� soooo what I hear you saying is if we can keep it to less than 3 plane bombed per month, it'll be at a fatality rate that we are long term OK with.

87k a day in the US

depends on the bar.... I used to love living 150 feet from Monty Trainor's in Coconut Grove in the 80's.

without the time nor inclination to really delve into it, 100 deaths a day in the US from aviation (~36,500 annually) that would still be less than the number automobile deaths a day in the US (+40k in 2017). hmm, maybe we need tsa in our automobiles....

Not a bad idea. Better for TSA to suffer the casualties than the general population.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I would certainly be in favor of reducing spending on aviation security to (at most) 9/10/01 levels, and reallocating those funds toward improvements in traffic safety. Much better bang for the buck.

Nah, because we all know people are irrational, and don't measure risk well, underestimating risks they think they can control (i.e. driving) and overestimating risks that are out of their control (i.e. flying).

Aviation security funds would be better spent on updating air traffic control systems. That would improve passenger safety.

There are good reasons to update ATC to improve efficiency, but given how amazingly safe commercial aviation already is, it's hard to see how ATC improvements could be justified on a safety basis.

Tried to "like" this but it didn't work.

More air traffic, closer spacing, and several other factors are at play. That and the FAA is using very outdated technology in its control centers. Do a bit of research if you doubt me.

With fatality rates already essentially zero (and actually zero last year), how much safer could you make air travel?

ATC investments COULD allow for more traffic, closer spacing, and more direct routings without a loss of safety, but that's an operational/efficiency benefit, not a safety benefit.

Ok, so using your plan we wait until we start having aircraft/aircraft crashes then start modernizing the air traffic control system. Good plan!

Don't be silly, and don't put words in my mouth. There have been a total of 14 deaths from mid-air collisions in the US in the last thirty years, none on board a commercial airplane. Unless you can show that we've just been colossally lucky, then the argument that we need to improve ATC for safety reasons doesn't hold water. That doesn't mean we shouldn't improve ATC, but for reasons of efficiency and allowing for increased air traffic, not because there's any evidence the current system is unsafe.

Aircraft near misses are a growing problem and some would say a serious issue that needs immediate attention. Most, but not all, are in proximity of airports. Not putting words in anyone's mouth but do you wait until a system fails before addressing upgrades? ATC is using very antiquated equipment. Airplanes are now able to fly point to point but ATC isn't fully capable of integrating modern navigation techniques into their current systems. There is a safety quotient, a cost savings quotient, and just a better way of doing things. Taxpayers are funding TSA with $8 Billion each year and for what? The Security fee charged to travelers doesn't go to security matters, it goes to the general fund to be sucked away by congress for who knows what. Lets spend some of that in places that benefits transportation.

Like I said up thread, do some independent reading and honestly take a look at where ATC is and what issues they face. It's not pretty!

It's probably alarming on your spine. TSA don't see spines very often and they expect the traveling public to be equally spineless as they are.