British Airways pilots object to armed marshals on flights

[scoone]

British Airways pilots object to armed marshals on flights to United States

LONDON (AP) - British Airways met with pilots Monday to discuss their objections to the use of armed sky marshals on flights to the United States. As they met, a BA flight to Washington was delayed for the third straight day because of U.S.-requested security checks.

The British Association of Air Line Pilots said deploying armed officers on aircraft would likely endanger lives, and one British vacation operator, Thomas Cook Airlines, said it would cancel flights if sky marshals were to be on board.

Like the association, "we want to see captains remain in full control of the aircraft at all times," said a spokesman for the Thomas Cook, which operates chartered flights to Florida and crosses U.S. airspace en route to the Caribbean.

The pilots association has said it may be willing to accept sky marshals and cockpit restrictions under protest, but it was seeking assurances from airlines, including legal and financial indemnity, in case of shootouts.

The association also wanted measures saying that pilots will be in command at all times and will know the identity and seating location of sky marshals.

A spokesman for British Airways, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that "in principle, where appropriate, with agreed procedures in place, we'd be comfortable" with armed sky marshals on aircraft

U.S. officials have sought to get armed sky marshals deployed on some flights.

Transport Minister Alistair Darling, who was due to meet with pilot association representatives Tuesday to discuss the issue, dismissed as "complete rubbish" a suggestion that London to Washington flights had been cancelled to pressure British Airways into accepting sky marshals.

British Airways Flight BA223 from Heathrow to Washington's Dulles Airport was delayed again Monday at the request of U.S. officials.

About 200 passengers sat in the aircraft on the tarmac for more than three hours while the airline waited for clearance for the flight from U.S. authorities. The flight, scheduled to leave at 3:05 p.m., departed at about 6:15 p.m.

The daily Flight BA223, one of three that the airline operates each day to the U.S. capital, was cancelled Thursday and Friday on government advice and was delayed for U.S.-requested checks for three hours on both Saturday and Sunday.

Darling said that "exceptional circumstances" relating to security forced the cancellation of the flights and that most flights were going ahead as normal.

"The decision to cancel the flight is something that is only taken in exceptional circumstances," he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. He added that such a decision was taken only "when we have information that leads us to the conclusion that that is the only thing that is safe to do."

Neither the airline nor British officials would provide details of the threat, although analysts and media reports suggested authorities had received intelligence of a possible airborne attack by al-Qaida-linked terrorists.

British Airways also cancelled Saturday's flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, citing a government security warning. Monday's flight to Riyadh left at 1:49 p.m., 14 minutes later than scheduled.

Do you think that allowing armed marhals in flights is a good idea?

[Roger Rabbit]

No, the solution is not putting guns aboard an aircraft its better security before people board the aircraft.

[scoone]

I , agree

[usa320]

in case of shootouts.

SO the airline rather loose an aircraft, a hundred some lives onboard the aircraft, and thousands of lives in wahtever building the aircraft hits, than have a few pinpoint rounds put into a terrorists face.


I say if they dont want marshalls, they can go fly somewhere else.

[StarvingStudent47]

Air marshalls are THE most effective way to prevent an airplane hijacking. If these pilots still think that cooperating with hijackers is the best plan, they should review the events of 9/11/01 again.

If terrorists have guns and engage in a gun battle with the air marshall, of course there is some danger to the people on the plane. But are the people on the plane so darned safe if instead of a gunfight, the hijackers were in control of the cockpit? A gun battle is the lesser of two evils.

[Argyll]

Ground security has to be Paramount,allowing an armed terrorist onto a plane is a failure right off,you think a sky marshall is going to be able to stop 3-4 armed tossers in different locations on the plane?
If a marshal engages a terrorist that flight's fate is sealed,all the terrorist's backup needs to do is shoot out the windows and good bye everyone.
Don't you think a terrorist cell may have a contingency plan to deal with Sky Marshalls?
It is not the most effective way of dealing with aircraft hijacking,not letting hijacker/weapons onto the plane in the 1st place is far better.
Take a look at the security in Israeli airports and learn from them!!

[Uncle Sam]

I personally know an Air Marshal, and the training he received was quite extensive. There are usually more than 1 on a flight, so taking out a couple of terrorists wouldn't be a problem, in a perfect world.

But I do agree with Agryll Security starts at the beginning...Not in the middle...

[usa320]

Indeed, they need REAL security on the ground, and air marshalls on certain high risk flights.

People need to lose the impression that Air marshalls are mere flying cowboys. They arent. I saw a video of them in training, and these guys move fast, and they rush their targets and shoot them at like 3 feet, so they are so close they dont miss.

[Argyll]

Yes the video clips are very very impressive,but I wonder how good a job they'll do when its 300 real people sitting in seats at 40000,and not rubber dummies.
that's 300 terrified and panicking passengers who all think they're about to die........not something I'd like to have responsibility for being a Sky Marshall,the UK ones I wonder if they were trained in the killing house in Hereford as the only unit I know that does this type of shooting is the Regiment!!?

[StarvingStudent47]

Ground security has to be Paramount,allowing an armed terrorist onto a plane is a failure right off,you think a sky marshall is going to be able to stop 3-4 armed tossers in different locations on the plane?
If a marshal engages a terrorist that flight's fate is sealed,all the terrorist's backup needs to do is shoot out the windows and good bye everyone.
Don't you think a terrorist cell may have a contingency plan to deal with Sky Marshalls?
It is not the most effective way of dealing with aircraft hijacking,not letting hijacker/weapons onto the plane in the 1st place is far better.
Take a look at the security in Israeli airports and learn from them!!

Well obviously the best way is to prevent the terrorists from getting weapons on the flight to begin with. I was talking about the best contingency plan if an armed terrorist DOES get on the plane.

And one air marshall might be in trouble if four terrorists each have a gun, but one air marshall with a gun versus four guys with knives is a different story. While some passengers might get stabbed, the knife-wielding terrorists would NOT be able to take the cockpit in that situation.

Sure, I'd love to look at El Al's security. Did you know that besides their strict ground security they have AIR MARSHALLS ON EVERY FLIGHT?

[usa320]

I think the days of passengers siting in their seats crying are long gone. If a plane were to be hijacked now, you wouldnt have 300 panicking people, youd have 300 pissed off people.

[Uncle Sam]

Americans are wising up to the idea that terrorism isn't just "somewhere else" now...It's here, and now...We deal with it.

[marktigger]

sky marshals are 1 answer the other is improved ground security and major changes in check in proceedures as have been being discussed in the media here as to how security and check in works. Taking on many of the proceedures El AL use at their check ins. The media here showed american sky marshalls training on practically every news cast and I wouldn't want the bunch of cowboys they showed. If the threat is sufficiently high to need to put an armed escort on a flight I would say that flight shouldn't be flying.
I'm afraid we in the UK do not believe the correct answer comes out of the barrel of a gun. I have no qualms about sky marshals but the guys commanding the aircraft should have the final say.
Oh how serious the British government is about airport security according to the news about half of Belfast international airports police are about to be laid off.

[Argyll]

I'm all for Sky Marshalls too,but they are not the answer to the problem,think of problems it may occur,some passenger accidently see's a skymarshalls gun and causes mayhem trying to apprehend him,mistaken identity is quite common with fatal shootings by UK police.
If sky marshalss were introduced to certain flights then the pilots will assume there's a threat and will not fly simple as that.
It HAS to be sorted at stage 1 not stage 3-4!!

[duck]

The extensive profiling used by El Al sounds more usable than trying to create thousands of Air Marshalls with questionable professionalism. Or then rotate FBI and Secret Service agents in the Air Marshall role.

[StarvingStudent47]

I said it before, I'll say it again:

Air marshalls are one critical part of El Al's security system. You can't "implement El Al security" without air marshalls. El Al is smart enough to realize that one line of defense alone (whether it be baggage screening, background checks on passengers, whatever) is not sufficient. You have to have contingency plans. Multiple layers of security. And air marshalls are one major layer of that multi-layered security that El Al uses.

[One?]

The captain or pilots on the plane DO NOT like air marshals for one reason. They are no longer in command of the plane. The pilot cannot negotiate with the terrorist, and he cant do anything. The marshall cant start shooting in the plane and the pilot would have no clue whats going on.

[duck]

The problem is the numbers needed. El Al has a limited need and can count on the commitment of it's employees because of the unique nature of Israeli society. Does someone expect top-notch Air Marshalls for every no-frills commuter flight or holiday charter to the Caribbean? How many thousands, if not tens of thousands would be needed? Who is going to pay more than potential candidates could get elsewhere, say pulling security in Iraq?

[usa320]

The pilot cannot negotiate with the terrorist

The days of asking a hijacker where he wants to go, and flying him there so he can smuggle his money and drugs to that place are long gone.

Back in the 70's it was possible to negotiate with hijackers, because most of em were just out looking for a free ride to south america or some ****. Now they are out to looking at a using the airplane, and those onboard as a weapon.

I by god hope there are NO pilots out there that would be willing to negotiate with terrorists, and if there was, i think he wouldnt get the approval of the passengers to do so.

I honestly think that the best deterent against hijackings now is the mindset that the flying American public have. They wont sit and panic anymore, they will instead use anything they can to subdue the bastard. I reckon its happened about 4 times since 9-11, passengers subduing a madman.

[Roger Rabbit]

Whats wrong with a metal door preventing people from accessing the cockpit? I presume there is a problem with this or it would have been done. Any ideas?

[SteelHand]

Rupert,

A metal door is all well and good until the terrorists start executing staff/passengers to get you to open the door.

How many people would you let be killed before you opened the door?

Seriously, air marshals were a part of life in the 70's & weather you want them or not, they are going to be on flights. At least they have frangible ammo these days & unlike the James Bond movies, if you shoot out a window (pretty difficult as it is 2 layers of plexiglass which doesn't shatter) all 300 odd passengers aren't going to be sucked out the window.

SteelHand

[aktarian]

Whats wrong with a metal door preventing people from accessing the cockpit? I presume there is a problem with this or it would have been done. Any ideas?

Exactlly. Cockpitdoors that can't be opend from outside. That way terrorists can't gain control of aircraft.

[Roger Rabbit]

That was what i was thinking. But going back to the what if they started executing people. Well theoretically lots more people could die if the planes were flown into buildings.

You could say the same about a Sky Marshal, what if they had control of half the plane and terrorists controlled the other half, how many hostages would they execute before the Sky marshal gave themselves up if they saw its was impractical for them to attack the Terrorists.

[SteelHand]

To me, half a plane load of live passengers is better than a flying bomb into a building. Of course, being safely on the ground and nowhere near a plane, we can play god & therorise to our hearts content.

I think that Hijackers these days will have to realise that passengers are just not going to sit there meekly after 9/11. They will organise & they will take the chance to grab the bad guy.

Me?, as scary as the proposition sounds, I would rather take the chance of grabbing a hijacker and living (or being wounded/killed) than crying like a girl as a big building hove into sight off the port wing.

[scoone]

Rupert,

A metal door is all well and good until the terrorists start executing staff/passengers to get you to open the door.

How many people would you let be killed before you opened the door?

SteelHand


To avoid this problem just use some automatic doorlocking system which will avoid the crew from opening the door.It might get open only once the plane has landed.

[oldsoak]

Maybe theres yet another answer - remote control ?
Modern aircraft are designed to have autoland systems that will land them safely on the ground in weather you wouldnt walk to the car in. Supposing aircraft have something on board that can be initiated from the ground that takes over, flies it to a safe airfield wherethe local LEO's , Rangers, SAS, Delta, whatever are waiting. Pilots could be shot to bits, the plane will still fly without them. Not beyound the wit of man I think, albeit in the future. In the meantime, airport security carried out by motivated individuals - the ones I get to see dont make me feel good - is the best bet. Stop the b*st**ds from getting on. Anybody working near an aircraft needs to be checked over. Pointless having the best passenger checking system in the world if the cleaner is an operative of some terrorist organisation. Finally in they do get on board, how do you stop them from getting control ? you might need a couple of marshalls yet.
just mho.
rgds

[scoone]

Remote control sounds really great using it you will be avoiding the human factor.Another way is also to train pilots to use guns, but , i don't really like the idea, in fact I don't like the idea of having a gun inside a plane.

[specialairservice]

oldsoak wrote

Maybe theres yet another answer - remote control ?
Modern aircraft are designed to have autoland systems that will land them safely on the ground in weather you wouldnt walk to the car in. Supposing aircraft have something on board that can be initiated from the ground that takes over, flies it to a safe airfield wherethe local LEO's , Rangers, SAS, Delta, whatever are waiting. Pilots could be shot to bits, the plane will still fly without them. Not beyound the wit of man I think, albeit in the future. In the meantime, airport security carried out by motivated individuals - the ones I get to see dont make me feel good - is the best bet. Stop the b*st**ds from getting on. Anybody working near an aircraft needs to be checked over. Pointless having the best passenger checking system in the world if the cleaner is an operative of some terrorist organisation. Finally in they do get on board, how do you stop them from getting control ? you might need a couple of marshalls yet.
just mho.


If pilots could be "shot to bits" that means the terroist would have access to the cockpit, and if he has a weapon wouldnt he shot the cockpit to bits as well, i mean if you have just killed 2 pilots and brought a weapon on board, would you just let a plane fly you to an airport with aload of of special forces waiting to kill you? I think not.

[scoone]

The life of an air marshal is a lonely one, says David Adams, who has worked undercover on American flights for two years.
'The typical day is spent 30,000 feet in the air protecting 200 passengers with no back-up,' says Adams. 'If anything happens you have to respond, resolve the situation, make arrests and help get the aircraft safely to the ground.'

Before the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, he was working as a special agent investigating immigration offences. Like 200,000 fellow Americans who applied to be air marshals, he was recruited in the rush of patriotism that swept America after the suicide attacks on New York and Washington.

With two decades of experience in the US secret service, Adams, 52, is one of the most senior marshals working today.

'We have to be constantly observant, looking for unusual activity, while being careful not to be observed. People will joke that they try to point out the air marshal, but we are trained not to be identified,' he says.

Prior to the 9/11 attacks the numbers of marshals had declined to just 33. The American authorities will not confirm the total now operating, but the figure is in the thousands.

They are not put on planes to react to specific threats, but placed entirely at random to act as a deterrent. In theory a passenger will never know if a marshal is on the flight or not.

'Our mission is to promote confidence in our aviation system,' says Adams. 'And we haven't had a serious incident since 9/11.'

The air marshals are not a new phenomenon. They have been on American planes for more than 40 years. The 'sky marshal' programme was set up in late 1961 by President John F. Kennedy who was concerned about the growing threat of hijacking. President Richard Nixon boosted the numbers of marshals and in 1974 gave responsibility for the service to the Federal Aviation Authority.

The numbers were again increased by President Ronald Reagan after the hijacking of TWA flight 947 in June 1985. Lebanese terrorists seized the aircraft in Athens, demanding the release of Shia prisoners. The American public was horrified when American navy diver Robert Stetham was shot and his body dumped on the tarmac. America is still offering a $5 million reward for information that will bring the killers to justice.

In 1987 the service had 400 marshals working on planes, with a brief to disarm potential armed hijackers, but when terrorists started bombing aircraft rather than hijacking them, attention turned to security on the ground and the service went into near-terminal decline.

Air marshals are trained to deal with every eventuality from a disruptive passenger to an attempt to storm the cockpit and Adams claim they meet the highest shooting standards training of any armed law enforcement officer. Only the pilot and crew are informed of their presence on board, but marshals do not need their authority to intervene.

Each marshal takes a seven-week course at a training academy in Artesia, New Mexico. This is followed by four weeks at a specialist air marshal training centre in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

No air marshal has yet been overpowered. 'We've been able to deal with every situation,' says Adams, who finds his 'verbal judo' skills as useful as his combat training.

He would be delighted to pass what he has learnt to the retired British police preparing to become air marshals on US-bound flights. 'I'm not aware of any plans, but I'm sure, if they asked, we would have a lot to offer,' he adds.

However, the British schemes for air marshals appear to be heading for difficulties. According to airline sources, British pilots are reluctant to have people like David Adams aboard because that would signify that there was a threat to their passengers.

Under the British plan, some 24 air marshals would be deployed only on flights where there was significant intelligence of a potential threat.

Pilots have told The Observer it would be little consolation to know an armed guard was aboard when there were potential suicide bombers sitting alongside the marshals. The pilots say they would not fly if they found there was a threat to lives, pitching airlines into a clash with the Government over implementing the scheme.

[scoone]

Countdown to days of flight cancellations and chaos

12 September 2001 Armed police patrol Heathrow airport. Security at all airports stepped up. Airports placed on red alert.

6 October 2001 International aviation officials and regulators from 187 countries agree to spend millions of pounds on strengthening security in airports.

13 November 2001 Thousands of items, including a knuckle-duster and a carving knife are confiscated from passengers after stop and search measures are introduced.

24 December 2001 Richard Reid attempts to blow himself on plane using a shoe bomb. New checks on passengers are promised by aviation chiefs.

28 March 2002 Tighter airport security measures announced, following two multi-million pound robberies at Heathrow.

8 August 2002 Over 15,000 sharp objects confiscated daily from people's hand luggage at the UK's main airports say BAA.

20 November 2002 New recognition technology to be introduced in all UK airports.

12 February 2003 Security increased in UK airports idue to new terror threat fears.

14 February 2003 Undercover armed police to be introduced on UK passenger flights to combat terrorist attacks.

14 May 2003 Customs officers in the UK to be issued with new detection equipment to stop terrorists bringing in material for radioactive bombs.

5 September 2003 British Airways looks at fitting anti-missile systems to its aircraft.

26 December 2003 Armed marshals will guard flights between Australia and Singapore within days, the Australian Government says.

29 december 2003 Undercover air marshals will be employed on some British flights. Government says this is a 'responsible and prudent' response to the heightened terror alert in the US.

30 December 2003 The US says international flights to or over the country will be required to carry armed guards in certain cases.

[marktigger]

I remember 1 solution proposed post 9/11 was to have a seperate entrance/exit for the flightdeck crew and No door into the main cabin. This to me is the most logical.

[Argyll]

What would they do if the Pilot/Co Pilot was the terrorist?
Hasn't anyone considered that AQ could have a few Intn'l pilots on their payrol,only too willing to fly into whatever?..........now that's scary!!

[aktarian]

What would they do if the Pilot/Co Pilot was the terrorist?
Hasn't anyone considered that AQ could have a few Intn'l pilots on their payrol,only too willing to fly into whatever?..........now that's scary!!

And how would air marshal prevent that? If you are in cockpit and are terrorist who can prevent you from crashing it into building. Air marshal woun't be aware something is wrong until they see they aren't landing on airport. At that time it will be too late to do anything (it will take some time to break into cockpit).

[Roger Rabbit]

Thats a pretty scary idea. Although i would have thought that with the well known Airlines (like BA etc etc) then due to the training processes and what not they should probably know if the pilot was suspicious or not as they would have a lot of info on them. However when it comes to cargo aircraft and airlines which run on a tight budget then...

[martinexsquaddie]

they were advertising for sky marshals a while back nearly applied but decided spending the next 10 years eating airline food :( for the chance to draw down on vinne jones was'nt worth it :lol:

[usa320]

Air marshal woun't be aware something is wrong until they see they aren't landing on airport. At that time it will be too late to do anything (it will take some time to break into cockpit).


Its not that hard of a concept. When the plane starts to descend only 10 minutes into a 3 hour flight, something aint right.

Also, i think the cockpit doors should be reinforced and accesable by a keycode, which would be reprogrammed at the start of every flight, fed from ground control to the plane over the FMS. The only people who would be able to know the code would be the Pilot, the Copilot and the Air MArshall.

[Roger Rabbit]

Anyone know whos training the British Air Marshals? Is it the Police, Army or a private organisation?

[aktarian]

Its not that hard of a concept. When the plane starts to descend only 10 minutes into a 3 hour flight, something aint right.


So what is AM going to do? Break down the door designed in such way breking them down isn't easy?

[Chris1]

Anyone know whos training the British Air Marshals? Is it the Police, Army or a private organisation?
Police.

[marktigger]

please not SO19