simoncoles.org   Simon Coles Personal Blog

Interesting analysis of the numbers in this post, which ends as follows:

Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

This post comes up with the spoof idea that we’ll all need to travel naked in future, and develops the theme nicely explaining how it would work as the best preventative measure ever:

Think about the people you see on airplanes.  Then imagine what they would look like naked.  Eeeew. That’s right, fat, old, wrinkled, smelly bodies surrounding you.  Not a muscle would flex on board, fearing that they might touch someone’s sagging fleshiness.  Every muscle would go limp.  Minds would shut down.  Aside from the occasional retching, there would be utter silence as people froze in place to avoid any possibility of human contact.  You can’t bring down an airplane with your eyes tightly shut.

Very insightful!

It seems that the travel security policies are getting saner… but with a fatal twist according to this Reuters article.

Apparently it’s now doing to be down to each pilot (I assume the Captain) to decide the security restrictions in flight:

The TSA confirmed Monday that pilots can now decide whether to allow passengers to keep items in their laps or require them to be seated during portions of the flight.

The agency also will let pilots and airlines determine whether in-flight entertainment systems that show a plane’s location should be turned off to avoid a security risk, an agency spokeswoman said.

How’s this going to work out? Whenever there have been restrictions placed on passengers it has always been presented as “The authorities require us to xxx” which means there’s a higher authority involved, and the people in front of you enforcing the rules can’t be blamed, or argued with.

Now we will all know it was the guy at the front of the plane that made us all sit like naughty school children – or not, as the case maybe. All sorts of considerations are going to come into play aside from security, and every single thoughtful passenger is going to be second-guessing the decision of the pilots.

Of course, not only will there be an emotional reaction for each individual flight, but people who travel a lot are quickly going to start to inform their travel choices based on what’s likely to happen between different airlines. If one airline routinely inconveniences you in the name of security and another is more pragmatic, which one is a business traveller likely to choose?

Seems to me that the security breach was way before anyone got on the plane, the restrictions imposed over the past week are of little use but meant the authorities are seen to “be doing something”. And now they’re going to take the whole hot potato and throw it at the flight crew, who will take all the blame either way.

Deeply unimpressive. Perhaps it is time to Fire the TSA.

I’ve been watching with increasing concern the absurd reaction to the latest security incident involving planes. You really couldn’t make it up.

This article on The Economist’s Gulliver blog is the best I’ve seen so far – good summary of what’s happening with some decent analysis.

Just found via Twitter  - here’s the TSA regulation with some commentary.

This is completely nuts – I am struck by the difference between the UK and the US in response to Terrorism. I recall when the IRA bombed the London commuter rail network, we all went in as normal the next day because to do otherwise would have meant the Terrorists would win.

In contrast, the US Authorities seem intent on “being seen to do something” and if that means something massively disruptive but totally ineffective (“Security Theatre“) well so be it.

Come on guys, get a grip. The latest incident was a failure of your existing processes. Fix that, don’t shove more inconvenience in the way of the public – otherwise we’ll turn into a Police State and then the Terrorists will have won.

There’s risk in every day life, let’s keep things in perspective – otherwise the baddies will get exactly what they want.

Both my parents have passed away, so I’ve done the whole Will/Inheritance/Estate thing and having a passing interest in all things legal I found it all quite fascinating.

In last week’s Economist Magazine they had an article on how inheritance laws differ across the EU.

In 26 out of 27 European Union countries, Mr Buffett’s plans would not just be shocking, but illegal. The exception is Britain, or rather England and Wales (Scotland has its own, centuries-old legal system, with a strong continental flavour). In continental Europe a big part of an estate (often around half) is reserved for the surviving children of the deceased and must be equally divided between them. This “forced heirship” makes it impossible to disinherit feckless children (though several countries exclude bequests to “unworthy” children, who have for example murdered a parent or two). Such rules also make it hard to reward the deserving by, say, leaving more to a daughter who gave up a career to care for her ailing parents. Finally, “clawback” laws in many countries stop parents from dodging forced heirship by giving assets away while they are still alive. This applies to gifts made in the last years of life (two years in Austria, ten in Germany), or much longer: in some countries, no time limit applies.

Wow – I had always taken it for granted that you could leave your assets to whomever you pleased. But apparently not… and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Read the article for all the details, but I can see it would cause us real problems.

It is quite a shock how something Id’ viewed as almost a human right turns out to be viewed with abhorrence in a next door country which I had viewed as being broadly similar to the UK. It’s a reminder that some things are very cultural dependant and you can’t make assumptions… especially about things you assume are common!