My friend Jack Lohman, who publishes an enewsletter, "Throw the Rascals Out," http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/ and a Weblog, "Moneyed Politicians," http://moneyedpoliticians.net/resources/ offered his own thoughts on the more stringent TSA measures. Here's the beginning of his blog post on the subject:
TSA: Do you prefer Groping or Xray?
Or, why do we need this in the first place?
By Jack E. Lohman
The pragmatic side asks: Read more at: http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/12/03/tsa-do-you-prefer-groping-or-xray/
And one of his readers had this to say:
First, the 9/11 events were not security lapses, so much as operational ones. All airlines policy on hijacking was to take the hijacker whereever he wanted to go. Cooperate. Had the airlines had a policy to resist (I know personally a pilot or two that will resist, no matter what) the 9/11 hijackings would have ended right now. All the pilot had to do was shove the yoke down to generate a negative G or so–putting anyone not strapped in on the ceiling, then yank it up to go positive a couple G’s. all those on the ceiling hit the floor with a serious thud. Couple of cycles of this and anyone not in their seat is dead of a broken neck. Pilot tells everyone to strap in–you better do so.
Now–some knowledgeable person is going to point out that trasnport aircraft are not certified for negative G maneuvers–and they would be right. But–the airframe has considerable safety margin in it–the wings are not going to come off. They have to be designed for inadvertent negative loading–turbulence., etc.
Second, your comment is not at all flippant. If we simply turned the airline security over to the airlines–along with a trebled damages provision–and let them do what they want they would take care of security far more efficiently. El Al’s security is oft cited–note it is El Al’s–not Israel’s. Airline A–pay them for a background check; they put your retina on file–you walk on, no checks at all. Don’t have your retina on file–get ready for the rubber gloves. Airline B (the one I would probably ride) hands all passengers a small baseball bat as they get on board. Don’t want to be on an airplane with baseball bat armed people? Don’t fly Airline B. Airline C doesn’t accept women in a burka–or anyone in a burka–who can tell. Fine– Airline D offers them a special deal.
My guess–we would both be a hell of a lot safer and a hell of a lot less inconvenienced.
OK, this is about it on the subject of TSA security procedures -- unless something else pops up.
Next, I plan to offer a couple of truly conservative suggestions on how Wisconsin can reduce spending, possibly enough to balance its budget -- unless something else pops up.
I'm on twitter @jerrianneh
By Jack E. Lohman
“So let’s give passengers a choice: between a “total security plane” and a “zero security plane.” Take your pick, if you can find a pilot for the latter.”
That’s the flippant side of me.The pragmatic side asks: Read more at: http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/12/03/tsa-do-you-prefer-groping-or-xray/
And one of his readers had this to say:
First, the 9/11 events were not security lapses, so much as operational ones. All airlines policy on hijacking was to take the hijacker whereever he wanted to go. Cooperate. Had the airlines had a policy to resist (I know personally a pilot or two that will resist, no matter what) the 9/11 hijackings would have ended right now. All the pilot had to do was shove the yoke down to generate a negative G or so–putting anyone not strapped in on the ceiling, then yank it up to go positive a couple G’s. all those on the ceiling hit the floor with a serious thud. Couple of cycles of this and anyone not in their seat is dead of a broken neck. Pilot tells everyone to strap in–you better do so.
Now–some knowledgeable person is going to point out that trasnport aircraft are not certified for negative G maneuvers–and they would be right. But–the airframe has considerable safety margin in it–the wings are not going to come off. They have to be designed for inadvertent negative loading–turbulence., etc.
Second, your comment is not at all flippant. If we simply turned the airline security over to the airlines–along with a trebled damages provision–and let them do what they want they would take care of security far more efficiently. El Al’s security is oft cited–note it is El Al’s–not Israel’s. Airline A–pay them for a background check; they put your retina on file–you walk on, no checks at all. Don’t have your retina on file–get ready for the rubber gloves. Airline B (the one I would probably ride) hands all passengers a small baseball bat as they get on board. Don’t want to be on an airplane with baseball bat armed people? Don’t fly Airline B. Airline C doesn’t accept women in a burka–or anyone in a burka–who can tell. Fine– Airline D offers them a special deal.
My guess–we would both be a hell of a lot safer and a hell of a lot less inconvenienced.
OK, this is about it on the subject of TSA security procedures -- unless something else pops up.
Next, I plan to offer a couple of truly conservative suggestions on how Wisconsin can reduce spending, possibly enough to balance its budget -- unless something else pops up.
I'm on twitter @jerrianneh
No comments:
Post a Comment