goalie

the title says it all and what i'd really like to see is both the pro's and cons from both the fam's on f/t and also from "the geese" (that's us folks)

my 2 hockey pucks is that personally i would prefer that they ride in uniform as it's no different than me riding an sf public bus where beat cops are required to ride in uniform as part of their shift and as such, if they are gonna be on a flight, let them be visible as it's a better deterrent (if the "bad guy" was unable to "peg the plainclothes fam" but saw the uniform and decided not to board at the last minute, that to me would arouse and bring suspicion to themselves more than anything) . i also truly think folks would feel more comfortable "seeing it up front" than wondering "is he/she a fam" or "omg, there's a fam on board".

where, shall we say for sake of argument, about 90% of savvy fliers can "spot a fam" and include in that "the bad guys", why not fly in uniform?

i'm truly curious and would like to hear from both sides and forgive me but i tried searching and couldn't find anything this specific.

my vote = in unifrom

thanks and be nice folks

cme2c

I think it would be stupid to put them in uniform. We're not talking about a city bus. A FAM's purpose is not to keep someone from stealing a purse. A good hijacking plan would just say, shoot the FAM. At least in plain clothes there is less chance of them identifying the FAM. I know FAM's are pretty easy to spot, but it's still better than a uniform IMO.

seat17D

Let's keep in mind there are not, and likely never will be, enough FAMs to have 1 or 2 on every scheduled, domestic commericial flight. There fore the bigger problem from the perspective of maintaining faith in the "security" of the air tranport system is maintaining the illusion that flights are protected by FAMs even when they actually are not carrying a FAM.

The primary purpose in having the FAMs in plain clothes is so it is not obvious there is no FAM on your flight. The Kettles then automatically assume there is a FAM on their flight.

If FAMs were in uniform. their absense from a flight would be obvious. And the illusion of security would evaporate.

I seriously doubt plain clothes FAMs are that hard for a potential terrorist to pick out. It's not like it's hard for anyone with half a brain or who has flown more than just once or twice.

For all the fanfare and highly publicized training, the FAM program is a psychologicial solution to an emotional need. The FAM program is akin to having a display case in every office building in which a fireman could stand with a "break glass in case of fire" sign. There are not enough resources to put an actual fireman in every display case, so only some display cases would be staffed at any one time.

So, my vote is a strong "could not care less."

But you can't maintain the kabuki theatre without keeping the FAM in plain clothes.

VideoPaul

PLainclothes.

They have finally stopped making them fly in business attire, that was a huge help. Now on my first flight yesterday, I was the FIRST GUY ON THE AIRPLANE and there was a guy in 2-Echo seated when I walked on. Little wonder who that might have been! I can tell you I would not have wanted to get into a fistfight with that dude. He looked like he could bend a wing with his bare hands.

They need to keep them in whatever clothing they feel is appropriate, let them board with EVERYONE ELSE, and park some in the coach cabin as well.

Right now if I wanted to mess with a plane I would simply make sure I was first in line and whoever was seated there when I got on the plane is the guy I take out when I make my move. If I wasn't first on board I could take out every guy in first class and know I was pretty safe. WHy ar they always in forst? How about the first two rows of Y?

Protecting the anomymity of the FAM is so critical that if something looked like it were really escalating on board an airplane I would go throw myself into the mix to try and keep the FAM from having to break cover. Then again I made a decision in September of 2001 that if I ever saw something like that go down on an airplane I was on that they would damn sure have to kill me first to get it done. I won't go out with a whimper. And given the number of big guys who have recently jumped up and beat the daylights out of people who are presenting a danger on an airplane, the bad guys are going to run out of ammunition before they kill all of us.

--PP

GUWonder

No to uniformed armed cops in the skies.

Bobster

All you need is one terrorist acting as a decoy to expose the FAMs and get them to move in the wrong direction.

The primary defense is passengers willing to fight back. That's what scares the terrorists the most. Put all the passengers in uniforms.

law dawg

The FAMS have been trying to eliminate this requirement but the airlines refuse to allow it, as a policy. Many pilots are fine with FAMs boarding with the pax but airline policy requires pre-boarding, which is asinine.

law dawg

As if FAMs don't practice and train for that.....

Bobster

Apparently they don't. One crazy PAX claiming to have a bomb was killed by two FAMs. If that was an actual terrorist plot, the FAMs would have been dead.

Texas_Dawg

Why?

law dawg

Plane was on the ground, which meant the FAMs had no mission yet. They were acting as fed LEOs at that point.

Its kind of hard to fly a plane into a building when its safely at the gate. At that point the mission was to prevent the loss of life in the terminal.

Travellin' Fool

I'm not so sure there is a simple answer to it. As many have pointed out, having plainclothes FAM's keeps the "air of suspense" and allows the FAM's to be on some flights and not others. On the other side, a FAM in uniform does present a psychological deterrent.

Personally I'm not all that sure a FAM really does the job. In a perfect world you'd get more than one or two on every flight. But that's not going to happen. I think aircraft security (ie: cockpit doors etc...) is the way to go. Arm the pilots. An armed pilot can do a lot better job from up in the cockpit in than a FAM in the middle of a brawl with more people behind him than in front. But that wasn't the question here.

To answer the question I'd say keep them in plainclothes but go one step further and get rid of the appearance protocol. If i'm looking for a FAM i'm not going to pick the guy in casual clothes with longer hair and two days growth. Kind of like when I was in the Marines stationed overseas and they told us not to stand out while we were out in town. Yeah with a haircut like that??

law dawg

Its an authority thing. Pilots want to see FAMs on the plane and talk to them and check their creds.

That is as a group, not individual pilots. Some understand the concept of nto being seen, some don't.

cme2c

Unless I missed an incident, he was killed on the jetway. Not exactly the same as being in the air. On the ground you have backup and are less likely to be worried about blowing cover.

law dawg

That dress code has been gone for some time now.

As for FAM tactics, they train to put themselves in positions of dominance.