The U.S. demand that certain inbound flights from foreign airports have armed air marshals aboard has created an international furor. Foreign pilots unions that have issued public position statements are unanimous in opposing firearms on board, even in the hands of trained law enforcement agents. A growing list of countries have expressed their concern, some vowing to cancel flights to the United States rather than embark armed sky marshals.
In an aviation industry where “harmonization” of safety standards and practices is widely endorsed and touted with fervor, the U.S. security order requiring sky marshals on certain “high risk” flights is seen as a unilaterally-imposed dictate – the essence of “anti-harmonization,” as it were. The discontented reaction of a week ago has brewed into a stronger milieu of disharmony and discontent (see ASW, Jan. 5).
“International consensus is needed to improve security, not unilateral action by one state irrespective of the cultures, traditions and security record of others,” the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA) said in a Jan. 8 declaration.
In a telephone interview, BALPA General Secretary Jim McAuslan said there is a generalized feeling along the lines of: “Just who is the U.S. to insist that carriers do this?” A coordinated effort through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) would not have ruffled so many feathers, McAuslan suggested.
The Irish government, which holds the presidency of the European Union (EU) for the first six months of 2004, said Jan. 7 that it is organizing a meeting of EU aviation officials in Brussels this week. The purpose of the meeting is to arrive at some sort of EU consensus on the sky marshals issue. That position will be the basis of talks with the U.S. government.
McAuslan said, “The Americans see sky marshals as the way forward, but many of us in Europe see sky marshals as almost an irrelevance.”
“We remain unhappy about the use of sky marshals and welcome the Irish government’s initiative in seeking European consensus, which might be quite different from that expressed on the other side of the Atlantic,” McAuslan said.
From various reports, as things stand now, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Portugal are among the several countries announcing they will cancel flights rather than embark armed air marshals. These countries have expressed their commitment to tightening security on the ground, thereby reducing the need for armed marshals in flight. Spain and South Africa have expressed reservations. France, Germany, the UK, Canada, and Mexico are among the nations who have said they will endeavor to accommodate the U.S. order.
Airline reactions are mixed. Package tour operator Thomas Cook, which operates flights from London’s Gatwick Airport to Florida, said it would cancel flights rather than allow armed air marshals aboard. Virgin Atlantic Airways already has reached a working agreement with BALPA to conduct flights with armed sky marshals aboard. As of this writing, BALPA was in detailed negotiations with British Airways to arrive at a similar accord. Indeed, the British government said it was considering putting undercover armed agents on some flights even before the U.S. edict was issued.
South African Airways has declared that air marshals are not warranted. Air New Zealand issued a statement saying it is “reviewing” the U.S. requirement.
Meanwhile, in a development bordering on the bizarre, Australian officials are balking at another U.S. insistence that during flight passengers be discouraged from gathering in groups near the lavatories. Australian Transport Minister John Anderson said the request was “a little bit hard to handle.” Qantas said they would comply, asking passengers not to congregate near the toilets (which on international flights occurs commonly after the in-flight movies).
Procedures
Since the armed sky marshal demand was first pronounced by the United States, McAuslan said BALPA consciously has undertaken a major media campaign to establish procedures and protocols. “We don’t think this program is defensible, but we recognize the reality,” he said.
Given the situation, he said, “We want to establish a standard protocol with the airlines.” In fact, BALPA submitted to UK Transport Minister Alistair Darling a “gold standard” protocol that it believes is necessary for an armed air marshal program to proceed with BALPA support.
That template, agreed to by Virgin Atlantic, is part and parcel of ongoing discussions with British Airways, which has not yet embarked air marshals on flights to the United States. In the meantime, the carrier has said:
“We will only accept the deployment of an armed police officer … if we are satisfied that safety would be enhanced to an acceptable level for the flight to take place.
“If there is security information about a particular flight that gives us cause for concern, then we will not operate that flight.”
While BALPA’s minimum-item protocol does address some of the nitty-gritty policy and procedural problems from the aircrew’s perspective, it does not address other key issues. Some tactical processes were outlined by the Transportation Security Administration, but they, too, leave many questions unanswered. For example, minimum training standards and weapons of choice for air marshals remain largely in the hands of individual nations. In an industry where standardization is considered key for safety, there is a long road ahead to standardize security. To some, inadequately trained air marshals could undermine security.
Costs
The high cost of air marshals is another aspect of the unanticipated U.S. requirement that is generating less-visible consternation. The costs could be substantially higher than the earlier mandate to install reinforced cockpit doors. Foreign operators were placed under the same April 2003 deadline as U.S. carriers, and they were advised in no uncertain terms that they would not be permitted to fly into the United States without the hardened cockpit doors (see ASW, July 1, 2002). The operators of more than 1,900 foreign-registered passenger and cargo aircraft were faced with installation expenses of $20,000-$40,000 per airplane, depending upon size of the aircraft.
The vast majority did not receive government funding to assist in this effort, whereas U.S. carriers were reimbursed by the U.S. government for $200 million of the $310 million it cost them to install the doors.
Although the armed air marshal program is more limited in scope, not applicable to every airplane and every flight, the requirement does bring with it additional costs. For example, the air marshal likely will be paid around $55,000 per year. If the foreign government is paying the salary, that still does not mean the airlines aren’t bearing expenses. The air marshal will occupy a seat, displacing a passenger. Assume a ticket price of $400, and an air marshal aboard for 30 flights a year, that’s $12,000 annually in lost revenue. Cockpit and cabin crews might have to report for duty earlier in order to participate in extra preflight coordination and briefings. That process will incur payroll costs. Cockpit and cabin crews may also need extra training to work with embarked air marshals.
These are just a few of the cost considerations.
While the U.S. directive to foreign operators was issued at the height of a concern about aviation security, it also was launched onto a sea of procedural and cost uncertainty. The task now is to calm those waters.
The Desired Protocol
From the British Air Line Pilots Association (extracts):
- The flight deck crew members (FDCM) of each and every flight where sky marshals are to be carried shall be formally notified at the earliest opportunity and no later than check-in.
- The captain, or his nominated FDCM deputy, should be required to fully brief all members of the operating crew with respect to the carriage of sky marshals on the flight.
- The normal chain of command on the aircraft shall be preserved. The captain’s authority shall be absolute and shall not be diminished in any way.
- In support of the above. Sky marshals when on duty and carried on board aircraft [to] be part of the operating crew complement.
- Flight crew will not be compelled to operate any flight where a sky marshal is to be carried and the decision to operate will remain at the sole discretion of the individual FDCM on a strictly voluntary basis.
- All sky marshals to be members of the Metropolitan Police force (or an organization of similar standing) and be fully trained in the conduct of security and armed operations on board aircraft.
- Sky marshals shall be equipped only with weapons and firearms suitable for use in commercial, pressurized aircraft.
- The decision to carry sky marshals on board shall be the sole responsibility of the operator and shall not be the responsibility of the captain or the flight crew.
- The company should indemnify the captain and the flight deck crew from any and all liability that may arise resulting from the carriage of sky marshals, including the monetary value of any policies of insurance that may become invalid as a result of such voluntary action.
- Sky marshals shall be restricted to the same regulatory and legislative requirements and obligations as members of the operating flight crew on each flight where they are carried.
Source: BALPA
Air Marshals – Protectors or Risks?
It’s a matter of training
Observations of Andrew Thomas, author of “Aviation Insecurity”
“Concerns by British pilots over mandates by the Department of Homeland Security to have air marshals placed on predetermined foreign flights have re-ignited the debate as to whether armed personnel actually increase or decrease the level of cabin security. As detailed in my book, air marshals are only as effective as the training they receive. In the United States, the once-vaunted 10-week training air marshals used to receive has been watered down to less than three weeks.
“In many countries, the quality and amount of training sky marshals receive is even less. The lack of global standards in aviation training – including for sky marshals – means that we have no substantive idea as to the level of competence and knowledge of many of the armed individuals who are now being ordered to ‘protect’ the United States.
“Scattershot measures like deploying sky marshals without regard to their cursory training are not only marginally effective, but can also create insecurity.” >> Thomas, e-mail [email protected] <<
Foreign Air Marshals – The Processing Procedures
The FAMS [Federal Air Marshal Service] has established procedures to facilitate the entry and departure of armed foreign air marshals. Prior to the recent announcement regarding the requirement for foreign governments to provide onboard air marshals on designated flights to, from or over the United States, only a limited [number] of nations utilized armed air marshals.
The current procedures are as follows:
- Foreign air marshals advise FAMS-HQ Liaison Division of the intention to fly armed to the United States. They provide all pertinent flight data, names of the armed individuals, weapons information and serial numbers, and passport and personal identifying information.
- This information is then disseminated to the appropriate FAMS field office and TSA FSDs [Transportation Security Administration federal security directors located at the relevant arrival airports].
- The armed foreign air marshals are met on arrival by U.S. federal air marshals at the aircraft.
- The foreign air marshals’ weapons are surrendered to the U.S. FAMs and secured.
- At no time are the foreign air marshals permitted to possess their weapons outside of the immediate vicinity of their aircraft.
- On departure, the foreign air marshals proceed through security screening as general passengers and are then met at their aircraft, where the U.S. FAMs return their weapons.
- The system is similar to the procedures in place when U.S. FAMs travel armed to foreign airports. The procedures are reciprocal in nature and have proved invaluable in allowing FAMS to accomplish its mission.
- As additional foreign countries develop air marshal programs, FAMS will continue to follow [these] procedures. As an example, the FAMS has initiated direct liaison and contact with French and Mexican law enforcement officials responsible for their nation’s air marshal program. French and Mexican air marshals entry and departure for U.S. airports are proceeding without incident and are fully compliant with the FAMS’ established procedures.
Source: Transportation Security Administration