FAA

[its_me_mango]

Call the F.A.A. and tell them you want Sky Marshalls on every flight and follow up with a call to your senator.
They only people who could possibly oject are smugglers or idiots.

[sabreuse]

...and reasonable people who don't want to feel like they're living in a police state, and people with a respect for the U.S. Constitution, and people who aren't given to hyperbole.

[its_me_mango]

sit on your sabre, you're a freakin paranoid with your police state, but i'll bet you wear a uniform, let's see, it's black pants, a tee shirt, spiked hair just so, a few rings in your nose and especially one in your ear, your a selfish brat, and don't we just love it, go peirce your tongue and drool a little, then tell me that your're practicing your absolute freedom.

[edew]

True. Before people go to extremes to over-protect themselves, people should still analyze the probabilities. Given the frequency of take-off and landings we have in the US on a daily basis, and the number of hijackings is quite small compared to many other possible negative outcomes.

And, given the past performance of airlines and airports with regards to security personnel at the metal detectors, I'd hate to have a sky marshall working there making minimum wage who might one day decide to take advantage of him (or her) being the only one with a gun on board and hijacking the plane.

[its_me_mango]

if you can't take a little corrective action, then you're a useless bobbie like the useless boobies that sit around and cry into their third helping of chillie while other people suffer. I'll bet if someone told you you'd fence better you wouldn't mind.
You're all idiots, i went out with a sky marshall in 1976, he was just like the great firemen you just recently congratulated for assisting all those injured people in New York. And while you're busy "analyzing this" those people just figured out another way to bomb your auntie.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: its_me_mango ]

[sabreuse]

And here I had second thoughts about criticizing someone else's point of view. I was just getting ready to delete my post but now I think I'll let it stay. My POINT was that reasonable people can have differing points of view. I don't know you and wouldn't presume to understand your motivations. You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about me.

[Mergs]

Now, now, children, let's play nice. This is the kind of thing I was talking about on the other thread. Do we REALLY have what it will take to prevent this kind of thing? I think we ought not have ANY kind of restriction as to what we can carry on a plane! If just ONE person who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon on the plane had been on those aircraft, what do you think would have been the outcome? Or if the flight attendants had access to a weapon (supposing, of course, they had been trained to use them)? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Just something to think about.

[Inquartata]

Those who willingly surrender liberty in return for an ( illusory ) increase in security will eventually wind up with neither. Personally I have no problem with the Sky Marshal program, it's not as though there's any freedom left when flying anyway, and I don't see how having an anonymous armed LE officer aboard is any more intrusive than having them walking around the terminals. But I understand those who see it as an incursion.

So I guess I'm an "idiot", too.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Although sky marshalls would increase security to some measure, it is not feasible. There are hundred of flights from twin-turbo prop planes with less than 30 passengers to jumbo jets with over two hundred passengers and they are flying morning to night on multiple flights from small county airports to mega-sized city airports. See edew's response. Also, there are flights originating from the US and going to a foreign destination and vice-versa meaning what jurisdiction does a sky marshall have over what air space?

Security needs to be increased in the airport (and not so much on each airplane) much like Zurich or Israel. That would prevent weapons and problem people from even boarding or entering the terminal. If you have one sky marshall over taken by terrorists, you are back to square one. In Zurich, they have armed military men in the airport. It does look like a police state compared to American airports but you can be sure there are less terrorist problems since there is a visible deterrent present.

I am against a sky marshall program and I am not an idiot or smuggler (and don't you mean terrorist Miss Smarty Pants?).

You are being quite arrogant thinking that your sky marshall idea is the right action to take and anyone against it is an idiot, thus assuming you are... highly intelligent over everyone else. And dating a sky marshall in the 70's?!?!? Wow-wee Ba-zow-wee! Like that further validates the sky marshall idea as the best-est, most super-duper-est idea in the world!!!

Action needs to be taken to improve air travel security immediately but a sky marshall plan isn't the best idea.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: three_hundred_fifty_five ]

[attila]

I flew in Guatemala in 1982. Aviateca is the Guatemalan National Airline. It was a time of civial war. When I flew from Flores Island to Guatemala City there were two soldiers riding along.They were armed with fully automatic weapons. I have never felt less safe on an airline. I would hate to see us resort to that. I would rather have some burly dudes replace the nice looking women flight attendants. Those guys should of course be able to pour coffee and twist your head off at any given time. Not that I'm sexist. I'm sure there are some deadly ladies out there.We should hire them too. But, I think cowards are less likely to try to take on a burly guy on and try to take a plane. We as passengers should change our mindset as well. I applaud the passengers who fought back and said " that's is enough!". I hope if I am ever in the same position ,I too can do the same. I am not gonna stop flying just the same.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by three_hundred_fifty_five:
<STRONG>Although sky marshalls would increase security to some measure, it is not feasible. </STRONG>

Well, it has certainly been feasible on El Al, which has had not a single hijacking in decades. And though Israel is a much smaller nation than the US, with far fewer flights to protect, so too are its resources of manpower and money to pay for them commensurately smaller...

It can be done. But it would probably need the government to run and pay for it, not the airlines, as is presently contemplated.

[Buttercup]

Well, I think it's a given that every single innocent person on board those 4 hijacked planes would have welcomed an air marshal.

[rjccj]

In a time like this we must weigh the consequences of our thoughts and feelings before we act upon them. Yes, it would give the illusion of safety if there were Sky Marshalls on all flights. However, it would be a very expensive program to implement. It would deter some, but if you have a group of people who are willing to die and go to any lengths to advance their cause, then it won't help. It would also be safer to have a soldier quartered in every house, but it would be a severe limit on all liberties that we as Americans should hold higher than safety. We could also cut down on crime if we did away with the need for warrants to make searches and arrests. Nobody except criminals would have to worry about getting caught, but who would give up the privacy that they expect in their homes or cars, or bodies?

I know that I don't speak for everyone, but, I would rather live with freedom of speech, press, and travel, than to live in a state where I have to worry about my constitutional rights being violated by the the government that was founded on these basic principles.

[Buttercup]

Frankly, I don't see my rights violated by having a sky marshal on board.

Additionally, I think they need to install stronger doors to the cockpit.

[edew]

I was listening to a radio show where some callers asked why the cockpit doors couldn't be strengthened. Some other person called in to explain that a) heavier doors means heavier plane means more fuel, and b) the plane needs to maintain an even air pressure throughout the plane or else things go kablooey (not his words). Thus, it not possible to have a heavy airtight cockpit (or any other interior) door. I don't recall the complete answer, but the gist is that there are engineering impediments to having a super secure cockpit door.

As for having a sky marshall on board, that very act is violating your rights: the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. How about we park a few police cars in front of your house 24/7? Maybe not in front of your house. How about on your block? Just try driving faster than 25 mph when they look at you.

Again, let's go back to possibilities and probabilities. If you're worried about dying while traveling, make sure you wear a seatbelt on your way to the airport. Unless you feel you are a magnet for skyjackers, the probability of you dying during the ride to the airport is so much greater than you dying by a suicidal skyjacker, that it's almost meaningless to compare the two.

[Event Horizon]

Instead of creating a new thread I'll just post on here because it's related. Now that the FAA has up security and restrictions, what is that going to mean for us Fencers traveling with our gear? Doubt they'll let us take it carry-on. It'll have to go into check luggage..and will they give us a hard time about that? Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?

[damianip]

Originally posted by edew:
<STRONG>I was listening to a radio show where some callers asked why the cockpit doors couldn't be strengthened. Some other person called in to explain that a) heavier doors means heavier plane means more fuel, and b) the plane needs to maintain an even air pressure throughout the plane or else things go kablooey (not his words). Thus, it not possible to have a heavy airtight cockpit (or any other interior) door. I don't recall the complete answer, but the gist is that there are engineering impediments to having a super secure cockpit door.</STRONG>

Oh please! Obviously all callers into talk radio are structural aviation engineers. If you can fly around in an A-10 in a titanium bathtub to ward of AA fire then, certainly, you can improve on cockpit doors. Pressure equalization is not rocket science (although it probably was originally).

<STRONG>
As for having a sky marshall on board, that very act is violating your rights: the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. How about we park a few police cars in front of your house 24/7? Maybe not in front of your house. How about on your block? Just try driving faster than 25 mph when they look at you.</STRONG>

How is having a sky marshall on board a plane violating anyone's rights? If we extend that argument then the presumption of innocence would disallow the very existence of police forces.

If there is a cop car around, and you won't drive faster than 25, could it be that you are afraid of exceeding the posted speed limit in his presence? "Officer could you please leave, I'd like to break the law and you're violating my constitutional right to do so".

<STRONG>
Again, let's go back to possibilities and probabilities. If you're worried about dying while traveling, make sure you wear a seatbelt on your way to the airport. Unless you feel you are a magnet for skyjackers, the probability of you dying during the ride to the airport is so much greater than you dying by a suicidal skyjacker, that it's almost meaningless to compare the two.</STRONG>

And what if you're already wearing your seat belt. We can't improve the probabilities of a safe arrival further? What about the people in the targets? What was the probability of being immolated at one's desk or forced to plunge to one's death to avoid it? The landscape has changed. It's more than the horrible deaths, it's about the political pressure they try to generate through terror.

Two more items.

First: we willingly enter an airplane when we fly so if we are aware of the restrictions on our freedom when we agree to fly, what's the big deal? There is no clause about the right to fly with no impairments to freedom in the Constitution. You are already severely restricted when you fly now: you cannot joke about hijackings or bombs, you can't bear arms on a plane, you can't even get out of your seat when you feel like it.

Second. If you board an international flight, the Constitution means nothing.


Paolo

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: damianip ]

[attila]

Event Horizon

We have always been able to fly with our gear as long as it was checked in as luggage. I have been able to "sneak" my dissassembled wepons on on board a few times- just in case the carrier lost my luggage,I still had at least the first days worth of weapons to play with. The last time i flew and did this my epee blades were in a fishing rod cloth sock. As I boarded the stewaress looked at it and said "Gonna do a little fishing?" and I nodded and said "Oh yeah". Never realized that was such a bad thing. Hell if I could do it, others could too...

[Buttercup]

edew, I doubt these air marshalls are minimum wage workers that you think they are.

"They have some of the highest, if not the highest, firearms qualifications in the federal government," said FAA spokeswoman Rebecca Trexler. "They don't miss."

[edew]

Well, at the moment, they don't exist yet. Of course, once they're on board and after years of no incidences, we'll see how much the airlines are willing to keep paying them top dollars.

Look, there are better ways to prevent hijackings by doig due diligence prior to boarding. The current rules they have now, with some additional corrections AND CONTINUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES will be able to handle the problem for the most part. Just realize that there is no panacea. If there is a process, there is a way to break it. It's like fencing, you got a great parry? Then there's an attack that can exploit it.