Airline Security/Letter to representatives.

[dmccarty]

I just emailed and faxed copies of this letter to my congressional representatives. I feel strongly that the new levels of security at airports are not worth a rats behind. We need real protection on our airlines and we needed it yesterday. The communication, movement and shipping duties carried out by the airlines are critical to a modern economy and a free country. Its imperative that the public feels secure getting on an aircraft for business or to see grandma. No security it perfect but until we have law enforcement officers on aircraft in large numbers we will not have done enough to protect the public. I have some concerns with having just any old officer on a plane and would much rather see air marshalls with their specific training BUT this is supposed to be war, right? So you take the best solution that is available and use it. This is only a small part of a bigger picture but its a start that is not happening to my knowledge. There will not be any events like September 11th because the passengers and aircrews will not permit a plane to be taken over in the same manner. But lets put the odds in the publics favor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator,

After the horrors of September 11th I have heard much talk using the word "War." This is good.

The concern I have is that not enough is being done to secure the airlines flying in this country. None of the security changes that have been made public would have stopped the events on September 11th. The only measure that will provide a higher probability of stopping attacks is to have armed guards, if not on all flights, at least most flights. This should have been started yesterday.

There are roughly 640,000 law enforcement officers in United States at the local, state and Federal levels. A mere 1% of those officers could be flying on many, if not all flights, in the United States in very short order. ALL law enforcement officers should be trained in air marshal tactics and procedures as quickly as possible and then put on aircraft in plain clothes. For an officer to fly in this county with their service weapon requires a four hour class and much paper work. It certainly is possible to train officers and get them on planes by the start of next week.

The airline business is CRITICAL to the economy of this country and the world. The Wall Street Journal reported on September 14th that the business is loosing 500 million dollars a day and only has a cash reserve that will last 16 days. This form of communication MUST be restarted as soon as possible to return this country to a stable state.

Nothing short of strip searches will prevent a person from carrying a knife on board a plane. Ceramic knives will not show up in a metal detector. Only an armed guard will have a good chance of stopping such attacks.

Using law enforcement to provided flight protection is not and cannot be the final answer. The US Marshals must train more of their people to take over the protection duties from local law enforcement. It will take the Federal government 9 to 12 months to recruit, vet, train, and finally put on duty more sky marshals. Who should pay for this? The flying public. I can't see that the flying public, after the events on, and following, September 11th will complain about spending an extra 10-20 dollars per ticket to provide a far more secure flight.

Using the law enforcement community in this manner is not optimal but it is the best solution that is available at this time. Law enforcement is the only group that can and should provide a group of trained professionals to start these protection duties. In "War" one must take the best solution to a problem that is available. Law enforcement on flight protection duty is the best available and quickest solution. Use it.

Thank you,
Dan McCarty

 

[Jugger]

dmccarty,

Good luck, but I doubt you'll even get a response, much less serious consideration regarding your proposal.

I too would prefer more of a "presence" on commercial flights.

Jugger

 

[butzkeg]

Stiffen the checks in the airports, then arm the pilots. Who would be able to hi-jack a plane with a box cutter or knife if the pilots were packing?

 

[cowboydoc]

No I don't agree with arming pilots. With the way those doors are it's too easy to rush them and now instead of knives they have guns. Plus what would you do as a pilot if they had your co-pilot of the stewardess by the throat with a knife? No pilots are trained to fly the plane. Best answer is to have an armed law enforcement officer on every flight. I would gladly pay an extra $10 for each flight I'm on for that.

 

[hightechredneck]

"Best answer is to have an armed law enforcement officer on every flight. "

that's kinda what i was thinking, but only as a short term solution. just long enough to retrofit all cockpit doors with something more substantial.

once the doors are in place, the marshall will no longer be needed.

lock the door before pushing back from the terminal and unlock it once you arrive at the destination.

even without any of the precautions/changes that have been suggested, i can't imagine another hi-jacker accomplishing what we witnessed tuesday. i just can't picture the passengers on any hi-jacked plane sitting in the back of the plane doing nothing knowing they are going to die anyway.

charlie

 

[dmccarty]

I'm doubtful I'll get a response either. Well, I did get a form response from Helm's office but it was garbled junk! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

The measures that have been publicly announced will not stop a hijacker in any way, shape or form. Without armed officers on the planes the public and the airlines are vulnerable.

I think there is a bias from the Federal agency's toward state and especially local law enforcement. The Feds don't want Barney Fife's running around. That is the attitude I suspect and have seen. Frankly its criminal NOT to have armed officers on as many flights as possible. Its certainly not HARD to do in a quick and responsible manner.

There was a report of a man who was stranded out our airport this week. He heard the airport had reopened so down he went and got a ticket. For some reason he was picked for a random search. Officers emptied his suit case, brief case, patted him down, etc. The result? They found some nail clippers that they made him carry in his suit case. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Its VERY hard to frisk someone who wants to hide a weapon. Very hard. And its easy to overlook. Short of stripping everyone naked and putting on a rubber glove for cavity searches there is not a decent chance of finding a weapon.... The only logical answer is armed officers.

Copy the letter and send to your representatives if you think it will help....

Later...
Dan McCarty

 

[cp1969]

Armed security personnel is IMHO a stop-gap, and a dangerous one at that. The discharge of a firearm could very well bring down the plane through damage caused by an errant bullet.

The isolated cockpit is an idea that deserves more consideration. Modify airliners such that the cockpit is only accessable through a different door from the ground. People load through the jetway, crew comes on through their own door and never the two shall meet.

 

[cowboydoc]

No way would I advocate armed security guards. What I'm talking about is elaboration of the current sky marshals. These guys are trained in the very things that you talk about. No way in hell should some security guard be up there with a gun. These guys should be a special force specifically trained to deal with hijackings and air mayhem.

 

[Bird]

And if they're not armed, but just "trained", I'd sure like to see the training that enables one or two of them to handle 5 or 6 armed terrorists./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bird

 

[scruffy]

"<font color=blue>The isolated cockpit is an idea that deserves more consideration. Modify airliners such that the cockpit is only accessable through a different door from the ground. People load through the jetway, crew comes on through their own door and never the two shall meet.</font color=blue>"
This idea is more what I had in mind, with the exception that the bulkhead be kevlar (or like material) lined, so that a terrorist could not fire through the bulkhead indescriminately, thus bringing the aircraft down. The pilots should not be accessable from the cabin area while the plane is in flight, nor should the crew/passengers be a consideration to their flight plan. While entry does not necessarily need to be accomplished through an external entrance, it is a definate deterant! There are many ways to adequately secure an armored door to prevent access from the cabin while the plane is in flight. Of course, this is going to require separate 'facilities' for the flight crew.