Why arming security personnel can make the public less safe

[northwichcat]

A federal air marshal on a transatlantic flight left her loaded service weapon in the airplane's bathroom, where it was discovered by a passenger who gave it to a crew member before it was returned to the federal agent, CNN has learned.

The incident happened aboard Delta flight 221, which was traveling from Manchester, United Kingdom, to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on April 6, and was reported to the air marshal's management days later.

In a statement to CNN the TSA would confirm only that it is aware of an incident involving a federal air marshal on that date, and it is reviewing the circumstances.

A Delta spokesperson said the airline is also aware of the incident but declined to provide further comment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/air-marshal-gun-airplane-bathroom/index.html

If a different passenger had got hold of the gun left lying around the consequences could have been much worse!

 

[Antman]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/air-marshal-gun-airplane-bathroom/index.html

If a different passenger had got hold of the gun left lying around the consequences could have been much worse!

In fairness police officers are not beyond such stupidity but arming civilians really is asking for trouble!

 

[gordonthemoron]

what's the point in having a gun on a plane in the first place? Surely a taser would be more appropriate

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would rather there were no weapons at all on an aircraft. There are enough people there to overpower any potential assailant.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would rather there were no weapons at all on an aircraft. There are enough people there to overpower any potential assailant.

That didn't help those on United 93 much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That didn't help those on United 93 much.

The paradigm has shifted. Now 9/11 has happened, far more people will get involved far more quickly.

100-odd WILL win against 4 this time. 9/11 can never happen again.

 

[tsr]

The paradigm has shifted. Now 9/11 has happened, far more people will get involved far more quickly.

100-odd WILL win against 4 this time. 9/11 can never happen again.

Not so long ago, someone managed to fly a plane into the side of a mountain and took every soul with him. At short notice, even the best military forces could struggle to deal with the same sort of incident in a higher risk area, such as over the centre of a major city. I work in public transport, and could never wish such a horrible fate on anybody - but I'm afraid that catastrophes can, do and probably will continue to happen.

In any case, these circumstances are different (which, given the way you've typed your comment, I think you acknowledge completely!) - 100 people could quite easily be scared at once by someone holding a gun, particularly if that person is volatile enough to shoot one or two of their fellow passengers. It would be folly to think that a gun left in a bathroom could not have vicious and awful consequences.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I don't deny that some security personnel need to be armed, but I don't believe such personnel should ever be deployed as general practice. The armed police at St Pancras do not make me feel safe at all, in fact they have precisely the opposite effect.

Not so long ago, someone managed to fly a plane into the side of a mountain and took every soul with him.

That was a pilot, not a hijacker.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'm not sure the incident described has any relevance to this country. American attitudes to firearms and their paranoia over terrorism mean that for the US armed air marshalls are here to stay. In spite of incidents that have happened here we are no nearer the routine arming of police officers and the rules governing the armed units are as strict as they have ever been. As for the presence of obviously armed patrols at certain locations they have never bothered me in the slightest; I grew up during the IRA's UK bombing campaign so I am quite used to a degree of security theatre and I think we have things reasonably well balanced.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not sure the incident described has any relevance to this country. American attitudes to firearms and their paranoia over terrorism mean that for the US armed air marshalls are here to stay. In spite of incidents that have happened here we are no nearer the routine arming of police officers and the rules governing the armed units are as strict as they have ever been. As for the presence of obviously armed patrols at certain locations they have never bothered me in the slightest; I grew up during the IRA's UK bombing campaign so I am quite used to a degree of security theatre and I think we have things reasonably well balanced.

Agree with most of this. My only caveat is that when armed police DO overstep the mark, the Force's PR team will very quickly step into action to muddy the waters. Citation: the immediate aftermath of the Jean-Charles de Menezes case.

Please note, this is not a criticism of the officers involved in that unfortunate episode- hindsight is always 20-20... but a criticism of the lies that were put out by senior officers (including present-day Met Commissioner Cressida Dick who was the commanding officer that day) about de Menezes vaulting the barrier.

 

[northwichcat]

Not so long ago, someone managed to fly a plane into the side of a mountain and took every soul with him. At short notice, even the best military forces could struggle to deal with the same sort of incident in a higher risk area, such as over the centre of a major city. I work in public transport, and could never wish such a horrible fate on anybody - but I'm afraid that catastrophes can, do and probably will continue to happen.

In any case, these circumstances are different (which, given the way you've typed your comment, I think you acknowledge completely!) - 100 people could quite easily be scared at once by someone holding a gun, particularly if that person is volatile enough to shoot one or two of their fellow passengers. It would be folly to think that a gun left in a bathroom could not have vicious and awful consequences.

That was a mentally ill co pilot who locked the pilot out of the cock pit after he went to the toilet. As a result of that there's been a significant change to procedures.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

That was a mentally ill co pilot who locked the pilot out of the cock pit after he went to the toilet. As a result of that there's been a significant change to procedures.

This was nicely illustrated during the recent tv programmes about easyJet cadet pilots. At one point during a normal scheduled flight one of the pilots wanted to use the toilet and had to call a flight attendant to the cockpit to ensure the remaining pilot was not left alone.

 

[fowler9]

Not so long ago, someone managed to fly a plane into the side of a mountain and took every soul with him. At short notice, even the best military forces could struggle to deal with the same sort of incident in a higher risk area, such as over the centre of a major city. I work in public transport, and could never wish such a horrible fate on anybody - but I'm afraid that catastrophes can, do and probably will continue to happen.

In any case, these circumstances are different (which, given the way you've typed your comment, I think you acknowledge completely!) - 100 people could quite easily be scared at once by someone holding a gun, particularly if that person is volatile enough to shoot one or two of their fellow passengers. It would be folly to think that a gun left in a bathroom could not have vicious and awful consequences.

That Germanwings catastrophe probably won't happen again. (I say probably, nothing is guaranteed, flying is the safest way to travel though) Flight crew are no longer allowed to be left alone in the cockpit. My sister has babysat a few Captains and First Officers while the other went for a wee since then.

 

[tsr]

I take all the points above, indeed I have heard them before. My point is that disasters can still happen, generally in unpredictable ways, or ones which highlight that human nature and general problems of human life can interfere however much mitigation there is.

If someone is waving a gun at a flight attendant entering a cockpit, having seized it illicitly (in whatever way)... yes, it's a long shot. But in any case, people will not always be able to step in. Even in circumstances where passengers were benign (or unconscious), crew might be unable to deal with the emergency fully, eg. the incident where an airliner and its occupants succumbed to hypoxia, and only a flight attendant with limited flying experience could attempt to intervene - but insufficiently.

As for the "second person" rule, hasn't this been quietly dispensed with / not been implemented at all by a few airlines? I have a feeling I've read this on other forums.

 

[northwichcat]

If someone is waving a gun at a flight attendant entering a cockpit, having seized it illicitly (in whatever way)... yes, it's a long shot. But in any case, people will not always be able to step in.

Not at armed criminals take the approach of advertising the fact they have a gun to all. A criminal might grab a member of the public, show the gun and say no-one will get hurt if you do what I say.

 

[Bromley boy]

This was nicely illustrated during the recent tv programmes about easyJet cadet pilots. At one point during a normal scheduled flight one of the pilots wanted to use the toilet and had to call a flight attendant to the cockpit to ensure the remaining pilot was not left alone.

Worryingly this is largely window dressing.

An acquaintance of mine who flies professionally reckons it would be very easy for a suicidal pilot hell-bent on destruction of an aircraft to overcome a member of cabin crew through various methods or simply shove the nose down immediately after take off. Not nice to think about, I realise.

The main protection against this sort of thing is the class 1 medical which airline pilots are required to hold. Diagnosis of a serious psychological condition would prevent this being obtained and would invalidate it if already held, immediately grounding the pilot.

The problem in the case of Germanwings was that the chap wasn't actually mentally ill, or at least had not been formally diagnosed with any condition, and was able to pass himself off as normal for the purposes of his class 1 medical examinations.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't deny that some security personnel need to be armed, but I don't believe such personnel should ever be deployed as general practice. The armed police at St Pancras do not make me feel safe at all, in fact they have precisely the opposite effect.

I also agree with the principle that we should minimise the extent to which the police are armed. On the other hand it is necessary for the sexurity services to react to the dynamic and changing nature of the threats we are facing, which are currently vehicle attacks and marauding knifemen.

The close presence of armed police certainly minimised casualties in both the Westminster and London Bridge attacks.

On that basis they are quite right, in my view, to deploy armed guards in high profile, densely populated areas such as stations and major attractions.

 

[fowler9]

Worryingly this is largely window dressing.

An acquaintance of mine who flies professionally reckons it would be very easy for a suicidal pilot hell-bent on destruction of an aircraft to overcome a member of cabin crew through various methods or simply shove the nose down immediately after take off. Not nice to think about, I realise.

The main protection against this sort of thing is the class 1 medical which airline pilots are required to hold. Diagnosis of a serious psychological condition would prevent this being obtained and would invalidate it if already held, immediately grounding the pilot.

The problem in the case of Germanwings was that the chap wasn't actually mentally ill, or at least had not been formally diagnosed with any condition, and was able to pass himself off as normal for the purposes of his class 1 medical examinations.

He was prescribed Mirtazapine so he had most definitely been diagnosed with a mental health problem. In the March his GP warned of imminent psychosis, the airline were not informed. I believe he had also taken a break from his training due to depressive episodes. In short he had been diagnosed with a mental illness.

 

[fowler9]

I take all the points above, indeed I have heard them before. My point is that disasters can still happen, generally in unpredictable ways, or ones which highlight that human nature and general problems of human life can interfere however much mitigation there is.

If someone is waving a gun at a flight attendant entering a cockpit, having seized it illicitly (in whatever way)... yes, it's a long shot. But in any case, people will not always be able to step in. Even in circumstances where passengers were benign (or unconscious), crew might be unable to deal with the emergency fully, eg. the incident where an airliner and its occupants succumbed to hypoxia, and only a flight attendant with limited flying experience could attempt to intervene - but insufficiently.

As for the "second person" rule, hasn't this been quietly dispensed with / not been implemented at all by a few airlines? I have a feeling I've read this on other forums.

I know it hasn't been dispensed with at Easyjet.

 

[Bromley boy]

He was prescribed Mirtazapine so he had most definitely been diagnosed with a mental health problem. In the March his GP warned of imminent psychosis, the airline were not informed. I believe he had also taken a break from his training due to depressive episodes. In short he had been diagnosed with a mental illness.

From a google search it appears he omitted to tell the relevant aviation authority of this diagnosis. If he had done so his medical would certainly have been suspended pending further investigation. As far as the airline and the licensing authority were concerned, he was fully fit.

I hold a class 2 aviation medical (far less stringent than a class 1) and on both initial assessment and each subsequent renewal searching questions are asked about medical history, diagnosis of any illness including psychological disorders etc.

The problem is the medicals only test for conditions that might cause sudden incapacitation. When it comes to psychological disorders the honesty of the applicant is relied upon. There is no automatic transfer of GP's records/medical notes to the relevant aviation medical examiner.

 

[fowler9]

From a google search it appears he omitted to tell the relevant aviation authority of this diagnosis. If he had done so his medical would certainly have been suspended pending further investigation. As far as the airline and the licensing authority were concerned, he was fully fit.

I hold a class 2 aviation medical (far less stringent than a class 1) and on both initial assessment and each subsequent renewal searching questions are asked about medical history, diagnosis of any illness including psychological disorders etc.

The problem is the medicals only test for conditions that might cause sudden incapacitation. When it comes to psychological disorders the honesty of the applicant is relied upon. There is no automatic transfer of GP's records/medical notes to the relevant aviation medical examiner.

It is difficult isn't it. as I understand it depression does not preclude you from becoming a pilot (Correct me if I am wrong, you will know better than me I guess). In a safety critical role can you employer request your full medical history from your GP?

 

[Bromley boy]

It is difficult isn't it. as I understand it depression does not preclude you from becoming a pilot (Correct me if I am wrong, you will know better than me I guess). In a safety critical role can you employer request your full medical history from your GP?

It is difficult - I guess it's a case of striking a balance: safety is paramount, but it's also important to not unduly discriminate against those with what is a very common condition.

In the aviation context depression is subject to further investigation and may or may not be acceptable. However the default position (for both class 1 and 2 medicals) is that depression will always render you unfit until you are proven to be fit through the necessary methods. The below document shows how the decision is made:

https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294973468

Interestingly neither aviation nor railway medical examiners have automatic recourse to the applicant's GP. They will however ask for specialist reports/investigations into matters coming to light.

This does of course mean that applicants for both aviation and railway medicals can choose to dishonestly withhold details of their medical history, should they so wish.

 

[fowler9]

In the aviation context depression is subject to further investigation and may or may not be acceptable. However the default position (for both class 1 and 2 medicals) is that depression will always render you unfit until you are proven to be fit through the necessary methods. The below document shows how the decision is made:

https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294973468

Interestingly neither aviation nor medical records have automatic recourse to the applicant's GP. They will however ask for specialist reports/investigations into matters coming to light.

This does of course mean that applicants for both aviation and railway medicals can choose to dishonestly withhold details of their medical history, should they so wish.

Wow, that is interesting. Personally speaking I have always disclosed my history of depression just so that if I get the job I cannot later be sacked just for not disclosing it if it comes out. On the plus side I have always found employers to be very supportive once they gave me a job. I hasten to add I am not a pilot in case that worries anyone.

 

[Bromley boy]

Wow, that is interesting. Personally speaking I have always disclosed my history of depression just so that if I get the job I cannot later be sacked just for not disclosing it if it comes out. On the plus side I have always found employers to be very supportive once they gave me a job. I hasten to add I am not a pilot in case that worries anyone.

I'd imagine for most jobs there would be no requirement to disclose - quite rightly - why should you have to disclose private information? If the depression is a long lasting you'd also likely have protection against discrimination under the Equalities Act.

It's different for jobs where either the condition or its treatment may have potentially dangerous side effects hence the strict aviation requirements.

I'm not sure where the railway stands on depression, although any medication would certainly be a complete no-no if it reduced reaction times.

 

[fowler9]

I'd imagine for most jobs there would be no requirement to disclose - quite rightly - why should you have to disclose private information? If the depression is a long lasting you'd also likely have protection against discrimination under the Equalities Act.

It's different for jobs where either the condition or its treatment may have potentially dangerous side effects hence the strict aviation requirements.

I'm not sure where the railway stands on depression, although any medication would certainly be a complete no-no if it reduced reaction times.

Yeah I would agree with that.

 

[northwichcat]

Worryingly this is largely window dressing.

An acquaintance of mine who flies professionally reckons it would be very easy for a suicidal pilot hell-bent on destruction of an aircraft to overcome a member of cabin crew through various methods or simply shove the nose down immediately after take off. Not nice to think about, I realise.

There's always going to be some potential risks which would be impractical to cater for, whether it be on a plane, train or just in a busy shopping centre. Having the member of cabin crew temporarily take the place of the pilot could have other benefits e.g. possibly if the co-pilot starts choking while the pilot is using the toilet, having someone there to take immediate action could make the difference between the co-pilot needing medical attention or not.

 

[Bromley boy]

There's always going to be some potential risks which would be impractical to cater for, whether it be on a plane, train or just in a busy shopping centre. Having the member of cabin crew temporarily take the place of the pilot could have other benefits e.g. possibly if the co-pilot starts choking while the pilot is using the toilet, having someone there to take immediate action could make the difference between the co-pilot needing medical attention or not.

Thing is, this was introduced specifically as a measure to prevent a repeat of the Germanwing's scenario, which it absolutely will not be able to do.

It's difficult to think of many situations where it would help. In your scenario, what would a cabin crew member be able to do if the first officer started choking? Absolutely nothing until the captain returns (the aircraft will be straight and level on autopilot whenever there is only one pilot at the controls, the cabin crew member sits in the jump seat and absolutely could not "take over" any more than a random member of the public could).

My pilot friend's perception of this policy (only one person's viewpoint, I accept, although most of his colleagues agree with him) is that it's a pain in the bum, adds very little from the safety point of view and may actually create more of a risk by having a non flight-crew member on the flight deck. Cabin crew are subjected to far less psychological vetting than pilots and are of variable quality (no offence to the poster who mentioned he is related to a cabin crew member!).

 

[fowler9]

Thing is, this was introduced specifically as a measure to prevent a repeat of the Germanwing's scenario, which it absolutely will not be able to do.

It's difficult to think of many situations where it would help. In your scenario, what would a cabin crew member be able to do if the first officer started choking? Absolutely nothing until the captain returns (the aircraft will be straight and level on autopilot whenever there is only one pilot at the controls, the cabin crew member sits in the jump seat and absolutely could not "take over" any more than a random member of the public could).

My pilot friend's perception of this policy (only one person's viewpoint, I accept, although most of his colleagues agree with him) is that it's a pain in the bum, adds very little from the safety point of view and may actually create more of a risk by having a non flight-crew member on the flight deck. Cabin crew are subjected to far less psychological vetting than pilots and are of variable quality (no offence to the poster who mentioned he is related to a cabin crew member!).

Yeah, that was me, ha ha, no offence taken. She is trained to at least try and stop the choking member of the flight crew from choking though which is a good thing. Plus if the person in the hot seat tries to crash the plane in to a mountain she an also at least try to open the cockpit door to allow access to others to assist. Plus the psychological vetting pilots receive didn't stop one with a history of depression from being able to fly a plane in to a mountain.

Edit: After reading a little bit it does not appear that a lot of psychological vetting of pilots is done at all. It seems to rely on self reporting.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yeah, that was me, ha ha, no offence taken. She is trained to at least try and stop the choking member of the flight crew from choking though which is a good thing. Plus if the person in the hot seat tries to crash the plane in to a mountain she an also at least try to open the cockpit door to allow access to others to assist. Plus the psychological vetting pilots receive didn't stop one with a history of depression from being able to fly a plane in to a mountain.

Edit: After reading a little bit it does not appear that a lot of psychological vetting of pilots is done at all. It seems to rely on self reporting.

No disrespect to your sister - but a burly pilot with access to a crash axe and a quick-donning 02 mask could do various unpleasant things that would be completely unstoppable to a cabin crew member.

I agree the system relies too much on self reporting. Especially for class 1 medicals. I'm not sure what the answer to that is.

Of course it's a horrible thing to think about - but the chances of any of us as passengers (or as cabin crew, or pilots) being involved in an incident like this are vanishingly small, so it's important to keep a sense of perspective.

 

[fowler9]

No disrespect to your sister - but a burly pilot with access to a crash axe and a quick-donning 02 mask could do various unpleasant things that would be completely unstoppable to a cabin crew member.

I agree the system relies too much on self reporting. Especially for class 1 medicals. I'm not sure what the answer to that is.

Of course it's a horrible thing to think about - but the chances of any of us as passengers (or cabin crew or pilots) being involved in an incident like this are vanishingly small, so it's important to keep a sense of perspective.

Again no offence taken but not all flight crew are burly (I have seen few that are). Plus my sister is trained to and has dealt with burly drunk stag parties on the late night Liverpool to Alicante and back, big out of control men who need restraining.

From what I have read the last few hours it seems that the flight crew get little to no more psychological evaluation than the cabin crew do. Most of it seems drug and alcohol related and relies on self reporting or colleagues reporting suspicions. Not trying to argue like its just that it is my little sisters job so it interests me.