What if you had a lone "nut" freak out and attack the air marshall to distract him, while the accomplices used the diversion to "neutralize" the air marshall while he was distracted? If the air marshall is busy trying to control the unruly passenger, it might be easy to get the drop on him. More to the point, Air Marshalls travel "undercover". Staging an "ordinary" disturbance which would get the Air Marshall involved would allow the terrorists to identify the Air Marshall so that they could then neutralize him unexpectedly later in the flight (or as you point out, while he's distracted by the original disturbance and focusing on that).
What's with the BA flights? Anyone wants to venture a guess? I don't quite understand why can't they operate these flights, after screening the passengers and the luggage. They could replace even the flight crew, or change the plane... I lost track how many flights have been canceled and searched by now, and they are considering canceling the next one.
What kind of "fact related intel" would cause them to behave this way???
====
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/nationalnews/content_objectid=13773940_method=full_siteid=50102_headline=-Security-decisions-due-on-BA-flight-name_page.html Security decisions due on BA flight Jan 2 2004
British Airways security officials are deciding whether to operate the next flight to Washington after cancelling Thursday's service because of fears over security.
Flight BA 223 from Heathrow to Washington, which normally leaves London at 3.05pm, was cancelled several hours before it was scheduled to depart after BA received "security advice" from the Government.
And on New Year's Eve, the same flight had been kept on the runway for three hours after landing at Washington Dulles International Airport to allow security officials to board the plane and question passengers.
The Boeing 747 was escorted into Dulles by two F-16 fighter jets.
A BA spokesman said the airline was still hoping to operate this afternoon's flight to Washington.
However, he said that in light of the events of the past two days, the security situation surrounding flight BA 223 was being closely monitored.
A decision on whether to operate the service today would be made by the airline's security officials, he added.
On Thursday night it emerged that US authorities were acting on intelligence information - and not just suspicious passenger names - when they boarded the BA jet on New Year's Eve. However, no evidence of terrorism was found.
"We had concerns with individuals on the flight, but threat reporting information led us to make the decision to have the flight escorted," a national security official said.
"It was fact-related," the official said, and not just connected to the passenger list the US now receives from airlines flying to the US.
More to the point, Air Marshalls travel "undercover". Staging an "ordinary" disturbance which would get the Air Marshall involved would allow the terrorists to identify the Air Marshall so that they could then neutralize him unexpectedly later in the flight (or as you point out, while he's distracted by the original disturbance and focusing on that). That's exactly what I was thinking. What a simple way to draw out the undercover marshall.
If anything, this should underscore the fact that an air marshall is not the end-all, be-all line of defense that we have on a passenger jet. It's my firm belief that we need to arm as many pilots as we can. To those who don't think you can't trust a pilot with a gun: you're not making any sense, because you have already put your life in the pilot's hands if you fly. I guarantee you that pilot could hurt a lot more people on the plane by mishandling the jet instead of mishandling the firearm.
On a related note, for those who enjoy the Mythbusters show on Discovery Channel, you may want to watch the new episode this Sunday. Apparently the myth that they will be testing is that a bullet hole will depressurize the plane at 30,000 feet. Should be interesting.