Tax Dollars

Spent on

Anything

As a matter of fact, maryannh, I have flown coach from Europe and flew on Thursday 8/10 with my 8 month old daughter (her third airline trip). Yes, it was frustrating and difficult. I still say stop the whining. We do not have the money (thanks to our Iraq fiasco) to invest in security for the sake of airline passenger convenience.

It seems to me that all of this "safety screening" is less for the actual prevention of attacks on passenger flights from on-board nut cases, and more for the illusion that something is "being done" to protect the flying public. Without this illusion, fightened travellers will avoid airlines and financial disaster will reign.

In 1994 Al Qaeda wasn't a percieved threat; the terrorists were essentially lone gunmen in the public consciousness, not the organized network they've morphed into after 9/11. What could be passed off as an isolated incident in 1994 is suddenly not isolated in the post 9/11 public awareness, at least in the USA.

While in a practical security sense all of this mooing herd activity masquerading as preventive measures is actually pointless, in a public relations sense it is necessary--at least in the minds of the airlines and airport security officials. It's the only public way to demonstrate that "something is being done." Without that visible activity, a fickle public would conclude that nothing is happening to protect them.

As furiously (and we hope effectively) as things are happening in the background to prevent this from happening, it is out of public sight. That means it's out of mind and, well, out-of-sight-out-of-mind is almost the same as nothing happening at all.

If a hole was blown in the airliners fuselage at 36,000 feet then that would cause explosive decompression. That is what it is called when a cabin suddenly loses pressure at cruising altitude.

If an explosion on board can kill even one person, that could be enough to severely damage a plane and feasibly bring it down.

It is not possible to jettison freight/baggage/cargo in flight.

Pan Am 103 was destroyed over Lockerbie with a bomb the size of a small radio.

Concievably, if ten planes had been hijacked last week then the 24 suspects could easily have downed some or all of them.

PS I am not a pilot but I think the above is correct. I would be happy to be proven wrong!

I will be interested in what "Ask the Pilot" says. How much damage can liquid explosives carried on in plastic bottles do when mixed together on the aircraft.

1. They can kill the bomber and do damage to those around him. This is not desirable but it does not bring down the plane.

2. If there was enough explosive power to put a hole in the skin or blow out a window, I don't think it would bring down the plane. There were planes that landed with a good portion of their skin gone.

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-airlines-flight-811

http://www.answers.com/topic/aloha-airlines-flight-243

I don't think a pint bottle of liquid explosive could cause a explosive decompression as in the above cases. Also, it would be extreme good luck to have taken out the oxygen or control system. None the less it could cause a lot of damage and if there were several flights involved on the same day the publicity would be immense and the politicians would have a field day along with the media.

The real question is if the plane did decompress in a mid Atlantic flight would if have enough fuel to reach land flying at 10,000 feet? Could they jettison any weight such a freight etc.if needed? If the hole in fuselage was too large to plug then there would be real problem of losing the plane by running out of fuel.

a dvd collection of Disney produced WWII animated shorts that were made to keep the public motivated and aware of what they could do for the war effort.

The one thing we are asked to do in support of the current war effort is to stand in longer lines at the airport. Hoe embarresing that the leftist elite can't handle this one simple act and have to label it an act of panic.

Baggage that goes into the hold is only randomly checked.

Cargo and freight is never checked.

It would be relatively easy to down any commercial flight by exploiting the huge gaps in security described above.

I'm constantly astounded at how quickly people will give away yet another piece of their freedom for the illusion of being "protected." My prediction: the day will soon arrive when you will bring NOTHING on to a flight with the exception of medication and baby formula. And guess what? If a religious fanatic wants to make a statement by taking out your flight, they'll eventually figure out a way to do it with a bottle of "blood-pressure pills" or "mother's milk."

Wanting your iPod, laptop, bottle of water or bag of snacks on a six-hour cross-country flight isn't being shallow, spoiled or whiney. It's completely reasonable. Indeed, it's far more reasonable than believing that by surrendering those items you have somehow made yourself and the nation safer. There are literally millions of places in the United States for a terrorist to target once you've made airplanes a less attractive mark -- railways, buses, landmarks, bridges, shopping malls, factories, movie theaters ... the list goes on and on. The elephant in the room, of course, is that we cannot be protected 24 hours a day. In fact, in an open, democratic society, any highly motivated individual who wishes to kill or maim people has ample opportunity to do just that without ever stepping foot in an airport. That’s the price we pay for being able to walk the streets without check-points and 24-hour surveillance.

Slippery slopes may make for bad debating technique, but any responsible, freedom-loving citizen has to ask themselves at what point will we stop? And at what point will Americans realize that the sacrifice that they may have to make to preserve that freedom may be living with a heightened risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack. Indeed, that is the reality of the situation regardless of how many freedoms we give up for a sense of security.

If I want to take a vacation from my "electronic addictions", I will do so. But not because the burgeoning state security apparatus tells me to. When I see this kind of nonsense, it becomes clear that Al Qaeda isn't the greatest threat to our liberty ... we're doing just fine dismantling it ourselves.