That is a matter of debate...an issue for which I am generally on the fence.

But the fact is that they are here. Pointing out their presence increases the risk of those guns being used. You believe they are dangerous as is - I believe they become infinitely MORE dangerous when they're outed.

Pointing out their presence underscores their uselessness. Maybe it's unfair to rub the marshals' noses in it, but a point has to be made and the current administration is doing a very good job of not listening.

If I can figure out who they are, then so can al-Qaeda members, especially those who buy First Class tickets and jockey with me to see who boards first. Doesn't matter whether the once a year Wal-mart shopper headed to MCO knows who they are - they aren't the terrorists who want to kill you and me.

What do I hope to gain? Some professionalism on the part of federal employees who thus far are incompetent at maintaining their undercover status. Perhaps they should learn how to remain undercover. It's been almost 3 years since September 11 and far too often they are as inconspicuous as Keystone Kops.

Can't hide from me? Doubt you can hide from Moussawi, either. Let's be realistic here. Either learn to do your job professionally, Mr Sky Marshal, or stay home. It's that simple.

Why don't the air marshals just board with the other passengers? That seems like it would be the inconspicuous thing to do...

Also getting different haircuts would be a good thing... I assume that undercover FBI agents aren't this conspicuous--maybe they could teach the air marshals a few lessons...

The fact of their having weapons on their person makes this difficult, the boarding with other passengers. Additionally, we include them in our crew briefings, and they brief us as well.

As for the haircuts and clothing - that is the big issue for them. They hate it, and know it makes them stand out. But the administration determines their dress code. Apparently Shrub and company want them polished and spit-shined, despite the fact that most passengers come aboard in far less spiffy attire.

Three words:

T H E M O D S Q U A D !!!


:D

I can't understand that one, unless they can't be trusted in the terminal with a weapon alone.

It's the logistics of their security proceedures, and of bypassing the checkpoint, as far as I understand it. The fact that they need to board during our pre-flight so that we may brief each other is probably the bigger hurdle, though.

I feel a little funky talking about this stuff, but I don't think I've said anything that isn't common knowledge. I know some of you don't support the air marshall program, even though it's been in place for years - but we *all* still need to respect their anonymity, regardless.

With all due respect, you're thinking like a flight attendant, and not like someone who cares about effective security (and you're capable of it, I'm certain). The current procedures are perhaps not a good idea. Take off your "our procedures are paramount" hat for a moment and start thinking outside the box. :)

Just because the sky marshals currently have a briefing session with you and the other crewmembers preflight doesn't mean it has to happen. They're trained to shoot thru you anyway (and anyone else, for that matter), so it isn't like your cooperation is all that necessary.

Effective federal security agents should just get on the plane like anyone else, enjoy the ride, and shoot anyone attempting to enter the flight deck who doesn't look like they belong. Neither you or I should ever be able to guess where they are seated or who they are. They should act (and dress) like any other passenger and behave like polite passengers. In short, remain anonymous. Right now, they are anything but. :)

Remember that I'm not defending the current procedures - just explaining why they're currently required to board before the rest of you. ;) As for the briefings - yes, 99% of the time it's just a standard briefing and a big fat waste of time. Occasionally there is something specific that needs to be communicated, however. Whether they have to shoot through me or you or anyone else to defend the flight deck is irrelevant, imo, inasmuch as the briefings are concerned. I'd prefer it didn't happen about as much as I'd prefer not to have hijackers aboard - but hey, ****ake happens, right?

As for our cooperation being necessary...well in some situations it might not be, and in others it very well may. If I have a potentially sensitive situation in the back of the cabin, a passenger that just gives me a bad gut feeling, see something potentially suspicious, find a weapon or explosive device, whatever - I'll notify them, and give them a heads-up that they may actually be required to work on this flight. :rolleyes: If I have other armed LEO's on board, I need to communicate their position to the FAM's. We're all like lifeguards in this business - having a good time the majority of the time, hoping we never have to use our safety or security training. But we need good communication in the rare instance that our skills are put to the test. Perhaps I am thinking like a flight attendant - but that's my job. :p I'll do what I'm supposed to do, but I'm not naive. I do understand the reasoning behind most of the protocols - something that most passengers don't know anything about or take the time to consider.

Well, I do need to know who they are, for a number of reasons that I won't go into here...but I agree that they often stick out like a sore thumb, and those issues do need to be addressed and corrected. The pre-boarding is an issue, yes...their dress code is an issue - as I've said previously, the FAM's hate it. The administration is responsible for that. The problem of their dress code has gotten some press lately, so perhaps it will be taken into consideration.

My point is not to defend the current procedures or even to defend the FAM program. As I've said, I am on the fence and can see both the pros and the cons. The only reason I responded to this thread at all is to express how completely idiotic and dangerous it is to out the FAM's. It may be a game for some here to pick them out...a reason to gripe about a lost FC seat...a way of expressing disdain for the program, whatever. But if anyone has an issue with it, they should write to the appropriate offices rather than childishly out the FAMs.

Just my opinion, of course. :)

I guess I just don't play "Spot the FAM" very well. But let's look at this process from the top:

1) Dress Code: I think we all agree they need to do a better job blending -- at the same time, they have to wear something that will conceal their firearm -- and allow rapid access to it. That's going to limit what they wear to some extent because they also don't want somebody to freak if they see the bulge of the gun or bump into it (probably another reason they pre-board -- so no one runs into them on the jetway and freaks when they see / touch a gun).

2) Briefings: Sounds like they need to happen onboard so everybody who has authority knows who the good guys are. And given that flight crews run for their flights as much as the rest of us (if not more often), that briefing isn't likely to happen away from the a/c. Besides, I think the FAMs are supposed to do a pre-flight security sweep.

3) "Outing": Ok, so if you're looking for the FAM, you'll see them. And we already know the bad guys are willing to take lots of time to plan their events. We should probably assume that terrorist sleepers are part of aircraft and airport cleaning crews and can get a real good sense of what the FAM procedures are when the only ones on the plane are the cleaners and the FAMs. Sleepers don't need weapons to plant -- just good eyes and ears and an attention to detail. Seems to me that you want to mix up your tactics on a regular basis, and that isn't happening -- or, Uncle is setting out some FAM decoys to get threads like this going -- effectively providing some bait by not changing the obvious routines. Hell, the FAM the OP saw may have been "bait" and is already pretty shaky about it, so he dropped a dime on the OP.

But perhaps I give the USG too much credit. After all, the airport to airport "consistent inconsistency" (in other words, the fact that each airport never changes its procedures, but each airport has slightly different procedures "in the interest of security" :rolleyes: ) that I rail about suggests that the government isn't interested in truly randomizing the procedures in the interest of enhancing the opportunity to catch a bad guy. If you completely randomize what happens, you keep the other guy off balance. If a cop runs radar at the same place at the same time and tickets people going over the same speed, how long is it before he rarely catches a speeder? Yeah, he'll catch the out of towners, but the regulars will know where to expect him. We should expect that the bad guys will take the time to become "regulars".

yes and no
 

Clearly, the dress code is not the FAM's problem. That has to do with the people mismanaging the FAM program. Yes, they can be easily spotted.

However, this can be fixed. They can dress down, grow facial hair, wear shorts, and still be able to conceal weapons (DEA undercover do it all the time). They should never pre-board - the FA's knowing who they are is a bigger security problem than anything else. Joe Terrorist just grabs a FA in the galley, puts a knife to her throat and says "which seats are the FAMs in?". While its nice for the FA's to know who the FAMs are to control drunks or what not, thats not their real job. Their job is to defend the cockpit and to kill terrorists while minimizing passenger casualties. Thats it.

They should look anonymous, board with everyone else, and not tell anyone with the airline who they are. If the flight crew need to tell them anything in flight, I can think of several possible mechanisms to accomplish this, that doesn't require the crew to know who they are or where they are.

We need to get much more serious about this or not do it. The current situation is pretty amatuerish - thats why we have so much turnover of FAMs.

Sometimes the government needs to be publically embarassed over & over again in order to effect positive change. I loathe mediocrity in government, and the present FAM program (and the entire TSA for that matter) is the poster child.

I was so enjoying this discussion...until the thread got moved and essentially died :(

Not disputing the merit of moving posts, but it's obvious that many do not forum hop, particularly to more obscure forums like this one.

These FAMS may well not have changed the outcome on 9.11. In fact, after somebody cut them from BEHIND, the bad guys would then have their guns.

As to the comments about the 9/11 people paying a higher price than what we go through today, that is easily open to argument. We are paying a very high price in this country due to the foolishness. the addition of more FAMs, the worthless screening on the ground, etc does not keep another 9/11 from happening today. And for those that think the CIA could have stopped it... come on now. Does the CIA know what YOU are doing today - in case you are thinking of doing this same thing? Of course not, terrorists do not wear signs.


The ONLY thing that might keep another 9.11 from happening is the change in policy (not allowing hijackers what they want) and the cockpit doors. Maybe.