Nice hyperbole, pumpkin. You know that isn't true. Asked and answered many times over. TSA just doesn't want to take suggestions.

<OT> I was on a flight a couple weeks ago that was cancelled because the autopilot wasn't working properly! </OT>

Back to the subject, how many FAMs are normally on on a flight? Is it a passenger to FAM ratio? My concern is that if this to be an effective tool, you would need a good amount of marshalls on each and every flight. Chances are anyone organized enough to successfully hijack a plane is not only travel as a group, but trained in a similar manner as an FAM. Unless these guys are Rambo (1980's Rambo, not 2007), wouldn't there be a good chance they would be still be outnumbered and overcome?

For me, part of the issue is that our policies tend to be so reactive rather than proactive. Guy tries to ignite shoes, shoes get x-rayed separately. Group investigates using liquid explosives, liquids ban goes into effect. From the level of the average citizen, it seems that instead of trying to outsmart the bad guys, whoever they are, we try to outmuscle them with limited success. Then we get outnumbered, go overbudget, skimp on training and supplies, then wonder how we fix the issue without any resources left to allocate.

I guess my question is that if the FAM program is really going to be effective at catching terrorists and reducing risk, is $7 billion really enough?

FAMS only gets $700 million per year. TSA's budget (which FAMS is a part of) is $7 billion, so roughly 10% is allocated to the FAMS.

And TBH, for all that money spent annually, TSA has yet to catch or stop a terrorist. Plenty of knives, water and nail clippers were confiscated over the last few years, but other than that, what do we really have to show for it besides an ineffective and unaccountable bureaucracy?

A good point. I wanted to chime in here to forstall any replies along the lines of: "You don't know what's been thwarted 'behind the scenes'." This Administration touts every single remote possibility so, actually, I feel confident that any TSA "thwarted" attack would've been announced to justify themselves.

(Apologies to mods if that's dipping a toe or two into Lake Omni)

Different programs under different agencies. Sky marshals were under Customs. That program ended in 1974. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...943716,00.html. The FAMS was created in 1986, more than ten years later. FAMS were under FAA. Different missions.

Its hard to "expand" something that had been discontinued a decade earlier.

Yes and no. The government DOWNPLAYS any incident on commercial flights. Its not in the airline's best interest to have bad publicity like this. It keeps people from flying. And the airline lobby is one of the strong ones. They have deep pockets.

Disagree. They made a much bigger deal out of the liquid explosives plot and continue to maintain that it's a high threat despite its own actions and scientific evidence to the contrary.

Not only does it make things a big deal, it likes to keep them a big deal. Mandatory shoe carnivals anyone?

That wasn't in the US. If the story is broken by the media then there's not much they can do but damage control. But they sure aren't going to volunteer information unless its a big arrest where something is being done. But to say that things are still happening? And unresolved? Its not in their best interest.

Just my opinion from what I've seen and what hasn't made it to the press.

That story was broken because the US pretty much pushed the Brits into making the arrests. The Brits weren't ready and wanted more time. And of course, the USG made a big deal out of it and trumpeted it as a success. Then the other carnivals began.

I don't doubt that there are things that don't make it out. Been there and done that, and still am to a certain degree. However, TSA never fails to toot its horn whenever it thinks it made a Big Catch� and never fails to have a reactive policy to counteract the threat.

Exactly. My father-in-law retired as a detective from a large urban police department, where he served in a very interesting precinct. When we go to a restaurant, he always looks around and tries to select a seat with his back to a wall. FAM program should heed this lesson, illustrated by the murder of Danny Lewin on 9/11/2001.

All FAMs would instinctively agree with you. They hate it. But sometimes the tactics and dictates of the mission at hand supercede such concerns. Its the nature of the job.

In order to counteract this you need 100% anonymity, which is why the rank-and-file FAMs have fought so hard to abolish those policies that compromise them, up to and including seating.

So if they have to sit in F, why not sit in the last row, and possibly the window seat where they can still have a good view and be less subject to surprise?

A FAM is no good if they're killed at the start because they didn't see it coming.

I don't believe this in the least. You have stated previously that all persons convicted of terrorist plots in the US are known by the press. Anything else has been just other probes or events according to you, but none of which therefore appear to have even risen to the level of an arrest. If the government can't make the case for an arrest, then I don't think these "incidents" are of any great importance.

I could not agree more with this post.

Oh my God, did I just say that out loud?

An arrest can only be made for essential elements of crimes. Could you show me the probing statute?

And remember there's a huge difference on journalists going out and FOIAing information and coming to their own conclusions and having government officials and airlines agree with them. Its striking that all the people out there doing the job, the one's with experience, view things one way and the people safe and sound in their offices, and with no real aviation security experience, view them differently.

That's why you see pilots and FAMs and FAs, etc. having different opinions about incidents than their management.