Air Marshalls Forced to Meet Quota

This is a lot more serious than your local police having to meet their end-of-the-month speeding ticket quota. It appears that Homeland Security is forcing Air Marshals to hand in at least one Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR each month, regardless of whether they spotted suspicious activity or not. If they don’t, there’s no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.

C’mon, seriously, there has to be at least one terrorist a month flying in and out of Las Vegas. How much do you want to bet that every single person that attended the Yearly Kos convention is on this list.

Source

Source


What's wrong with THIS picture? How can this be justified? This is very dangerous stuff here...Notice they wont get raises or any perks if they DONT meet their quota

First off, I don't agree law enforcement officers having quotas on anything.

However, I can sort of understand why the Air Marshalls have this quota. Surveillance detection is just what it sounds like, detecting surveillance. The quota keeps the agents on their A-game, yeah I know, they should be at their best all the time. But that's not the case. At times they probably get bored, complacent and can easliy overlook small details...like some taking notes or pictures or whatever...a dry run for a future attack.

On the other hand this can be a very bad thing for whoever the the report is on. It would be no problem for the agent to get names, all he has to do ask the flight attendants or airport staff. And then the next thing you know your'e on that terrorist watch list or whatever they got going around. You know what I mean.

Imo, the cons out weigh the pros. SDR quotas for Air Marshalls

Sporty

I dont know, this is highly unethical- i think that's the word.

So for the sake of a bigger paycheck, they are going to be looking at totally innocent people.....:shk:

At least with cops, they have needed probable cause...with this, well, go to the bathroom more than once and you're a possible threat?
:shk:

I agree that quotas in law enforcement are an incredibly stupid idea. It puts the officers and civilians in unnecessary confrotational situations. I could see this being implemented in the city where the government has to get their moneys worth out of the police force(i.e. traffic tickets, fines ect.), but it doesnt make much sense on an airline. I was unaware that Air Marshalls are supposed to be this active, quotas will most likely make what should be a passive(have an unknown presence until it is necessary to make the presence known) presence on an aircraft into a more active role. Which really makes no sense.

Anyhow, DG I think you misinterpreted what the article is saying. The article is saying the whether or not they see anyone suspicious, they still have to report what they see. This seems to me to be more of an exercise to keep them on their toes more than anything. Just because you could end up on a report for being there doesnt mean youll end up on a watch list, they just have to pick someone out and describe their behavior, this leads me to believe this is just an exercise for the Air Marshalls every month. It will be more cost effective than doing more training on their downtime.

Well, they'd have a field day with me!!! The horrified look on my face, checking everyone out, clutching my bag, maybe some perspiration on my forehead.....Bingo!!! I'd just be afraid i wouldnt be able to fly again!!!

I misunderstood this story when I read it on another thread. Now it's a little more clear to me.

It seems to be designed to keep these marshalls alert, by forcing them to scrutinize a passenger, any passenger, as an excercise.

I guess the difference is that the marshalls don't have to file a report on a suspect, they just have to file a report showing that they were paying attention, even in the absence of sketchy people.

So, in that respect it could be a good thing.

Still, I think the program can be scrapped, if security on the ground is beefed up. Basically, if the terrorists make it onto the planes, you've already lost. That's not always the case, but it's a REALLY good assumption to work under.

Just look at the what El Al has been doing for decades now, improving the security on the ground to prevent hijackers from ever making it on the plane. Add on beefed-up cockpit doors, and you've got a solution that doesn't involve gunfights at high altitude in a pressurized cabin.

A US gov't organization? Improve things? Pull the other one please.

Airport security under the private security companies was NOT as bad as they claimed it was. They needed a scapegoat, so they demonized the companies, and forced the screeners out during the TSA hiring process. All of the items carried onto the planes on 9/11 were LEGAL to carry on according to FAA rules. The problem was that the airlines were paying for the screening so they put profits first and paid horribly, and didn't buy top equipment. Even so, the screeners did a heck of a job and were good at it.

We need an entirely new organization, capable of independant action to oversee ground security if we're going to see any kind of improvement. The FAA was too slow to act and had too much on their plate, and the TSA is the second biggest joke in the gov't.