I remember those hearings. However, given the track record of some of the management of some of these airlines, and the fact that their business methods have not been very good for their companies, I think they would do anything to end any program if it meant they could get their hands on the money. Airlines were being run into the ground long before 9/11 and the great increase in hiring of FAMS.

I agree completely. But carrying air marshals for free doesn't help, right?

Bruce

Do you have a reference to research that proves passengers and crew will not fight back??? The Shoe Bomber was detained by a passenger. I recall a story (check google) where a passenger was nearly made unconscious by passengers who detained him (I can't recall the reason -- drunk or something else).

It wouldn't be scientific, but I'll bet if we did a survey here on FT most passengers would fight back if in a 9/11 situation.

Passengers would SAY they would fight back. Saying and doing are different things. And they did NOT fight nack on 9/11 (well, one did but it took them 25 minutes and a vote to do so).

As far as Richard Reid, the passengers only reported his actions to the flight deck, THEN a flight attendant tried to stop him, was slapped down, tried again, was slapped down again and only then did ONE passenger intervene (a European basketball player).

I have yet to see a passenger fight back after another passenger who tried to fight back was brutally killed. To smell the copper-smell of blood, to see the blood splattered all over the seats, to hear the screams of the dying. Sorry, haven't seen that yet except on United 93. AND IT TOOK 25 MINUTES AND A VOTE TO DO.

Even though they knew what was going to happen.

Another thing - my reference is the 9/11 report. Two flights knew what was going to happen (crash) and did not fight back. THAT is reality. Everything else is hypothesis.

They Let Them Into the Cockpit
 

Does it matter that the flight crews voluntarily admitted the hijackers onto the flight deck, pursuant to SOP at that time?

Does it matter that we spent millions of dollars (was it all for nothing??) to provide stronger doors on the cockpit? Isn't the assumption that flight crews will no longer voluntarily open the door?

I return to a question which I asked earlier (I think I did). For those of you who say "the risk is too great, I am willing to endure any reasonable effort to avoid using a plane as a missle", don't you agree that we should have a minimum of 4 FAM's on *every* flight, and that we should therefore increase the security tax to $150/ticket?? Is there any logical argument against that level of protection (assuming you don't agree with those of us who think that the current level of "security" is a waste of time and money)?

I am not sure that they "let" the hijackers onto the flight deck. I have seen no evidence of that to date.

And no, I am not proposing any such thing. I am saying we can all work together to ensure that no 9/11 occurs again. On the G side it is layered security - TSA, FAMs, LEOs and FFDOs. On the civilian side it is flight crews and passengers.

My only point has been that the only group in the above list with no training is the passengers (again reference Dave Grossman, On Killing). So to blindly chant the mantra that "passengers will never let is happen again" goes against the whole of human experience when it comes to violence (the only negotiation technique Al Qaeda understands once a hijacking has occurred). I would not count on JUST the passengers just like I would not count on JUST the FAMs.

Points well taken. I have been in a couple of situations where I had a choice to put my self in jeopardy for a "good cause." Arrival at a car accident scene and a fire. It was damn hard to mobilize.

An old aquaintance is/was a firearms instructor for the SFPD. And I did some small bit of training with him just for fun in the mid-80's. He mentioned several times that most police officers miss wildly the first times they have to use their weapons.

Entering mortal combat is distinctly unnerving. Training techniques may be different now in the academy.

I would not like to have rely only on myself or fellow passengers.

However, I still think the chances of encountering this situation are quite small and we need to better allocate our law enforcement resources than to concentrate them so heavily on airplanes and terminals.

Best wishes,

Teacher49

I agree. Few people seem to notice -- or care -- how much the TSA and all the related activities (like FAMs) cost. Couldn't this country put that money to better use? Do we really want to leave such a huge debt burden on our children and grandchildren?

Bruce

Okay Bruce, how do we keep another 9/11 from happening given : 1) terrorists continuing fascination in hijacking civiliation aviation since 1985, 2) their unparalled success on 9/11, 3) the effects in had on this country and 4) the worse effects it will have if it successful again?

I agree that the threat of terrorist attack still exists. But we have done quite a lot already: reinforced (bullet- and bomb-proof) cockpit doors, new protocols for flight crews, more professional screening, inspections of checked luggage. At some point, we should say, "OK, we have reduced the risk to an acceptable level. Let's move on to other things now."

A while back, an incident happened at an airport. Somebody showed up with a gun. I can't remember all the details. The airport's security director was interviewed on television and asked if he shouldn't have had more people on duty to "protect" the traveling public. His answer was spectacularly good: "I'm not going to go there. If I had 100,000 security people on duty, somebody would say that I should have had 100,001. You can't win that game."

He's right. Because "security" in general has no logical end-point, people just have to make intelligent decisions about where to draw the line. Right now, nobody seems to have the courage to say "enough is enough." Every time some terrorist sends another terrorist an e-mail, the "authorities" start babbling about "chatter" and raising the risk level to orange crush or whatever it is today. We just have to get ahold of ourselves as a nation and stop acting like idiots.

Bruce

You make good points with the hysteria. Excellent.

As far as the door goes, though, it is not bullet and bomb proof. It is just reinforced... :(

Still we need some kind of screening. If not TSA (gov't waste) then who?

^ ^ Go, Bruce, Go!!

We can no more be perfectly safe than we can arrive at "the horizon." They are places that don't exist.

Much ado was made of the fact that a British journalist "penetrated" the security of the Athens Olympics. Security costs there, US$ 1.5 billion. 7 security people for each and every competing athlete!! Is that crazy or what?

No surprise, though, really. You cannot secure anything that large nor most things that are much smaller.

The Secret Service - arguably the most efficient security apparatus in the country - knows that it cannot guarantee the safety even of the POTUS without confining him to a bunker. Can't be done. If assasins/terrorist are ready to die and fail and try again, eventually they will succeed to assasinate or commit another act of terror.

So where does the insanity end? We have to face the fact - together as a nation - that we cannot insure safety 100%, that there is risk in life. As long as we labor under the myth that we be 100% safe, then bureaucrats will continue to spend money like crazy people. They will continue to take a myriad of measures that are beyond all reasonable level of or even sane risk management. With expectation so high, they know they will be blamed if any security vulnerability is exploited.

Best wishes,

Teacher49

Interesting
 

These last two pages or so have been very thoughtful...

A caveat to anecdotal reports about specific flights and instances: it is very easy for all of us to Monday Morning Quarterback these scenarios. Rarely, if ever, are they reported with absolute accuracy. This is not to say that careful review of abnormal instances should not take place.

I'm applying the academic hat for a moment to consider an intruiguing economic model: willingness to pay.

If AA decided to have FAMs and DL didn't, would you pay $20, $50, $100 more a ticket to fly one over the other? That decision would vary for different flyers and different routes.

The OSU football team, flying from CMH-DTW might politely decline. However, an elderly couple flying from LGA-FLL might pay extra for the added security. Unfortunately, the damage a hijacked airplane can do is not restricted to the onboard passengers; public property and lives can be destroyed.

So, I think FAMs in some capacity are here to stay. The challenge is balancing the risk (as bdschobel and teacher49 point out) with the rewards. The FAM program should not put undue hardship on the airlines, should be deployed in the highest of risk situations, and maintain flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. I believe some logistic reforms are needed to ensure these conditions are met.

The other sober point is that despite our best efforts, untoward incidents will most likely happen in the future. The events may not necessarily be caused by faulty TSA, FAM, or other procedures.

Very good reply,the one thing I have noticed here is noboby blames the terrorist's. What brought us all to this point? Not me I was taking my kids to school that morning. The president was reading a book in Florida to school kids. We were all living our lives. Now we have people worried about their seats in first class versus security. Unbelievable!!!! This is unfortunately a new world we live in. Place the blame where it belongs let the profesionals do their jobs and be thankful we have planes flying. All you critics go ahead and fire away.