Air marshalls on flights - feel safer?

[mvan1]

For those of us who often travel by air, it is not uncommon to hear about a passenger being forced to give up his or her seat to an air marshal.  Air marshals are on many flights.  Supposedly, air marshals insure safety and security on a flight. 

Air marshals are not identified as such on a flight - they remain anonymous unless passengers connect the fact of seeing a passenger being removed and another passenger being assigned to the previously occupied seat. 

Air marshals are sometimes boarded before rank and file passengers and sometimes before the crew.   Sometimes, they come on board just before the aircraft door is closed.  There is no fixed pattern for when they board.  

Air marshals carry weapons, usually, a pistol and lots of ammunition.  The weapons are concealed. 

Here is an interesting story that discusses how ineffective air marshals have been on flights.  This latest matter involves a non-stop flight from London to Los Angeles.  There were four air marshals scheduled for the flight.  One was removed for being under the influence of alcohol. 

Reading the article and related statistics do not create a feeling of security, in my opinion. 

Air marshals work with/under TSA, which is also not known for being effective. 

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2016/05/15/united-flight-delayed-to-remove-drunk-air-marshal/

 

-

[RA1]

Of course I don't feel safer.  The TSA (thousands standing around) is all show and little go.  However, I am not sure that I am willing to take as the absolute truth a blogger whose credentials are, "points, miles and business travel".  His comments smack of things he read in a scandal sheet tabloid. 

Pilots are familiar with a saying about the FAA that goes, I am from the FAA and I am here to help you.  Sometimes that is true but, unfortunately, the FAA has been tasked with not only promoting aviation but also enforcing any violation of the rules. Therefore, many feel that as soon as they "promote" safe operations among pilots, they turn around and violate them.

It would be an easy comparison with the TSA, Air Marshalls, etc.  Developed to make traveling safer but interfering because of human nature.

One solution would be to privatize the screening of passengers which was done before the US government stepped in and created this bureaucracy.

 

Best regards,

RA1 

[JAYBLK]

There have been no successful terrorist incidents on American flights in years, despite dozens of groups of crazies wanting nothing more than to make one happen. Clearly, an American flight is safer than a European football match or concert because the security apparatus in North America has learned to share information. Again, you are far safer in the air over America than on the ground in Europe.

[RA1]

Yes, the skies in the US are safer than those elsewhere but I attribute it more to luck than skill, at least as far as the "security apparatus" is concerned.  I know for a fact that it is all too easy to get past the TSA.  Why doesn't it happen?  Because the folks who can easily do it have no interest in doing so.  They are loyal US citizens who believe in protecting the US. 

I have thought for a long time the real cure for terrorists on airliners is passengers willing to take them on.  With near 100% participation there would be little to no need for Air Marshalls or pilots behind locked doors with guns.  But, that would mean folks taking responsibility for themselves, and to some extent, others.  Not necessarily modern life. 

 

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

24 minutes ago, RA1 said:

I have thought for a long time the real cure for terrorists on airliners is passengers willing to take them on.  With near 100% participation there would be little to no need for Air Marshalls or pilots behind locked doors with guns.  But, that would mean folks taking responsibility for themselves, and to some extent, others.  Not necessarily modern life. 

And with a sprinkle or two of pixie dust, we would have no need of airliners in the first place.

RA1, I doubt random collections of strangers have ever been much inclined to spontaneously self organize and assault armed baddies . No where, no time. It's just not the way our species is constituted.

[RA1]

I suppose you have forgotten Todd Beamer who led the resistance on the UA flight.

Never to be forgotten for his bravery and heroism during this trying time.

Please reconsider.

 

Best regards,

RA1

 

[AdamSmith]

Also the American military guys on the train in France who rushed the nut job who was about to gun everybody down.

[MsGuy]

AS, if memory serves, those two were (a) long term friends and (b) had been preconditioned to act collectively through their military training and (c) should burn a candle to St. Cristofer that that Ali Akbar wannabe had no clue how to clear his jammed weapon. I think their civilian buddy did join in after they got young Ali on the floor. Not exactly a crowd of random strangers attacking in unison.

RA1, (a) we don't really have a lot of information about what actually happened but (b) apparently a small group of passengers acted  in desperation after they learned over their cell phones the hijackers were flying airliners into buildings and (c) things did not end well for them.

Not hardly an example of "100%  participation" in either instance. That said there's a lot to be proud of in both cases. Todd Beamer in particular probably saved hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives by his actions.

[RA1]

I agree these two mentioned examples do not indicate 100% participation, but, they did resist.  I am suggesting a goal of 100% participation, although I realize the unlikelihood of achieving that goal.  Still, goals and challenges are to be embraced if mankind is to advance. 

You should know by now I am no Pollyanna but I do ordinarily have high expectations for folks, especially if given the proper and correct leadership and inducement.

Best regards,

RA1