Hacker News Reader

Comment by Theodores | Hacker News Reader

Well done for researching that.

With seatbelts and their introduction there were anecdotes about people crashing their cars into ponds, lakes etc. where their lives were saved because they were not wearing their seatbelts. I think it is human nature to want to repeat the one incident where the safety measures could have led to disaster.

Since you are so adept at research, can you find this one for me?

Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types.

It bugs me now that I can't find the quote or remember whether it was Gordon Brown or some other politician.

View on HN

God, I wish... Non-TSA plane every single time. Suddenly it would almost be like riding the train, which is wonderful.

Those little commuter planes are decidedly less safe in bad weather, and the pilots operating them tend to be younger/less experienced. It's not a perfect trade-off.

Indeed they are but every plane needs to avoid bad weather as much as possible. Of course the bigger the plane the higher its limits.

Now on pilots, this really depends which pilots you are talking about. North American pilots, and here I am pointing at Canadian pilots more because I am in Canada and I am in the process of getting my PPL (for pleasure),however, I am sure this also applies to US pilots, very well trained. To get a job at a big airline you need experience, and where do you get the best experience, far up north where harsh weather, huge winds and tiny landing strips are located. I don't think that 3 years college will do, unless you are lucky.

I also talk to a lot of commercial pilots as my girlfriend is a flight attendant, so during the travels we go out and chat about everything.

As far as safety, over exaggerated, really. No one cares, well, people do but they shouldn't, because if someone wants to hijack I am sure they will find a way to do it. This is the big boys game on a government level. Tax payers are paying for scanners etc, whoever wins the bid makes them and they are sponsoring the next election. (I will not get into this here but you get the point). Scanners are useless.

This is an older video from 2010, scanners give better pictures nowdays but are still as useless as before. I got scanned at Schiphol 3 months ago, the scanner was not much different from the one shown this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo

It is great to fly small planes, no security, quick, and more fun to fly than a big airliner.

Opinions are personal.

I was only responding to the following, which says nothing about smaller planes:

"Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types."

That's a line from the movie, The Ghost Writer. Good movie actually. And I'd choose the faster line every time.

Thanks! Also reminded me of a movie I really should watch, so thanks again!

Ah, sorry. I didn't read the GP post carefully. I saw "non TSA" and was thinking about the subject of the original article (where TSA security rules don't apply to very small commuter/charter aircraft).

I would pay extra for the walk-straight-on flight. Not a lot extra, mind you, but it'd be worth at least $25 to me to reduce that source of stress and uncertainty. If there were a no-checks airline I would fly that one almost exclusively.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com