81–90 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.
That's far from guaranteed to work. And are you going to be paying for the F-16s on hot standby around the country?
Besides, since 911 the doors of plane cockpits are almost like a bank vault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the idea of an "at your own risk" option, but it'll never happen. Since 9/11, a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground (or at least in tall buildings), not just passengers. We can certainly debate whether that's necessary or useful (I'd argue that we could do far less than we currently do), but I don't think you'll ever get the public to agree to allowing ai…
To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.
Destroying an aircraft over potentially populated areas can be useful to shift who and how many people are at risk when it hits the ground, but its not really (even if you can reliably destroy it when you need to, which -- absent a highly-reliable remote destruct device built into the plane [0], is hard to guarantee) a great way to "protect those on the ground". Because the wreckage is going to hit somewhere, and you don't really have precision control of that.
[0] which raises its own problems, of course
1) Provide our dear politicians the satisfaction that they "Did something" - Security theater is very useful during election times (Tough on Crime et al)
2)Provide a convenient excuse to expand the govt. ability to dictate yet another aspect of people's normal lives. The govt. now has another tool to harass "undesirables" - simply put their name on a "No fly", "No Train" , "No $SomeOtherThing" list and have their TSA buddies enforce it. Or have the "undesirables" be pulled aside for Random screenings every single time [1].
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/citizenfour-filmm...
This is the real purpose of the TSA. Your safety or saving lives is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.
That's far from guaranteed to work. And are you going to be paying for the F-16s on hot standby around the country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks." Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.
My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA. Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.
The article completely misses the point of the TSA. It is not meant to actually make air travel safer. It is there for exactly two reasons: 1) Provide our dear politicians the satisfaction that they "Did something" - Security theater is very useful during election times (Tough on Crime et al) 2)Provide a convenient excuse to expand the govt. ability to dictate yet another aspect of people's normal lives. The govt. no…
TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. At that point I realized that air travel is by f…
> there's other evidence that 9/11 led to an increase in driving, which cost at least a thousand lives
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not convinced you need more security for aircraft than a bus. As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume.
Please don't give them ideas. I like relaxed train rides and would hate having to go through the intrusive time waste and annoyance anytime I step foot on a train station. I don't like flying because there are so many annoyances these days. The money grab is another problem. I cannot bring fluids through security but I can buy as many bottles of liquor and alcoholised fluids as I want before boarding. I'm surprised n…
The political risks of looking "soft on terrorism" are just too high. Imagine being a politician responsible for a TSA rollback, and then, by dumb luck, a terrorist attack succeeds a short while later. There may be zero correlation, but do you think the media will care? Do you think the public will care? Do you think your political opposition will care? Ha. Your career would be over in a heartbeat. And if your opponents really felt like twisting the knife, they might drum up hearings and lawsuits against you. So call me cynical, but I just don't see any lawmaker or policy wonk sticking his or her neck out anytime soon.
This is why it's in the hands of airports to push for any particular change. They're not running for office.
TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. At that point I realized that air travel is by f…
> iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. Most airlines provide the same digital boarding passes, I often travel with my pass added to Apple Wallet. > If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're…
It's a crap comparison, anyway - the TSA is better at finding toys than they are at finding bombs and weapons. Dogs and x-ray detectors could do just as well, and "alternative airports" could choose to have those.