Ongoing Harvard health studies need input from pilots and flight attendants

Flight attendants and pilots face unique stresses and risks due to exposures that occur in the aircraft, as well as from issues outside of the aircraft such as fatigue brought on by disrupted sleep patterns. Understanding what those risks are, and what factors are associated with those risks, is a difficult and ongoing challenge that is being addressed in part by the following two studies from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

AirSafe.com has teamed up with Harvard to encourage pilots and flight attendants to participate in a pair of studies that will help improve the scientific understanding of health issues faced by airline professionals.

Flight Attendant Health Study
All US flight attendants are encouraged to participate in this flight attendant health study by taking the survey at fahealth.org.

Past studies have found that sleep disorders, fatigue, depression and heart disease were greatly increased in female flight attendants compared to the US population. Check out the survey today to help make it both larger and more comprehensive than previous studies.

Airline Pilot Health Survey
Past studies on flight attendants showed significantly higher prevalence for some types of health risk. This current study intends to collect similar information from pilots to see if their work environment is also associated with increased health risks. All current and former airline pilots, from any country, are encouraged to visit PilotHealthStudy.org to take this anonymous survey.

About your privacy
The researchers have taken steps to ensure that your surveys will be anonymous, and that it will not be possible to link any survey to a specific individual. In addition, you can skip any questions that you do not wish to answer, or withdraw from the survey at any time.

How to (not) fly with marijuana

In this second article about the upcoming changes in marijuana laws in the states of Washington and Colorado, we answer basic questions about how to fly with marijuana. Starting in 2014, any adult age 21 and over will be able to legally buy and possess small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, but this freedom is limited.

While these two states have changed their laws, the federal laws on the possession and use of marijuana have not changed. However, the federal government is allowing individual states the freedom to allow certain kinds of marijuana possession and use within the borders of those states.

Because federal law prohibits the transportation of marijuana (cannabis) by air, the answer to most of these questions is some variation of no, but for some passengers, saying no is not enough. Below are some detailed explanations behind each question, starting with yes answers.

The following questions are related to airports located in the states of Washington and Colorado, where both recreational and medicinal marijuana will be legal starting in 2014.

Can I bring marijuana to the airport? - That depends on what part of the airport. The secure parts of the airport, including the terminal areas beyond the TSA checkpoints, are under federal control, and federal law prohibits the possession of marijuana in these parts of the airport.

Can I bring marijuana on the plane? - No. You are not allowed to bring marijuana on the plane. In fact, you are not even allowed to bring marijuana past the TSA security screening checkpoints.

Can I put marijuana in a checked bag? - No. You are not allowed to bring marijuana on the plane either in checked or carry on luggage.

Can I mail or ship my marijuana before I get on the plane? - No. Federal law prohibits sending marijuana through the mail or through shipping services like FedEx and UPS.

Can I fly after consuming marijuana? - Yes, but it may not be a good idea. While federal law doesn't prohibit passengers from flying under the influence of drugs, if you are intoxicated, you may be prevented from boarding your aircraft. Also, if you somehow get on the aircraft and are intoxicated, you may not be able to react appropriately in emergency situations, and your behavior may be affected in a way that makes you a hazard to crew members and other passengers.

Can I use marijuana at the airport? - It depends on the situation. Outside of the secure areas of the terminal, state laws determine if you can consume marijuana. In both Colorado and Washington, public consumption of marijuana is illegal, so consumption out of public view would be legal.

Can I smoke marijuana in a designated airport smoking area? - No. These smoking areas are public areas for smoking of tobacco products, not marijuana, so the state laws of both Colorado and Washington would not allow you to smoke marijuana in these areas.

Can I consume marijuana at the airport if I am not smoking it? - Yes, so long as you are consuming your marijuana out of public view.

What is considered out of the public view at the airport? - That is up to the interpretation of law enforcement in Colorado and Washington. Also, airports may have additional restrictions on the use of marijuana on airport property.

Can I fly with medical marijuana if I have a prescription? - No. Federal law does not allow any kind of marijuana, whether it is medical or recreational marijuana, on airliners or in the secure parts of the airport terminal (beyond the TSA screening stations), and it does not matter if you have a prescription for medical marijuana.

Am I allowed to fly into an airport in Colorado or Washington with marijuana? - No. If you somehow have managed to bring marijuana with you on your inbound flight, you have broken the law.

What if I am on an incoming international flight from a country where marijuana is legal? - The answer is still no. If you are entering the country, you will have to go clear US customs, and federal law prohibits the importation of marijuana, or any drug paraphernalia.

Follow upcoming developments
AirSafeNews.com will publish a series of articles about the implementation of the changes in marijuana laws and regulations in Colorado and Washington and how they may affect air travelers. To receive those updates, please subscribe to the AirSafe.com mailing list.

Related resources
Airline travel and marijuana

Recent positive TSA survey may be misleading

Earlier this month, the polling organization Gallup released the results of a random survey of US adults from July 2012 that concluded Americans' views of TSA were more positive than negative. Specifically, 54% of those surveyed thought that the organization was doing a good or excellent job.

Would these results be a surprise to most travelers?
The TSA certainly welcomed this result, featuring a link to the Gallup survey on their home page. While this was certainly good news to TSA management, it may come as a surprise to passengers who have to experience the TSA's procedures on a regular basis.

Most surveyed were not frequent flyers
The positive results could have been a result of who was polled. According to Gallup, only about 12% of those surveyed had flown on a commercial airline flight five or more times in the previous year, and 48% had not flown on a commercial airliner at all in the previous year.

Could the questions have been different?
While there is no reason to doubt the results, one has to wonder what the response would have been to a different set of questions. For example, the survey asked for opinions about the TSA as a whole, and not about the behavior, quality, or performance of the TSA security officers who screen passengers.

Not clear who paid for the poll
Another unknown is who sponsored the survey. Gallup did not state if the survey was paid for by an outside organization or by Gallup. If it were funded by an organization that would benefit from a positive perception of TSA, that would not make the poll invalid, but it could explain why the poll results were released to the public.

Poll results may be out of context
Perhaps the biggest reasons to question the usefulness of the results is that the results were not put in a context of how those perceptions may have changed over time, or more importantly how those results compare with those of comparable organizations.

Since the TSA was established in the wake of 9/11, the public's perception of the organization has gone up and down. The positive results that were reported in the recent Gallup poll would be much more useful to the public if they could be compared with earlier results from similar poll questions. While it is possible that Gallup or the organization that paid for this recent poll may have this kind of comparative data, none were offered in Gallup's report.

Police viewed much more positively than TSA
TSA is not a law enforcement agency, and TSA screeners do not have the power to arrest anyone or use deadly force, it may be quite fair to compare the public's view of police and the TSA. This is especially true because of the steps that TSA has taken to have uniforms that look very much like police uniforms.

In October 2005, Gallup conducted a national poll that revealed that confidence in local police had dropped to a 10-year low, with 53% of those surveyed having either "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the ability of police to protect them from violent crime. In 2011, this figure was 56%.

Police viewed more positively than TSA
While the two polls did not ask the same questions, it may be quite fair to use the TSA and police polls to compare the public's perception of the ability of the police and the TSA to accomplish their core missions. One could conclude that while the public's perception of the TSA in 2012 is good, police had a better public perception in 2011 and in every year from 1996 to 2005.

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

Last Chance to Comment on FAA Database Access Changes

Last month the FAA proposed a rule change that would severely
restrict access to one of the most valuable databases of
bird and wildlife strikes available anywhere. If the FAA
gets its way, it will be almost impossible for the public
to review basic data about bird and wildlife strikes across
the United States.

The FAA invites the public send comments about the proposed rule
changes, and AirSafe.com encourages you to make your
views known to the FAA. If you want to send your comments,
must do so by today. For guidance on how to submit comments,
please follow one of the links below:

How to Send Comments to the FAA
Background on this FAA Proposal
AirSafe.com Bird Strike Information
Response of Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com

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

Send Your Comments to the FAA

The previous post discussed the FAA's proposal to restrict public access to the Wildlife Hazard Database. This post will show you how you can submit comments about this proposal online, and provides an example of what kinds of comments would be the most effective.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rule making by submitting written comments, including data, that deal with the possible impacts that may result from adopting a proposal. The most helpful comments are those that deal with a specific part of the proposal.

The FAA accepts comments online, by, fax, by mail, or you can deliver it in person. AirSafe.com will focus on the online option. If you want to use another method, the information is provided in the FAA proposal.

The online portal for submitting comments is at http://www.regulations.gov. If you put in the docket number (FAA-2009-0245) in the Search Documents box, you will be taken to a page with a number of options. To add a comment, click on the words "Send a Comment or Submission" or on the comment icon (it looks like a little yellow balloon).

Before you add comments, you may want to spend some time thinking about what you want to write. It is best to comment on one or more specific points in the proposal. I suggest that you take the time to read it over and come to your own conclusions. Below, I'll list the points that will be highlighted by AirSafe.com.

FAA Arguments and AirSafe.com Objections

FAA Argument: Information about bird and wildlife strikes will not be submitted to the database because the disclosure of raw data could unfairly cast unfounded aspersions on the submitter.
AirSafe.com Objection: There are three parts to this objection:

1. Individuals who submit information to the database are not identified.

2. Assuming that it is somehow possible to identify the organization associated with one or more submissions, for example a specific airline or airport, then if someone makes unfair or unsupported claims, then that implies that there was a very poor analysis based on the data. A competent analysis would likely put the raw data in the proper context and neutralize any unfair claims.

3. According to the US government publication Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-2007, only one in five bird and wildlife strikes are reported to the FAA's database. The FAA proposal contains no projection or estimate about what affect the proposed rule change would have on those who currently submit data, those who don't submit because of the current disclosure rules, and those who are not submitting for other reasons. Would the proportion of reported strikes go up to 25% if the disclosure rules changed? 50%? 75%? Perhaps it would drop to 15%.

FAA Argument: Releasing information from the database without benefit of proper analysis would produce an inaccurate perception of the individual airports and airlines and also inaccurate and inappropriate comparisons between different airports or different airlines.
AirSafe.com Objection: The fact that individuals or organizations may not understand how to do a proper analysis is not relevant because it is not the FAA's job to judge the competence, motives, or experience of those who may request data from a public database.

FAA Argument: Inaccurate portrayals of airports and airlines could have a negative impact on their participation in reporting bird strikes.
AirSafe.com Objection: As stated before, the FAA has no control over the actions of anyone who requests data. Inaccurate portrayals are always a possibility. However, the FAA has the expertise that should be able to easily counter any inaccurate analysis that unfairly portrays an airline or airport with a better analysis. There are a number of other industry organizations, including any affected airline and airport, that would be very willing to help the FAA to counter these kinds of unfair portrayals.

FAA Argument: The database should be exempt from public disclosure because when the FAA began collecting this data, it assured the entities submitting the data that the submissions would not be made available to the public.
AirSafe.com Objection: A review of the current online form and downloadable paper form for inputs to the Wildlife Hazard Database have nothing that promises that the data would not be available to the public. AirSafe.com's review of historical paper input forms going back to 1997 also show no such written promises. While the FAA may have made promises when the database was first created, the fact that for at least the last 12 years the FAA has apparently not made any promises of data privacy implies that they were not serious about their assurances made nearly 20 years ago.

What Should You Do Now?
If you want to make a comment to the FAA, do it before the deadline of April 20, 2009. Take the time to read the proposal and write down your comments. Follow the links given earlier and submit your comments to the FAA. If you need help or advice, feel free to contact AirSafe.com.