Isn't this another go-round of the same debate within the Air Marshal program?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2555-6114r.htm

Dress code wearing thin on air marshals

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A Thanksgiving Day morale booster for federal air marshals has instead turned into possible pink slips for air cops who ignore their strict dress code.

Thomas Quinn, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), paid a surprise visit to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Thanksgiving to thank the law-enforcement officials for their holiday work. He reportedly was angered when nearly 30 marshals deplaned and only one was dressed satisfactorily.

I guess they are so use to bumping people out of first class, they don't feel like they have to abide by their own rules. Not very surprising at all.

I agree. I think just well-groomed and carrying the official air marshall ID (if there is one) is good enough.

- Pat

I'm certainly no fan of the domestic FAM program, but I actually had a twitch of sympathy for them - having management make such poor decisions without any realistic analysis to support the requirement shows the program is broken from the top down. I can offer an effective argument that NOT having a systemwide standard requiring the wearing suits or sportcoats is the correct policy - in fact, anyone who flies often enough knows that passengers who fly from certain airports or who fly certain airlines seem to have an unwritten dresscode that should be emulated by the FAMs if they want to blend in.

DL flyers in FC tend to wear polo shirts with navy blue blazers and khaki pants, as an example...so a FAM flying DL should be dressing to match. A NWA passenger flying between DTW and MSP in February is probably wearing a sweater and wool pants...so a FAM flying that route should dress to match.

Is that concept really beyond the comprehension of the FAM program managers? Have a look to see what the rest of the cabin tends to wear, gather that information into a staff advisory and require they dress to blend in.

Amongst the rank and file, this issue is viewed now as a "head butting" contest between the Director and FLEOA. He is "mad" at this org. and most of us now view it as a childish rant.

The vast majority know how to dress properly. A few prob. do not look right. But it is the same old story. Instead of dealing with those who go over the top, everyone gets hammered.

HQ PR has claimed in previous responses and articles in papers that "no code exists", so if none exists whats the problem? Of course it exists. Many businesses have dress codes. They just need to be logical, and take into account the environments and locations people work in. And the basic idea (with logical adjustment for location) should be applied in every location. Now because of knee jerk reactions we have people based in cold climates being told they cannot wear overcoats. My question was are they going to drive us to the Doctor after standing 30 minutes in the frigid wind in a Northeast city waiting for the shuttle bus, and we are wearing our sportcoat? They didnt think that was funny......

My Fam DL CVG-> DCA wears Dockers and a polo shirt with a windbreaker which he never takes off.

I see this guy every week. They are not fooling anyone.

I have a high end GOV badge so we kind of do the nod to eachother.

On a recent flight to DCA I was able to pick out the FAMS (or at least the Feds) with no problem at all.

Two younger and fit-looking men with otherwise nothing in common (different dress style etc) chatting outside the ticket counter. Both boarded with F. No surprises there and nothing new. Not really a big deal; F was half empty.

There were a couple of give-aways I picked up while walking to my seat (as these two men were not seated together in an otherwise empty F cabin). But when one of them got up during the flight so the person in the window seat could get up, his outer garment rode up a bit revealing handcuffs... Which confirmed what I already knew.

I'm no rocket scientist, but if I can spot FAMs this easily, so can most sophisticated bad guys out on a mission to secure a place in paradise.

(I'm intentionally not listing the dead-giveways, but trust me, as a guy that travels to/form DCA a lot it is not tough to spot FAMs/Feds). I like you guys; you need to get your bosses to let you blend in better. Suits versus polo shirts aren't the only things that make it wasy to spot a FOB (Fed On Board).

Here's a hypothetical question: what if I -- or rather an idiotic, uninformed nervous passenger -- upon clearly seeing the leather handcuff pouch and metal handcuffs had shouted "Gun!" on the plane (beacuse I'd think that is a reasonable thing for a nervous old lady to shout when seeing handfcuffs on somebody's belt)?

I thought about approaching the guys after the flight and giving them heads up that their "disguise" was not to hard to see through, but I didn't want to end up on a list.

As far as the clothing riding up and seeing the equipment, it will happen from time to time (we all have our little wardrobe malfunctions) but we all try to keep as alert as we can to this kind of thing so we can minimize it.

As far as the clothing goes, this is a continuous problem. We either comply or get wrote up, which can lead to firing, if caught.

I would like to comment on a couple of other items, but can't....

You are supposed to be able to recognize the FAM's. The terrorists are supposed to be able to recognize the FAM's. The deterrent effect comes from knowing that there is an xx% chance that FAM's will be on a flight. The more visible the FAM's, the higher the deterrent effect. The "undercover" aspect is just to avoid making the average passenger nervous about having them on board.

No, we dont want terroriste to be detered on a flight with FAMs. We want them to try something so that we can catch them ,not wait to get on a flight without FAMs.

What if I had politely approached them and said "look guys, doing X or having Y makes you stand out like a soar thumb. Just a heads up." Would I have ended up on a list?

This is total nonsense. If it were true, then why not put uniformed police officers on planes? The public wouldn't mind, right? And they would feel safe! And we wouldn't have any of these conversations about wardrobe.

Bruce

No you wouldnt have ended up on a "list". They either would have looked at you and walked on (wanting to stay in "cover and not even admit who they are) or would have said thanks and might even have talked with you about the sad state of red tape bumbling that has led to these issues.....

But no, no list.

This is a bit of sarcasam right? If not, no we don't want people to really know. Some people (as I have said before we hope only good folks, but with current policies it makes it easier for many, including those who might try and do us harm) do pick us out. No matter how "super secret" you think you are, there is always a chance someone is there who is trained or "in the know" to the point of picking you out. That will never go away, and exists in any job of this type.

I wish I could go into more particulars, but can't. But if the FAM system does stay in place, given its current style of operation, it is much better to go for the unknown vs. overt presence.

The dress code issue is a red herring.

We've been round and round on this before, but there's no way for two or more feds to remain covert/undercover/unknown in such a small arena. Airplanes just aren't very big. F cabins are really small places to try to blend in. Frequent flyers generally know many of the indicia of the marshals' presence. It just doesn't take a rocket scientist to generally be able to pick them out.

And since most people agree that even terrorists can become frequent flyers (and the brain trust at the TSA even assumes that Frequent Flyers are likely terrorists), it isn't a very big leap to assume that the terrorists can probably spot the sky marshals as well as I can.

Let's look at just one indicia: Reasonable people can probably all agree that alcohol and firearms don't mix. So a prohibition on armed LEOs consuming alcohol probably generates uniform support. So when 14 out of 16 F pax order alcohol on a late afternoon/early evening flight out of a business hub, the two who don't drink stand out. Especially when all other factors are considered: Aisle seats (never windows), often across from each other. Add the age (no elderly marshals, and no 19 year old marshals), the hair, the clothing, the pre-boarding (I was the first ticketed non-marshal pax to board and they were already seated), the cool PDA, etc., and there's really no way to stay undercover.

In an arena? Sure. On a busy street/sidewalk? Probably. In the airport itself? Sure.

But in such a small, confined space? The 8-24 seat F cabin? You've been spotted.

Perhaps not every time. But terrorists don't require 100% accuracy in figuring out who you are; each time you've been made you are vulnerable.