<p>jym, my platinum-level traveler H is more worried about Menzies Aviation denting his plane with their luggage carts than a terrorist blowing up his flight to OAK.</p>
<p>LOL BB!! My DH is platinum level too. He isn’t the one worried about flying. I want him to come home safe and sound, whether that be by air or by car.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is one polite fascist…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Quick question, since the video I looked at cuts off before this scene, did Tyner walk out after this exchange or was he taken by force and subjected to screening?</p>
<p>.
</p>
<p>Did they force him to complete the screening? Or did they ask him, politely, to cooperate so they could complete the screening? </p>
<p>There is a difference.</p>
<p>Momlive, there will always be random acts of violence, and most of us realize that we are taking some miniscule, unpredictable risks by walking out the front door every morning.</p>
<p>But white, middle to upperclass teenage boys who like to play videogames does not define an organized group that has repeatedly vowed to destroy the United States of America.</p>
<p>However, Arab-speaking individuals wearing muslim religious garb, with one-way tickets paid for in cash ARE in such a group. Your analogy doesn’t stand up.</p>
<p>To profile the first group would be ridiculous. To profile the second would be smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But does it matter why the likelihood of having a fatal car crash is higher than dying in a plane crash? Bottom line is it is much riskier to drive than fly.</p>
<p>Here are the statistics in absolute numbers:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Fear</a> of Flying | None | Through Rosen-colored Glasses](<a href=“http://www.brosen.com/files/49390fb8d3ce74ecc3d20de6e12190cf-52.html]Fear”>Fear of Flying | None | Through Rosen-colored Glasses)</p>
<p>[How</a> We Calculate Risk: Fear of Flying After 9/11 Led to Increase in Auto Deaths](<a href=“http://thestatsblog.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/01/16/fear-of-flying-after-911-led-to-increase-in-auto-deaths/]How”>http://thestatsblog.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/01/16/fear-of-flying-after-911-led-to-increase-in-auto-deaths/)</p>
<p>How about a three-tier approach? Targeted profiling for those determined to be high risk, regular and random screening for most everyone else, expedited screening for frequent fliers who undergo comply with rigorous background check. </p>
<p>[Airport</a> Security, Body Scans and TSA Searches: Too Intrusive - The Daily Beast](<a href=“http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-19/airport-security-body-scans-and-tsa-searches-too-intrusive/]Airport”>The Daily Beast: The Latest in Politics, Media & Entertainment News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Profiling goes well beyond singling out certain groups. A trained eye can spot strangely behaving individual in a crowd of people. Psychology is one of the most common UG majors here in the US. Train the new graduates and put them to work at the airports! Additionally, get governmental grants to Waters, Bruker and Agilent to develop new mass spectrometers capable to sniff out single molecules of explosive substances. It is not hard to do!</p>
<p>I dont disagree, momlive. Was just trying to explain the difference in “Likelihood of injury”. The likelihood of my getting injured on a ski slope is much higher than the likelihood of my getting injured on a tennis court, because I haven’t played tennis in eons, even though I only ski one week a year too. It has to do in part with base rates/frequency of occurrence. If I drive 4 times a day and fly 4 times a year, the likelihood of my getting injured by car is higher. I am rusty on statistics-- maybe someone here can explain Baysean statistics in a way we can understand? Its way over my head!! This discussion has occurred before on CC, and someone had also posted some numbers with average daily numbers of people on the road vs in the air. Don’t recall where it was posted.</p>
<p>What is the scanning/boarding procedure in Israel? I have heard is is excellent, but am unfamiliar withe the specifics.</p>
<p>jym, it’s interesting to put it that way… because it’s true, you have a much higher chance of being injured or being in a car accident… but just one plane accident skews the odds, of the 6 times I’ve flown, we did have an “accident” on one flight - the plane backed into a luggage cart on the runway. Nobody was hurt but we did wind up having to get a new flight. so hopefully I have my one flying accident out of the way for my lifetime!!</p>
<p>LOL fendergirl-- and I am hoping that the luggage cart was just parked near the plane by the gate, and ths someone wasnt doing wheelies with a luggage cart on a runway!! LOL
Hopefully that’s your lifetime quota of airplane incidents.</p>
<p>I was on a flight many,MANY years ago that had engine trouble and we had an emergency landing in Philly (foam on the runway, firt trucks all lined up as well-- the whole 9 yards…) We all spent several hours together in the airport while they got us another plane. In first class of that flight happened to be James Brown (godfather of soul) and Earl Brown (then Sec’ty of Agriculture). Listening to them chat was pretty entertaining.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They told him that if he didn’t complete the screening, he would be subject to civil action and a financial penalty. He chose to walk away, under the threat of being hauled into court and forced to pay a $10,000 fine. Perhaps you interpret that differently than I do; to my mind, that doesn’t fall into the category of “polite request.”</p>
<p>It was just parked there. I’ve never backed a plane before but don’t they have people directing them?? My friends brother is a pilot for Delta, I should ask him if he’s ever came close to backing into a luggage cart. haha! It was kind of comical, but we wound up getting to our destination like 4 hours later then planned… so that was not good!! At least we got there in one piece! One of those “I fly round trip once every 10 years of my life, and of course this happens to me” moments!</p>
<p>They interviewed John Pistole (Head of TSA) on one of the morning shows this morning. He said they would not be prusuing any action against this passenger. I guess they have their hands fil with the complaints and suits alreadyfiled against the TSA!</p>
<p>jazzymom, I think we already have a multi-tiered system - those determined to be a true threat are on the Do-Not-Fly list.</p>
<p>I like the Israeli system, but as we’ve said before I don’t think it’s feasible here - at least not for years and years. The Israeli security officers are HIGHLY trained, and Israel has ONE airport - or maybe two. It would take a very long time to develop enough of a trained workforce to implement that strategy in the USA’s hundreds of airports - even in just our dozens of large airports (and remember, the 9/11 guys started their journey at small airports, where security is presumably more lax). Perhaps someone should be starting to develop this system NOW. But in the meantime, we’re left with an imperfect world of screening physically.</p>
<p>I know back-scanners and pat downs don’t inspect body cavities. But really, are we going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good? To hear some opinions, if we can’t stop every single terrorist that might try any method to harm a plane, then we shouldn’t bother trying at all. That makes no sense. I’d rather screen out 95% of bad guys than 0% of bad guys.</p>
<p>I’m kinda leaning with the poster who said he’d like to see two airplanes. You folks that don’t want to get screened can get on one, and I’ll get on the other one with only the people who have been screened.</p>
<p>Jazzymom - I like the idea of the three-tier approach. That makes a lot of sense. As does BunsenBurner’s post about profiling and detecting explosives. My only objection to profiling is when you take a large class of mostly innocent people and subject them, and only them, to a publicly humiliating process. Reminds me too much of what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Either do it for everyone or no one.</p>
<p>I fly a lot - around the world. I think what they have done to date, while a complete hassle, does make sense. It’s annoying but not overly intrusive. I think forcing passengers to submit to needless radiation exposure (and trust me, I work in the medical profession - the amount of radiation exposure one gets over a lifetime is becoming a very hot topic because they’re just beginning to realize they have gone too far with all the CT Scans, etc. and have likely put a lot of people at high-risk for cancer) and/or aggressive body pat-downs has gone too far. I have been patted down numerous times because my under wire bra sometimes sets off the metal detector. But it has always been done in a very professional way.</p>
<p>I think the US does a relatively good job with security (some countries are scary - very little security) but even with that, they miss things - important things. To give you an example - my husband has to carry medicine filled hypodermic needles on board. In ten years of frequent flying, he has only been stopped once and that was in Australia in 2003. I’m not sure how enhanced pat-down and body scans will help when it is so easy to carry something like liquid filled hypodermic needles on board.</p>
<p>
Wonder if they’d have trouble finind a crew willing to fly that plane of unscreened passnegers, LOL.</p>
<p>Yes fendergirl, they have those guys outside the planes wearing very large ear protection and signalling to/directing the pilots with the cone-shaped flashlight-looking things. There must be some pretty big “blind spots” trying to back planes away from the jetways!!</p>
<p>Ran across this article while trying to find the name of those gizmos the ground crew use to direct the pilots <a href=“http://www.icao.int/anb/humanfactors/Ramp_accidents_2004.pdf[/url]”>Error;
<p>fendergirl, if a plane is bumped by any object, it has to undergo a thorough inspection even if no one was hurt. A tiny dent or a minor hole can have deadly consequences at 35,000 feet up in the air. Stuff like this happens more often than you think, and the unfortunate part is that it does not get reported by the low-pay, non-union workers like the people working for Menzies Aviation (which, in my opinion, is a terrorist organization).</p>
<p>Yeah i figured as much as far as them having to inspect the plane. I wouldn’t have wanted to continue on that plan after it hit something without it being inspected, that’s for sure. It was an inconvenience but hey sometimes sh t happens. :)</p>
<p>Flying scares the crap out of me. I’m ok once i’m up in the air… but I hate taking off, and i hate landing. This probably is why I’m so willing to drive to places of far distance, haha!</p>
<p>MomLive, as I said, profiling is not about singling out a certain group. It is about watching for specific erratic behaviors at the security checkpoints, extra questioning for people of all races and nationalities traveling to and from certain destinations, thorough screening of carryons and luggage (it is really a joke here in the US no matter what the TSA says), etc. A machine is easier to fool than a trained human eye and brain.</p>