This topic has come up a couple of times in the airport fingerprinting thread and it's in the news a lot in Britain. (Plus I'm flying to Sharm el Sheik next week... )

The pilots union is meeting with the goverment at the moment with an air of resignation that marshals are going to be imposed. Personally the idea doesn't sit well with me. I suspect the hardest part of committing a terrorist act on a plane is getting a weapon on board. Armed air marshals solve this problem. It would only take a slip in the vetting process for the marshals or the wrong reaction to a situation on board to create a disaster.
Certainly the majority of pilots in Britain and their union are opposed. pilots opposition
BA and Thomas Cook have both said that if there is suspicion that the flight could be a terrorist target then they'd rather cancel the flight than allow air marshals on board.

news report

Topic for debate: Do you think that the deployment of Air Marshals decreases or increases the chance of a successful terrorist attack?
Also, do you personally feel safer knowing there is an armed air marshal on the flight and if so why?

It decreases the likelihood. In just the same vein, I would think that knowing that people on board are going to beat the crap out of the hijackers and not take their word that "cooperate and nothing will happen" has also deterred them.

Actually, I feel safer NOT knowing whether there's an armed marshall on the flight. The uncertainty is actually more comforting, because it also puts a question in the heads of the hijackers that might further deter them.

I think Amf hits it on the head here.

Smuggling the weapon is not the real concern.

Take 9/11, the "weapons" were box cutters. Not exactly life threatening in any real sense. But since the passengers had been familiar with hijackings and the subsequent release of the hijacked passengers, on 3 out of the 3 flights the passengers did nothing. The fourth only acted after hearing of the fate of the WTC. How far do you think a few men with knives (or box cutters, or tweezers ) would make it today?

I think the heightened sense of awareness is the greatest deterence/prevention. Even a guy with a gun cannot really keep an entire flight at bay if they feel they are going to die anyway.

The marshalls are a deterent to even attempting a hijacking. The passengers' awareness is the key to preventing a repeat of a 9/11 type attack.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for air mashals. It seems to me that they will not deter suicide attackers who plan to die anyway, which are the type that are the cause of the move towards air marshals anyway.

If a terrorist can threaten an explosive device on board, how will air mashals help? Is every one of them going to be on the ball enough to stop someone pulling a pin out of a grenade? Remember, many flights overfly urban areas - the airports themselves have to be reasonably near to them to be worthwhile for serving them - and an airliner exploding a couple of thousand feet above London or New York or DC is going to cause almost as much damage and death as it would if it were deliberately flown into a building there.

And I'm worried that our rush to put them on all flights and government reluctance to put them under pilot control means we'll see more cases of wrongful shooting of drunks, or people who are just scared of flying and panic, than of documented instances where air marshals have prevented terror incidents.

Plus let us remember that all the 9-11 planes were hijacked domestic flights inside the USA so all the new fingerprinting and photography and air marshals on incoming international flights would not have stopped them.

I think it's a mistake to look at the Air Marshal program by itself in the context of providing all of the security on board airliners. It's just one piece of the overall TSA system, and indeed, perhaps the last ditch measure when the rest of the system has failed. I don't think it's a valid argument to say things like if a terrorist gets on an airplane with a hand grenade the air marshal program has failed because he can blow up the plane before he gets shot. Something like that happens and the system has failed. It is valid to say that if a terrorist(s) manage to sneak on board with plastic knives and start threatening to kill people unless they are given control of the airplane, then an air marshal has a good chance of removing that threat.




I know of no cases where an air marshal has shot a drunk or frightened flyer. Just recently three of them subdued a paroled convict on a flight from Hawaii who went nuts, but they didn't shoot him. Julian, I know a couple of people who are air marshals and believe me, they aren't some kind of gun happy cowboys out flying around hoping they get to shoot someone today. They are highly-trained law enforcement professionals who have a great deal of experience at dealing with violent people without the use of deadly force and that's normally what they do. If you get drunk on a flight and start messing with people, you're going to have a really bad day, but you won't get killed unless you become an immediate threat to someone's life.

Fair enough, Aquilla, but US air marshals have historically (and their history isn't very long is it? Were there ANY before 9-11-01?) only really dealt with American passengers.

Cutlural norms are different for different nationalities, and now US air marshals will be faced with a great many more foreigners than they have seen until now. Europeans, for example, tend to drink more than Americans, particularly when heading off on vacation. This is especially true for us Brits - nothing to be proud of, I'm sure, but nothing to be shot for either. Nor are we used to the idea that someone might be carrying a gun - a lary Brit is more likely start a fight because they'll be more likely to assume the other person is unarmed.

Plus, my understanding is that not all flights will carry marshals, and that not all the air marshals will be American, just that airlines will have to meet certain recruitment criteria if they want to fly to the USA. It's fresh in UK minds, but some people here have already speculated how long it might be before a journalist manages to be recruited to work as an air marshal (recently British hacks got into both the police force and the Royal household, both of which have supposedly stringent security checks).

If this is the case, what's to stop a terrorist getting a job as an air marshal? Or even a team getting to be on the same flight by assuming the identities of the real marshals? Stranger things have happened, after all.

Ultimately, you can do what you like to people in your own sovereign territory, so you can fingerprint and photograph tourists as much as you like. What you aren't doing (yet again) by insisting on air marshals and lengthy security checks on inbound flights at the outbound end is taken into account the feelings of anyone other than Americans.

So far, reaction to the increased security measures concerning travel to the USA indicates that nobody else feels any more secure through their introduction, and a significant and vocal number feel rather less secure. (By, for example, putting guns in places where there were none before.) But America doesn't seem to care, because, it seems, only American security is valuable, and if making Americans feel cosy and safe comes at the cost of making everyone else feel frightened and less safe - well, that's okay, because nobody who is not an American really matters.

I don't personally believe that very many Americans, inside or outside the administration, think this way, but it's increasingly clear to me that this is a very easy conclusion to draw from current American behaviour.

Yes, I think Air Marshals increase security. I would feel safer with one or more on board. I'd feel safest of all if I knew they were on board but no one else did; that uncertainty factor is a good thing.

But I have an even better idea that would make Air Marshals redundant: instead of trying to disarm the passengers, arm them all. Pass out weapons as the passengers board, say .38 revolves with safe frangible ammo that won't pierce the skin of the plane. Collect them at the end of the flight. Think anybody would attempt to hijack a plane under those circumstances?

(I'm only half serious with that idea, but it does make a good point. Sometimes the obvious way is wrong and the best solution is counterintuitive.)

Topic for debate: Do you think that the deployment of Air Marshals decreases or increases the chance of a successful terrorist attack?
Also, do you personally feel safer knowing there is an armed air marshal on the flight and if so why?


There are many pros and cons on the implementation of Air Marshals from all sides. Nevertheless...

From a terrorist leader's viewpoint, the fact that Air Marshals could be aboard planes (in addition to other security systems put in place on the ground), may give them second thoughts about the reality of success in the air...why risk the chance of being exposed for a doomed mission?

Not all potential "weapons" (broadly used) are being confiscated from passengers boarding our planes. Having Air Marshals is a good back up for extreme circumstances and only time will tell whether it is a good or bad idea.

Although I was a frequent flyer years ago, I haven't flown in the past few years. And, if I have a choice between flying and driving now, it would be the latter not because of terrorist threats but because I don't have the will or the patience for all of the extra time needed and the lines for security checks. Let me be quick to add...although my will and patience are short in this area...I am 100% behind the security efforts to make our air travel safer.

Decreases. Obvious reasons.



Yep. Knowing there is a guy with a gun who can put a bullet into a terrorists' head if he shouts "I have a bomb"

I need those obvious reasons expanding on. Especially when a clear majority of British pilots don't agree.

Maybe it is a cultural thing, Britian doesn't have a gun culture. We aren't used to seeing them. Our Police don't carry them and we're not allowed to own them for any reason. So there presence makes us feel very uncomfortable. It certainly makes me feel uncomfortable.

Two areas of concern for me are one - the vetting process for air marshals. It only takes one slip up or lack of care taken over recruitment for this to happen. As Julian pointed out the papers have recently shown us that this can happen. Also what if a long serving air marshall has a breakdown on the plane? Or is going through a hard time and overreacts to a situation?

The second is that you have a gun on board. Now that's been done all the terrorists have to do is get it. There could be many ways to do this and the reaction of the air marshall may not always be the correct one. Imagine (not nice i know) if a terrorist gets hold of someones child and demands the gun or he'll kim him. Would every air marshall stand firm or would one of them give him the gun? If the terrorists kills the child and then grabs another the air marshall wouldn't have to just deal with the terrorists wanting him to hand over the gun but the parents as well. And there's not many more unstoppable forces in this world than a parent whose child is in danger.

I just can't help feeling that putting a gun on the plane adds a very dangerous variable to the equation. I'd rather take the approach that BA want which is if there is a security threat then don't fly.

This was a point I was going to make. We know that the 9-11 craft had 6 hijackers each. If this were to continue to be true, one guy could get up and start to harass other passengers, when the Air Marshal reveals himself the other 5 rushes and wrestle the gun from him. They all know they will die for their cause so even if the marshal can take one or two out he will not get them all.

Placing an Air Marshal on a plane just lets the terrorist know there is a gun aboard they can use to take over the plane with.

You're assuming that the gun's handle doesn't have a fingerprint lock-out mechanism.

You're also assuming that the passengers won't help beat the crap out of the hijackers. That's not a good bet right now.

Then why need Air Marshalls?

Question, if hijackers can't take control of the plane, and reasonably can't get a gun aboard; what makes the Air Marshall necessary? If someone isn't afraid to die, how does the THREAT of being shot deter them?

Even though they may not be afraid to die, chances are that they also don't want to fail their "mission", whatever it may be. Otherwise, why do it? The possibility of being shot before being able to carry out their mission might be a deterrence.

Then there is the additional problem, having a gun onboard an aircraft means that the chance of gunplay goes up vastly. Even the most modern aircraft's windows are not bulletproof, and a stray shot can easily cause sudden loss of cabin pressure.

Speaking to my uncle who is a pilot, loss of a window can mean inconvenience or it can mean disaster. There have been instances in the past where the sudden loss of a window causes that whole section of the bulkhead to blow out, seriously damaging the integrity of the plane. Generally speaking, a good pilot can handle a sudden loss of pressure, assuming he can concentrate on the controls, and is not distracted say by gunplay or terrorists.

Lastly, please remember that the vast majority of hijackings are NOT to drive an aircraft into a building, but are to go somewhere or get money. In those cases it has long been much safer to comply, and let the hijackers go where they want, rather than risk a shootout at 31,000 feet.

US Air Marshall's carry ammunition that is either frangible rounds or expanding rounds with light loads. This carries minimal risk for penetrating the skin of an aircraft. Though I would agree that windows may be at greater risk.


AHH, yes, this has been historically accurate. But I think we can agree that if an aircraft is hijacked by Islamic extremists, the goal will not be to land in Cuba and receive a boatload of cash or to release 'political prisoners'

This does not hold true if there are enough hijackers aboard.

As far as relying on passengers "beating the crap" out of the hijackers, I would not be so inclined to trust to that. Human nature calls for self-preservation. Lets say a hijacker does get a gun from a marshal and then holds the gun to the head of a six year old girl, are you the one who will attack the bad guy, or will nature take over making you wait for a more opportune time to jump in.

As far a fingerprint locks on the gun, I am not too sure about those, never heard of them before.

I don't see why Britons (or other non-US citizens) are so concerned about an armed law enforcement officer on an flight bound for the US. You can't deal with American law enforcement on the way here, but you can once you step off the plane onto American soil? Do Britons fear that the NYPD will shoot to kill for drunken behavior? If they do, I don't think I want them here anyway. The culture argument is also a little flakey because all cultures that have governments have one form of law enforcement or another. Whether from Western Europe, Asia, Mid East - so who would be in for a culture shock if there was law enforcement in the sky?

Also, I would imagine that the air marshall system would involve air marshalls from other countries as well - so if Britons want to keep up their tradition of unarmed law enforcement they can do so on Virgin and BA flights, but maybe AA will have armed marshalls and maybe Americans will feel more comfortable with that and thus fly AA. I honestly don't believe an air marshall is necessary, especially one with a gun, but I think the possibility of an air marshall on a flight has a positive affect. However, this notion may also interfere with the post-911 doctrine of passengers fighting for themselves if they wait around to see if an air marshall is going to act before they themselves do anything.

The other thing I don't subscribe to is the idea that the vetting process will not prevent terrorists from becoming air marshalls. If you're a terrorist and you have the ability to pass through such a process, why not become a pilot? You'd never have to deal with passengers fighting you - lock the door and point the nose down. The only deterrence against this is having a co-pilot which leads me to my next argument that air marshalls should be in pairs.

So I think randomly placed pairs air marshalls on both international and domestic flights will decrease the likelihood of terrorist trying anything old such as using crude weapons to take an entire plan hostage even though I know they don't fear death - but they do want do succeed.

It seems that Air Marshalls will decrease the chance of success of a terrorist attack for the simple reason that almost any security measure will reduce (by some marginal amount) the chance of success of a terrorist attack. It is one more element that must be accounted for and, hence, adds some level of complexity to the planning of any sort of operation. This is not to suggest that the Air Marshall program is the most effective method of protecting against terrorist actions on airplanes, nor that the amount of protection offsets the cost of the program. I suspect it will take some time to make informed judgement about these questions. I will say, however, that it's likely that the possibility of trained and armed law enforcement officers on a flight is a considerable complication and, while it may not deter terrorists out of fear, may make it harder to mount attacks and, thus, reduce attacks in number.

Terrorists can adapt to the presence of air marshalls. - Adaptation to security measures is a fact of life whether the security is for protecting airplanes from hijackers or protecting your home from burglars. Any security device can be accounted for and adapted to or worked around. This does not, however, suggest that these measures are useless. The power of security, it seems to me, lies in the combination of measures rather than in any single tool. As an analogy; when protecting your house, doors can be broken, locks cut, alarms shorted, and the police avoided, however all of these measures together make for a difficult time stealing your valuable collection of 19th century snuff boxes. The same is true for airline security. Air marshalls can be over-powered or blackmailed via hostages, metal detectors avoided or fooled, screenings skipped via the use of aliases, etc. But all of them together make it harder for a potential hijacker to do ill to passengers on a plane.

What is more important, to me, is the understanding of how air marshalls are to be used. I believe such officers are seen as the "last line of defense" rather than as the primary means of avoiding hijackings. I think it's fair to say that once a hijacker is on board an airplane, the battle is in great danger of being lost. That is even more true if the hijacker has managed to get explosives, a knife or a gun on board as well. Hence, an air marshall is a final chance at avoiding tragedy against poor odds. This thinking, it seems to me, answers, in part, the concerns around hijackers using force or trickery to get an air marshall's gun. A hijacker on a plane is dangerous, air marshall or no. The marginal increase in danger from overpowering a marshall (or marshalls, I believe they work in pairs or trios to avoid the tactic of one person creating a disturbance to lure out the marshall) seems small against the final chance to act against armed terrorists.

The pressure on foreign air carriers to allow the use of air marshalls is a more complicated issue. Certainly, it's reasonable to expect an appropriate level of security before allowing a carrier to use US airports and if air marshalls are particularly effective than I can understand the request. It seems, though, that any country should be careful about making demands like this on commercial ventures. What would happen, for example, the the UK government were to suddenly demand that US airlines begin profiling passengers for IRA ties before allowing them to fly (leaving aside the larger issues with profiling for the moment)? I'm less sure of the arguments listed here about cultural differences. I've only been living in Europe for the past 15 months or so (splitting time between the UK and Holland) but in that time I've seen armed UK police in the airports (my job requires me to fly weekly), the train stations, and even patrolling Oxford Street before Christmas. While I agree that many officers still patrol unarmed, the concept of the armed police officer is hardly unknown (at least in London) and, from what I could see checking in at Heathrow and shopping in Hamley's, didn't seem to be causing the locals a disproportionate amount of angst.

In all, I guess I think the air marshall program does decrease the chance of success of a terrorist attack and that seems a good thing in all. I'm not nearly informed enough to opine on the more specific issues of American law enforcement on foreign carriers and of the pilot's authority over an air marshall while the plane is in the air. I would think that these issues are details in how best to implement the air marshall program rather than fatal flaws in the program itself.

I did say uncomfortable not terrified. I'm not going to leap behind a bush the next time I see a copper with a gun What makes the difference is that the armed law officer is in enclosed an environment with hundreds of people tightly pack in a pressurized cabin flying at over 30,000 feet in the air. If a problem arises the potential for it becoming disastorous is greatly magnified.

I spoke to my cousin (who is a pilot flying out of London) about security and I have to say it's quite impressive, starting from the moment you buy the ticket to your first step on the plane. You and your luggage are intensively tracked and screened. I don't think you could get a gun or an explosive onboard a plane flying out of Briton. Thanks to the IRA we've been dealing with terrorists for a decades. I feel safe flying because I know there is not a gun on board. With an armed marshall I know there is a gun on board.

Even when security was lax the 9/11 terrorists only managed to get boxcutters on board. I do agree with those who think you won't be able to hijack a plane again. Now the rules have changed and your plane isn't just going to be diverted to some south american country but potentially flown into a building. Weighing up the risks I reckon passengers will tackle the terrorist knives or not.

The latest news in is that the US government is demanding that passengers are not allowed to queue for the toilets because of the threat it poses!

OK, so will sky marshalls be informed that they are only to use deadly force if the hijackers are wearing turbans, or if they inform the passengers that they are islamic fundamentalists?

Tongue in cheek, obviously, but my point remains, so far there have been four incidents of hijacking aircraft for suicide runs, and hundreds of hijackings for far more mundane reasons. I am not sure the threat of gunplay onboard an aircraft is worth the risk given that fact.

I agree with what you say on the surface. But what my point was, I think we have entered a new age of terrorism via aircraft. Gone are the days when if the passengers cooperated, chances were that the plane would be diverted to some neutral or hijacker friendly nation in exchange for money or political demands.

I think it's safe to say that from 9/11 onward, planes will be used on suicide missions to destroy national landmarks or seats of power. Terrorists also know that the US Air Force is now more likely to shoot down a hijacked plane for fear of the above happening.

And for reasons that have been expressed on this thread, terrorists may not always be arab in nature, so your tongue in cheek analogy probably won't hold true either.

They most certainly help, I wouldn't mind having a few on a flight that I took. I read a Newsweek article about some problems with them though. One air marshall left his gun in the lavratory, and a passenger had to inform a flight attendant about it. More than a few have been reported for abuse(one held a gun to a guy's head who took his parking spot in an airport garage) The only problems with them is that they might develop some kind of "god" complex and decide to become little Mussolinis on the plane. I believe that they are an unfortunate necessity-but I'd rather fly on Canadian, Irish, or German planes instead.

---------------------------
I don't see why Britons (or other non-US citizens) are so concerned about an armed law enforcement officer on an flight bound for the US. You can't deal with American law enforcement on the way here, but you can once you step off the plane onto American soil? Do Britons fear that the NYPD will shoot to kill for drunken behavior?
---------------------------

As a Briton and being honest - yes - I have been all over the world on business and wandering around NYC was by far the scariest place. The reason for that was the NYPD rather than the local criminals. The US is the only country in the world where I have had a gun pointed at me at a border crossing.

I hadn't even thought of them using the gun for petty retribution or just leaving it around. I assumed they'd all be highly proffesional.
Thanks nebraska29! You've confirmed my position. I now sincerely hope to never have to fly on a plane with an air marshall.

I think there are less than lethal weapons the air martial could carry on the plane to decrease the chances of a hull breach. Yes, the terrorists may have a gun, but a gun is just another type of weapon. A well trained Marshal, skilled in martial arts, hand to hand combat, armed with a stun gun, mace and an array of other less than lethal weapondry, is more than proficient to disarm and apprehend a terrorist. I think just arming them with a gun is a narrow way of thinking about the whole situation. Why not have some sort of knock out gas or tear gas installed that can be released in the plane to knock everyone out? Pressurize-seal off the cockpit and land safely...

I think the Air Marshal program is an excellent idea, it's just being approached wrong.

Have you ever been to an airport in Europe?

When I flew to Italy, the airport in Milan was full of guys with machine guns and walking attack dogs (German shepherds). I haven't seen THAT in the US.

As stated, the air marshalls are the last line of defense. Their presence may bring some additional problems, but if the situation has reached a point where the hijackers are aboard and executing their plan, having an air marshall or three would be my preference.


As far as taking hostages (children, lets say): chances are, everyone is going to die if the hijackers succeed, including the child. It is a tough decision, and one I hope I would never face, but I don't think a hostage taking would work for a terrorist.

Who seriously is going to sit there and allow a plane to be hijacked in this day and age? Even without air marshalls, someone scared for their life will rush any hijackers, no matter how well they are armed.