What having a sky marshal really means

All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal" disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin. If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just suggests
fighting.

Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a
fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during
the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will
scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could
be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even
experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals,
disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up.
The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

From what I understand, many of those people dies due to the lack of
information about what substance was introduced to their systems. I think
that the agency involved did not want to release that information to the
medical staff, and thus lives were lost hours after the hostages were
removed.

I do agree though that I would probably prefer an armed good guy (even the
pilots) shooting the bad guys than using means that were not meant to be
used as incapacitators.


"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over
a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal"
disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on
board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin.
If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

I don't agree. Who said the terrorist had a bomb, and how did he get
it on the airplane? And haven't we just wasted a lot of cyber-ink
proving that the chances of the odd angry shot downing the airplane
are extremely remote?

What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
dollars.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just suggests
fighting.

This raises another question. There's a well-known phenom in law
enforcement having to do with alternative punishments, such as house
arrest by wearing an electronic bracelet instead of being sent to
jail. Instead of lessening the jail population, such alternatives are
likely to only increase the number of people sanctioned.

Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
aircraft?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

But if there's ever another hijacking, it will end in one of two ways.
If there are FAMs on board, they will subdue the hijackers with deadly
force if necessary. If there are no FAMs on board, the passengers
will subdue them with deadly force whether it's necessary or not.

There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds! There
is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.

Some of them would be too drunk on the free booze in Business class (They
wont be travelling economy) and not take the job seriously like the drunk
TSA chief at Dulles.

Good way to build confidence in the security arrangements.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over
a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal"
disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on
board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin.
If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

Right!!

Even if an Air Marshall takes a couple innocents, that is the risk that the
situation dictates. It's a trade-off; losing a few innocents versus losing
the entire plane and possibly a massacre on the ground as well. Combat
commanders have to make such decision all the time, and they don't always
work out like in the movies (the majority of citizens basis for
understanding how things work).

Regardless of the ammunition a Marshal uses, it is highly unlikely to cause
a catastrophic failure of the aircraft. In any case, you must keep the bad
guys from turning the aircraft into a weapon AT ALL COSTS.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

As with the sky marshal's bullets, there's nothing wrong with this
scenario. Losing a half-dozen passengers beat the hell out of losing
200.

....or 3,000. Or even more!

Better to lose the entire 200 on board than 3,000 or 30,000...

Sorry to sound so crass, but that's the reality. Those are the decisions
that have to be made all the time, and that are now forced on us by our
evasions over the past 50 years.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of
the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just
suggests
fighting.

This raises another question. There's a well-known phenom in law
enforcement having to do with alternative punishments, such as house
arrest by wearing an electronic bracelet instead of being sent to
jail. Instead of lessening the jail population, such alternatives are
likely to only increase the number of people sanctioned.

So...?

Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
aircraft?

???? How do you arrive at THAT conclusion (or question)? Your first
paragraph leads to your second paragraph...how?