Agreed.

I'm very serious. 9/11 was successful because of the mindset and policies of airlines at that time.

Could a dedicated group of terrorists make it through a cabin crew today? Sure. The difference is, the pilots aren't going to open the door and surrender command of the airplane. And as Flight 93 demonstrated, once the passengers realize what's in store for them, they aren't going sit there passively.

And the door has nothing to do with TSA's gate security.

I disagree, but the way you describe your team, they would have been able to outwit TSA. Which is the point of this discussion, not whether Delta Force can successfully hijack an airliner. They can. That isn't the point. The point of this discussion is - does TSA bring anything to the table that their predecessors did not.

Since you have a greater chance of encountering a FFDO than an FAM on any given flight, I'd say the odds of your success are rather low.

93 had the luxury of the things I was saying that I wouldn't allow - time and opportunity to plan and work together. Terrorists learn lessons too. Don't give the pax the time to do so, making the only ones to respond loners or couple of people at a time instead of a large group, which are easy pickings for armed, trained teams.

Correct. TSA should be trying to 1) keep weapons off the plane and 2) be looking for those that would wield them. Once the plane takes off, the TSA is of no value, unless FAMs are on board.

No, the point of the discussion is I responded to a comment of yours about the effectiveness of crew resistance. I'd say not very, excepting some FFDOs.

Not internationally. 0% chance for FFDO.

And again, none of this has anything to do with TSA's "improvements" to gate security.

My brother is a DL Captain and FFDO. I've asked him what he would do if your delta force tried to take over the aircraft. He told me, and trust me, you wouldn't be attain your objective.

And how many of the 9/11 flights were going international?

Hey dawg, you should write a novel!

Don't forget +/- 3g excursions in pitch, roll, yaw and/or cabin decompression. An aircraft is a weapon that cuts both ways.

Anyone up and about in the cabin would welcome medical attention by the time the aircraft landed.

The biggest problem with your scenario is that there is and has been nothing in place at the airport to prevent it from happening. The real question to answer is why have there not been more attacks. Obviously not TSA/DHS, so why? The answer to that question points the way to enhanced security, and it is not going to happen at the airport.

I've seen FFDO training. It's decent, but it's a one week course. Some range work, some sims work. Good stuff, but not enough. Their recurrent training that they're up for now is better IMO. They have an excellent facility and even better trainers. They're better off with the FAMS, as the training will be top notch. Still, it's not a lot of training, and, until you've pulled the trigger for real, you don't really know if you can do it. If five guys with knives breach that door one guy with a gun is going to do some damage, but the odds are still against him unless he has incredible shot placement (CNS shots). And all it takes is one to get into range to grapple and tie up his arms and soak up shots and let the rest stab him to death. I'll put it to you this way - I've had waaaaaay more training and experience in CQC and shooting and tactics and all that than 99.99999% of the FFDOs out there and if I was facing 5 guys with knives at close range that would be a bad, bad, bad day. Lots of heavy lifting there.

The real trick of post-9/11 flight is to keep the door shut. Period. Do that and the missile angle is out. Then all you have to worry about insofar as hijacking is concerned is the old fashioned type.

The way I look at it, FFDOs should handle domestic flights and FAMs international. Of course, the FFDOs wouldn't like that, especially if the government started telling them where to fly if they wanted to keep their FFDO designation.

That's the $1 million dollar question - why? I don't know, because there are a lot of easy targets in the airport arena.

And yeah, if the pilot goes to work and knows what he's doing it could get real interesting.

"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."
George Santayana, Life of Reason (1905) vol. 1, Introduction

Let me take a stab at this from my point of view:

9/11 was successful because the hijackers were very familiar with the security systems, measures, and procedures in place at the time. Now, you are asking someone who plays a small part in an overall system for specific measures in place to counter such a threat from happening again (no offense Bart).

I guess I could just say, if you have to ask, you don't know. Most of the measures in place after 9/11 work perfectly fine without you armchair quarterbacking.

Tell you what... try walking into you local bank and ask them what their security measures are to prevent a robbery. See what kind of information you glean from the teller.

A few points.

The churn in TSA employment indicates that their basic procedures are widely known outside of TSA.

Do you really believe that no potential threat exist from someone currently working for TSA and funneling that information to interested parties. Heck, TSA can't even control the thieves stealing from checked baggage, how could they control a person acting as a spy? Any group that doesn't mind spending the time can obtain anything they need to plan a mission with a likely successful outcome.

If one potential target has been hardened why not pick a softer target?
Air Transport is hardened somewhat so what prevents some nutcase from driving a box truck with a load to the middle of the ------ bridge and pulling the trigger? The chance of discovery before the act?

The most likely group to attack the US seems willing to invest the time needed to plan and execute an attack. Why would that suddenly change?

You are assuming the only thing pilots can do is use their firearms if they carry. Interesting but faulty assumption.


Now that merchant vessels with armed security forces on board are entering foreign ports - and the world hasn't come to an end - perhaps we can start talking about letting FFDO's carry on international flights.

Only problem I see with your plan is how do you intend to keep your physical composure when the plane is doing violent maneuvers bouncing you all around?
If I can come up with the idea of flight crews doing controlled aerobatic maneuvers to assist in thwarting an attempted intrusion, I can only imagine somebody that gets paid dollars to protect the airlines has certainly come up with the idea.

The only other weapon of note is the ax, which is a bit unwieldy in CQC. Hand to hand against a knife is mostly a myth unless the person has a lot of training, the willingness and ability to kill (don't screw around - take the hit and close in and kill the guy. You're going to get stabbed, the only question is how many times) and the physical ability to do so.

That's not a US decision. It's up to the foreign country in question. Most won't go for it since they don't recognize FFDOs as LEOs.

Sure, and that's an unknown quantity in my plan. The issue is 1) whether the pilot has the chops to pull it off (like in everything, some will and some won't) and 2) whether they know what's happening in time to do it. Just because there's a lot going on in the back doesn't mean they can hear it and know what's happening (how is that different in hearing than something like an EDP?). On the US Air flight where the FFDO cranked off the round into the plane no one even heard anything. A gun was fired on the plane and no one heard it, even in F.

You can't act without knowledge. It's the first O in OODA. You're talking about the A part (yaw) without getting there first.

But you can't plan for what people are going to do for the most part. You plan for what's in your control, make a best guess as to the rest, then train up. Me, I'd hit the door when it was open (food, restroom breaks). I'd need a sight more than 5 guys (9/11 crew) but I could get it done, no doubt. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to use it as a missile (timing needed is too precise and you always have to account for Murphy) but taking the plane over, oh yeah. At the very least we'd have a field day with the pax. I'd be a bloodbath, which is a strategic victory, if not a tactical one.

The 9/11 hijackings were successful because the hijackers knew that once aboard, they would face no reistance, pursuant to airline policy at the time. NOT because of lax gate security.

The "measures" you so willingly endorse WOULDN'T HAVE PREVENTED 9/11.

TSA predicates their Kabuki theatre on a loophole that wasn't exploited.

Close, but no cigar. I wasn't referring to the ax.

I didn't say it was a US decision. The reality is this - armed security teams are on board US flag ships, and when their ships arrive in foreign port, it is often against the law of that port state. Those individuals aren't LEO's either, however, accommodations have been reached with a number of port states.

All it takes is people responding rationally to a threat. Which is, of course, why we are in the state we're in. Rational thinking seems to be an endangered species when it comes to countering the terrorist threat.