Originally Posted by
law dawg
The GAO is not really known for their tactical acumen.
Yes, we know the GAO isn't well liked by a lot of organizations, especially TSA. Accountability isn't something agencies like.
There is a survey of FAMs out I'm unaware of?
Just mentioning what was in the article cited earlier.
Question - given the mission of the FAMS, where is the need greatest?
Although I personally wouldn't have too big a problem having one in the first row or so of C (assuming no business class). Personally, I think a three man team is the only way to go, but resources and money is always an issue.
BTW, they did game the one in F one in C too. Not great. Again, first principles - what is the mission? Everything else flows from that.
I think this is a false choice quesiton. This assumes that there really IS a need for FAMs. We can debate this till the cows come home.
FAMs seem to work under the assumption that only they can save a plane. However, they also rely on the pax and crew to handle most situations so as not to break cover. Considering that in the vast majority of cases pax and crew are relied upon to deal with a situation, do we REALLY need them? Especially considering they're on less than 5% of flights?
Chances are that they're not going to be there anyway when you need them and if they do, they're not going to do something unless things are really going south. And at least from what I learned in my CT classes when I was govie, when the crap hits the fan and the guns start blaring, your chances of survival drop drastically to around 8%. I don't know that even having a FAM on board would significantly change those odds.
The place to prevent something from happening is BEFORE they get on the plane. That's why the intelligence agencies need to do their jobs and sniff them out before they get too far. I think if they get to the airport, it's pretty much too late, because we can't really rely on TSA to catch them, and odds are low that there's going to be a FAM on board to help anyway.
Super