With all due respect, I do have knowledge on how the FAM program used to operate prior to the TSA taking it over and I am also very aware about just how "untrained" some of the agents "deputed" to the position were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Please don't kid yourself about that aspect, because pretty much anyone who had passed through a federal academy program and didn't get airsick was shoved into the role of FAM in the latter part of 2001.

The FAMs who were in the program prior to 9/11 were the cream of the crop and I have immense respect for them. Some of the cartoons that got the job by default after that should best be left as mall security.

I don't mean to attack anyone here, but some of your theories and opinions are completely unbased or based on bogus information. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect that. That being said.

1) Why would it make a difference whether the FAM was using smokeless tobacco or not? Does that make him stupid or Barney Fife? I don't think so. I am a firefighter in a major city and I would estimate 40-50% of them use smokeless tobacco...in stations and on responses. Does that mean that they are less capable of saving your mother who has just had a heart attack? Does that make them less capable of extinguishing the house fire that you started by leaving food on the stove? Think this through...What about the pilots that use smokeless tobacco?

2) As far as the FAM's occupying first-class seats...part of this (I imagine...don't know for sure) would be based on seating availability. Also, if you recall, all of the head-hijackers on 9-11 were seated in the first two-three rows of first-class, so they had easy access to the cockpit door. If something like this were to happen again, would you want the unarmed FAM seated in the back row of coach where he couldn't see what was going on at the cockpit door...remember there are those 100+ pound drink carts. Maybe we should hire acrobats instead of law enforcement specialists.

3) As to the person who said there were five planes hijacked...four of which crashed...what paper was that in? The National Enquirer? Last I heard two struck the WTC and 1 struck the Pentagon. That would be uhhh 3? The fourth went down in PA because the pax and crew took a stand.

4) Finally, I want to know when/where those guns were left on planes, in lavs, etc. I also want to know when and where the accidental discharges occurred. That is all stuff that would make the news, especially after the aircraft had to make an emergency landing due to the gaping hole in the aircraft...

Before you criticize a program, you better know the specifics, otherwise it is just rumor. RUMOR! Do any of you know what training FAM's go through? What they are taught? What their backgrounds are? Anyone?

Just know the FACTS before you go off half-cocked and bash someones profession. I will grant you that there are bad apples in every profession. There are bad pilots, FA's, cops, firefighters, etc. BUT, that does not mean that everyone thats a pilot with XYZ airline is stupid or that every cop in XYZ is crooked and a child molester or whatever.

Just THINK before you SPEAK!

My god. Finally someone puts it right. The same can be said for everyones profession. That would include the screeners too.

------------------
"Be the inferior of no man, nor be the superior. Remember that every man is a variation of yourself. No man's guilt is not yours, nor is any man's innocence a thing apart." William Saroyan, American Playwright

Getting the plane on the ground and trying to pacify the terrorists is completely different than turning over the controls.

I agree that in a traditional hijacking, you'd probably want to do the former. But I can't imagine that we can assume it to still be good policy to simply turn over control of the plane to terrorists.

If that's what the experts think is the best solution, then we don't need air marshals or reinforced cockpit doors, as both of them will interfere with the transfer of control from the pilots to the hijackers.

d

Unfortunately, we do know some of the specifics. We know that before 9/11, the program was very rigorous, with only the very best making it through. We know that pre-9/11, the hallmark test to complete the FAM program was a difficult marksmanship test that simulated actual conditions on a plane.

We also know that after 9/11, the training was streamlined. We also know that after 9/11, we were in such a rush to get new FAMs in the air, that we did away with the marksmanship test, because too many people were failing. As of a few months ago, the government wasn't even providing the FAMs with ammunition for target practice - they had to buy their own. We also know that, for "security" purposes, FAMs are prevented from discussing any aspect of the program. They don't even get whistleblower protection.

The public has no way of effectively evaluating the program as a result of the secrecy, but what we do know about it is distressing. Knowing that the FAMs no longer do the marksmanship test, as it was too difficult - because it simulated actual conditions FAMs would come across in a real hijacking - should be enough to send the public running to the government's front door demanding answers.

d

Do you really think of it as your seat? I am as well traveled as most everyone on here "with your AA gold and UA gold and so on" but why do you feel it is your seat. And a tax credit does more for the industry than you using FF miles to upgrade.

You are knocking someone who when planes started flying into buildings...jumped up and said never again. He didn't just talk big about it... he/she went out and did it. Most pilots and FA's are glad to finally have some protection on the plane. Are you upset because of inconvenience “oh I may have to sit in coach because some cop is in my seat”??? How shallow. What did you do to help out the airline industry to increase safety... stand in line and complain about long lines and how inconvenient it was to show ID or get extra screening, but I am a frequent flyer I should be above the extra precautions? Most of the posts in this tread are made by persons who know nothing more about the airline industry than what meal will be served in FIRST CLASS. I deal with these guys and girls everyday and yes some are jackasses.... but so are some of the pilots and FA's who have forgotten what happened on 911. The tone of this board is amazing and luckily it is a minority opinion. As for all of the FA’s and a great majority of the Pilots I fly with daily, weekly, monthly and yearly they are happy with the added protection on the plane.

Turning over the controls while the plane was in the air was NEVER part of any operational manual, pre-9/11 or today. The crews on 9/11 either broke with procedure, were overpowered or improperly trained in that aspect of protocol.

The top priority then, as it remains today, is to get the plane ON THE GROUND safely. If the hijackers have the same priority (as is the case in 99% of hijackings) then the situation is best served by cooperating with them and getting the plane on the ground in Cuba or Lebanon or wherever they want to go.

However, if Joe Public in seat 15C decides to attack the hijacker instead and the hijacker starts shooting in response, the likely result is more casualties then would have otherwise occured.

A trained FAM is in a position where he can judge the appropriate moment to respond, as well as the appropriate situation to respond to. Just giving a gun to a guy and putting him on a plane does not make him a FAM.

A little known fact about 9/11 is that there was an armed Federal Agent aboard United flight 93. Richard Guadagno worked for the US Department of Interior's Fish & Wildlife Service and was traveling on armed duty on that flight. Unfortunately, there has been no public comment about how he was involved in the scenario that played out aboard the plane, but I am sure that his reactions and subsequent actions form a very good case study.

Go tide,

I can't, and I won't speak for everyone who posted on this thread, I will just speak for myself.
Yes, I have been in the airline industry for years. Now I am actually doing consulting in the airline industry. Yes, I do know more about flying than just whats in the in-flight meal. Yes, i do know two AMs. I dont know them as friends per se, but I have met and talked to them. And yes, I do think that Federal Govt would put poorely trained individuals to perform ANY job, let it be AMs, TSA agents, INS agents, etc. Yes, I do feel that guns should be controlled. Yes, I do not feel secure flying with AMs with guns, because I do not believe they were trained properly, checked properly, and are in a stable condition. I just dont have that assurance? Can you give me that assurance? I doubt it! As long as the govt continues this insanity of hiring people that come from the bottom of barrel (in many cases, as witnessed by myself), putting them in FC seats while they have absolutely no clue to whats happening behind them in the main cabin (not to mention occupying a seat a LOYAL and PAYING customer could otherwise), reading their books and getting some shut eye (what do you think, they are always alert while in flight? NO!), I just dont feel good about that. I dont feel safe, I dont feel comfortable, and I dont want my taxes going to the program that provides no value to me as a tax payer.

I fly Intl frequently to the places that really need and have security, and let me tell you, the US Air Marshall program resembles nothing of that.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...r-marshals.htm
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/4198055.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/arch...20020903a.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/02/ramasastry.security/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...r26¬Found=true
Indeed!


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 06-11-2003).]

Okay, you are right...THINK before you SPEAK.

First of all, these are all articles from June and October of Last year (2002) and stem from 3 incidents. Some of the information is and has been mis-quoted. Also, it is from questionable sources. In some cases, what the articles are addressing is politics or the actual AIRLINES (not the FAM's) handling of the post 9/11 arena.

ARTICLE #1 from June 2002: (12 months old)
-A FAM discharged his weapon in a Las Vegas hotel room.
-A FAM left his/her gun in the lavatory (later found by a passenger)
-All of the information about training and program operation is from former AM's and it does not specify how many...could be a couple of disgruntled employees...ever think of that?

ARTICLE 2 from October 2002:
-Accounts for one FAM
-says he failed EITHER a psych exam OR an oral interview. If anyone has ever taken a PD oral interview, they are extremely tough and usually has 8-10 police officers on the other side of the table doing everything they can to cause an undesirable response. Also, this is very subjective. If the board just does not like someone, they can fail them.
-Says he applied to several departments, but was never hired. This has no relevance...many people apply to departments on a continual basis, being accepted after the 3rd, 4th, or 5th attempt, when their nerves have settled and they are more familiar with the processes.
-Says he WAS hired by the US Border Patrol, a Federal Law Enforcement Agency.
-Says his training was abbreviated due to the fact that he ALREADY had Federal law enforcement experience. (Many PD's and FD's have this kind of "abbreviated training")
-This entire article is written subjectively and purposely tries to make the situation worse than it is.

ARTICLE 3 from October 2002:
-Most of the information is from POLITICIANS...
-How does the pilot know exactly what the FAM's are doing (or that they are FAM's) while inflight?
-All information is from ONE pilot. This does not represent an industry standard to me. Maybe this pilot likes or was dating the FA that got asked out...
-Pilot says security is not ALWAYS enhanced, but does not say that it is not at all enhanced.
-This article does address the fact that a change of command had just ocurred and the commander was now retired admiral Loy.

ARTICLE 4 from October 2002:
-Says the AIRLINES have been conducting racial profiling...not FAM's.
-Addresses the same incidents as in ARTICLE 1, in some cases using the exact wording.
-Misquotes what happened...as cross referenced with ARTICLE one. Remember, in ART 1 it said that one FAM (in June) discharged his weapon in a Las Vegas HOTEL room. It says that another FAM left their weapon in a lavatory...does not say that it was a FEMALE DEA agent.

ARTICLE 5 was inaccessible.

This just proves the point that people will believe anything in print and will read what they WANT to read, not what is actually there.

I suppose that these same people believe that politicians do not lie or accept contributions for a vote or anything like that.

All of these articles are from last year, just as the guard was changing for the FAM's.

Believe what you want and feel how you want, that is your right as an American. It is my right, as an American to voice my opinion. I do not mean to target anyone with my posts, I am not out to start any fights or anything like that. I just don't like seeing good people serving our country getting a bad name because a news reporter sensationalizes an incident and brings it up again and again. Remember, the FAM's are there to protect us, whether you choose to believe it or not and their goal is to provide the best security they can, given the cards the TSA and the government have dealt them.

I only picked a few of the many news articles. The TSA saying there are problems and the FAMs themselves saying there were problems don't make for questionable sources. I provided proof. If you dispute what was written then I suggest you provide proof to support your statements.

The program has not improved. The only thing that might change is that the TSA is trying to find other uses for thier otherwise useless air marshalls and they have considered airport perimeter patrol as one.

Can you say "Security Mall Guard"?


I will provide you with the full text of the 5th article. Not being able to access it in no way means it did not exist. Even the heads of the tSA, who routinely refuse to admit anything is wrong with their programs, have asmitted there are problems with the program and that training was cut. What part of this can't you understand?

Again, you have done nothing to support your opinion. Please, find proof that the program has improved and the current air marshalls have been properly trained. Show me anything that disputes what was written in those articles.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 06-11-2003).]

That's a laugh. These "FAMs" are there to waste my money and enforce stupid no-pee rules, as well as bring firearms into a place where there should be no firearms.

I'd gladly leave these goofs at the gate and look after myself, as I do at all other times in my life where there is no law enforcement officer present (well over 99% of the time).



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I'm done, no use wasting my keystrokes. I hope that on every flight you take from now on, a FAM takes your first-class upgrade seat, since that seems to be your biggest complaint...or atleast the one that fuels the fire.

Grow up!

And I'm sure you know where you're welcome to go and what you can do to yourself when you get there. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 06-12-2003).]