threat of a bomb in a fake tablet

PeterNSteinmetz said:
Why ? It seems perfectly feasible for different airlines to implement separate policies, possibly on a concourse or gate basis.
Click to expand...
Zero security means no fence around the airport. Anyone can walk around the ramp. Airports mixed with screened, and unscreened passengers. Couldn't be done... properly.
 
Kritchlow said:
Remember way back when security was lax or non existent... the hijackings.
Click to expand...

Interesting history there. Hijackings started increasing in the 1960s, after all the passengers were legally disarmed in 1962 and peaked in 1969. Care to guess when magnetometers were first required? 1972.

So the increased Federal security measures could not have been responsible for the hijackings starting to decrease after 1969. There must have been other factors involved.

I think the idea that disarming the passengers may have emboldened hijackers is an intriguing one, though more speculative.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Interesting history there. Hijackings started increasing in the 1960s, after all the passengers were legally disarmed in 1962 and peaked in 1969. Care to guess when magnetometers were first required? 1972.

So the increased Federal security measures could not have been responsible for the hijackings starting to decrease after 1969. There must have been other factors involved.

I think the idea that disarming the passengers may have emboldened hijackers is an intriguing one, though more speculative.
Click to expand...
Well we will just agree to disagree here. I would have no problem with properly qualified individuals in the airplane being armed. The problem lies where some nut job (not a political terrorist) has a few cocktails and gets PO'd in the airplane and pulls a gun.
 
Kritchlow said:
But I don't think you can compare terrorism in 1964 to 2017.
Click to expand...

What are the pertinent differences? In all those cases the airplanes were destroyed by non-crew members and people died.

But if one doesn't want to compare them, ok.. That then eliminates the argument made above that the fact that there have been no such attacks in 16 years demonstrates that the TSA mass screening is effective.

So then all the other reasons I enumerated to believe that TSA mass screenings are ineffective still obtain.

So what are the other data to suggest TSA mass screenings are effective? I'm always happy to see the data.
 
Kritchlow said:
I would have no problem with properly qualified individuals in the airplane being armed. The problem lies where some nut job (not a political terrorist) has a few cocktails and gets PO'd in the airplane and pulls a gun.
Click to expand...

Nice idea. One place to start might be people who already have a concealed carry permit.
 
Kritchlow said:
Zero security means no fence around the airport. Anyone can walk around the ramp. Airports mixed with screened, and unscreened passengers. Couldn't be done... properly.
Click to expand...

What about the idea of keeping the existing fences etc and just changing the internal screening to be a per airline or concourse or gate basis. I imagine the airlines could work out some of the logistics?

Though I'm not sure the existing fencing is really much of a deterrent to a determined terrorist . How many cases of people just walking into the field, wandering around and ending up in the wheel well or some other strange place have we seen?
 
What's a Big Plane hold? 300 people?

Blow up one a week. That's 15000 people / year.

Since 2001, 527000 people (and that's just through 2015) have died in......traffic accidents. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) What's amazing to me is that the rate seems to be mostly constant at 30,000+ per year. How many planes would you have to blow up to equal that. And each and every one of these deaths are preventable.

If we were rational, we'd dump the money we've spent on turrist attacks into decreasing automobile accidents. It's left as an exercise for the reader as to why we do not.
 
I've always thought it strange that they check (often failing to find items that they should) on the way in, then lock all those people in an aircraft, and there is no security unless you happen to have an air Marshall on the flight undercover. There are no exits, there is no way off the aircraft.

I mean, I can't think of another place where people gather (and they DO have exits) where there aren't bouncers, doormen, security...that are wearing uniforms.

But time and time again, in flight someone gets rowdy, abusive, violent, or tried to light their shoe bombs, and who is it up to to stop them? Flight attendants and passengers. They count on passengers helping out, passengers that are unarmed by design of course.

That this is the norm is extremely odd to me. Why aren't there (at least on larger, longer flights) visible security people in uniform, with handcuffs, maybe weapons, sitting up front in seats turned facing the passengers?
Money? PR?

Stadiums, night clubs, etc. always have security personnel trained to subdue and stop violence, and unruly customers. On commercial flights they hope they found all weapons, lock the doors, and it's "you folks are all on your own" until the doors open at the destination.

Personally, I also wouldn't have any qualms about returning to pre 911 screening procedures. I mean I wouldn't feel more anxious or worried about my safety if that were the case.
 
Mistake Not... said:
What's a Big Plane hold? 300 people?

Blow up one a week. That's 15000 people / year.

Since 2001, 527000 people (and that's just through 2015) have died in......traffic accidents. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) What's amazing to me is that the rate seems to be mostly constant at 30,000+ per year. How many planes would you have to blow up to equal that. And each and every one of these deaths are preventable.

If we were rational, we'd dump the money we've spent on turrist attacks into decreasing automobile accidents. It's left as an exercise for the reader as to why we do not.
Click to expand...
If only we could harness the stupidity...
 
LongRoadBob said:
I've always thought it strange that they check (often failing to find items that they should) on the way in, then lock all those people in an aircraft, and there is no security unless you happen to have an air Marshall on the flight undercover. There are no exits, there is no way off the aircraft.

I mean, I can't think of another place where people gather (and they DO have exits) where there aren't bouncers, doormen, security...that are wearing uniforms.

But time and time again, in flight someone gets rowdy, abusive, violent, or tried to light their shoe bombs, and who is it up to to stop them? Flight attendants and passengers. They count on passengers helping out, passengers that are unarmed by design of course.

That this is the norm is extremely odd to me. Why aren't there (at least on larger, longer flights) visible security people in uniform, with handcuffs, maybe weapons, sitting up front in seats turned facing the passengers?
Money? PR?

Stadiums, night clubs, etc. always have security personnel trained to subdue and stop violence, and unruly customers. On commercial flights they hope they found all weapons, lock the doors, and it's "you folks are all on your own" until the doors open at the destination.

Personally, I also wouldn't have any qualms about returning to pre 911 screening procedures. I mean I wouldn't feel more anxious or worried about my safety if that were the case.
Click to expand...
You are making assumptions here.
Regardless, nightclubs have bouncers because drunks get into fights. A bit different from an airliner.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What about the idea of keeping the existing fences etc and just changing the internal screening to be a per airline or concourse or gate basis. I imagine the airlines could work out some of the logistics?

Though I'm not sure the existing fencing is really much of a deterrent to a determined terrorist . How many cases of people just walking into the field, wandering around and ending up in the wheel well or some other strange place have we seen?
Click to expand...
But the fences are security...
No security means no security.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What about the idea of keeping the existing fences etc and just changing the internal screening to be a per airline or concourse or gate basis. I imagine the airlines could work out some of the logistics?

Though I'm not sure the existing fencing is really much of a deterrent to a determined terrorist . How many cases of people just walking into the field, wandering around and ending up in the wheel well or some other strange place have we seen?
Click to expand...
Impossible on the per concourse... Too many flights dump into a common area on an intermediate stop. Would be a nightmare, and can you imagine someone with a cross airline connection.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What about the idea of keeping the existing fences etc and just changing the internal screening to be a per airline or concourse or gate basis. I imagine the airlines could work out some of the logistics?

Though I'm not sure the existing fencing is really much of a deterrent to a determined terrorist . How many cases of people just walking into the field, wandering around and ending up in the wheel well or some other strange place have we seen?
Click to expand...
And what about the crews? Are you going to try to pair 7 crew members together on a secure vs non secure flight?

It's just not practical
 
Kritchlow said:
You are making assumptions here.
Regardless, nightclubs have bouncers because drunks get into fights. A bit different from an airliner.
Click to expand...

Not assumptions, there have been countless occruances of exactly that, drunks getting into fights, people getting drunk and abusive, etc. on flights. Pshychotic or disturbed people acting out. It's in the news pretty regularly. Anyone can buy a ticket, and you have a cross section of the people on any given flight.

They serve alcohol on airplanes.
 
LongRoadBob said:
That this is the norm is extremely odd to me. Why aren't there (at least on larger, longer flights) visible security people in uniform, with handcuffs, maybe weapons, sitting up front in seats turned facing the passengers?
Money? PR?
Click to expand...
Security. We can't staff enough LEOs/FAMs to watch all the flights, so they are put on some flights. Not knowing which flight should serve as some sort of deterrent. If you were a bad guy and knew what flight had an armed LEO, and exactly which passengers they were, that would defeat the purpose of them being there. You would then be able to develop a pattern, find the right flights, etc.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
But I'm a scientist, so if these is some other data demonstrating the effectiveness of TSA mass screenings, I'd love to see it.
Please post.
Click to expand...
I'm a scientist, too. (By education, not by profession). What you're leaving out of your analysis is this:
Kritchlow said:
But I don't think you can compare terrorism in 1964 to 2017.
Click to expand...
The tremendous paradigm shift in what a "hijacking" was prior to 2001 to what it could be after 9/11 is what you are not accounting for.

PeterNSteinmetz said:
If memory serves, the last time airplanes leaving US airports were destroyed by a non-crew member prior to 2001 were in 1986, 1964 and 1962 (or very close to those years, I'm not in front of the computer right now). That's a very low rate of occurrence and it is therefore fairly probable that 16 years have elapsed since 2001 with no such attacks, purely by chance.

If you like we can walk through the calculations together here. Sometimes our intuitions about these things or "commonsense" are not very accurate, especially with very improbable events.
Click to expand...
Ok. You're talking about 3 flights that were destroyed by non-crew members prior to 2001. The 1962 & 1964 crashes weren't even hijackings. They were suicides. The crew didn't even know what happened. In 1962 a guy blew himself up with some dynamite in the aft lav, taking the plane down trying to get his soon-to-be widow insurance money. In 1964 some guy fatally shot both pilots in a successful suicide attempt. Also insurance fraud. Your 1986 example was the only real hijacking where the plane was destroyed. I had to look that one up. That one looks like it would have been a run of the mill hijacking until Iraqi security forces on the airplane tried to stop the takeover and the hijackers blew up the cockpit with a grenade.

So, none of the examples you cite are even remotely like what happened on 9/11. There was a tremendous shift in thinking and procedures due to that. You have to take that into account. Before 2001, the primary purpose of a hijacking was to make a political statement and/or use the airplane to get to a foreign country for asylum reasons, or to use as a bargaining chip for further political ends (release political prisoners, etc.).

The closest example to a 9/11 type hijacking is one you didn't even mention. FedEx's Flight 705. Auburn Calloway tried to murder the crew and crash the plane into FedEx's sort facility in Memphis. This attack had two purposes; one, insurance fraud (again) and two, for retribution to FedEx for his impending firing. Luckily the attack was thwarted by the heroism of the crew that day.

You can't point at the fact that no more weaponized aircraft hijackings have occurred since 9/11 as "proof" that it's a low-probability event when you don't control for the fact that all our procedures changed to prevent that type of hijacking.

Here's my analogy. We have an empty bathtub that sits dormant for years. You measure the water level daily. It's always zero. On September 11, I turn both spigots on, but I also pull the stopper out. On September 12 you measure the water level. Still zero. You then conclude that my pulling the stopper out had no effect on the water level because it's the same that it has been for years with no change.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Security. We can't staff enough LEOs/FAMs to watch all the flights, so they are put on some flights. Not knowing which flight should serve as some sort of deterrent. If you were a bad guy and knew what flight had an armed LEO, and exactly which passengers they were, that would defeat the purpose of them being there. You would then be able to develop a pattern, find the right flights, etc.
Click to expand...

There was nothing I wrote that would rule out having undercover Air Marshals do exactly as they do today, but adding security would add...security.

I'm amazed some here think it is ok that passengers are "deputized" in several instances to tackle an unruly or problematic person. Flight attendants, often not exactly trained security, have had to subdue, and when it is not feasible passengers (untrained in most cases, so there is that too) are asked to help. There have been several where they had to tie wrap some person (apparently they don't or can't have handcuffs either) until landing.
Trained security are taught to not go overboard, to subdue, and what is lawful and not. Picking out some passengers to do impromptu security is really dumb. The guys that would volunteer may not know the limits, etc.

There are no shortage of security personnel in other venues, places.

Of course it would be a cost, so are bouncers in bars, it's part of the price of ensuring safety. It's happened, a lot, too often. Often it isn't some bad guy, but an unbalanced person acting out, or drunk.

We accept it because of holdover from the days of commercial flight but it is totally ridiculous given that TSA has a terrible record of finding weapons, etc. just locking folk in a plane with no way out and no security.
 
LongRoadBob said:
Not assumptions, there have been countless occruances of exactly that, drunks getting into fights, people getting drunk and abusive, etc. on flights. Pshychotic or disturbed people acting out. It's in the news pretty regularly. Anyone can buy a ticket, and you have a cross section of the people on any given flight.

They serve alcohol on airplanes.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "countless". Probably every time it happens it makes the news. Maybe twice a year? How many bar fights do you suppose there are? Several hundred a night..??
 
Sluggo63 said:
Here's my analogy. We have an empty bathtub that sits dormant for years. You measure the water level daily. It's always zero. On September 11, I turn both spigots on, but I also pull the stopper out. On September 12 you measure the water level. Still zero. You then conclude that my pulling the stopper out had no effect on the water level because it's the same that it has been for years with no change.
Click to expand...

Interesting way of looking at the problem. I agree that if one regards the events as of such different types, then there is no historical evidence which can be used to evaluate whether the rate of attacks which result in destruction of the aircraft due to malicious actions of non-crew members has changed due to the introduction of TSA mass screenings.

But that also then implies that the fact that there have been no such attacks since 2001 does not argue that the TSA mass screenings worked. (That was the original argument to which I was responding.)

It appears that both you and user Kritchlow have a strong belief that TSA mass screening procedures work to present attacks. So let me ask a question the other way.

What evidence, in principle, would convince you that the TSA mass screenings don't work? Is it only if other attacks occur? Is there any other evidence short of other attacks which would persuade you that the TSA mass screenings don't work?
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Impossible on the per concourse... Too many flights dump into a common area on an intermediate stop. Would be a nightmare, and can you imagine someone with a cross airline connection.
Click to expand...

It strikes me that one can restructure flow in the concourses, just like was done for the TSA screening checkpoints. It would take some time. One of the big attractions of such a system for airlines on easier flow concourses might be the better and simplified flow. It could be a competitive advantage.

A person making a cross airline connection might have to go through one checkpoint for an airline that requires it versus none for an airline that didn't. That doesn't seem much worse than the current TSA system where everyone has to go through; hardly strikes me as a "nightmare". And most passengers aren't dealing with cross airline connections anyway.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
It strikes me that one can restructure flow in the concourses, just like was done for the TSA screening checkpoints. It would take some time. One of the big attractions of such a system for airlines on easier flow concourses might be the better and simplified flow. It could be a competitive advantage.

A person making a cross airline connection might have to go through one checkpoint for an airline that requires it versus none for an airline that didn't. That doesn't seem much worse than the current TSA system where everyone has to go through; hardly strikes me as a "nightmare". And most passengers aren't dealing with cross airline connections anyway.
Click to expand...
Well... You go for it!! Not sure what else to say as I don't think it's feasible.

Don't get me wrong, I do think the TSA is far from perfect, but I'll take it over nothing.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Here's my analogy. We have an empty bathtub that sits dormant for years. You measure the water level daily. It's always zero. On September 11, I turn both spigots on, but I also pull the stopper out. On September 12 you measure the water level. Still zero. You then conclude that my pulling the stopper out had no effect on the water level because it's the same that it has been for years with no change.
Click to expand...

In terms of that analogy, the problem is we don't know what pulling the stopper out corresponds to. Was it the introduction of the TSA mass screenings, was it the fact that terrorists are no longer able to arrange this type of attack due to other factors, or was it the fact that people now will fight back and knowing this the terrorists think their odds of succeeding are too low?

Given the enormous costs of maintaining the TSA, in money, time, invasion of privacy, and collateral deaths on the highways, it is important to figure out whether it works. What evidence is there that it does? I'm happy to look at the data, but none has been presented here.

The TSA's failures to find weapons argues pretty strongly that it probably doesn't work very well, so to keep such an expensive program, it seems rational to ask that there be some evidence that mass screenings work. Where's the data?
 
Kritchlow said:
Well... You go for it!!
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm all for people who want that type of screening to be able to choose to undergo it and use an airline that agrees with their desires. I just don't like everyone being forced by the federal government through the TSA to make the same choice.

Seems like it might be an interesting poll actually to find out what people would choose. IIRC, about 50% of the traveling public believes the TSA is an annoyance but that they do some good. And about 50% think they don't really do much and could be reduced or eliminated.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Thanks. I'm all for people who want that type of screening to be able to choose to undergo it and use an airline that agrees with their desires. I just don't like everyone being forced by the federal government through the TSA to make the same choice.
Click to expand...
9/11 showed that airline security is also national security. Most of the people killed were never on the affected airliners. The largest economic damages had nothing to do with the airlines or passengers.

There's no way to limit the damage to the lower-security flights only to the airlines and passengers who choose those flights.
 
Larry in TN said:
9/11 showed that airline security is also national security. Most of the people killed were never on the affected airliners. The largest economic damages had nothing to do with the airlines or passengers.

There's no way to limit the damage to the lower-security flights only to the airlines and passengers who choose those flights.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. The airlines should be responsible for insuring against other possible losses created by their operations. Presently they are insulated from most of this liability by the “Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act” (ATSSA) passed right after the 9/11 attacks.

Repealing that aspect of the ATSSA would transfer the costs of the risks of commercial airline flight onto the companies making a profit from it and indirectly to the people who use such flights. It would also require the airlines to take seriously the risks of their operations, both possible terrorists attacks and other potential risks. Such risks, which amount to perhaps 10s of billions of dollars of property damage and payouts for lives lost, both passengers and those on the ground, can be insured.

One of the advantages of such a system is that the tradeoff between security and convenience can then take into account the rationally assessed risks of having more or less security on airline flights, whatever form that might take (screening, armed crew, etc.)

I don't see any reason that other US citizens, many of whom don't fly, should be forced to subsidize the operations of a profit making business like commercial airlines. Do you believe there is a good reason for forcing those people to pay for the convenience of others?
 
LongRoadBob said:
Trained security are taught to not go overboard, to subdue, and what is lawful and not. Picking out some passengers to do impromptu security is really dumb. The guys that would volunteer may not know the limits, etc.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very good point. I've actually read some posts where people who think they are "tough guys" are bragging about how they "pounded" some person on the airplane for a violation of the rules.

I've often wondered if under the appropriate laws of self defense the "pounded" person would have a cause of action against the volunteer enforcers. If the enforcers did the same thing to a person on the street for violating some law about drunkeness in public or disturbing the peace, they would often be guilty of felonious assault, and depending on the exact circumstance, the person being "pounded" might well be justified in using lethal force to defend themselves.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
That's a very good point. The airlines should be responsible for insuring against other possible losses created by their operations.
Click to expand...
The direct losses (life and property) from the 9/11 attacks was over $100 Billion. Add in the economic losses and estimates are in the $2 Trillion range. Make airlines fully responsible would mean that we would have no airlines. No insurance company could cover such liability and, if airlines operated without insurance and suffered a similar loss, they would simply go bankrupt leaving us in the same situation we are in now where the government and taxpayers are ultimately responsible.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well... that pretty much proves my point. Probably 1/100 of 1% as compared to a bar.
Click to expand...

That's ok. You might change your mind if you are unlucky enough to be on a flight with problem folk, but that's up to you.

I still maintain that it is a little odd that as far as I can see, this is really the only commercial enterprise where the customer is effectively locked in a room with strangers with employees without the power or skill to control unruly folk, and depend then on random passengers for security. That it has been the norm, to me doesn't make it any less odd.

Also, and this is important, I would make the claim that it happens a helluva lot more often than terrorism on flights, yet look at the discomfort, cost, and huge beauracracy just devoted to that in the industry. I'd call that bizarre.
 
LongRoadBob said:
That's ok. You might change your mind if you are unlucky enough to be on a flight with problem folk, but that's up to you.

I still maintain that it is a little odd that as far as I can see, this is really the only commercial enterprise where the customer is effectively locked in a room with strangers with employees without the power or skill to control unruly folk, and depend then on random passengers for security. That it has been the norm, to me doesn't make it any less odd.
Click to expand...
I have seen many problem folk. I fly for the airlines.
Just rarely does it escalate as you describe.
 
Kritchlow said:
I have seen many problem folk. I fly for the airlines.
Just rarely does it escalate as you describe.
Click to expand...


The industry begs to differ...or maybe it is just definition of what is escalated to the levels you think I am describing. I see stories oretty regularly about passengers having to help flight crews....maybe I think I see them more often, it still is odd to have virtually no security on the plane, and to expect to use paying customers, untrained, in case or when it does escalate.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37503112

Where the first article in a search mentions (for 2015)
In 11% of cases, there was physical aggression or even damage to the aircraft.

Some 10,854 incidents of passengers disrupting flights were reported to IATA last year, up from 9,316 incidents in 2014. That's one incident for every 1,205 flights.
 
Larry in TN said:
The direct losses (life and property) from the 9/11 attacks was over $100 Billion. Add in the economic losses and estimates are in the $2 Trillion range. Make airlines fully responsible would mean that we would have no airlines. No insurance company could cover such liability and, if airlines operated without insurance and suffered a similar loss, they would simply go bankrupt leaving us in the same situation we are in now where the government and taxpayers are ultimately responsible.
Click to expand...

Well, going to the other part of that post, if the airlines and their insurance companies can't figure out a way to pay for the actual properly amortized costs of the risk, then I think one can make a pretty good argument maybe there shouldn't be people in that business.

I think that more likely than them going out of business would be that they would need to work with their insurance companies to adopt appropriate policies to convince the insurers that they aren't going to experience that kind of loss.

But even if the airlines cannot economically justify their activities, what would that imply? Other forms of transportation that are more economic, maybe trains?

I see no reason US citizens, especially those who don't even fly, should be forced to subsidize a profit making industry. If that is really what is going on, the airlines are then engaged in a bunch of corporate welfare, similar to bank bailouts.
 
LongRoadBob said:
The industry begs to differ...or maybe it is just definition of what is escalated to the levels you think I am describing. I see stories oretty regularly about passengers having to help flight crews....maybe I think I see them more often, it still is odd to have virtually no security on the plane, and to expect to use paying customers, untrained, in case or when it does escalate.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37503112

Where the first article in a search mentions (for 2015)
In 11% of cases, there was physical aggression or even damage to the aircraft.

Some 10,854 incidents of passengers disrupting flights were reported to IATA last year, up from 9,316 incidents in 2014. That's one incident for every 1,205 flights.
Click to expand...
It's not common. Out of all the flights in a year it happens a handful of times. That's not common, and I back that up by living it everyday.
 
Kritchlow said:
It's not common. Out of all the flights in a year it happens a handful of times. That's not common, and I back that up by living it everyday.
Click to expand...

So, anecdotal?

Really? One incident for every 1,205 flights. I don't know if you are an airline pilot, but if you are, maybe you don't see it, and maybe you are right that it's fine the way it is because it isn't that frequent. But how many flights are there in a year worldwide? That ratio isn't huge, granted, but still, it's a fact that WHEN it happens, there are no professional security team unless it happens that an air Marshall Is on the flight.

How many flights per year are you working? I'm just an occasional passenger on commercial flights, not even yet a GA pilot, just a student, and I also haven't experienced really serious incidents. But the numbers are there. And they are not insignificant. The main thing is WHEN it happens there is not a good contingency plan.

Can you at least grant that there is really no public equivalent in our normal ground based lives where you have several hundred people locked into a place with virtually no real security personnel? I haven't seen many imposing large folk as flight crew, and it is a stretch that they are able to handle any passenger that gets weird, feisty, combatantative, or a danger to the other passengers and crew. The fact is, no matter how you slice it, they are depending on their customers, who are not necessarily trained security, to step in if it gets hinky.

Even though accepted because of history or because for some reason it is the norm, it is a kind of unique situation. You honestly believe that it isn't a problem that this is the plan? Ok...if so, we just disagree. That's ok.
 
LongRoadBob said:
So, anecdotal?

Really? One incident for every 1,205 flights. I don't know if you are an airline pilot, but if you are, maybe you don't see it, and maybe you are right that it's fine the way it is because it isn't that frequent. But how many flights are there in a year worldwide? That ratio isn't huge, granted, but still, it's a fact that WHEN it happens, there are no professional security team unless it happens that an air Marshall Is on the flight.

How many flights per year are you working? I'm just an occasional passenger on commercial flights, not even yet a GA pilot, just a student, and I also haven't experienced really serious incidents. But the numbers are there. And they are not insignificant. The main thing is WHEN it happens there is not a good contingency plan.

Can you at least grant that there is really no public equivalent in our normal ground based lives where you have several hundred people locked into a place with virtually no real security personnel? I haven't seen many imposing large folk as flight crew, and it is a stretch that they are able to handle any passenger that gets weird, feisty, combatantative, or a danger to the other passengers and crew. The fact is, no matter how you slice it, they are depending on their customers, who are not necessarily trained security, to step in if it gets hinky.

Even though accepted because of history or because for some reason it is the norm, it is a kind of unique situation. You honestly believe that it isn't a problem that this is the plan? Ok...if so, we just disagree. That's ok.
Click to expand...
I just don't respond to long posts... so if you have questions please be precise.

And yes, there are a few of us here that fly for the airlines.
 
Kritchlow said:
I just don't respond to long posts... so if you have questions please be precise.

And yes, there are a few of us here that fly for the airlines.
Click to expand...
Precise or concise? Do you really think valid concerns can all be expressed in a short form that you find acceptable?
 
Kritchlow said:
I just don't respond to long posts... so if you have questions please be precise.

And yes, there are a few of us here that fly for the airlines.
Click to expand...

4 medium sized paragraphs is long?
Ok.

It's fine, we can end the discussion, no problem. But what you are non-responding to was precise.

Your only rebuttal seems to be "its not that big of a problem". There are numbers from the industry that percentage wise aren't problematic, but pity high numbers pointing to it being so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top