Guns on Planes

[Paul Oliver]

Doh,

Well maybe a bit out of context but what i meant was as in Under siege 2 kind of thing.

The Channel tunnel rail link goes past here and that thing is damn fast. Now potential for problems there. They set the UK train speed record accross the Medway bridge a while ago. A few days later some local muppets tried to dump a stolen car on the line. How FCUKing stupid!!!

Fortunatly they have some good security to cope with that kind of stupidity.

Regards

Paul

[AdmiralHanson]

<font color='#000080'>I know your point Paul and was being facter, fachess ... humeros ... funny !

There have been many times I've wanted to 'hijack' a Virgin Train on the off chance of making it run on time ...

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>The proposed Sky Marshalls will &nbsp;&quot;all be ex-military or ex-police&quot; spake the minister.

People most likely to suffer from serious and catastrophic mental health episodes are &quot;ex-military and ex-police&quot;.

Guns on passenger aeroplanes are not something I'd like to see.

ARV police are screened and well trained - I can't see these guys getting the same high quality training and they (ARV) still make the odd mistake - they are human!

Making a mistake at 35,000ft could still happen.

If we really want to scare the terrorists then privatise the air traffic control - there's no way that they'd go anyway near a plane knowing that they might crash before THEY meant to.

[Steve L.]

Gav.

Interesting point. If this thing takes off (excuse the pun), and now that all the media hype has died down, it will, our serving police officers will be unable to sustain the commitment to this, as will the military.

I can see it opened up to private enterprise, and thats where the problems will start. Most armed police officers are well screened. However, you`ve only got to see some of the documentaries on the private security and bodyguard industry to see that it is full of cowboys and Water Mitties.

Unless they can service this type of commitment with properly trained, government paid officers then I`d rather they did`nt bother.

Remember, any privately paid company is in it for one thing only - profit. That usually means relying on the lowest common denominator in terms of personnel, training &amp; equipment

[Mr T.]

I rather think is a fete a complis, in terms of whether we have sky-marshalls or not, so more a case of 'take it and like it'.

The point of choosing suitable candidates for the job is a valid one, though; indeed, from where shall these men be drawn?

You'll be aware that there is a very lucrative industry of former SAS/SBS/Para/RM being very highly paid (sometimes to the tune of £1,500 per day) to do 'BG' (body guard) work for business clients out in Iraq, Afghanistan and other armpit territories as we speak - and it can be the case that work like this both suits these former service guys as well as being the only work these guys can get on leaving the service and entering civvie-street; short of being a 'night-watchman' in a more traditional security role, or 'working the doors' as a bouncer.

So, with that pool of candidates (and the one from which it would make most sense to draw the men for this 'marshalling' role, on the basis that they have had both genuine live-fire, 'two-way' fire-fight experience and thousands of hours on the ranges and in the 'Killing House' on CQB/CRW training) making more money per day than any gov't employed Jonnie might see in a week, the pool from which we are left to draw &nbsp;any suitable candidates is somewhat depleted.

And I'd be loathed to draw them from the current (or former) crop of armed police (SO13) as the amount of rounds they get down in a year, couple with the limited amount of time they get both on the ranges and in a 'killing house' environment is embarrassing little when compared to those agencies usually associated with CT work in the UK.

And whilst I accept and agree with the role, and it coming into use on UK-US-UK bound aircraft, I agree whole-heartedly with the above comments about the role being backed, paid for and manned by government employees and not farmed out to some private contracter with all the lack of accountability and eye-for-profit ethos that brings - afterall, we've seen what happened to the railways in this country after taking that track (no pun intended), ain't we?

[Adrian Kelland]

Bren

Your appear to have move knowledge re LV rounds than I do (none, apart from knowing they exist). If the shooter misses, is the velocity low enough not to pass through the body of the aircraft? Even going part way through, damaging wiring/electronics on the way, does not sound good to me. In the end it seems we will have to risk the results of guaranteeing a gun on board, rather than the chance a terrorist getting one on board. Also I wonder how complacent ground staff will become, knowing that there is someone on board who could deal with any problem.

You are right regarding the fait accomplit though. I hope the marshalls are regularly checked and taken off duty if they have personal problems etc. We want no repeats of the Japanese(?) pilot suiciding with a plane full of passengers.

Adrian

[Mdemon]

If they completely separated the cockpit from the cabin then you don't need the marshalls. I suppose it's too expensive to change a fleet design though.

I think the sky marshall thing is just a warning to would-be terrorists. &nbsp;Much more clever to play with the gasses (the pilot controls O2 levels apparently) - maybe with a little more finesse than the Russians did in the theatre seige though! &nbsp;Knock them all out and arrest at your leisure. &nbsp;Co-lateral damage would be less than a gunfight. &nbsp;However, unless this was made public knowledge, there is no deterrent effect and I doubt they'd want to make it public. &nbsp;Respirators would be harder to smuggle on board, and would be useless against low O2.

I like the &quot;put it into a steep dive strategy&quot; though! &nbsp;Sounds like fun. &nbsp;Can you loop a 747?

[Mr T.]

Correct, the pilot does control the O2 levels in the plane and can, theoretically, render all in the cabin unconscious by dropping its mix below a certain level - alas, the plane's safety mechanism kick-in automatically and O2 masks drop from the overhead panel and provide on-demand air. However, the pilot is powerless (as it HAS to happen automatically) to prevent this from happening, ergo preventing its use in any efforts to subdue a potential terrorist.

Of course better and more stringent searches and screening on the ground are the ideal solution - it's just that, on its own, it creates a gap that the mad-mullahs try and exploit with suicide mules!

I neither welcome nor abhor guns on planes: I merely accept them in the apparently ceaseless measures to try and ensure better safety for air passengers.

[Helen F H]

<font color='#000080'>I went on a course when i was in 6th form at school to a local residential centre about 25 miles away. &nbsp;Here the main instructor was ex-mountain rescue and was called in to help with the clear up after the Lockerbie bombing. &nbsp;The things he told me will go to my grave with me, people crashing through both gable ends of houses still strapped to the seats and being found in the garden, naked, stripped of skin by the air friction but still alive (not for long), still in the seat.

If it takes sky marshals to stop this kind of crap, then so be it. &nbsp;

The luggage checks i witnessed in Malta were thorough - they suspected i had a bottle in my bag ( a crack cylinder - i didnt, it was the first stage of my regs up against something but it did look like one).

[John_McG]

LV rounds won't penetrate the skin of a commercial passenger aircraft and the wiring harnesses for avionic systems are fast being replaced by failure redundant databus systems that don't go anywhere near the passenger cabin.

The amount of both noise and heat insulation between the inside of the cabin and the fuselage skin is large enough to stop any LV round getting anywhere near the skin (have a look around an aircraft window).

As for separating the cockpit from the cabin physically, this would mean a major modification to every commercial aircraft in the world. It wouldn't only mean installing a new bulkhead, but also new access and egress points for the cabin crew - thus another hole in the pressure shell - or an entirely different pressure shell - all of which would need new wiring (databus or not, all discrete lines and power lines still require massive amounts of wiring).

Also, if you separated the crew from the passengers any more than they already are, what's to stop a terrorist from still hijacking the jet and threatening to kill passengers if the crew don't comply with their wishes? The crews are already reasonably secure in the cockpit, they still have a duty of care to their passengers either way though.

Sky marshalls are an excellent idea - where they are trained and how they are armed is what must be decided upon next, but make no mistakes, they will be on almost every flight within a few years if not months.

John