posted on September 30, 2001 02:58:38 AM new
Thanks Reamond.
She's right, and the laxity and cost basis decision making on the part of the FAA extends beyond security to safety matters and enforcement of existing standards of maintenance, scheduling, and cerification of employees engaged in those areas.
I've seen reference in the reports of accidents in which their adoption of NTSB recommendations is nil or not much more than that. Where fines imposed on airline companies have been so paltry that they were no incentive whatsoever to changes in airline practices.
posted on September 30, 2001 03:12:01 AM new
Sad thing is what she says applies to general law enforcement, not just airlines. It is all a facade of appearances.
They had Wall Street Journel "analysis" of airport security on TV a few days ago and basically if passengers were moving smoothly through the gate they assumed that security was lax. I the lines were long and the people hassled they assumed security was tight.
They seemed to feel a system where people were closely checked and still prosecced quickly and kept moving was just not a real possibility to consider. There was no real test of how hard it was to get something across the security screen that could be used as a weapon. Does the FAA have the security systems conduct such REAL tests themselves? If they do they sure aren't advertising it. Maybe the tests turn out so bad they can't say they are.
posted on September 30, 2001 01:14:26 PM new
I don't remember the exact date, but I haven't flown since the early '90's. For me it's just a lack of trust. When they start giving the pilots and the mechanics breathalizer (sp?) tests, I'll reconsider.
There are no ethics in Corp Amerika - the article bears this out. Safety concerns won't be an issue until the airlines are paying more out in lawsuits than they would be if they made the planes safer.
posted on September 30, 2001 03:49:42 PM new
Would you guys knock it off? I have a flight to catch in a couple of weeks and the three-hour wait at the airport -- EACH WAY -- has already spoiled my trip.
btw, I'm a big Mary Schiavo fan -- have always loosely thought of her as the Joycelyn Elders of the FAA...
posted on September 30, 2001 04:28:33 PM new
Yeah, Mrpotatohead, I used to rely on those statistics myself, 'til I learned (it was a Discovery Channel or Learning Channel program) how those numbers had been skewed. Nope, I don't remember the formula, or the name of the program, but I *do* recall coming away from it feeling that the old "When your number is up, it's up" system of logic was more reliable than either the automibile or aviation industries' will ever be...
posted on September 30, 2001 05:17:51 PM new
Hmmmmm... I'm headed from Biloxi to Seattle, no matter how long I look at the map I can't find any short cuts that will get me there in one day. Yahoo's estimating my drive time at
50 hours 48 mins (each way) I think I'll fly.
But I'm going to think twice about this.
Hmmmmm... I'm headed from Biloxi to Seattle, no matter how long I look at the map I can't find any short cuts that will get me there in one day. Yahoo's estimating my drive time at 50 hours 48 mins (each way) I know I'll fly.
I wish I had an odometer on my butt so I could offer how many air miles I've traveled. As worn out as I am getting off that plane I can't image doing the same thing by car. I'll try and remember to wave to those in cars that have grounded themselves.
posted on September 30, 2001 05:24:50 PM newUaru, I think the Butt Odometer is an idea whose time has come, but I wouldn't limit it to airplanes. Invent one that can log our butts' time in our computer chairs, then sell that data to the IRS, along with a reasonable-seeming excuse to tax us for sitting on our asses.
posted on September 30, 2001 06:29:43 PM new
What speed limit did it give on the drive time uaru? Just go 85 or more non stop, cept for gas, and you can cut the driving time down...... LOL....
I would fly.
I am going to fly, as soon as I see the cheapest fare to Reno from Seattle, and thats not a real long drive either, but I'd rather fly there, and will.
posted on September 30, 2001 07:28:16 PM new
No doubt flying is much safer now than before the bombings. I was shocked to learn airport security made less than whopper floppers. That is sad.
posted on September 30, 2001 07:44:57 PM newNo doubt flying is much safer now than before the bombings.
You're kidding, right, Chum? Who's had time to train high-quality (psychologically intuitive) baggage inspection personnel? Who's agreed to pay them a decent wage? It's business-as-usual, with maybe a few National Guard Reservists running around in fatigues to give us all a false sense of security...
posted on September 30, 2001 08:01:01 PM new
Just think how lucky our pioneers were. If they had been able to watch CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and CBS "gloom and doom" on a hourly basis the Donner Party news story would have stopped all wagon trains heading out of Missouri.
Television is okay at selling mouthwash, soft drinks, and laundry detergent, but at selling fear they appear to be experts.
posted on October 1, 2001 06:44:30 AM new
I had reservations to fly from Denver to Anchorage on September 18, when I called the airlines on Saturday the 15th I was told that the flight was canceled, but that they could book me a flight for September 16. I grabbed it. Security at DIA was tight, but going through it was no problem since the airport was basically deserted. I didn't fear another terrorist attack, although it was in the back of my mind. Maybe the anticipation of meeting my new grandson (born August 9), my 25 year high school reunion and meeting my birth family took control of my senses.
The only problem I encountered was my flights kept getting changed, but since I was flexible on my schedule that really wasn't a problem. On the 7 different flights I took during my 12 day visit security ranged from walking through the scanner and having my carry on scanned to having my baggage and carry ons thoroughly inspected. Some airports did a handscan and frisked my ankles. All flights required a picture ID which was scrutinized each time - I felt relatively safe before boarding each flight.
When I returned to Denver on September 28 DIA was bustling, much different than 12 days earlier.
Security does need to be changed, the workers need to be paid and trained better to achieve a sense of professionalism.
posted on October 1, 2001 08:42:09 AM new
About a week ago (give or take a day..since September 11th the days blend together...) there was someone on the CBS Morning Show talking about pilots having the right to carry a gun. To be honest, I was busy getting ready for work so wasn't paying much attention BUT I did hear Bryant Gumbel actually say something like this:
"No offense, but it is no secret that pilots suffer from lack of sleep, stress and are suicidal. Do you think it is safe giving them a weapon".
UMMMM....I believe a huge jumbo jet is a weapon in itself! God forbid we actually let them carry a gun! After he made that statement, I was more afraid to fly with the pilot in that kind of condition than worrying about the plane being hijacked! Sheesh!
posted on October 1, 2001 12:55:26 PM new
The worst thing that has happened to this country in the last
two weeks isn't the attack on the world trade center and the
pentagon -- it is the totally ridiculous fear and cowering
by people who should know better.
