Flights cancelled because of BA Pilots

Latest news here is that the flights to DC are being
cancelled because BA pilots won't fly with armed
air marshals. Enter the Ninjas or BA might be barred from US.

Errol

Errol muttered....

Latest news here is that the flights to DC are being
cancelled because BA pilots won't fly with armed
air marshals. Enter the Ninjas or BA might be barred from US.


What's different about AMs on BA? El Al has had armed "air marshalls"
aboard international flights for decades (amd high checkin security). Do
you suppose that terrorists might avoid BA because the tea is so bad?

TMO

"Olivers" wrote in message
...
Errol muttered....

Latest news here is that the flights to DC are being
cancelled because BA pilots won't fly with armed
air marshals. Enter the Ninjas or BA might be barred from US.


What's different about AMs on BA? El Al has had armed "air marshalls"
aboard international flights for decades (amd high checkin security). Do
you suppose that terrorists might avoid BA because the tea is so bad?

BA doesn't have a history of AMs. The pilots union has made a fuss about it.
It's only a report at this stage, doesn't mean it's true.
It's reported by the New York Times at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/na...rint&position=

Errol

Olivers writes
Latest news here is that the flights to DC are being
cancelled because BA pilots won't fly with armed
air marshals. Enter the Ninjas or BA might be barred from US.

What's different about AMs on BA? El Al has had armed "air marshalls"
aboard international flights for decades (amd high checkin security).

Aircraft belonging to UK airlines have been a terrorist target for many
decades. The general line in the UK seems to be that security at the
originating airport is the most important line of defence. I've read
articles by UK aviation security experts who have argued that the
presence of armed air marshals actually increases the risk of a hijack
being successful.

Aircraft belonging to Israeli airlines have been a terrorist target for
many decades. El Al uses armed air marshals, so I'd assume that their
security experts believe that their presence reduces the risk of a
hijack being successful.

So who's right? I'm not an expert on aviation security, but it seems
possible that both are correct. El Al is a smaller operation than BA,
and is also much more culturally monolithic. This has implications on
the operational deployment of armed air marshals, their training and
quality, and their integration into the rest of the security operation.

Do you suppose that terrorists might avoid BA because the tea is
so bad?

Most terrorists prefer coffee.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

"Simon Elliott" wrote in message
...
Olivers writes
Latest news here is that the flights to DC are being
cancelled because BA pilots won't fly with armed
air marshals. Enter the Ninjas or BA might be barred from US.

What's different about AMs on BA? El Al has had armed "air marshalls"
aboard international flights for decades (amd high checkin security).

Aircraft belonging to UK airlines have been a terrorist target for many
decades. The general line in the UK seems to be that security at the
originating airport is the most important line of defence. I've read
articles by UK aviation security experts who have argued that the
presence of armed air marshals actually increases the risk of a hijack
being successful.

One though is that it might put guns in the hands of terrorists.

Simon Elliott wrote:
Aircraft belonging to Israeli airlines have been a terrorist target for
many decades. El Al uses armed air marshals, so I'd assume that their
security experts believe that their presence reduces the risk of a
hijack being successful.

Israel has been stepping on the hornett's nest for decades, so it normal that
it has to expect every hornett to try to sting it.

El Al has both extremely strict ground security as well as whatever security
they have on board. Their good record with regards to highjackings could be
simply due to good ground security.

The question to be asked is this: have there been any incidents where El Al
armed guards have had to fire on board aircraft ?

Simon Elliott wrote in news:KbaHTAAkJv9
:

Olivers writes
Latest news here is that the flights to DC are being
cancelled because BA pilots won't fly with armed air marshals. Enter
the Ninjas or BA might be barred from US.

What's different about AMs on BA? El Al has had armed "air marshalls"
aboard international flights for decades (amd high checkin security).

Aircraft belonging to UK airlines have been a terrorist target for many
decades. The general line in the UK seems to be that security at the
originating airport is the most important line of defence. I've read
articles by UK aviation security experts who have argued that the
presence of armed air marshals actually increases the risk of a hijack
being successful.


One of the most fundamental tenets of security is something called "Depth of
Defense". There is no one thing that will stop terrorists (or any bad guys
whether they be computer hackers or bank robbers). So, you set up a bunch
of security parameters in the hopes that, while one security barrier won't
stop someone, the whole series of them combined will make it very difficult
for a bad guy to carry out his/her evil plan.

For example, there was no "one thing" that could keep invading armies out of
medieval castles so they set up a bunch of "little" things. A moat by
itself was pretty useless, but combining a moat with think walls, boiling
oil, archers shooting at you, etc… made taking a castle kind of difficult.

While it's important for the UK to have tight security at the originating
airport, it certainly can't hurt to have Air Marshals on the planes either.
It's just putting the Depth of Defense principal to work. Also, while it's
probably better to actually HAVE an Air Marshall on flights, there is
probably some good in making people THINK there are there even if one isn't
present.

Charlie C. writes
[note my reordering of your post]
One of the most fundamental tenets of security is something called "Depth of
Defense". There is no one thing that will stop terrorists (or any bad guys
whether they be computer hackers or bank robbers). So, you set up a bunch
of security parameters in the hopes that, while one security barrier won't
stop someone, the whole series of them combined will make it very difficult
for a bad guy to carry out his/her evil plan.

Absolutely.

While it's important for the UK to have tight security at the originating
airport, it certainly can't hurt to have Air Marshals on the planes either.
It's just putting the Depth of Defense principal to work. Also, while it's
probably better to actually HAVE an Air Marshall on flights, there is
probably some good in making people THINK there are there even if one isn't
present.

Some UK security experts, and also BA and BALPA, are maintaining that
air marshals don't add any depth to the defence because they are
actually counterproductive. They assert that the presence of air
marshals makes a successful hijack more likely. Various scenarios have
been put forward, eg terrorists impersonating air marshals at various
points in the security system.

For example, there was no "one thing" that could keep invading armies out of
medieval castles so they set up a bunch of "little" things. A moat by
itself was pretty useless, but combining a moat with think walls, boiling
oil, archers shooting at you, etc… made taking a castle kind of difficult.

If the aforementioned UK security experts are correct, a better analogy
would be combining a moat with a series of causeways which make it
easier for the attackers to cross it.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

While it's important for the UK to have tight security at the
originating airport, it certainly can't hurt to have Air Marshals on
the planes either. It's just putting the Depth of Defense principal
to work. Also, while it's probably better to actually HAVE an Air
Marshall on flights, there is probably some good in making people
THINK there are there even if one isn't present.

Then there is the bullets in the fuselage problem and the is that really a
sky marshall pulling a gun thus provoking passengers to act in peril of
their lives attacking the wrong person. (yeah, I know SMs will be tall
blond and blue eyed with I love George and Tony tatooed on their forearms)

jcoulter writes
While it's important for the UK to have tight security at the
originating airport, it certainly can't hurt to have Air Marshals on
the planes either. It's just putting the Depth of Defense principal
to work. Also, while it's probably better to actually HAVE an Air
Marshall on flights, there is probably some good in making people
THINK there are there even if one isn't present.

Then there is the bullets in the fuselage problem

Air marshals will use low-velocity ammunition which won't penetrate the
skin of the aircraft.

and the is that really a
sky marshall pulling a gun thus provoking passengers to act in peril of
their lives attacking the wrong person.

That _is_ a danger. If you noticed a passenger in the next seat start to
clear a concealed handgun, what would _you_ do?
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/