Pretty much what I do, read and stare. I can't sleep on planes and the movies are so terrible that I don't watch them.

So basically, you have nothing to back-up your more than rediculous statements so you resort to making an even more rediculous statement.

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

From what I've read on a FAM forum and a federal law enforcement employee forum the situation with FAMs has improved substantially since early/mid 2002. The program has stabilized and they aren't using surplus Secret Service and DEA agents to fill in the gaps anymore. I had concerns last year when all these articles came out, but I'm very confident in the program now.

Right you are, otherwise terrorists could spot them too.

I'm wondering how the pax would react now in case of an aircraft hijacking especially in the US. For a long time compliance was probably the safest way but after 9/11 you have to bear in mind that the terrorists might be on a suicide mission. So its very difficult to choose the appropriate reaction...

[This message has been edited by niklaus1 (edited 06-14-2003).]

I fear you are shortchanging most of the world's airlines when you qualify the statement with "after 9/11".

The possibility of a suicide mission has always been considered and written into the operational planning of pretty much every major international airline whose response procedures I am aware of. This has been the case for many years.

Again, I don't want to go into details for obvious reasons, but the security systems in place in most of the world would not have allowed a situation such as 9/11 to escalate to the level that it did. The reason it did was either because the UA/AA crews were inadequately trained, did not properly implement their training or were incapacitated before becoming aware of the situation.

Unfortunately today a "simple" hijacking will likely result in a catastrophic escalation because of passengers and crew who incorrectly believe that an escalation of force is the ideal response to any hijacking. It isn't, except in very exceptional circumstances.

I wrote my post just from a passenger point of view because I don't know about the related procedures.

I assume that any terrorists attack the crew first and pin them down. So as a passenger or Air Marshal you have to judge if its a "simple" hijacking or worse to ajust your reaction to the situation. From my point of view this judgement is the key problem (probably also for Air Marshals) and I was wondering how the pax would judge a hijack situation nowadays.

Personnel I don't think that an escalation of force is the #1 reaction in case of an hijacking.

In only the rarest of situations do terrorists actually seek to immobilize the crew. Very few terrorists are familiar enough with the subtleties of operating an aircraft to be able to continue without them for an extended period.

I absolutely agree. The most effective air marshal remains in deep cover even once a hijack situation has commenced and only reveals himself *IF* (not when) the situation becomes life threatening beyond a certain threshold determined by agency policy.

I'm just waiting for the drunken armed pilot and the air marshall who couldn't pass the local pd's psych exam to get into a gun battle onboard some flight.