It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will You Fly Less Now, With Heightened Security Searches

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The Missus and I have been talking about a trip down south lately.

Somewhere warm, but in these "high alert" times , I definitely will make sure

it won't have a Stop over in the US.

Will these new measures deter anyone from taking a "optional " trip,

or will other modes of travel be looked at.

These possible "body searches" may make the Train look a lot better.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I don't have a choice, I fly due to work. I will be asking how much unscreened cargo and mail is on my flight thou. I plan to be over heard also. I will also have the number to the ACLU on me too



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
No, it will not alter any plans current or future... I will fly, as always. My time is important and I would endure the necessary (senseless?) protocols so that I can reach my destination as intended. However, it would be very cool to take a trip on a train, I've always wanted to do that...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I dont fly unless I have to.

Unfortunately, with hobbies like moutain climbing and survival camping, Im quite screwed.

If I can find a way around it, then yes. I will fly less. But it's still easier to get to Denali by air, than by land/sea travel.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hi!

Unfortunately I have to travel for work - rest assured though, if on vacation, I won't be travelling to the US via Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen......

Peace!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
I dont fly unless I have to.

Unfortunately, with hobbies like moutain climbing and survival camping, Im quite screwed.

If I can find a way around it, then yes. I will fly less. But it's still easier to get to Denali by air, than by land/sea travel.

Woa

With the type of gear you must carry , you can expect to be

routinely inspected .



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Youre telling me! I cant wait to get to the airport with all of my hiking gear!

Tent stakes
Ice axes
First Aid stuff
Walkie Talkies
Knives
Anti-histamine pens (syringes for my fiance's allergy to bee stings)
Snow shoes

But the one Im most worried about: Magnesium Stcks, for creating fire.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I'll certainly fly less to the USA.

I caught a flight from Toronto to Chicago last week to catch a JAL flight out of O'Hare.

Absolutely mental. Nearly 4 hours to clear security, everyone told to sit down for the last hour of a 1h50m flight (including the poor guys in line for the toilet). Then MORE madness at O'Hare trying to get to my terminal.

There's got to be a better way of doing things. Somehow Israel manages to operate an international airport under constant threat of all manner of attack without any of this kind of madness.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I haven't flown since 9/11 because of the insanity at the airport. It's just getting worse, it seems. I can't think of a reason that I'd willingly fly today. Fortunately, I have been easily able to avoid it.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 
Some good points there Vox. Not to sure about the sitting down rule really, maybe the last hour should have everyone standing up naked with hands on head..that would be interesting, and the craic would be good. What about the people that always took a smidging of holy water for a safe flight, they're gone already unless they drunk it! You can see where it is all going. The only safe place is in your own car, your own 'plane, or your own train or a bike.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


The Missus and I have been talking about a trip down south lately.

Somewhere warm, but in these "high alert" times , I definitely will make sure

it won't have a Stop over in the US.

Will these new measures deter anyone from taking a "optional " trip,

or will other modes of travel be looked at.

These possible "body searches" may make the Train look a lot better.





Are you serious? Don't you know how dangerous trains are?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I certainly would not want to be a frequent flyer at the moment.

The possible increased health risks from potentially increased exposure to bodily invasive scanning is enough to make me say that.

But as with most things, there are many, many more reasons why I have been put off from passenger flight.

I am concerned about the long term effects of reduced average wages/increased working hours for all/any staff involved in flight safety - from pilots to ground and traffic control crew.

I am concerned about certain new technological issues being incorporated into latest generation aircraft, and the removal from many pilots of the ability to intervene manually through either technological or knowledge/skill barriers/deficiencies, that previous generations may have had access to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the amazing safety records/statistics we all reassure ourselves with are always only historic, and so as we move through new combinations of circumstances, it becomes to some extent irrelevant or flawed data.

And then there are the possible delays and cancellations!



[edit on 4-1-2010 by curioustype]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 





Odds of being on an airline flight which results in at least one fatality:
Top 25 airlines with the best records --- 1 in 8.47 million
Bottom 25 with the worst records --- 1 in 830,428


Odds of being killed on a single airline flight
Top 25 airlines with the best records --- 1 in 13.57 million
Bottom 25 with the worst records --- 1 in 1.13 million



Or....terrorist acts, and the odds:


You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder
Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2006


Yesterday, British authorities broke up an alleged terror plot to blow up as many as ten commercial airliners as they flew to the United States. In response, the Department of Homeland Security upped the alert level on commercial flights from Britain to "red" and boosted the alert to "orange" for all other flights. In a completely unscientific poll, AOL asked subscribers: "Are you changing your travel plans because of the raised threat level?" At mid-afternoon about a quarter of the respondents had said yes. Such polls do reflect the kinds of anxieties terrorist attacks, even those that have been stymied, provoke in the public.

(skip)

Your lifetime odds of dying of a particular cause are calculated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in that year. For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.

What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more...


reason.com...

So...don't worry.

OR, as an alternative, buy a whole heck a lot of double-indemnity life coverage, for your loved ones' sakes.....



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW , my oft opponent on the 911 boards.

Nobody is afraid of flying, its in the Airport where the BS and

inconvience occurs.

Body searches , and Lord Forbid you come home from vacation with

a dark tan.

Bend over , and grab your toes.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I don't know how to fly, but if I learn, you'll be the first to know.

One probably has a better chance of winning a $100 million lottery than being the victim of a terrorist attack on an airplane.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


You need not be concerned about this, at least as long as you stick with well-established air carriers that are certified to ICAO standards, both in terms of crew training and procedures, and maintenance training and procedures:



I am concerned about certain new technological issues being incorporated into latest generation aircraft...



As to the next point, it is a mistake to believe that pilots have NO recourse to intervene in any control aspect of the airplane.


...and the removal from many pilots of the ability to intervene manually...


What you're probably thinking on there is the iconic example of the Airbus A320 crash, while it was being demonstrated to onlookers, as a new model.

Although very experienced test pilots, the crew were nevertheless not fully cognizant of every aspect (quirk) in the software programming.

(I believe, as well, there were fingers to point at the software developers, and the agencies who oversaw the certification standards. The issue got very muddled, as no one was wiling to accept responsibility, and I think I remember the Captain took the fall).

I've never qualified on the fly-by-wire modern Airbus, just the earlier A-300-B4, which utilized more traditional technology.

Rest assured, at Boeing they have a different design philosophy, one that always understands that the pilot is the final authority, NEVER a computer.

Another way to think about Airbus' design theory is that they hoped to market to more of the Third World, and thought that designing in some program "safety floors" and other gizmos would make the airplanes more "idiot proof".

So, in that sense, you are getting close to the truth when you said:


... through either technological or knowledge/skill barriers/deficiencies...


However, it isn't always JUST the technology at work, here. I give you the tragic example of the crash in the Indian Ocean, Yemenia Air.

The Airbus A310 is NOT a sophisticated computerized airplane, it is more along the lines of the similar A300.

THAT crash was likely due to poor piloting skills, methinks. Dark of night (very early AM), no good visual horizon, and likely strong turbulence encounter, could have caused an inexperienced crew to simply become disoriented, and/or experience vertigo and lose control. Sad, when the autopilot could have been used effectively, and ther e really is no excuse for being that sloppy.

www.weathergraphics.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Yeah, I think the prospects of enduring the longer lines, and waits for security are more daunting than any physical dangers, perceived or otherwise.

Based on all my years of putting up with it (yes...thanks to the PSA 1771 incident, in 1987, after that even WE had to undergo the "security", for the good of "appearances" in the eyes of the public. Prior to that, an airline ID and in uniform, and we just went around it. BUT, that was a looooong time ago, wasn't it?)

I suggest allowing plenty of time. Planning ahead. Consider joining an airline lounge program (expensive) or, you can look into access on a trip-by-trip basis --- some airlines charge around $50 for a day pass to the lounges. Get there early, beat the security rush, relax in the lounge with an adult beverage.....

Almost civilized, that way!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I suggest allowing plenty of time. Planning ahead. Consider joining an airline lounge program (expensive) or, you can look into access on a trip-by-trip basis --- some airlines charge around $50 for a day pass to the lounges. Get there early, beat the security rush, relax in the lounge with an adult beverage.....

Almost civilized, that way!





If only it were that simple. Last week, I mean. I suppose eventually it will get streamlined, and the more absurd regulations will be relaxed, and I'll have time to use the lounge again, and I won't be surrounded by people with crossed legs and a strained expression as I disembark.

For me, the simple solution is the one that I'd stuck to for years until this last trip: avoid flying through the USA. It's just easier.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Oh yeah, that new "one hour" rule...

Don't get me started on how stupid THAT is!!


Well, if there's any hope that sanity may eventually return, recall that when Washington National Airport was finally re-opened in 2002 to traffic, they implemented a "30-minute" rule...it finally went away after a short while....

But, if "terror" is the intended goal, then this "one hour" insanity isn't going to do one heck of anything, is it?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, if "terror" is the intended goal, then this "one hour" insanity isn't going to do one heck of anything, is it?


Does quite a lot, really.

One hour of sitting quietly, making no sudden movements, and not watching an in-flight movie or using my ipod leaves one a bit of time to think.

For me, it went along these lines:

1) I bet that book I have in my carry on bag in the hold is quite interesting.

2) Why the hell are we sitting here like a bunch of naughty children? What's really going on here? I'm pretty sure that this plane isn't going to explode, willing to bet my life on it - as are we all. Or we'd all be back in the terminal.

3) Incompetence. Closing the gate after the horse has escaped. Everyone trying to look efficient so they don't get the blame. That's all this whole WOT has been. Someone screwed up and the entire problem has been a succession of people trying to look like they haven't been responsible for it, and causing more screwups which lead to more screwups. On the international front, on the domestic front, on the institutional level, at the agency level, and it's probably the same damned thing in the camps in Yemen where Abdul the bombmaker has a revelation and starts drawing up an SOP for future underwear bombing missions that will shift HIS blame onto other persons unknown and unnamed.

4) Great. Now my blood pressure is up, I'm turning red, and the onboard air marshal is probably going to taze me in the testicles to be on the safe side.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join