4 ms·

And be replaced with what? I'm as irritated with all the stupid TSA crap as anyone else and now go out of my way to avoid flying because of it---but the post-9

by blahedo 17y ago

And be replaced with what? I'm as irritated with all the stupid TSA crap as anyone else and now go out of my way to avoid flying because of it---but the post-9/11 pre-TSA period was even worse as far as fickleness and inconsistency of security. TSA needs a lot of fixing. But on the whole I think nationalised airline security is probably the right way to go.

philk 17y ago
Two things: 1) Reinforced cockpit doors and armed pilots so terrorists can't get control over the plane. 2) Better intelligence and policing on the ground; remember, in the last attempted attack the guys father had raised concerns about him beforehand. Airport screening is basically security theater.
- Retric 17y ago
  Some airport screening is necessary otherwise you can easily bring significant weaponry on board which makes the reinforced doors and armed pilots fairly useless. However, reinforced doors let you ignore knives etc, which drastically reduce the amount of screening you need to do.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Alternatively, use the screening expenses to subsidize ticket discounts for (qualified) citizens willing to bring their personal carry piece on board with safety rounds supplied. :)
- makecheck 17y ago
  Arming someone isn't necessarily a benefit. If you can hold a deadly weapon, you can also lose that weapon in a fight, at which point the weapon may be used against you. Especially if you're sitting down in a tiny cockpit when someone bursts in. If you'd arm anyone at all, you'd want to be sure they are very well trained (e.g. a police officer, infantryman or equivalent) and in a better position to help.
  - bullseye 17y ago
    >>you'd want to be sure they are very well trained I doubt they would just issue a firearm along with the uniforms. Many airline pilots are ex-military and quite capable of using a sidearm. Training/restrictions would certainly be available for those that aren't.
  - philk 17y ago
    That's the point of reinforcing the doors. Attackers can't just burst in. The firearms are just a last line of defense if someone manages to get through them somehow.
bioweek 17y ago
Could we have planes be rigged to release ether into the cabin to put everyone except the pilots to sleep in the event of a hijacking? It could be controlled by the ground, or by silent alarms that the pilots or flight attendants could hit.
- angelbob 17y ago
  Any form of sleep/anaesthesia has a nonzero chance of killing somebody. I don't even want to think what the insurance and liability issues would look like for this. You can say, "well, only if there's a hijacking" and I'll say, "but how could they be 100% sure, and what would insurance companies make them do to be sure before allowing them to potentially kill innocent passengers, with that insurance company liable?"

by blahedo 17y ago

philk 17y ago

Two things: 1) Reinforced cockpit doors and armed pilots so terrorists can't get control over the plane. 2) Better intelligence and policing on the ground; remember, in the last attempted attack the guys father had raised concerns about him beforehand. Airport screening is basically security theater.

Retric 17y ago
Some airport screening is necessary otherwise you can easily bring significant weaponry on board which makes the reinforced doors and armed pilots fairly useless. However, reinforced doors let you ignore knives etc, which drastically reduce the amount of screening you need to do.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Alternatively, use the screening expenses to subsidize ticket discounts for (qualified) citizens willing to bring their personal carry piece on board with safety rounds supplied. :)
makecheck 17y ago
Arming someone isn't necessarily a benefit. If you can hold a deadly weapon, you can also lose that weapon in a fight, at which point the weapon may be used against you. Especially if you're sitting down in a tiny cockpit when someone bursts in. If you'd arm anyone at all, you'd want to be sure they are very well trained (e.g. a police officer, infantryman or equivalent) and in a better position to help.
- bullseye 17y ago
  >>you'd want to be sure they are very well trained I doubt they would just issue a firearm along with the uniforms. Many airline pilots are ex-military and quite capable of using a sidearm. Training/restrictions would certainly be available for those that aren't.
- philk 17y ago
  That's the point of reinforcing the doors. Attackers can't just burst in. The firearms are just a last line of defense if someone manages to get through them somehow.

bioweek 17y ago

Could we have planes be rigged to release ether into the cabin to put everyone except the pilots to sleep in the event of a hijacking? It could be controlled by the ground, or by silent alarms that the pilots or flight attendants could hit.

angelbob 17y ago
Any form of sleep/anaesthesia has a nonzero chance of killing somebody. I don't even want to think what the insurance and liability issues would look like for this. You can say, "well, only if there's a hijacking" and I'll say, "but how could they be 100% sure, and what would insurance companies make them do to be sure before allowing them to potentially kill innocent passengers, with that insurance company liable?"