Yes, I guess it could always be worse. Prior to 2001, the level of airline security was dictated by the FAA, who mandated metal detectors and the ridiculous questions about your baggage. The FAA began mandating metal detectors in January 1973, about 3 years after hijackings had peaked in 1969.NoHeat said:
As noted in post #7 above, we did not have a privatized security system in which the airlines were responsible for determining security policies prior to 2001, not since 1973, when the FAA began dictating what security had to be in place. Actually I suppose one could go even further back in terms of FAA interference with what the private sector would likely want to use. In 1963, the FAA banned the carriage of firearms on aircraft. So it was sort of that point that they began to seriously dictate what the security status of passengers on aircraft would be.mryan75 said:
Good question. I don't know if they required precisely certain procedures. It appears from a brief search that the FAA mandated a set of specific items, including the magnetometers. One would really have to go read the regulations to know.mryan75 said:
Yes, lot's of examples of LEOs literally getting away with killing people. Consider the Brailsford case in Mesa -- after shooting Daniel Shaver he was recently rehired briefly so that he could be eligible for a pension!James331 said:
While this is true, that must just not actually be an issue very often. Being an LEO is fairly far down on the list of dangerous professions. I believe it is actually now SAFER to be a police officer than at most times in the past.Unit74 said:
Sure, here are some starters. I will be interested to hear what a more in-depth view of it reveals:Unit74 said:
I've wondered about even the doors sometimes though. For example, was the GermanWings crash enabled partly by other people not being able to get back into a locked and hardened cockpit? What about MH370?ElPaso Pilot said:
Of course the residents of DC are largely disarmed and unable to defend themselves.Unit74 said:
There is a certain truth in this. Fewer people probably know how to defend themselves now. Look at all the people in the Pulse night club shooting who used their phones to take videos of the attack, rather than throwing bottles and their phones at the attacker. That guy should have been being hit in the head by a virtual rain of bottles, furniture etc.Unit74 said:
I think there is another alternative than the two which appear to be considered there. Make airlines responsible for the consequences of their decisions, which they aren’t now.mryan75 said:
This is exactly what TSA agents say as the justification for their job. It must be in their training manuals.Tarheelpilot said:
But concretely in terms of regulation, what standard do you think the government should use to balance financial priorities. Resources are finite, even for the government, so regulators will have to choose between a stricter standard of security and cost. They can't actually operate assuming the resources are infinite, because they are not. What sort of standards should they use?mryan75 said:
In a private system, no-one would stop you from making that sort of choice. You would be free to choose whichever airline offered you the type of security you want. And you would be free to pay the price, in terms of money and inconvenience for that. Even as a professional airline pilot, if you thought the procedures were inadequate you could first complain to your airline and then find another job if you wanted.mryan75 said:
Yes, those are part of the Screening Partnership Program. That is the first step toward privatization as recommended at http://realairlinesecurity.org. It seems to improve customer responsiveness of the screeners, though they still have to screen to standards specified by the TSA.Cap'n Jack said:
I agree there is also an important tradeoff between security and freedom to be considered. But let's leave that more political item alone for a minute.mryan75 said:
