Perhaps you're right.

But where do you get that FAMs are only effective when it comes to hijackings with the point of crashing the plane? FAMS was around long before 9/11, when it was just straight up hijacking.

Shocking, yes, but outbreaks of civility have been known here.

I did not imply that "FAMs are only effective when it comes to hijackings with the point of crashing the plane?" I was responding to this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by law dawg
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
How often had passenger airliners been used as guided missiles before 9/11/2001? Imaginative terrorists will unfortunately probably trump bureaucrats fighting the last war.


Al-Qaeda is patient and adaptive, studying the infidels' behavior and SOP for years before planning and carrying out attacks. Sure, on 9/11/2001 the jihadists targeted civilian aviation. But as an earlier poster noted, if terrorists were to commandeer cargo planes and crash them into the White House, Capitol, Empire State Building, Sears Tower, JFK airport, LAX, SFO, MIA, IAH, etc., the United States would again be traumatized. DHS would probably shut down civil aviation for some time to figure out a better system of tracking flights. TSA and FAMs would not discourage this sort of plot.

That was my point in my earlier response.

Yes, aviation has been a target. However, how that is protected is very poor considering how much money is thrown at it.

Hmmm, who should make that call ... DHS or DHL?

Whichever one should do it PDQ.

Well, I have a lot more faith that DHL will do it right and on time.

FAA Sky Marshals (not FAM); a grand total of 33 of them pre-9/11.

http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specia...kymarshal.php3

Basic tradecraft. You don't sit with your back to anyone.

If it happens to a FAM, the hijacker would then be able to take the stabbed FAM's gun.

Aha. Now I got you. And, for what its worth, I agree to a point.

I still think, though, that AQ likes to also hit targets that the common man might think "There but for the grace of God go I...." The target can have real or symbolic significance or both.

Civilian aviation has been in their sights for three decades, even after catastrophic failures. After their greatest success doesn't seem like a good time to abandon it.

There were more at one time and NOT sky marshals. The program had dwindled down to 33 by 9/11 due to the "it'll never happen" mentality. The FAMS was started in 1985 after the Athens TWA hijacking.

I agree with all the criticism here of FAMs, but all that aside I must say I am VERY happy to know that there are a couple thousand more highly-trained, fully-armed, full federal agents out and about the U.S.-- in shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, etc., when not wasting their time on flights.

It's pretty clear that you don't like FAMs. Have to wonder if you applied for the program and were turned down or it you had an incident with FAMs at the checkpoint. Doesn't matter to me what your reasons are; I'm curious how you would improve airport security screening if you were king for a day. Pretty easy to poo-poo the idea of having TSA; many in here do it all the time. However, very few come up with any reasonable alternatives or suggestions.

I've asked you previously, and you dodged. So I'll ask you again: if TSA is a worthless agency, what would you do to improve it? Or, if you were to replace it, how would you go about it?

Actually begun in 1961 and expanded after the 1985 hijacking.