Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- From: Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:48:19 -0500
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:41:36 +1100, the renowned Sylvia Else
<sylvia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:43:02 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Go to your airport tomorrow and walk up to the security personnel andIt is ILLEGAL to mention the word "bomb" in an airport.
** Nonsense.
say "bomb" out loud to them, and loud enough to be heard 20 feet away.
Your retarded ass will go to a retention room IMMEDIALTELY, then you
will cop a charge, boy.
There's a difference between just shouting out the word "bomb", and
using the word in context in a conversation. Shouting "bomb" is at least
impliedly a threat that there is one there. Shouting "fire" in the
absence of one would be equally unlawful.
Using the word in conversation is quite a different matter. While
hysterical security staff may indeed drag the 'perpetrator' away for
interogation, the legality of doing so is highly questionable, and the
probability of a charge arising is zero.
Some parts of a plane are, marginally, safer than others, though whether
one's chosen 'safe' place comes off best in a particular survivable
accident is very much a matter of luck. Other passengers might prefer
not to hear conversations about the possibility of aircraft crashing,
but aircraft sometimes do, and there's no reason someone shouldn't
engage in a conversation about it if they want to.
Sylvia.
I don't particularly like sitting next to the compressor blades (or
propellor blades on a turboprop). People have been killed when those
things flew apart and the titanium shards happened to go in the wrong
direction (fore or aft you've got no problem unless the entire
aircraft goes down, or you get sucked out of a hole, both of which
have happened). It's called an "uncontained failure", but a lay person
would probably just say that the engine blew up.
Eg. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1998/AAR9801.pdf
(see photo on page 13)
Washington National is a particularly sensitive airport when it comes
to security. AFAIUI, there are always air marshals on board the
flights and no foreign airlines are allowed to use the airport (except
Air Canada). If I were those folks I would have tried to leave from
Baltimore (BWI) and reduced the odds of being hassled. Plus you get to
see the largest USO in the world.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@xxxxxxxxxxxx Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- From: Sylvia Else
- Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- References:
- USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- From: Eeyore
- Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- From: Phil Allison
- Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- From: Sylvia Else
- USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- Prev by Date: Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- Next by Date: Re: Piddling around with more LEDs
- Previous by thread: Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- Next by thread: Re: USA airline security goes totally OTT again !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|