A Simple Solution for Air Safety - What's Wrong with it?

Great Debates
1

OK, normally I get told to shut up when I start an OP here, so let’s see if this time is different.

Air Marshalls (henceforth “AM”). Sounds like the perfect option to me, from many different angles. Let me explain.

An armed AM on a plane, seated up right by the cockpit, would be a perfect solution to two (or three) problems on flights today - terrorist acts, “air rage”, and flight emergencies.

To start with, let’s assume that the AM in my idea is an actual Federal, highly trained (at the FBI-level) armed officer who is familliar with aircraft operations (possibly with some pilot training), armed and unarmed combat, knife and opportunity-weapon (boxknives, chairs, whatever) training, and paramedic skills.

First Assertion - a highly-trained and armed AM provides possibly the best defence against another 9/11 atrocity once the hijackers are already on the plane. Yes, the goal is to keep them off the plane in the first place, but IMO that is an impossible goal. And these fucks held up the plane with boxknives and knives - things that are still easy to smuggle onto a plane - and no, I’m not going to discuss ways, but it is easy. An AM can defend the cockpit successfully, and provide a definite, visible, clear deterrent to a hijacking.

Second Assertion - “Air rage” incidents, IMO, largely happen because there is no clear sense of authority on board. An armed AM is a clear display of the message “Don’t fuck up on this flight”, as opposed to the image some people have of stewardesses, which is that they are actually “sky waitresses”. Drunks typically do recognize and respect a uniformed police officer when they are confronted with them, and although I love the ladies on board, there is no way in hell 3 petite stewardesses can really handle a drunken 250-pound man who has decided now is the best time to perform a sexual assault, or defecate on the serving cart. An AM can easily handle the situtaion, without having to bother the pilots at all, and they can remain safely at their posts.

Third Assertion - An AM who is an actual trained paramedic can provide real first-aid assistance on-board if needed. I know the flight crew is trained somewhat in first aid, but not extensively. An AM can be one more person to help out in that situation.

Now…let’s look at the drawbacks.

Cost: Let’s assume that this program will have little cost to the government, other than training. And let’s assume that the airlines pass 100% of the cost through on the ticket. OK…and let’s also assume that the presence of the AM on board removes one seat that could otherwise be sold.

Now, my assumptions for this economic analysis are:

  • 1 AM on every flight of more than 20 seats. Industry-wide, based on the number of flight, I’m guessing that this gives and average of perhaps one AM per every hundred seats. So if the plane is packed, 99 people pay for one AM. Now assume a 70% packing factor, average, and we have roughly 70 persons paying for one AM.

  • Assume that the AM receives $50k per year, and works at a multiplier of 1.8 to cover all benefits, health insurance, retirement fund, sick time, etc. That makes for a cost of $90k per year. Also, assume that over a year, the AM works 2080 hours, so one-AM year of coverage will cost (8760/2080)*90,000 = $380,000 (rounding).

  • At $380,000 per 24-hour AM-year, how many flights does that protect? Assume an average flight length in the US of 2.5 hours, and assume an average of 1 hour layover. What I get is over a 24-hour day, 1 AM-day can cover 6.8 flights. So, over one year (365 days) we get 2482 flights covered for $380,000.

  • Also assume that on each flight, the airline loses a seat sale. But this only matters on full flights. Assume that of the 2482 flights, about 5% are actually full to capacity. So we also must cover 124 seat purchases. Say an average cost of $800 per seat (high, but last-minute purchases are often very high), and we get a cost of $99,200 per year (call it $100,000).

  • So, we now have $480,000 to cover 2482 flights. Assuming that we had that 70% packing factor and 100 seats per flight, we have 173,740 tickets covering $480,000. This results in a cahrge of $2.76 per ticket.

That’s it. $2.76 per ticket, to get an armed AM on the vast majority of the flights.

  • Now also assume that these AM’s need a few support facilities. Say they need a lounge built for themselves at the airports. A locker room. Say that they also need to attend re-training each year. OK, so let’s be bold and double the cost. We now are at roughly $5 a ticket.

$5 a ticket. Jesus. I would gladly pay $20 a ticket extra to have an armed AM on most every flight.

OK, before you all start flaming me over my economic assumptions, let me point out some more drawbacks.

A Gun on the Plane: There are going to be those that argue that a gun, any gun on the plane, is dangerous. That hijackers or passengers will just “take the gun away” from the AM. IMO, this is a specious argument. Most likely, a gun on board in the hands of the hijackers on the doomed airliners would not have changed a thing. And no one tells the police that they should not carry their guns on the beat, even working crowds, since someone in the press of the crowd might take it away from them. This is an acceptable risk.

Stress on the AM: Yes, flying is stressful. Note in my scenario, the AM may fly only 3 times a day, maybe as much as 4. Flight attendents and pilots deal with the stress, so can the AM. Hell, the airlines should help out by extending all possible courtesy to the AMs, like free flights for their families, free food and drink, etc.

Seating: If the AM is not taking a first-class seat, they will need a seating area. This may involve re-design of the galley area up front, as you do not want the AM to be unhappy and uncomfortable sitting in a jump-seat all flight. I have no idea of the cost of adding a seat and moving everything. This is an error in my analysis.

The AM is not always there: He has to go to the toilet every now and then. Who watches the plane? IMO, another acceptable risk, and one you cannot avoid. I don’t have a good solution.

What about small flights with no AM?: Well, this is a problem too. But if we can keep safe the vast majority of the flights (those over 20 people), we certainly will make huge strides in air safety.

OK…I await your flames.

2

First off, increasing the number of Air Marshalls was one of the things President Bush Jr. brought up in Thursday night’s Congressional address.

Secondly, it sounds like you’re suggesting that these Air Marshalls be obvious – that they be uniformed servicemen, on-duty air cops that stick out like a sore thumb. The Air Marshalls we have on flights nowadays are usually secret air marshalls, i.e. “plain-clothes” air cops. Their identities are so secretive that when we film their training sessions, they are wearing ski masks to hide their faces.

The main reason for this is, of course, that most flights do not have an air marshall on board. The Federal government was hoping that the threat that there might be a hidden air marshall on board would be enough to deter terrorists, in much the same way that the IRS’s random audits of 1-2% of the tax returns it receives are supposed to deter tax evasion. Obviously, the Federal government was wrong. But the only other alternative would be to vastly expand the air marshall program, so that there would be one air marshall on board every flight with more than, say, 10 passengers. And even then, hijackers have managed to hide themselves on board cargo planes (e.g. Federal Express DC-10s), which could be used to just as deadly effect as the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center.

3

Yes, it is true that the AMs would be obvious in my scenario, since they would be on every single flight of more than 20 passengers. Perhaps the solution for smaller flights is to continue using the random, plainclothes officers program on those small commuter flights, while the large ones have the continuous law enforcement presence.

Also, although the face of terrorism has changed, we can still expect that there will be terrorists who simply want to take a plane somewhere without anyone necessarily getting hurt, and my plan helps that out considerably. And there is the “air rage” bit too - depending on which bit of the press you believe, allegedly these incidents are rising steadily as the airlines pack more people onto later flights with less service…

If the differential cost of a ticket is truly as low as I estimate (and it may not be), it sure seems like you buy a lot of safety and security potential for a small cost. And while nothing that we do is going to guarantee that we do not have another WTC atrocity, this certainly is a low-cost option for making it less likely.

4

I agree, but a more important question is, “Can a gun be used on a pressurized airliner without risking the lives of everyone on board?” A bullet will travel through the skin of an airplane like it wasn’t even there. This will result in an explosive decompression, exposing the crew and passengers to a -50 F, 500 mph wind, that has barely enough oxygen for them to remain concious.

5

Several things. First, you assert that nothing would have been different if the terrorists had a gun. I submit that the most likely outcome of that scenario is that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania would have instead gone into its target. It’s a vastly different thing for a small number of passengers to rush a small number of hijackers armed with boxcutters than it is to rush a small number of passengers armed with a gun.

Second, our emphasis in this problem, I think, must be in preventing the bad guys from getting on boards with weapons in the first place. I would much rather spend that $5 or $10 a ticket on tigtening airport and airline security than leave those holes open and depending on having to react to the rats who slip through. Sure, we can do both, but in the real world, we have to allocate our resources. Fund the preventative security first, and the reactive security second.

Third, it would be simplicity itself to take out the air marshall if you want them to interfere in air rage cases. Terrorist #1 throws a fit. Air marshall breaks cover and responds. Terrorists #2-5 take out the air marshall. And, incidentally, take his gun.

6

“It’s a vastly different thing for a small number of passengers to rush a small number of hijackers armed with boxcutters than it is to rush a small number of terrorists armed with a gun.”

7

Dr. Lao wrote:

Not quite. The bullet hole will be small, and although the cabin pressure will drop, it will not do so explosively. As soon as the cabin pressure begins to fall (or, to use pilot speak, the “cabin altitude” rises), an alarm will go off warning the pilot of this emergency, and those romper-stomper oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling. The pilot will then commence and emergency descent to get the plane below 20,000 feet altitude as quickly as possible.

The real danger from a bullet hole in the fuselage is that the differential pressure between the pressurized cabin and the un-pressurized outdoors, coupled with the 500+ mile per hour wind outside, can cause a small bullet hole to rip itself open into a big hole. This will cause much more rapid cabin decompression, and can even compromise the integrity of the airframe (read: the plane can break in half).

8

I thought that both the “bullet hole causing decompression” and the “ripping of the skin” had both been thouroughly debunked in numerous threads. The pressure differential and size of the hole is not that great, and the hole can easily by plugged many things. The real danger is destroying avionics (wiring, hydraulics, etc) in the skin of the plane.

9

I disagree. From what I heard, the passengers who phoned were told that the plane was intended to be a suicide flight anyhow. I doubt it would have changed their decision at all - but we will never know how people will behave under impossible, unthinkable circumstances like that. We have only our opinions.

What can be done to prevent 6 large men from getting on a plane and taking the plane simply by force of bare arms? And IMO airport security will never be able to keep weapons off of any flight.

Maybe - it depends on a large number of factors. Does everyone else sit there while a uniformed officer is attacked? How does she or he (the AM) respond to those incidents? There is a possibility of this happening.

This thread is mainly a response to what I consider to be asinine ideas about how to increase airport security. Like banning curbside check-in. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Banning cars parking at the terminal building. Why, exactly? And I have seen, even on this Board, some ideas come forth that reek of “let’s get the frequent flyers”, such as “ban all carry-ons”.

What are your specific ideas and economics for “tigtening airport and airline security”? One thing I have as an idea is - complete security of checked bags, positive tracking of checked bags, metered retrieval of checked bags. Think about it - you wait in line for 15 minutes to get through security (at least in SFO you do), so you can do the metal-detector hokey-pokey while they get you to take off your belt, jewelry, etc. They sit there are search your carry on bag when anything that looks the least bit unusual comes up. They swab your bags to detect “explosives”. And what happens to your checked bags?

I’ll tell you what - it’s like the Wild West downstairs. We’ve all seen the security camera tapes on 20-20 and 60 Minutes of baggage handlers breaking into bags, stealing bags, smuggling drugs in bags - all in front of the camera, and mostly all unfireable. Because, IMO, their Union is more concerned about protecting criminals than protecting passengers and their belongings. In the 20-20 episode I saw, any one of those baggage handlers could have put a bomb in a bag, and none of the rest would have noticed because they were too busy breaking into others. The reason I only carry on my bags unless I have to check them is beacause my bags have been broken into three times, and the airline did not care in the least. And just try to get just compensation for the criminal act of theft from your bags…right.

Scan all checked bags, protect them from being molested, meter their pickup (as simple as you produce your claim check before you can exit the baggage area - this isn’t rocket science, and it’s the way things are supposed to be done anyhow), and have Federal felony charges against anyone who tampers with or steals from a bag for any reason. And tell the Unions to fuck off, or order them disbanded.

So, from the answers thus far, I get the impression that people really object to any publicly-visible AMs being on flights. Would my idea be better accepted if it still mandated one armed AM per flight, but in plainclothes, in any random seat? It still seems that even with that, terrorists could do the air rage play like quoted above, and get them to expose themselves.

10

As far as pointing out the current holes in airport security, I’m totally with you. It’s an absolute disgrace. In fact, I very much want to know who is responsible for letting these terrorists on board with knives in the first place. Heads should roll, and criminal negligence charges be considered, for the airport security guys who passed those hijackers through security in the first place.

But I strongly disagree with you that it’s “impossible” to keep weapons off of airliners. El Al seems to have done an excellent job of it lo these many years. I’d start with virtually eliminating the carry-on baggage where weapons can be so easily hidden. If the security guys (who ought to be federal law enforcemen officials IMHO anyway) only have to check a limited number of small, necessary items, then their searches can be much more thorough anyway. Hell, I’d make people check anything more than a laptop computer or a small purse. But I’m certainly not an airport security expert, so I don’t really know what needs to be done to plug the ratholes.

Believe me, I’m not arguing that air marshalls are a bad idea. I just think there are bigger priorities that need to be addressed, since relying on any single law enforcement officer to prevent terrorism seems quite the roll of the dice to me.

11

No, no, no. The simple solution is to install new seats complete with restraints. Think Space Mountain.

Once the plane starts moving, we’ll be stuck til the flight is over.

And if a diabolical passenger breaks out of his seat, the pilot can just do a few loop-dee-loops to knock the bastard unconscious. We, safely secured in our safety restraints, can simply sit back and enjoy the ride.

:slight_smile:

12

Wanna be an Air Marshall?

13

I know you’re being facetious, but wasn’t there an interview a few days ago with a pilot who asked people to “just stay strapped in” ? He’d then perform as heavy aerobatics as the airframe could handle, and any one not buckled up would be easy to handle after that.

Re the OP: The idea in and of itself seems viable enough. The Israeli reportedly developed special ammo for their forces on planes, specifically to prevent puncture and decompression problems. That shouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Of course, one will have to look at the price and estimate if this is the best solution from a cost/benefit POV. But right now, I like the idea of having an armed Good Guy on the plane with me.

S. Norman

14

What about frangible rounds?

15

minty green say’s;

That’s what I’ve heard, over and over. So why don’t we just copy them? Ask them for help with our problem. I know nothing of El Al’s methods, but they appearantly have an effective system.
Pride?
Peace,
mangeorge

16

Hijacker surreptitiously removes hand grenade from carry-on luggage and pulls the pin.

Hijacker then stands up in the aisle brandishing pin in one hand and grenade in the other.

What’s the Air Marshall going to do? Shooting the hijacker will guarantee the grenade blows.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

17

No problem. Two shots.
First shot takes out a window, second shot knocks the grenade out of the bad guy’s hand and through the window.
Peace,
mangeorge

18

Israel is what, the size of New Jersey? Might I suggest that it’s much easier to implement security measures when you have only 1 airport and a fixed number of pilots/airport personnel. You can really screen your candidates and passengers well.

The U.S. has hundreds of major airports and thousands of minor ones. Therein lies part of the problem.

19

Many airports contract with Argenbright Security for their baggage screeners & other security personnel. They came under fire last year for some pretty poor behaviour:

Other relevent news:

I’m not sure what Pastor is suggesting here- that US citizenship be a requirement for employment as baggage screeners?

20

I realize that, PunditLisa. But the US has a proportionately larger population, and wealth, to draw from.
It’s the smaller airports, I think, that would present the largest problem. Good point.
Maybe we’re worrying about this a little too much?
I’ll be flying to Las Vegas next month, and I’m more concerned about the delay than I am about the possibility of hijack. I’ll be in the boarding area longer than in the plane. Sheesh!
Peace,
mangeorge