who's still flying?

[tyrius.]

I'm not changing anything. Perhaps I misread your post, but you said "This is the world that we've lived in for decades. The risk of it actually happening is so small as to be basically zero."

Which was in direct response to M Starr's quote of "risk of some maniac blowing up your plane".  It was included in your response to me.  So, bringing up things other than blowing up a plane is changing the subject and/or changing what I said.

[Bassn Blvd]

You are absolutely correct, Tyrius.  I apologize.  Let me rephrase my incorrect response.

"This is the world that we've lived in for decades.  The risk of it actually happening is so small as to be basically zero."

No, the risk of someone blowing up a plane is NOT basically ZERO.

[Long Mike]

US security is a joke.  Try living and traveling in the Middle East.  Full body pat-downs are the norm.  The Arabs and the Israelis know how to do it right.  I have had my scrotum lifted on many an occasion.  Before protesting my indignity, I somehow always noticed the guy standing near-by with an AK-47.  The security guards didn't take it personally, so neither did I.

For those of you who are squeamish, I suggest you get over it.  Do you honestly believe that anyone in the TSA gives a rat's ass about infringing on your so-called rights?  They are doing the best job they know how to do, within the constraints they have.  For example, the TSA is not allowed to do profiling, so they have to screen EVERYONE  What kind of BS is that?

[.dsaavedra.]

I have had my scrotum lifted on many an occasion.

bravo! you have provided the best quote ever taken out of context on this forum!

[bass or bass ?]

I'm taking what I truly hope to be my last flight over new year's to see my mom. If I could afford to close my business and spend 3 days driving each way and still visit with her for 4 days, I would. I used to love flying. Started flying as a kid in @ 1960 on turbo prop Boeing Constellations. Always looked forward to flying. I served in the U.S.A.F. Now I dread it.

Next, the moslems will insert a bomb up their rectum and detonate it on board a plane, then tell the world how they got away with it. Then everyone will have to undergo a cavity search to get on a plane!

Remember, you heard it here first!

[piscicidal]

I'm taking what I truly hope to be my last flight over new year's to see my mom. I used to love flying. Started flying as a kid in @ 1960 on turbo prop Boeing Constellations. Always looked forward to flying. I served in the U.S.A.F. Now I dread it.

Next, the moslems will insert a bomb up their rectum and detonate it on board a plane, then tell the world how they got away with it. Then everyone will have to undergo a cavity search to get on a plane!

Remember, you heard it here first!

Exactly! Your scenario just demonstrates the short-sighted, reactive response towards this issue...

Richard Reed tries blowing up a plane with a shoe bomb...now we all have to remove shoes. Some joker tries blowing up a plane with explodable skivives...now we all must subject our wifes/children/grandmothers/nuns to naked scanners/pat downs.

So follow these reactive responses to their natural conclusion...What is this administration going to do when one of these yahoos tries blowing up a plane by sticking a bomb up his butt??

The solution is simple...do what the Israelis do...interview everybody. Pull aside the "higher risk" subjects for further interrogation. Fill the airport with bomb sniffing dogs.

[Bassn Blvd]

US security is a joke. Try living and traveling in the Middle East. Full body pat-downs are the norm. The Arabs and the Israelis know how to do it right. I have had my scrotum lifted on many an occasion. Before protesting my indignity, I somehow always noticed the guy standing near-by with an AK-47. The security guards didn't take it personally, so neither did I.

For those of you who are squeamish, I suggest you get over it. Do you honestly believe that anyone in the TSA gives a rat's *** about infringing on your so-called rights? They are doing the best job they know how to do, within the constraints they have. For example, the TSA is not allowed to do profiling, so they have to screen EVERYONE What kind of BS is that?

Thanks in advance for the nightmare

[Root beer]

Exactly! Your scenario just demonstrates the short-sighted, reactive response towards this issue...

Richard Reed tries blowing up a plane with a shoe bomb...now we all have to remove shoes. Some joker tries blowing up a plane with explodable skivives...now we all must subject our wifes/children/grandmothers/nuns to naked scanners/pat downs.

So follow these reactive responses to their natural conclusion...What is this administration going to do when one of these yahoos tries blowing up a plane by sticking a bomb up his butt??

The solution is simple...do what the Israelis do...interview everybody. Pull aside the "higher risk" subjects for further interrogation. Fill the airport with bomb sniffing dogs.

So, what if a guy who from the Middle East, but born in America was pulled aside and decided to sue airport and what not for violation of civil right? Then what?

[piscicidal]

Exactly! Your scenario just demonstrates the short-sighted, reactive response towards this issue...

Richard Reed tries blowing up a plane with a shoe bomb...now we all have to remove shoes. Some joker tries blowing up a plane with explodable skivives...now we all must subject our wifes/children/grandmothers/nuns to naked scanners/pat downs.

So follow these reactive responses to their natural conclusion...What is this administration going to do when one of these yahoos tries blowing up a plane by sticking a bomb up his butt??

The solution is simple...do what the Israelis do...interview everybody. Pull aside the "higher risk" subjects for further interrogation. Fill the airport with bomb sniffing dogs.

So, what if a guy who from the Middle East, but born in America was pulled aside and decided to sue airport and what not for violation of civil right? Then what?

I'm a guy from the Middle East born in America. I'm 25% Lebanese. Please interview me! I've got nothing to hide.

[Root beer]

Exactly! Your scenario just demonstrates the short-sighted, reactive response towards this issue...

Richard Reed tries blowing up a plane with a shoe bomb...now we all have to remove shoes. Some joker tries blowing up a plane with explodable skivives...now we all must subject our wifes/children/grandmothers/nuns to naked scanners/pat downs.

So follow these reactive responses to their natural conclusion...What is this administration going to do when one of these yahoos tries blowing up a plane by sticking a bomb up his butt??

The solution is simple...do what the Israelis do...interview everybody. Pull aside the "higher risk" subjects for further interrogation. Fill the airport with bomb sniffing dogs.

So, what if a guy who from the Middle East, but born in America was pulled aside and decided to sue airport and what not for violation of civil right? Then what?

I'm a guy from the Middle East born in America. I'm 25% Lebanese. Please interview me! I've got nothing to hide.

Others may not see it that way, heck some of them may not wanted fly, just see if they get their rights violated and get free money. That what this country seems be coming to anyhow.

I don't really agree with those x-ray machines or whatever heck they are, but screw it. Road trips are funnier. 

[Hookemdown.]

Until my truck can drive across the ocean, I shall fly.

[piscicidal]

Others may not see it that way, heck some of them may not wanted fly, just see if they get their rights violated and get free money. That what this country seems be coming to anyhow.

I don't really agree with those x-ray machines or whatever heck they are, but screw it. Road trips are funnier.

It seems like what they're doing now is going to lead to a bunch of lawsuits as well...

[tyrius.]

No, the risk of someone blowing up a plane is NOT basically ZERO.

OK, so let's figure it out then.  We'll take the number of times that a plane has actually blown up due to someone detonating a bomb on it, and since we're talking about US travel, we need to limit it to instances that it has occurred in the US.  Then we'll divide that by the number of commerical passenger flights over a given timeframe.  I stated decades but I'll even give you a smaller timeframe if you'd like.

0/whatever number you want = 0. 

To add a bit more detail, per the NATCA, there are roughly 29,000 commercial flights per day.  This gives us 10.5 MILLION flights per year.  Let's say we go back to the Lockerbie bombing (US destination, originated in London) in 1988.  I'll guess a lower number of total flights due to there being less in prior years.  That gives us 1/150,000,000 = 0.000000667% of flights that have been brought down by a bomb.  Is that not basically zero?

The risk of anyone even attempting to bomb the plane you are on is ridiculously small.  So small that it shouldn't even be considered by the person taking the flight.  Emotionally we all fear these high profile events (shark attacks, plane crashes, etc) when looked at rationally the risk is neglible to miniscule.

[grimlin]

I went through metal detectors all the way through High school....I'm kinda used to it,so it doesn't really bother me.

I don't think anyone cares about the metal detectors. We're talking about the new stuff. The new body scanners (take everything out of your pockets, face the side, hold your arms above your head type of scanners) and NEW pat down procedures (these changed on 11/1/10 to include shall we say "sensitive" areas).

Metal detectors are fine and are not invasive.

THIS is invasive.

An ABC News employee said she was subject to a "demeaning" search at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning.

"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," she said. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."

The TSA said it shouldn't have happened, but it did. Is the line of prudence really outside of the underwear vs inside it?

Cathy Bossi, a long-time flight attendant and breast cancer survivor said the TSA made her take off her prosthetic breast.

"She put her full hand on my breast and said 'What is this?' I said 'It's a prosthesis because I've had a breast cancer,'" Bossi said. "And she said, 'You'll need to show me that.'"

A video of a father taking his young son's shirt off so he can be searched has gone viral online with nearly half a million views in just three days.

When asked if she would submit to a pat-down, Clinton said: "Not if I could avoid it, no. I mean, who would?"

All quotes taken from this article

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-responds-passenger-outrages-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932

There are many more instances of this happening.

Point taken.....I was way off on my discussion...I don't mind the new X-ray screen stuff matter of fact I'll do that rather than being fondled...touching me...is a big,big NO-NO.

[.dsaavedra.]

No, the risk of someone blowing up a plane is NOT basically ZERO.

OK, so let's figure it out then. We'll take the number of times that a plane has actually blown up due to someone detonating a bomb on it, and since we're talking about US travel, we need to limit it to instances that it has occurred in the US. Then we'll divide that by the number of commerical passenger flights over a given timeframe. I stated decades but I'll even give you a smaller timeframe if you'd like.

0/whatever number you want = 0.

To add a bit more detail, per the NATCA, there are roughly 29,000 commercial flights per day. This gives us 10.5 MILLION flights per year. Let's say we go back to the Lockerbie bombing (US destination, originated in London) in 1988. I'll guess a lower number of total flights due to there being less in prior years. That gives us 1/150,000,000 = 0.000000667% of flights that have been brought down by a bomb. Is that not basically zero?

The risk of anyone even attempting to bomb the plane you are on is ridiculously small. So small that it shouldn't even be considered by the person taking the flight. Emotionally we all fear these high profile events (shark attacks, plane crashes, etc) when looked at rationally the risk is neglible to miniscule.

i actually just read about this in my psych. textbook. here is an excerpt from the text:

"Our judgments about risks are also influenced by the availability heuristic, the tendency to judge the probability of an event by how easy it is to think of examples or instances of it (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). The availability heuristic often works hand in hand with the affect heuristic. For example, catastrophes and shocking accidents evoke a strong emotional reaction in us, and thus stand out in our minds. They are more available mentally than other kinds of negative events . . . This is why people overestimate the frequency of deaths from tornadoes [or in this case, plane bombings] and underestimate the frequency of deaths from asthma, which occur dozens of times more often but do not make headlines."

just thought that was a nice little relevant piece of information for those of you involved in the debate to ponder

[SirSnookalot]

I'm still going to fly and I don't feel in the least bit violated or deprived of my rights, I do think better methods are out there.  If only 1 attack gets thwarted then the time, expense and inconvenience will be worth it.

As I see it, the negativity has more to with the trend as of late with " too much government", personally I don't feel that way, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

[Bassn Blvd]

The risk of someone blowing up a plane is much higher than the event actually happening. What I'm failing to get across is there have been MANY attempts of destruction that were stopped without the general public's knowledge.

I'm not going to argue your stats because I'm not going to take the time to research the data, but you are comparing ACTUAL bombings to the number of flights in a given year, which are low.

What you fail to take into consideration is the number of ATTEMPTS that have occurred, which you more than likely won't read about.  If these "attempts" hadn't been stopped then your stats wouldn't look like it won't ever happen. 

Additionally, your stats are based on what has or hasn't occurred in the past.  Times are changing, or should I say have changed, to the point where more drastic measures have to be taken to protect your safety.  If the threat hasn't increased, then there wouldn't be the need for additional security.   In fact, since your stats indicate there isn't likely to be a bombing but in 1/150,000,000 flights, then why not just do away with ALL security since it is unlikely that YOU won't be on that flight.

[gobig]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin

[Bassn Blvd]

I'm still going to fly and I don't feel in the least bit violated or deprived of my rights, I do think better methods are out there. If only 1 attack gets thwarted then the time, expense and inconvenience will be worth it.

As I see it, the negativity has more to with the trend as of late with " too much government", personally I don't feel that way, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

I've only flown twice in my adult life, but are these new x-ray machines government imposed?

[Fishing Rhino]

"I've got nothing to hide.", or the same thought with different words.

Since some of the posts mention, and the topic does include genitalia.  In light of that, how are we to understand the above quote?   ;D ;D

We'll be flying to Orlando in February for the races at Daytona.  If asked to, I'll go through the "scanner".  Doesn't really matter to me.  To others, it does matter, for their own reasons.

I am however in favor of profiling.  It's a legitimate tool.  Political correctness should never trump safety, or anything else for that matter.  It's a pox on our society.

[Bassn Blvd]

I'm for profiling too.  There's a big difference between profiling and racial profiling.

[Dan:]

I'm trying to figure out what "rights" are violated by these searches. We don't have a "right" to fly. It is a service provided by private companies that can be restricted or revoked at will...it's just regulated by the federal government. If you want to enjoy the privilege of flying, you gotta follow the rules, just like if you want to drive on public roads you have less privacy when it comes to police searches, etc...

[tyrius.]

I'm trying to figure out what "rights" are violated by these searches. We don't have a "right" to fly. It is a service provided by private companies that can be restricted or revoked at will...it's just regulated by the federal government.

It doesn't matter if you're flying on a private plane or a gov't plane the passenger has to pass through security and that security is mandated by the federal gov't.  As such, it is a gov't action.

If you want to enjoy the privilege of flying, you gotta follow the rules, just like if you want to drive on public roads you have less privacy when it comes to police searches, etc...

So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)?  No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search?  The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

[tyrius.]

The risk of someone blowing up a plane is much higher than the event actually happening.

I won't argue that too much.  It is slightly higher.

What I'm failing to get across is there have been MANY attempts of destruction that were stopped without the general public's knowledge.

When we're only talking about plane bombings, I'm not sure that I'd believe you.  The TSA has used every previous instance as propaganda to increase their reach and trumpet their success.  I doubt that they'd let one pass.  If airport security found abomb the airport would be evacuated and we'd hear about it.  If a plane was diverted because of a bomb threat we'd hear about it.  I'd bet that the only way we wouldn't hear about it is if no threat was given, the bomb was not discovered, and it didn't go off.

I'm not going to argue your stats because I'm not going to take the time to research the data, but you are comparing ACTUAL bombings to the number of flights in a given year, which are low.

And so are the attempts.  There have been what 3 attempts since 9/11?

Additionally, your stats are based on what has or hasn't occurred in the past. Times are changing, or should I say have changed, to the point where more drastic measures have to be taken to protect your safety.

Agreed they changed on 9/11.  The security implemented then was not invasive.  Annoying, but not invasive.

If the threat hasn't increased, then there wouldn't be the need for additional security. In fact, since your stats indicate there isn't likely to be a bombing but in 1/150,000,000 flights, then why not just do away with ALL security since it is unlikely that YOU won't be on that flight.

Well, if you want to misinterpret the data then go ahead, but that wasn't what I was saying.

[tyrius.]

I'm As I see it, the negativity has more to with the trend as of late with " too much government", personally I don't feel that way, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

Really?  So everyone who is uncomfortable with getting these new "enhanced" pat downs is simply jumping on the "too much government" bandwagon?  No, they aren't and to say so is simply being dismissive without looking into the issue.  It's blatantly false.  Hillary Clinton has stated that she would do what she could to NOT go through a pat down.  That's pretty telling to me.  (I'm making no political statement, just using her as an example as she has been quoted on the record)