3 ms·
If an errant cigarette is enough to bring down a plane why does the TSA strip search me looking for a bomb? I bet you could get a pretty roaring fire going usi
by asmithmd1 14y ago
If an errant cigarette is enough to bring down a plane why does the TSA strip search me looking for a bomb?
I bet you could get a pretty roaring fire going using the 120v outlet and all the paper goods provided in the bathroom.
- mikeash 14y agoBecause, although it could bring down a plane, it's very likely not to. The fire will be detected quickly and then put out. Your question is sort of like asking, if an airliner can fly on one engine, why do they bother putting on two? The answer, quite simply, is robustness.
- asmithmd1 14y agoMy point is that it is very unlikely anyone will try. There is exactly nothing stopping anyone from packing an airplane bathroom with alcohol soaked paper towels and lighting it on fire; and yet it has not ever happened. The TSA is a colossal waste of time and money - the more ways that it can be pointed out the better.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoI don't like the TSA's approach either, but this isn't a very good argument. They stopped disallowing lighters on flights for this reason; they don't want to care about the small threats and focus on finding...you know...terrorists. The change hasn't soaked in completely yet, but their is hope they'll do the right thing eventually. It would be fairly easy to put your fire out with a fire extinguisher. But I'd rather not fly with you anyways :)
- raldi 14y agoAren't matches still allowed?
- bdunbar 14y agoThey were until you just mentioned it.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoIf the TSA allows lighters now, I imagine they also allow matches.
- dalke 14y agoYes, they are. "One book of safety (non-strike anywhere) matches are permitted as carry-on items, but all matches are prohibited in checked baggage." Even better - matches aren't easily picked up by the X-ray machines.
- Zak 14y agoThe other reason for it is to make people feel safer about flying on planes. I think it has long outlived its usefulness for that purpose, but that may be my bias toward rationality speaking.
- sopooneo 14y agoI always assumed the reason for the intrusive security checks was that at some high level, our government felt another terror attack was very likely, and they didn't want anyone to be able to say they weren't doing anything after it happened again. So perhaps it is to prevent rioting in the streets after an attack as much as to prevent the attack itself.