This information is somewhat discomforting.

November 5, 2001 11:49 AM

This information is somewhat discomforting. I always imagined that there would be instances of people bringing something that could be considered on an airplane but I did not think that there would be this many.
posted by Stretch (8 comments total)

this might get a better response down here
posted by sawks at 11:53 AM on November 5, 2001

This doesn't list the number of weapons brought on board planes that WEREN'T detected. So, therefore, this says nothing about the quality of security at these airports, just the quality of the people that use these airports.
posted by zanpo at 12:17 PM on November 5, 2001

This doesn't list the number of weapons brought on board planes that WEREN'T detected. So, therefore, this says nothing about the quality of security at these airports, just the quality of the people that use these airports.

The argument, of course, is that [in theory] the weapon recovery frequency should be the same at all airports (assuming that the people who use those airports derive from the same population).

That assumption is open to scrutiny.

That being said, this data is particularly confusing. As far as I can determine, the percentages listed are % of all violations that are weapons violations. A better index might be number of weapons violations per 1000 passengers so that the rate is not conditional on all other violations in addition to weapons violations. The per capita statistic would make for a better cross airport comparison, I think.
posted by iceberg273 at 12:24 PM on November 5, 2001

Also, what does it say about Texas? It seems that more weapons were DETECTED in Texas! Perhaps the rest of the nation could learn from Texans...

Or, it could be that Texans just try to bring more weapons aboard planes...who knows?!
posted by MeetMegan at 1:21 PM on November 5, 2001

Okay, how about those numbers for LA, SF, and Phoenix.

Phoenix???
posted by MeetMegan at 1:23 PM on November 5, 2001

Next time, try the train!
posted by Carol Anne at 2:13 PM on November 5, 2001

Anyone else notice that the numbers for SFO don't add up? (215 + 133 + 68 + 42 + 29 + 6 + 6 + 4 = 503, not the far-more-shocking 923 as listed.) Thanks, CNN! (looks for Switzerland)
posted by dsandl at 2:16 PM on November 5, 2001

Anyone else notice that the numbers for SFO don't add up? (215 + 133 + 68 + 42 + 29 + 6 + 6 + 4 = 503, not the far-more-shocking 923 as listed.) Thanks, CNN! (looks for Switzerland)

They've got the totals for Seattle-Tacoma and San Francisco mixed up.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:33 PM on November 6, 2001