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 -
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOIf, 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:
I don't know how long it is since you've been on an airliner but in my experience the aisles are obstructed throughout the flight either with cabin crew serving refreshments from their trolleys or countless passengers milling around visiting the toilets. I can't see an opportunity for anyone to intervene or get a clear shot under these circumstances.
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?
