I agree that people without LE experience can discuss things like terrorism and what not (but do the research first), but to discuss specfic tactics w/o LE/military experience is nonsensical, especially in a specialized environment like a plane.

There is a reason Delta Force and FAMs are specialists in their fields. It is a unique environment with a ton of difficulties.

So people like Tom Ridge, Asa Hutchinson, and George W. Bush are unfit to discuss tactics and make policy? You'd prohibit the 9/11 Commission from the debate? It's nonsensical for the above to get into the discussion?

I strenuously disagree. I think that without input from other experts, you'd be working with blinders (like the 'intelligence community' pre-9/11).

Ok, Mr. Rent-a-Cop, did you have to get your GED for your security job?

A number of different points and then you can decide which side I am on:

1. The figure of 70% of firearms getting through TSA is ridiculous. I say this because in order to know what percentage are getting through you would first have to know how many are actually brought to the x-ray machines. Nobody knows that.

2. If the figure were true, the TSA should be disbanded immediately.

3. I thoroughly support the concept of FAMs while completely rejecting the current procedures. FAMs are only effective if they are anonymous. This means they should be dressed as businessmen and they should be dressed as biker chicks. They should sit in F and they should sit near the toilets in Coach. They should be male and they should be female. They should get on board the same time as everyone else. What they should not be is identifiable or predictable.

4. The FAMs who posted that Frequent Flyers have no LE or military experience are making a tremendous and unfounded assertion. People do, indeed, change jobs during their lifetimes. I would not be at all surprised to learn that quite a few FFs are former FBI agents or NYC cops. I know for a fact that many of us have been in the military. (I served in the US Army in Vietnam. I also had about 15 years in the Israeli Army reserves (30 days a year), much of that time as deputy commander of a reserve anti-terrorist unit.

5. Not only do I have no problem with properly qualified LEOs and military carrying guns on airplanes, I would make it mandatory for them -- just as a New York cop is legally required to carry an off-duty firearm at all times. To be clear, I am not advocating this for Army clerk-typists nor FBI forensic people, but there are a great number of highly trained people on the federal payroll. FBI SWAT, Secret Service Protective Detail, Navy SEALS, Delta Force, and Marine Recon are just a few that come to mind. Each of them should be given a short training course in aircraft security (perhaps with yearly refreshers) and then be required to carry while flying. This is not too much to ask of them -- remember that in a crisis situation, their lives will also be in danger so they should be happy about being armed.

6. FAMs should stop worrying about what FFs think of them. It does not matter. You are not the cop on the beat who needs the respect of the average citizen in order to keep quiet in the neighborhood. 99.99% of your working hours -- at a very minimum -- your services are not needed. During this period it does not matter if the average FF considers FAMs "bags of ballast" or America's greatest heros. It will not effect your job nor, if you don't stand out because of your dress, seating, etc, even how the person sitting next to you judges you. Should a terrorist situation arise and you manage to save lives, people on the plane will give you all the respect in the world.

7. Those relying on passengers to take heroic action are being optimistic. Indeed, even the FAMS can not be 100% certain of how they will react in an actual life and death situation. Their training, of course, gives them a big advantage but as anyone who has ever been in combat will agree, nothing truly prepares you for the real thing.

Umm, that seems to be an entirely unsubstantiated assumption!

Going with the assumption that your statement is true, it discounts the deterrence factor. Should I get rid of the deadbolts on my house because no one has ever tried to break in, thus they're obviously useless? Dump my alarm system (actually, I don't even arm it or have monitoring, I just keep the sign out front and the stickers on the windows... shhhh).

Ok, so we should stop screening for things which could be used as weapons?

And if the TSA didn't learn from the event which, luckily, was stopped, and terrorists viewed this as an opportunity, and was repeated successfully, then what? Would you be bashing the TSA for being ineffective and not doing enough?

I get the feeling that there are just a lot of people who will never be happy, one way or another.

Wrong. Every domestic traveller is a tax payer directly or indirectly. No way around that for air travel. ;)

The problem is that nearly anything "could be used as a weapon." In Europe, I am often asked if I am carrying anything that "could" be used as a weapon. I always answer yes and start describing my pens, keys, toothbrush, etc. Eventually, the questioner realizes that the question is stupid.

Ask any prison guard what can be used as a weapon. You may be surprised.

Bruce

No, they should not impact tactics except if they are found to be illegal (ie-shooting a person before they become a deadly force threat, etc.). There was a Commissioner of INS back in the 70s who believed Border Patrol Agents should not have firearms because they didn't need them. They were "only" arresting illegal aliens.....he could not get them taken away, however.

There is policy and there are tactics. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes they do not.

And even if these men DO get involved they at least are counseled by numbers of experts in the field.

Would you dream of telling a knight in the Dark Ages how to fight with a sword? Or even more close to home, tell an Olympic runner how to run? I've been doing it for four decades and I still wouldn't dream of it.

Good post and lots to think about.

Only one outright disagreement but don't have time right now....will discuss upon return.

But thank you for the intelligent response.

WRONG

EVERYONE who purchases an airline ticket pays the $2.50 per segment Security Tax.

I accept your apology in advance.

Hmmm, what if they get more than that $2.50 back in refundable tax credits? Are you still considered to be a taxpayer if your total tax liability is negative? ;)

Income taxes are not the only taxes. ;)

But the debate here isn't about just how FAMs should act on a plane. It's about whether they should be there at all. "LE experience" will not necessarily give one a hand up in that debate (note that I wrote "not necessarily").

Furthermore, most of the posters making the "LE experience only" don't differentiate between people with experience 'guarding' airplanes and beat cops. To take your analogy, it would be like a sprinting specialist telling a marathoner how to run.

And yes, people who are Olympic athletes do get training, advice, and coaching from non-specialists, and plenty of it (nutritionists, doctors, fitness experts, scientists).

Getting more information from experts in different fields is a good thing that can only help make the flying public safer.

Understood and agreed (quite agreed, unfortunately, looking at my property tax bill!)... but the taxes someone directly pays could theoretically be negative ;)