View Full Version : Fly in style!
Goggles Pizano
12-08-2004, 14:10
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041208-122555-6114r.htm
I'm not sure what type of law enforcement backround Quinn has but he certainly never did any covert ops! The Marshalls are right to protest as loud as possible since this type of silliness is going to get people killed. Once again an agency's potentates have a meeting, do not consult the troops about needs/wants or how to implement their idea, then come to a ridiculous decision and threaten anyone who does not conform. I'm at a loss. :mad:
NousDefionsDoc
12-08-2004, 14:14
If they don't wear a jacket, how are they covering their Gats?
Goggles Pizano
12-08-2004, 14:16
Sweatshirt, any type of sports jersey, just about anything depending upon your mode of carry.
NousDefionsDoc
12-08-2004, 14:49
Mmm. Not the way I do it, but to each his own. I have flown a lot and I have yet to see just one man wearing a suit or sport jacket. Personally, I have no problem with this. These people have left guns laying in bathrooms and stuff. Maybe they need to get their chain yanked. Can't follow orders is a sign of a lack of discipline. I don't want to be on an airplane with an undisciplined air marshal. There's a reason people tend not to mess with FBI agents and Secret Service dudes. They should be allowed to wear overcoats in cold areas I think - I fail to see the reasoning behind that one.
Goggles Pizano
12-09-2004, 02:30
Leaving weapons unsecured is both a training and discipline issue I agree. My approach is if your UC then act like it (how you carry, what you wear, your attitude, diction, etc). Nothing is more obvious to the bad guys than a "uniform" in that (or any really) enviornment. They did mention that there is a team concept with flight time. What if the TL thinks it's best to have one or two guys laying low while the others are in the proper dress? How much restrictions are placed upon team leaders, and if too much then why? Just a thought.
CommoGeek
12-09-2004, 05:33
I know a couple of FAMs, both are prior mil and prior LEOs. For once the mass media articulated their thoughts correctly. As for the unsecured weapons... 10% rule applies, everyone has their dirtbags.
NousDefionsDoc
12-09-2004, 14:21
Are air marshals trying to catch criminals/terrorists and bring them to trial or are they a deterrent measure intended to dissuade the potential perpetrators?
I think I could have a pretty good idea of who was one, no matter how he was dressed. I know I could narrow it down to five if I was sitting where I could see him. And I've got a pretty good idea of where I need to sit to do it.
I wonder if they work in pairs or as singletons - don't answer - OPSEC
I wonder if a singleton air marshal could have prevented 9-11 or part of it.
Just thinking out loud.
IMO - you're pretty much hosed once the BGs get on the plane. The trick is to keep them from ever boarding - profiling.
CommoGeek
12-09-2004, 15:32
Are air marshals trying to catch criminals/terrorists and bring them to trial or are they a deterrent measure intended to dissuade the potential perpetrators?
IMO - you're pretty much hosed once the BGs get on the plane. The trick is to keep them from ever boarding - profiling.
1) I tend to think they make us feel better about flying. There are too few of them to have any effective coverage (The numbers are in that link), its the thought, the possibilty that counts I suppose.
2) Profiling? Sheesh NDD, according to the Libs you are now a racist. I hope you can sleep well at night knowing that. :rolleyes: I agree with you though. You can't rob a bank if you never step foot in it (cyber terror excluded).
Shark Bait
12-10-2004, 14:36
Now that current and retired LEO's can now carry concealed anywhere in the US, thanks to the POTUS and HR218, they should allow some of them to carry on aircraft, too. I don't mean any LEO. I mean those who complete the training at FLETC in Artesia, NM. That's where they teach the pilots and others ref shooting on aircraft. Doing this would increase the pucker factor for the bad guys 10 fold.
[QUOTE=NousDefionsDoc]Are air marshals trying to catch criminals/terrorists and bring them to trial or are they a deterrent measure intended to dissuade the potential perpetrators?
NDD , Great question. Scope, intent, mission statement? Again, I think we're just great at fighting the last war, hence, we're now utilizing FAM's to prevent 5 BG's with weapons from taking over the plane... again. My point is all of the BG's training contains extensive preop surveillance on each target, why help them? Without going into opsec it is pretty easy to pick out the FAM's when flying, which puts THEM at the disadvantage not the BG's. Flying El Al thus far, I've only picked out one of their security contractors because I knew him, and it still took me awhile to recognize him. So I'm votin' for the deterrence of the slightly unkempt dude readin' his Puppy of the Month magazine, wearin' his "Barry Manilow Live!" hat (the red one) while he mentally triangulates fields of fire & CQB options to them that are settin' his spider senses all a tingle.
NousDefionsDoc
12-10-2004, 16:18
I will defer to casey on this.
I will defer to casey on this.
It was the Barry Manilow hat that did it.
It's a tough question. There are very few privileges in this country that are less common and harder to get than the privilege of carrying a firearm on an airplane. This is why part of me does think, 'hey, it's a sport coat, deal with it'. I have heard nothing good come out of the FAM program, but I have heard of numerous instances where marshals have left their pistols in luggage racks, on toilets, and other assorted slip-ups. I can't say that wearing a sport coat inspires discipline per se, but if you're not disciplined enough to keep within the uniform required of your position, I have little respect for you.
However. In the world of the Federal Air Marshals, perhaps no news is good news: just as I have yet to hear anything good come from them, I have also not heard of any flights getting hijacked recently in this country. That can be construed as complimenting their effectiveness, or not; you can't prove a negative. Although I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find any flight, anywhere in the country, that does not have at least several men in suits/sport coats aboard, I do see the merit of the argument that hell, let 'em wear whatever they want so long as it makes them more effective.
Smokin Joe
12-11-2004, 00:06
Although I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find any flight, anywhere in the country, that does not have at least several men in suits/sport coats aboard, I do see the merit of the argument that hell, let 'em wear whatever they want so long as it makes them more effective.
I agree with this. Let the FAM's dictate what they should or should not be wearing. How many of you QP's were ever out of AR-6-70-1 (I think that is the right Army Reg for uniform) while deployed? I know, I know its apples and oranges but the concept is the same. These guys are in there field and for the most part they know what other ppl are wearing on their routes and can make the best call on what will and will not blend in with the other passengers. No admin shmuck can make that call, it always fails some jack ass desk driver who back in Washington knows it all (well thinks he knows it all) because he worked undercover Narcs back in the 70's. So b/c of his 30 year old experience in NARCS he is all of a sudden the for going authority on what a FAM should wear on a flight from LA to Las Vegas....ah no I don't think so.
You guys know what I mean, How much more effective were ODA's in OEF because they adopted relaxed grooming standards and took on local customs? Would they have been AS effective had they worn standard woodland or DCU BDU'S without relaxed grooming standards? Probably but I think fitting in with the target populace or host nation is that much better, and makes it that much easier in acomplishing your job. Plus for these guys there cover is there only means of suprise.