On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:45:46 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

That's a fair question. It seems that the short answer to increase
threat levels is "be more vigilant, but on with your life".
Realistically, there's little else an individual can do. We have to
expect that any specific threat will be dealt with by the authorities.

Right. The same folks that told us "everything changed on 9/11. We are no
longer protected by two oceans." During the entire "duck and cover" era I,
and I'll bet I'm not alone, did NOT feel protected by two oceans. I don't
know many people who felt oceans were much protection against ICBMs. I
can't remember a soul in Texas during the Cuban missile crisis that felt
much protection, either. As far as dealing with threats, there is a lot of
expense going on at airports regarding passengers and what they can carry.
If the cockpit door is secured (and I have talked about this several times
with my brother, a retired USMC pilot who after his Marine career piloted
some of that heavy metal for commercial airlines) then it doesn't matter
what the passengers carry. They can carry AK-47s if they want, they still
aren't going to get control of the plane if the cockpit is secure. That
and instructing pilots that it would be a possible "shoot down" type of
offence if they deviate from their flight schedules. Bingo. Never again
will a commercial aircraft fly into a skyscraper, and passengers needn't
even be bothered.

The vagueness of the warnings is annoying, but they're apparently based
on increases in non-specific "chatter", so what other option is there? I
guess they could just say nothing, but I don't see that as helpful.

I'd guess doing effective stuff doesn't suit the current administration's
goals as well as frightening the public.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future