You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Crazy airport security theater affecting travel & economy?
- Thread starter hippie
- Start date
Let me guess, it's all in the name of 'FREEDOM' hahaha.
What was it Dr. Goebbels said about repeating a lie often enough?
If you keep telling them they're 'FREE' and bang on an on about 'FREEDOM' then the masses will believe it, even though everyday the powers take a little bit more away from you...............
What was it Dr. Goebbels said about repeating a lie often enough?
If you keep telling them they're 'FREE' and bang on an on about 'FREEDOM' then the masses will believe it, even though everyday the powers take a little bit more away from you...............
Quote from blackjack007:
i wonder about the safety of those smaller private jets. the pilots are not as experienced and the planes have less mechanical redundancy than large passenger airliners.
Whaat?? I don't know the systems of a typical Citation or Lear, but I can assure you that the P.I.C. is always very experienced - unless you hire him and grab the first shmuck coming out of flight school, and the planes are totally safe. More so that the airlines, because a small jet is more maneuvrable, can fly higher and can land even on a short strip, something the big birds cannot do.
Hijacks, bombings and crashings are part of the risk when travelling with airplanes.
Current statistics are so ridiculously low that no changes are needed in the security policies. I think we can deal with the risk.
You're safer on a plane than in a car, like it or not. If you travel by plane, you have a (extremely low) chance of landing in a skyscrapper. That's life, deal with it.
Guaranteed safety does not exist and can not exist.
Governments don't get re-elected on these concepts though especially since 90,9% of the population is unable to cope with basic probability concepts.
Ninna
Current statistics are so ridiculously low that no changes are needed in the security policies. I think we can deal with the risk.
You're safer on a plane than in a car, like it or not. If you travel by plane, you have a (extremely low) chance of landing in a skyscrapper. That's life, deal with it.
Guaranteed safety does not exist and can not exist.
Governments don't get re-elected on these concepts though especially since 90,9% of the population is unable to cope with basic probability concepts.
Ninna
No, it can not... as long as the paasenger knows where to hide stuff. Watch a video I linked earlier in this thread http://gizmodo.com/5454626/naked-airport-body-scanner-sees-everything-but-the-bomby-partsQuote from blackjack007:
not a bad idea, but can they sniff out non-metallic weapons like acrylic knives? a full-body scanner can see it
Quote from blackjack007:
i wonder about the safety of those smaller private jets. the pilots are not as experienced and the planes have less mechanical redundancy than large passenger airliners.
The problem with small airplains is most of them are not designed to fly at high altitude. This means there is no mechanism against ice covering wings in flight. If in extreme weather conditions icing does occur, an airplain may fall down like a stone... unless the pilot does something they don't teach in ordinary flight school.Quote from 9999:
Whaat?? I don't know the systems of a typical Citation or Lear, but I can assure you that the P.I.C. is always very experienced - unless you hire him and grab the first shmuck coming out of flight school, and the planes are totally safe. More so that the airlines, because a small jet is more maneuvrable, can fly higher and can land even on a short strip, something the big birds cannot do.
Modern large jets have 3, 4 or more engines. Many of them are capable of completing the flight even if 2 of engines break. Some of the smaller jets may not have this level of redundancy.
Another thing is plains, like anything else, are prone to have design deffects. It takes a lots of flights to discover these deffects. Further, these may be expensive to fix. In 1960s a plain had a door deffect. Sometime teh door would not lock properly though it would appear lock to the crew. When this happened, the air stream in flight could rip the door off together with a few nearby passenger seats. It took half a dozen accidents and major airlines stopping flying this model of the jet till the manufacturer recognised there was a problem and attempted to fix it. Similarly, recently the new Airbus super-jumbo jet had an engine catching fire. It will take ages to investigate. Popular jet models like Boing 737 had most of these dffects ironed out aver time. It doesn't always happen on smaller plains. (See examples above.)
Regarding pilots' experience (and pay)...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?postid=2802662#post2802662Quote from Maverick74:
Let me help you understand. As someone who at one time had a private pilot's license. Learning to fly is very expensive if you don't go to either one of the military academies or through ROTC. After one get's their private pilot's license, they need to start building hours. I don't know what the hourly rate is now for a single engine Cessna 152 but back when I did it, it was about $250 an hour for that aircraft.
Now, no young pilot has the money to simply rent a plane by the hour to build up the necessary flight time, so the ideal path is to become a flight instructor. They don't make shit, usually not much more then minimum wage. But you're thrilled to get paid because you are basically letting someone else pay for your flight time. The student will pay the $250 an hour for you. Once you get about 500 hours, you go for your IFR. Once you get that you keep up the flight instruction, again earning minimum wage until you have maybe 1500 hours or so and then go for your multi-engine.
Once you have this, you can now apply for a job working for a regional carrier flying multi-engine aircraft. Again, getting paid to build hours. The key here is not your wage, but the fact that someone else is paying for your flight time. Do you have any idea what it would cost the young pilot to pay for 2500 hours of flight time? A multi-engine plane will cost over $500 an hour plus fuel.
So work for a small carrier making little to nothing, probably working another job on the side until you get up to about 5,000 hours. At that point you can apply to the airlines. Even then your salary will be small as co-pilot for a small 727 or DC-9. But again, the name of the game is building hours and seniority. Within about 5 years, you will be making close to 6 figures for working 3 to 4 days a week. In 15 years you will be making 150k to 200k a year.
Obviously the ideal way to go is the military. You get the best training in the world and you can go straight to the airlines once you leave. But getting in is very hard.
Think about it this way. Look at a doctor. They have to spend 4 years in undergraduate school, then spend 3 to 5 years in medical school then another year or two doing a residency. That's over 10 years!!! And what do they get paid??? Nothing!!! In fact they spend close to 200k to basically work 10 years with no pay. Why do they do that? To become a Doctor!
It's no different with becoming a pilot. It's all about building flight time. And these young pilots will do anything to get those hours for as little out of pocket cost as possible. It's unfortunate that you don't understand this or the media for that matter. It's actually a pretty good life and whenever I talk to pilots, they tell me they could not see themselves doing anything else with their life.
I have no problem with a dog sniffing me or my belongings. I don't like the X-ray or pat-down. Any idea how fast they can breed and train enough dogs? May be the unemployed can get jobs training dogs.
My brother had a labrador that would shove his snout in people's crotches, perfect skill set match.
Quote from LeeD:
The problem with small airplains is most of them are not designed to fly at high altitude. This means there is no mechanism against ice covering wings in flight. If in extreme weather conditions icing does occur, an airplain may fall down like a stone... unless the pilot does something they don't teach in ordinary flight school.
Modern large jets have 3, 4 or more engines. Many of them are capable of completing the flight even if 2 of engines break. Some of the smaller jets may not have this level of redundancy.
Another thing is plains, like anything else, are prone to have design deffects. It takes a lots of flights to discover these deffects. Further, these may be expensive to fix. In 1960s a plain had a door deffect. Sometime teh door would not lock properly though it would appear lock to the crew. When this happened, the air stream in flight could rip the door off together with a few nearby passenger seats. It took half a dozen accidents and major airlines stopping flying this model of the jet till the manufacturer recognised there was a problem and attempted to fix it. Similarly, recently the new Airbus super-jumbo jet had an engine catching fire. It will take ages to investigate. Popular jet models like Boing 737 had most of these dffects ironed out aver time. It doesn't always happen on smaller plains. (See examples above.)
Again: whaat?? I'm a private pilot as well with instrument rating, so I know a bit about airplanes too. Not designed to fly high??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_45
Service ceiling: 51,000 ft (15,545 m). No wide-body can get up there. And it's not the only one. And they do have anti-icing, de-icing devices on the wings as well. Small jets always have 2 or more engines, and if one fails the other has plenty of power to keep it up safely. Avionics: pretty much the same as the big ones with redundancy. Design defects: this is just ridiculous. Every certified aircraft has been thoroughly and extensively tested on the ground and in the air as well. The FAA has evolved since the '60s, and so has the airline industry. Aircraft designs are now proven and totally reliable. Engine fires? Statistically, it's a non-event. Many jet engines have logged millions of flight time with absolutely no malfunctions whatsoever.
Seriously, stop this nonsense.
I'm sure there are miracles of design among small plains as well as large plains. My point was solely that you don't expect this kind fo luxury in every model of small plain while in large passenger jets these come as standard.Quote from 9999:
I'm a private pilot as well with instrument rating, so I know a bit about airplanes too. Not designed to fly high??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_45
Service ceiling: 51,000 ft (15,545 m). No wide-body can get up there. And it's not the only one. And they do have anti-icing, de-icing devices on the wings as well.
No testing absolutely guarantees absence of defects... or airplains would never fail. Engineers just make design choices that minimise the consequences of a potential failure.Quote from 9999:
Design defects: this is just ridiculous. Every certified aircraft has been thoroughly and extensively tested on the ground and in the air as well. The FAA has evolved since the '60s, and so has the airline industry. Aircraft designs are now proven and totally reliable. Engine fires? Statistically, it's a non-event. Many jet engines have logged millions of flight time with absolutely no malfunctions whatsoever.
Seriously, stop this nonsense.
I believe your word that testing stadards have improved in the last 50 years.