• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Air Marshals -- Something to think about besides the TSA...

JimConway said:
The entire group of 4,000 Air Marshals makes 4 arrests per year.

Not 4 per Air Marshall -- 4 TOTAL.

That's roughly $200 million dollars PER ARREST.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/the_effectivene.html
Click to expand...
And how many of those were an actual "threat" to the flight?

As I've said, there's some reasonable amount of security, but we are light years past that point in our attempt to stop something with the statistical probability less than a lightning strike. Much as I am unwilling to remain inside for the rest of my life to avoid lightning, but certainly will get out of the water when its close, I am unwilling to be treated like a criminal to pretend we are stopping terrorism when in fact at best we are creating soft targets for them in the form of security lines...

Planes have become yet another "gun free zone" with all the bad that comes with it. That's what we need to stop...
 
Yeah, most of their arrests are fruit loops are drunks, more than likely, not adbumutullabs. (or however you spell that guy's name. )

-Mike
 
They're not there to make arrests. They are the second to last line of defense (the last being the reinforced cockpit door and/or armed pilots).
 
M1911 said:
They're not there to make arrests. They are the second to last line of defense (the last being the reinforced cockpit door and/or armed pilots).
Click to expand...

Like the TSA, their primary purpose is to help ensure that the first line of defense is completely unarmed.

Ken
 
M1911 said:
They're not there to make arrests. They are the second to last line of defense (the last being the reinforced cockpit door and/or armed pilots).
Click to expand...

Statistically speaking the passengers will be far more likely to be the that 2nd to last line of defense, especially on a domestic flight. The majority of air incidents are dealt with by passengers and the
flight crew. I don't think there are enough FAMs to really be effective, although if I was going to make a WAG they probably use them on international flights more often than anything else.

This is nothing against FAMs, it's just a reality check. The passengers awareness, and the reinforced doors, and pilots potentially being armed, are worth more than all the other crap the government has done for air security put together. The screening and all that crap is a joke. It's a placebo to make people "feel good" about getting on an airplane or some crap like that. [laugh]

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
This is nothing against FAMs, it's just a reality check. The passengers awareness, and the reinforced doors, and pilots potentially being armed, are worth more than all the other crap the government has done for air security put together. The screening and all that crap is a joke. It's a placebo to make people "feel good" about getting on an airplane or some crap like that. [laugh]
Click to expand...
I think a good summary of the current situation is "how's that working out for you?"

Lots of money, few if any results...

Time to think about plan B...
 
Air Marshals are in an entirely different group than TSA for me and I can't get too upset about Air Marshals only making 4 arrests.

TSA uses invasive, silly and demonstrably ineffective screening techniques to dis-arm normal citizens and Bad Guys (hopefully).
Air Marshals ride in random flights to interdict hi-jacking attempts and other disruptions.

To me, Air Marshals is more like insurance - We all buy it hoping to never use it but glad its there if something were to happen. I mean, we have each bought/own guns, many carry every day but how many of us will ever need to use one in self defense ? And if we do, which day ?, On which trip to the market will it be ??? No one can tell - so the advice is Be Prepared, Always Carry.

My angst with Air Marshal program is that 4000 Marshals can cover only a miniscule percent of the daily flights.... Likely even with heavy analysis of flight data (Plane size, fuel load,etc), No-Fly lists, Passenger Profiling etc, they won't be on the right flight at the right time. Still, we all have to wrestle with how much insurance to buy.

IMHO - Keep the Air Marshals, Get rid of TSA.
 
cekim said:
I think a good summary of the current situation is "how's that working out for you?"

Lots of money, few if any results...

Time to think about plan B...
Click to expand...
If FAMs were arresting a bunch of terrorists on the flights, that would mean that the rest of the system wasn't working.

You can argue that the FAM system isn't worth the money it costs. But to argue that it isn't working because they aren't arresting people simply isn't logical. Air security uses a layered defense. If the inner layers are being used all the time, that means that the outer layers are broken.

The "logic" behind this thread could be used to say "the reinforced cockpit doors haven't prevented anyone from breaking into the cockpits so they are a waste of money."
 
I think they're there more for the intimidation factor that if you're thinking about doing something stupid on a plane like hijacking it, you might be on a plane with an armed guard. Its almost like they're a deterrent because there may or may not be one on board.

This post isn't about whether they're effective or efficient. That is another opinion of my that I don't care to discuss.
 
Ever see an air marshal on a flight? Last summer I boarded a plane to find a mid 30's guy wearing a cheap blazer on a day with the temps in the 90's already sitting in the aisle seat. He proceeded to squirm and tug on his lapel. He was a bit overweight and the jacket was tight, when he got up to use the restroom, I caught a flash of a holster. It was like they called Central Casting and said "get me a typical air marshal, a chubby white guy with short hair and a cheap suit jacket".

At least dress these guys like passengers in 2011, not the mid 70's.
 
drgrant said:
Statistically speaking the passengers will be far more likely to be the that 2nd to last line of defense, especially on a domestic flight. The majority of air incidents are dealt with by passengers and the
flight crew. I don't think there are enough FAMs to really be effective, although if I was going to make a WAG they probably use them on international flights more often than anything else.
Click to expand...

+1

while FAM are a nice "luxury" in the post 911 world even 10 years later anybody who starts acting up on an airplane or a non gun wielding hijacker is going to get taken down hard by the mob... because everyone knows on that plane what the consequenses will be if they DONT take action
 
rep308 said:
Ever see an air marshal on a flight? Last summer I boarded a plane to find a mid 30's guy wearing a cheap blazer on a day with the temps in the 90's already sitting in the aisle seat. He proceeded to squirm and tug on his lapel. He was a bit overweight and the jacket was tight, when he got up to use the restroom, I caught a flash of a holster. It was like they called Central Casting and said "get me a typical air marshal, a chubby white guy with short hair and a cheap suit jacket".

At least dress these guys like passengers in 2011, not the mid 70's.
Click to expand...

I have a friend in town who was a FAM. One of the reasons he left was what you have mentioned. Many of the FAMs wanted to dress less conspicuously but their requests were not granted. He now seems much happier in a physical labor job where he is home with his family every night.
 
rep308 said:
At least dress these guys like passengers in 2011, not the mid 70's.
Click to expand...
This was a big bone of contention between the FAMs and their bosses. IIRC, the fellow in charge of the FAMs at one point was ex-Secret Service and required FAMs to wear jackets and ties. But hardly anyone wears a jacket and tie anymore on a plane, and the FAMs were BS about it, for the very reasons that you point out. I don't know if this ever got resolved.
 
cekim said:
Among various options, I'd much rather moving TSA's resources to FAM as well...
Click to expand...

+1. We were discussing this the other evening in a party and a friend asked, "so if they did fire, wouldn't it cause a hole in the plane and cause a problem? Thoughts anyone (sorry if this is thread drift)...


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
piman said:
+1. We were discussing this the other evening in a party and a friend asked, "so if they did fire, wouldn't it cause a hole in the plane and cause a problem? Thoughts anyone (sorry if this is thread drift)...
Click to expand...
Not this old chestnut. Again.

No, the plane won't experience explosive decompression because of a bullet hole or three in the skin.

Don't you think the FAMs have spent more than a little bit of time thinking about this?
 
rep308 said:
Ever see an air marshal on a flight? Last summer I boarded a plane to find a mid 30's guy wearing a cheap blazer on a day with the temps in the 90's already sitting in the aisle seat. He proceeded to squirm and tug on his lapel. He was a bit overweight and the jacket was tight, when he got up to use the restroom, I caught a flash of a holster. It was like they called Central Casting and said "get me a typical air marshal, a chubby white guy with short hair and a cheap suit jacket".

At least dress these guys like passengers in 2011, not the mid 70's.
Click to expand...

There was one on my flight to Honolulu two weeks ago. Except I noticed the holster up at the gate lol
 
piman said:
...so if they did fire, wouldn't it cause a hole in the plane and cause a problem?...
Click to expand...

As M1911 said, no...

Episode 10: Explosive Decompression

Explosive decompression can occur when a bullet is fired through the fuselage of a pressurized airplane, causing the hole to grow dramatically and possibly cause the plane to break up as seen in movies.

BUSTED

The pressure is not high enough and the hole is too small. Explosive decompression only occurred when a hole the size of a window was made with explosives. Even then, the rush of air could not suck Buster completely out of the hole. Lastly, there are proven instances of explosive decompression where the plane was still able to maintain control and land.

(This myth was revisited in episode 38 and it was re-busted.)
Click to expand...

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode10



Episode 38: MythBusters Revisited

REVISITED: Explosive decompression can occur when a bullet is fired through the fuselage of a pressurized airplane (From Episode 10)

RE-BUSTED

The Build Team tested the effect of air rushing past an open bullet hole, and surmised that the extra internal pressure caused by this would still not be enough to cause an explosive decompression.
Click to expand...

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38
 
M1911 said:
Not this old chestnut. Again.

No, the plane won't experience explosive decompression because of a bullet hole or three in the skin.

Don't you think the FAMs have spent more than a little bit of time thinking about this?
Click to expand...

Huh??

Who was the brilliant person that said a 1 inch hole at 14 psi cabin pressure and cruising altitude wouldn't turn into a 10 foot hole? Haven't you ever wondered why when there is a problem on the flight, the first order of business to to get under 10,000 and depressurize to 1 psi?

Bottom line here, if you shoot a hole through the skin at cruising altitude, you will cause serious problems for that flight if not bring it down entirely. Never you mind that it's actually my job to figure out stuff like this.
 
M1911 said:
...
Don't you think the FAMs have spent more than a little bit of time thinking about this?
Click to expand...

To be honest, that's the line we used to reassure ourselves. However is any of this published? Any special ammo used, eg like the frangible stuff they insist on at the sig academy?


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
KMaurer said:
Like the TSA, their primary purpose is to help ensure that the first line of defense is completely unarmed.

Ken
Click to expand...

I would respectfully disagree. There is little doubt (especially here) that TSA's only practical function is security theater. The FAM's, on the other hand, serve the function of (if the situation were to occur) actually intervening with, and hopefully resolving, an incident/attempt/whatever. Enormous difference. Illusory prevention vs. practical, actual intervention.
 
MConnelly2 said:
I would respectfully disagree. There is little doubt (especially here) that TSA's only practical function is security theater. The FAM's, on the other hand, serve the function of (if the situation were to occur) actually intervening with, and hopefully resolving, an incident/attempt/whatever. Enormous difference. Illusory prevention vs. practical, actual intervention.
Click to expand...
Both are Illusory unless there were significantly more marshals in the air...

Better solution along this vein would be bonuses for training and armament of crew members...
 
I still wouldn't call it illusory. As far as I can figure, the ones we do have are perfectly effective. So the program may not have the coverage that it should, but what it does have is, to my mind, effective. Can't say the same for TSA.
 
MConnelly2 said:
I still wouldn't call it illusory. As far as I can figure, the ones we do have are perfectly effective. So the program may not have the coverage that it should, but what it does have is, to my mind, effective. Can't say the same for TSA.
Click to expand...
Well, it did nothing to stop 4 planes from being brought down... [sad2]

Based on the arrest record, its not doing much outside that event either...

I think it safe to call that "illusory."

To be clear, I really do think we should do more to get people on the plan who can do something other than apologize for our corrupt and morally bankrupt western ways. Marshals, trained crew, CCW, etc...

At the end of the day, WRT to a terrorist event, this is very likely a lot of sound and fury as they will look elsewhere for their next target/method of inducing terror. So, we are busy caulking the window while the door is still wide open...
 
If there were Air Marshals on those 4 planes, do you think they'd have been effective in intervening and preventing the outcome we saw?

(I think we're on the same page, just reading it differently)
 
Get rid of air marshals, TSA, and government intrusion into a private business. Let the airlines decide if people on their flights can be armed or not. Then patronize the ones who let you. I don't see the downside.
 

Similar threads

I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
671
chris_1001
chris_1001
Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
535
houdini
houdini
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
648
groundscrapers
G
what do you all think about plastering your vehicle with pro-gun stickers?
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
2K
Sterg
Sterg
How Democrats Think Suppressors Work
Replies
9
Views
368
Nightshift
Nightshift
Back
Top Bottom