#2 in line at a high density airport...

[Doug Taylor]

And while monitoring the flight attendent interphone system, as usual, you hear:

"Where did the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) sit?"

You think, "Well, we didn't get any information or details about an armed LEO on the jet"

Tower says "Airliner 123, taxi into position and hold"

What do you do?

Anything?

Concerns?

[Maximillian_Jenius]

[ QUOTE ]

"Where did the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) sit?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Though they were called FAM (Federal Air Marshalls)?

-Matthew

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]
And while monitoring the flight attendent interphone system, as usual, you hear:

"Where did the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) sit?"

You think, "Well, we didn't get any information or details about an armed LEO on the jet"

Tower says "Airliner 123, taxi into position and hold"

What do you do?

Anything?

Concerns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug does this happen often? I somehow get the impression that there are many senior FAs at Delta who think they are "captains of the cabin" and do not feel it is necesarry to check with the cockpit crew about "little things" like LEO on board.

We had one at Midway (pre-9-11) who did so and got the tongue lashing of her life from our captain. I was behind the captain 100%.

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Though they were called FAM (Federal Air Marshalls)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. If it's an LEO travelling on federal business, then they can carry the gun with them if they have the proper paperwork. I had a group of about 17 FBI agents travelling from MEM to DCA on day on federal business. Also, if it's a guard transporting a prisoner, then I believe they are licensed to be armed as well.

[JEP]

[ QUOTE ]
And while monitoring the flight attendent interphone system, as usual, you hear:

"Where did the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) sit?"

You think, "Well, we didn't get any information or details about an armed LEO on the jet"

Tower says "Airliner 123, taxi into position and hold"

What do you do?

Anything?

Concerns?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Are they supposed to report to the cockpit crew?
2. I would ask the FA why she is concerned. Did she see a pax with a gun.
3. If she saw someone with weapon, and we were not introduced I would indeed be concerned.
4. In my un-informed mind, I think I would ask to taxi back to the gate. And let Tower know why. My guess is they would not have us going back to the gate. We would get met by the authorities.

What would be your airlines reposnse? If you can tell us.

[FlyChicaga]

I'd ask if we could have a moment and cross to the other side (if available), or taxi down and rejoin in the line. We have a situation that needs to be resolved before we get airborne. Should it not be able to get resolved, then I'd decide to go back to the gate if needed. But if we can figure it out in 5 minutes, then go, all the better.

[Maximillian_Jenius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Though they were called FAM (Federal Air Marshalls)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. If it's an LEO travelling on federal business, then they can carry the gun with them if they have the proper paperwork. I had a group of about 17 FBI agents travelling from MEM to DCA on day on federal business. Also, if it's a guard transporting a prisoner, then I believe they are licensed to be armed as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be knit picking here but why would any government agent carry a gun in a pressurrized (sp) environment?
Should he or she have to discharge their weapon the results could be catastropic.
There are much better evasive weapons that could be carried on a plane such as Taser.
That if a shot is taken and missed won't leave a gapping hole in the fuselage at FL370.

-Matthew

[Mr_Creepy]

1) Yes they are supposed to notify the cockpit crew any time an armed person is on board. REQUIRED.

2) A LEO will part with their gun if you bully them enough (to check it in baggage) but I learned from a friend LEO not to do that. The problem is that they have basically pledged their lives to keep control of this gun and that means never letting it out of their possession if possible. Just imagine the paperwork, carpet dances, TSA investigations, etc if one LEO checked their gun and it got lost.

[Doug Taylor]

They're supposed to have proper credentials and notify the captain.

On the other question, LEO's and FAM's are mutually exclusive terms. You get the occasional "Hazzard County" Sheriff or Dept of Agriculture (seriously) traveling with weapon and he's classified as a LEO. But a FAM is specifically a Federal Air Marshall onboard to work the flight.

Related question: Say you have concerns, how do you handle it? Who do you talk to?

I'll give my answer a little later.

[stuckingfk]

"what do you do?"

Get the axe handy, lock the cockpit door, then takeoff.

[JEP]

[ QUOTE ]
They're supposed to have proper credentials and notify the captain.

On the other question, LEO's and FAM's are mutually exclusive terms. You get the occasional "Hazzard County" Sheriff or Dept of Agriculture (seriously) traveling with weapon and he's classified as a LEO. But a FAM is specifically a Federal Air Marshall onboard to work the flight.

Related question: Say you have concerns, how do you handle it? Who do you talk to?

I'll give my answer a little later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Concerns??? Is this still the same question? If the F/A is absolutley suer that she saw a weapon on an individual and no one has introduced themselves to the cockpit crew:
1. reverify with the F/A about what she saw.
2. ask the captain if anyone introduced themself
3. inform the captain that the F/A swears that the person on 3C has a weapon on themselves.
4. ask the captain if he wants me to contact ground/tower.

I suppose at that time if the tower is made aware, I imagine we would be given instructions to taxi to a holding area where we would be met by individuals with much bigger guns.

[ComplexHiAv8r]

I know the response shouldn't be to do anything specific to allow the other passengers to learn that there is an armed person on board. My brother carries a weapon and told me once of giving the proper paperwork he was the to the CA, but after boarding the FA came back and asked him if he was the special agent on the flight. What was he to do??

He also told me one time the pilot asked for him to leave his gun in the cockpit, which he wouldn't do. He asked both pilots who was licensed to carry, and neither was, but they thought he should leave the weapon with them. He told them he would either return to his seat with the weapon or gladly deplane. They let him fly.

He said that most pilots don't seem too concerned with him flying armed, just needing to know that they are in back.

[BobDDuck]

First, Matthew's point.... A gun discharging in a pressureized cabin would be unlikely to have any structural impact on the airframe. I suppose a bullet could hit something (or someone) of importance, but as far as the huge gaping holes Hollywood shows us (think US Marshals).... not too likely. Myth Busters has done this one I think. They needed about a pound of symtex (sp?) to get a good sized hole.


Ok, armed guy in cabin... If now cleared for t/o, probably would try to delay one or two spots if possible. Chicaga's idea sounds good (taxi across, or down to an intersection to re join the line.) It is possible that you misheard the FA and a quick call for clarification is all that is needed, even as taking the active. If the FA can't confirm (or disconfirm as the case may be) if there is an authorized LEO onboard then there is a paper trail somewhere as they had to get through the TSA scan (which we all know catches just about everything ) If there was no way to confirm that they were ok to be carrying, back to the gate and debark the plane for MX reasons or something else.

[Doug Taylor]

I always refer people to the Army Air Corps using pressurized B-29's which sometimes would return to Guam laden with bullet holes.

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]

Concerns??? Is this still the same question? If the F/A is absolutley suer that she saw a weapon on an individual and no one has introduced themselves to the cockpit crew:

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a significantly different issue. Now you have someone possibly carrying a gun without the proper authorization.

Doug is probably posing the question that the FAs "forgot" to tell the captain and FO that they had LEO paperwork handed to them.

It's true that it's amazing who hands you LEO paperwork, too. We used to get customs inspectors and Dept of Ag guys in Puerto Rico who were "packing" and the captains seemed used to it.

I was pretty shocked though, that one captain I flew with made three St. Thomas policeman check their guns because they were supposedly "out of uniform." They were wearing T-shirts that said "Police" right across the front. This captain had other bad traits as well, and uniform nazi was one of them.

[Maximillian_Jenius]

[ QUOTE ]
First, Matthew's point.... A gun discharging in a pressureized cabin would be unlikely to have any structural impact on the airframe. I suppose a bullet could hit something (or someone) of importance, but as far as the huge gaping holes Hollywood shows us (think US Marshals).... not too likely. Myth Busters has done this one I think. They needed about a pound of symtex (sp?) to get a good sized hole.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I didn't mean to infer that a bullet hole would cause the plane to implode from within.
I did think that a bullet hole could cause structual failure leading to a larger hole being created. But as Bobbduck pointed out prolly not a reality.
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.
Panic,fear and an emergency situation.
To all concerned I think a gun shouldn't be carried on a plane.
But hey what do I know?

-Matthew

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just for fun, here is a link to a synopsis of the Mythbuster's episode:
Mythbuster's; Explosive Decompression

[JEP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just for fun, here is a link to a synopsis of the Mythbuster's episode:
Mythbuster's; Explosive Decompression

[/ QUOTE ]

I jsut watched that episode with my kids a couiple of weeks ago. bsolutely nothing happened. The plane did not explode.!

[Doug Taylor]

Well, this is what happened, the captain told the FO to ask the tower for a position to sit so they could call flight control.

They called flight control and asked about the presence of a LEO on the aircraft of which there was and provided information about where he was seated.

The captain then called back to the flight attendant and asked if the LEO was seated in that particular seat and confirmed.

[SteveC]

Did you find out what glitch allowed the original problem?

[Doug Taylor]

I was just the jumpseater so I'm not sure if they followed up on the problem after the flight.

[BrettInLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, this is what happened, the captain told the FO to ask the tower for a position to sit so they could call flight control.

They called flight control and asked about the presence of a LEO on the aircraft of which there was and provided information about where he was seated.

The captain then called back to the flight attendant and asked if the LEO was seated in that particular seat and confirmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is "flight control" the same thing as dispatch?

[ananoman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't mean to infer that a bullet hole would cause the plane to implode from within.
I did think that a bullet hole could cause structual failure leading to a larger hole being created. But as Bobbduck pointed out prolly not a reality.
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.
Panic,fear and an emergency situation.
To all concerned I think a gun shouldn't be carried on a plane.
But hey what do I know?

[/ QUOTE ] If a window blows out of a large aircraft (unlikely as they are multiple layers of plastic) then the cabin may not even lose pressurization. It depends on how big the airplane is. A smaller RJ may have a problem. On a 737 it may only cause the outflow valves to close. It would scare the crap out of whoever was sitting next to it, but unless they were not belted in would probably not be that big of a deal.

You also have to remember that even a retarded LEO is not going to be playing show and tell with their weapon, so it is very unlikely that there will be an accidental discharge in the cabin. If any shooting occurs, it would be for a good reason. A few holes here and there and some dead passengers is better than losing the entire aircraft. I find the DOT's stance on the Federal Flight Deck Officer program rather humerous. They have made it almost impossible for any pilots to complete the program. For those who do, they make them carry their guns in lock boxes through the terminal, until they get on the plane. There have already been several instances where pilots have lost their guns going through security or otherwise had them stolen. The DOT says that it is dangerous for pilots to have guns, but their solution is to shoot down the aircraft if it is hijacked.

[griffithvoice]

I hadn't seen the mythbuster episode but I have been led to belive that explosive decompresion would not occur. Without going into specifics, in Australia our Air marshals carry ammunition which is task specific and is of a particular type that reduces the risk to very close to nil.

Can't speak for other LEO's from other departhements but APS arm their guys with decompression in mind.

[Doug Taylor]

[ QUOTE ]

Is "flight control" the same thing as dispatch?

[/ QUOTE ]

More or less.