Does that mean in his crotch?

Ha ha. No.

What it does mean is that he saved some people's lives and caught the person who had already killed one person and seriously wounded another. Jumping someone toting and blasting with a shotgun takes a great deal of courage.

no where in that article does it mention an air marshall...

Uhh, law dawg told us as much with this post:

If true (and I have no reason not to believe it), perhaps the sky marshals should be posted at airport ticket counters. Couple years ago, an anti-jewish terrorist opened fire at the el Al ticket counter at LAX, and now this. Sounds like ticket counters are where the real action is.

True or not true, the story is quite dated. So is the attack in LAX. Both were random acts by unbalanced crazy people rather than carefully planned terrorist attacks. They could have happened anywhere. In fact, attacks like these do happen in many places:like places of business where crazed disgruntled employees or jealous ex-lovers go berserk.

It does not seem to me that these things occur anymore frequently at ticket counters or on airplanes than anywhere else.

If we really want to put armed law enforcement people where the "action is":

- How about many, many, many more of them on the streets of poor neighborhoods in, say, Oakland, Richmond, etc. etc. If we had a ratio of law enforcement personnel to civilians in those regions similar to what we have in airports and on airplanes that might make sense. Maybe this would slow the toll of driveby shootings which take the lives of many hundreds of young people every year.

or

- How about law enforcement people in parking lots of many, many bars to prevent drunks from getting behind the wheel. We lose thousands every year to drunk drivers. A reasonable allocation of law enforcemnet personnel would absolutely save more lives in a few months than the total saved - or taken - in airports or aiplanes by crime since the beginning of commercial aviation. Even more simply, how about a law mandating that to start an car engine you not only have to turn a key, but also blow into a tube. Alcohol level up ... engine no start.

Do we really want to get serious about allocation of resources to prevent death by crime or negligence? Or do we want to continue to run primarily on emotion? Do we really want mostly to provide expensive, non-functional window dressing so the flying public will merely feel safe when no great measure of safety can actually be added?

I had to laugh tonight at the report that a British newspaper "penetrated" the security provided at the Olympics - security provided at a cost of 1.5 billion dollars. Of course they could penetrate it and leave bomb parts in packages all over! There is no way to stop nearly everyone who might want to do do harm. No way to do it. Yet merrily we go along with great pretense and silly "security" procedures which we take oh, so seriously. C'mon!

At the moment our return on the dollar for "airline security" is a screaming joke while tens of thousands of deaths - some at least preventable at a fraction of the cost - continue where no one cares or cares to think.

Just how stupid are we when we insist so passionately that terrorism in general and airplanes and airports specifically are due such singular attention? Terrorism is not a big cause of death in the U.S. compared to many other identifiable preventable and neglected causes.


Best wishes,

Teacher49

I love that phrase, "random acts by unbalanced, crazy people".

Teach, at first glance your post seems mathematically sound, but it fails to take into account the relative value of human life. You see, the big shots in Washington figure a single killing of one of you FF's is exponentially worse than multiple driveby's. I'm not sure of the current exponent factor, as it's a closely held secret in the name of national security. I think the Heritage Foundation actually came up with the original equation, but it was Paul Wolfowitz who really got some momentum behind the idea before he started working on that pesky Iraq situation.

Teacher, it is not all about "death by crime". It is about national security and the devastating effects 9/11 had upon our security, our economy and our ability to interact in the world. Anything which threatens the security and survival of this country will be of primary import. Thousands of deaths in small groups scattered throughout the country over a period of time is tragic but does not threaten the survival of this country. Radical Islam (and the terrorism they use as their military strategy) does.

Point taken.

However, I am far from convinced that our Henny Penny response to every anomoly in the check-in and boarding process, to all data found on old computers, that our ceding of civil rights, and all the other manifestations of hysteria have any direct relation to real threats to our security.

We have become terrorized and we perpetuate that ourselves quite well with no outside help.

I point once more to the lack of any real terrorist activity in the country since 2001 and the ever heightening atmosphere of fear nonetheless. It is irrational and it is fed by our own "security" apparatus.

It is not as though I really expect the issue of safety of all the citizenry to be of much concern to those who get to allocate public safety resources and to allocate contracts for security service and equipment. Still let's see it for what it is - largely a hand holding, "there's no boogey man under your bed and we've got FAMs here to look for you" affair.

Let's at least see that for what it is and not get so carried away with our mythic roles.

Best wishes,

Teacher49

Wow, what an exciting thread. And so many new usernames (not necessarily unique users) registered just to post on it!

This really reminds me that we've got to cut out this Air Marshal insanity and concentrate on doing things that are actually necessary to improve security.

I'm fine with keeping the Air Marshal program going, just so long as we cut it down to like 20 marshals, or whatever the level was pre-9/11.

This thread has become quite the exciting little read......

Having done quite a bit of work with the FAM program on the operator's side early on after 9/11, I can honestly say that out of all the FAM's I had to deal with (and there were lots at my airport), I only had a degree of difficulty with 1. Yep...that's right....out of several hundred.... 1. For that 1, I composed a neatly worded little letter to his SAC. In it, I outlined the repeated problems encountered, not only with me, but more importantly, my employees...who were frankly afraid of the guy. I also went out on a limb and well beyond my authority to do (but I could sure as h*ll say) ... that this particular person was not to be seen on another flight on my airline in and out of my airport until he could grow up and act like a law enforcement professional. In two days, the SAC was in the airport for a meeting with me where I outlined the problem. Said FAM was as sweet as could be from there on.

I tell you that little story to say that the FAM program and it's people have been nothing but consumate professionals in my dealings with them, except that 1 guy. Based on this experience, I would say that the probability of the folks on here who claim to represent the FAM service actually being FAMS is somewhere between zero and 1 percent.

While I could debate the merits of the program from either side, right now I'll just leave you with that little story and say that I don't think that name calling, grand standing or internet flame throwing is going to make things better. I hope no one is offended by my opining on this issue. I love FlyerTalk and have high aspirations for myself such as Evangelist!

And point taken on your side too. Sometimes we as a country tend to overreact. It happens.

But as for the length of time, do some research on the history of Al Qaeda and you'll notice they usually do their prep work (intell gathering) YEARS before the even itself. 9/11/2001 was planned in 1998.

Watch and wait, it is coming.

As far as "mythic" roles, I know my role as a counter-terrorist opertator. That is all I do. That doesn't mean I am better or greater than anyone else. It does mean I am an expert in my field. I know my job like you know yours. I find it amusing that I would not dream of telling people (say, teachers) how to do their jobs but everyone seems to know how to do mine.

For those of you looking for a sleeping aid tonight, find out when CSpan will rebroadcast today's Senate hearing on Homeland Security. In it, Kean, Hamilton, and Asa Hutchinson testify.

Without the direct transcript in front of me, Hutchinson stated the FAM program is well run. He noted they will be "supplementing" the current roster of FAMs with other gun-carrying federal agents, but will coordinate their schedules more closely to avoid having said agents and FAMs on the same flight. This would increase "coverage" of flights but not necessarily increase the number of FAMs. I thought this clarification was helpful.

When pressed by Senator Boxer regarding recent news reports about FAMs not allowed to fly because of dress code violations, he stated they continue to review policies. He stated in principle that FAMs should be kept covert, and only expose their identities during specific crises.

I was not able to hear all of his remarks regarding the pace of the armed pilot policy...

I'm not going to debate the efficacy of the FAM program here, but I do believe one thing is very clear: the current policies on dress code, boarding procedures, and general behavior for FAMs on planes is contradictory to Hutchinson's statement today. I don't believe anyone on FT would suggest they are flying "covertly." I, for one, will address this discrepancy in a letter to Under Secretary Hutchinson.

You might be right. But if we respond to every conceivable threat with what is basically CYA behavior, then soon we will be living under an oppressive burden of security. Oppressive both in cost and in intrusion into our lives. Some hears that maybe NYC tourist helicopters may be used in terrorist attacks - next thing you know they are included under a security umbrella. We know from the attack on train station in Spain, the attack years ago on the Paris Metro, the attacks on buses in Israel, the vulnerability of ferries (have you ever thought about the car ferries in the Northwest that take closed vans and semi rigs onto their car decks?) If any semi intelligent person takes a look around and tries to think like a terrorist, they will see hundreds, thousands of vulnerable targets. We cannot protect them all, not 1% of them.


Insofar as you carry out public policy, then questioning what what you are asked to do and how you do it is not only the right of citizens in a democracy, but it is our duty. Your line of reasoning has been used many times in the past to cover excesses, mistakes, and at least a few terrible deeds.

Obviously, operations underway which would be comprised are somewhat exempt, but even there we have certainly seen abuse of that kind of cover. We see in even in statements equivalent to "you don't know what I know, so just do as I say."

This attitude is rampant in "security" right now and is getting worse. Our rights and dignity are being eroded with too little accountability. And those who could demand accountability - the politicians in office - are afraid to. The atmosphere is such that every one is afraid not to be afraid because the public have been spoon fed the idea that it is possible to be 100% safe. Under that logic, any vulnerability which is exploited becomes - in hindsight - someone's fault. Consequently fear multiplies, "security" becomes more pervasive and ... the terrorist have won! We are acting terrorized!

As to teachers, you'd better believe that non-teachers do have rights to review what they do and how they do it if the teachers work in the public sector. And that right is exercised, too, as it should be.

There is a limit to how much of our lives we should give over to "experts" whether in education, law enforcement, medicine, or what ever.

Best wishes,

Teacher49

Point taken on the bottom part, especially as it relates to general philosophy. I was thinking more along the lines of specific tactics when I wrote that but responded to a general message you wrote (civil rights, etc). That is my bad.

As for the top part I also agree if you try to hedge all your bets. Civilian aviation, however (this forum) is a tried-and-trued terrorist point of attack. They have, time and time again, attacked at this point, even when their previous attacks failed. 9/11 was a tactical failure but an overwhelming strategic success. They will attack it again.

The only question is what tactics will they use. Bomb, hijacking, suicide run, missle, etc.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. And, like Clauswitz recommended, you plan for your enemy's capabilites, not his intentions.

Part of the problem with the airline security, today, is that it is disproportionate to the risk, in my opinion. Unfortunately, perception of risk is about the best you can do with terrorism, since it isn't statistical.

You may recall that there was a period of time (my memory says that it was about one month, about three years ago) where there was a loss of life terrorist bombing in a restaurant just about every day for about 30 days in Israel.

Based on relative population size, the equivalent (in the United States) would be about 100 loss of life restaurant bombings every day for 30 days. If that occurred, what changes would you expect to see in security in the US? (I suspect that after 2 days, let alone 30, we would all be required to wear minimal underwear with clear plastic clothes.) And remember that in Israel, you already have someone with a machine gun (not just a gun, but an automatic weapon) within a block or two of anywhere.

Terrorism can be minimized by competent, intelligent security. The current concentration of ridiculous security (especially as it relates to pointy items) on airplanes is simply a hysterical reaction to one of hundreds of other credible scenarios. But no one in the government intends to be blamed for allowing something to happen on "their watch." The TSA is responsible for airports, not restaurants, busses, nuclear plants, factories, water supplies, food supplies, etc.