What having a sky marshal really means

My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
they are on board. This presents an added layer of security- suppose two
hijackers are working together, and one gets up and starts trouble or acts
like an unruly passenger. If the flight attendant then looks to the FAM for
help, the agent's cover is now blown, since they are then identified to any
further hijackers.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
they are on board. This presents an added layer of security- suppose two
hijackers are working together, and one gets up and starts trouble or acts
like an unruly passenger. If the flight attendant then looks to the FAM
for
help, the agent's cover is now blown, since they are then identified to
any
further hijackers.

There is a simple issue here. If the captain thinks there is a threat to his
plane he should not take off.

He also has an obligation to get as much information about the flight as he
can. If the "intelligence" services have such information he should be
provided with it. Likewise if the are FAMs on board he should know. as the
Commander he is legally responsible for what goes on with his flight.

If the Feds can pick an choose when a commander is the commander and when he
is not, where does that leave all pilots?

The FARs make it very clear whose in charge. Show me where they have changed
it.

Pilots wont fly if they believe there is a fault with the aircraft. Likewise
pilots should not fly if they know of a threat.

If they do and something catastrophic happens, then the pilots estate should
be sued. It sucks but I hope airline captains and crews have more sense than
to try and be macho about flying with a threat.

That's one of the first lessons a student pilot gets taught. There is no
room in the cockpit for macho behaviour.

So what if air travel gets a little difficult for a while. Its not that
important.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:04:39 -0000, "Dave"
wrote:

: But if there's ever another hijacking, it will end in one of two ways.
: If there are FAMs on board, they will subdue the hijackers with deadly
: force if necessary. If there are no FAMs on board, the passengers
: will subdue them with deadly force whether it's necessary or not.
:
:There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds!
There
:is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.
:
:Some of them would be too drunk on the free booze in Business class (They
:wont be travelling economy) and not take the job seriously like the drunk
:TSA chief at Dulles.
:
:Good way to build confidence in the security arrangements.

The FA won't serve FAM's alcohol. They'd be shocked if a FAM asked
for any. They know who the FAMs are.

Ummm....No, they do not. Not even the pilot knows. ?!?

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell"
wrote:

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


Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
when the plane is at altitude?


To further elaborate on other's replys- the emergency exit is larger than the
opening it fills, so it must be pulled inwards in order to open. With a
conservative 7psi cabin differential and a 36x36" opening, someone would have to
overcome nearly 10,000 lbs of force holding the door shut.

The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.

Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.


The new x-ray machines are great. But they don't have a "gun/bomb/knife" alarm
on them. They still require as screener to watch and pick out the weapons. You
have thousands and thousands of bags being scanned a day, and a screener can go
his or her entire career without seeing ONE weapon. This is a very difficult
task to approach from a vigilance standpoint, and it is NOT inconcievable that a
Bad Guy could sneak something through.

Look at how many people are able to accidently get guns and knives through
security.


R. Hubbell




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.

No, you cannot open the cabin doors with the plane pressurized...
Shooting holes through the skin of the airframe will not cause explosive
decompression, it will just add some more airbleeds to what is designed to
be there, and to the inevitable leaky door seals, loose rivets, etc... If
you shoot enough holes (lots and lots) then cabin pressure will finally sag
off as the escaping air flow exceeds what the engines can pump into the
plane ...

Even if the whacko(s) succeed in completely blowing out some windows and
decompressing the airplane, they are in the same boat with the passengers,
being tied to an oxygen mask and unable to invade the cockpit - that's a
lose-lose scenario for them...

A weapon getting on board will likely come inside the food cart, be stashed
by a janitor, etc., rather than with a boarding passenger... Secondly, a
single gun/knife, or even a couple, will not take over the aircraft now that
passengers know that letting the whacko(s) get into the cockpit means a sure
death...
Cargo planes are a far more likely target for whackos now than heavily
defended passenger planes...

Denny

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04...
... The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.

Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.

Your assumption is that ALL luggage, cargo, and supplies for the plane
are xrayed with the new machines. In fact, reports have shown that
only part of the luggage (more carryon is examined), little of the
cargo, and almost none of the supplies are xrayed. And some of that
stuff that is xrayed is using the older machines.

So yes it's quite feasible. Witness the student recently who had to
finally tell the FAA of the stuff he'd hidden on several SW air
flights much earlier.

The information on this is available through regular news outlets, but
like always we just have to work a little to distinguish between real
information and commentator opinion.

-Malcolm Teas

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
:
:Ummm....No, they do not. Not even the pilot knows. ?!?

Uhh, yeah, they do. They're the ones that are flying without a
ticket, without going through security, that aren't on the manifest,
that aren't included in the final head count, that don't have to
buckle their seatbelts on takeoff and landing, that have sat-enabled
com that they can use during flight? Not to mention the pistols that
might get accidentally seen and cause the FAs to panic if they didn't
know it was one of the good guys?

Got a reference for that? That's news to a bunch of us.

In any case, if a FAM drank on duty (especially in public) he'd be out
of a job, just like any LEO.

That's not my point (some one else's urban legend I'd suspect) and it's
quite true.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:03:23 -0600, "Viperdoc"
wrote:

My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
they are on board.

Your understanding is incorrect. The entire crew knows who and where
the FAMs are and also if there are any other armed individuals (FBI,
DEA, etc.) on board.

-J


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

In any case, if a FAM drank on duty (especially in public) he'd be out
of a job, just like any LEO.

That's not my point (some one else's urban legend I'd suspect) and it's
quite true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan1.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...908945226.html

Note that this fellow was supposedly on duty at the time. Also note that
this took under a minute to research (a search on news.google.com for "tsa
drunk").

- Andrew

Robert Henry wrote:

The Star Trek approach to prevent commandeering of aircraft is a far more
honest approach than air marshals. "This aircraft will self-destruct in 2
minutes."

Presumably, this is on the mind of the pilot flying the fighter that would
be intercepting an airliner yelling 7600.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...908941801.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3868332&p1=0
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/200...4905-2340r.htm

- Andrew