Foreign flights, follow orders or else.

This is a Fow news item, which sets the tone.

A curious battle could occur.

The issue is revolves around international accords
which have assigned certain authority to the pilot
and the country the airplane is operating from
to them, even over foreign territory. So I don`t
think the US has the legal right to impose Air
Marshals other than through black mail by refusing
landing rights if they are not aboard.

Moreover, the presence of Air Marshals will probably
not be continuous but only occur at critical times
and subject to being ordered by the US authority.
This effectively places the planes under the command
of American authorities in an in habitual manner
whenever they alone decide.

I shall be interested in seeing if any news items cover
these fine points.

I personally think we are in a power grab situation.

Earl

*****


Major Crackdown on Foreign Flights

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

WASHINGTON*‹*Under the new flight restrictions put in place Monday to
prevent a possible Al Qaeda attack, foreign airlines may be denied access
to American airspace if they refuse to place armed marshals (search )on
flights.

The mandate is effective immediately, according to the Homeland Security
Department.

"Any sovereign government retains the right to revoke the privilege of
flying to and from a country or even over their airspace," Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday. "So ultimately a denial of access is the
leverage that you have."

Ridge also said the nation would remain at orange alert through the New
Year's holiday and perhaps beyond. "We are as concerned today as we were
yesterday," he said. "We'll be concerned as much this week as we were last
week."

The new directive Ridge outlined Monday requires selected international
flights that enter U.S. airspace to carry an armed law enforcement officer
aboard. The Homeland Security Department will require such officers on
airplanes where intelligence information leads to a specific concern about
that flight.

For months, U.S. security officials have feared that Al Qaeda operatives
would again hijack planes to use them as missiles. The most recent concerns
centered not on domestic passenger flights, but on airliners or cargo planes
that take off from overseas and cross over U.S. airspace, either on their
way to a U.S. airport or to a foreign one.

American security officials will "be working with our aviation partners
internationally to ensure that the kinds of protective measures we have
requested actually" are implemented, Ridge said.

The Bush administration raised the terrorism alert level to orange, or high,
on Dec. 21, citing nonspecific but credible threats of an imminent terrorist
attack.

Air France canceled six flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Wednesday
and Thursday, after security discussions between U.S. and French officials.

French Transport Ministry spokesman Olivier Mousson said Monday that U.S.
security agents have inspected security at French airports since the United
States raised its alert level.

Aviation security experts said the announcement marks a significant change
in that, up until now, international security guidelines have been
voluntary.

"In the past, no country has ever tried to impose on other countries any
measures of aviation security," said Rafi Ron, president of New Age Security
Solutions, a Washington-based consultancy, and the former security director
for the Israeli Airport Authority.

Ron predicted that despite concerns about armed air marshals expressed by
British pilots and others, the measure will be enforced without much
resistance because of the huge importance of the U.S. market to foreign
carriers.

The next logical step will be for the international community to push for
global aviation security standards, including mandated reinforced cockpit
doors and better airport perimeter defenses.

Homeland Security officials said governments frequently set security and
other standards for planes bound for their airspace.

Homeland Security reviews the passenger and crew manifests of all planes
bound for U.S. airspace, generally after the plane has taken off, because
passenger lists are usually finalized only minutes before the plane taxis
from the gate, department spokesman Dennis Murphy said.

Some passenger lists are reviewed beforehand, he said.

The directive comes in the form of three emergency amendments to air
security regulations involving cargo planes, passenger planes and airliners
passing over U.S. airspace. There are thousands of international commercial
and cargo flights daily involving U.S. airspace and hundreds of
international carriers.

The directive says that armed government officers from the country of the
airline's ownership would be aboard, and they be equipped to prevent anyone
from reaching the plane's cockpit and to communicate with the crew, Murphy
said.

Ridge said the U.S. government would help train air marshals for countries
without a program of their own.

Some international airlines said Monday they would cooperate with the new
U.S. requirement. Others, including airlines in Canada and Germany, said
they already were using armed marshals on some flights.

Britain said Sunday it had tightened security for trans-Atlantic flights and
suggested, as it has in the past, that it might put armed sky marshals on
some planes.

I don't see the problem. No one will know who the marshall on the flight is
unless something happens. By then, you'd be glad he was there.
You have to assume the worse if there is a terrorist on a plane. It would be a
good thing to have someone trained to act.
Unless you are of the "let's roll variety.
If nothing happens on the flight, who cares if there was, or was not, a
marshall on the plane.


This effectively places the planes under the command
of American authorities

Not so. The marshall is there as a "passnger". Not flying the plane. And if it
getts to a situation whereby a decision has to be made due to a terrorist act
on that plane, who is to say that a pilot would have anymore sense about what
to do that a marshall, should a command decision need to be made.

I personally think we are in a power grab situation.

Who would you rather have grab power? I personally think you would find fault
with whatever is done to meet these problems.

"Treemoss2" wrote in message
...
I don't see the problem. No one will know who the marshall on the flight
is
unless something happens. By then, you'd be glad he was there.
You have to assume the worse if there is a terrorist on a plane. It would
be a
good thing to have someone trained to act.
Unless you are of the "let's roll variety.
If nothing happens on the flight, who cares if there was, or was not, a
marshall on the plane.

Probably the marshall will after getting DVT through flying too much.

I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order
other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai
government has refused the US "order".

In article ,
(Richard Grant) wrote:

I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order
other countries to implement this airline plan

it does if they are going into american airspace - which i guess mainly
means flights to and from the states, plus perhaps a few others
originating in canada or central america and heading elsewhere.

In article ,
(Richard Grant) wrote:

I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order
other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai
government has refused the US "order".

any country can decide rules for carriers entering its airspace. Do
Thai carriers land in the US? Presumably Air France can make similar
decisions for American carriers landing in Paris.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:39:12 -0800, Richard Grant wrote:

I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order
other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai
government has refused the US "order".

Sure. Likewise, apparently some British pilot unions are complaining that
this actually makes flying more unsafe.

Still, the US have the right to limit access to their air space. But so
do other countries. At best, you end up with a ****ing contest. See who
blinks first when the threat is US-overseas traffic grinding to a halt.

(Mind you, might be a bonanza for our beloved bankrupt Mapleflot :-)...)

"Jenn" schreef in bericht
...
In article ,
(Richard Grant) wrote:

I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order
other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai
government has refused the US "order".

any country can decide rules for carriers entering its airspace. Do
Thai carriers land in the US?

Yes, Thai Airways flies to Los Angeles and I believe San Francisco.

Presumably Air France can make similar
decisions for American carriers landing in Paris.

Not Air France, but the French government can.

Sjoerd

Earl Evleth wrote:



Moreover, the presence of Air Marshals will probably
not be continuous but only occur at critical times
and subject to being ordered by the US authority.
This effectively places the planes under the command
of American authorities in an in habitual manner
whenever they alone decide.

I shall be interested in seeing if any news items cover
these fine points.


The situation is quite simple. A country has the absolute
power to control its airspace during war. We are at war.
The foreign airlines will comply with all our requirements,
or the plane will be shot down upon entering our air space.

It's that simple.

We say "you can't land here, go to Canada (or Cuba)",
they do it or else.

Doug McDonald

On 30/12/03 11:01 pm, in article , "Doug
McDonald" wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:



Moreover, the presence of Air Marshals will probably
not be continuous but only occur at critical times
and subject to being ordered by the US authority.
This effectively places the planes under the command
of American authorities in an in habitual manner
whenever they alone decide.

I shall be interested in seeing if any news items cover
these fine points.


The situation is quite simple. A country has the absolute
power to control its airspace during war. We are at war.
The foreign airlines will comply with all our requirements,
or the plane will be shot down upon entering our air space.

It's that simple.

We say "you can't land here, go to Canada (or Cuba)",
they do it or else.

Doug McDonald

What a load of rubbish. Firstly, a country has the right to control its own
airspace. Period. (Unless of course that country is Palestine, but I digress
...). Secondly, the US is not at war - remember the War Powers Act ? Thirdly,
no foreign airlines will be disobeying Uncle Sam's orders - they will either
not bother flying to the US or they will do so according to Halliburton's
.... err .. I mean the US's rules.

It's that simple.

By the way - who is the "we" you speak of? Do you truly imagine yourself to
be someone who will take part in, or benefit from, this latest turn in the
screw of manufactured paranoia?

J;