I see, very interesting.
Another thing I just found out: The UK is against air marshals since they discovered that the ground security does not work as accurate when they know an air marshal is on the flight. 
Apparently they had a case where they let an african citizen pass although he had ammunition in his bag since they “where sure the air marshals would deal with it” - highly professional 
Moderator Note
Dorjän, whether this is serious or a joke, it’s not appropriate as a first response in GQ. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Do you have a cite for this? It sounds pretty fishy.
i hope you understand german
http://www.srf.ch/player/video?id=8a87df6b-aac1-4bcf-8a91-09afd6916e24
Do you have a cite in English for this?
I’m sorry I do not…it’s the only link I found
That, sir, is an insult to every man and woman in the United States Coast Guard. :mad:
We have a winner!!!
The thread is over.
Although I have always thought that the main purpose of the overhead bins was to hold crying babies.
Because you sure can’t get your luggage in there. 
This is not MPSIMS. Not looking for joke answers.
Moderator Note
DrDeth, jokes are permitted in General Questions, especially after the first few answers. Let’s not engage in junior modding here. No warning issued.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
(1) They are usually on US domestic flights, and most heavily concentrated on long-haul flights after 9/11 because those aircraft are carrying more fuel (and thus can blow up more things.)
(2) Yes. Aircraft aren’t as sensitive to bullets as the media claims.
That’s also from 2004 if I read the headers correctly. But, no, I don’t speak German so I don’t have any way of verifying your claim. Can you provide the names or locations of anyone involved so we can try and track this down?
The UK has had air marshalls since 2003 so I don’t think they’re going away any time soon. I haven’t found any other reference to them being out of favor so even if the incident in question happened as described I think the solution would be better processes, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
if you watch the last few minutes an english person is speaking about the UK…I’m sure you can hear what he says besides the voiceover a bit
Apparently I can’t play it here at work. But again, it’s 10 years old and there’s no current mention of the problem in the news. If there was a problem (and I’m suspicious that the story is as you’ve represented it) it’s been addressed and things have moved on. I’m not seeing how it’s relevant to this thread.
Armed sky marshals were introduced on British airliners in 2003 in response to fears of a 9/11-style terror attack launched from airports in the UK.
Then Home Secretary David Blunkett said the move, which was confined to transatlantic routes, was a ‘proportionate and appropriate response’ to the terror threat against this country.
At the time, reports indicated that plain-clothes officers would carry guns firing low-velocity bullets, to prevent one going through the target and piercing the shell of the plane.
In all likelihood they would be seated near the cockpit, in first or business class.
Passengers are never notified if an air marshal is on their plane, although pilots are told.
Neither the airline industry, police nor Government officials will comment publicly on the policy, and since its introduction it has largely been shrouded in secrecy.
Other countries are more open about their use of sky marshals.
The Israeli national airline, El Al, has had an armed marshal on every flight for more than a decade.
And air marshals have been used in the US for more than 30 years.
Read more: Armed air marshals 'patrolled all flights between Gatwick and the U.S. as spooks worked to thwart underpants bomb plot' | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This vaguely related copy/paste post has been brought to you by Google.
It’s not that difficult, actually. Bullets intended for use against flesh are often modified to expand (or tumble, shred, etc.) on impact spreading the force over a larger area. This greatly increases the damage to soft targets, but makes them much less effective against metals or strengthened materials (like those designed to contain a breathable atmosphere under various pressure, changing temperatures, and shifting loads).
Also, given the close quarters of an aircraft cabin, you can use a much smaller charge without reducing your chances for a lethal hit.
Finally, some less-lethal rounds (bean-bags, frangible bullets, etc) would be virtually harmless to an aircraft hull.
The last few minutes of the video doesn’t contain any English at all. There’s an English man speaking at around the 4 minute mark, but he is all but inaudible behind the German voiceover.
All you can hear of his statement is “We have two concerns about sky marshals…” - googling his Name (Jim McAuslan), ‘sky marshals’ and ‘concerns’ brings up several news articles from around the same time as your video. None of them support your assertion about ground security taking it easy.
McAuslan’s concerns are reported as:
“we don’t believe that guns and air travel mix,” (i.e. does adding guns to the situation inherently make it safer - a common UK reaction to weapons)
“The commander needs to retain authority over the whole of the aircraft.” (i.e. the pilots need to know if there are sky marshals on board)
He is also described as having been concerned at the haste in which the deployment protocols for sky marshals were developed.
Glaser safety slugs
Actually, safety slugs in past, now standard hollowpoint.