law dawg

C'mon Spiff, you're not this obtuse.

Civilian aviation security personnel, like are required flying into DCA, but that are would be required

http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/aso.shtm

Apparently so. If they feel the fines would be is less than the revenue gained, I don't see why not. Lots of businesses do this. Sometimes they even weigh the costs of potential lawsuits against revenue and make their decisions this way.

ND Sol

So it must be Timothy Freeman that is the FAM based on what you said. If that is true, then it looks like you have outted a FAM.

I don't think that he was required to prevent the "mass murder" given the facts that came out in court, but I do appreciate his involvement in subduing Gott.

You mean like the four supposed "terror dry runs" discussed in this thread that were disseminated in July? The TSA can't help itself. It trumpets all, even when proved wrong. There is no credible "loads of stuff."

Spiff

Oh, please do.

I decided to check out your examples. Hey guess what? There are laboratories that do testing for the FDA. Yup, as long as the testing site is FDA-approved, manufacturers have a choice as to who they go to in order to comply with the FDA.

The government does not show up, pocket some pills and then scuttle off with their booty.

NTSB: (from the Wikipedia)

"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent organization responsible for investigation of accidents involving aviation, highway, marine, pipelines and railroads in the United States. It is charged by the U.S. Congress to investigate every civil aviation accident in the United States, as well as significant accidents in other modes of transportation (such as the Big Bayou Canot train disaster near Mobile, Alabama). The organization is also in charge of investigating cases of hazardous waste releases that occur from modes of transportation. Mark Rosenker was appointed as Vice Chairman in 2003 and Acting Chairman in March 2005. He has held the position of the Chairman since August 2006. Robert Sumwalt is the vice chairman. The board is based in Washington, D.C."

Oops.

Perhaps you're thinking of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ?

"How does NHTSA choose vehicles to rate? Why isn’t my vehicle being rated?

Every year the agency chooses those new vehicles which are predicted to have high sales volume, those which have been redesigned with structural changes, or those with improved safety equipment. This allows us to provide star rating results that best represent what is actually being purchased in the marketplace. These vehicles are purchased from dealerships from across the country, just as you the consumer would. The vehicles are not supplied directly to NHTSA by the manufacturer – a common misperception.

Since NHTSA selects vehicles for rating based primarily upon sales volume, not all vehicles can be rated. Those with smaller sales volume may not have been selected. Even though a vehicle may not have been rated under the New Car Assessment Program, all vehicles sold in the U.S. are certified by the manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."

Oops.

Chemical testing and food testing - also done by independent laboratories.

law dawg

Well, seeing as how the FAM budget in 2005 was $613 million out of $5.3 billion for TSA, I'd say it's not a question of resources.

And as for equivalent risk - how many hijackings have occurred historically versus bombings?

Risk is partitioned in two ways - likelihood versus severity. For instance, if my house is hit by a meteor the severity is extreme, but the likelihood is low. Contrawise, if my house is hit by hail, the severity is less but the likelihood greater.

And, historically speaking, the hijacking is the hail. It's damaging, but not as bad as bombs. It just happens more often. And sometimes, like on 9/11, it's a really bad storm.

Spiff

Ok, so if the civilian aviation security personnel are on board, then the airline can seat them where they like? Could they sell them seats at a discount to entice them to fly, rather than being forced to accommodate them for free? Can they specify which weapons, if any, they may carry?

law dawg

I don't know what his name was or if that was him or if he was someone else in the mix who's name wasn't in the paper. I just heard one of them was a FAM and he knocked the gun out of the guy's hands. I'd call that substantive.

Nope, I mean stuff that hasn't seen the light of day, told by friends of mine I would trust my kids' lives to. And I've seen their reports.

All in all it was spooky stuff, but violated no laws.

law dawg

I would assume all of that would be negotiated, although some of it, on both sides, would be set in stone.

If the airline was forced to utilize/carry them it would have to be free. In essence, they would be an employee of the airline, like an armed security guard would be in a bank, although with more training.

law dawg

But they're all products being taken from the manufacturer to ensure safety compliance.

So, my question to you is still-

If minimum standards were set, would you be opposed to mandatory air marshals on planes, so long as the airline contracted them privately and they weren't employed by the government?

As it exists right now, just a private air marshals.

If not that, what would be palatable?

ND Sol

Substantive? You now say that you "heard" one was a FAM, don't know his name, etc.? The basis that one was a FAM is tenuous at best based on this. But then again, I guess this is better than knowing first-hand who he was because otherwise you would be subject to your own edict:



Another one of the "told by friends of mine scenarios". Doesn't violate any law, but is spooky? If it is that spooky, you can find a law that was violated.

bbc1969

Are we back to this stuff again? I thought the board had been "pretty good" lately.

I don't mean disagreeing with the program, disagree all you want. The officer who works a flight, no matter what seat, does not get to pick and choose. That is assigned at a much higher level.

Please continue to express your displeasure with elected officials and Senior Executive Service (SES) salaried individuals who are decision makers in various governmental agencies. But the individual FAM show's up to go to work and does not get to make these decisions.

I can't speak for all FAMs, but I know I (and most I have worked with) take steps to let the airline know they can release any seat we may be booked on if we are rerouted, cancelled, switched, ect. Airlines don't like getting heat from their customers, and it travels downhill, hence damage control when I can.

Of course if you must blame the individual, have at it. It is not anything any peace officer has not dealt with in their career, no matter what agency or assignment.

bocastephen

Worldwide, the numbers are not very different. In the US, the edge goes to hijackings only due to the spate of 'take me to Havana' runs during the 60s and 70s. Bomb attacks against North American airliners or flights from North American airports (many more have occurred overseas) include Air India, a failed attack on Air India (bomb went off in NRT bag transfer room), Pan Am 103, TWA 800 (allegedly, but still under controversial debate), TWA 841, and TWA 840. If you back out the Havana hijackings, then the scale tips the other way towards bombings as the more frequent event.

Given the relative ease with which it could be pulled off, a bomb attack is far more likely than a hijacking, however both are equally severe. 9/11 was one exceptional hijacking, a completely different event than all the hijackings before it - taking 9/11 out of the equation tilts the severity index way back towards bombings. 9/11 didn't 'change everything', it was simply an exception event which required rewriting certain rules which existed at the time .

law dawg

Not really.

Not really.

For instance, if I walked up and down the aisle of the plane, making a throat-slitting gesture at passengers, what federal law have I broken?

But creepy? Very, IMO.

gofast

Historically, I will agree that 9/11 was the hijacking anomaly, however, it is now the operational standard by which all others will be compared.

bocastephen

Which is an extremely dangerous frame of mine, and the planners of these atrocities are well aware of it.

It should be considered an individual event, just another event in a long list of evolving threats to civil aviation which exploited a known weakness - unprotected flight decks and cooperative passengers and crew. The hole they exploited is now plugged, yet other gaping holes remain which no one pays attention to - except perhaps those planning the next horror.

gofast

I should have added ..."at DHS" to the end of my comment. I agree that a bomb in cargo is the frontrunner. But, int'l terrorists like spectacular events...and 9/11 was certainly that, and it is well known that they are training to do it again. Unfortunately, the cockpit doors are not as secure as you woyld think and the passengers/crew are not as prepared as you would hope to provide any kind of credible resistance.