Is flying safer now?

[AmadeusM]

After 911?

Is it safer? About the same? Less safe?

Are there some useful indicators for this judgment? I keep hearing stories in the media that are always negative, so what's the deal?

Thanks.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

In terms of hijackings, I haven't heard of any since 911. There was the shoe bomber, but the passengers took care of him. In that sense we're safer, since we are all more alert.

As to whether the TSA is equipped for the next type of attack, for example, bombs smuggled on board, or ground to air missiles from alongside the airport, I can't even guess.

There have been a couple of spectacularly disastrous air crashes lately, Cyprus and Venezuela. That was always the worst danger in the air.

 

[Gollnick]

Statistially, it is infinitely safer. No domestic US flight has been hijacked and I can't recall a successful hijack of an international flight.

Are TSA's pat-down inspections of little old ladies with blue-rinsed hair wearing fake pearl chokers and pill box hats and carrying Bibles, or the fact that TSA has banished the evil nail file from passenger cabins to credit for this statistic?

I don't know. Nobody does. And that's the problem.

 

[L6steel]

I heard on the news where a one year old baby was not allowed to board a plane because it had the same name as a person on the security watch list. I wonder if they actually thought the baby was the person the feds are lookin for?
I don't think we'll have to worry about any hijackings for along time. People are mad enough now they'd rip em apart with their bare hands. You can't hijack a group of people that won't sit still for it.

 

[fudo]

IMHO flying is marginally safer due to increased awareness by the flying publis. The TSA's program is designed to make stupid people feel safe, so they will buy plane tickets.
As I see it, there are 2 main types of threats to planes, trains, and buses. the first type is a bomb threat. This is a baggage screening problem mostly. Passenger searches could be much faster and less intrusive if you're not wasting time looking for fingernail files and small pocket knives.
The second problem is a hijack attempt. There are many people in the US who are licensed to carry concealed weapons. These people have already been background checked, trained to shoot, trained when and under what circumstances it is appropriate to shoot, and as a group, have proven themselves to be an extremely low crime problem.. If people with carry permits were allowed to carry, with an additional endorsement on the license that covers training about firing guns in aircraft in flight, then you have a situation where there are an unknown (to the other passengers) number and unknown as to which people they are, you have a tactical problem that a hijacker can't solve. Add to that, retired police officers, federal agents, etc.. That would actually make flying safer.

 

[Gollnick]

The second problem is a hijack attempt. There are many people in the US who are licensed to carry concealed weapons. These people have already been background checked, trained to shoot, trained when and under what circumstances it is appropriate to shoot, and as a group, have proven themselves to be an extremely low crime problem.. If people with carry permits were allowed to carry, with an additional endorsement on the license that covers training about firing guns in aircraft in flight, then you have a situation where there are an unknown (to the other passengers) number and unknown as to which people they are, you have a tactical problem that a hijacker can't solve. Add to that, retired police officers, federal agents, etc.. That would actually make flying safer.

As an Oregon CHL holder, I would be nervous about allowing CHL holders to pack aboard since that qualification isn't as secure as I'd like it to be; a determined terrorist could get a CHL. Also, what if I fly to a state where I don't have a CHL?

But, we do already have this sort of "wild cardd with a gun" situation you've suggested. Aside from the armed Air Marshals who have, through their habits, made themselves fairly easy to spot, most federal LEOs, FBI, Secret Service, BATF, Fed. Marshalls, etc., pack aboard when they travel either for business or pleasure. If you're a terrorist, you just can't take the chance that the flight you've selected is carrying a team of Secret Service agents on their way to do advance work for next-week's Presidential visit, or an FBI team traveling to a training class, etc. That's the "wild card with a gun" factor.

 

[Bladewolf]

As an Oregon CHL holder, I would be nervous about allowing CHL holders to pack aboard since that qualification isn't as secure as I'd like it to be; a determined terrorist could get a CHL. Also, what if I fly to a state where I don't have a CHL?

Thank you Chuck Besides, if they train them for engagement in an aircraft, aren't they more or less making them defacto Air Marshalls

 

[Ren the devils trailboss]

After 911?

Is it safer? About the same? Less safe?

Are there some useful indicators for this judgment? I keep hearing stories in the media that are always negative, so what's the deal?

Thanks.

I dont think so...My arms still get tired..and its not really the flying that is so dangerous its the landings I always have problems with...

 

[AmadeusM]

So, what's a person to do? Fly less? Not fly at all? I am not suggestive, just asking, because we all have to act somehow.

Personally, I would like to see pilots armed with handguns/shotguns, and nobody else, other than the Marshalls and other law enforcement. Any unstable moron can get a CCW, at least in my state. Also, their door should be impenetrable, with no access for hostesses and the like. As far as the flying public goes, I would let them carry all the knives and clubs they can. That plane would be difficult to hijack with a boxcutter.

I am concerned about ground crews. How much scrutiny is there? Do bomb dogs check all planes?

Yes, I know the cliches about "not letting fear rule our lives", but you gotta assess the situation and take action most favorable to your survival.

Does this mean I should cancel a job interview several states away, or drive there instead? I honestly do not know.

 

[Mike Hull]

A few days ago I was on the computer and my wife was watching the evening news on TV.
She came in to tell me that they were relaxing regulations banning people from carrying knives, scissors, nail files, nail clippers etc on board in carry on luggage.

I haven't seen anything about this at all, anywhere, since that time, so don't know if she heard wrong, or what.

Personally, I believe that the public at large is the greatest ally the law has in fighting terrorism aboard planes and the like.
I would feel safer if all the passengers were armed, than the way it is now, with everybody disarmed and helpless against anything terrorists can smuggle on board.

 

[Point44]

So, what's a person to do? Fly less? Not fly at all? I am not suggestive, just asking, because we all have to act somehow.

Personally, I would like to see pilots armed with handguns/shotguns, and nobody else, other than the Marshalls and other law enforcement. Any unstable moron can get a CCW, at least in my state. Also, their door should be impenetrable, with no access for hostesses and the like. As far as the flying public goes, I would let them carry all the knives and clubs they can. That plane would be difficult to hijack with a boxcutter.

Terrorists would not want to use the same tactics twice. However much you try to equip the pilot or the crew terrorists will find a way. What purpose would they need to hijack a plane now? They just need to sneak a bomb through, and detonate it just before they land, preferablly over a populated area. You need to stop them from boarding in the first place. A 9/11 will be difficult to perform again since the passengers are gonna pounce on the terrorist well before the pilot comes out and shoots him. And i'm thinking what the passengers are gonna do to him is worse than what the pilot can do with the shotgun.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The idea of arming the pilots is the same as reinforcing their cabin door -- so nobody can take over the controls. I believe current doctrine is that nobody goes in from takeoff to landing. Even armed pilots would not go out to the passenger compartment to confront hijackers -- otherwise the hijackers would simply begin killing hostages to force the pilot out where they could kill him, too.

Experience since 911 shows us that flying is no more hazardous than it was before. Is this predictive for the near future? Probably. But please tell your family not to sue me if something goes wrong.