and arming pilots. This is a good move by Obama. I wonder though how effective this is going to be since a suicide bomber could go into the lav and ignite the bomb... But if a terrorist was lighting the bomb in the cabin as was the case with NW253 and AA63 air marshals would be able to quickly step in and subdue the terrorist.

I don't think terrorists are going to try and takeover an airplane like they did on 9/11. The flight deck doors are now fortified and they know the passengers and F/As will immediately start a counter attack.


My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5556 times:

I agree with your analysis. Sounds like a good choice, but still I'd like to know what % of flights it would be. It will not be cheap to do, or easy to find the people, but if you take the trouble and only cover 5% of flights, then you should have spent the resources elsewhere.

Quoting M11Stephen (Thread starter):
I don't think terrorists are going to try and takeover an airplane like they did on 9/11. The flight deck doors are now fortified and they know the passengers and F/As will immediately start a counter attack.

I absolutely agree. Forget sky marshals; pax should prevent the 9/11 scenario.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8212 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

All the air marshalls in the World won't do anything to keep bad guys from getting on a plane to begin with, and blow it up with an explosive. It's a total waste of money. Just take that money, buy the damn screening machines, train your screening guys better and give them a salary that may make them actually enjoy what they're doing.

User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5339 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 3):
All the air marshalls in the World won't do anything to keep bad guys from getting on a plane to begin with, and blow it up with an explosive.

Depends on the circumtances of the explosive, I suppose. Both Richard Reid and this Nigerian fellow were restrained by passengers and crew before they could successfully detonate their device.

I wonder what the lesson is from that. Can we just count on passengers and crew to do the job, if the explosion is not immediate? Would the explosion have been immediate in both cases, had the device worked as planned?

Can we imagine a situation where the surrounding pax would have time to act, but not the training or firepower? Then a marshal would be helpful.


User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5282 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 2):
All the air marshalls in the World won't do anything to keep bad guys from getting on a plane to begin with, and blow it up with an explosive. It's a total waste of money. Just take that money, buy the damn screening machines, train your screening guys better and give them a salary that may make them actually enjoy what they're doing.

There are really three areas of aviation security.

There is:
Before the airport:This is where Homeland Security, CIA, and the Feds come into play.
ATt the airport:This involves security screening, baggage screening, and identifying potentially suspicious passengers based on their behavior.
Then there is on board security:This is where F/A training, Air Marshals, and pax being proactive come into play.

Putting Air Marshals on board is a good way of making on board security as safe as possible. Air Marshals are also very well trained on identifying suspicious passenger behavior. A terrorist is going to show subtle signs of suspicious behavior and they can then take the appropriate action. This will sound extremely bizarre but I would like to see a "lavatory bomb detector." I know next to nothing about bomb "sniffers" but would it be possible to install a sniffer in the lavatory which activates an alarm? Just like the lavatory smoke detector?



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineEvomutant From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5253 times:



Quoting M11Stephen (Reply 4):
This will sound extremely bizarre but I would like to see a "lavatory bomb detector." I know next to nothing about bomb "sniffers" but would it be possible to install a sniffer in the lavatory which activates an alarm? Just like the lavatory smoke detector?

Should ban curry for a day before flying then. That can lead to "explosive" lavatory visits for the unprepared... Big grin


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5206 times:



Quoting M11Stephen (Thread starter):
I personally thought that the money for this program would have been better spent training F/As and arming pilots.

Training them in what though? FA's are very correctly not pseudo-law enforcement, nor should they be expected to perform such a role. As for arming pilots.....they are behind a locked cockpit door, so of exactly what use is arming them?


User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5168 times:



Quoting AirNz (Reply 6):

Training them in what though? FA's are very correctly not pseudo-law enforcement, nor should they be expected to perform such a role. As for arming pilots.....they are behind a locked cockpit door, so of exactly what use is arming them?

Arming them would enable them to be able to defend themselves if the flight deck door was somehow breached. The cockpit door has to be open at certain times during the flight to allow the F/As to get into the flight deck and so the pilots can use the bathroom. A terrorist could take this opportunity to rush the cockpit and a pilot could quickly subdue the terrorist if he/she has a gun.

In regards to F/A training I meant giving them extensive training in identifying suspicious passengers, how to disable a bomb (They do currently learn a little about this in training), how to stop and disable an attacker, and close quarters self defense. Unless there are Air Marshals on board, the F/As hold the authority in the cabin so in essence they are "pseudo" law enforcement. I know a lot of you will say, "What good will training a 50 year old F/A in this do?" but certain self defense techniques are extremely effective even when being attacked by someone significantly larger than you.



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7405 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

God this is pointless. The only thing FAM's are there for is if there is a breach of the flight deck door. They are not trained to nor will they react if something happens in cabin. Any disturbance in the cabin is disregarded as this could be a diversion to leave the flight deck area unattended. Another brainless move by the Obama Administration


Made from jets!
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

where does the spending end?

I need someone to hold my hand in public too, make sure I cross the street safely!!

What are we, a country of third graders? Can't we all take some personal responsibility and stop asking the government to protect us from any little nasty people in life?

What a basketcase resolution to a not serious problem. Insanity.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5119 times:



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 8):
God this is pointless. The only thing FAM's are there for is if there is a breach of the flight deck door. They are not trained to nor will they react if something happens in cabin. Any disturbance in the cabin is disregarded as this could be a diversion to leave the flight deck area unattended. Another brainless move by the Obama Administration

Where are you getting that information? Seems questionable to me.

If nothing else, a sky marshal on El Al disrupted a hijacking on the Dawson's Field day. Used his firearm even, I think.


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5073 times:



Quoting M11Stephen (Reply 7):
Arming them would enable them to be able to defend themselves if the flight deck door was somehow breached. The cockpit door has to be open at certain times during the flight to allow the F/As to get into the flight deck and so the pilots can use the bathroom. A terrorist could take this opportunity to rush the cockpit and a pilot could quickly subdue the terrorist if he/she has a gun.

Valid enough point, as I took it (obviously incorrectly) to mean you were advocating their 'use' as in defence of the aircraft, per sé, by leaving the flight deck.

Quoting M11Stephen (Reply 7):
In regards to F/A training I meant giving them extensive training in identifying suspicious passengers, how to disable a bomb (They do currently learn a little about this in training), how to stop and disable an attacker, and close quarters self defense. Unless there are Air Marshals on board, the F/As hold the authority in the cabin so in essence they are "pseudo" law enforcement. I know a lot of you will say, "What good will training a 50 year old F/A in this do?" but certain self defense techniques are extremely effective even when being attacked by someone significantly larger than you.

No, I have to disagree with you here, although I'll stand corrected if I am reading your meaning incorrectly as some parts are not quite clear/correct. FA's are most certainly not pseudo-law enforcement whatsoever in the sense that you are referring to. They are responsible for the safety of passengers in regards to aviation rules/procedures but that certainly doesn't make them pseudo-law enforcement. Indeed, even with an Air Marshall on board, FA's have complete authority in the cabin except on a pure security issue......other than that, an AM has no authority at all. Now, I'm not quite sure if you're serious about 'extensive training' in how to disable a bomb.......I certainly hope not, and surely you're not seriously stating they should become bomb disposal personnel!!! I mean, that is a very skilled and specialised role for an army!! So no, but I have to disagree with the role that you seem to be thinking FA's should be turned into, and that is simply not their job. If those roles are 'needed', then someone should be employed specifically for them.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8212 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5049 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 3):
Depends on the circumtances of the explosive, I suppose. Both Richard Reid and this Nigerian fellow were restrained by passengers and crew before they could successfully detonate their device.

No, they were restrained AFTER their device failed to detonate, not before. Both examples show you that you don't need air marshalls to stop a failed attempt.


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5035 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 10):
Where are you getting that information? Seems questionable to me.

If nothing else, a sky marshal on El Al disrupted a hijacking on the Dawson's Field day. Used his firearm even, I think.

I can see where the poster's coming from though and I would think he means they will not react in the cabin unless it is a clear, or clearly perceived, security threat. Regarding anything else an AM would have no authority to intervene. As pointed out, such could be a deliberate distraction in order to reveal the presence of an AM, so I don't quite see anything questionable about it. With regards to your El Al example......well, that's exactly their role.....to prevent a hijacking.

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 9):
What a basketcase resolution to a not serious problem

Aircraft hijackings, or aviation security are a "not serious problem"??????


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5024 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 3):
Both Richard Reid and this Nigerian fellow were restrained by passengers and crew before they could successfully detonate their device.

No, they actually weren't....indeed, in the latest case the passenger thought he was merely stopping a fire from starting and that's something very different from restraining before a device could be detonated.


User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5016 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 12):
No, they were restrained AFTER their device failed to detonate, not before. Both examples show you that you don't need air marshalls to stop a failed attempt.

A question is whether they could have (eventually) successfully gotten a detonation if they hadn't been restrained, or if the device simply failed and would never fully ignite. I don't know.

I guess we should be happy that in the years between Reid and now, they haven't figured out how to make a device that successfully goes off quickly?

I've seen a lot of praise for Israeli security on here. Well, they still think it's useful to have marshals.

[Edited 2010-01-07 17:06:35 by tharanga]

[Edited 2010-01-07 17:08:21 by tharanga]

User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4991 times:



Quoting AirNz (Reply 11):
No, I have to disagree with you here, although I'll stand corrected if I am reading your meaning incorrectly as some parts are not quite clear/correct. FA's are most certainly not pseudo-law enforcement whatsoever in the sense that you are referring to. They are responsible for the safety of passengers in regards to aviation rules/procedures but that certainly doesn't make them pseudo-law enforcement. Indeed, even with an Air Marshall on board, FA's have complete authority in the cabin except on a pure security issue......other than that, an AM has no authority at all. Now, I'm not quite sure if you're serious about 'extensive training' in how to disable a bomb.......I certainly hope not, and surely you're not seriously stating they should become bomb disposal personnel!!! I mean, that is a very skilled and specialised role for an army!! So no, but I have to disagree with the role that you seem to be thinking FA's should be turned into, and that is simply not their job. If those roles are 'needed', then someone should be employed specifically for them.

What exactly do you mean by a pseudo-law enforcement sir? We are definitely misunderstanding each other lol. I think that they should be given training on how to disable a bomb in the event there is an emergency situation where an active bomb is on board and poses an imminent threat to the safety of the plane. I'm not suggesting that the next time a suspicious package or explosive is found at an airport we call in the nearest F/A to disable it instead of the bomb squad haha. When an airplane is miles above ground though the passengers and crew are on their own.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 8):
God this is pointless. The only thing FAM's are there for is if there is a breach of the flight deck door. They are not trained to nor will they react if something happens in cabin. Any disturbance in the cabin is disregarded as this could be a diversion to leave the flight deck area unattended. Another brainless move by the Obama Administration

If this is true then I agree with you, this move by Obama is pointless. I assumed air marshals were trained on all aspects of onboard anti-terrorism, not just defending the flight deck. The flight deck can pretty much take care of itself given how the door to it is now something like three inches thick and bullet proof. Also, lots of pilots carry guns and as passengers and F/As have demonstrated time and time again they're going to pounce on anyone making a run for the flight deck.



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

Another waste of time money and a good seat that could be sold. All the Air marshalls in the world would not of stopped this if his device worked properly. The terrorist never should of made onto the plane. Payed cash, no luggage....ding ding ding


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4957 times:

This will provide some truly excellent government jobs. What will it do for security, probably nothing. Or, less than nothing. These days, when I see a gun on an airplane (it does happen), I just assume the person is a Marshal. May be or may not be. What what are you gonna do?

User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4950 times:



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 17):
Payed cash, no luggage....ding ding ding

when I heard that, i was mad. it's like he was trying to get caught.


User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4840 times:

I continue to think that offering modest fare discounts to law enforcement officers would put a HUGE larger number of competent people on our air transports. Any qualifying officer (military police included) who took special training would qualify. (private security people ONLY if they underwent serious background checks - lots of ringers in that group). If it is felt weapon are of use they could be kept aboard in special safes, unlockable only before passengers started boarding. The second lock on the safe after the law enforcement person came aboard.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7405 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 10):
Where are you getting that information? Seems questionable to me.

Those on here who know me best, know why I might be knowledgeble in this realm.

Quoting M11Stephen (Reply 16):
If this is true then I agree with you, this move by Obama is pointless. I assumed air marshals were trained on all aspects of onboard anti-terrorism, not just defending the flight deck. The flight deck can pretty much take care of itself given how the door to it is now something like three inches thick and bullet proof.

Well, as I can't say it's official and without outing security procedures, they aren't commandos. They have one purpose, to protect the flight deck door. As said in previous posts, there isn't anything that FAM's being present would've deterred from the skivee-bomber. It's not like it was out in the open. Unless they would've noticed something during flight or if he became unruly and had to be restrained by pax and crew before he blew his balls off. And what are the odds that FAMs would've been on that flight? Pretty remote. There are several components to cabin safety regarding terrorism. We the FA's, are only trained to spot common types of explosives that were found on aircraft in the past, and we're given self-defense training to respond to to cabin threats. FAM's are there to protect the FD door, nothing else. All this is, is attempt to fool the average American sitting at home into believing that Obama and DHS sec Janet Napolian-complex that they're doing something. But having FAMs on this flight wouldn't have stopped what happened. Only acting on the intel that the DHS and CIA had on this clown would've. He never should've gotten on the flight.

Quoting M11Stephen (Reply 16):
Also, lots of pilots carry guns and as passengers and F/As have demonstrated time and time again they're going to pounce on anyone making a run for the flight deck.

FFDO's aren't kidding around when it comes to defending the flight deck

Bottom line: Obama and his foolish appointees haven't a clue of what they're doing. This will do nothing. The US needs to reverse course and start going on the offensive, before it's too late and before we end up with a successful underwear bomber. Until then, I hold my breath



Made from jets!
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4814 times:



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 22):
They have one purpose, to protect the flight deck door.

Even after the guy set himself on fire, the marshal wouldn't have gone and checked it out?

This seems absolutely fixated on the hijacking concept. Do we trust the door, or do we not? Let's make up our minds.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 22):
Only acting on the intel that the DHS and CIA had on this clown would've. He never should've gotten on the flight.

A point I've been making every possible step.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 22):
The US needs to reverse course and start going on the offensive, before it's too late and before we end up with a successful underwear bomber.

Offensive how? All you can do is get the CIA to function better.


User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2052 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4734 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 23):
Even after the guy set himself on fire, the marshal wouldn't have gone and checked it out?

Any incident is assumed to be an attempt to distract crew and allow others to rush the flight deck. If a FAM responds to a minor disturbance he announces his presence to anyone that has ulterior motives.


User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4645 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 23):


Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 22):
They have one purpose, to protect the flight deck door.

Even after the guy set himself on fire, the marshal wouldn't have gone and checked it out?

This seems absolutely fixated on the hijacking concept. Do we trust the door, or do we not? Let's make up our minds.

That door is STRONG. The only way a terrorist could access the flight deck today is if they jammed their way in when it was open so the pilots could use the bathroom. The F/As heavily guard the cockpit when this is happening and are on high alert so the door could be quickly closed if someone made a run for the cockpit. Not to mention the entire first class section would probably wrestle the hijacker to the floor.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 22):

Thank you Jetjack for enlightening me on this subject. I really appreciate it. I also know that you know what you are talking about.  Smile Years ago I heard a quote from an Air Marshall on CNN or MSNBC say, "I am on board only to protect the flight deck." I mistakenly assumed things had changed and FAMs were know trained in all aspects of flight security. The Obama administration is basically putting Air Marshals on board to protect against a risk that doesn't even exist due to fortified flight deck doors and the ability of F/As and passengers to already handle the situation.

Besides training F/As to be able to identify a potential bomber, is there anything else we can do on board to prevent a suicide bomber? Had the device on NW253 worked as intended would it have exploded immediately? Or would the crew and pax been able to do something? I am not an expert on explosives.



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
25 Tharanga : This is just weird. Somebody can be tossing around grenades behind him, risking a rupture of the fuselage, but the odds are still better if he just s
26 M11Stephen : Supposedly the "distracting" terrorist will do something to cause the F/As and FAMs to come running while another terrorist breaches the flight deck.
27 BlatantEcho : Not in the least compared to about 10,000 other social issues we face daily. Compare this shit to AIDS, cancer, the Flu, drunk driving. It's not even
28 Jetjack74 : Well, we always looking for passengers displaying odd behavior. Usually a good sign something is not right. Alot of times, it's just a nervous or sic
29 Post contains links Tharanga : And even if you were that worried about the impenetrable door being penetrated, you could have a second marshal. they supposedly go in pairs or group
30 GentFromAlaska : On the heals of the Christmas Day incident that could have occurred, I have a suspicion the unmanned self check-in kiosk's stations many airlines use
31 Tharanga : Is the number of interactions actually reduced? At some point, somebody will still have to check your passport and if needed, visa. You would have th
32 413X3 : If people think an Air Marshall should just sit around while bad things go on in the cabin, then they really don't care about protecting the airplane.
33 GentFromAlaska : Yes, the DHS Secretary used the words layers and layered as it relates to airport security. The current generation of kiosk would not flag a nervous
34 Tharanga : That's the part I'm questioning. If you check-in at a kiosk for an international flight, the kiosk can either require you to see the agent anyway, or
35 Flighty : This is partly because Hawai'i has terrible drug problems. Also, the agricultural quarantine issue.
36 AirNz : No-one is saying such at all. What some of us have been saying is that an FAM only makes himself known is a clearly perceived security threat.......o
37 Tharanga : I perhaps then read the comments below wrongly. It sounds to me that this poster is saying the FAM doesn't even have the discretion to address obviou
38 413X3 : You really should read what other people write first
39 GentFromAlaska : Yes me to, and I'm sure the other 9.9999% of the flying public. With that said there are a some with malice intent just as the Christmas Day bomber a
40 Tharanga : 20 years ago, yes. I would imagine that today, it'd be easy to electronically see which pax didn't check bags. No need to fuss with tags. I also assu
41 Fxramper : Everything I've been told thus far, the majority of DHS and TSA agencies will undergo budget cuts (eg. Dallas ICE office will lose 10 OI positions) on
42 GentFromAlaska : I'm curious in today's environment if this could be missed or overlooked. On my last intl flight BCN-JFK, years ago passports were shown twice, once
43 M11Stephen : Yeah it does qualify him as an expert since F/As undergo extensive training on how to handle things with or without an FAM on board. They need to kno
44 Post contains links Tharanga : I can't speak to that. I was under the impression that such data were already being used to pick out candidates for extra screening, but I really hav
45 Jetjack74 : Ignore him. FXRamper has apparently decided to take a confrontational position. And without devulging any detailed information, generally it is an FA
46 Tharanga : You're leaving a huge gap unclarified in your statements. No, the FAM will not blow cover for your basic disruptive or abusive passenger. I don't dou
47 M11Stephen : The pax setting fire to the curtains could have easily been handle by the F/As and passengers and could have possibly been a "diversion" while anothe
48 Tharanga : that's what the other FAM is for, I'd say. Seems like they have at least two on board, if they have any. I agree that a small fire could normally be
49 Jetjack74 : Yes, if there is serious incident in the cabin where the perp is stabbing the flight attendants, yes, that would most likely be considered a direct t
50 Tharanga : I think your initial wording left some confusion, that's all, as it seemed to leave no room for judgment by the FAM whatsoever. All I have left to sa
51 Maverick623 : You mean like the passengers did, without any FAMs? Which is why, in the absence of an actual attempt on the flight deck, you will never see two FAMs
52 Airtechy : I don't think you can check in for international flights at a kiosk as an agent must verify you have a passport and it's remaining validity time. So r
53 Tvnwz : I much prefer the Louisville Slugger security program. Everyone is given a Louisville Slugger on boarding. Try to get to the cockpit. Try to ignite a
54 Par13del : Well one could put a portatble pottie in the cockpit while new long haul a/c are designed with a lav in the cockpit, but that is going overboard. Ok,
55 AirNz : Out of curiosity, what is your definition of "extensive training" which you quote so frequently regarding FA's? On one hand you insist they have exte
56 M11Stephen : More than five minutes worth... An can train an F/A with five minutes worth of self defense training and still claim their F/As are trained in self d
57 Maverick623 : Sorry man, you don't know jack about training policies at any airline. It does NOT vary "wildly", there are minor differences in technique depending
58 M11Stephen : I have a couple F/A friends and I know one spent about a 1/2 hour on self defense training while another one spend a day on it. One did work for a re
59 Post contains links Pellegrine : I do not believe in any need for loaded firearms in the cabin nor cockpit. There are too many situations where it can only lead to trouble. Furthermor
60 Maverick623 : Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but your reasoning is severely flawed: False. When someone makes a threat that they have a bomb, there's no ti
61 StasisLAX : Air marshals are just another government farce to give the illusion of "security" in the air. The situation with the underwear bomber would have been
62 Maverick623 : You do realize every single El-Al flight has armed security on board? Although I agree it wouldn't have stopped a bomber, and that the reasoning behi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ashtrays In Aircraft: The Appendix Of Air Travel posted Fri Mar 21 2008 07:31:29 by SINGAPORE_AIR
How Can I Find Out The Number Of Empty Seats? posted Mon Apr 2 2007 13:13:37 by Ryanb741
The Future Of Air Travel posted Fri Mar 23 2007 04:07:16 by Tockeyhockey
The Future Of Air Wisconsin? posted Wed Jan 3 2007 19:28:55 by Saab2000
What Was The N Number Of The CO DC-10? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 18:46:49 by AirTran737
Braniff's View Of The Future Of Air Travel posted Tue Oct 10 2006 15:52:30 by OPNLguy
What Is The Status Of Air Jamaica? posted Wed Sep 28 2005 17:13:13 by JAM747
Civilian Aircraft In The Way Of Air Force One posted Sun Sep 25 2005 05:33:32 by Skywatch
The Demise Of Air Zimbabwe posted Thu Jul 21 2005 17:18:37 by Omoo
What Are The Plans Of Air Berlin? posted Thu May 26 2005 19:54:10 by Beaucaire