Air Marshal Law

WASHINGTON -- We are fast approaching the third anniversary of September 11, but commercial airline cockpits are hardly any more secure. Air marshals are proving wonderfully ineffective and the plan to arm pilots has not fared so well. Sen. Jim Bunning and Barbara Boxer -- Barbara Boxer! -- have introduced a bill to curb the Transportation Security Administration's stringent requirements that have failed to arm more than two percent of the country's commercial airline pilots.

"TSA has slow-walked the program from day one," said Sen. Boxer. "[They are] denying thousands of pilots their right to be trained in this program and denying the American people the additional security they deserve."

TSA is not alone in its resentment of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program (FFDO). Thomas Quinn, head of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), wrote a memo to an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, urging the department to defeat the Cockpit Security Technical Corrections and Improvement bill.

The memo is arguably an improper lobbying effort from a tenured career employee, but, more troubling, it has made public the Air Marshals' opposition to arming pilots. Given that FAMS and FFDO are designed for basically the same purpose -- to protect passengers and to save us from another hijacking disaster -- shouldn't the programs at least try to get along?

THIS FALL, THE FEDERAL government will reduce the air marshal staff by nine percent. The estimated 4,000 on duty now cover only small fraction of flights. Strengthening the armed pilots program -- a logical, cost-effective substitute -- should help to offset the security threat of fewer air marshals

In fact, it might do the marshals one better. Understaffed as it is, the air marshal program is still costly at $673 million annually. It is also badly managed. A General Accounting Office study of the program from 2001 to 2003 shows that marshals' covers were blown an average of once a week, and it really is a wonder that it's been that infrequent.

In the event of another hijacking attempt, the smart terrorist will gun for the pair of sharply dressed and freshly shaven passengers first; especially if they were observed boarding the flight through "exit" lanes, as marshals are instructed to do. The awkward credential cases marshals present to the ticket counter are another obvious tip-off. Until recently, marshals also needed to sign in at screening checkpoints.

Of course, arming pilots would avoid these problems. There are at least two pilots onboard every flight. Yet TSA has purposefully created a number of roadblocks, discouraging enrollment in the program and even preventing those that do from passing.

On their own time -- and dollar -- pilots must arrange a trip to the training facility remotely located in New Mexico. There they undergo intense psychological tests. Many pilots have been rejected from the program with no explanations given. For that reason, others hesitate to enroll, worried that failing the program will make them appear less competent to their employers. By way of contrast, Sky Marshal training has been criticized as lenient. Standards were relaxed in order to get numbers up and accommodate the high turnover rate.

HERE'S THE THING: Passengers already place our lives at the hands of commercial pilots. We can trust them thanks to the rigorous requirements imposed by FAA in its license certification. Twice a year pilots are subject to a battery of medical and psychological tests. FAA doctors are equally probing in their evaluations, but they don't have TSA's anti-gun bias. Pilots are also trained in crisis management. Just as they are prepared to act quickly in an emergency situation like an onboard fire, they are equally capable of defending the cockpit while directing the plane.

Right now, a hijacker could sneak though airport screening and easily spot an air marshal, in the rare and random event one is onboard his flight. A would-be hijacker would be less likely to plan an attack if the odds are greater that his pilot is armed

For his part of the most improbable political pairing since Bono and Paul O'Neill, Sen. Bunning has said, "Tens of thousands of armed pilots are a real defense and deterrent. A few thousand are not." He's right. The really shocking thing, over two years after September 11, is that this defense is not yet in place.

There have been no hijackings since there have been air marshals. That proves their ineffectiveness? Just knowing that one might get on the plane reduces the chance that Mohammed will target an AC.

Air marshals are proving wonderfully ineffective

Has there been more hijackings with these people on-board? I must have been in the shower and missed it.

If only Boxer were this clear-headed about all gun control legislation. Are we sure that this is really Boxer and not some type of muppet?

Boxer had an interesting press conference about 20 months after 9/11. She apparently had been given a briefing by DHS folks that included the threat of shoulder launched missiles taking down commercial airliners. So she holds a press conference and blurts out a demand for anti missile measures for civilian airliners. She insisted that they be installed, even though she probably knew full well that retrofitting an aircraft which went through essentially decades of engineering, planning and testing when first built - could not be done overnight. Gee Barbara, maybe things like weight distribution, flammability, cost, possible interference with existing systems, etc., etc., etc. - might take some time to sort out. It was clear that the only reason she held the press conference was to "seed" the record with her comments - so that in the event that a stinger-type missile ever takes out an airliner - she can say she told us so. That's typical of Boxer - grandstanding for contingent personal credit, and not leading.

There have been no hijackings since there have been air marshals.

True, but is that because of our limited air marshal program, because twenty guys like me will stomp the guts out of any Mohammed that tries to rush the cockpit, or because it'll take about 10-15 minutes for an F-15 to blow the plane out of the sky? It's probably a combination of all these factors.

There have been no hijackings since there have been air marshals. That proves their ineffectiveness? Just knowing that one might get on the plane reduces the chance that Mohammed will target an AC.

I don't think any hijackers would be able to take over a plane with any significant number of passengers aboard with anything less than a 12" sword. Pre-9/11, they could, but not anymore. And the sky marshalls have nothing whatsoever to do with that.

ThanhPhero said: "There have been no hijackings since there have been air marshals. "

I thought that the Air Marshal program was started up way back when hijackers were taking the planes to Cuba. Were there no Air Marshals drawing paychecks on 9/11?

I thought that the Air Marshal program was started up way back when hijackers were taking the planes to Cuba

It was but it fell into disuse and that first program was not advertised. The most effective part of the Sky Marshals is the advertising. If it is known generally then these guys only have to ride maybe one plane in 10. Of course it would be better if one rode every airplane. But there should be PA calls during boarding-"Flight security agent please check in with the security desk," or something.

Actually, the jihadis are mostly not particularly stupid. After 911 I am sure that they know that that tactic is obsolete, especially after Mr. Reid had his difficulties doing his job. I think the nost important thing we are doing now is rapidly upgrading our ability to inspect of incoming ship cargos. We have a long way to go and will never be penetration proof but the chancier we make it the more planning has to go into a project and the more likely that we will catch it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.