Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Safety Precautions - Where Is It Going To End!?  
User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

This post was inspired by some recent posts on this forum, eg the one where pax of aircraft departing out of China have to drink the fluids the have on them, or the one about spotting areas being shut down.

Pre 9/11, I would never even have dreamt of precautions like those. Travelling was easy and carefree.

  • Cockpit doors would be open throughout most of the flight, inviting passengers to chat with the pilots

  • You were allowed to take nail scissors or knitting equipment with you inside the cabin

  • Lockers were freely available at most airports

  • Security processing didnt take more than 30 seconds

  • Pax wouldnt think of Arabian passengers as terrorists

  • and I am sure there is much more...


  • Now those days have gone. I really have to say, I am so annoyed by this. Well done terrorists.

    Where is this going to end?! How much more are we going to have to take to travel by air?

    I have really come to appreciate my pre 9/11 flights now. Does anybody want to share their comments and thoughts?

    Regards
    StarFlyer

    [Edited 2003-02-09 15:03:38]


    Yours truly - StarFlyer
    21 replies: All unread, jump to last
     
    User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

    You're ANNOYED by this?! Well sorry, but if you don't want lots of innocent people dying thing have to be a bit tougher. But a few hijackings and bombings are ok just as long as you're not ANNOYED right?

    User currently offlineCarnoc From China, joined Oct 2001, 875 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

    Who knows where is the ending? Nothing we can really do, we just have to cope, cope and cope with it. Well, it is painful for me to pass through security checkpoint for no less than 30 minutes (for international flights) everytime, but every flyer experiences it, so you are not the only one who have to face such thing.

    User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

    I wonder why there aren't similar precautions on the roads. I would be that drunk drivers have killed more innocent people over the years than the terrororists have. Why not spend that money (or even some of it) to save the lives of innocent drivers. Or how about innocent AIDS. AIDS kills more people than terrorists do. I wouldn't be surprises if AIDS has killed more people in the US than terrorists have. So why is the government not sinking billions and billions of dollars into AIDS research. Just because the death isn't good for TV doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Just because it kills people one by one does not mean it doesn't kill more people in the long run.

    User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4928 times:

    Yes I am ANNOYED. Because 99.99999999% of all flyers are people who just want to get to their destination and maybe have an enjoyable trip. Just because some individuals decided to abuse our freedom, we have to put up with more security measures.
    I am sorry but I think that there is a limit to what "precautions" we can take a or may I assume that you blindly think every measure makes sense and has prevented terrorist attacks, 777236ER? Youve just got to accept that there is a risk stepping out of your door.

    Regards
    StarFlyer



    Yours truly - StarFlyer
    User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
    Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4924 times:

    Not a single one of those items listed is a "safety precaution"

    One could argue they are "security precautions"




    OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
    User currently offlineScootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9
    Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4907 times:

    Ahlfors:

    The critical difference between the situations you describe and terrorism is that both of your examples, drunk driving and AIDS, involve an element of personal choice. I would argue that as pervasive as these problems are, government effectiveness is limited because these are human behavior driven calamities. We can make safer cars and do a lot more research on finding a cure for AIDS, but when it comes right down to it, the government cannot make people wear seatbelts or condoms.

    The government can and should enact precautions and changes that protect the public from nation-states or organizations acting as nation-states (which I believe terrorist organizations are). This is provided for in the Constitution, the theory being that we need the government to do those things which we cannot do for ourselves.

    Whether you think the security precautions are worthwhile is another matter entirely.


    User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4893 times:

    Scootertrash...

    So basically you're saying that if a drunk driver ploughs into you while you are driving on the road, that's you personal choice? If that were the case, it would also be the case that it was a person's personal choice to work at the WTC - which it obviously was not. I'm not saying that the government should not protect against terrorists. I'm just saying they should be a bit more balanced in the way they dole out the money, perhaps by doling out the money proportional to the amount of deaths caused, not by the amount of media coverage which seems to be the case now.


    User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
    Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4895 times:

    Can't they do something else about terrorists than checking hundreds of millions of "normal" travellers? Like, for example, check flights to/from sensitive areas?
    Why do they have to lock down every single spotting area and close all freely accesible areas just because some 5 to ten people might try to hijack a plane? After all, there's been that story about shooting hijacked planes, so terrorists should know their chances to crash a plane into a skyscraper are way lower than before 9/11.
    As for shooting civil airplanes with ground-air missiles: Do the people who are so "concerned about travellers' safety" really think that can be done easily in the USA just as it was done in Kenya?
    To me, much of what's happening seems like pure paranoia and over-reacting of politicians. But however, I fear that most aviation-non-enthusiasts are actually quite fond of the "increased security" around airports. You know, the people who may well think KATL was a mis-spelled version of cattle.



    Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
    User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
    Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4887 times:

    Speaking of tight security measures, I took a trip to SAN in December of 2002, and was all of about cavity searched at the security checkpoint here in PHL. It ended up that I had a pilot ball point pen in my pants pocket that was setting off the metal detector, as well as my belt buckle was setting it off. Everything was handled very well, and efficiently. Althought I did feel uncomfortable when the the security personel asked me to unbuckle my belt, and had to pat me down to make sure I wasn't wearing anything below the belts (no pun intended). I felt safe though, knowing that everyone was subject to a meticulous search, if there was a small whisp of a suspicion.

    Bryan
    Chat Operator Delta767



    Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4816 times:

    Cockpit doors would be open throughout most of the flight, inviting passengers to chat with the pilots

    You were allowed to take nail scissors or knitting equipment with you inside the cabin

    Lockers were freely available at most airports

    Security processing didnt take more than 30 seconds

    Pax wouldnt think of Arabian passengers as terrorists

    and I am sure there is much more...


    I don't think any of this will change.



    Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
    User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

    With my dad as a pilot and my mom a FA, i would like to see them alive and get from point a to point b everytime they travel. Personally I don't think ENOUGH is being done but i'm not in the mood to go into details. If this stuff annoys you, don't fly then.

    Thanks
    FBO5



    Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
    User currently offlineFLAIRPORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

    DELTA- I hope it was a woman doing the search  Big grin

    Anyway... and I know that this is anyones guess, but when will we have access to the concourses again!
    If they search everyone tightl, then whats the risk


    User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4742 times:


    Anyway... and I know that this is anyones guess, but when will we have access to the concourses again! If they search everyone tightl, then whats the risk


    Not for a VERY long time; probably never again. The new transportation security program has been implemented on a permanent basis.

    If our politicians have resolved to shutting down legitimate spotters areas around the outside perimeter of airports, they aren't likely to welcome people back into the secured concourses for this purpose.



    Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
    User currently offlineFLAIRPORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

    but why can't they search people at each of those 2 places?

    User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

    I was trying to point out how much "nicer" air travel was pre 9/11 and wondering if it would ever be like that again. I have to say some of these security measures are getting a little intimidating (like that China thing-show that youve only got water in your bottle and not some acid by drinking it...).

    I fly because there is no choice for me. Flyingbronco05, oc course I want you getting your daddy and mummy back safely, but hey, didnt they get home alright before 9/11 too?

    I wish the world was back to normal.

    S/F



    Yours truly - StarFlyer
    User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4580 times:

    ...where pax of aircraft departing out of China have to drink the fluids they have on them



    Er...if you think it's the Chinese who are the bad guys here, I've got news for you from the good ol' FAA:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1918968.stm



    User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

    Cockpit doors would be open throughout most of the flight, inviting passengers to chat with the pilots

    What the heck kind of flights were you on??? Or more precisely, what kind of logic would lead one to believe that an open door automatically is an invitation for all passengers to come up and chat with the pilots???  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


    User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4580 times:

    Those in the know who question the above mentioned measures are questioning their true purpose and their effectiveness. Nobody doubts that if not allowing nail clippers on a flight enhanced security significantly, it would be worth it. The question is, does such a regulation enhance security? Was it even intended to?

    My guess is the answer is "no" on both counts. The TSA knows that nail clippers are not a threat - they just want to make it look like they are doing something about a problem that not much can be done about anyway. At least not much can be done through airport screening. Intelligent screening can provide a valuable obsticle in the way of terrorists, but it can never stop a determined crook. Anyone who has been to prison or worked in one will tell you that you can make a deadly weapon out of anything.

    Israel (and even Europe) has had far fewer aircraft hijackings and bombings than the US has had because they use SECURITY rather than SCREENING to attack the terrorists. They profile people. They investigate. They use common sense. They are proactive. They are relatively easy on most people yet know the smell of a threat and are drawn to it. They also understand that if the vast majority of terrorists come from a single ethnic or social group - it makes sense to watch members of the said ethnicity or group more closely. They are not hobbled by politically correct gobbledegook. This is the exact opposite of the TSA and its privatly owned predecessors.

    There have been some good things that have come from post 9-11 regulation. It makes allot of sense to seal off the cockpit behind a reinforced door - this should have been done a long time ago. But these sensible things are only a small part of what has been done.

    In the past, stupid things like banning nail clippers or near-airport parking were done for a short time to calm ignorant people down after an attack and then the measures were quietly abbandoned. The authorities realized that they only had PR value and used them only to molify the ignorant for a short period of time. Nowdays, the ignorant are being more persistant and have succeeded in institutionalizing thier stupidity in the form of the TSA. People ignorant of BOTH security AND aviation are being put in a position of guaranteed lifetime employment in critical jobs. Whats worse, they will soon have the authority to revoke or deny professional licences and security clearances without having to give any reason at all or being answerable to anybody.

    Michael Boyd is right about this one. The TSA sucks. Its too bad that they have so much power now that most in the industry are afraid to state this obvious fact.


    User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

    Well, pilots have been told to be on the lookout for the following suspicious activities. Look at #4. I guess that makes us all suspected terrorists.

    1. Aircraft with unusual or unauthorized modifications.

    2. Persons or vehicles loitering for extended periods in the vicinity of the airport, parked aircraft and especially people in the airport operations area.

    3. Pilots who appear to be under the control of other persons.

    4. Persons with above average interest in aircraft and their performance capabilities.

    5. Persons wishing to obtain aircraft without presenting proper credentials.

    6. Persons who present apparently valid credentials but do not have corresponding level of aviation knowledge.

    7. Witnessing deadly or dangerous weapons or explosives being loaded onto an aircraft.

    8. Any person who makes threats or statements inconsistent with normal activity at your airport.

    9. Stolen or missing aircraft.

    10. Anything that appears unusual or does not fit the pattern of lawful, normal activity at your airport.

    11. If you see something highly dangerous, such as weapons or explosives, being loaded on an aircraft; or if you believe that a serious crime or sort of attack is about to occur, immediately your local law enforcement authorities! And call your nearest FBI office.



    Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
    User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

    "pilots have been told to be on the lookout for the following suspicious activities.

    4. Persons with above average interest in aircraft and their performance capabilities."


    I haven't been told to look out for these people. In fact, I haven't been told any of the above.



    I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
    User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4440 times:

    Rick767,

    Here's the link I'm referring to:

    http://www.massairports.com/General%20Aviation%20Security.doc



    Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    Qantas & The B777...Is It Going To Happen! posted Wed Jun 21 2006 08:36:08 by EK413
    HKG Skyplaza - How Is It Going To Work? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 22:56:25 by Superhub
    SWE Fly 767.. Where Is It Going? posted Tue Sep 13 2005 08:19:09 by MIAMIx707
    Boeing 772LR, Is It Going To Sell? posted Mon Mar 7 2005 01:52:34 by BG777300ER
    Air MADRID: How Is It Going To Be? posted Sun Nov 2 2003 05:34:29 by VRG772
    The A345...where Is It Going? posted Thu Oct 3 2002 02:36:07 by Mia777
    Where Is Boeing Going To Move posted Wed Mar 21 2001 20:07:41 by Flycentro
    Roots Air, Is It Going To Work? posted Sat Jul 29 2000 01:27:58 by No YYC
    What Is AA Going To Do With It's 757s posted Sun Mar 26 2006 03:40:02 by AAden
    Where Is WN Going In The Next 5 To 10 Years? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 23:51:24 by Nwab787techops