Why Ebola air travel restrictions keep changing

In recent days, Ebola-related restrictions on travel keep changing, sometimes in ways that can be confusing to airline passengers and to the general public. There are two basic reasons why this is happening, the first being the changing nature of the Ebola outbreak, and the second because there are several kinds of independent decision makers when it comes to Ebola travel policies.

The changing face of Ebola
As of late October 2014, Ebola remains a serious epidemic, and according to the CDC, over 10,000 people have been infected with roughly 5,000 dead. The largest number of cases are in three west African countries, Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. There have been at least five other countries with one or more Ebola cases, and for two these countries, the US and Nigeria, the virus was carried there by an airline passenger.

US response
The response of US authorities has been varied, with the key responses including the following:

• Federal requirements that air travelers who fly directly from Liberia, Guinea, or Sierra Leone enter the US in to one of five airports, each of which has a screening program to evaluate travelers from those countries.
• Additional requirements from several states (including states containing at least four of the five entry airports) that include some form of quarantine for some or all travelers who have been exposed to Ebola.
• US military authorities have either quarantine or evaluation programs for military personnel who have provided support in efforts to address Ebola in west Africa.

Why is the US concerned?
Although there have only been a handful of Ebola cases in the US, there has been a very high level of interest and concern by the public and the US government in keeping Ebola from becoming a serious problem. This concern is likely based on the reality that there is a significant number of people who travel between the US and those countries most affected by Ebola, including thousands of medical professionals and military members who are directly involved with fighting the epidemic in west Afria; and citizens, residents, and visitors from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

Who makes Ebola decisions in the US
In the US, various units of government are able to make decisions independently of one another, and that can lead to multiple, overlapping, and sometimes contradictory policies. In the case of Ebola, a few of the independent decision makers include the following:

• The federal government can enforce policies involving things like air transportation, travel between US states, and border security.
• Individual states, including cities, counties, and smaller government units within the states, can enforce restrictions or quarantines on air travelers that go beyond federal requirements.
• Military organizations, in addition to having access to its own air transportation system, can impose restrictions on members of the armed forces that may go far beyond those imposed by either the states or by federal governments.

In addition to units of government, individual travelers can make decisions that can easily circumvent the restrictions of the federal or state governments, largely because federal and state governments often have to rely on information provided by air travelers and have no way to independently verify a traveler's claims about their travel history.

So far, no individual air traveler has has caused someone in the US to contract Ebola due to deliberately avoiding the current screening and restriction programs or because of a failure of one of those programs. Should that happen, or should there be a sharp increase in the number of Ebola cases in the US, it is very likely that one or more government organizations may change air transportation rules in significant and unpredictable ways.

---

---

Background information
AskThePilot.com on air travel bans
Air travel bans to control epidemics
Background information on Ebola
Background information on SARS

A very graphic view of the TSA

The TSA has been a frequent subject of this site, covering issues from the employee screening process to the passenger search policies. Below is an informational graphic created by a team from OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree.com led by AirSafeNews.com follower Tony Shin. The graphic is based on data from a variety of sources, including media reports and is somewhat critical on the TSA's policies and effectiveness, including claims that although know terrorists have flown on US airlines numerous times since TSA was created, none have ever been stopped from boarding by TSA.

We'd like to know what you think abou the graphic, or what you think about the direction the TSA has taken in recent months, so please feel free to leave comments.

Social Media's Role in Airline Safety

Listen to the audio podcast of this article

The January 2009 ditching of the US Airways flight in the Hudson River was a rare combination of a spectacular plane crash that generated massive worldwide attention without killing anyone.

The plane went down as a result of a midair collision with a flock of geese shortly after takeoff from New York's La Guardia Airport. For aviation safety organizations involved with dealing with the threat of bird strikes, among them Bird Strike Committee USA, the US Airways ditching in New York was an important event because the accident will very likely lead to industry wide changes in regulations and procedures associated with bird and wildlife hazards.

This event also served as an excellent example of how popular social media applications like Twitter and YouTube affect how the public finds out about plane crashes. It also shows that any organization that wants to play a significant role in any public debate about bird strike hazards should aggressively use these and other social media tools to help educate and inform the public.

While the accident took place on the doorstep of the most important media center in the United States, many of the early images from the crash came not from the media, but from witnesses. One of the most well known photos was from a cell phone camera of Janis Krums, a passenger on one of the ferry boats that helped to rescue passengers and crew. The picture was uploaded from the passenger's iPhone to TwitPic, a service that allows Twitter users to upload photos (see photo on TwitPic).

Twitter wasn't the only social media application working overtime that day. Video sharing sites like YouTube were flooded with user-generated content that collectively had hundreds of thousands of views within a day.

If social media applications like Twitter didn't exist, a plane crash in New York City would still get massive amounts of attention from the major media. However, the "Miracle on the Hudson" accident also showed how an average eyewitness of a dramatic news event like a plane crash can easily distribute images and other newsworthy information that could reach tens of thousands in a matter of minutes.

Until recently, one of the few options for online publishing was through a web site. Ten years ago, AirSafe.com helped launch the Bird Strike Committee USA web site, Birdstrike.org. One of the stated purposes was to have the site act as a resource for the media and the general public, especially if there were an event like as a bird strike-related crash.

Even in the days before Google, search engines were the most important way that users could locate information online. Because the birdstrike.org web site had been active for many years, and because it included a wide range of bird strike related information, the site was often among the top results for many bird and wildlife strike related searches. Because of this, major media organizations were able to find basic information about bird strikes and to contact many of the key Bird Strike Committee USA members, and as a result many of these members were able to provide insights and information to a broad audience in the hours after the crash.

It used to be that you only needed a solid web site, or perhaps a blog to keep an online audience informed. This approach is no longer good enough. You need more than web sites and blogs to keep in touch with an audience, because that audience is using emerging social media tools to develop different kinds of ongoing relationships with other users, and to find news and other information.

For an example of the differences between the Internet of today, and the Internet of a few years ago, one just needs to look at the online realities of two New York area plane crashes, TWA Flight 800 in 1996 and the 2009 Hudson River ditching involving US Airways. Flight 800 happened in July 1996, just two weeks after AirSafe.com was launched. While there were many web sites like AirSafe.com that provided information on the crash, web sites controlled by major media organizations like CNN and the BBC were by far the most important sources of information for news about the crash.

In 1996, there was no YouTube, Twitter, Blogger, Facebook, Flickr, or any other easy to use tools for sharing photos, videos, and other information online. While AirSafe.com had plenty of information about Flight 800, the site had only a tiny impact on the public's awareness of the accident, with only about 35 visits on the day of the crash.

In contrast, within minutes of the US Airways ditching on the Hudson, there were thousands of people around the world who were contacting each other on Twitter, uploading videos to YouTube, and photos to Flickr. True, much of it was simply copied from traditional news organizations, but some of it was both original and unique. In many cases, traditional media relied on the public for information rather than the other way around. By the way, traffic on AirSafe.com was a bit higher in 2009 than it was in 1996, with about 12,000 web site visits on the day of the event, plus at least 5,000 views or downloads of AirSafe.com's initial podcast about the crash.

The changing nature of the Internet, and the dramatic rise in the importance of newer social media applications, makes it necessary for organizations like Bird Strike Committee USA to expand its relationship with the Internet. Fortunately for the Committee, there are many examples of social media use that can be followed, and most of them require no up front or ongoing costs. Perhaps the most pressing needs are in the following three areas: first, a review of existing web site policies and content to ensure that the site continues to rank well for key wildlife hazard related search terms. Second, development of policies or guideance for the use of evolving social media applications, to better coordinate public education and public outreach efforts. Third, encouraging the use of these same social media technologies among the organizations that support the work of the Committee.

While the early development of an informative web site was an innovation that put Bird Strike Committee USA well ahead of similarly structured aviation safety organizations, recent events have highlighted the fact that adopting at least some of the newer social media technologies is essential if Bird Strike Committee USA is to maintain its relatively high online profile.

For additional information about Bird Strike Committee USA, and about bird strike-related issues, please visit birds.airsafe.org.

Selected Social Media Applications Used by AirSafe.com
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Flickr
Podcast (main page)
Podcast (subscription)
Mailing List
Prlog.org (online press releases)
Bird Strike Blog
Crash Video Blog

FAA Backs Down - Will Release Bird Strike Database to Public

Just two days after the deadline for submissions of public comments about their proposal to severely restrict public access to a major bird strike database, the Department of Transportation has overruled the FAA and has announced that the FAA will go in the opposite direction, releasing virtually every bit of data to the public.

The FAA is scheduled to make the database available online on Friday April 24th at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/public_html/index.html#access I contacted the FAA on the 23rd, and I was told that there will by 94 data fields available, including just about everything except the phone number of the submitter.

This level of public disclosure is above and beyond the minimum that I suggested in my comments to the FAA, and well beyond what I expected to happen. I certainly look forward to reviewing the database when it becomes available.

For the AirSafe.com audience, I will continue to offer support to anyone who has questions about how to analyze the data. If you do have questions or comments, feel free to contact me at feedback.airsafe.org.

AirSafe.com Response to the FAA Bird Stike Database Proposal

The FAA proposal to restrict access to their most extensive database of bird and wildlife strikes has been discussed extensively at AirSafe.com and by major news media. Judging by the response of the public and of a variety of aviation experts, including Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com, it's fair to say that there is very little support for the rule changes. However, being opposed to the rule change doesn't affect some key issues around the FAA's Wildlife Hazard Database. One of those key questions is what kind of data should be made available to the public.

The public is invited to respond to the FAA proposal, and earlier entries in the AirSafe.com News provided information on how to respond. AirSafe.com and the AirSafe.com News encourage its readers to provide input about this issue. Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com has drafted an extensive response to the FAA proposal that refutes several of the arguments made by the FAA and that also provides specific suggestions both for what kinds of additional information should be included in the database, and what kinds of identifying information could be removed from database entries without sacrificing the usefulness of the data to the general public.

Please download and review a copy of this draft response. Feel free to share your comments about this response, either on this blog or by using the AirSafe.com feedback form at feedback.airsafe.org.

Additional Resources
How to Respond to an FAA Recommended Rule Change
Draft Response by Dr. Todd Curtis
FAA Proposal to Restrict Public Access to Safety Data

Senator Barack Obama Involved in Aircraft Mishap on 12 January 2008

United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama was a passenger in a Gulfstream 2 aircraft that collided with another aircraft on the ground at Midway Airport in Chicago. Senator Obama, members of his campaign staff, and Secret Service agents had just flown in from Nevada, where he had been campaigning. The left wingtip of the Gulfstream hit the right wingtip of a parked and unoccupied Cessna 208 aircraft.The impact was so minor that no one on the plane noticed any damage until later.

While the incident caused no injuries and only minor aircraft damage, it does bring up a potential public policy issue. Specifically, the issue of what should be considered an acceptable air transportation risk for presidential candidates. A comparison can be made with the policy on Secret Service protection for presidential candidates. Prior to the assassination of the presidential candidate Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, there were no clear standards or legal requirements for physical security of presidential candidates. Security decisions were largely left up to local law enforcement and to the candidates' campaign staffs. After the assassination, the US Congress authorized protection of major presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees.

The nature of the US presidential electoral process demands that candidates have to travel a great deal during the months leading up to the election. The candidates typically use a variety of air travel options, from scheduled commercial airliners to privately chartered aircraft. While there are risks with any type of air travel, the risks are higher for some kinds of flights. Senator Obama's aircraft was operating as a nonscheduled air carrier flight under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which are less strict than the Part 121 regulations for larger air carrier aircraft, and more strict than the Part 91 regulations for general aviation. Historically, the accident risk has been highest for Part 91 flight operations, significantly lower for Part 135 operations, and lower still for Part 121 operations. For example, in 2006 the NTSB estimated that the accident rate for general aviation flights was about four times greater than the Part 135 accident rate, and about 50 times greater than the rate for Part 121 air carrier flights.

The potential policy issue is whether exposure to air travel risks faced by presidential candidates should be limited by requiring that flights taken by candidates meet some minimum standard. A realistic limitation could take many forms, such as use of only approved aircraft operators or airlines, or perhaps requiring that candidates use government or military air transportation. The reasons for even considering such a a policy are the potentially negative political and social impacts of having a candidate seriously injured or killed during a campaign, especially from managable risks such as those associated with air travel.

Fortunately, Senator Obama was not injured in his aircraft mishap. However, given the risks that he and the other candidates will continue to face, it seems reasonable to consider some kind of risk reduction policy now, and by doing so perhaps preventing a catastrophic disruption to the political process.

Related Resources
Selected Fatal Events Involving US Political Figures
NTSB Accident Rate Estimates for 2006