The Cranky Flier » Safety/Security

Cranky on the Web (October 10 – 14)

CF — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:45:49 +0000

What to do when an airline goes bankrupt – CNN Out of the Office
With all the rumors flying around about an American bankruptcy, I thought it was a good idea to talk about what to do when an airline does go bankrupt (not suggesting that it’s happening to American anytime soon).

How to Skip Long Security Lines at the Airport – Kiplinger’s Personal Finance
I was asked what the new TSA trusted traveler program could do and this is what they pulled out of it. Didn’t say “x-ray” machine but rather the backscatter. It got changed in editing, I suppose.

In the Trenches: Reconsidering the Prepaid Model – Intuit Small Business Blog
I always think about how we charge for our services to see if there’s a better way. So far, I’m not convinced there is.

Cranky on the Web (September 11 – 16)

CF — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:45:26 +0000

Southwest to transform AirTran hub into ‘megacity’ – Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I was asked what might happen when Southwest takes over the Atlanta operation for AirTran. Small cities might be most at risk.

Keep your shoes on at the airport? Maybe – CNN Out of the Office
There’s talk of you being able to keep your shoes on through security. I’m not getting my hopes up.

Getting your money’s worth in business class – BBC Passport Blog
I was asked about which airlines and flights to take to get that flat bed in business class.

In the Trenches: Missing Something Good – Intuit Small Business Blog
I get a lot of unsolicited emails, and that makes it tougher to find those that matter.

Cranky on the Web (September 5 – 9)

CF — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:45:29 +0000

What ‘trusted traveler’ means to you – CNN Out of the Office
Talking a little bit about the TSA’s proposed new “known” or “trusted” traveler program.

Tales of 9/11: The Cranky Flier remembers the day – Dallas Morning News Airline Biz Blog
Terry Maxon was asking for tales of 9/11 experiences, so I sent mine over and he published it.

The Cranky Flier at 5: Q&A with Brett Snyder – Sparksheet
I’ll be at the Airline Passenger Experience Association (APEX) show in Seattle next week, and I get warmed up by answering 5 questions for Sparksheet. This was a fun one.

In the Trenches: Touting Success – Intuit Small Business Blog
We’ve had plenty of good success helping people at Cranky Concierge, but how should we talk about it?

Airbags Migrate from Cars to Airplanes

CF — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:45:18 +0000

How many of you knew that you’ve probably flown on an airplane that has an airbag installed in the seatbelt? Probably not many of you, but there really is a decent chance that you’ve come near one and didn’t even know it. I spoke with AmSafe’s VP of Airbag Product, Joe Smith, about these airbags, and they’re actually pretty cool little devices.

There’s nothing particularly innovative about the airbag itself. In fact, much of the technology has just been brought over from airbags for cars. The idea is the same – when there’s an impact, the airbag deploys, hopefully saving your life. But it’s really interesting to look at why this is happening and where you can find them.

One of the big differences between an airbag in a car and on an airplane is the location of the bag. With the airbag on the steering wheel or console in a car, it can be hazardous for small children because it can hit at a deadly angle. On the airplane, these are in the seatbelt itself so any deployment happens at the waist and pops up in front of you (as you can see in the above picture). So it’s safe for nearly everyone. The airbag system activates when the belt is buckled, so for very large people who need a seatbelt extender, it won’t activate.

Now, could it go off if you hit severe turbulence? No. I mean, it’s at least highly unlikely. The trigger is based on a change in forward motion. Turbulence can bat you around pretty good, but it usually won’t change your forward motion quickly enough that this would trigger. On the other hand, if you were taxiing at a pretty fast clip (read: probably even faster than airplanes flown by Southwest pilots), and you hit a truck, then it might very well make them go off. But you might want it in that case anyway. Check out this super slo-mo video of a deployment:

So why are airlines putting these airbags on airplanes? It’s primarily because of the law. There are rules in place that require a certain level of survivability for an accident. Some of that is around head movement while others are around a G-force standard. Many of these rules had been only in place for those aircraft that were developed as new in the last 20 years. A derivative wouldn’t count, so the impact was relatively minor. But that changed in 2009 when all newly-built airplanes had to meet this standard.

The airbags are able to help aircraft meet the standard in some specialized cases. For instance, if your seat is on a sideways angle, you have an airbag. This is most common in business class where the “herringbone” configuration is used where seats either angle into or away from the aisle. It’s also common in bulkhead rows where there isn’t a cushioned seat in front of you to soften the blow.

So when I say you’ve probably been on an airplane with airbags, it doesn’t mean you’ve had them at your seat. How would you know? Just look at the belt. The latching mechanism itself is no different, but the belt is a lot fatter with padding. That’s the airbag, and if there’s an accident, it could help improve your chances of survival.

Cranky on the Web (April 4 – 8)

CF — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:45:19 +0000

10 Signs You Should Take a Break From Traveling – Intuit Small Business Blog
A fun look at the ten signs you’ve been traveling too much.

Pay attention! Airlines stretch to make safety fun – CNN Out of the Office
Considering how many incidents there have been recently, the safety video piece is timely. But I’m looking at the lighter side of safety videos.

Sky Wars: China + Bombardier Face Off Against Boeing and Airbus – BNET Headwinds
I had a straggler BNET post from last month that just went live this week on Bombardier joining with China to challenge for aircraft sales.

In the Trenches: Reducing Dependence on Me – Intuit Small Business Blog
The hardest part for any entrepreneur – reducing self-dependence. It’s needed.

IATA Designs Security Checkpoint of the Future and It Looks Pretty Good

CF — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:45:59 +0000

Every time I talk security here, there are always a few comments asking to focus on a better solution instead of just criticizing what we have. We’ve batted around ideas before in comments, but now we actually have a concrete proposal from none other than the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and I like what I see.

You have to love IATA for being incredibly outspoken on all things aviation. I’m going to really miss Director General Giovanni Bisignani when he moves on, because that guy fears nothing. He says whatever is on his mind and provides a welcome voice of levity (with a hint of insanity). So now, IATA is trying to tackle the security problem, saying that we need to shift our focus from finding just “bad objects” to finding “bad people.”

IATA is also practical, so it’s put together two proposals. The first would be a temporary fix that would use existing equipment to refocus as much as possible. But the second is the true checkpoint of the future idea. Let’s look at that one.

Looks cool, right? Here’s a step-by-step process of how it will work.

You make your reservation giving background details as you do today. But while that background detail is kept behind the scenes in today’s system, security screeners would now be able to see relevant information in order to determine threat potential.

When you’re ready to fly, you go up to the screening area and give a thumbprint, retina scan, or some sort of biometric indicator to identify you.

At this point, you will be directed automatically to go through one of three security lanes. During this process, screeners will be doing behavioral detection. If necessary, they can come up and ask questions as well. In the end, you’ll move into the system as they see fit.

The three security lanes will be divided into a known traveler lane, a normal security lane, and an enhanced security lane. You’ll walk down a long tunnel in the lane you’re directed to and screening of you and your bags will occur while you’re walking through. (This is a vision since I don’t think this machine exists yet.) The body scanners of today will not be used for primary screening. They will be secondary screening for those who need a more in-depth look.

If there’s something that sets off the security guys, then you’ll have to go through secondary screening. Otherwise, you’re on your way with shoes, liquids, and laptops intact.

Sounds like a pretty good plan, huh? It speeds things up by putting people into different lanes based on threat potential. Then it really speeds things up by not making you disrobe as you walk through. This, of course, a long term plan, but even the short term plan gets the right elements in place to start using the data that’s being collected for screening purposes.

The wildcard, in my mind, is the ability of the screeners. If you want people to do real threat detection using critical thinking and multiple tools, your going to have to start paying screeners more to get the highest caliber of worker. I think this needs to happen anyway, but it’s something that will have to be factored in to a budget.

Overall, this plan make a lot more sense to me than what we’re doing today.

Cranky on the Web (November 29-December 3)

CF — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:45:15 +0000

Don’t forget to take the 2010 Cranky Reader Survey – http://surveymonkey.com/s/cranky

In the Trenches: Ramping Up for the Holidays – Intuit Small Business Blog
While others ramp down, we ramp up during the holidays.

Privatizing Air Travel Security Won’t Change What People Hate About Screening – BNET Headwinds
Calls for privatizing airport screening are rising, but that’s not going to change a thing. It’s a red herring.

How Synergy Can Actually Work: Continental Puts United’s Airplanes to Good Use in Peru – BNET Headwinds
United will be flying a domestic 767 from Houston to Lima. This is a good move and it’s something that can only be done because of the merger.

Making Business Travel More Tolerable – Intuit Small Business Blog
I wrote something outside of my usual column, this time offering tips for small business travelers.

Zagat Airline Survey Reveals Challenge for new United – BNET Headwinds
I don’t usually like surveys, but the Zagat one this year shows the challenges that Continental will face in its United merger.

In the Trenches: Fighting the Business Lull with Dream Lists – Intuit Small Business Blog
When I get hit with a lull, I turn to my dream lists to make sure I’m not wasting time.

Union Inability to Accept Election Losses at Delta is a Bad Sign – BNET Headwinds
Unions keep losing representation elections at Delta, but they refuse to give up. It’s time to move on and try again a few years down the road.

Can the Airbus A320neo Can Meet Its Promise to Boost Fuel Efficiency? – BNET Headwinds
Airbus has launched a re-engined A320 family, but will it live up to the hyped fuel savings?

It’s Body Scanner Opt-Out Day but I Don’t Support the Protest

CF — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:45:48 +0000

I know it’s Wednesday and I should be going dark, but with Thanksgiving tomorrow, I decided to switch things around and post today instead. Here we are on November 24, and if one group has its way the lines will be jammed at airports. If you’re flying today, get to the airport very early just in case. I hope that most people don’t participate in this, but if they do, you should be ready. So while you’re sitting in a long line nervously hoping you don’t miss your flight, let’s talk security.

The idea behind National Opt Out Day is to fight the latest Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security measures. As we all know by now, in those airports where there are body scanners, you either have to go through them or opt-out and get a full body pat-down instead. That would be fine except for the fact that the new pat-down is very invasive. Instead of using the backs of their hands, Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) use the fronts of their hands and get right up into your “junk” as the saying now goes.

Do I like these new procedures? Certainly not. I don’t think it keeps us much safer, and there are plenty of other recommendations out there for ways that we can do things better. (Israelification seems to be a nice buzz word these days, and I agree with the premise.) But I don’t agree with how people are going about protesting this.

First of all, the TSA is not going to listen to opt-out protesters. The problem with security is that they can always just claim that it’s a “national security issue” and keep doing what they’re doing. Sure, maybe if the President told them to back off, things would change, but I can’t see these particular protests making that happen. There is plenty of noise being made right now about this, and if it’s going to change, people should just keep up the noise as is. But an opt-out day? It’s not going to do anything but ruin travel plans for people trying to see their families for Thanksgiving.

Those TSOs get to go home at the end of their shifts regardless of how long the lines are. But the passengers who opt-out of the body scanner and try to overwhelm the line with lengthy pat-downs? They just get delayed and might miss their flights. More importantly, they delay the people behind them who really want to get home. If someone misses his flight home, there’s a good chance that he’ll miss Thanksgiving because flights are very full at this time of year. Not good.

And while we’re on the topic, let me address the issue of the TSOs. Go easy on them when you fly. These are people who are just doing their jobs. They don’t make the rules, but they are paid to enforce them. Do you think they like feeling up a 500 pound dude? I don’t think so. But they have jobs to do. I’ve heard some people say they should quit their jobs in protest. Are you crazy? You may be gainfully employed, but the job market is very weak at best. If I had a good job with good benefits, I wouldn’t be walking away.

I have heard that TSOs hate this rule just as much as you do. It’s awful to get yelled at by people all day long, and they don’t deserve it. If I fly, I’ll flash a smile and maybe even say thank you. If I get the pat-down, I won’t be pretending to enjoy it. It’s bad enough for these guys. I may not support what they’re doing, but I do support them doing the job they’re given.

So with that, let me say that I hope you all reach your destinations on time and without any trouble. I’m already with my family (we drove), and this is my favorite holiday of the year. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I’ll put up a discussion topic on Friday and then I’ll be back again on Monday with a new post.

[Original photo via Flickr user silas216]

Should You Be Afraid of the Body Scanner Raising the Risk of Cancer? Nah, and Neither Should Pilots

CF — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:45:19 +0000

If you’ve been watching pilot unions tell their members to decline to go through the body scanner when they go through security, you’re probably feeling concerned about your safety as well, right? The good news is that there don’t appear to be any real safety implications for the casual traveler and it’s unlikely to be problematic for pilots either. My guess is that this is more of a backlash against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rules than anything else. While there are plenty of privacy and annoyance factors to consider, it seems like safety isn’t a major concern.

Much of this has to stem from recent TSA moves. Now, if you are at a checkpoint where there is a backscatter, full body scanner and you are asked to go through it, you have the right to say no. If you say no, however, then you will be subject to a full body massage. The TSA has recently changed the pat-down procedure so that the front of the hand will be used instead of the back and the hands may wander closer to, uh, sensitive areas. In other words, go ahead and turn down the body scan but you’ll then be groped. It’s not a great option.

Pilot unions have now come out saying that their members should avoid body scanners, or what is now being referred to as Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), due to concerns about radiation. This is an x-ray machine, after all. Captain Dave Bates, president of Allied Pilots Association which represents American’s pilots, says in a letter that pilots should decline the AIT and instead opt for a pat-down. He then says it’s unprofessional to receive a pat-down in public in uniform so pilots should ask for a private screening. If that means that the pilot is unable to be ready to fly on time, then that’s ok. Safety first.

Now Mike Cleary, head of the US Airline Pilots Association at US Airways, has taken it even further. He says that crewmembers should have a witness with them during the pat-down process. After that, pilots need to “evaluate their fitness for duty. As has been determined, there is a wide range of possibilities once you submit to a private screening, and the results can be devastating.”

This is obviously turning into a huge issue, but why? The pilots say that the issue is due to radiation exposure, but much of this seems to be primarily an objection to pilots being subjected to screening at all. The pilots have long argued, and rightly-so in my opinion, that screening on-duty pilots is ridiculous. After all, they are the ones with the locked cockpit door behind them. If they want to do damage, they don’t need to smuggle something on the plane to do it. They control the plane. There are issues with ensuring that someone is actually a pilot and that they are on-duty, but those are solvable. Flying pilots shouldn’t need to be screened, so now the unions are, in my opinion, putting out these directives in order to try to bring some urgency to the issue.

But should you be concerned about your own safety here from radiation? I don’t think so. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has put out a lengthy letter to the University of California regarding concerns stated by Dr John Holdren about the potentially harmful effects of these machines. I’ve read through the letter and I’d say I understand half of it at best. So maybe smarter people than I can help translate, but I get the main points of it. As Kai Ryssdal says, let’s do the numbers.

The established standard for radiation exposure for the general public from man-made, non-medical sources is 1,000 µSv (microsieverts) per year. One microsievert is one millionth of a sievert, and if you’re familiar with the now-outdated measure of rem, a sievert is 1/100 of a rem, so these are tiny little numbers.

Since it’s not possible to control all sources of radiation exposure, the general rule is to try to keep it under 250 µSv per year from sources that can be controlled. For a radiation-emitting machine to be considered “general use,” as the backscatter machines are required to be by TSA, it has to emit 1,000 times less than the 250 µSv limit for each use, or 0.25 µSv. The backscatter machines have passed that in every test. In fact, it appears that the machines actually emit 0.05 µSv per use. That means that a person could go through the machine 13 times a day for every day of the year and still not have exceeded the limit.

But there was also concern that since the exposure is primarily focused on the skin, that could be a problem area even if the general exposure was not. According to the letter, the annual dose limit for skin exposure is 50,000 µSv per year. Even if the machines emitted the required 0.25 µSv (higher than what it actually is), it would take nearly 250 exposures per day to reach the skin limit. That doesn’t appear to be a problem.

Pilots are unhappy because they already face higher doses of radiation from constantly flying. The higher altitude for longer periods of time means more exposure. The FAA estimates that someone flying 1,000 block hours between DC and LA at 35,000 feet in a year would receive a dose of 5,000 µSv. Let’s say that means the person took 200 flights (at an average block time of 5 hours). If he had to go through the AIT each time, it would add only 10 µSv, a downright tiny number in the scheme of things.

Bottom line? If pilots are really concerned about radiation exposure, they should stop flying. The additional amount from the AIT machines is negligible when compared to what they get while in the air.

And remember, if you’re taking a couple trips to year to see grandma, the exposure is truly almost nothing. The exposure to radiation, I mean. The exposure to TSA agents resulting in humiliation is a whole different story.

TSA Overreacts Again, Printer Cartridges Are Now Banned

CF — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:45:19 +0000

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is at it once again. In a typical reactive move, you can now no longer bring printer cartridges over 16 ounces on an airplane. If this weren’t so sad, it would be downright comical. There has to be a better way to do this.

You all know about the recent terrorist plot, right? Terrorists in Yemen shipped bombs via cargo aircraft to the US. It’s unclear what the ultimate target was, but it is clear that the goal was to blow something up. It didn’t happen. These bombs were disguised in large printer cartridges. Did we really need to guess what the TSA reaction would be?

As of now, cargo from Yemen has been banned completely to the US, and the feds threw in Somalia as well just for kicks. And yes, printer cartridges over 16 ounces are banned. But get this, they’re only banned on domestic flights and international flight inbound to the US. Really? What a pain.

Now, I can’t imagine there are too many people trying to lug around 16 ounce printer cartridges; these are not the ones you find in your standard inkjet. But they are out there and now you can’t ship them. But, uh, how exactly is the TSA going to enforce this? Let’s say you’re traveling to London. It should be fine to carry your cartridge, right? But not if you go to Detroit. Remember, you go through the same security checkpoint as everyone else, so does this mean that the TSA is going to start enforcing rules by destination? Sounds like just what we need to slow things down even further. And how are they going to pick out a boxy-piece of plastic on the x-ray anyway?

Let’s not ask questions and just realize that we are now safer. How? Well, the next time someone tries to ship a bomb in a printer cartridge, there’s now a small chance the TSA would actually detect it. Just forget about the fact that it’s unlikely they’re going to try to use printer cartridges again anyway. We can, of course, all sleep easy at night because this is clearly going to keep us safe.

I mean, there’s no chance that terrorists will just laugh and move on to something else. Knowing that the TSA will just ban anything that the people try to use as weapons, you’d think that the next bomb will be in a toothbrush, or maybe in a razor. Next thing you know, Schick will try to put razor-bombs in Gillette razors to see if it can get only Gillette razors banned.

Of course, the terrorists (and no, I’m not calling Schick a terrorist) could go too far. If they try to put a bomb in a laptop, then business travelers around the world will revolt. Just imagine what would happen if the TSA tried to ban laptops . . .