Gotta have a lotta managers so the screeners will have a position to which they can be promoted. Recall that 6.5 years ago the proponents of federalization (pro-TSA types) arbitrarily decided that a dead-end, minimum wage job (airport screener) would henceforth be a rewarding, lifelong career with lots of advancement potential. Guess that advancement potential just means there's a lot of top-heavy brass among the airport screeners.

Just like I and others predicted over six years ago.

While I'm not a FAM, I am a former leo before being employed by an airline. I can tell you you will do what you are trained to do. And I have been in a "shots fired" situation & here to tell of it. You better listen to Law-Dawg.

But, but, but - the marshal has been trained, so their baseless conjecture rises to unassailable, certifiable fact. Didn't you get the memo?

Given the chance.

Danny Lewin was a captain in Israel's most elite commando unit, "Sayeret Matkal" and had extensive anti-terrorism training.

Let's not forget that a barrel roll is a 1G maneuver.

I can see the FAMs being useful, if they sat in the back of the plane. Because that would catch the terrorists by surprise, no way in heck would anybody expect them to sit in coach.

If the terrorists decide to use planes again, it won't be something that FAMs could stop. Next time it will be cargo planes or some other plane that we left undefended. Heck, all they need is money to lease a few airplanes. How would a FAM stop them from doing that?

Yep. All the training in the world doesn't mean you'll succeed. It only means you have more tools, resources and options available at your disposal than not.

Murphy's Law is always in play.

Useless in the back. The event would be over before anyone in the back knew what was happening and could make their way up to the front.



If cargo planes are such a tempting target, then why haven't they been used in three decades?

Answer : because a terrorist's job is to create terror. Civilian aviation is more bang for the buck than cargo. Its hits economically, structurally and culturally.

Answer: In the past it was more difficult to get into cargo planes than passenger planes. A hijacker just had to announce his intentions and he was quietly given a free ride until the plane touched down somewhere.

Now that the difficulty of taking a passenger plane has gone up, we may well see future attacks on cargo or corporate aviation.

Future commercial aviation terrorists who want to gain control of an aircraft would probably need to employ some sort of chemical attack, rather than the crude force of 9/11.

As the complexity of the plan goes up, so does the likelihood of failure.

Doesn't guarantee they'll be the right tools though. I could have a mallet, claw hammer, sledge hammer, and a ball peen hammer on hand, but if I only have screws ...

FAMs have often stayed put until the incident was over anyway, only stepping in after the pax handled it.

I thought you always told us that just because it hasn't been used in ages that it couldn't happen again?

You think it really makes a difference if an airliner or a FedEx plane crashes into a building like the WTC? The body count won't change that much. Maybe it won't create as much "terror", but if it's much easier to get a cargo plane than a passenger plane, don't you think terrorists would go where the better chance is?

This is like having a steel safe door for your front door but having a screen door for the back.

You can't ignore soemthing just because it isn't as visible to the public. That's why what we have is theater. All special effects, but not plot.

Remember that the 9/11 attack was only partially successful. Now they can't use commercial airliners to finish the job because we're prepared for that this time. If we were smart, we'd be looking to head them off from their next attack instead of preparing for 9/11 to happen again.

Finish what job? Hitting the U.S. Capitol with Congress in session. That's part of it, obviously. You say you want to attack civilian planes. Well, that can be done too. Just crash a cargo plane into an airport taxiway with 20 planes waiting to take off.

Why are cargo planes attractive? Because the terrorists would control the timing. They wouldn't be the mercy of airline schedules. The next attack has to be perfectly timed before defenses can be launched, a compete surprise, then it's over in seconds.

They don't have to hijack cargo planes. They can use money. That's why are so attractive. They have more cash than we are willing to admit.

Always a probability. No doubt. But, honestly, does taking over a cargo plane have the same visceral impact as a civilian jet liner? Would it affect the economy as much? Because another hijacking would severely hurt the airline industry for a long time. Hijacking a cargo plane only really affects that plane and anywhere it crashes. It won't affect civilian aviation (as much I don't think, although it would a little.)

They used chemicals on 9/11.

In this we are in 100% agreement.

True. But I would bet on the people with training in hijackings and their complexities rather than on those who don't.

Not in a hijacking. And remember, that is a FAMs primary responsibility.

True, but you have to bet the percentages when you have limited resources. Train to handle what happens most and you'll handle most of what happens. I'm not aware of many terrorist hijackings of cargo planes, but I could be wrong too.

Because people won't say "That could have been me on that plane!"

While I agree to a point, you can't harden everything. We have limited resources. We have to spend them accordingly. There have been no cargo terror attacks to my knowledge. There have been many, many in civilian aviation.