The Trench discussion

How Safe Can We Make Flying?

Comments Showing 1-8 of 8 (8 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Andy (new)

Andy Strum (fed-upamerican) | 15 comments It would be hard to imagine that anyone, except for a terrorist, doesn’t want to be as safe as possible when flying. If someone was trying to bring and explosive devise or a weapon, on a plane, the efforts at the check-in lines would stop the offender. These things seem to be in agreement. It also appears that most travelers do not mind being inconvenienced if there is a need for the process and the process is extremely successful. Therein lays the rub. Is the process effective to stop a terrorist?

The comments and questions that have recently been raised are valid.

1. The fear of hijacking and using a plane as a missile has been greatly reduced since the restriction of access to the cockpit and the allowance of pilots to carry firearms.
2. Prior bombing attempts were thwarted on the ground by intelligence and not at airport security.
3. Baggage is not as thoroughly searched as passengers. This might allow for an explosive device in luggage.
4. Not all airports, around the world, have the same level of security. A terrorist might chose a foreign airport (that has more lax security) and travel into the United States with a bomb.
5. Terrorists appear to be one step ahead of the security. (The recent printer cartridge bomb is an example)
6. The concern that a plane would be hijacked and used as a missile has been greatly reduced. (as stated in 1). The fear seems to be a plane being blown up. The loss of life would be horrible and the fear factor terrible. While the fear factor of a plane exploding is horrific, the potential for terrorist taking lives is everywhere. A train, a bus, a cruise ship, a van in a tunnel, a van on a bridge, an office building, etc…. The potential for causing devastation and loss of life is everywhere.
7. It seems that if someone truly wants to cause damage, it is almost impossible to stop them. By far, the most effective way to stop terrorist activity is before it happens. Governments and agencies sharing information about a planned activity and stopping it before it’s started.

There have been more debates on the effectiveness of onsite passenger and airport security. Unfortunately, there are many more questions than answers. The answer “It is in the passenger’s best interest to be scanned or patted down” just doesn’t seem to make it. One area of agreement is that shared intelligence among agencies and countries is extremely effective. One can only hope that we will find an acceptable balance and answer to “how safe” vs. “how inconvenient and how much the cost”!!
If we’re brainstorming, here’s an idea we’ll never use!
Maybe we need a booth that you step into, not to x-ray you, but that will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth. Who’s next?
"Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American"

message 2: by Vicki Jean (new)

Vicki Jean | 108 comments Mod
and so as usual I ask;


message 3: by Andy (new)

Andy Strum (fed-upamerican) | 15 comments Dogs would work too hard, don't get paid much, don't complain, would treat everyone fairly and can't be unionized.
Other than that I'm not sure!!!!!!

message 4: by Vicki Jean (new)

Vicki Jean | 108 comments Mod

makes too much sense, yes?

message 5: by Vicki Jean (new)

Vicki Jean | 108 comments Mod
you know what I think it is?

Noone wants to have to be the pooper scooper ;P

message 6: by Andy (new)

Andy Strum (fed-upamerican) | 15 comments Knew there must have been a good reason!!!!

message 7: by Vicki Jean (new)

Vicki Jean | 108 comments Mod
they are easily trained as they pick the ones that show an affinity towards these things already. Some are just naturals.

message 8: by Vicki Jean (new)

Vicki Jean | 108 comments Mod

bed bugs;

if there is reward involved mans best friend will find its way to what you need

back to top