h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Thoroughly Trained
Thoroughly Checked
Does not interfere with normal flight procedures as we have come to know them.
Just as we have come to expect there is security at even the most benign locations, which give consumers and business owners and employees some peace of mind - there should be
security trained to deal with situations big and small, present on board commercial flights. No need to outfit him or her in plumage.
Baked, though evidently not thoroughly enough.
http://www.faa.gov/...t/2000/fact4Aug.htm
If flights resume today, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Air Marshals are on every flight for some time. [beauxeault, Sep 12 2001, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This is commonplace (if not de rigueur) in Pakistan (and doubtless other places), where the hijacking of aircraft is relatively commonplace. They are, apparently highly effective.
Of course they cost money - not only their salary, but also a business class aisle seat per flight. Balancing cost against safety is an inescapable part of running an airline, and I'm sure it must be very difficult for those making the decisions, not least when things go drastically wrong.
In terms of improving the security on American domestic flights, then an increase in airport security to match that of international flights would probably pay dividends. |
|
| |
Yes, giving up a seat must be an agonizing proposition for an airline. Businesses with tight profit margins have considerations such as this to help balance the books and their own flawed sense of justification. They should be able to make up for losses incurred by having security aboard (money well spent) in relation to meager portions of in-flight meals (money saved) in comparison with a few years ago. |
|
| |
One business class seat surrendered for safety would be a minimum, IMO. Better two: one for the armed guard, one for the attack dog. Then just serve popcorn and champagne … there's the food savings. |
|
| |
unabubba - do you particularly want to keep diabetics off planes and if so why? do you envy them for their "excuse" to snack constantly? |
|
| |
PeterSealy, there exist technologies to make weapons one-user only. They don't work well for police, as they require a clean fingerprint and a little time, but if an Air Marshal gets a moment... |
|
| |
I never suggested gunpowder weapons - given their destructive force should a round penetrate jet walls which would therefore send cabin pressure and the occupants thereof into peril.
Perhaps military personnel in formal dress sans weapons may be the best deterrent while utilizing their hand to hand combat skills. |
|
| |
There are gunpowder weapons that are safe for airplanes. Glaser Safety Slugs were specifically designed for this. Then there are dart guns, tasers, etc. |
|
| |
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are currently putting Mounties on each flight in Canada for the time being. |
|
| |
Yeah StarMan - that's right - I've seen specs on those things too - Are the Mounties in full dress? I could look it up - but I rather enjoy our dialogue. |
|
| |
Do the mounties take their horses on the flights too? Yay! (If not....why the heck are they still called mounties?) |
|
| |
this is baked.. don't recall the name (air marshalls?) but has been baked for years.. i'll try to look up some link but i could swear to it.. [later] right, what bx. said... |
|
| |
Certainly it has been baked, but it wasn't on 3 flights on a day of infamy in September. |
|
| |
Any question that begins 'why don't they' is always answered by 'money'. |
|
| |
Air marshals take up a spot on the plane that isn't being paid for, thus lowering the airlines' profits. Used to be, not having them wasn't that big a deal... |
|
| |
<I applied to be an air marshal, but was turned down...> |
|
| |
How about un-armed under cover airmarshalls who are trained to be able to kill in say 1 move with their hands - a number of martial arts styles cover this. Then make it generally known that any attempt to hijack a plane will lead to either a)immediate elimination or b) attempted elimination from a trained individual in an unexpected direction.
The loss of one or two terrorists lives is prefferable to the alternative. |
|
| |
As it is - pilots & steward(esse)s are now receiving training. |
|
| |
Replace flight attendants (the PC form of "stewardesses") with security guards- or train and arm (non-lethat weapons) the flight attendants. |
|
| |