5 ms·

The overwhelming majority of the time, "arrests" on airplanes are made by regular passengers and the flight attendants, who beat up the offender then hogtie him

The overwhelming majority of the time, "arrests" on airplanes are made by regular passengers and the flight attendants, who beat up the offender then hogtie him with duct tape. Air marshals are completely pointless.

staunch 4y ago
Air marshals may be pointless, but not for this reason. Air marshals are almost certainly trained not to intervene in minor disturbances. Otherwise a team of hijackers could locate the air marshal by having one person act as an unruly passenger.
- wil421 4y ago
  If the movies are real they flash their gun and badge to the flight attendant and give them a wink.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    And then get pounced on by Melissa McCarthy.
- iso1631 4y ago
  At what point is an air marshal supposed to interfere?
  - staunch 4y ago
    (Presumably) only when the fate of the entire aircraft, or a substantial portion of the passengers, is in jeopardy.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      And the probability of them being on the "right" flight to come to the rescue out of thousands would be..?
      - at-fates-hands 4y ago
        Conversely, as a hijacker, you'd be taking a huge gamble to try and select the one flight where there were no air marshals. A lot of times, I feel like this whole concept was based on an inherit deterrent and seems to have worked, in conjunction with increased airport screening: "The number of hijackings has dwindled in recent years. About 50 have been reported since Sept, 11, 2001, and none in the U.S., according to the Aviation Safety Network."
        Teever 4y ago
        Are you sure it isnt just the locks on the cabin doors that are reducing highjackings?
        iso1631 4y ago
        Before 9/11 you hijacked a plane, flew to Cuba, got some money, and all was well. Before 9/11 you were a passenger/crewmember on a plane, you flew to Cuba, then got released, and all was well. 9/11 changed that. No longer were passengers and crew safe as long as they complied, no longer were planes allowed to fly around and even be refuelled safe in the knowledge that all it would take is some money to free them. As such over the course of two hours the calculus changed. Hijacking the first 3 planes worked because nobody expected it. The fourth plane was also hijacked, but the goal (crashing into whatever building) wasn't met because the passengers and crew found out the rules had changed. If you hvae 5 people willing to kill themselves for your cause, there are better ways to make a political statement now than the risk of hijacking a plane - not because of any potential air marshall, but because of the guarantee of the passengers.
        iso1631 4y ago
        If you're going to be hijacking to use the plane as a weapon you aren't going to be worried about the 1 in 10 chance of an air marshall trying to stop you, any more than the near certain attempt of the other 200 people on the plane trying to stop you. There just aren't legions of people out there willing to kill massive amounts of people in this fashion. The number of bear attacks in Springfield went to zero in 1996 when Homer started Bear Patrol. It's a case of life imitating art.
    - lozenge 4y ago
      Oh no, the lock on the cockpit has failed! Thankfully an air marshal was able to stop the hikacking by flashing his badge.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"Air marshals are almost certainly trained not to intervene in minor disturbances." It is either are or are not. Almost certainly sounds like you have no clue.
- wyldfire 4y ago
  > Otherwise a team of hijackers could locate the air marshal by having one person act as an unruly passenger. For the last twenty years, hijackers (in flights originating from US) are probably always presumed to be suicidal and much less likely to succeed in a hijacking. To the point where I'd assume that they're rarely even attempted. Perhaps we could end up needing air marshals in the future, a future where many passengers are not old enough to recall or be affected by the terrorist attacks on September 11.

staunch 4y ago

Air marshals may be pointless, but not for this reason. Air marshals are almost certainly trained not to intervene in minor disturbances. Otherwise a team of hijackers could locate the air marshal by having one person act as an unruly passenger.

wil421 4y ago
If the movies are real they flash their gun and badge to the flight attendant and give them a wink.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  And then get pounced on by Melissa McCarthy.
iso1631 4y ago
At what point is an air marshal supposed to interfere?
- staunch 4y ago
  (Presumably) only when the fate of the entire aircraft, or a substantial portion of the passengers, is in jeopardy.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    And the probability of them being on the "right" flight to come to the rescue out of thousands would be..?
    - at-fates-hands 4y ago
      Conversely, as a hijacker, you'd be taking a huge gamble to try and select the one flight where there were no air marshals. A lot of times, I feel like this whole concept was based on an inherit deterrent and seems to have worked, in conjunction with increased airport screening: "The number of hijackings has dwindled in recent years. About 50 have been reported since Sept, 11, 2001, and none in the U.S., according to the Aviation Safety Network."
      - Teever 4y ago
        Are you sure it isnt just the locks on the cabin doors that are reducing highjackings?
        iso1631 4y ago
        Before 9/11 you hijacked a plane, flew to Cuba, got some money, and all was well. Before 9/11 you were a passenger/crewmember on a plane, you flew to Cuba, then got released, and all was well. 9/11 changed that. No longer were passengers and crew safe as long as they complied, no longer were planes allowed to fly around and even be refuelled safe in the knowledge that all it would take is some money to free them. As such over the course of two hours the calculus changed. Hijacking the first 3 planes worked because nobody expected it. The fourth plane was also hijacked, but the goal (crashing into whatever building) wasn't met because the passengers and crew found out the rules had changed. If you hvae 5 people willing to kill themselves for your cause, there are better ways to make a political statement now than the risk of hijacking a plane - not because of any potential air marshall, but because of the guarantee of the passengers.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        If you're going to be hijacking to use the plane as a weapon you aren't going to be worried about the 1 in 10 chance of an air marshall trying to stop you, any more than the near certain attempt of the other 200 people on the plane trying to stop you. There just aren't legions of people out there willing to kill massive amounts of people in this fashion. The number of bear attacks in Springfield went to zero in 1996 when Homer started Bear Patrol. It's a case of life imitating art.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    Oh no, the lock on the cockpit has failed! Thankfully an air marshal was able to stop the hikacking by flashing his badge.
FpUser 4y ago
>"Air marshals are almost certainly trained not to intervene in minor disturbances." It is either are or are not. Almost certainly sounds like you have no clue.
wyldfire 4y ago
> Otherwise a team of hijackers could locate the air marshal by having one person act as an unruly passenger. For the last twenty years, hijackers (in flights originating from US) are probably always presumed to be suicidal and much less likely to succeed in a hijacking. To the point where I'd assume that they're rarely even attempted. Perhaps we could end up needing air marshals in the future, a future where many passengers are not old enough to recall or be affected by the terrorist attacks on September 11.