What having a sky marshal really means

All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal" disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin. If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

From what I understand, many of those people dies due to the lack of
information about what substance was introduced to their systems. I think
that the agency involved did not want to release that information to the
medical staff, and thus lives were lost hours after the hostages were
removed.

I do agree though that I would probably prefer an armed good guy (even the
pilots) shooting the bad guys than using means that were not meant to be
used as incapacitators.


"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over
a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal"
disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on
board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin.
If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over
a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal"
disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on
board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin.
If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

Right!!

Even if an Air Marshall takes a couple innocents, that is the risk that the
situation dictates. It's a trade-off; losing a few innocents versus losing
the entire plane and possibly a massacre on the ground as well. Combat
commanders have to make such decision all the time, and they don't always
work out like in the movies (the majority of citizens basis for
understanding how things work).

Regardless of the ammunition a Marshal uses, it is highly unlikely to cause
a catastrophic failure of the aircraft. In any case, you must keep the bad
guys from turning the aircraft into a weapon AT ALL COSTS.

Half of the hostages died in part because 1) inadequate numbers of
medical personnel were immediately onhand due to poor planning 2) those
that WERE there werent told what was going on or what was used 3)
non-lethal is a misnomer (ANYTHING can be toxic in the wrong amounts,
including water and oxygen, let alone inhaled sedatives/anesthetics)

The decompression scenario may work, but you would have to disarm the
oxygen masks or they would deploy with depressurization. And again,
different people tolerate events differently. An otherwise healthy
person may survive without supplemental oxygen, but a person who is
marginal may not. If the masks deploy, then whats to prevent said bad
guys from commandeering masks to stay with the fight?

Dave

Viperdoc wrote:

I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal" disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin. If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

"Dave S" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| The decompression scenario may work, but you would have to disarm the
| oxygen masks or they would deploy with depressurization. And again,
| different people tolerate events differently. An otherwise healthy
| person may survive without supplemental oxygen, but a person who is
| marginal may not. If the masks deploy, then whats to prevent said bad
| guys from commandeering masks to stay with the fight?
|

Well, the bad guys would then be on a very short leash.

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just suggests
fighting.

Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a
fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during
the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will
scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could
be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even
experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals,
disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up.
The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just suggests
fighting.

This raises another question. There's a well-known phenom in law
enforcement having to do with alternative punishments, such as house
arrest by wearing an electronic bracelet instead of being sent to
jail. Instead of lessening the jail population, such alternatives are
likely to only increase the number of people sanctioned.

Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
aircraft?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of
the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just
suggests
fighting.

This raises another question. There's a well-known phenom in law
enforcement having to do with alternative punishments, such as house
arrest by wearing an electronic bracelet instead of being sent to
jail. Instead of lessening the jail population, such alternatives are
likely to only increase the number of people sanctioned.

So...?

Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
aircraft?

???? How do you arrive at THAT conclusion (or question)? Your first
paragraph leads to your second paragraph...how?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
aircraft?


Shouldn't happen. The sky marshal should have just one responsibility; to
prevent forced entry into the cockpit, if need be. The only time that need
should arise is in the case of someone brandishing a weapon. Since 9/11/01
there have been a few cases where passengers became unruly and even tried to
enter the cockpit. These wackos have generally been subdued by other
passengers. That's how it should be, even if a sky marshal is aboard. The
sky marshal should not expose himself as a sky marshal unless deadly force
has already been introduced into the situation.