I really wonder if the dimwits that work in security would recognize that round impression in a man's wallet for what it is? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Rssrsvp (edited 11-12-2001).]

Things could go from very unpleasant to downright awry if those dimwits asked you to validate its use equivalent to "turning it on..."

No, but I was asked "What is this?" by some bright spark woman at the wonderful airport in St.Thomas, VI. I explained and her face turned a bright shade of red. I would think that they had sex-ed in the schools down there?

Of course, this is the same airport that made me show my passport in order to purchase a copy of "Airways" magazine at the news vendor there, so I guess that the stupidity was not restricted to the security checkpoint.

That's exactly right. How else could "Security" allow a guy with seven knives, a stun-gun, and Mace through the detectors at ORD? I find this "enhanced" level of security just another inconvenience that has to be dealt with.

I flew through SFO and LAX last week, and something in my shoes set off the metal detectors. I had to run my shoes through separately, that is, after the security personnel debated whether it would be OK for me to go back through the metal detector to put my shoes through the x-ray machine.


You have to remeber, the gov't and airlines have to be seen to be doing something. Doesn't matter if it's the wrong thing or not. This isn't about security, it's about perception of security.

Regards,
-Bouncer- [/B][/QUOTE]

for Ken hAAmer: How could one, with full knowledge of what happened 9/11, 'carefully evaluate' the circumstances if a U.S. flight that one is travelling upon is hijacked?? How does one do that when someone pulls out a gun (or other threatening weapon) and announces a takeover of the plane? Do we ask for identification and proof of intent? Could perhaps he simply lie?

No, I don't think they'll probably be able to hijack a plane as they did before, I think they just may try to put a bomb on them. My point of contention is that, just like shark attack victims are probably more concerned about a dip in the ocean, so will any passenger on a U.S. flight be if a hijacker pops up - and calmly evaluating the situation will be the last thing on anyone's mind. Maybe the odds will favor the unfortunate if a sky marshal is on that flight, maybe the pilot can depressurize the plane and render the hijacker unconscious, maybe the pilot can execute a dive to allow passengers to overwhelm the hijacker - or maybe people react first. But there won't be a voice vote with discussion first ...

A security guard in FLL told me that one of the other security people down there pulled a vibrator out of a woman's bag and didn't know what it was.