Jumping on the bandwagon
#1
Jumping on the bandwagon
Reported today is that US bound British carriers are wanting armed undercover air marshalls but the pilots union don't want arms onboard British aircraft, what a crock of shit, personally I would welcome the knowledge that there is a highly trained weapons expert flying with me in these troubled times, my wife and I are flying out on Thurs and she is already apprehensive about the recent elevated alert.
Air France are already getting twitchy about thier flights and united have given thier rear gunners new ammo ( only one class on united, steerage)
Air France are already getting twitchy about thier flights and united have given thier rear gunners new ammo ( only one class on united, steerage)
#2
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,113
With all the checks in place at the airports, why the hell do we need a guy with a gun on an aeroplane?. Thats just what I look forward to, a gun fight at 36,000 feet
#3
Professional Mover
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Derry, NH Via Salem, NH via Ma, NC, ex Manchester, UK.
Posts: 670
I've done airport work for a number of years and know how easy it would be to smuggle something on a plane. Having said that I have to agree with Pimbot on this one.
#4
Re: Jumping on the bandwagon
If I were on a hijacked plane, I would certainly appreciate the presence of an armed law enforcement official, particularly in light of the fact that I can't even carry a nail file onto a plane these days.
BTW, air marshals use soft, low velocity bullets that are designed not the penetrate the plane's skin. But even if that weren't true, I'd rather that the plane go down with a fight and perhaps save some innocent lives on the ground.
Of course, I'm also in favor of armed pilots. Why not? Most are retired Air Force officers anyway.
BTW, air marshals use soft, low velocity bullets that are designed not the penetrate the plane's skin. But even if that weren't true, I'd rather that the plane go down with a fight and perhaps save some innocent lives on the ground.
Of course, I'm also in favor of armed pilots. Why not? Most are retired Air Force officers anyway.
#5
I've just been having this debate with my other half who's a pilot for a major US carrier. He's pro marshalls but anti armed pilots. He's ex military himself but the majority are no means ex mil and it's a pretty even split. He said a lot of the pilots are just too geeky to be armed in the cockpit.
#6
I agree with armed air marshals, it will make the terrorists job easier when they identify the marshal disarm him and use the gun to hijack the plane. This is really good as it means the terrorists don't need to go to the trouble of trying to get weapons on board as they are put on for them.
It will make the extra security and the fact that flying is such a pain in the arse now much better knowing that the ground security is for nought because there is a gun ready and waiting on the plane. By telling people that there are armed air marshals on flights it will stop people being vigilante and looking for things out of place and thus make the terrorists job easier.
The whole terror alert thing is such a good use of tax payers money as well, it does the terrorists job for them - scares people.
This whole thing over Christmas is such a crock of shit anyway, nothing is going to happen and Bush is going make himself a hero because he stopped the terrorist attacks(?!?!)
If your afraid to fly because of terrorism don't ****ing fly, personally I think that if the terrorists want to do something they will find a way to do it and there will be very little anyone can do about. Its called terrorism for a reason, otherwise it would be called predetermonable and preventable ism!
Patrick
It will make the extra security and the fact that flying is such a pain in the arse now much better knowing that the ground security is for nought because there is a gun ready and waiting on the plane. By telling people that there are armed air marshals on flights it will stop people being vigilante and looking for things out of place and thus make the terrorists job easier.
The whole terror alert thing is such a good use of tax payers money as well, it does the terrorists job for them - scares people.
This whole thing over Christmas is such a crock of shit anyway, nothing is going to happen and Bush is going make himself a hero because he stopped the terrorist attacks(?!?!)
If your afraid to fly because of terrorism don't ****ing fly, personally I think that if the terrorists want to do something they will find a way to do it and there will be very little anyone can do about. Its called terrorism for a reason, otherwise it would be called predetermonable and preventable ism!
Patrick
#7
So, to go by your logic, police officers shouldn't use firearms because a criminal may take the gun away and shoot innocent bystanders. The mind boggles.
Incidentally, hijackers don't have to sneak weapons onto a plane, there are many everyday items that may be used to take over an aircraft. An armed marshal may not be a 100 percent countermeasure, but he or she could be of great assistance and may not even have to use his or her weapon.
Incidentally, hijackers don't have to sneak weapons onto a plane, there are many everyday items that may be used to take over an aircraft. An armed marshal may not be a 100 percent countermeasure, but he or she could be of great assistance and may not even have to use his or her weapon.
#8
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Pimpbot that happens. Must be fun for a Marshall being sat down for up to 14 hours at a time. Great for physical training necesary for being able to tackle a would be terrorist.
The US is thinking of requiring foreign airlines to carry marshalls on flights to America.
IATA and BALPA also think air marshalls are inneffective and possibly a liability.
The best use of resources is gathering quality intelligence. Something that might have prevented 9/11.
Anyway you are all far more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport. Will you let that stop you picking up friends and family from the airport?
The US is thinking of requiring foreign airlines to carry marshalls on flights to America.
IATA and BALPA also think air marshalls are inneffective and possibly a liability.
The best use of resources is gathering quality intelligence. Something that might have prevented 9/11.
Anyway you are all far more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport. Will you let that stop you picking up friends and family from the airport?
#9
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,814
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the majority of airline pilots are not retired military flyers. A vast number of them have no desire to carry or use a firearm; if they did they would not be flying a civilian airliner, they would be in a more appropriate job.
Every time they fly they have to be focussed on the flight, the numerous safety aspects, the needs of air traffic, and the requirements of their company. Asking them to now be responsible for carrying, and being ready to use, firearms is unacceptable.
I would rather be able to feel that the pilots of my plane were concentrating on the flight, than feel that they were sitting in the cockpit nursing loaded firearms.
Maybe if it was a requirement for new pilots, now in training, it could be considered, but as things stand at present its impractical and unworkable.
As for air marshals - would the flight crew know who the marshal was? Would the cabin crew? If the pilots don't know who the marshal is, how do they know which guy to shoot when they come racing out of the cockpit, gun on hand......
Every time they fly they have to be focussed on the flight, the numerous safety aspects, the needs of air traffic, and the requirements of their company. Asking them to now be responsible for carrying, and being ready to use, firearms is unacceptable.
I would rather be able to feel that the pilots of my plane were concentrating on the flight, than feel that they were sitting in the cockpit nursing loaded firearms.
Maybe if it was a requirement for new pilots, now in training, it could be considered, but as things stand at present its impractical and unworkable.
As for air marshals - would the flight crew know who the marshal was? Would the cabin crew? If the pilots don't know who the marshal is, how do they know which guy to shoot when they come racing out of the cockpit, gun on hand......
#10
Originally posted by Pollyana
As for air marshals - would the flight crew know who the marshal was? Would the cabin crew? If the pilots don't know who the marshal is, how do they know which guy to shoot when they come racing out of the cockpit, gun on hand......
As for air marshals - would the flight crew know who the marshal was? Would the cabin crew? If the pilots don't know who the marshal is, how do they know which guy to shoot when they come racing out of the cockpit, gun on hand......
If the pilots were armed they would never, under any circumstances leave the cockpit. It's seen as the last line of defence and they are trained to only use the weapon if someone gained entry.
As it stands now, the pilot's only job is to safely land the plane. That's all they are required to do, with or without the presence of an air marshall.
Air Marshalls have also very sucessfully been used on El Al for years.
I think what is happening with the situation now is more of a load of political rhetoric than anything else.
#11
Originally posted by Pollyana
Maybe if it was a requirement for new pilots, now in training, it could be considered, but as things stand at present its impractical and unworkable.
Maybe if it was a requirement for new pilots, now in training, it could be considered, but as things stand at present its impractical and unworkable.
#12
Re: Jumping on the bandwagon
Originally posted by edwords
If I were on a hijacked plane, I would certainly appreciate the presence of an armed law enforcement official, particularly in light of the fact that I can't even carry a nail file onto a plane these days.
BTW, air marshals use soft, low velocity bullets that are designed not the penetrate the plane's skin. But even if that weren't true, I'd rather that the plane go down with a fight and perhaps save some innocent lives on the ground.
Of course, I'm also in favor of armed pilots. Why not? Most are retired Air Force officers anyway.
If I were on a hijacked plane, I would certainly appreciate the presence of an armed law enforcement official, particularly in light of the fact that I can't even carry a nail file onto a plane these days.
BTW, air marshals use soft, low velocity bullets that are designed not the penetrate the plane's skin. But even if that weren't true, I'd rather that the plane go down with a fight and perhaps save some innocent lives on the ground.
Of course, I'm also in favor of armed pilots. Why not? Most are retired Air Force officers anyway.
Do you think they'd bother to arm themselves with low velocity bullets so they don't puncture the plane's skin?
NC Penguin
#13
Originally posted by edwords
So, to go by your logic, police officers shouldn't use firearms because a criminal may take the gun away and shoot innocent bystanders. The mind boggles.
So, to go by your logic, police officers shouldn't use firearms because a criminal may take the gun away and shoot innocent bystanders. The mind boggles.
In America police have to be armed because the criminals are armed. On board an airplane why would you need a gun? It seems to me that you would get one person to be a decoy to identify the air marshal and use others to then overpower the airmarshal. Makes complete sense, the safest thing to do is not to have a gun up there in the first place.
Patrick
#14
Originally posted by DaveC
As far as I know, the airlines aren't forcing pilots to be armed. It depends on the individual.
As far as I know, the airlines aren't forcing pilots to be armed. It depends on the individual.
Patrick
#15
Hypothetical newsflash
A Boeing 767 Airtours jet from Gatwick to Las Vegas exploded in mid-air today off the coast of Iceland.
Wreckage on-site indicated a 400lb semtex bomb in the hold exploded at 37000 ft and disintergrated the plane instantaneously.
Luckily everyone survived because the air marshall was on board.
This incident is similar to the Airbus A320 Air New Zealand flight that slammed full pelt into Mount Fuji last year.
Everyone survived as they were wearing their flimsy nylon seatbelts and had adopted the foetuslike crash position.
the moral of the story. Put air marshalls on there if you want. They'll find another way to piss on our parade.
A Boeing 767 Airtours jet from Gatwick to Las Vegas exploded in mid-air today off the coast of Iceland.
Wreckage on-site indicated a 400lb semtex bomb in the hold exploded at 37000 ft and disintergrated the plane instantaneously.
Luckily everyone survived because the air marshall was on board.
This incident is similar to the Airbus A320 Air New Zealand flight that slammed full pelt into Mount Fuji last year.
Everyone survived as they were wearing their flimsy nylon seatbelts and had adopted the foetuslike crash position.
the moral of the story. Put air marshalls on there if you want. They'll find another way to piss on our parade.
Last edited by manc1976; Dec 30th 2003 at 5:12 pm.