Poltergeist; having worked with computer security professionals I would like to see one question answered honestly by the aviation security profession:
Can you guarantee 100% protection against terrorist attacks?
I guess the answer is no. Because the only way to achieve 100% protection would be to keep all planes on the ground.
And it is fine with me to hear a honest no, because I know that drunk drivers are a bigger threat to my health than terrorists. The correct question is:
What is an affordable level of safety we can achieve?
And then take effective means to achieve that safety level. Magnetometers have prevented smuggling aboard dozens of firearms (and prevented lots of hijackings.) Explosive sniffers are standing unused on US airports.
And I think that treating crews and travelers with some respect at the checkpoint is one of the ways to make the safety check more effective. If the "safety professionals" see the general population as aide in their fight against terror (instead of "bulk to protect" or even worse: the enemy) they would create security systems that are both more effective and more efficient.
Inbalance: that's unfair, you already have the crash axe!
Last edited by MathFox; 9th Nov 2011 at 14:54.
Reason: crash axe