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

[cekim]

You don't rise to the level of your expectations, you fall to the level of your training.

You forgot to say "tap-tap-bang-bang... gotogo...."



To what level you rise or fall is not just training but character, personality, etc...

It's a much more complex problem than instinct alone can predict... As I've said elsewhere and experienced myself, there are many people who perform well under duress who lack anything you might identify as "training." In some cases they do have prior experience generically dealing with stress, but bottom line, there are a whole lot of people you would not predict to come out well against an experienced attacker, disaster, accident, etc... who do anyway...

My theory is that those that come through without intensive training are people who've either experienced serious "flight or fight" situations or they are just naturally predisposed to "keeping their head."

What .MIL/LEO do is ensure that "predisposition" is not required to react well (and they should), but I think this has created something of a myth that you need intensive training to have any chance of being useful.

I view it as a probability - you have a much higher probability of responding well with training and up to some point of diminishing returns, more training is better. However, the probability with less training is never zero and thus it is not for you or anyone else to say that I am precluded from having a chance to survive because my probability may be lower than yours...

I'll pee in my pants or die trying on my own terms thanks - not your decision to make...

To rephrase your argument in an intentionally inflammatory way to make a point - "you don't have a chance, so why let you try?" Sorry, that won't fly with me (pun intended).

 

[lupis42]

I'll pee in my pants or die trying on my own terms thanks - not your decision to make...

You'd have to be very continent to die trying to pee your pants...

On a serious note, very well said.

 

[law dawg]

also, when you are in a plane, you are pretty helpless. you have no guns, they have control of the plane, 99% of people cant fly a plane. in other words, they got you by the balls. And if they crash it, they kill all passengers and people in the building or houses they hit.

Thats why pilots should never open their door, and should have guns as a last resort. They are responsible for 100s of passengers, you might as well give them a gun.

Quite a few of them have one.

 

[law dawg]

Very well put, and this was exactly the reasoning that I was trying to convey a few pages back when everyone disagreed with me on the fact that people will resort back to their instincts, which are not appropriate to survive in combat - unless you have trained to make that your instinct! The truth is that almost no one is willing to die, and that is exactly the mindset needed when facing adversaries on that level. Like you pointed out the "bum rush" theory is completely impractical too, just based on the logistics of seating, communication (to actually coordinate the effort), etc.

Thanks for staying in this discussion, because inmo, you are really the only person who is actually qualified to do more than speculate on this subject.

My pleasure. It's a urbane discussion, very pleasant and interesting points of view.

 

[law dawg]

You forgot to say "tap-tap-bang-bang... gotogo...."

LOL

To what level you rise or fall is not just training but character, personality, etc...

Do you believe this is trainable? Can you train character and personality?

It's a much more complex problem than instinct alone can predict... As I've said elsewhere and experienced myself, there are many people who perform well under duress who lack anything you might identify as "training." In some cases they do have prior experience generically dealing with stress, but bottom line, there are a whole lot of people you would not predict to come out well against an experienced attacker, disaster, accident, etc... who do anyway...

Grossman estimates somewhere around 20% of people will respond innately. How effectively they respond (personally, group cohesion, etc.) is up for discussion, but they will respond.

20% is not a lot. Which is why, like I said, the military and LE spend so much time and money scenario training.

What .MIL/LEO do is ensure that "predisposition" is not required to react well (and they should), but I think this has created something of a myth that you need intensive training to have any chance of being useful.

Kind of like the "myth" that range training will make you a better shot? Do you need intensive firearms range training to be successful? If not, why do it? Play HALO instead.

I view it as a probability - you have a much higher probability of responding well with training and up to some point of diminishing returns, more training is better. However, the probability with less training is never zero and thus it is not for you or anyone else to say that I am precluded from having a chance to survive because my probability may be lower than yours...

Where, exactly, did I posit this?

I'll pee in my pants or die trying on my own terms thanks - not your decision to make...

Never claimed it was mine to make.

To rephrase your argument in an intentionally inflammatory way to make a point - "you don't have a chance, so why let you try?" Sorry, that won't fly with me (pun intended).

End of the day, the government has the right to decide what happens in its airspace. If they want planes armed, they will. If they want them disarmed, they will. I personally agree with no arms in that space due to my reasons laid out before, but my phone ain't exactly ringing off the hook with people wanting my opinion either.

 

[lupis42]

End of the day, the government has the power to decide what happens in its airspace.

Just because they can, doesn't make it right.

 

[cflshooter]

Law dawg,
Getting a little away from the topics that have discussed to death...I was curious whether a FAM ever carry two handguns to give them the option to "deputize" a private citizen on the plane who may have some weapons training to assist the FAM in killing the hijackers and taking back the plane? Say you were the only FAM on that flight and the plane was jacked by 3-4 terrorists with handguns AND you felt you had time to find a "deputy"...would you do it? You could use your trained profiling skills to try to id someone who may have weapons training. If going alone had very low chance of success would you ever enlist another guy to help you and give him your second gun? There are many brave Americans out there (and here on Nes) who would do this and many who under your lead could make the difference between taking the plane back or not. obviously if the answer would inappropriately reveal your practices or methods then of course ignore my question.

 

[cekim]

LOL


Do you believe this is trainable? Can you train character and personality?

To a degree, but that wasn't my point. Habits can be broken, personality traits can be changed by force of will and repetition, but the point is that response to extreme stress is/need not entirely about training and repetition of muscular response...

If all you had was muscle memory - you are in trouble. A key factor to surviving danger is remaining calm enough to adapt to the situation. If the situation is a bridge falling on your head - ok, then muscle memory wins hands down... You gotta start running and run fast ASAP...

If the situation is another human being, their activity has to be observed evaluated and you have to react to it.

Some large part of that is of course muscle memory as anyone who has trained in a martial art can attest - not having to "think" about how you respond to any given movement of your opennent is a good thing. However, there is another part that is strategy - higher order thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead. I'll get him to do X which will leave him open to Y...

That's where being able to "think" with adrenaline coursing through your body is a good thing. Some people need training to continue thinking, some people do not. Some people cannot "think" in that condition no matter what you do... It's a spectrum of capability like any other aspect of human behavior.

Kind of like the "myth" that range training will make you a better shot? Do you need intensive firearms range training to be successful? If not, why do it? Play HALO instead.

Actually, this gets right to my point - at self defense distances "marksmanship" often does not come into play - that's how many of the under-trained get by just fine.

Where, exactly, did I posit this?

Never claimed it was mine to make.

I am taking your statement about "99% of the time" to its extreme in your argument that there is no rational argument for allowing people to have weapons on planes because they won't be able to do any good anyways...

End of the day, the government has the right to decide what happens in its airspace.

There I disagree - first in that government owns this airspace or has rights at all...

Government has powers, responsibilities and above all limitations, but nothing I would call a right...

 

[law dawg]

Law dawg,
Getting a little away from the topics that have discussed to death...I was curious whether a FAM ever carry two handguns to give them the option to "deputize" a private citizen on the plane who may have some weapons training to assist the FAM in killing the hijackers and taking back the plane? Say you were the only FAM on that flight and the plane was jacked by 3-4 terrorists with handguns AND you felt you had time to find a "deputy"...would you do it? You could use your trained profiling skills to try to id someone who may have weapons training. If going alone had very low chance of success would you ever enlist another guy to help you and give him your second gun? There are many brave Americans out there (and here on Nes) who would do this and many who under your lead could make the difference between taking the plane back or not. obviously if the answer would inappropriately reveal your practices or methods then of course ignore my question.

No sir. That's not allowed.

 

[law dawg]

Just because they can, doesn't make it right.

I'm confused - is it an issue of whether or not a government can control it airspace? Or the actual legality of how it is doing so?

 

[Jose]

Yep, passengers are helpless sheep. So says the lawr.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/turkish_airlines_hijack_attempt_W9tXROzl99Uw7jyv2y28KN

 

[Terminator03]

No sir. That's not allowed.

Is that a rock solid "rule"? That was an interesting question, and got me thinking about a scenario where (let's say for example) one FAM was severely injured, or killed, and the odds were stacked against one guy successfully gaining control of the plane back again. Once again, this is all hypothetical, but interesting to ponder nonetheless.

 

[drgrant]

Is that a rock solid "rule"? That was an interesting question, and got me thinking about a scenario where (let's say for example) one FAM was severely injured, or killed, and the odds were stacked against one guy successfully gaining control of the plane back again. Once again, this is all hypothetical, but interesting to ponder nonetheless.

On a typical airplane you're not going to have enough time to do that. Once the shooting starts either the bad guys are dead or the good guys are dead in a short period of time. This isn't like "Air force One" where every plane is a 747 and there are compartments for guys to hide out in.

-Mike

 

[Terminator03]

On a typical airplane you're not going to have enough time to do that. Once the shooting starts either the bad guys are dead or the good guys are dead in a short period of time. This isn't like "Air force One" where every plane is a 747 and there are compartments for guys to hide out in.

-Mike

Yeah, I suppose you are probably right, but it still was intriguing to ponder - at least to me...

 

[lupis42]

I'm confused - is it an issue of whether or not a government can control it airspace? Or the actual legality of how it is doing so?

I have an issue with the idea that it is right or acceptable for the government to require the disarming of free people in order for them to use a privately owned and operated conveyance.

I also take issue with the idea that the government owns the airspace.

 

[Terminator03]

I have an issue with the idea that it is right or acceptable for the government to require the disarming of free people in order for them to use a privately owned and operated conveyance.

I also take issue with the idea that the government owns the airspace.

Well the problem there is that you would want them to defend that airspace, would you not? Me thinks you can't have it both ways.

 

[cekim]

Well the problem there is that you would want them to defend that airspace, would you not? Me thinks you can't have it both ways.

The government defends your property rights without owning your house do they not?

 

[law dawg]

Yep, passengers are helpless sheep. So says the lawr.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/turkish_airlines_hijack_attempt_W9tXROzl99Uw7jyv2y28KN

Again, bullshit hijacking without using violence. The real test comes when people are dead and dying in the aisles, screaming and people have to jump up, with no plan, no coordination, and leap into remarkable action.

Thats a far cry from some guy making threats. Big difference.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do. But two decades have shown me the overwhelming majority of people crumble under that kind of stress. LEOs included. It's just those with training are less likely to than those without.

 

[law dawg]

I have an issue with the idea that it is right or acceptable for the government to require the disarming of free people in order for them to use a privately owned and operated conveyance.

I also take issue with the idea that the government owns the airspace.

No govt presence on border, either? Does the govt have the right to patrol it?

Anyone can fly a plane over, say, the White House who chooses?

Domination of airspace is military 101. no industrialized nation let's its airspace be unmonitored.

 

[law dawg]

The government defends your property rights without owning your house do they not?

Can your house be used like a missle?

 

[law dawg]

Anyway, this horse is beyond dead. Bowing out now. Just wanted to add my worthless opinion to the mix.

Laters, all. Back to lurking.

 

[cekim]

Anyway, this horse is beyond dead. Bowing out now. Just wanted to add my worthless opinion to the mix.

Laters, all. Back to lurking.

Eh, no mater what I say, air travel is a difficult one to balance the freedom we require with the danger of bad (or stupid) people being able to kill so many with relative ease... It will never be an easy question to answer - though I am sure the least worst answer is no anything close to what we have now...