There was a Tom Clancy novel whereby the captain of a JL flight at YVR murdered his co-pilot, then flew out over the Atlantic, before reverting and, after declaring an emergency, did a kamakazi crash into the US Capitol during a Joint Sitting with POTUS already there, really good stuff, reading wise.

FWIW, I think that EVERYONE (including flight crew) in the sterile area should be screened, NO guns should be allowed on an aircraft (even those escorting prisoners under custody), EVERYBODY (including screeners, cabin crew, flight crew, concession staff, McDonalds staff) should have to go through security. AND I mean, EVERYBODY, just like here in Australia.

Dave

Pardon me while I tap dance. Well, I believe the program has the right intent. I don't believe the pilots receive near the training they need. Their recurrent training is almost non-existent. I think the men and women who volunteer to do it sacrifice quite a bit. I know a few and they are level headed professionals. Unfortunately, like any other LE organization, they have their 10% who make the rest of them look like asses. I have no problem with the FFDO program. But I also don't believe it should expand farther than it is now. I believe ALPA is pushing to allow FFDO's to carry at all times, not just on the flight deck. My opinion.

That is so stupid. :td:

Just to clarify, I think it is "APSA" Airline Pilots Security Alliance that was pushing for that authority. I hadn't seen where ALPA had jumped on that bandwagon?

I don't have a problem with the FFDO program. Some think FAM's may feel threatened by it. Maybe some are, but I think most either support or don't care one way or the other.

Debates about chances of occurrence aside, if a traditional deadly force incident would once again take place on an airliner, no one in their right mind would want that to take place on a flight deck, other than as a last measure. The programs complement each other in my mind.

You're probably right. ^ However, I did find this.

So prisoners should be on the honor system to not try to escape or cause harm?

Keep them hand-cuffed. I've been on several flights where prisoners were being transferred, they always had the window seat, and were hand-cuffed for the entire flight. If they are a MAJOR security risk, transfer them by road or in a private or military jet. Either way, EVERYONE on board needs to be screened.

Dave

On the surface, it would seem like a solution. However, some of the prisoners have a very serious known record, not taking into account the offenses they haven't been charged with. When a prisoner is being transported by commercial airline, it usually means something bad. Local and state jurisdictions won't generally extradite for minor offenses and Federal prisoners could be just about anyone. Many times ground transportation isn't practical due to manpower restrictions or detention regulations. Private and Government aircraft are not very cost effective and it would take an extraordinary case to justify the expense. We're talking the difference between two or three $500 airline tickets vs. several thousand dollars an hour to operate an aircraft. Also, having other armed LEO's aboard is a force multiplier for the FAMS. Don't let the fact that someone is handcuffed fool you into thinking they are harmless. Anyone with the proper training and motivation can defeat handcuffs, all they do is slow them down.

Still doesn't address the issue of this thread (I went off on a tangent, which you are addressing, sorry, trying to drag this back on topic), that some people on board are screened and some aren't.

EVERYONE on board should be screened. If the powers that be determine that some should be armed (and I don't think anyone should be armed, but that is another issue) then let them through screening, but they should still be screened, so that ONLY the authorised armaments are carried on, nothing more.

EVERYONE in the sterile area (even the screeners themselves) should be screened, to ensure the sterile area is, in fact sterile.

As an example, members of the Australian Protective Service (a division of the Australian Federal Police) have to go through screening, they do not have to remove their side-arm, but the rest of the body is screened. (They tend to get wanded, it goes berserk at the waist, due to the sidearm, handcuffs and quick-load ammunition, not to mention the retractable baton). But the fact remains that they are screened. But they are not on board an aircraft.

As I said, in short, EVERYONE should be screened, passenger, burger-flipper, screener, pilot, gate-agent, it is the ONLY way of making sure the sterile area is in deed sterile.

Dave

When the wand goes bereserk at the waist is the waist area checked for handguns that could be carried behind the baton, handcuffs, and extra magazines in a in the waistband holster? If not what was the point? After all that officer could be bringing in another handgun to give to someone else in the sterile area correct?

FB

I don't think so; at the very least a FFDO being allowed to carry anywhere would eliminate the need for the dangerous TSA holster.

People in handcuffs are not in that situation for singing too loud in church, but keep in mind that dangerous prisoners are not carried aboard Part 121 aircraft.

Don't take this personally, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. (OK, I'll grant you the times right after 9/11 where the military was screened and then given their weapons past the checkpoint :D) Why would you trust someone with a firearm aboard an aircraft, but not trust that they wouldn't bring anything "unauthorized" aboard? Other than OC spray, who would know what isn't authorized for me to carry?

I feel the same way for those who have access to, but might not board, an aircraft. What is the difference? If a person has bad intentions, does it matter what weapon is involved? Trust in airline security is like pregnancy; either it's there or it isn't.

There is no sort-of.

Not that we'd ever tell the PIC, anyway. "Habitual jaywalker, this guy will never learn". :D:D:D

As I mentioned before, the transporting officer may not know the offender's full history. I'm sure ICE doesn't always know what the person may have done in their home country.

So would changing existing policy without a full nationwide unlimited CCW license.

Ari, by changing policy, do you mean the TSA holster? That would be akin to the TSA admitting to a mistake, which is not one of their strong points.:D Next year Iowa will become the 39th “Shall Issue” CCW State, and there is a good deal of reciprocal agreements among those States, so in some respects we are moving to a seamless CCW depending on where you go.

I've said this before but it's worth repeating, I don't think CCW should apply to the sterile area of the terminal or aboard a Part 121 aircraft, though.

Exactly. A piece of equipment is easily changed. While I agree that the whole locking holster (as reported in open source media) is stupid, authority to carry 24/7 based on being an FFDO is not needed to correct any problem that may or may not exist.

Also, as far as the debate about "everyone should be screened", the actual answer is that "they are screened". An FFDO pilot checking in, having his credentials checked (screened if you will), an airport worker with SIDA badge utilizing operational doors while at work, or LEO's who are properly credentialed, Airport SIDA badged are all considered "screened". Its not standing in a line being wanded, but it is considered "screening".

Now, some may not think that is adequete "screening", but to those who wrote these regs (and they have been around alot longer in most cases than 9/11)consider it "screening".