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

[endus]

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.

Exactly.

Our entire airport security methodology is broken. It CAN'T work...it's logistically impossible.

 

[dcmdon]

If we were really serious, we would eliminate the administrative nightmare involved in the FFDO program so that any pilot who wanted to be armed, could be.
Then we would use Israeli type methods at the airport to try to spot terrorists, rather than trying to find weapons.

I'm not saying that a FAM is useless. What I'm saying is that for a determined, sophisticated, planned attack performed by people who are planning (not just willing) to die for their cause in their war with the USA, a FAM is useless.

Against a Chechin separatist who may try to trade hostages lives for prisoners, a couple of FAMs (they operate in teams of 2) would be very useful. But we're not Russia and we don't have the same problems.

 

[TheWookie]

Against a Chechin separatist who may try to trade hostages lives for prisoners, a couple of FAMs (they operate in teams of 2) would be very useful. But we're not Russia and we don't have the same problems.

WHOA Can you spot the error when reloading the MP-5?

 

[law dawg]

Repost.

 

[law dawg]

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.

I was with you until here.

TSA has a lot of problems, but they aren't completely unable to detect this. The cord would show up on either X-ray of your bag or the personal X-ray thing. The limiting factor there is human error.

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.

Hasn't been tested yet.

Next time you fly imagine a hijacking happens. Most likely it'll happen up front, so if you're in the back you're out of the fight before you can even get in it. It will be all over but the shouting by the time you 1) even know what's happening and 2) can get up front to leap into your remarkable action.

But, let's assume you're close enough to the action to do said leaping - are you going to? By yourself? Or do you somehow envision that everyone will jump up at the same time? You better hope they do, because if they don't you'll be conspicuous, to say the least. And conspicuous in this kind of event generally means "target." Ask the poor Israeli guy that jumped up on 9/11 by himself. He got himself killed within seconds. It took United 93 25 minutes and a vote to get rolling. They had to plan, get pumped up, talk each other into action, etc.

If I was a bad guy I'd never let anyone talk, plan, plot or conspire. I'd kill several people from the get-go to get everyone down. Anyone looks funny, execute them. Anyone talks, executed. Anyone moves, executed. Whisper? Executed. And done so in a brutal, bloody manner. People have no experience with that. When it does happen they tend to shut down. We talk about us learning lessons from 9/11, why do we assume the terrorists haven't learned as well?

That kind of directed violence has yet to happen again since 9/11. A bunch of EDPs and hijackers not using violence is not an accurate methodology to determine how normal people will respond in the middle of a violent hijacking. Much like people jumped on EDPs on planes prior to 9/11 (they even beat one to death) but once faced with 9/11 they got their heads down. Because they were scared, and rightfully so.

Intellectually everyone says they'll fight back, but intellect goes right out the window under adrenal stress, which is why the military and LE spends millions of dollars and thousands of hours training people to react instinctively. This is why many scuba divers are found drowned every year with full oxygen tanks - something makes them panic and they fall into instinctive patterns, one of which is to remove any obstruction from the airway. The know intellectually that they can't breathe water, but once panic sets in intellect is difficult, if not impossible, to use unless you've trained for it.

To say it'll never happen again because people know what will happen is to ignore the lessons of history. You can watch videos of Jewish prisoners walking into the gas chambers, knowing what was happening, but not really believing it. Over and over again.

You don't rise to the level of your expectations, you fall to the level of your training.

So what's the point of an Air marshal? If we've messed up so badly that we've let multiple people on board wiith 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 do. Average time for OODA to cycle after the first round is cranked off is somewhere around five seconds. Plenty of time.

I think you get two, maybe three if you're really lucky and then you're dead and the plane is still hijacked.

Where did you get the idea there's only one FAM on board?

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.

Sense has exactly jack to do with how one responds in a critical incident

 

[law dawg]

If we were really serious, we would eliminate the administrative nightmare involved in the FFDO program so that any pilot who wanted to be armed, could be.
Then we would use Israeli type methods at the airport to try to spot terrorists, rather than trying to find weapons.

FFDOs can't go to foreign countries. Their call, that whole sovereign nation thing. As for Israeli profiling, the laws of this country won't allow it. We have to do searches based on suspicion or administrative searches. Searches based on profiling won't fly.

I'm not saying that a FAM is useless. What I'm saying is that for a determined, sophisticated, planned attack performed by people who are planning (not just willing) to die for their cause in their war with the USA, a FAM is useless.

Disagree, but we are arguing opinions here with little evidence on either side.

Against a Chechin separatist who may try to trade hostages lives for prisoners, a couple of FAMs (they operate in teams of 2) would be very useful. But we're not Russia and we don't have the same problems.

Not just teams of two.

 

[law dawg]

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.

Do you only plan for one style of attack, or do you prepare for all the ones used successfully using common tactics and strategies?

Terrorists came back to hijackings after abysmal failures. Personally I find it difficult to see them abandoning it after their most successful attack.

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.

Not every attempt, just those in this country.

If the terrorist uses the bomb quietly in their seat, there is no defense against that. Only catching them beforehand works. If they use the bomb as a threat or the pax/FAM/crew catch them trying to use it or putting it together then there is the possibility of interdiction. If not, then there is nothing that can be done at that point.

 

[law dawg]

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.

Do you only plan for one style of attack, or do you prepare for all the ones used successfully using common tactics and strategies?

Terrorists came back to hijackings after abysmal failures. Personally I find it difficult to see them abandoning it after their most successful attack.

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.

Not every attempt, just those in this country.

If the terrorist uses the bomb quietly in their seat, there is no defense against that. Only catching them beforehand works. If they use the bomb as a threat or the pax/FAM/crew catch them trying to use it or putting it together then there is the possibility of interdiction. If not, then there is nothing that can be done at that point

 

[Broc]

everyone should just fly naked. no carry on luggage either. only computers and cameras. fatties are allowed some clothes.

problem solved.

 

[cekim]

everyone should just fly naked. no carry on luggage either. only computers and cameras. fatties are allowed some clothes.

problem solved.

There have been stories about people flying in bikinis and still getting pat-downs...

Everyone should just stop flying and choke the airline industry into lobbying the government to stop abusing our rights...

 

[law dawg]

everyone should just fly naked. no carry on luggage either. only computers and cameras. fatties are allowed some clothes.

problem solved.

Now we're talking.....

 

[KMaurer]

... As for Israeli profiling, the laws of this country won't allow it. We have to do searches based on suspicion or administrative searches. Searches based on profiling won't fly. ...

That's the PC party line, and a lot of departments from local police to federal agencies have adopted internal rules to conform to it. (Don't single out anybody for any special attention unless you have enough to get a warrant.) I've yet to see anybody who could point to a law or clear court decision supporting that position. Back in the day, what we call "profiling" as the Israelis do it used to be called "good police work." You look for the people whose behavior seems inconsistent with their situation and supposed identities.

Ken

 

[Jose]

Who the F would bother with an airplane with 100 people when you can much more easily hit the mall of the americas with 50 times that many.

 

[law dawg]

That's the PC party line, and a lot of departments from local police to federal agencies have adopted internal rules to conform to it. (Don't single out anybody for any special attention unless you have enough to get a warrant.) I've yet to see anybody who could point to a law or clear court decision supporting that position. Back in the day, what we call "profiling" as the Israelis do it used to be called "good police work." You look for the people whose behavior seems inconsistent with their situation and supposed identities.

Ken

Been to Israel, sir? I have. I know what their procedures are. And as a law officer with a lot of background in teaching said law, I tell you it won't fly here. Here's why.

Searches are mostly to be conducted using reasonable suspicion, per the court case Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum allowable suspicion to detain and search, absent exigent circumstances, or what is called an administrative search, or consent. A TSA airport search falls under the category of an administrative search.

Of course you can't profile based on skin color or religion (what does a Muslim look like?), so you'd have to do it based upon actions and statements. In other words, to profile someone you must ask them questions. Lots of them. And they must be required to answer. After an interrogation, you'll be able to profile someone much better than you can by clothing and how they walk and race, which is not helpful at all. Pop quiz - in America, are you required, outside of entering the country, to answer questions about the nature of your travel? Because profiling won't work without that kind of questioning. How are you going to investigate "...the people whose behavior seems inconsistent with their situation and supposed identities" without interrogating them?

So the same people who yell and scream about the invasiveness of backscatter machines will yell and scream about the damn gubmit getting into their damn business about their travel plans and who they know and who bought the tickets and where they live and it's not their goddamned business anyway. This is 'Merica, damn it! Ask me where I'm going? I'll tell Mr. Gov't Man to go pound sand he asks me questions!

That would take about five minutes to suffer it's first legal challenge. And about six months to be fully overturned. That kind of profiling is simply not possible in the US, especially given the 30,0000 flights a day and the system of law we have.

So profiling is mostly out, unless you get very obvious visual suspicion (heavy coat on hot day, etc.), which would be Terry levels anyway. And other searches need some kind of trigger (suspicion) to use - which leaves the admin search or consent. Admin searches can only be done to all people, or randomly.

 

[law dawg]

Who the F would bother with an airplane with 100 people when you can much more easily hit the mall of the americas with 50 times that many.

We've wondered that ourselves, many times. Yet they still come back to civilian aviation, time and time again.

 

[FPrice]

We've wondered that ourselves, many times. Yet they still come back to civilian aviation, time and time again.

Could it be that, while both are certainly tragic events, the media attention surrounding airplane crashes is perceived to be greater? And the potential collateral damage is probably going to be greater also?

 

[Jose]

Could it be that, while both are certainly tragic events, the media attention surrounding airplane crashes is perceived to be greater? And the potential collateral damage is probably going to be greater also?

Wanna talk about collateral damage?

Any suicide bomber can drive a van full of ANFO through the doors of any mall in the US and hit the switch before anyone has a chance ask WTF.

Remember the Murrah federal building? Now imagine that explosion in a much more contained building.

The only way to achieve security is to turn this country into a police state.

No thank you.

 

[law dawg]

Could it be that, while both are certainly tragic events, the media attention surrounding airplane crashes is perceived to be greater? And the potential collateral damage is probably going to be greater also?

Possibly.

Whatever the reason, though, they are persistent and focused on it.

 

[AntiHippie]

Been to Israel, sir? I have. I know what their procedures are. And as a law officer with a lot of background in teaching said law, I tell you it won't fly here. Here's why.

Searches are mostly to be conducted using reasonable suspicion, per the court case Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum allowable suspicion to detain and search, absent exigent circumstances, or what is called an administrative search, or consent. A TSA airport search falls under the category of an administrative search.

Of course you can't profile based on skin color or religion (what does a Muslim look like?), so you'd have to do it based upon actions and statements. In other words, to profile someone you must ask them questions. Lots of them. And they must be required to answer. After an interrogation, you'll be able to profile someone much better than you can by clothing and how they walk and race, which is not helpful at all. Pop quiz - in America, are you required, outside of entering the country, to answer questions about the nature of your travel? Because profiling won't work without that kind of questioning. How are you going to investigate "...the people whose behavior seems inconsistent with their situation and supposed identities" without interrogating them?

So the same people who yell and scream about the invasiveness of backscatter machines will yell and scream about the damn gubmit getting into their damn business about their travel plans and who they know and who bought the tickets and where they live and it's not their goddamned business anyway. This is 'Merica, damn it! Ask me where I'm going? I'll tell Mr. Gov't Man to go pound sand he asks me questions!

That would take about five minutes to suffer it's first legal challenge. And about six months to be fully overturned. That kind of profiling is simply not possible in the US, especially given the 30,0000 flights a day and the system of law we have.

So profiling is mostly out, unless you get very obvious visual suspicion (heavy coat on hot day, etc.), which would be Terry levels anyway. And other searches need some kind of trigger (suspicion) to use - which leaves the admin search or consent. Admin searches can only be done to all people, or randomly.

You know, I've been wondering why we can't profile [I'm talking in the context of air travel here] in the US in a similar manner as the Israelis, taking note of people who just seem a bit 'off' and paying a little more attention to them. I guess if I put a little more thought into it it would have been easier, but reading it after someone else did works too. Follows Reason. I had just assumed that, given the intrusive nature of airport screening, voluntary entry to such areas was 'implied consent' and the full spectrum of screening measures were either regulatory or consent, but either way short of a Terry Stop. I hadn't thought enough into it to consider that questioning would be an important part of effective profiling - not a lot of ambiguity about where things stand when a person is questioned in what would likely be considered, given the access and exit restrictions of an airport terminal, a custodial situation.

 

[FPrice]

The only way to achieve security is to turn this country into a police state.

This may be why airplanes remain such a tempting target for terrorists. They understand what the .gov reaction to an airplane-based incident will involve. And just how much the attempt to achieve "security" will cost us in lost freedoms.

 

[drgrant]

Could it be that, while both are certainly tragic events, the media attention surrounding airplane crashes is perceived to be greater? And the potential collateral damage is probably going to be greater also?

There's no perceived about it- it -IS- greater. If a bunch of terrorists shoot up a mall or blow themselves up in a mall, all the media whores get is a picture of a building with a crapload of LEOs, ambulances, and yellow tape around it, because a building can get cordoned off pretty well. It doesn't make for "good television." A burning plane (parts) or a burning building, etc, makes for "good television" and that's also what the terrorists want. Compare something like the VT massacre coverage to say, the coverage of a commuter plane crash. Basically the same amount of dead people but the plane crash gets more "blood and guts" type of attention because there are usually witnesses all over the place, parts of aircraft, maybe burning structures etc that can be filmed, etc.

There's also the associative effect. If a terrorist attacks a mall a lot of people I know are not going to identify with that, because they spend little or no time in shopping malls. On the other hand, with an airplane, it's less of a leap for joe viewer to say "that could have been me or someone I know". The fact that planes violate geographical boundaries also adds to this. There is no "it can't happen here" BS with airplanes because airplanes fly all over the country. "Emotionally" it is difficult for people to write off airplane tragedies. It is also easy to opt out of going to a mall. It's not so easy opting out of air travel. This makes it harder for people to emotionally write off an incident, even if the odds in either case are slim to none that they or someone they know will actually die of terrorism.

Here's another example. Say a bus full of people careens off a cliff in the rockies and a bunch of people die. Then a commuter plane carrying about the same amount of people crashes. Which do you think is going to have more media attention.... the plane, of course, with all its flaming wreckage, ATC tapes, and all sorts of other hyped up drama.

The terrorists know that american media whore outlets love burning planes and other crap like that. Additionally, they also know it is harder for the authorities to "containerize" those kinds of disasters. For example if there is a mall shooter that kills 30 people, all the TV whores get to run is pictures of what the mall normally looks like inside and a pic of the mall with a cordon around it with a bunch of LEOS/FF/EMTs outside. There is no "gory burning wreckage" to film, just a boring building.

Another thing to add.... let's go back to 9/11 for a second. People probably know some of the names of the people who died in the hijacked plane crashes. On the other hand, a lot less people know who the many, many other victims were that perished "on the ground" at the WTC and Pentagon sites. This is all because the media whores are obsessed with mangled aircraft and explossions and such. It's almost right out of hollywood. The media whores think they are like Michael Bay or someone like that, except someone else is directing the action. (terrorists and psychos).

As a disclaimer, before anyone thinks I'm like trashing the right to free press, etc, I certainly am not... I'm just exposing the reality of american media whoring. It is what it is, and we also have to understand that the terrorists are "marketing their acts" to obtain the widest exposure... and that, is through air disasters. Every media whore loves a good old fashioned air disaster of some sort or another.

Would a suicide bomber in a mall cause those effects? Yes, I think it would, but even if a suicide bomber kills 30 people in a mall the media whores have nothing to show on television, except for a talking head of "Big Sis" telling us how we need to remain vigilant or some crap... and even the sheeple are not going to keep their TVs tuned into Janet Napolitano for any length of time, lest their eyes start bleeding. On the other hand if you turn on a TV and see a burning plane, the average reaction is "oh wait, lets see if there is MORE burning plane footage!!! " etc.

There's also the "prize effect". Terrorists see value in hitting what people falsely believe to be an "untouchable" target. If they drop another airplane it is kind of a deep blow to america, as the government runs this huge facade of "tight airplane security"... so the net terror is greater because people will feel more vulnerable. A soft target getting attacked can be written off as a one off, on the other hand there's this weird, BS nostrum that "air travel is safe from terrorism because of all the security" which is a bunch of crap.

-Mike

 

[Broc]

There's no perceived about it- it -IS- greater. If a bunch of terrorists shoot up a mall or blow themselves up in a mall, all the media whores get is a picture of a building with a crapload of LEOs, ambulances, and yellow tape around it, because a building can get cordoned off pretty well. It doesn't make for "good television." A burning plane (parts) or a burning building, etc, makes for "good television" and that's also what the terrorists want. Compare something like the VT massacre coverage to say, the coverage of a commuter plane crash. Basically the same amount of dead people but the plane crash gets more "blood and guts" type of attention because there are usually witnesses all over the place, parts of aircraft, maybe burning structures etc that can be filmed, etc.

also, when you are in a plane, you are pretty helpless. you have no guns, they have control of the plane, 99% of people cant fly a plane. in other words, they got you by the balls. And if they crash it, they kill all passengers and people in the building or houses they hit.

Thats why pilots should never open their door, and should have guns as a last resort. They are responsible for 100s of passengers, you might as well give them a gun.

 

[In God We Trust]

Haji already effed up air traffic for ll of us. It will never be the same. Sure another plane going down would cause "terror" but that would pretty much be the end of it. I think even the stupidest sheep among us know that the security of airlines is mostly BS and that TSA are just perverted scarecrows.

If I were a terrorist, I would want to hit somewhere that is hardly protected at all. Somewhere that people can't really avoid like a hospital or a school. Imagine the outrage if they blew up a preschool? Also these places are not protected by million dollar security budgets. Imagine the cost for the .gov to "protect" every school in America the way they have withthe airports? Imagine your son or daughter getting naked body scans every morning on the way in?

 

[GSG]

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

It's not possible to run a country without pissing of groups, and exposing yourself to risk. We can go back and forth about different decisions or political positions, but they are attacked. Ignoring the logistical nightmare it woud present, would you have as many issues with EP details if the pols paid for them out of their own pocket?

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.

Sorry if I came off unclear, I'm not saying that high stress environments are no place for guns or anything like that. The same argument is applied to schools, schoolboard meetings, etc. That's not my point. I'm saying that as an extension of a correctional facility, it's dangerous and foolish to remove the 4th wall and welcome in crowds without some sort of security measures.

We talk about us learning lessons from 9/11, why do we assume the terrorists haven't learned as well?

+1

Who the F would bother with an airplane with 100 people when you can much more easily hit the mall of the americas with 50 times that many.

A plane is 100 guaranteed victims with no escape. A mall is full of exit points.

 

[Jose]

A plane is 100 guaranteed victims with no escape. A mall is full of exit points.

You every try to outrun an explosion? Go back and look at the Murrah building and then place all that force and energy inside an enclosed building.

It won't be localized damage.

 

[GSG]

You every try to outrun an explosion? Go back and look at the Murrah building and then place all that force and energy inside an enclosed building.

It won't be localized damage.

Good point. I had active shooters on the brain for some reason.

 

[lupis42]

also, when you are in a plane, you are pretty helpless. you have no guns, they have control of the plane, 99% of people cant fly a plane. in other words, they got you by the balls.

Remember that you are only helpless on airplanes because the government requires it.

 

[Terminator03]

Remember that you are only helpless on airplanes because the government requires it.

Just the same, it is a moot point, because traveling on planes CCW will never again be allowed because we don't ever gain new freedoms, they only degrade in the name of greater public safety.

 

[Broc]

Remember that you are only helpless on airplanes because the government requires it.

yeah, but you still are.

its ok, when they invent teleporting the problem will be solved. unless they throw flies in the machine so our DNA mixes with theirs and we turn into monsters.

 

[Terminator03]

I was with you until here.

TSA has a lot of problems, but they aren't completely unable to detect this. The cord would show up on either X-ray of your bag or the personal X-ray thing. The limiting factor there is human error.


Hasn't been tested yet.

Next time you fly imagine a hijacking happens. Most likely it'll happen up front, so if you're in the back you're out of the fight before you can even get in it. It will be all over but the shouting by the time you 1) even know what's happening and 2) can get up front to leap into your remarkable action.

But, let's assume you're close enough to the action to do said leaping - are you going to? By yourself? Or do you somehow envision that everyone will jump up at the same time? You better hope they do, because if they don't you'll be conspicuous, to say the least. And conspicuous in this kind of event generally means "target." Ask the poor Israeli guy that jumped up on 9/11 by himself. He got himself killed within seconds. It took United 93 25 minutes and a vote to get rolling. They had to plan, get pumped up, talk each other into action, etc.

If I was a bad guy I'd never let anyone talk, plan, plot or conspire. I'd kill several people from the get-go to get everyone down. Anyone looks funny, execute them. Anyone talks, executed. Anyone moves, executed. Whisper? Executed. And done so in a brutal, bloody manner. People have no experience with that. When it does happen they tend to shut down. We talk about us learning lessons from 9/11, why do we assume the terrorists haven't learned as well?

That kind of directed violence has yet to happen again since 9/11. A bunch of EDPs and hijackers not using violence is not an accurate methodology to determine how normal people will respond in the middle of a violent hijacking. Much like people jumped on EDPs on planes prior to 9/11 (they even beat one to death) but once faced with 9/11 they got their heads down. Because they were scared, and rightfully so.

Intellectually everyone says they'll fight back, but intellect goes right out the window under adrenal stress, which is why the military and LE spends millions of dollars and thousands of hours training people to react instinctively. This is why many scuba divers are found drowned every year with full oxygen tanks - something makes them panic and they fall into instinctive patterns, one of which is to remove any obstruction from the airway. The know intellectually that they can't breathe water, but once panic sets in intellect is difficult, if not impossible, to use unless you've trained for it.

To say it'll never happen again because people know what will happen is to ignore the lessons of history. You can watch videos of Jewish prisoners walking into the gas chambers, knowing what was happening, but not really believing it. Over and over again.

You don't rise to the level of your expectations, you fall to the level of your training.


I do. Average time for OODA to cycle after the first round is cranked off is somewhere around five seconds. Plenty of time.

Where did you get the idea there's only one FAM on board?


Sense has exactly jack to do with how one responds in a critical incident

Very well put, and this was exactly the reasoning that I was trying to convey a few pages back when everyone disagreed with me on the fact that people will resort back to their instincts, which are not appropriate to survive in combat - unless you have trained to make that your instinct! The truth is that almost no one is willing to die, and that is exactly the mindset needed when facing adversaries on that level. Like you pointed out the "bum rush" theory is completely impractical too, just based on the logistics of seating, communication (to actually coordinate the effort), etc.

Thanks for staying in this discussion, because inmo, you are really the only person who is actually qualified to do more than speculate on this subject.