Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Protecting airplanes, was "Thinking Level" of FAA



Two simple things could be very useful:

1) Pilot's area should always be locked from inside.
2) At least one "passenger" should be an agent able
to trigger something that prevents terrorism.

This should not be terribly expensive, certainly less
expensive than currently used methods.

By the way, the "60 minutes" TV program yesterday
exposed the inefficiency of the airport searching of
passengers and of the luggage. Very convincing facts
(gathered by federal investigators and reported to
the government many times) were presented.
Ludwik Kowalski

Tina Fanetti wrote:

Uhm probably because babies and kids fly. Can you imagine
being on a plane near a baby with a dirty diaper?

John Barrer <forcejb@YAHOO.COM> 09/17/01 08:36AM >>>
This may be off-topic, but has anyone else wondered
why with all the "increased security" being enacted,
no one in our govt. seems to have suggested the
obvious low-cost and effective strategy of simply
banning ALL carry-on baggage? Convenient? No.
Effective? Yes.

At this point one can only hope that more thought and
action has been and is being given to thwarting bio
and chemical terrorist threats than has been given to
airport/airplane security. The kinds of minds that
planned attacks of this logistical complexity and
savagery almost certainly have already generated more
than one such plan. "We never could have imagined" is
a phrase that we should not hear again.