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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

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

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?

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]

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.

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 . . .