Where do we draw the line between zero-tolerance security and acceptable risk?
Not only do the US authorities continue to order planes to return back to their foreign points of departure, but now they no longer even feel the need to tell the airlines why. An Air France flight bound for Chicago on 8 July was sent back to Paris, and an AF spokesman explained the US authorities were not obliged to explain why they had refused landing rights. The plane subsequently did fly to Chicago, complete with all passengers, too. Another false alarm. Something that has always struck me as ridiculous is the requirement for all passengers to be seated for the first or last 30 minutes of flights in or out of Washington’s Reagan National Airport. There are many reasons why this ‘security measure’, instituted after 9/11, uniquely for this one airport in the country, is stupid, the most notable of which is that it doesn’t also apply to flights to/from Baltimore or Dulles – airports only 5 minutes flying time away from Reagan National. And now for the good news. This restriction is to
Related Questions
- How do you draw the line between what weight loss practices are acceptable for jockeys career needs and what is just too unhealthy?
- Students often live in private rented housing with poor security measures. What can they do to reduce their risk of victimisation?
- Where do we draw the line between zero-tolerance security and acceptable risk?
