Air defence
Norman Tebbit does not like the idea of armed marshals on British flights, but believes that they are necessary There is in this unpredictable world some comfort to be found when everybody behaves in character. Certainly that is the case in the row over the government's proposal to put 'sky marshals' on at least some flights to the United States. First the Americans — playing their role as the world's superpower — have clearly indulged in a little bit of nudging, if not bullying, of the pliable plastic Prime Minister Blair. Then Mr Blair himself, right on cue, has engaged in some bullying down the line in his government, unveiling yet another of those 'eye-catching initiatives' designed to conceal the emptiness of his administration and to fill the blank front pages of newspapers and the empty hours of radio and television.
Then, finally, the pilots' union, Balpa, threatens to throw its toys out of the pram and the management of British Airways (doubtless on the good advice of its lawyers) says as little as possible in the fear that either to endorse or to obstruct the proposal might involve the airline in massive claims for damages should one of its flights, either with or without a sky marshal on board, become the victim of a terrorist outrage.
All we need now is a new Good Friday — or should it be a Ramadan — Agreement, allowing Osama bin Laden fully armed into the pilot's seat (provided Balpa could be persuaded to supply a member of the union to act as co-pilot).
I am not sure that my own flight-deck experience in British Overseas Airways, over 30 years ago, is relevant to today's problems — although I did once display the aircraft's fire axe to a drunken and obstreperous passenger with some words of warning about my own intemperate character. In those days we faced the danger of concealed explosives, usually in the baggage of a passenger who had failed to board the plane (as in the Lockerbie disaster) and of hijackers who threatened to destroy the aircraft and everybody in it, unless some ransom demand — often the release of convicted terrorists — was met. Suicide hijackers in the style of 11 September are far more difficult to frustrate.
The objections of the pilots' union, apart from its pique at a lack of consultation and involvement by this most arrogant and incompetent of administrations, have considerable force. The flashy sky marshal plan has three downsides which the pilots have identified. First, they fear it is likely to be a distraction from the unglamorous, un-newsworthy work of detecting and apprehending would-be suicide hijackers at the earliest possible stage of a planned attack. Second, there is the question of who is in command of the aircraft during an airborne incident, or indeed whether the captain knows of the presence of the sky marshal and whether the marshal is under the discipline of the captain. Third, there is a risk to the aircraft in the use of firearms in flight, since either a vital control system or the pressurised cabin might suffer damage.
The Americans might have every right to insist that on flights within their airspace every precaution is taken against the risk of a civil airliner being used as a huge guided missile against a target in the USA. Alpa, the American pilots' union, supports the use of armed guards on board aircraft. Here I think we can see the cultural difference in the attitude towards guns in the two countries. The more robust Americans are more familiar with firearms and, unlike us, they do not confine the ownership and use of handguns solely to the criminal classes. I suspect that few British Airways pilots have been trained to use firearms and few have handled or owned even a shotgun, let alone a personal protection weapon. Consequently they are likely to equate sky marshals with trigger-happy troops responsible for 'friendly fire' incidents in Iraq.
As for the US administration's bullying of Blair — like many such victims he is, by his wimpish conduct, the architect of his own brusque and dismissive treatment at the hands of the Americans. Yet to be fair to him, would he not be open to very direct criticism in the event that a terrorist should now penetrate our defences, board a British airliner and run amok with no armed guard on board? We should be profoundly thankful that in this instance (unlike in Northern Ireland) our Prime Minister has remained fully committed to our side and not sought to appease terrorism.
There can be no criticism of British Airways' cautious response to the sky-marshal proposal. The litigation floodgates opened wide by this lawyer-sodden administration have created a grave impediment to any management action unless the buck can be passed back to the government. I would, however, guess that BA management largely shares the concerns of its pilots but recognises the perils of neglecting any action that might frustrate a suicide hijacking.
It is a pity that we have a government so dominated by presentation, so neglectful of the delivery of its promises and its responsibilities and so discredited by its past lies and evasions that whatever it says or does is greeted with waves of derision, contempt and disbelief. This proposal has been prejudiced by New Labour's belief that it is at the centre of the universe and the creator of all good things. Nonetheless, it should be looked at on its merits.
The use of armed sky marshals must be seen as a last-ditch defence that comes into play only when the lives of passengers and crew are at serious and immediate risk. Digging and defending a last ditch should not be allowed to distract the authorities from deepening and defending all the existing ditches designed to trap terrorists. There is a need for real determination to maintain and improve the work of the security services in devising and operating systems to prevent passengers or airport and airline workers from smuggling weapons or explosives on to aircraft. Once all that is done, the pilots' union should be told that foot-stamping and pique is counterproductive, and it should be brought into the process of devising the rules under which sky marshals will operate. It is not acceptable to the pilots for the captain to carry responsibility for the safety of his passengers without clear rules of engagement for armed men on his aircraft. Ministers need to practise the unaccustomed art of persuasion through respect and reason, not by deception, duplicity and evasion.
That the sky-marshals proposal has come from such an unsavoury stable should not prejudice the public, the aircrew, the airlines or the Conservative opposition. Its real origin is in Washington, after all. I do not like the idea of armed guards among passengers any more than Balpa does, but these are bad times and they call for cold and dispassionate consideration of any measures likely to defeat a terrorist attack. I would be more comfortable on a plane with, rather than without, a sky marshal, should a hijacker penetrate all the earlier lines of defence.
Previous page
