If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
This is a Fow news item, which sets the tone. A curious battle could occur. The issue is revolves around international accords which have assigned certain authority to the pilot and the country the airplane is operating from to them, even over foreign territory. So I don`t think the US has the legal right to impose Air Marshals other than through black mail by refusing landing rights if they are not aboard. Moreover, the presence of Air Marshals will probably not be continuous but only occur at critical times and subject to being ordered by the US authority. This effectively places the planes under the command of American authorities in an in habitual manner whenever they alone decide. I shall be interested in seeing if any news items cover these fine points. I personally think we are in a power grab situation. Earl ***** Major Crackdown on Foreign Flights Tuesday, December 30, 2003 WASHINGTON*‹*Under the new flight restrictions put in place Monday to prevent a possible Al Qaeda attack, foreign airlines may be denied access to American airspace if they refuse to place armed marshals (search )on flights. The mandate is effective immediately, according to the Homeland Security Department. "Any sovereign government retains the right to revoke the privilege of flying to and from a country or even over their airspace," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday. "So ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have." Ridge also said the nation would remain at orange alert through the New Year's holiday and perhaps beyond. "We are as concerned today as we were yesterday," he said. "We'll be concerned as much this week as we were last week." The new directive Ridge outlined Monday requires selected international flights that enter U.S. airspace to carry an armed law enforcement officer aboard. The Homeland Security Department will require such officers on airplanes where intelligence information leads to a specific concern about that flight. For months, U.S. security officials have feared that Al Qaeda operatives would again hijack planes to use them as missiles. The most recent concerns centered not on domestic passenger flights, but on airliners or cargo planes that take off from overseas and cross over U.S. airspace, either on their way to a U.S. airport or to a foreign one. American security officials will "be working with our aviation partners internationally to ensure that the kinds of protective measures we have requested actually" are implemented, Ridge said. The Bush administration raised the terrorism alert level to orange, or high, on Dec. 21, citing nonspecific but credible threats of an imminent terrorist attack. Air France canceled six flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Wednesday and Thursday, after security discussions between U.S. and French officials. French Transport Ministry spokesman Olivier Mousson said Monday that U.S. security agents have inspected security at French airports since the United States raised its alert level. Aviation security experts said the announcement marks a significant change in that, up until now, international security guidelines have been voluntary. "In the past, no country has ever tried to impose on other countries any measures of aviation security," said Rafi Ron, president of New Age Security Solutions, a Washington-based consultancy, and the former security director for the Israeli Airport Authority. Ron predicted that despite concerns about armed air marshals expressed by British pilots and others, the measure will be enforced without much resistance because of the huge importance of the U.S. market to foreign carriers. The next logical step will be for the international community to push for global aviation security standards, including mandated reinforced cockpit doors and better airport perimeter defenses. Homeland Security officials said governments frequently set security and other standards for planes bound for their airspace. Homeland Security reviews the passenger and crew manifests of all planes bound for U.S. airspace, generally after the plane has taken off, because passenger lists are usually finalized only minutes before the plane taxis from the gate, department spokesman Dennis Murphy said. Some passenger lists are reviewed beforehand, he said. The directive comes in the form of three emergency amendments to air security regulations involving cargo planes, passenger planes and airliners passing over U.S. airspace. There are thousands of international commercial and cargo flights daily involving U.S. airspace and hundreds of international carriers. The directive says that armed government officers from the country of the airline's ownership would be aboard, and they be equipped to prevent anyone from reaching the plane's cockpit and to communicate with the crew, Murphy said. Ridge said the U.S. government would help train air marshals for countries without a program of their own. Some international airlines said Monday they would cooperate with the new U.S. requirement. Others, including airlines in Canada and Germany, said they already were using armed marshals on some flights. Britain said Sunday it had tightened security for trans-Atlantic flights and suggested, as it has in the past, that it might put armed sky marshals on some planes. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
I don't see the problem. No one will know who the marshall on the flight is
unless something happens. By then, you'd be glad he was there. You have to assume the worse if there is a terrorist on a plane. It would be a good thing to have someone trained to act. Unless you are of the "let's roll variety. If nothing happens on the flight, who cares if there was, or was not, a marshall on the plane. This effectively places the planes under the command of American authorities Not so. The marshall is there as a "passnger". Not flying the plane. And if it getts to a situation whereby a decision has to be made due to a terrorist act on that plane, who is to say that a pilot would have anymore sense about what to do that a marshall, should a command decision need to be made. I personally think we are in a power grab situation. Who would you rather have grab power? I personally think you would find fault with whatever is done to meet these problems. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
"Treemoss2" wrote in message ... I don't see the problem. No one will know who the marshall on the flight is unless something happens. By then, you'd be glad he was there. You have to assume the worse if there is a terrorist on a plane. It would be a good thing to have someone trained to act. Unless you are of the "let's roll variety. If nothing happens on the flight, who cares if there was, or was not, a marshall on the plane. Probably the marshall will after getting DVT through flying too much. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order
other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai government has refused the US "order". |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:39:12 -0800, Richard Grant wrote:
I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai government has refused the US "order". Sure. Likewise, apparently some British pilot unions are complaining that this actually makes flying more unsafe. Still, the US have the right to limit access to their air space. But so do other countries. At best, you end up with a ****ing contest. See who blinks first when the threat is US-overseas traffic grinding to a halt. (Mind you, might be a bonanza for our beloved bankrupt Mapleflot :-)...) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
"Jenn" schreef in bericht ... In article , (Richard Grant) wrote: I don't think that the US government has the legal authority to order other countries to implement this airline plan. Already the Thai government has refused the US "order". any country can decide rules for carriers entering its airspace. Do Thai carriers land in the US? Yes, Thai Airways flies to Los Angeles and I believe San Francisco. Presumably Air France can make similar decisions for American carriers landing in Paris. Not Air France, but the French government can. Sjoerd |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
Earl Evleth wrote:
Moreover, the presence of Air Marshals will probably not be continuous but only occur at critical times and subject to being ordered by the US authority. This effectively places the planes under the command of American authorities in an in habitual manner whenever they alone decide. I shall be interested in seeing if any news items cover these fine points. The situation is quite simple. A country has the absolute power to control its airspace during war. We are at war. The foreign airlines will comply with all our requirements, or the plane will be shot down upon entering our air space. It's that simple. We say "you can't land here, go to Canada (or Cuba)", they do it or else. Doug McDonald |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Foreign flights, follow orders or else.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hong Kong flights yield Qantas stopover | texan@texas..,removethisbit.usa.com | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | April 18th, 2004 05:30 AM |
Emirates to Increase Australia Flights | Mehta | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | March 21st, 2004 12:45 AM |
Emirates to Increase Australia Flights | Raffi Balmanoukian | Australia & New Zealand | 1 | March 16th, 2004 10:57 PM |
U.S. Orders Armed Officers on Some Jets | Earl Evleth | Europe | 9 | January 1st, 2004 06:53 PM |
France finds no terror links on flights | Earl Evleth | Europe | 57 | December 29th, 2003 01:21 PM |