Carlos01 wrote:

barney captain wrote:

A certain Jack Nicholson line comes to mind.

Just to follow to know-it-all logic of the forum: that line was not written by the actor who uses the name Jack Nicholson who played this character in the movie.

Overall this thread is stupid for obvious reasons (obvious to people who can develop thoughts in their own heads). Hence I'll stop posting in it.

LOL, so true so true. Wondering, what was it, the “ I fly a couple times a week and KNOW who the FAM are. Or could it be the “FAM can take whatever seat they want. They can also adjust the schedule and type of plane at the snap of their fingers” I think it’s the simple fact that people can’t f’n spell MARSHAL correct. As it’s the basis of the story.. Pretty sure Marshal(l) is closely followed by “I hope my team doesn’t loose tonight!”

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Carlos01 wrote:

Not to mention - thanks to this "program" there will be a firearm in the plane cabin. What if a hijacker knocks the lights out of the air marshall, and grabs the gun, and then the plane? Are the cockpit doors bulletproof? Then again it won't really matter, the hijacker could just take passengers/crew hostage.

Wouldn't the bad guy first have to know who the Air Marshal is? (Hint, they won't). Cockpit doors are bulletproof, and as a last line of defense, there are likely more good guys with arms on the other side,

You people have no idea about which you opine.

Also, you can't prove a negative. How many security cameras have prevented a crime from ever happening? Just like the presence of AM's, you can never be certain what was stopped before it happened - just by their presence. If you knew how intense their training was, you would just say thank you, and move along.

A certain Jack Nicholson line comes to mind.

*glances at a certain day in 2001*

Right, super helpful and effective.

There is no evidence to show the effectiveness of having guns aboard planes. No other nation on the world has put together such a programme. Even nations with much longer histories of plane hijackings. The stuff that works is intelligence gathering before anything happens. There are plenty of examples of where police and intelligence agencies have nipped conspiracies in the bud long before they got on a plane. Other things that work are x-rays and metal detectors. Chances of smuggling a gun on board through such checks is pretty slim. Hell, most hijackings didn't even involve guns.

Face Palm!

You mean like El Al who constantly has armed security personel on all of their flights?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-to-de ... kyjacking/

Multiple times they have stocked bad guys with guns.

Acey559 wrote:

There are many agencies besides the Air Marshals allowed to carry weapons on aircraft, and I always felt better having them there. Unfortunately things happen, but the vast majority of the time they all do their jobs extremely well. Also, don’t forget about the FFDO program. It is one of the best and most cost-effective security programs we have going.

FFDOs. You mean the guys that have been known to shoot the airplane?

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

The terrorists have already won.

kjeld0d wrote:

Its called Security Theatre.

The terrorists have already won.

The protocol here was and is very simple. If a passenger shows you that he is armed, and then demands to see the flight manifest, you put the plane on the ground - and fast. That's what the pilots did. The offending individuals were removed by law enforcement officers who were then able to verify their identities. They did not inform the crew that they were FAMs, and their behavior was unacceptable in all regards. I have no idea what sort of response the offending individuals will face from the FAM program. This is also not a place to discuss the qualities of the FAM program. Whether it is good or not has nothing to do with the fact that in this instance, a number of rules were broken. The crew of the aircraft did exactly what they should have, declared an emergency, landed expeditiously, and requested law enforcement to meet the aircraft.

wjcandee wrote:

Ugh. Common Sense tells you that if somebody authoritatively walks up to you and says let me review the Manifest, an obvious question would be why? If he opens his jacket and you see the weapon, a logical assumption is that the guy is a FAM. A simple question as to whether he was on the job is all it would take. There's more to this story, and the word snowflake probably finds its way in there.

Hey, Barney: right on, pal. Every post.

Why is it a logical assumption that an armed passenger is an FAM?

Virtually every one of these debacles stems from irresponsible gun ownership by the FAMs. Don’t show it off, don’t leave it places, and don’t let it fall out of the holster. Pretty much concealed carry 101 for the rest of us.

arcticcruiser wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

There are many agencies besides the Air Marshals allowed to carry weapons on aircraft, and I always felt better having them there. Unfortunately things happen, but the vast majority of the time they all do their jobs extremely well. Also, don’t forget about the FFDO program. It is one of the best and most cost-effective security programs we have going.

FFDOs. You mean the guys that have been known to shoot the airplane?

A US Airways Airbus captain was playing with his gun and pulled the trigger putting a whole in the fuselage.

Armodeen wrote:

Have there been many instances where having an air marshal has helped? It seems a primarily US/third world thing.

It seems like an expensive and probably unnecessary program in the days of secure flight decks and extensive security screening before boarding.

that "extensive screening" lets past like 95% of threats

musman9853 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

Have there been many instances where having an air marshal has helped? It seems a primarily US/third world thing.

It seems like an expensive and probably unnecessary program in the days of secure flight decks and extensive security screening before boarding.

that "extensive screening" lets past like 95% of threats

Which is a problem for the TSA I think, surely given the resources they have they can get it right? Other countries seem to do a little better at it?

Interesting comments about the sky marshal program, thanks all.

arcticcruiser wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

There are many agencies besides the Air Marshals allowed to carry weapons on aircraft, and I always felt better having them there. Unfortunately things happen, but the vast majority of the time they all do their jobs extremely well. Also, don’t forget about the FFDO program. It is one of the best and most cost-effective security programs we have going.

FFDOs. You mean the guys that have been known to shoot the airplane?

The program has been around since shortly after 9/11 and has thousands of participants. One incident, while inexcusable, does not detract from the fact that the program is a success. Whether you’d like to believe otherwise or not is your business.

estorilm wrote:

devron wrote:

An aircraft with what 70 seats has two air marshals?

That was the first thing that jumped out at me as well!

Maybe there's some sort of risk-assessment algorithm determining how, where, when, and the number of these guys get onto planes, right? I mean "random" doesn't really make much sense when you've only got a finite number of marshals and an infinite number of flights.

In any event, you'd think these guys could/would have had access to the manifest before they got onto the flight right? I'd imagine that's part of their protocol.

FAM are also shuttled to various airports across the country. I have a friend that is one. It may have just been that. Once being "off-duty" and being sent to MSP to catch another flight.

scbriml wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

The terrorists have already won.

Um, no. Security requires constant vigilance. There is a tendency on this website for members to provide information that doesn't really need to be discussed on a public forum. There are literally millions of topics in civil aviation that lend themselves to online discussion. Airline security practices is not one of them.

wjcandee wrote:

Ugh. Common Sense tells you that if somebody authoritatively walks up to you and says let me review the Manifest, an obvious question would be why? If he opens his jacket and you see the weapon, a logical assumption is that the guy is a FAM. A simple question as to whether he was on the job is all it would take. There's more to this story, and the word snowflake probably finds its way in there.

Hey, Barney: right on, pal. Every post.

Ugh, yea, I am a FAN.. or how you call it? Anyway.. Can I talk to someone in cockpit real quick? No, thanks, just open that door...

Offering an easy explanation to confirm to someone who already have a few big red flags flying is absolutely against any concept of security. Like you don't assume someone you find in your kitchen at 2 AM is a plumber. It is possible that it is a plumber, but you don't assume that. Even if water is dripping from the ceiling.

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

ANYONE is free to discuss unclassified security info.

Kalvado: We don't have to reinvent the protocols, because there already IS one.

Most likely this happened because the regional airline crew wasn't as used to dealing with FAMs as mainline crews, and may have forgotten their training.

TWA302 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

devron wrote:

An aircraft with what 70 seats has two air marshals?

That was the first thing that jumped out at me as well!

Maybe there's some sort of risk-assessment algorithm determining how, where, when, and the number of these guys get onto planes, right? I mean "random" doesn't really make much sense when you've only got a finite number of marshals and an infinite number of flights.

In any event, you'd think these guys could/would have had access to the manifest before they got onto the flight right? I'd imagine that's part of their protocol.

FAM are also shuttled to various airports across the country. I have a friend that is one. It may have just been that. Once being "off-duty" and being sent to MSP to catch another flight.

Either on or off duty FAMS are required to identify themselves to the crew. There is no paper trail however for on-duty FAMS. Off-duty FAMS are treated as any another other armed LEO would be and are required to fill out some paperwork. So my guess is here the FAMS never identified themselves to the airline at any point so both the crew and gate agents were clueless to their presence. When FAMS are on-duty the only who will know is the gate agent and the crew.

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

LOL!!!!!!! I hope you are joking!

SDFguy wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

LOL!!!!!!! I hope you are joking!

A few things are actually security sensitive in this thread already.

robsaw wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

ANYONE is free to discuss unclassified security info.

This is untrue. Most of an air carrier’s security protocols (including everything related to FAMs) are considered sensitive security information by the DHS and per 49 CFR part 1520 may not be shared with anybody who does not “need to know.”

wjcandee wrote:

Ugh. Common Sense tells you that if somebody authoritatively walks up to you and says let me review the Manifest, an obvious question would be why? If he opens his jacket and you see the weapon, a logical assumption is that the guy is a FAM. A simple question as to whether he was on the job is all it would take. .

Common sense tells me an on-duty FAM, with a need for it, would identify him/herself to the FA then ask to see the manifest, not ask first then show a weapon, rather than an ID.

barney captain wrote:

Good guys with guns are always welcome on my aircraft.

Better to have a gun onboard and not need it, than have a need for a gun onboard and not have one.

Love the misinformed opining on matters they know little of. Best to keep them in the dark after reading some of these inane personal opinions.

wjcandee wrote:

Kalvado: We don't have to reinvent the protocols, because there already IS one.

Most likely this happened because the regional airline crew wasn't as used to dealing with FAMs as mainline crews, and may have forgotten their training.

I do not believe ANY security protocol can include attempts to clarify why certain person possess a weapon on board of an aircraft without advance information. If that is not revealed in advance and weapon is exhibited for any reason - red alert before it is too late. Possibly that weapon will be discharged while you ask for details.
If existing procedure includes question to an armed stranger - it is a HUGE security lapse.

CanesFan wrote:

scbriml wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

The terrorists have already won.

Um, no. Security requires constant vigilance. There is a tendency on this website for members to provide information that doesn't really need to be discussed on a public forum. There are literally millions of topics in civil aviation that lend themselves to online discussion. Airline security practices is not one of them.

I'll repeat what scbriml has already said, the terrorists have already won.

N353SK wrote:

robsaw wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

ANYONE is free to discuss unclassified security info.

This is untrue. Most of an air carrier’s security protocols (including everything related to FAMs) are considered sensitive security information by the DHS and per 49 CFR part 1520 may not be shared with anybody who does not “need to know.”

The terrorists have already won.

Super80Fan wrote:

N353SK wrote:

robsaw wrote:

ANYONE is free to discuss unclassified security info.

This is untrue. Most of an air carrier’s security protocols (including everything related to FAMs) are considered sensitive security information by the DHS and per 49 CFR part 1520 may not be shared with anybody who does not “need to know.”

The terrorists have already won.

OK? That doesn’t make it any less illegal to share sensitive security information.

The bad guys know a LOT more than the superficial things being discused here.

CanesFan wrote:

SDFguy wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

LOL!!!!!!! I hope you are joking!

A few things are actually security sensitive in this thread already.

I'll agree that the terrorist have already won.

The other thing is nothing I've read in this thread is nothing someone couldn't logically deduce. The call to lock the thread is a call for security through obscurity.

If you're depending on security through obscurity for things that people (including crew) can see, I suggest the system is broken. If the system is well designed the TSA could publish all sorts of details about the system, and it'd still work. It might even work better, since others can find the flaws by inspecting it and the TSA can improve its systems.

As an example, from what I can see, boarding pass security was improved after it was made public that you could make your own boarding pass with any name and the TSA would let you through with that name. From what I've seen there has been an encrypted bit of data added to the bar code on boarding passes. (Before anyone complains about me blowing a whistle, all I've done is scan the boarding pass with an app on Apple's app store and looked at the data. Anyone else could've done that as well.)

devron wrote:

An aircraft with what 70 seats has two air marshals?

I don't understand why we keep thinking that arming "people" including air marshals enhances protection. What if terrorists decide to "hunt" for air Marshall careers? The only solution to bring a peaceful world is to disarm the entire world with small arms. The world will be a better place if the only people allowed to handle guns are those who are in the military. In an ideal world, anyone owning a gun whilst they are not in the army should be prosecuted.

alyusuph wrote:

I don't understand why we keep thinking that arming "people" including air marshals enhances protection. What if terrorists decide to "hunt" for air Marshall careers? The only solution to bring a peaceful world is to disarm the entire world with small arms. The world will be a better place if the only people allowed to handle guns are those who are in the military. In an ideal world, anyone owning a gun whilst they are not in the army should be prosecuted.

Don't be silly. We all know the only thing stopping the government (with it's tanks, missiles and drones) from opressing us all is being able to buy a 9mm in Walmart.

Or something.

alyusuph wrote:

devron wrote:

An aircraft with what 70 seats has two air marshals?

I don't understand why we keep thinking that arming "people" including air marshals enhances protection. What if terrorists decide to "hunt" for air Marshall careers? The only solution to bring a peaceful world is to disarm the entire world with small arms. The world will be a better place if the only people allowed to handle guns are those who are in the military. In an ideal world, anyone owning a gun whilst they are not in the army should be prosecuted.

its ironic, isnt it?

HAWKXP wrote:

The bad guys know a LOT more than the superficial things being discused here.

usually not
criminal people or terrorrists mostly are pretty stupid

they need to be because if they would be smart they would not be criminal or terrorrists ...

USAirKid wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

SDFguy wrote:

LOL!!!!!!! I hope you are joking!

A few things are actually security sensitive in this thread already.

I'll agree that the terrorist have already won.

The other thing is nothing I've read in this thread is nothing someone couldn't logically deduce. The call to lock the thread is a call for security through obscurity.

If you're depending on security through obscurity for things that people (including crew) can see, I suggest the system is broken. If the system is well designed the TSA could publish all sorts of details about the system, and it'd still work. It might even work better, since others can find the flaws by inspecting it and the TSA can improve its systems.

Yep. I'm sure if anyone wanted to do anything malicious they could find more extensive information in other places than in this thread. Hell, if someone is dedicated to social engineering they could easily get far more information straight from the source than trawling avgeek websites.

Here is more information on the incident.

http://www.startribune.com/police-mista ... 491368931/

So whats the point of an Air Marshal if
(i) the cockpit doors are already bulletproof,
(ii) firearms are carried within the cockpit (which is madness in itself),
&
(iii) the cockpit doors are guarded (or locked) at all times during flight

?

I fail to see how they are justifying their existence - beyond placating the "more guns is always better" NRA mob.

Amiga500 wrote:

So whats the point of an Air Marshal if
(i) the cockpit doors are already bulletproof,
(ii) firearms are carried within the cockpit (which is madness in itself),
&
(iii) the cockpit doors are guarded (or locked) at all times during flight

?

I fail to see how they are justifying their existence - beyond placating the "more guns is always better" NRA mob.

Well, if there is an ongoing accident in the cabin. That can be hostage situation, although pilots must be told to ignore anything back in the cabin and head to the nearest landing site (can be easier to say than actually do that). Or it can be an attempt to detonate something - although if anyone has time to respond, then it is a very poorly prepared attempt.
Marshall can be an advantage in case of drunk unruly passenger or similar accident, but I doubt that vanilla law enforcement is high enough on program list of priorities.
I agree that return of investment is not too high overall.

I've worked both as an agent and as a FA. I always knew who the marshals were and where they were seated.

barney captain wrote:

Good guys with guns are always welcome on my aircraft.

It's only a matter of time until good guys with guns have their guns taken away by bad guys.
Guns on planes is just plain stupid.

jagraham wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

Have there been many instances where having an air marshal has helped? It seems a primarily US/third world thing.

It seems like an expensive and probably unnecessary program in the days of secure flight decks and extensive security screening before boarding.

If it was DCA it would make sense. Perhaps there is a security issue in the NYC area that is not being publicized.

The air marshals fly on completely random routes and are only on a fraction of actual flights. Ditto for other countries that have them like Canada.

alyusuph wrote:

devron wrote:

An aircraft with what 70 seats has two air marshals?

I don't understand why we keep thinking that arming "people" including air marshals enhances protection. What if terrorists decide to "hunt" for air Marshall careers? The only solution to bring a peaceful world is to disarm the entire world with small arms. The world will be a better place if the only people allowed to handle guns are those who are in the military. In an ideal world, anyone owning a gun whilst they are not in the army should be prosecuted.

That would involve prosecuting about 100 million Americans as a starting point. Maybe 4 million Canadians, a few million Ausssies and Brits before going on the Continent and forcibly disarming several million French and Germans. Sporting use of arms is more prevalent than you might suppose.

GF

I applaud the crew for a professional job. Sounds like the air marshal was acting out of his role and his training. A rogue with a gun on an aircraft has dangerous implications even if they carry a badge.

Ionosphere wrote:

I've worked both as an agent and as a FA. I always knew who the marshals were and where they were seated.

So do most of the first class passengers. They have become quite obvious.

kiowa wrote:

Ionosphere wrote:

I've worked both as an agent and as a FA. I always knew who the marshals were and where they were seated.

So do most of the first class passengers. They have become quite obvious.

How would you know about the ones you didn't see?

So you think you've spotted a few? What about the dozens you never identified?

You can't see what you never noticed.

airbazar wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Good guys with guns are always welcome on my aircraft.

It's only a matter of time until good guys with guns have their guns taken away by bad guys.
Guns on planes is just plain stupid.

Guns have been on airplanes since the Wright brothers.

N353SK wrote:

robsaw wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

I suggest locking this thread as it is starting to creep into security sensitive info.

ANYONE is free to discuss unclassified security info.

This is untrue. Most of an air carrier’s security protocols (including everything related to FAMs) are considered sensitive security information by the DHS and per 49 CFR part 1520 may not be shared with anybody who does not “need to know.”

That only applies to the person whom was entrusted with the information. Once the information is in the public domain, it's fair game. Otherwise everyone who read the Pentagon Papers or excerpts thereof would be a criminal.

With that 95% of things getting through security dont you think someone flashing a gun and acting suspiciously warrants a response just in case.

If you think anyone with an authoritive voice should be obeyed without question then....

*Clears throat*

"Please hand over your wallet for inspection sir."

Runs away very fast....

asdf wrote:

HAWKXP wrote:

The bad guys know a LOT more than the superficial things being discused here.

usually not
criminal people or terrorrists mostly are pretty stupid

they need to be because if they would be smart they would not be criminal or terrorrists ...

Actually they do. Short of people in this forum having first hand knowledge of top secret procedures and protocols then they most likely read about it somewhere or saw something on TV or in the news or some other open source. Criminals and terrorists and others of ill-intent have access to all of this and already know what you know. Saying they're "stupid" simply because they are criminals or terrorists is a dangerous underestimation of their capabilities.

Based on the report, this guy should stick to flipping burgers.

Showing a gun on a plane without showing his ID first is just asinine.

fraspotter wrote:

asdf wrote:

HAWKXP wrote:

The bad guys know a LOT more than the superficial things being discused here.

usually not
criminal people or terrorrists mostly are pretty stupid

they need to be because if they would be smart they would not be criminal or terrorrists ...

Actually they do. Short of people in this forum having first hand knowledge of top secret procedures and protocols then they most likely read about it somewhere or saw something on TV or in the news or some other open source. Criminals and terrorists and others of ill-intent have access to all of this and already know what you know. Saying they're "stupid" simply because they are criminals or terrorists is a dangerous underestimation of their capabilities.

I often check and double check my posts to make sure i'm not even violating an NDA. I also often rethink and delete things because it could result in me getting targeted for one reason or another. Probably shouldn't have even said that.

I also get very suspicious of people asking questions in the technical ops page who have very few posts. There's been a string of these this past week. Asking about what does this do, or that do. Etc. I believe 99.999% of these are innocuous. But there could be just one that ends up leading to something nefarious. And I don't think I'd like to live with the knowledge that you may have contributed to something like that.

barney captain wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Ionosphere wrote:

I've worked both as an agent and as a FA. I always knew who the marshals were and where they were seated.

So do most of the first class passengers. They have become quite obvious.

How would you know about the ones you didn't see?
So you think you've spotted a few? What about the dozens you never identified?
You can't see what you never noticed.

I have been carting FAMs around for 20 odd years, only once have I seen one in the gate area before boarding that I didn't pick. I know who they are since I'm one of the crew. Anyone with any sort of reasonable powers of observation will pick them out, and anyone who is intent on doing harm will have done their homework and know what to look for. I have also only ever had one break cover, and that was for the very dangerous and threatening behavior of two passengers kissing each other in first class.

Jongum wrote:

barney captain wrote:

kiowa wrote:

So do most of the first class passengers. They have become quite obvious.

How would you know about the ones you didn't see?
So you think you've spotted a few? What about the dozens you never identified?
You can't see what you never noticed.

I have been carting FAMs around for 20 odd years, only once have I seen one in the gate area before boarding that I didn't pick. I know who they are since I'm one of the crew. Anyone with any sort of reasonable powers of observation will pick them out, and anyone who is intent on doing harm will have done their homework and know what to look for. I have also only ever had one break cover, and that was for the very dangerous and threatening behavior of two passengers kissing each other in first class.

Ha! Having a government issued firearm does not mandate intelligence.