>MB- in your >MB- colleages' case, his killer probably didn't come >MB- through a security detection system somewhere, ( a >MB- first line of defense ) nor did he have someone to >MB- explain his circumstances on his behalf to a nearby >MB- authority. >MB- Mike, That is quite true he was gunned down in the street attempting to stop a terrorist being chased after being detected on his way to plant a device. But it appears your stance of what the Sky Marshall could have done is based on two false premise. 1) That airport security detection systems are secure to such an extent that it would be a reasonable assumption to make that a person claiming to have a device, does in fact not have one. Certainly in the case of the US airports I know this is just not so, they have such a major flaw in their security systems that I would say that a determine terrorist has a better than 90% chance of getting advice into the secure area, and a slightly less chance of getting it onto an aircraft. If I am professional aware of this flaw I am certain a US Sky Marshall would be as well. If someone airside in a US airport says they have a bomb assume they do. This flaw is also present in UK airports but to a much lesser extent and would be considerably more difficult to exploit, but not impossible. I doubt any airport could operate if this flaw was completely eradicated. 2) You just cannot place any credence in what a possible accomplice of the person you suspect says, they only have to distract you for a second and the device is triggered. You have literally seconds to decide, and once you decide there is only one way to stop a bomber that is accepted as effective and that is a head shot. There are only two decisions you can make, the difference if you are wrong is the death toll. -- Dave Hedges LHR