Originally Posted by birdstrike

Cupcake (I love how we have all adopted these pet names ),

I'm not suggesting we bury our heads in the sand, I'm suggesting there is no sand. I'm suggesting that the TSA and FAM programs cannot justify their existence (as currently implemented). I know that you cannot justify the expenditures and hassle either or your would be able to quote numbers rather than "statistically remote".

I can't speak for my fellow airline passengers, but being a victim of terrorism doesn't even enter my mind when I board a plane. Note that I still count seats to the nearest exit and watch the safety dance even though I've seen it hundreds of times before.

I do this despite knowing that odds are a FAM won't be on my flight, that the screeners probably missed several edged weapons, and that multiple cellphones remain on in the overhead compartment.

I board that plane as easily as I would take the London Underground, cross the Golden Gate bridge, or drink tap water, untested.

Where do we draw the line between spending resources to stop something that is statistically remote and accepting the fact that the odds statistically favor the attackers in terms of choosing the time and place for such an attack? Today. At least as far as the TSA and FAM programs go, or show me the numbers that prove they make a measurable difference. At least we can then debate the numbers.

Cheers,

Virginia