|
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 23279742)
It will come at the TSA checkpoint.
|
Originally Posted by TMtraveler
(Post 23282245)
I'm not sure justifying PreCheck as being "safer" than regular screenings is the right answer. I think the TSA first needs to justify that the regular screenings (body scanners, pat downs) and their other security "enhancements" make flights safer than a conventional PreCheck screening. Many nations still use the typical screenings conducted during PreCheck with no issue.
I'd like to see a little more justification for the invasion of privacy, personally. I'm not saying we need to go back to metal detectors at each gate (though I fail to see how that level of screening would be any less secure than one check at the entrance to the terminal and then nothing thereafter), but I don't think we can attribute the lack of airplane terrorism since 2002 to body scanners and shampoo bans. One huge change: FLIGHT DECK DOORS THAT LOCK! Another is the general awareness of the public. Nobody is acting suspicious and getting one over on a plane of 150+ people anymore. In 2001 the act was unfathomable and shocking, in 2014 there'd be a melee on the plane before anybody hijacked anything. Smarter security, not "more" security . . . Great post all around. Do what makes sense from an actual risk management and evidence-based perspective.
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 23282319)
I understand your point of view. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents every year. I don't ever want that to happen again. In my opinion, it's due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. To rectify the problem, I'd recommend a 20 MPH speed limit and drunk driving checkpoints every mile. Police should also be able to search cars at will and randomly, just in case.
I've been talking to my boss about working from home full-time. There are a lot of trees in my neighborhood, and if one fell on me, it could do some serious damage. Also, I have to cross two busy intersections. The grocery store delivers just about everything I need, so I'd never really need to leave the house. Mike |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 23273683)
Your representative is up for reelection this midterm. If he/she supports TSA, definitely vote for someone else.
"Welcome to the new boss ... same as the old boss ..." |
Originally Posted by eghansen
(Post 23275760)
I support the TSA fully, absolutely and completely with all my heart and soul. I don't ever want another 9/11. In my opinion, what happened on that day was our fault due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. The problem has been rectified and I never want to go back.
|
Originally Posted by ThinWallet
(Post 23278734)
What do you expect? The last time 4 planes were brought down, those involved were all brownish guys.
On topic: I find TSA to be rude usually. I'm usually prechecked courtsey of global entry but I still find them rude. |
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 23282319)
I understand your point of view. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents every year. I don't ever want that to happen again. In my opinion, it's due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. To rectify the problem, I'd recommend a 20 MPH speed limit and drunk driving checkpoints every mile. Police should also be able to search cars at will and randomly, just in case.
SUVs, trucks and semi-trailers are dangerous at any speed due to their mass. All vehicles larger than a standard passenger sedan should be banned. Think of the children.
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 23282319)
I've been talking to my boss about working from home full-time. There are a lot of trees in my neighborhood, and if one fell on me, it could do some serious damage. Also, I have to cross two busy intersections. The grocery store delivers just about everything I need, so I'd never really need to leave the house.
(True: ) My company had a statistically insignificant run of accidents involving staircases some years ago. That is, a few of the accidents were very bad, but the fact that several happened over a few months did not represent a systematic problem or sudden increase in the danger of stairs per se. Nevertheless we got numerous emails and signs telling us how to properly climb stairs:rolleyes:. In some buildings (not the ones where the accidents occurred) the staircases were renovated with more substantial handrails or lots of yellow-and-black tape. People are stupid. |
The TSA was, is, and always will be little more than a jobs program. The intent being to demonstrate to squeamish, gullible flyers that we're doing "all we can" to combat terrorism. Waste of time, money, and significant loss of productivity. And, as usual, we have the gall to impose our standards on the rest of the world.
|
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 23282319)
The grocery store delivers just about everything I need, so I'd never really need to leave the house.
Mike |
Originally Posted by eghansen
(Post 23275760)
I support the TSA fully, absolutely and completely with all my heart and soul. I don't ever want another 9/11. In my opinion, what happened on that day was our fault due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. The problem has been rectified and I never want to go back.
|
Originally Posted by Makecry
(Post 23285466)
So you are one of those who views every brown guy with suspicion. Good luck then.
On topic: I find TSA to be rude usually. I'm usually prechecked courtsey of global entry but I still find them rude. |
Originally Posted by ThinWallet
(Post 23278729)
I generally agree with the posters in this OP-ED.
My position goes even further: - if I have been TSA Pre-checked, then I should be able to carry ANYTHING with me: AK-47, Chain Saw, Water, 10 laptops, a lighter, or whatever I want. If my position sounds too extreme, just think of it: in a normal day of my life, I generally have the right to carry all of those things, legally, in most places. But I choose not too. I don't walk around in the streets of the city with a chain saw, nor do I carry an AK-47, I don't smoke, so I don't have a lighter. If you can not trust the trusted travelers, then the trust is not worth a penny. Mark my words: the next terrorist attack is not going to come from within an aircraft. It will come from outside of the aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rcial_aircraft I don't agree with the whole concept of "trusted travelers", as I believe that screening should be the same for all passengers, but I will say this - trust is not a binary proposition. It's more like an analog dial - it goes up and down on an infinite scale between "complete trust" and "no trust". Those in PreCheck are simply given a higher place on that dial by TSA than the rest of us.
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 23279038)
Including the last one in Ukraine shot down by white guys?
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 23281754)
"I frankly could not care less. Now go find your supervisor for me. We're going to have a discussion about your job performance."
And, yes, I have really said just that. More than once. And, yes, I flew that day. |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 23285973)
20 MPH is far too fast. A friend of a friend of my cousin's neighbor was killed by a car doing 12 MPH. There should be a man walking in front of every car carrying a red flag (lantern at night).
I read about a case where the speed wasn't measured but was probably well under 5mph. (Admittedly, a freak case. A little kid ran behind a backing car. A minor bump, the injuries amounted to a nosebleed and being knocked over. Unfortunately, he passed out from the fall. Observers did nothing because it's was a head injury, you leave those for the paramedics. The kid drowned.) |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 23288620)
12mph??
I read about a case where the speed wasn't measured but was probably well under 5mph. (Admittedly, a freak case. A little kid ran behind a backing car. A minor bump, the injuries amounted to a nosebleed and being knocked over. Unfortunately, he passed out from the fall. Observers did nothing because it's was a head injury, you leave those for the paramedics. The kid drowned.) My "example" was hyperbole (c.f "friend of a friend...") to extend Mikeef's extreme example. Yours, however, is genuinely tragic. There have been numerous recent events in Australia of toddlers and young children killed in school parking lots or household driveways; these presumably happened at low speed too. The overall point remains that - despite these tragic events - we as a society don't ban cars or insist on uniformly low speed limits. |
Originally Posted by shenxing
(Post 23279026)
So 21 hijackers out of 2 billion or so brownish guys total.. so there is.a 0.00000000001% chance that any random brown guy is an hijacker!
I think your estimate of 2 billion is a bit off. I don't think there are 2 billion brown males on planet earth. |
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 23286715)
Such attacks have already happened, going back to the 1960s, either by terrorists or as accidents in war zones, like the recent MH17.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rcial_aircraft
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 23286715)
I don't agree with the whole concept of "trusted travelers", as I believe that screening should be the same for all passengers, but I will say this - trust is not a binary proposition. It's more like an analog dial - it goes up and down on an infinite scale between "complete trust" and "no trust". Those in PreCheck are simply given a higher place on that dial by TSA than the rest of us.
However, I think, the vulnerability of the trusted traveler program does not come from the incorrect evaluation of the trust function, or the decay or trust of a particular traveler. I think the biggest vulnerability is that of a false positive: someone simply hi-jacking a trusted travelers identity.
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 23286715)
I don't consider that a terrorist act. It was collateral damage in a war zone. It doesn't even rise to the level of a war crime, despite the fact that the target was a civilian airliner, unless those who fired the missile knew or suspected that it was a civilian airliner.
However, intent may very well exist, and be attributed to a totally different party. A careful routing of a vulnerable civilian aircraft on a path that might cause rebels to confuse it with a military plane could be the intent. |
Originally Posted by ThinWallet
(Post 23291471)
Whoever fired that rocket did not have intent, if you assume that they lacked the capability to identify the plane.
However, intent may very well exist, and be attributed to a totally different party. A careful routing of a vulnerable civilian aircraft on a path that might cause rebels to confuse it with a military plane could be the intent. |
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 23292927)
I highly doubt that happened. However, I do believe that Malaysia Airlines is guilty of gross negligence in allowing its flights to fly over an active war zone in which both sides are equipped with surface to air missiles.
|
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian
(Post 23294469)
And I presume you have outrage at Virgin and Aeroflot and all the others that flew the same routes that day?
|
Originally Posted by WillCAD
(Post 23295488)
Absolutely. I think it's the height of irresponsibility to send commercial traffic through a war zone simply to save fuel.
The airlines did not do a single thing wrong. |
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 23297595)
They did not send their flights through a "war zone" to "save fuel". They filed flight plans which were accepted by the aviation authorities of several countries and transited airspace which was open and not restricted.
The airlines did not do a single thing wrong. And maybe the government of Ukraine hasn't restricted the airspace over its territory in which people are shooting at each other with tanks and missiles, in a conflict in which both sides possess surface to air weapons capable of shooting down a civilian airliner, but that doesn't mean it's safe to fly through that zone. There are plenty of things which are legal to do, but which are not safe or responsible behavior. Flying commercial airliners through a war zone is one of them. The airlines should all be avoiding the region of Ukraine where the fighting is happening. They're not, or at least they weren't at the time when MH17 was shot down, which was pretty irresponsible. Why did they not route their flights around the combat zone? To save money on fuel, of course. |
:rolleyes:
The airlines rely on the relevant authorities telling them if a given area is unsafe to fly in. That generally comes from the authority controlling the specified airspace closing it (as Ukraine did below FL300, or China does randomly) or the authorities where the airline is based telling them not to fly there (as the FAA did for US airlines in Crimea). Absent any warnings from relevant authorities and given an open air route, the airlines will plot and file the most efficient route available, subject to ATC and ICAO regulations. Until the incident, there was no reason to believe that the parties of the "war zone" could or would fire on a civil aircraft at cruise. Cost of fuel does not enter in to it. Either the air route is open, or it isn't. If you must blame someone for civil aircraft overflying a "war zone", it is those who allowed the route to remain open, not the users of that air route. |
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 23301753)
Cost of fuel does not enter in to it. Either the air route is open, or it isn't. If you must blame someone for civil aircraft overflying a "war zone", it is those who allowed the route to remain open, not the users of that air route.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:27 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.