Pilots' Union Accepts Use of Sky Marshals

AP | 1/06/04

[kattracks]

The Associated Press

LONDON Jan. 6 — A pilots' union says it reluctantly accepts the use of armed sky marshals on British flights, but it wants assurances from the government about dealing with the "unknown risks" of the policy. Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the pilot's union BALPA, speaking Tuesday before a meeting with Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said it was crucial that pilots remain in command of the plane at all times and know the identity of sky marshals and where they are sitting.

"We still have a fundamental problem about having ballistics in a pressurized cabin," McAuslan told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "But given that that's going to happen then we have to look at ... the consequences of that and how do pilots and professionals minimize the risks involved."

The British government has said it would put sky marshals on flights "where appropriate" and that it was boosting security on the ground and in the air for trans-Atlantic flights in response to the heightened security alert in America.

A British Airways flight from London to Washington was canceled twice last week over security fears and the service has been delayed the last three days because of U.S.-requested security checks.

On Monday, British Airways Flight BA183 from Heathrow to New York was canceled after U.S. authorities asked for 3 1/2 hours of additional security checks. The 262 passengers on the flight were rescheduled to depart Tuesday.

Officials from BALPA, which represents nearly 90 percent of Britain's 9,200 commercial pilots, said they were concerned with "practical issues."

The pilots want rules about the use of sky marshals and certain assurances from airlines, including legal and financial indemnity in case of shoot-outs.

"We have requirements under the law of this land to only take off if we can be sure that the flight can fly safely," McAuslan said. "At present, with the unknown risks involved in police sky marshals, we don't know."

At a meeting Monday, BALPA failed to come to an agreement with British Airways, which says it would accept armed officers on certain flights if it was "satisfied that safety was thereby enhanced."

McAuslan said that some union members believed American authorities had disrupted British Airways' operation to pressure the airline into accepting sky marshals. "That is a growing feeling amongst our members, that that is why it's being done," McAuslan said.

Darling said Monday that such suspicions were "complete rubbish."

Several countries have rejected calls for the armed guards by the United States, which fears that a commercial aircraft could again be used as a missile in a terrorist attack, as was the case on Sept. 11, 2001.

Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Portugal all said they would not allow the sky marshals to travel and would instead cancel flights if there was a strong suspicion of an attack.

Eva Axne of the Swedish Aviation Authority said the agency had "reached an understanding" with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration that Sweden will strengthen security on the ground instead.

"But if the U.S. consider the threat so serious that they will still demand armed guards onboard, we will cancel the flight," she added.

South African Airways also said it did not believe marshals were warranted and that its present security arrangements, emphasizing prevention on the ground, were adequate.

Other countries, including France, Germany and Canada, were supportive of the move, some revealing that sky marshals already have been in the air for months.

[upchuck]

"We still have a fundamental problem about having ballistics in a pressurized cabin," McAuslan told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

I'm neither a pilot nor air marshal. But I remember reading a thread, I think it was here, shortly after 9-11 where a pilot, who also carried, played down the danger of shooting a gun in a plane, possible puncturing the outer skin. Anybody remember this?

[Support Free Republic]

	How come EVERYBODY is picking on ME? Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC Help Keep "the Duck" out of the White house!

[boomop1]

Twits.

[night reader]

...I remember reading a thread, I think it was here, shortly after 9-11 where a pilot, who also carried, played down the danger of shooting a gun in a plane, possible puncturing the outer skin. Anybody remember this?

Yep! Like you, I believe it was here. If I recall correctly, it was asserted that in a large modern airliner, there is already the equivalent opening of over a square foot to the outside and the pressurization equipment was capable of compensating for this a the much smaller opening that a bullet might make. The writer also asserted that control lines, whether electrical or hydraulic, have multiple redundancies.

Again, if I recall correctly, that poster claimed credentials which would make such a claim credible. I, myself, make no such claim.

[x1stcav]

I don't remeber the specific reference you're referring to but found this of interest:

Home I Introduction I FAQs I B777 Images I Web Links I Aviation Links l Airlines


Will a gunshot depressurize the airplane cabin?


Question:

Could you please resolve an after dinner discussion on the effects of firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft - assuming that the hull is penetrated.

One point of view is that quite rapid depressurization could occur, depending on the size of the hole, requiring oxygen and descent to 10000ft. The James Bond viewers believe that the aircraft would disintegrate.

We would appreciate your advice.

Merry Christmas

David Purton


Hi David,
Thank you for the very interesting question. This controversy must probably have arose from the new anti-hijacking measures of having sky marshals on board commercial aircraft and the talk of equipping cockpit crew with guns. The effects of firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft is dependent on the size of hole caused by the bullet. If the hole is clean and of the size of your finger, it would not caused a rapid depressurization. Let me discuss this scenario in the context of a Boeing 777. (Other pressurized aircraft are almost similar). Inside this aircraft, there are already two existing 'holes' for regulating the cabin pressurization. They are called the outflow valves, one located in the front and the other is at the aft belly. Their function is to modulate and maintain a desired cabin pressure of around 8.5 psi (pounds per square inch), and it varies with the aircraft altitude. This operation is performed automatically. It is never possible to fully seal the aircraft doors and hence there are very minute spaces where some pressurized air may already be leaking out. They are hardly noticeable. At the same time, the interior of the airplane is always being pressurized and recharged by a constant flow of pneumatic or bleed air from the engines. If a gunshot creates a clean hole through the skin, it is not going to be disastrous because air will just whistle out of the hole. The outflow valves will automatically response to this sudden loss of air by closing the valves a little to compensate for the air leak. My estimate is that it would probably take quite sometime to fully depressurize the aircraft cabin. It only takes about less than 5 minutes to carry out an emergency descent from, say 35,000 to 10,000 feet assuming the aircraft is descending at about 5000 feet per minute. If the size of the hole of the firearm discharge is big then it may depressurize quite rapidly. Think of the aircraft cabin as if it is a balloon. The bigger the hole, the faster the air would leak out. The hole with a size of a finger will not have any major or significant effect on a big commercial aircraft. What is more worrying is that, a gun shot hitting the electrical cables, hydraulic lines or control cables may cause some headaches, but not altogether critical because the aircraft has many backup systems. Even that, it is quite remote because such vital cables or lines are generally well protected and are securely located away from possible damage. In real life, a Boeing 737 in Hawaii had the front roof section of the First Class cabin ripped off due to a depressurization caused by some undetected cracks in the airframe at 24,000 feet. There was only one fatality, apparently sucked out of the cabin due to the rapid depressurization but the aircraft landed safely. The aircraft would certainly not disintegrate unless there is a bomb on board. I hope I have been able to answer your question. Merry Christmas to you too. KH Lim

[Puppage]

If I recall correctly, it was asserted that in a large modern airliner, there is already the equivalent opening of over a square foot to the outside and the pressurization equipment was capable of compensating for this a the much smaller opening that a bullet might make

You are absolutely correct with regard to the "1 square foot" premise. A bullet hole in the fusalage would do nothing like you see in the movies.

That being said...ARM THE PILOTS. What's worse.....defending a small cockpit door, or a sky marshall shootout in coach? IMHO, this is a no brainer.

[Joe Bonforte]

South African Airways also said it did not believe marshals were warranted and that its present security arrangements, emphasizing prevention on the ground, were adequate.

This is dumber than dirt. Airport security can be at most only a part of the solution because airports can't fly into buildings. A proper multilayered defence must provide for measures that are in the plane itself.

Look, this is not rocket science here. Anyone who keeps hampsters as pets knows you can't depend on a single layer of defense. Any time you can't anticipate everything that can happen, you need fallback measures for when the primary measures fail. That allows your primary measures to be much less onerous and more cost effective.

[snopercod]

Safe ... Or Free?. The article was written by John Deakin, the man with more hours in the left seat of a B-747 than any other living man. Also flew for "Air America" in SE Asia.

The real issue with the air marshalls as I see it is "who's in charge of the aircraft?". Historically, the pilot is, just like the captain of a ship. But these air marshalls answer to someone else, not the captain. I can see why pilots might be concerned with dilution of their authority.

[BulletBobCo]

I was a flight engineer on C-5 Galaxys during the late 80s. Some of the older planes had such worn out seals on the aft ramp that we used to toss a rolled up blanket along the seam to seal it up. Sometimes the opening was so big that the blanket would get sucked out, so we would wrap a cargo tie-down chain in the next blanket and toss it on the seam. The pacific ocean recieved a lot of blankets over the years. The outflow butterfly valve was located towards the rear of the cargo area on the upper right side with an area about the size of a volleyball. You could look out it like a window. These people have watch Goldfinger to many times.

[Puppage]

These people have watch Goldfinger to many times.

Ain't THAT the truth! Thanks for the info....very informative.

Pete

[BulletBobCo]

Time for more coffee. That last sentence of mine needs some work.

[cpdiii]

That being said...ARM THE PILOTS. What's worse.....defending a small cockpit door, or a sky marshall shootout in coach? IMHO, this is a no brainer.

Arm the pilots and have a sky marshall.

[BulletBobCo]

When we flew, we were armed and told to give the hijacker a warning shot to the back of the head.

[El Gato]

I'm neither a pilot nor air marshal. But I remember reading a thread, I think it was here, shortly after 9-11 where a pilot, who also carried, played down the danger of shooting a gun in a plane, possible puncturing the outer skin. Anybody remember this?

Don't remember the specific thread, but the essence of it is that the mere puncturing of the outer skin is a non-issue. The cabin pressurization outflow value will just close down somewhat. At maximum opening, it's a lot larger than any bullet hole.

[El Gato]

Arm the pilots and have a sky marshall.

There will never be enough sky marshalls for every flihgt. Every flight has at least one pilot, usually two. At least one of them should be armed and if neither is, the passengers should be informed of this when they buy their tickets. See if people want to fly with armed or unarmed pilots. :)

[night reader]

Every flight has at least one pilot, usually two. At least one of them should be armed and if neither is, the passengers should be informed of this when they buy their tickets.

Not sure I agree! The bad guys should be thinking that every flight has at least three and as many as five (pilot, copilot, flight engineer, and two plain clothes sky marshals) armed good guys. Reluctantly, I must say that arming the flight attendants is not desirable as they might be more easily disarmed.

[bootless]

Thanks for the ping. John's got an uncommon amount of common sense.

And to add to the discussion: frangible bullets.

[cpdiii]

What most people do not know is that during the rash of hijackings to Cuba in the sixties the pilots were then allowed to carry weapons. The hijackings stopped. If my pilot is competents to fly a 100 tons of metal, fuel and me at 600 knots he is damn well comeptent enough to carry a handgun.

45ACP = Big Fat Slow Bullet. Good slug for an Aircraft. Probably would not puncture the skin but if it did that is no big deal. It is deadly to the bad guy and will not go through him and hit an innocent.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Yeah. Nothing to the bullet-depressurising-the-plane theory. There have been planes that lost cargo doors and landed safely, and planes that had a bomb go off and blow a sizeable hole in the aircraft, that still landed safely (apart from those pax blown overboard by the bomb)

At other time both of those events, bombs and lost cargo doors, have lead to loss of the plane and all aboard, so there is no guarantee.

There have been many incidents in which a firearm was discharged on an aircraft. In the only ones I am familiar with where this led to a crash, one in Asia on CAT decades ago and one in the USA in 1987, the firearm was used to kill the pilots. The airplane was still pressurized when it hit the ground.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F