Air Marshals -- Something to think about besides the TSA...

[law dawg]

I've been known to be wrong. Would still like to read the post you referenced.

Okay, here is my bullshit thoughts on the subject, as promised (or threatened? )

There is the problem of mixing theoretical and practical concerns. Yes, having many armed people on an airliner would provide a deterrent to a hijacking, but that isn't how it would work in reality.

Perhaps the strong dedication to training background of the individuals here have influenced some of the attitudes, you may be forgetting what the average skill level is out there in the "real world". Based on close observation of a host of firearms practitioners, there are few folks I would trust in an airliner cabin to be successful.

If you are going to allow anyone to carry a firearm on an aircraft, then you are counting on there always being a sufficient number of good guys armed onboard to handle the number of bad guys who now have the same access to going armed on an aircraft.

In today's world, that is not the case. Given the travel habits and the total number of LEOs in the country, there will be few sworn officers of any kind on board an airliner at any given time. LEOs simply make up a small percentage of air travelers (and I am one of them as I am a federal LEO and fly armed).

I would submit that allowing all LEOs to always carry would hardly move the numbers. The general public would have to provide most of the deterrence. However, when you look further at average passenger demographics, it would be far more likely that very few if any people would actually carry a firearm onboard a given flight. The current percentage of CCW holders versus the general population is very low. In other words, there are not many people in this country to provide an "armed passenger" corps if you will.

All this means that since we are depending upon a random deterrence by a small percentage of armed citizens, making it more likely that the bad guys would both outnumber, and out skill the typical CCW holder on any given flight.

That said, from where I sit, I would be all for allowing people to carry on an airliner, but only after a thorough background check, a difficult skills test, including recurrent training, some type of combatives to include force on force, and mindset training. That is way beyond the 2nd Amendment, but strong skills are required to be successful against an enemy that only fears failure. The background check would provide a way to reject obvious badguys without invoking the wrath of the ACLU, not to mention that no airline will allow an armed passenger program without it due to liability. Airlines don't even trust their own employees on this front.

Read the 911 report for further details on the motives and training of Al Qaeda, including the cockpit assaults. I don't buy the "we have nothing to lose" scenario argument- to win, an armed citizen is going to have to kill every single one of the hijacking team members.

What I suspect here is that many very skilled people would like to arm themselves on a commercial flight. That is natural and understandable, but the concept doesn't work when the probabilities involved allow for easy exploitation.

Due to liabilty, and a host of other sniveling management absolutions, no corporation is going to allow this to happen, unless the government forces them to do so. CEOs will simply pontificate about the travesty of it all in their best selling memoirs. They aren't accountable.

So don't hold your breath.

I gladly welcome armed people on any aircraft I am on, but I want to know that the person has demonstrated that he or she is a dedicated professional, well-versed in all facets of warriorcraft to include weapons retention, strong emphasis on mindset, combatives, and yes, familiarity with aircraft systems. There are some things that you don't want to shoot on a commercial jet. Pressurization is not a problem, but some other things are. The solution is to hit the target, every time, with an effective projectile that will not over-penetrate. That means annual practice round counts in the many thousands.

You all understand the ramifications of a marginally trained person jumping into a complex situation, and a passenger cabin is a particularly difficult tactical problem. One of the worst environments you can fight in. No cover, limited concealment, the whole thing is one giant fatal funnel. Bad news all around.

Until you establish high standards, don't even broach the subject of armed passengers on an airliner. As always, training is the answer.

 

[law dawg]

How about VA/Social Security/USPS/National Park Service offices? Those are also critical to national security?

Nope. Got no problems carrying there.

 

[cekim]

How about VA/Social Security/USPS/National Park Service offices? Those are also critical to national security?

Planes are one of the few areas that even warrants a debate IMO... I don't agree with the arguments to disarm, but it is one of the few places where the practical implications actually make any sense at all (in terms of decreasing the chances for a gunfight). Though I still say the logic fails...

Law dawg, "National Security?" In a court house? Really?

At the end of the day, no the people aboard those planes on 9/11 did not have the same weapons as the terrorists... IIRC, the terrorists had box cutters which present a formidable weapon against an untrained defender...

At the end of the day a determined terrorist willing to trade his life to accomplish his goal won't need a gun to do it... He won't even need a knife... He can use any number of things that one can easily get on a plane today...

Armed and armored cockpits solve many/most of those problems CCW on a plane or not.

As for security detail, this is another area that reasonable minds can disagree - there is no doubt the president faces more threats than a typical person. Should we go as far as we do? Likely not IMO... We certainly don't need such details for Governors, Senators and Congresscritters...

If they were doing their jobs according to the Constitution, most of the time, few people would know who they were or care... It's their intrusion into so many people's daily lives that has people so pissed off and paying close attention to them... There are always exceptions and lunatics.

All that aside, we too should have the same right to protect ourselves - at all times - in the manner we see fit...

 

[jasons]

Absolutely. Praetorian guards have no place in a free republic.

Setting aside the fact that there are significant differences between the Secret Service and Praetorian Guard, I'm interested to hear why.....

 

[cekim]

Setting aside the fact that there are significant differences between the Secret Service and Praetorian Guard, I'm interested to hear why.....

In my useless opinion its mostly symbolic... It elevates the importance of one man above all others that inside our boarders is entirely incongruous with our form of governance... (protecting our military leader on foreign soil is another matter).

It's a feature of kings, despots and dictators that should have no place here if they were doing as the Constitution instructed and no more...

That said, it's darned inconvenient to lose a president, so I am torn on how much "we the people" should put up with in terms of a protection detail. Some amount seems reasonable, but at any given moment, I am sure we are going too far... That's what government does...

Our laws on this subject are certainly evidence of that...

 

[law dawg]

Law dawg, "National Security?" In a court house? Really?

Was thinking federal. I'm federal these days.....

At the end of the day, no the people aboard those planes on 9/11 did not have the same weapons as the terrorists... IIRC, the terrorists had box cutters which present a formidable weapon against an untrained defender...

Pax could have carried knives. They were permitted at the time, which is why the terror teams chose them. They chose not to, just as most today would choose not to as well.

The bad guys will always choose not to.

 

[GSG]

I can remember boarding a commercial flight out of Shreveport, LA going to San Antonio, TX in the late 60's carrying a sidearm. I believe it was on American Airlines, but I could be wrong. I simply declared that I had a sidearm and got on the airplane. No one seemed to mind. Times have changed.

Nifty. But I was asking for some of the instances where an armed passenger on board saved lives or prevented a serious problem. I don't know of any because planes have been off limits to general CCW since before I was born, but maybe some of our older members can think of a news story or something where it happened.

Oughta just arm/train the pilots, protect the cabins, get rid of marshalls, save the $200 mill per year. Pilots HAVE to be present, and there must be 2, and autopilots DO work. So they can come out and deal with a drunk, real easily, using long nightsticks, if need be.

Call me idealistic, but I'd prefer that the guy flying the plane I'm on not have taken multiple blows to the head in a close quarters fight before getting back to his controls to land the plane.

Not to get off topic, but back in 1970 I did a month of Prisoner Chaser duty in the Army, out of Fort Carson.

What is prisoner chaser duty? Catching AWOL guys?

IMO muslums have no business here in the USA. I would have no problem shipping them out.

also - please keep your bigotry to yourself. it really turns people off to the forum.

Oh, that's ironic.

I bet you like to see disarmed sheeple in trains and busses too. Right? After all, only fed.gov LE is professional enough to fight it out in a crowded vehicle.

To be fair, operating problems on a train or a bus is on a different scale than a plane crash.

If you are going to allow anyone to carry a firearm on an aircraft, then you are counting on there always being a sufficient number of good guys armed onboard to handle the number of bad guys who now have the same access to going armed on an aircraft.

This is a very good point.

no airline will allow an armed passenger program without it due to liability. Airlines don't even trust their own employees on this front.

Another great point. Look at how many different companies have "no guns" policies. If bean counters write policies that disarm bank employees and bank guards, I can't imagine they'd allow guns on a commercial airline. Look at how much they've squawked about arming the crews of ships travelling through pirate infested waters. Writing a policy that allowed the passengers sitting on top of a massive fuel tank flying at hundreds of miles an hour to carry guns just isn't going to happen. I disagree with laws preventing carry on planes, but repealing those laws wouldn't mean you'd be allowed to.

"National Security?" In a court house? Really?

While I fully expect this statement to be taken out of context in the future , I'll say it anyway.

Certain areas of a courthouse (and even the courtroom itself) are essentially prisons. Prisoners are brought directly from correctional facilities to answer charges, whether they're being held pre-trial or they're an inmate who committed crimes while locked up. The public is allowed free access to most courtrooms, with the only thing separating them from the controlled area being a railing or an imaginary line. In essence you're removing one of the walls of a prison and letting every Tom, Dick & Harry have a look inside. Even if the guy on trial showed up of his own accord, he might be leaving in handcuffs to serve time. Allowing every distraught relative, criminal associate and random onlooker inside to be armed is a very bad idea IMO. Given the traditional layout of courthouses, they need to remain a sterile area.

As for security detail, this is another area that reasonable minds can disagree - there is no doubt the president faces more threats than a typical person. Should we go as far as we do? Likely not IMO... We certainly don't need such details for Governors, Senators and Congresscritters...

Confederate loyalists had more targets than Abe Lincoln in 1865.

 

[Bill Nance]

Law Dog: No one has really responded to your post and I would like to, although I admit to not having one/100th of your training OR expertise. I carry a firearm everyday and do my best as an individual to train with that firearm as much as is practicable to ME, though this is NOT what I would like my level of training to be in an ideal world. It costs a lots of money and a lot of time to be in top form and I have neither readily available to spare.That's reality and everyone here should be able to set aside their own abilities from what they would ideally WISH their abilities to be.

I train myself to deal with muggers and robbers, primarily unarmed or armed but poorly or not at all trained, and unwilling to die to achieve their aims. I do NOT train to deal with someone absolutely willing to die to overcome me. I just don't. My chances of ever encountering someone of that level of dedication are so small I deem it unworthy to train myself with my limited means to overcome that kind of adversary. In all of this I think I am average when it comes to your typical CCW holder.

I have no illusions. IF, God forbid I ever have to actually draw my weapon and shoot someone, I figure I'll be doing well to do as well as the average cop. They typically MISS a good portion of their shots. In a confined area like an aircraft, that's not a good situation to say the least. (At least if you're sitting in first class, which means your likely to be hit by stray rounds).

In the anarchist/radical libertarian view where ANYONE (including felons who have completed their sentence) can carry ANYWHERE (including aircraft) it means me, plus MAYBE one other person, unknown to me and uncoordinated in action would have to react to an attack by up to several bad guys, well-trained, coordinated with a specific plan and totally dedicated to carrying out their attack and willing to die to do it. I don't see me prevailing in that situation. I just don't.

I'm not for one second excusing the security theatre that is TSA. It's a total Fing joke. If I wanted to bring a few yards of det cord and a blasting cap on an airliner, to my knowledge there is NOTHING any current security measures could do to prevent this. And it would CERTAINLY, not probably, bring down an airliner.

What TSA is doing is trying to prevent some dipshit from bringing an IED or a firearm onto an airliner and overprotecting against the only REAL threat we face, which is one or two guys with firearms. Five guys with knives will NEVER bring down another airplane. the passengers, totally unarmed, will kill them. Plain, simple. they will kill them every time. If you can provide an example of where I'm wrong post 9/11 feel free.

So what's the point of an Air marshal? If we've messed up so badly that we've let multiple people on board with firearms, then we're screwed period. I don't see one Air Marshal prevailing against 4-5 guys who are armed with guns, serious, dedicated and have some half-way decent level of training. I think you get two, maybe three if you're really lucky and then you're dead and the plane is still hijacked.

We seem to be putting all our efforts into a tactic that will NEVER EVER work twice, (holding an airplane with mere threats and knives) and doing nothing whatever that will stop anyone with an ounce of sense. Again, (and I will put it bluntly since any terrorist with 2 ounces of sense already knows this) 6 feet of det cord hidden in a belt and a blasting cap/detonator hidden inside a ballpoint pen are TOTALLY beyond the current level of threat detection WHAT IS THE DAMN POINT?

If someone wants to blow up a p[lane there is precious little ANY conceivable security absent maybe dogs is going to stop it. If someone wants to take a plane hostage post-9/11 unless they have firearms, well, they lose. They lose EVERY **CKING TIME. So what is the point of an airmarshal at all?

I have no issues stopping people from CCWing past the security gate. I think allowing it presents more problems than it solves. But I see very little of what we do in the name of aircraft security beyond a simple metal detector that does anything to deter, much less stop an attack.

Thoughts?

 

[Jose]

Setting aside the fact that there are significant differences between the Secret Service and Praetorian Guard, I'm interested to hear why.....

Asked and answered

It's a feature of kings, despots and dictators that should have no place here if they were doing as the Constitution instructed and no more...

The SS and the Ceasar's guard are not the same, yet.

 

[Skysoldier]

Quote from GSG......"What is prisoner chaser duty? Catching AWOL guys?"

Prisoner escort of all kinds, but the majority were AWOL's.

Did you ever watch "The Last Detail" with Jack Nicholson?

 

[TomH]

it absolutely would of... but then again like i said if 911 had already happened at that point the mob would of rushed a couple of suicidal toolbags holding box cutters and taken a few slashes or stab wounds because they would of KNOWN that if they didn't they were all going to die

The problem isn't that there weren't air marshalls on those planes at the time. The problem is the sheep mentality that has been beaten into the population: just do what the bad guy says, and everything will turn out fine when they get what they want. If every american had been taught to beat down and take out "bad guys" wherever they see them it would have been a completely different result. Our culture is what needs changing, back to a time of self reliance and a sense of justice being possible without the gov involved every second.

 

[Terminator03]

The problem isn't that there weren't air marshalls on those planes at the time. The problem is the sheep mentality that has been beaten into the population: just do what the bad guy says, and everything will turn out fine when they get what they want. If every american had been taught to beat down and take out "bad guys" wherever they see them it would have been a completely different result. Our culture is what needs changing, back to a time of self reliance and a sense of justice being possible without the gov involved every second.

Tom, I agree with what you said to a point. The problem lies in the absolute fact that to be really effective at ANYTHING, especially combative arts requires very frequent training to keep muscle memory intact. If you have to think about your next move - it is already way too late. I agree with what law dawg said regarding the level of training required to be successful, especially in the close quarters of an airplane. As much as every gun toting guy on this board may think he's billy badass, the truth is that very, very few could actually prevail in those conditions, against an adversary who ALREADY knew going into his task that he was going to die! How can you compete against that - unless you are definitely willing to die for your convictions, which almost none of us are. Let's be real here, if you allow ccw on board, then you are essentially placing your trust in every average yokel who happens to own a gun (not even counting the bad guys) to be able to not only react in milliseconds, but do it with absolute precision. It would be more likely that the "hero" would be the one to actually bring the plane down with the stray bullets, or even in the best case scenario, hurt/kill innocent passengers. How the hell can even the most aggressive 2A supporter think that this is a good idea in any world?

 

[TomH]

Let's be real here, if you allow ccw on board, then you are essentially placing your trust in every average yokel who happens to own a gun (not even counting the bad guys) to be able to not only react in milliseconds, but do it with absolute precision. It would be more likely that the "hero" would be the one to actually bring the plane down with the stray bullets, or even in the best case scenario, hurt/kill innocent passengers. How the hell can even the most aggressive 2A supporter think that this is a good idea in any world?

There is a forum full of those average "yokels" right here. You sound like "we don't encourage self help" martha. Someone shooting off a handgun in a plane is fairly unlikely to bring it down. All fear mongering aside, a small hole in a plane won't do much of anything. Remember the plane that landed with half it's top ripped off? The same argument has been used to ban guns in malls, etc. However, that is private property and the owners can do as they see fit. Airlines have no choice, the gov decides for them.

Also, I don't see how relating a few guys with boxcutters with extensive "muscle memory" training is relavant. I will challenge you that in a plane full of people, 3 guys with boxcutters would never prevail if the people on those flights fought them tooth and nail as soon as they started something. I'll even up that and say that 3 guys with guns are defeatable in a plane full of people. They can't shoot everyone in the plane.

 

[TheWookie]

Tom, I agree with what you said to a point. The problem lies in the absolute fact that to be really effective at ANYTHING, especially combative arts requires very frequent training to keep muscle memory intact. If you have to think about your next move - it is already way too late. I agree with what law dawg said regarding the level of training required to be successful, especially in the close quarters of an airplane. As much as every gun toting guy on this board may think he's billy badass, the truth is that very, very few could actually prevail in those conditions, against an adversary who ALREADY knew going into his task that he was going to die! How can you compete against that - unless you are definitely willing to die for your convictions, which almost none of us are. Let's be real here, if you allow ccw on board, then you are essentially placing your trust in every average yokel who happens to own a gun (not even counting the bad guys) to be able to not only react in milliseconds, but do it with absolute precision. It would be more likely that the "hero" would be the one to actually bring the plane down with the stray bullets, or even in the best case scenario, hurt/kill innocent passengers. How the hell can even the most aggressive 2A supporter think that this is a good idea in any world?

I agree with what you're saying, but keep in mind, as you know the terrorist who hijacked those planes on 9/11 didn't use firearms. (even if they did, why just sit there and wait to die) but my point is -- they had Stanley box cutters. So, I think Tom's point is valid if you consider nobody on the first three flights did anything to stop those three planes from flying into those buildings. That is the sheep mentality. Just like the school administrators down in Florida who sat there and allowed that man to terrorize them. The men ( I use that term loosely) who sat there while the terrorist was distracted by that brave lady with the bag exemplify the sheep mentality.

 

[Terminator03]

Oh, I totally get what you guys are saying. I can't speak to your personal level of training either, but for the most part, the general public are sheep, and would not have the skills, or necessarily even the balls to overcome multiple attackers. Sure, one random hadji with a boxcutter maybe - but a coordinated, planned, highjacking - I don't think so. Having spent half of my life training in various fighting styles, I can honestly say that if you don't train for exactly how you need to react, you will not react correctly against someone who is trained for such things. That is even discounting what I said earlier about the fact that they have already been made comfortable with the fact that this will be their last flight. How many average people have that mindset? Believe me, even if there are a few toughguys on board, the first one to get dropped with his throat slashed is enough deterrent to have most sane people back off.

 

[cekim]

Confederate loyalists had more targets than Abe Lincoln in 1865.

A fine demonstration of my point that if the threat level for rank and file government is that high, they are doing it wrong...

Perhaps when government is as broken as it was at the time, it should "feel the heat" of its malfunction? As always, Rank and File government are and should be as free as any citizen to take measures to protect themselves...

Back to "national security," disarming prisoners is one thing - provided they have recourse through due process, but Federal or not, the rest of the room as little to do with "national security."

The question is can you trust John Q (witnesses, family, plaintif, etc... i.e. NOT the defendant in the defacto "prison" you describe) to not become a murderer in the "heated" context of a trial? Harder question, but in the context of presumption of innocence and the unalienable right in question, the answer is even more difficult than the question.

What right (make that Constitutionally limited power) do courts have without due process to strip those not already in the custody of the state of their unalienable rights? Recognizing this is a can of worms at a practical level, this is and should be more so a nation of principles, not practicality when it comes to freedom...

 

[cekim]

How many average people have that mindset? Believe me, even if there are a few toughguys on board, the first one to get dropped with his throat slashed is enough deterrent to have most sane people back off.

Hard to say, but training alone isn't the deciding factor, or there would be no successful self defense scenarios rather than the many we that we have (despite the lies of the Brady Bunch claiming otherwise).

I agree with your statement that without training, you are in trouble and working from behind. Where I disagree is that I have witnessed and experienced the effect of character in these instances which dictates outcome equally if not more so.

It's not just how you respond, but that you do so without panic. One need not drop an attacker without a scratch in one clean motion if you can react and adjust to your failures.

If you look hard enough, you will see this all around you, from how people deal with serious injury (theirs or those around them), to car accidents, to natural disasters, to animal attacks right on up to a "mugging" or "assault."

You don't need to be Bruce Lee to make it through a nasty situation, you need your brain functioning, not panicking...

Whether those who can "function" instead of panic do so as a result of character alone or some prior experience, however unrelated, the reality is that we humans manage, on balance to muddle through some pretty horrible stuff without being ultimate cage fighting champions before hand...

 

[drgrant]

Tom, I agree with what you said to a point. The problem lies in the absolute fact that to be really effective at ANYTHING, especially combative arts requires very frequent training to keep muscle memory intact. If you have to think about your next move - it is already way too late. I agree with what law dawg said regarding the level of training required to be successful, especially in the close quarters of an airplane. As much as every gun toting guy on this board may think he's billy badass, the truth is that very, very few could actually prevail in those conditions, against an adversary who ALREADY knew going into his task that he was going to die! How can you compete against that - unless you are definitely willing to die for your convictions, which almost none of us are. Let's be real here, if you allow ccw on board, then you are essentially placing your trust in every average yokel who happens to own a gun (not even counting the bad guys) to be able to not only react in milliseconds, but do it with absolute precision.

We do this anyways by allowing concealed carry on public property or by default (without explicit permission). "Some yokel" (or a trained LEO for that matter) could easily kill you while missing his target during an SD shooting. It's part of the risk we take of having freedoms. Granted there are additional challenges/risks in the environment of an airliner, but my point is that you always have to assume some level of risk to obtain freedom. Sometimes this means having to eat/accept the fact that some people will not use their freedoms wisely.

It would be more likely that the "hero" would be the one to actually bring the plane down with the stray bullets, or even in the best case scenario, hurt/kill innocent passengers. How the hell can even the most aggressive 2A supporter think that this is a good idea in any world?

Whether or not it's a good idea is open for debate. What I don't like is that the government has already decided for the aircraft owners (the airlines) what the answer is. That's the part that pisses me off. The TSA is a socialist style operation. They might as well have called it the "Ministry for aviation psuedosecurity" . The government has already decided "We know whats good for you, here, take this turd and eat it". Great.

I would have vastly preferred the government let the airlines get pummeled after 9/11 and then gotten them to make whatever changes they thought were needed. Even more security regulation would have been far superior to ramming the TSA down their throat.

The bottom line is at the end of the day unless tanks are rolling into the capital, guns will never be (legally) allowed on commercial aircraft (by the unwashed/unbadged at least) and air security in the US will be just as crappy 10 years from now as it was right after 9/11, and riding as a passenger on a US commercial airline will always be an obnoxious experience.

FAMs, FFDOs, and bulletproof/reinforced cockpit doors all provide a little security value. (Although, in the case of FAMs, value is limited because there are not enough of them and they stick out like a sore thumb that has just been hit with a sledgehammer. ) Gate rape, etc, is nothing more than security theater. All of that crap is just pomp and circumstance while ramp security is stupidly weak in comparison.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

Whether or not it's a good idea is open for debate. What I don't like is that the government has already decided for the aircraft owners (the airlines) what the answer is. That's the part that pisses me off. The TSA is a socialist style operation. They might as well have called it the "Ministry for aviation psuedosecurity" .

Thank you.... Nicely put...

There's no "freedom, but..."

Be willing to pay the price of freedom or go somewhere else where they will lie to you and make you feel safe...

 

[Terminator03]

Mike, your point is very well put, and in that context of a SD shooting, I am in total agreement. However, I was just speaking of the airline scenario, and close quarters shooting/combat. In that situation, I would not want just your average ccw, or even average LEO for that matter dealing with the situation.

cekim, I also get where you are coming from in "effect of character" situation. Where that mentality is flawed, though, is when you take typical citizens and pit them against one, or more (potentially) skilled assailants with a plan/backup plan. In that scenario, even if the passengers were to prevail eventually, it most likely would come with some serious collateral damage - meaning loss of life. You have to then think about how few people are actually willing to "take one for the team" when EVERYTHING is at stake.

 

[Broc]

Statistically speaking the passengers will be far more likely to be the that 2nd to last line of defense, especially on a domestic flight. The majority of air incidents are dealt with by passengers and the
flight crew. I don't think there are enough FAMs to really be effective, although if I was going to make a WAG they probably use them on international flights more often than anything else.

This is nothing against FAMs, it's just a reality check. The passengers awareness, and the reinforced doors, and pilots potentially being armed, are worth more than all the other crap the government has done for air security put together. The screening and all that crap is a joke. It's a placebo to make people "feel good" about getting on an airplane or some crap like that.

-Mike

i was watching ABC news yesterday, they were talking about a study the Government conducted. (sending people into airplanes with knives, guns...), the results are so bad that the info is confidential. In some airports they estimate that TSA misses 70% of potential things that could be used to take over an airplane. So, then they said that it is due to a lack of training, poor pay, and the fact that sitting infront of a computer screen all day gets boring and you start to miss things.

 

[5ilverado]

I'll throw in a curve ball. Generally the number of arrests is based on the crime rate of an "area". High number of arrests = high crime rate.

I would consider the passenger compartment of an airplane to be a generally low crime "area" and police (FAM) using arrest as a last report and only when it is truly necessary.

 

[walkit]

If TWO of em, with long sticks in one hand, and guns in the other hand, can't subdue ONE drunk, without any injury to themselves at all, I don't want em flying my plane, either. Let me tell you, guys, cops can't shoot for beans. I see them come to IDPA and IPSC matches, ONCE. The WOMEN beat them, and they NEVER come back again (with rare exceptions). Cops are lazy to the bone, in general. They bitch and moan about "having" to qualify 50 rds a month, on course of fire that I could "pass" holding a 1911 upside down, or weak hand only, and yes I DO include the reloads in that last qualification. It takes about 50 hours of instruction, 50 hours more of private practice, to be skilled enough with an autorifle to handle plane-hostage stuff, because no fast draw or reloads, etc, need be bothered-with.. It takes about 1/2 that with a stick, and it takes 300 hours of instruction to be skilled a H2h. There is little need for the pilot to limit himself to a handgun, unless it is a single drunk sort of thing. RBCD makes a "dust' bullet for handguns and rifles, MagSafe makes one for handguns, that isn't going thru any man, and the 40 gr hp's in 223 rarely go that deep, either.

 

[Broc]

air marshals are useless in most situations. Remember a few months ago, that plane that was coming from Amsterdam, and the guy tried to blow it up but ended up burning his pants?

there was an air marshal in that plane. If the bomb went off he wouldnt have been able to do anything.

 

[joehaus]

If TWO of em, with long sticks in one hand, and guns in the other hand, can't subdue ONE drunk, without any injury to themselves at all, I don't want em flying my plane, either. Let me tell you, guys, cops can't shoot for beans. I see them come to IDPA and IPSC matches, ONCE. The WOMEN beat them, and they NEVER come back again (with rare exceptions). Cops are lazy to the bone, in general. They bitch and moan about "having" to qualify 50 rds a month, on course of fire that I could "pass" holding a 1911 upside down, or weak hand only, and yes I DO include the reloads in that last qualification. It takes about 50 hours of instruction, 50 hours more of private practice, to be skilled enough with an autorifle to handle plane-hostage stuff, because no fast draw or reloads, etc, need be bothered-with.. It takes about 1/2 that with a stick, and it takes 300 hours of instruction to be skilled a H2h. There is little need for the pilot to limit himself to a handgun, unless it is a single drunk sort of thing. RBCD makes a "dust' bullet for handguns and rifles, MagSafe makes one for handguns, that isn't going thru any man, and the 40 gr hp's in 223 rarely go that deep, either.

God help us

 

[dcmdon]

Mike, your point is very well put, and in that context of a SD shooting, I am in total agreement. However, I was just speaking of the airline scenario, and close quarters shooting/combat. In that situation, I would not want just your average ccw, or even average LEO for that matter dealing with the situation.

It is highly unlikely that gunfire will seriously damage an airplane. So there would not be a total disaster. The puppose of the FAMs and most other changes on the aircraft have to do with defending the cockpit.

Defensively the cockpit crew has it easier than you imply. The door is reinforced and has a crossbar placed about waist height. If a bad guy attempts to kick his way through the door by bending it above or below the crossbar the cockpit crew has a great little weapon at their disposal. Its called a crash axe. And its a fearsome weapon when used against someone who has:
1) telegraphed their intentions over the course of 30 seconds by beating in a door.
2) attempted to crawl under the cross bar.

Of course that also assumes that one of the crew isn't an FFDO, in which case he will have plenty of time to draw and use his firearm.

Look, here's the reality. Nobody's going to try to hijack American airliners. It worked on 9/11 because compliance always got people home alive.
Now things have changed. The passengers will resist. The crew will resist. Its not that simple any more.

The enemy will adapt and do things like try to blow up the plane outright, before anybody knows whats going on. And thats in fact what we've seen since since 9/11.

 

[TheWookie]

air marshals are useless in most situations. Remember a few months ago, that plane that was coming from Amsterdam, and the guy tried to blow it up but ended up burning his pants?

there was an air marshal in that plane. If the bomb went off he wouldnt have been able to do anything.

I think YOU are a useless fountain of misinformation.

Unless you can point me to the story, I could have the wrong guy -- there was no FAM on the flight you are talking about. I'm convinced some of you tinfoilers sit in your basement in three-day-old dirty underwear making up stories to fill you imagination. You might wanna try backing up your imagination with FACTS next time.

Good luck. Don't rely on your memory, it is probably wrong, try to find FACTS first.

Last week, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, right, 23, is alleged to have flown out of Lagos, Nigeria, with explosives sewn into his clothing. He apparently escaped a thorough secondary screening in Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Flight 253 for Detroit. There, it is alleged, he attempted to ignite his bomb. There were no air marshals on board.

 

[dcmdon]

Wookie, although Broccoli may be wrong, he does raise a good point. FAMs are useful against a 9/11 attack, but are useless against someone who quietly assembles then detonates a bomb, with no direct confrontation with any other passengers or crew. This is a far more likely scenario given the fact that since 9/11 there is a decent chance that passengers will "mutiny" against a hijacker, and the terrorists know this.

Every attempt since 9/11 has involved someone quietly trying to detonate a bomb. The underware bomb guy, Richard Reid, etc. The only thing the FAMs are good for are arresting the guy if the device doesn't work.

 

[Terminator03]

excellent point, Don.

 

[TheWookie]

Wookie, although Broccoli may be wrong, he does raise a good point. FAMs are useful against a 9/11 attack, but are useless against someone who quietly assembles then detonates a bomb, with no direct confrontation with any other passengers or crew. This is a far more likely scenario given the fact that since 9/11 there is a decent chance that passengers will "mutiny" against a hijacker, and the terrorists know this.

Every attempt since 9/11 has involved someone quietly trying to detonate a bomb. The underware bomb guy, Richard Reid, etc. The only thing the FAMs are good for are arresting the guy if the device doesn't work.

I hear what you are saying, but you can't stop everything. MAYBE, instead of FAM's - what if we enlist Superman and his friends over at the Legion of Super Heroes to protect the friendly skies? Then we could prevent everything.... except for maybe some brain-dead loser terrorist who is hell bent on getting his virgins and willing to shove PETN up his cornholio.

You guys argue over what FAM's could and should do to make things safer, I don't have all the answers for that. But I can usually spot BS a mile away and sometimes feel the need to call it.