Quote:

Actually Beef, the US security still lags behind many countries. It is 1000 times better than it used to be, but countries like the UK have still got a much better security system in place. And even that is put to shame by the isrealies and El Al. The moment a company says, right its as good as we can do, is the moment a pottential threat will get through.

Quote:

but thats my point aswell. you cant fall into the trap of thinking you cant do better. They have to continually get better.

This is one of those arguments where everyone is in some measure correct.

Hagar, you're absolutely right to say American - in this case, I will expand that to say North American - security is flawed. It needs to be bettered. The problem though is there is no such thing as absolute security, especially when considering airports.

Everyone do a quick exercise: Think of the security arrangements at the international airport you're most familiar with. Write them down: metal detectors, checkpoints, drug dogs, etc.

Now - in a seperate heading; add in all the things that aren't there, or that you don't know of. Add them to your list until you have an imaginary security system in place that will make your airport as safe as can be.

Don't forget training and motivational factors.

Don't consider the cost - security is very expensive.

Once all that is done; have a hard look at the areas of the airport protected your security arrangements. Are they truly secure? Work on them until they are.

Good.

Now the part that people miss; unless they've been trained to look for it. Look at all the areas of an airport not covered by your security arrangements.

See what I mean? As anyone in the industry will know; an international airport is a veritable city unto itself. It's huge, complex, crowded and very, very busy. It's an iceberg - what the travelling public sees of an airport is the barest fraction of what's actually there. It is impossible - whatever the funds provided - to provide complete security.

If one wants to make public air travel as safe as possible; one cannot rely on a single line of defense. One must establish a series of layers; each designed to reinforce the other. Ideally, it starts before one reaches the airport; with the ability of a person to buy a ticket and/or passport; the visible security at the airport being the second or third layer.
Next however must come followthrough. For safety; you cannot assume you're going to get all the bad guys.

I must stress this, because when people think about - for example - terrorists; they think 'bombs'.

Question for you: What weapon did those ------'s use when they hijacked the 911 airliners?

Boxcutters. IOW, retractable X-acto knives.

Look; other than while actually teaching (and I haven't taught in this field since 2000) I really hate to say this because someone always accuses me of arrogance. Believe me; I wish I were arrogant on this; it'd make things a lot easier. BUT -



If, in some strange alternate universe I wanted to bring down an airliner, what would I need to do so? Guns? Bombs?
I have on my person everything I need right now. A belt, a watch, couple pens, a cellphone, a Blackberry. The most innocuous things. But the one real weapon I posess in the psychological ability to do violence. Twenty-five years training to do such violence (and live fire experience) is a major factor as well. And believe me - if we met; you would never know.
I need nothing other than that to do terrible harm; and that is the reason for FAM's. FAM's - and mind; I currently train with, interact with and have deep frienships with a number of them - are not gun totin' security guards; nor are they undercover cops. They're a select corps - highly trained and educated; experienced in prior law enforcement and national protective fields before becoming FAM's.

Hagar: Your words:

Quote:


That is the environment in which FAMs operate; so that is the environment in which FAMs train. I can assure you - they can operate effectively in those situations.

What it boils down to is this: People want to be safe when they fly; but people also don't want to think about having some guy with a gun up there with 'em. They want to be safe, but they don't want the inconvenience of going through security. They want to be safe but they want the measures to apply to other people because they after all aren't the problem.

Hey - I am no fan of guns myself, especially in the hands of civilians. I'm too familiar with what they can do when used improperly; or used proplerly for evil purposes. Just 'cause I carried one for most of my adult life dosn't mean I like the blasted things. But I'm very, very glad to know that the US places FAMs on airplanes.
For the record; my feelings on this matter have changed a great deal. I thought exactly as Hagar does regarding them; until I wound up working with them. I never liked the idea of FAMs; I knew that there had to be followthrough; but FAMs were not the answer - until I learned more about them, firsthand.

The guy in question stated he had a bomb. He reached into a concealed location.

What would you do?

Quote:


The acceptable number is zero.

I hear the words 'acceptable losses' all the time from media and the general public.
Never from those actually involved.

Please keep in mind folks that this is the first time a FAM has ever drawn a weapon during an incident since 911.

Well I think what it really boils down to is this-

would you feel more safe knowing-

A) a guy could get a bomb on a plane

B) a guy could get a bomb on a plane and there's another guy, on your side, with a gun

Because you basically have to, you must, choose one of the sides.

Staiduk is very correct in the FAMs are entirely capable of operating in the cramped super-CQB environment of an airplane cabin.  While having a gun on board, no matter who is holding it, is inherently dangerous, I would still want these guys having em.

I have to agree with Craig that there is an acceptable losses number-there always is, even if it's not readily circulated, it probably does exist.

And Doug, US Customs services are absolutely notoriously hideous.  Philly Intl is world renowned for the terrible customs employees.