Air Marshals? Not So Much...

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Sources: Air marshals missing from almost all flights
Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-board, armed federal air marshals, a nationwide CNN investigation has found.

That means that a terrorist or other criminal bent on taking over an aircraft would be confronted by a trained air marshal on as few as 280 daily flights, according to more than a dozen federal air marshals and pilots interviewed by CNN.

The investigation found those low numbers even as the Transportation Security Administration in recent months has conducted tests in which it has been able to smuggle guns and bomb-making materials past airport security screeners.

Air marshals told CNN that while the TSA tells the public it cannot divulge numbers because they are classified, the agency tells its own agents that at least 5 percent of all flights are covered.

But marshals across the country -- all of whom spoke with CNN on the condition they not be identified for fear of losing their jobs -- said the 5 percent figure quoted to them by their TSA bosses is not possible.

One marshal said that while security is certainly one reason the numbers are kept secret, he believes the agency simply doesn't want taxpayers to know the truth.

"I would be very embarrassed by [the numbers] if they were to get out," one air marshal said.

"The American public would be shocked. ... I think the average person understands there's no physical way to protect every single flight everywhere," the air marshal said. "But it's such a small percentage. It's just very aggravating for us."

[potter]

Good to see CNN spill this to the world.....

How about military movements and weapons capability secrets? Can ya spill those too?

[PatrickHenry]

Well how does the body politic bring pressure on our "protectors" without information?

[Deadshot]

Good to see CNN spill this to the world.....

How about military movements and weapons capability secrets? Can ya spill those too?


What happened to the Government and the Bush Admin. doing their fucking job and then CNN wouldn't have ANYTHING to report?

Jeez, talk about a 'shoot the messenger' type of mentality...:unreal:

[nevadamedic]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Sources: Air marshals missing from almost all flights
Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-board, armed federal air marshals, a nationwide CNN investigation has found.

That means that a terrorist or other criminal bent on taking over an aircraft would be confronted by a trained air marshal on as few as 280 daily flights, according to more than a dozen federal air marshals and pilots interviewed by CNN.

The investigation found those low numbers even as the Transportation Security Administration in recent months has conducted tests in which it has been able to smuggle guns and bomb-making materials past airport security screeners.

Air marshals told CNN that while the TSA tells the public it cannot divulge numbers because they are classified, the agency tells its own agents that at least 5 percent of all flights are covered.

But marshals across the country -- all of whom spoke with CNN on the condition they not be identified for fear of losing their jobs -- said the 5 percent figure quoted to them by their TSA bosses is not possible.

One marshal said that while security is certainly one reason the numbers are kept secret, he believes the agency simply doesn't want taxpayers to know the truth.

"I would be very embarrassed by [the numbers] if they were to get out," one air marshal said.

"The American public would be shocked. ... I think the average person understands there's no physical way to protect every single flight everywhere," the air marshal said. "But it's such a small percentage. It's just very aggravating for us."


There is a way to protect every flight. Geez, I have said it several times.

[PatrickHenry]

Build airliners with aircrew doors to the exterior separate from the passenger doors.

And NO interior doors to the passenger compartment.

[nevadamedic]

Build airliners with aircrew doors to the exterior separate from the passenger doors.

And NO interior doors to the passenger compartment.


Nope, put private Security on every flight.

[Wndrtch]

Well how does the body politic bring pressure on our "protectors" without information?


Besides, I'm not too sure that an air-marshal is anything more than
"false-security". It's not like he can fire a gun at 30,000ft. Planes don't fly too well at that altitude, with a hole in it. I'd rather the pilot have the ability to put everyone to sleep, until he can reach the ground.

[Drocket]

Build airliners with aircrew doors to the exterior separate from the passenger doors.

And NO interior doors to the passenger compartment.

I doubt that would be a very good idea. At the very minimum it would mean that in an emergency/crash situation that damaged the front of the plane, the pilots could easily be trapped if their door got stuck. You'd also have to more-or-less have a whole separate kitchen in the front so the pilots could eat on a long flight, as well as a bathroom.

Plus, imagine how dull the movie business would be without the standard trope of "The pilot and copilot have been incapacitated! Can anyone on board fly a plane?!"

[Railman]

Install terrorist proof steel doors on every cockpit. And for God's sake don't even think of private security guards on planes. Look at the dimwits who work for TSA. You want an 6th grade educated trigger happy dimwit aboard a plane with a gun? Downright scary, since someone said above a hole in a plane at 30000 feet can be disastrous No air to breath and -50 degree temps?

[nevadamedic]

Install terrorist proof steel doors on every ockpit Ad for God's sake don't even think of private security guards on planes. Look at the dimwits who work for TSA. You want an 6th grade educated dimwit aboard a plane with a gun? Downright scary since someone said above a hole in a plane at 30000 feet can be disastrous No air to breath and -50 degree temps?


When I say private security I mean heavily trained security, almost the kind of training an Air Marshal would go through.

[Osborn F. Enready]

If individuals could carry concealed on airlines, there would be no need for air marshals, or wasting taxpayers money on "CLAIMS" of security, which as you can see, your is not in their INTRESTS. (when you are safe and not scared, how can they milk money out of your for protection)

boogidy boogidy!

[Deadshot]

If individuals could carry concealed on airlines, there would be no need for air marshals, or wasting taxpayers money on "CLAIMS" of security, which as you can see, your is not in their INTRESTS. (when you are safe and not scared, how can they milk money out of your for protection)

boogidy boogidy!


So the answer is that the Government does not have to follow their own mandates and do what they say they would do.

Instead we should have a bunch of armed passengers to defend a mode of transportation that will crash in SECONDS with one bullet being fired in one of multiple places.

That's your answer? Give the Bush Admin. another pass for lying to us about what they were going to do and arm Cletus with a firearm as he flys from Wyoming to Arkansas for the family reunion - during a flight that serves alcohol and can experience turbulance. Jesus Christ Os, we don't even allow working Cell phones and you want to arm 150 people with varying degrees of gun knowledge?!?!?

Not the answer we should be investigating.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Common sense is the answer. If the AIRLINE promises security and BANS firearms on THEIR PLANES, they should be HELD RESPONSIBLE when their security fails.

If they allow firearms, individuals should be held responsible for the MISUSE of their arms should the situation arise.

Arms are the only means of competent self-defense against all threats, and that is why air marshalls carry them, train with them, and use them if necessary.

People have the same right.

The obstruction TO THAT RIGHT, is the company providing the service.

THE US TAXPAYERS HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ENSURE SECURITY TO AIR TRAVELLERS IN THE PLANE, only in their AIRSPACE.

Security on the plane is the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER.

[AlanC]

Install terrorist proof steel doors on every ockpit Ad for God's sake don't even think of private security guards on planes. Look at the dimwits who work for TSA. You want an 6th grade educated dimwit aboard a plane with a gun? Downright scary since someone said above a hole in a plane at 30000 feet can be disastrous No air to breath and -50 degree temps?


When I say private security I mean heavily trained security, almost the kind of training an Air Marshal would go through.


Because the cost would be prohibitive. If you are suggesting the airlines contract for it, it will lead to significantly increased costs per flight and thus higher ticket prices.

If you are suggesting the Federal government do the contracting, then it becomes a taxpayer expense, or the contracts go to companys that have the ability to hire, train, and deploy these guards. By the time you do all that, why not just expand the current marshalls program? It would be simpler, but again, its not cost effective.

Not every flight is a candidate to be a terrorist target. Cockpits have already been hardened. Procedures have already been changed to make it harder for anyone to gain access to the cockpit. And this is all to try and fix a, currently, non-existant problem.

The greatest enhancement to air safety was the post 9/11 realization by passengers that if they want to live, they can no longer allow highjackers to take control of a plane. Prior to that, the thinking was that if everyone stayed calm, did what they were told, they would eventually be released. Now we know better. As has been demonstrated, this knowledge has spawned passenger involvement to the degree that no high jacker is safe once he has announced his intentions.

Passengers committed to defending themselves are a far greater deterrent to high jacking than a single armed guard that can be overtaken pretty simply actually.

Free people willing to defend their own liberty are a far more terrifying force of deterance than a bunch of sheep waiting for the shepard to find a way to protect them.

[Elrathin]

If individuals could carry concealed on airlines, there would be no need for air marshals, or wasting taxpayers money on "CLAIMS" of security, which as you can see, your is not in their INTRESTS. (when you are safe and not scared, how can they milk money out of your for protection)

boogidy boogidy!


Yeah, nothing like a bunch of people carrying concealed weapons that are allowed to be served alcohol. Nothing can happen in that situation right? :dizzy:

[nevadamedic]

Common sense is the answer. If the AIRLINE promises security and BANS firearms on THEIR PLANES, they should be HELD RESPONSIBLE when their security fails.

If they allow firearms, individuals should be held responsible for the MISUSE of their arms should the situation arise.

Arms are the only means of competent self-defense against all threats, and that is why air marshalls carry them, train with them, and use them if necessary.

People have the same right.

The obstruction TO THAT RIGHT, is the company providing the service.

THE US TAXPAYERS HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ENSURE SECURITY TO AIR TRAVELLERS IN THE PLANE, only in their AIRSPACE.

Security on the plane is the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER.


You realize there is only one type of gun the Air Marshals can carry as it will not do damage to the plane.

[Pookie]

If individuals could carry concealed on airlines, there would be no need for air marshals, or wasting taxpayers money on "CLAIMS" of security, which as you can see, your is not in their INTRESTS. (when you are safe and not scared, how can they milk money out of your for protection)

boogidy boogidy!


Yeah, nothing like a bunch of people carrying concealed weapons that are allowed to be served alcohol. Nothing can happen in that situation right? :dizzy:


Oh joy, that is one unhealthy scenario. Hopefully they're not allowed to drink on board.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Deadshot]

Well Alan and Os, please inform us of your itinerary when you fly. Because, in this post 9/11 era, I would trust a plane load of unarmed American citizens to confront a possible terrorist over having EVERYONE on the plane armed with a myriad of different arms all trying to get a "kill shot" on a airplane.

I think of those stories over the last few years where passengers and airline personnel have subdued "crazy" people who after the flight was over nobody was really hurt. Imagine if those fearful people had guns...:scared:

[AnnEsthesia]

So .... um... how would you keep the terrorists from having their own guns? If you are allowed to carry concealed, then so will the terrorists. So now you have terrorists with guns on planes. Yea, that sounds like a good solution.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
Yeah, nothing like a bunch of people carrying concealed weapons that are allowed to be served alcohol. Nothing can happen in that situation right?

Just about anything can happen in any situation.

We can only RECOGNIZE peoples rights, and enforce them in a time of injustice.

You are using appeals to emotion El, and quite the paternal tact, neither helping your argument for its merit if there is any.

Nevadamedic said:
You realize there is only one type of gun the Air Marshals can carry as it will not do damage to the plane.

One type of gun, or one type of ammunition?

There is a variety of ways to make ammunition that would not damage the walls of the aircraft, but would penetrate and damage a liquid filled body.

Instead of FORBIDDING arms, perhaps the airlines could simply DEMAND if you have arms, you must purchase and use ammunition for use in airlines while carrying.(frangible tips, safety shells)

My point is QUITE simple. The AIRLINE has the onus and obligation of providing security, including reparations if THEIR security fails, IF THEY DEMAND I CAN'T EXERCISE MY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO PROTECTION.

If they allow me my right to carry, they have no responsibility, the person who uses their arm DOES.

Pookie said:
Oh joy, that is one unhealthy scenario. Hopefully they're not allowed to drink on board.

Pookie, aren't you a policeman, or weren't you?
Aren't police required to carry their arms with them at all times where you are?
Do police ever drink alchohol?

Deadshot said:
Well Alan and Os, please inform us of your itinerary when you fly. Because, in this post 9/11 era, I would trust a plane load of unarmed American citizens to confront a possible terrorist over having EVERYONE on the plane armed with a myriad of different arms all trying to get a "kill shot" on a airplane.

Well, it speaks a bit about how much you trust people to honor their OWN INTREST IN THEIR OWN SAFETY. Do you think armed people have a deathwish? Do you know what frangible tip rounds, or safety slugs are?

Deadshot said:
I think of those stories over the last few years where passengers and airline personnel have subdued "crazy" people who after the flight was over nobody was really hurt. Imagine if those fearful people had guns...

Yea, it would have ended much sooner, and probably happened less frequently.

AnnEsthesia said:
So .... um... how would you keep the terrorists from having their own guns?

Are terrorists citizens? Would passing laws prevent them from getting guns? Do they stop them NOW from getting on and hijacking planes? Is a gun the only tool they use?

I see a lot of fear in the posts above, but fear and emotional knee jerk responses can not dictate or national policy.



The facts about arms on airlines and its history...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=319

http://www.gunowners.org/op0139.htm

Is "gun control and detection working"?:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0DB1331F934A35750C0A96F9482 60

This is about INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, or its about CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.

The question is, who is OBLIGATED to defend a passengers life, the company, or the passenger.


Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836