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

Why an air travel ban for Ebola may not help

In the days after the first Ebola fatality in the US in early October 2014, from a person who contracted the disease in Liberia and later flew to Dallas, TX, there have been concerns in some circles, most notably in the political arena and throughout social media, that there should be some kind of travel ban put into effect to keep other infected persons from traveling to the US. These concerns were due in part to the fact that two of the medical personnel who were involved with the treatment of the Ebola patient in Dallas also contracted Ebola.

US government passenger screening
In mid-October 2014, the US government implemented a screening process to check travelers flying to the US from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea for either Ebola-like symptoms, or exposure to the Ebola virus. This was done to manage the risk the US population faced from travelers who may be infected with the Ebola virus and who knowingly or unknowingly fly to the US.

The screening program was in effect for five US airports that accounted for about 95% of the travelers to come to the US directly from those countries. This program lessened the effect of a risk, specifically making it less likely that someone exposed to or infected by Ebola would also expose the general population to that disease.

While this screening program provided some protection from arriving passengers who may have been exposed to Ebola, it did not go as far as an outright ban of travel by people from that region, a ban which could potentially have eliminated the risk or made it much less likely to occur.

Reasons a ban may be impractical
While the idea of a ban on travel to and from the three most affected African countries, may appear to be a prudent step to take to keep the epidemic from spreading to America, there are a number of reasons that it may not be effective, and in fact may make it harder to control the Ebola epidemic in the most heavily impacted countries. A few of those reasons include the following:

• No US airline provides direct service to Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea, and the US government has no legal authority ban flights to the affected countries by non-US airlines.

• US citizens and permanent residents are allowed to travel to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea without prior approval from the US government.

• Banning international travel to or from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea would have done nothing to address domestic flights taken by those already in the US who were recently in one of those three countries.

• Several thousand US residents who are or may soon be traveling between those three countries and the US are medical professionals, civil servants, military personnel, and others who are or will be part of ongoing efforts to control the Ebola epidemic.

While the US at present has no outright travel bans in place, the changing nature of the Ebola epidemic may lead to some kind of travel ban in the future. For additional details on the kinds of travel bans that could be put into place, as well as why enforcing such bans may be difficult, visit AirSafe.com's Air travel bans to control epidemics page.

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

FAA report raises questions about the oversight of maintenance repair stations

On 1 May 2013, the FAA Office of Inspector General office released a report (AV-2013-073) that detailed ongoing difficulties that the FAA has in overseeing the repair stations that provide airline maintenance services in the US and overseas. Like the airlines, organizations that provide FAA-approved repairs to airliner aircraft have to meet FAA regulatory standards.

While these organizations can be owned and controlled by an airline, increasingly these kinds of services, which could range from basic maintenance checks to complete aircraft overhauls, are being performed by contractors hired by the airliner rather than by an airline's own employees.

Based on a detailed study of a sample of certified repair stations in the US and elsewhere, Some of the key findings of the report was that while the FAA has invested significant efforts to create risk-based inspection procedures, those procedures are often ineffective, and in many cases inspectors don't even use the procedures when evaluating repair stations.

Aircraft maintenance responsibilities
Airlines are responsible for making sure that aircraft are maintained and repaired to the regulatory standards set forth by the FAA. Whether this work is done by the airline or an airline contractor, the organization doing the repairs has to do so according to FAA regulations. The FAA is responsible for making sure that the repair organizations meet FAA standards, and if they don't, the FAA is supposed to provide those organizations with guidance on how to stay in compliance.

Key issues raised by the report
According to the report, the ability of the FAA to fulfill their responsibilities has been hampered by the organization's lack of standardized processes, including missing or inadequate training of inspectors and not providing adequate guidance to repair stations.

What is a repair station?
The term 'repair station' refers to a maintenance facility that is certified by the FAA to perform maintenance, repair, inspection, overhaul, and alteration of aircraft and aircraft products. Not all repair stations are created equal, with only a small fraction of these stations authorized to maintain the kinds of large airliners used by most passengers.

Where the problems are
The report gives the impression that there is a serious problem with a wide range of reapir stations, and in fact that may be the case. However, the study looked at a very small sample of the repairs conducted by these repair stations.

As of September 2012, there were 4,788 total repair stations, of which 726 were outside the US. Of all of these repair stations, only 68 performed repairs on the kinds of aircraft that most US airline passengers may use.

The study covered the period from September 2008 to August 2011, and looked at documentation associated with work orders at 27 repair stations, of which 13 were outside the US. From these 27 stations, the FAA looked at a sample of 119 work orders from a population of 49,859 work orders.

How big is the problem?
The FAA found 57 errors within the 119 work orders studied. Further, after reviewing the tools and equipment at each facility and the 119 work orders, the FAA also found 92 of what they called "systemic deficiencies" at these 27 sampled repair stations. Based on their sample findings, the FAA estimated that from September 2008 to August 2011 there were deficiencies in about 37% of the estimated 589,573 work orders completed by the stations that the FAA inspects.

How does all this affect safety?
The answer is not clear for two reasons. First, because the definition of safety varies greatly depending on who you ask, and second, because the problems uncovered by the FAA do not necessarily imply that aircraft that are currently flying are being improperly repaired or that aircraft or their occupants are exposed to excessive risk or danger. The FAA study looked at documentation related to aircraft maintenance actions, and did not directly inspect the aircraft that were subject to the work orders that were reviewed.

One of the more popular safety measures used by the public is the number of airliner crashes that kill passenges. Using that measure, US airlines (specifically airlines offering passenger flights on aircraft operating under FAA Part 121 regulations) are experiencing the lowest ever number and rate of events causing airline passenger deaths, though maintenance-related issues still play a role in some crashes.

During the last ten years, there have been four events that have resulted in passenger deaths. One of those events was the December 2005 crash of a Chalk's Ocean Airways Grumman Turbo Mallard flying boat, where the NTSB cited FAA's failure to detect and correct deficiencies in the company's maintenance program as one of the probable causes. That maintenance would have taken place prior to the period covered by the latest FAA IG report.

Key definitions of risk and safety
While safety is a word that is often used to describe aviation situations involving potential harm, safety is not a concept that has a consistent definition. On the other hand, the concept of risk is much more well defined, and that concept can be used to help describe the situations uncovered by the FAA report. The FAA in its 2009 document FAA Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2) has three key definitions that may help to clarify the key issues around the FAA Inspector General's report:

• Risk - The future impact of a hazard that is not eliminated or controlled.
• Risk Assessment - An approach to managing uncertainty. Risk assessment is a quantitative value assigned to a task, action, or event.
• Risk Management - The part of the decision-making process which relies on situational awareness, problem recognition, and good judgment to reduce risks associated with each flight.

In short, in the eyes of the FAA, risk is something that can be objectively defined, measured, and managed. In contrast, safety may seem like a related concept, and in fact some key FAA documents like FAA Order 8040.4A (effective 30 April 2012) explicitly state that the terms safety and risk are used interchangeably. The findings of the FAA IG report clearly imply that the FAA maintenance oversight process allows a significant fraction of work orders to be improperly completed. Because of that, it increases the amount of maintenance-related risks in the system.

Is safety different from risk?
Safety and risk may be the same in the context of some FAA documents, but that is not the case for the average passenger or even the average aviation professional. In general, safety doesn't represent something objective and measurable like the FAA's definition of risk, but rather something subjective like the acceptance or tolerance of risk or uncertainty.

Risk can be defined differently for different situations, but it typically uses two key elements, a specific hazard and some kind of frequency or probability of occurrence. Safety on the other hand could be described as a level of acceptability of a hazard, or the frequency of that hazard occurring.

To use a crude example, since 1960, the risk of a fatality of one or more occupants during an intended space flight is about one per 100 flights. In contrast, the likelihood of a fatality on airline passenger flight on a large transport aircraft has far smaller than one per million flights. In spite of the reality of fatal accidents for both kinds of flights, anyone who decides to fly in the air or in space would not do so unless he or she first decided that it was safe to do so (that the risk is acceptable) before strapping in.

Different points of view on the FAA report
Several prominent aviation safety professionals have had a number of comments about the report, and when reading these comments, keep in mind that they were likely talking about both risk and safety, though not making the kind of distinction made by AirSafe.com.

• John Goglia - This former NTSB board member with over 50 years of experience as a maintenance professional was quoted by USA Today on 6 May 2013 as saying that the discrepancies are a "major concern" because they mean that airlines aren't catching maintenance problems and the FAA isn't catching the airlines. Further, he said "That doesn't mean an airplane is going to fall out of the sky tomorrow, it means the system is broken."
• Christian Klein - Vice president of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association, an organization representing aircraft maintenance stations, said in the same article that "Shortcomings at the FAA don't translate into safety deficiencies in the industry."
• Rudy Quevedo - Director of global programs for the Flight Safety Foundation, was quoted in the same article as saying that "It's a perfectly safe system," but elsewhere he has also said that the problems identified need to be addressed as soon as possible to mitigate latent risk. Quevedo has also said that based on a standard risk management methodology of assessing probability and severity of what could happen because of the known deficiencies, that the problems, while serious, do not pose a "high level of danger" to air travel.

Quevedo's comments speak most directly to the way that the aviation industry may look at this situation. In the FAA Risk Management Handbook, there would be a high level of danger if the severity of the hazard were critical or catastrophic, combined with a likelihood that was occasional or probable. Based on the FAA IG report, it would appear that problems with work orders would be in the probable range of likelihood, but that the severity of the hazard is less than critical.

What's wrong with the 787? - Hard to say for now

Earlier this week on January 7th, a Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan Airport had a fire in the auxiliary power unit (APU) compartment of the aircraft, causing some damage to the aircraft and an injury to a firefighter. There was only a maintenance and cleaning crew on board, no passengers were injured, and as the NTSB photo below shows, there was relatively little fire damage in the APU compartment.

---

---

While most APU fires which cause minor damage don't usually merit much in the way of attention by either the news media or the NTSB, this event was different. The NTSB launched an investigation that included representatives from Boeing, FAA, Japan Airlines, and the Japan Transport Safety Board. This kind of involvement by multiple agencies usually happens for either accidents or very serious incidents. This was certainly not an accident as defined by the NTSB, but the NTSB's reaction implies that this is being considered to be a serious event, very likely for at least a couple of reasons:

• The 787 had a number of prior incidents since entering passenger service last year, including an electrical problem that led to an emergency landing of a United 787 in New Orleans in December 2012, just a month after United began flying this aircraft model.
• The 787 had a number of development issues that delayed commercial flights for several years.

This fire very likely heightened public attention for the 787 and led to a couple of minor incidents getting a higher than usual amount of national and international media attention. On January 8th, the day after the APU fire at Boston, another Japan Airlines 787, also at Boston, had a minor fuel problem that delayed a flight. About 40 gallons of fuel leaked from the aircraft. This leak was from a vent designed to release fuel rather than from a broken fuel line or some other system malfunction. The plane departed for Japan later that day.

The following day, on Janury 9th, ANA airlines in Japan, which was the first airline to operate the 787, cancelled a flight after the crew received an error message concerning the braking system. These last two events are so minor that the airlines are not required to report them to the FAA, NTSB, or similar civil aviation authorities in other countries.

Why is this happening to the 787?
Boeing's development of the 787 was different in two significant ways from that were a significant departure from previous large passenger jets. The first difference was the extensive use of composite materials for major components of the aircraft structure, and the second was the extensive use of contractors to design and build major aircraft systems, work that previously had been by Boeing.

Neither of these facts explain why these incidents have occurred. While many of the incidents that have occurred have involved the 787 fuel and electrical systems, there is nothing to directly several recent 787 incidents, including the following:

• An electrical problem that forced the December 2012 emergency landing, along with a related electrical problem found later in another United 787.
• A grounding of a Qatar 787, also in December 2012, after finding a similar electrical problem.
• A July 2012 engine failure during a taxi test of newly manufactured 787
• A December FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD 2012-24-07) requiring 787 operators to inspect part of the engine fuel system for possible improper installations.

What does this mean for passengers?
Unless the NTSB, FAA, Boeing, or the current 787 operators find something significant that may affect the safety of the 787, the recent events, however dramatic, are not a cause for concern. The 787 is a new aircraft model that currently has fewer than 50 aircraft in service, with over a third of the aircraft being delivered only in the past three months, and with six of the eight operators having fewer than six months experience flying this model. The first commercial flight was in October 2011, and Japan Airlines only began flying the aircraft in April 2012.

The recent NTSB investigation may have been launched in part because it is a new model and because there may be useful insights gained from thoroughly investigating incidents such as the Boston APU fire. As operators around the world gain more operational experience with the 787, there will certainly be more incidents. However, unless several of these incidents have one or more causes that are both related and unexpected, there would be real reason to suspect that the 787 has some sort of issue that is exposing passengers and crews to excessive safety risks.

Is it safe to fly on the 787?
If you define safety as an acceptable risk, then the 787 is safe to fly because there is nothing that currently indicates that the 787 has a much greater likelihood of experiencing safety-related problems compared to other large jet airliners. However, that answer may change as a result of the current NTSB investigation or after the airlines flying the 787 gain greater operational experience.

Sleep Apnea and Airline Safety

Sleep apnea, which is a sleep disorder characterized by abnormal pauses in breathing (and often accompanied by loud snoring) is an ongoing health issue that affects people all over the world, and can lead to higher risks of hypertension, heart attack, stroke, and diabetes.

While there are a number of treatments available for this problem, whether it gets properly treated depends on whether someone suffering from sleep apnea is made aware of the potential problem, and encourage to seek medical help.

What does this have to do with the airlines?
If you have ever been a passenger who was awakened in the middle of a red eye flight by someone three rows back snoring like an unmuffled chainsaw, you've probably been affected by sleep apnea. While sleep apnea in the passenger cabin may be an inconvenience, a flight or cabin crew member suffering from sleep apnea may have that condition affect the quality of their work, and the safety of everyone on board.

Recent article on sleep apnea
A recent article by two Harvard School of Public Health professors discussed whether some groups are more at risk for sleep apnea. Some of those risk factors include poor air quality, a factor that many air crew may be exposed to in the workplace.

Share your sleep apnea experiences
Please review the sleep apnea article and leave your comments on how sleep apnea may have affected you as a passenger or crew member. While the article focused on health disparities faced by low income populations, the flying population may be another population with increased risks. Your inputs may shed light on this issue.

Full disclosure
While sleep apnea has been a long term concern of the FAA, my interest in the subject today is sparked by one of the two authors of the Huffington Post article on sleep apnea. Dr. Michelle A. Williams is not only the Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, she's also my wife.

This was also the very first blog article she has ever written, and it ended up on the home page of the Huffington Post earlier today. We've actually have been learning from each other's profession for several decades, but this is the first time I've ever mentioned her by name.

Resources
FAA brochure on sleep apnea

Video shows advanced TSA screening devices failing to detect large metal objects

Earlier this month, Jonathan Corbett of the site TSA Out of Our Pants! released a video that allegedly demonstrated that he was able to sneak large metallic objects passed TSA's most advanced screening devices without being detected. These devices have been deployed by the hundreds across the US over the last couple of years and were intended to detect metal objects, explosives, and other prohibited items. In some airports, these have been used as the primary screening device for passengers, bypassing the traditional metal detector.

What is noteworthy is that Corbett performed his tests against both types of advanced screening devices currently in use by the TSA. The video below provides details on how Corbett discovered key weaknesses in these scanning devices, and how he used a very low tech method to successfully get large metal objects through the scanners without being detected:

What may be far more alarming than the demonstrations in the video are Corbett's claims that TSA representatives have attempted to intimidate him, as well as several journalists, warning them not to cover this story. If these claims of intimidation are true, it would represent a very wrongheaded approach by TSA. AirSafe.com's position is that claims such as the ones made by Corbett are best dealt with by providing the information to anyone who is interested and letting them judge for themselves.

This event is similar in some ways to a 2009 incident where TSA accidentally released a TSA document that contained extensive information about TSA testing of devices and TSA security procedures. In spite of concerns in some areas of government about the possible security risks, The TSA could do little to prevent the public from downloading the document. AirSafeNews.com also published an article explaining why the TSA has little authority when it comes to taking documents offline. While these procedures manuals may be currently out of date, they still make for very interesting reading.

The TSA responds to Corbett's video
The TSA, in their official blog at blog.tsa.gov, responded to the claims made in Corbett's video. The highlights of the response by TSA's representative Bob Burns, along with AirSafe.com's comments are below:

I watched the video and it is a crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures.

For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail, however TSA conducts extensive testing of all screening technologies in the laboratory and at airports prior to rolling them out to the entire field. Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.

With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all.

However, our nation's aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports. It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that completely addresses privacy concerns. Also, keep in mind that is optional. Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down.

Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com comments on TSA's response
The most important thing about the response by Burns is that it did not refute the key point made in the Corbett video was true, specifically if it were possible to sneak a large metal object past both kinds of advanced scanners deployed by TSA. It isn't necessary to discuss the detailed detection capability of these scanners, but it would make TSA's response more useful if it came out and said that Corbett demonstration was either real or not.

Burns did state several obvious points about security that I agree with, point which I discussed in some detail in a 2010 article describing how the TSA is unable to eliminate the threat from bombs. The most important point is that there are several layers of security, and that no one layer of security is sufficient.

One area where the Burns article may have misled his readers is in his emphasizing how much more safe the current system is with the advanced devices. There are few problems with this claim. First, he did not define what he means by safe. If he meant some measurable quality such as a reduced likelihood of sneaking a bomb or gun through security, then it would be helpful to tell the audience what that measurement is. Also, he mentions that the machines are at 140 US airports, but does not mention that there are hundreds more US airports that offer some kind of commercial airline service. A review of the the FAA's online air traffic database revealed that in 2011 over 440 airports offered some kind of airline service and 250 of these airports averaged one or more airline flights per day.

Perhaps a more accurate claim from Burns would have been that these advanced screening devices adds a layer of security for some passengers at some airports. Perhaps a more useful response would have been one that emphasized the the risks that the screening technology reduces, in this case the measurable reduction in the likelihood that someone could sneak a dangerous or banned item onto an aircraft, rather than on saying that the system is safer, where he does not define what safety means, and does not give any solid data to support this belief.

What I said in my 2010 article about why the TSA could not eliminate threats of bombs is just as true today, and if anything Corbett's video supports my position:

The threat from those who want to disrupt the air transportation system is one that constantly evolves. For every system or procedure that is put into place, those who intend to bring harm to the system will take steps to either avoid those measures or find a way to defeat them. While extra measures will not make air travel perfectly safe, they will likely make travel less risky.

Related resources
April 2010 reader poll results on the use of scanners

Responses to Survey on Volcanic Ash Flight Rules

In yesterday's article on the desire of airlines to change volcanic ash flight restrictions, AirSafeNews.com conducted a poll to gauge readers' opinions about the proposed changes in airline procedures. In less than a day, 157 readers responded to the following questions:

• Are current volcanic ash restrictions acceptable?
  
  
• Should the rules be changed as soon as possible?
  
  
• Have you been affected by the current situation?
  
  
• Will you fly in or to Europe in the next month?
  
  
• Is it safe to fly in or near volcanic ash?

A total of 157 people responded to at least part of the survey, and most were satisfied with the volcanic ash rules that were in effect before the recent eruption of the Icelandic volcano.

Of the 103 people who were satisfied with current volcanic ash flight restrictions, all but three of them thought that it was also unsafe to fly in or near volcanic ash. Of the 44 who didn't agree with current rules, all but 13 also agreed that it was unsafe to fly in or near ash.

While some airlines and airline groups are in favor of changing volcanic ash rules as soon as possible, only about a third, 57 out of 157 agreed with these airline industry leaders. Surprisingly, the proportion favoring change were not that different between those who have been affected by the current situation and those who have not. Of the 51 who have been affected by the current situation, 17 favored changing the rules. This compares with 105 who said they had not been affected, of whom 40 favored rule changes.

The story is a bit different for the 65 respondents who expect to fly to or within Europe in the next month, with 30 of them wanting the rules to change soon.

A number of the respondents also provided feedback to the survey request, Tell us what you think about this situation. Below, with some minor spelling and grammar corrections, are the responses:

• Sure it is not safe to fly near volcanic ash, but the airlines may change their routes with the authority approval. I think the measures taken were too restrictive, it lack more analysis of the situation.
  
  
• I have flown over 2 million miles to over 60 countries of the world in a variety of aircraft and weather situations. However, I would NEVER climb aboard an aircraft if I knew it was going to be flying into volcanic ash. Being a bioengineer, I know the ramifications of jet engines flying in that environment and what damage could result. I would not feel safe at all. I'm actually very surprised that seasoned pilots want to take their planes full of passengers through the ash clouds.
  
  
• Don't take any risks at all
  
  
• Just in the very few days since this started, there has been damage to some aircraft - which European airlines who choose profit over safety ignore. For engine manufacturers there is no acceptable level of ash ingestion. Why do LH and KL (Lufthansa and KLM) think they know better? Even if there are no short-term problems (which I would not bet on), not nearly enough is known about the long-term effects of ash on jet engines. It's incredible that airlines like LH or KL, which one used to trust, can assert that just because there is no visible damage to a few test aircraft, it's safe to send planes into a constantly-changing, unpredictable mix of clear air, fine ash and heavier ash.
  
  I would not like to be a passenger on a trans-oceanic ETOPS route 3 hours from the nearest airport on an aircraft that had regularly flown in today's conditions. Engine life will be much reduced. The replacement costs are unpredictable but potentially huge. And the insurance implications are frightening. If now or in the future a plane crashes because of ash exposure, despite all the warnings and the history, neither the airline nor its insurer would have a leg to stand on and might not survive the pay-out.
  
  
• If the airlines deem it safe to fly in, around, above or below the ash I am willing to fly under those conditions. My wife & I are flying to Zurich the first of June and do NOT want to cancel or change plans.
  
  
• As the spreading of the volcanic ash is unpredictable due to environmental factors, airline should has a plan to counter any foreseeable situation such as:
  
  1. All airports near to the area are to ensure all flight traffic are closely monitored;
  
  2. Extra manpower deploy to controller tower for emergency response and and ensure standby crews on alert;
  
  3. All pilots flying through the area must be trained to respond to emergency situations when encounter incident causes by volcanic ash;
  
  4. Pilots provide information to ground stations on visibility whenever flying through the area for data and information analysis, as well as to alert other airlines in case of anomaly;
  
  5. Airlines should consider taking longer route if needed to avoid the area.
  
  
• My husband, baby and I flew back to Paris the day the Paris, Charles De Gaulle airport closed. Our flight, from Dallas, TX was extended 1 hour (in flight) due to the volcanic ash. Instead of flying in over the UK (and the North), we came in from the south, delaying our arrival. I was thankful we were rerouted and didn't go through the ash, even though at the time I didn't understand the risks. I think each airline should conduct tests to see if it is safe, before flying through the ash. Customer safety should be the priority. If they fly too soon, and there are crashes, or casualties, that will cost more than the money they're losing by delaying the flights.
  
  
• Current changes proposed are driven by $$$$$.
  
  
• Lesson 101: Always - safety first. Never put a commercial aircraft - in any potentially dangerous situation, which can be avoided, This can be achieved by suspension of flights into known ash conditions. Europe does not have live satellite coverage, and ash does not show up on aircraft weather radar systems. Too dangerous to even contemplate, resumption of flights - as ash 'melts',at around 1100 degrees - engines run at about 1400 degrees. The ash plume is not static and 500 tons of ash a second are being propelled into the atmosphere by the volcano, and then distributed by prevailing winds in numerous directions, and intensities, at various flight levels. Far too many unknowns, to place any aircraft at risk - in fact - potentially a 'life or death' risk , when it is totally preventable.
  
  An accident waiting to happen, if airlines put commercial pressures first, and ignore the the significant safety risks indeed - 'life threatening' risks from the volcanic ash.
  
  
• The only evidence we have is based upon aircraft that have had serious problems when encountering volcanic ash. The risk factor therefore has to be rated as high until we can prove that aircraft can safely pass near to the ash.
  
  Should at this time, any aircraft encounter problems that result in a loss of life the airlines stand to lose the confidence of the traveling public not to mention the ensuing lawsuits. therefore the airlines have to tread very carefully before reinstating flights.
  
  
• The situation where an airline would be expected to assess the risk would create a classical conflict of interest, and it is a rule that such situations should be avoided (e.g. in scientific publication, where high level of reliability is required - a situation unexpectedly similar to passenger aircraft operation). I think this rule should be followed, and airline managers are not the best persons to assess the risk. Moreover, I don't like the situation when somebody would measure my safety in dollars.
  
  Eric Moody, captain of British Airways flight 9 on June 24, 1982, during which all four engines failed due to volcanic ash, speaking about the current situation said, "I don't know how thick this ash is, but I wouldn't go anywhere near it if it was me." (end of video at http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/15/iceland.flights.pilot.story/index.html)
  
  I agree with Moody! It is best for the restrictions to continue for flights with passengers. Just because test flights so far have not had any problems does not mean there won't be any problems. All it takes is one flight having a problem for there to be a tragedy. What happens if a weather pattern pushes ash into an area where it was unexpected? What happens when a flight has an emergency not related to the ash, and it has no choice but to change altitude, perhaps flying into the ash?
  
  This would be a good time for airlines and governments to research the behavior of the ash. Perhaps ways can be developed to reliably predict the movement of the ash and ways for flights in the air to detect or be informed of and avoid unexpected movements of the ash. With good scientific data, there will be a better basis for assessing the risk. I don't think we know enough right now to assess the risk well enough. That being the case, the prudent course of action is not to fly.
  
  I would also like to know what kind of testing airplane and engine manufacturers do, if any, to determine how much ash airplanes can handle flying through. Have engine designs improved in recent years to better handle flying through debris such as ash?
  
  I don't think it's a good idea for airline management to be the ones to decide whether it is safe to fly with paying passengers. They are under too much pressure to make money to have good judgment. It could also easily lead to pilots being made to fly when they don't think it's safe enough. It is essential that regulators lead the way in making these decisions, and that the primary concern be the preservation of human life.
  
  I think it is hard for people to accept any delays in a world of instant gratification. Sometimes natural events like this happen, and patience is very much a virtue.
  
  
• In my opinion, flights should not resume in the area of the volcanic ash, until the eruptions stop, and the ash dissipates. There is danger with ash getting sucked into jet engines and clogging them.
  
  
• As always, the airlines put the almighty dollar--or Euro--ahead of public safety. Airlines that are pushing aircraft to fly into volcanic ash should be ashamed of themselves.
  
  The last question is not a simple as it is. It should not be up to government controllers to determine whether it is safe to fly or not. 99.9% of them don't have the slightest clue to flight. It should be up to the airlines, and ultimately the aircraft commander who decide if it is safe or not. If a passenger determines they don't want to go or not, that's up to them to board or not, but they shouldn't get a refund. Just like how people who don't board because of thunderstorms or something don't get reimbursed if a pilot in commander determines the conditions to be safe, same should apply here.
  
  
• All experts should make cooperation and judge the situation, if it safe to fly or not.
  
  
• Safety should be first.
  
  
• "It is better be on the ground wishing to be airborne, than being up there with a total engine loss wishing to be safe on the ground". Now the pressure to change the rules will be a more economical influence than a safety initiative. This inverts the basic aviation philosophy.
  
  
• Total overkill once again in order to serve the minds of the weak or uninitiated who will believe that any deviation from the normal has a dangerous and fatal effect to everybody on the planet. This event has provided us with a perfect opportunity to carry out tests in order to evaluate the real levels of danger and effects etc,so lets not pass it up,the gathering of knowledge is only obtained by tests and experiments.
  
  
• The civil aviation authorities should have contour bands in and around the satellite images. Then allow flights in the outer most band and do detailed inspections. If everything goes well, then allows flights in the next band and so forth. When a given band raises concern, they should back off one band level and go with that forward since there are currently no set ash standards. That way aviation progresses and we real time establish practical limits until more research and knowledge can be gained. I think under no circumstances should aircraft be allowed to fly directly in or near the center of the actual emission plume.
  
  
• I am in Europe trying to get home. I would like your opinion Dr. Curtis, what should I do? Hang out here, rent a boat. I don't care how much its going to cost the airline, if I am dead that is a much bigger problem, at least to me!!!!
  
  
• Ask the insurance companies how they feel about planes loaded with passengers taking this risk. I suspect
  
  
• I do believe that flying within an area very close to a erupting vulcan and entering in a high ashes contaminated area would be very dangerous. I do remember well the KLM flame out since I was still working for that airline, but that was a different story. Nowadays I believe that some kind of hidden speculation is behind the whole story.
  
  
• I invite all of us to remember what happened in 1982, 24 June, to the flight BA 009 Boeing 747, en route from the United Kingdom (London) to New Zealand (Auckland), in its five-hour hop from Kuala Lumpur to Perth.
  
  
• I agree with the BA position: Authorities must collect and distribute info about the ash location and concentrations. Airlines must remain responsible for staying safe and thus over flying where and when (not).
  
  Politicians and airline management should not have the right to over ride safety regulations
  No opinion on first two questions without a full knowledge of the current situation which can change every day. How can you evaluate properly the risks by only one day test flights? Volcanic ash density is the main issue. No doubt that the aircraft will face severe damage entering in a visible volcanic ash clouds, especially in the clouds or during night when there is no possibility for the pilot to detect the high concentration presence.
  
  The very fine particles below 1 micron in volcanic ash, (not visible) can create severe damage which can be discovered after longer exposure. Visible fouling effects on compressor's blades could be detected with lack of thrust by the pilots after many flights
  
  
• Ashtam with area coordinates and flight level restrictions may open skies up to a 70% with new temporary corridors. Economy needs brave decisions
  
  
• Now that ash no longer exists at aircraft cruising altitude, the exposure of an aircraft in a normal flight pattern is much reduced. Similarly, there must be some sort of diffusion of the ash taking place as it travels southwards from Iceland.
  
  It would be appropriate to make a decision to fly when the ash concentration reduces sufficiently - even if it doesn't go down to zero. I think cargo only flights should be restarted first, with passenger flights restarted at a lower ash concentration.
  
  
• Sure it's safe to fly in the ash ... until there is an accident. It's probably cheaper for the airlines and transport companies to pay compensation to survivors and next of kin than it is to not be flying at all until the ash cloud dissipates. That's how it worked with the Ford Pinto, right?
  
  
• We are told that the large major eruption of this mountain lasted for two years, but this was before aviation. If this happens again and the present excessive curbs continue, aviation as we know it will cease, and those of us with families in the Americas, Australia etc, will only be able to see them on webcam. Aircraft sometimes fly through flocks of birds, surely more dangerous that minute particles of ash. Surely, with the deep blue skies we have seen regularly over the UK, the amount of ash must be negligible or non-existent
  
  
• It is very strange that there are no measurements of the volcanic ash in the different air layers. At the moment there is a cloud and no one knows the concentration. I could imagine that in certain countries more knowledge is available about concentration and risks for certain airplanes. I wonder if this could be used in Europe to deal with the problem.
  
  Again, if you know nothing a precautionary principle is the right one. It is better to say afterwards we were stupid, than that somethings dreadful happens. And as always, be careful for economic reasons.
  
  
• the great risk is if one aircraft's engines shut down and they fail to land safely. Every one's view will change again. If the met office can show rainfall why cannot its radars be tweaked to show volcanic ash?
  
  
• Safety first!
  
  
• In all of my years crossing the North Atlantic as BA Crew I always found the normal wind flow was from west to east. The latest graphic on this page clearly shows the ash heading West! I can't explain this but on the basis of the weather forecasts the the UK Met office issue I wouldn't believe anything they say about the ash.
  
  
• While there are strong reasons to change the rules, please take necessary steps and research, and especially time to ensure safety.
  
  Bottom line of safety - no injury, no loss of life, both actual and potential, for now and consequentially.
  
  Lets not let the idea of not losing money results in lives lost.
  
  If these criteria are met, please go ahead and change rules.
  
  
• Think Willie Walsh (head of British Airways) is correct - airlines are in the best position to asses risks in conjunction with customers (who may or may not like to fly)
  
  
• Despite the obvious number of incidences involving volcanic ash world-wide, airlines & aviation regulators etc should have devised an acceptable procedure or at least been involved in some debate regarding this matter. - We all know airlines do not want to publicly discuss aviation risks as it might lose them customers but surely this debacle has done more damage to the industry. -Furthermore the EU & governments in Europe have been caught off-guard & i fear in the aftermath (I speculate) some might exaggerate the risk so as to justify the blanket ban.
  
  
• Airlines will likely to downplay the safety argument because of commercial reasons. A few test flights are not sufficient to establish any evidence and to measure the risk.
  
  
• It is shocking to see airlines openly rate safety as NOT their first priority. The single reason for this is deregulation and full business activity / competition in the air.
  
  I am not a communist or marxist (quite the contrary), but flying masses of people in the air, if it is to be done safely, is just not an activity appropriate for profit making, i.e. for business.
  
  Only national (or national caliber) carriers, in an internationally regulated regime, could afford to place safety over financial considerations (i.e. politically and socially afford being just viable, financially).
  Another issue which brightly displays today's aviation business ethics, is RyanAir's proposals to allow standing passengers in flights, or reduce the number of aircraft toilets and establish toilet fees for passengers.
  
  The concept of making money in the air as a key aim of those concerned, is inherently contradictory to safety.
  
  
• Passenger safety is the key. Any ash concentration no matter how low this may be can cause malfunctions in on board equipment. One fragment in a pitot head can can cause havoc.
  
  
• On board detection of volcanic ash e.g. by VDL4 linked satellite data (similar to WX-link) or novel instrumentation (like WX-radar) needs to be developed to solve the problem.
  
  
• More effort need be put into determining the hazard level and areas...
  
  Low level flight for part of the flight should be utilized where appropriate....to avoid know hi level ash...
  
  It is 2010. Surely a better job can be done including the co-operation of many countries who are not affected making all airports available ( including military ) and setting up alternate routes to temporarily assist travel getting closer to home.
  
  IATA should temporarily abandon all those international rules of who can fly where and when.
  Surely a little co-operation would have gone a long way ?
  
  
• The survey on airplanes and volcanic ash is poorly written. What have the governments agreed to and the reasons behind the agreement on the volcanic ash restrictions. How many people in this survey have read the restrictions. Thus the first question should be whether or not people have read and understood the restrictions as it relates to volcanic ash. Likewise do people understand the 'makeup' of volcanic ash and all the possible problems that it could cause for an airplane flying near or thru such ash? Then, have they read and understood the applicable rules. Finally, why was the choice 'No opinion' omitted from the last question (Is it safe to fly in or near volcanic ash?) I don't know the answer to that yet readers were asked to select yes or no.
  
  I am not an expert on volcanic ash nor am I an expert on airplanes and the mechanics behind airplanes. However, the survey wants readers to provide a (potential) uneducated opinion about flying in or near volcanic ash. I'd look for alternative ways, albeit inconvenient and potentially costly, to return home.
  
  I disagree with AirSafe.com that the traveling public is in the best position to determine if flying in an area with volcanic ash is safe. The traveling public is self serving whereby most only want to get to their destination. I don't think that the majority of the traveling public understand the dangers of volcanic ash, engines, airplanes and the sciences that come into play. Will this litigious society be willing to forgo lawsuits against the airline industry should the airline industry lobbyists be able convince governments to allow them to fly and then an airplane crashes as a result of the volcanic ash? I don't think society will.
  
  
• I would hope that more testing would be done to determine what a safe level of ash is. Right now it seems like we are at two extreme's. One is a level of no ash at all and the other is a rather hazy determination of 'some' ask is ok. Too many lives are at stake.
  
  
• European Community urgently need to meet with IATA and Civil Aviation experts, Environment,crisis management and Climate experts to apply pertinent solutions.
  
  
• Safety first, I would not trust the airline to make the decision
  
  
• I think the profit driven airlines will push the envelope as far and as fast as they can until multiple collisions occur. they can do this with impunity because of the international limitations on liability for death of passengers. there needs to be scientific studies performed in a controlled environment (a lab). why has no one put a jet engine in a lab and bubbled volcanic ash in until the engine chokes up and stops ?
  
  
• Hard to say because obviously there are different opinions on this...
  The airlines are losing millions of dollars by being shut down--that is bad but there is never a reason to run an unnecessary risk to human life either;
  Both yay and nay sides have ulterior motives so to speak but human life should win each and every time;
  I guess the issues dilemma would be lessened if we had some very contemporary tests done by a neutral agency;
  
  
• I am in S.A and want to get home to England but I will never take a chance if it is not safe!!!!!!! How can Louis Walsh put peoples lives at risk to save himself money!! Better safe than sorry I say!
  
  
• The Commercial airlines that flew 'Test the Air' flights reported no damage but, at least two military jets flew around the same time and did report damage and it was there for all to see. The commercial operators' motives are heavily influenced by financial pressure and would probably be prepared to accept a low level risk as reasonable. Thank heavens the Air Traffic Services have executives bold enough to uphold the safety of passengers as paramount to the industry.
  
  
• NO DEAL WITH SAFETY
  
  
• There are many factors involved ,mostly money!! I think air companies must think better about this matter.
  
  
• Is scary because I was at Vegas last week and thought it would affect our flight was grounded.
  
  
• It's to risky.
  
  
• Very difficult situation. However we dare not leave the decision to airlines who have a financial incentive to risk flying into ash.
  
  
• I'm still outside of country UK, I have to wait and wait
  
  
• Strictly no flights to be performed. Flights to be resumed when the volcanic ash is completely eliminated.
  Also, all aircraft grounded within affected airports must carry out an engine detailed inspection and the fuselage for any signs of "hot" spots damages.
  
  
• Possible over-reaction and also no real tests conducted early on before the blanket ban was imposed. It cannot go on like this and I believe the airlines should be free to make their own decisions
  
  
• I think the situation is terrible and I understand why passengers are frustrated! However, I would prefer to lose money on extra nights in a hotel than lose my life! Therefore, I think it is preferable to err on the side of caution and continue the flight restrictions. I am not currently affected by the flight restrictions, but have a flight to Switzerland booked for the end of May and I realize that I may be affected if the volcano continues erupting. However, I would rather postpone my flight than fly in unsafe conditions.
  
  
• The best probable answer to safety of flight in or near volcanic ash is not yes or no. Like many other safety issues, it's a maybe. It all depends on the density of the ash cloud. I have knowledge of cases where planes flew through ash clouds, having their cockpits windshield and sliding windows sanded opaque. After a post-flight engine borescope, both engines were confirmed unaffected and remained installed for continuous service. Consequently, it takes a higher density to affect the engines (ref BA 9 or similar events). The objective of the authorities should be to establish a methodology to locate the higher density clouds that would be a safety threat to the aircraft. The airlines will not blindly fly into clouds of ash as the post flight inspections will disrupt operations not to mention the extremely high cost in case of engine damage.
  
  
• To be safe is better than to be sorry.
  
  
• People don't think, it's all about money. Sure!!! I'm sorry for the people who are stranded in another country, I understand they want to go home. I would!
  
  Again it's all about money..millions. What about safety???
  
  
• No one can predict with certainty what is safe but commercial losses should not change authority's cautious approach.
  
  
• I think that any steps that can be taken to prevent anyone from crashing into the ocean should be taken. Please no repeats of the horrific Air France crash last year.
  
  
• Hi Dr Todd. I've been " sandpapered" in an Alitalia 747 landing in Khartoum (Sudan), On fire on the way to Genoa . In free fall in a tropical storm in Rio de Janeiro . So many hairy landings at Kai Tak Hong Kong . Thus far I have avoided the volcanic ash threat , but I guess there is still time.



• $$$ is what's putting the pressure on authorities. One crash or near miss will be unacceptable.

Airlines Want to Fly Even if There Is Ash in the Air

Ash clouds from the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland continue to affect flights to and from Europe, canceling over 60,000 flights and affecting nearly seven million passengers. Many European airports, including most of the major ones, remain closed or open with very limited traffic. With many airspace and airport restrictions continuing until at least Tuesday, and perhaps for quite a bit longer, airlines are eager to renew flight operations, even though there is still ash present in the air above Europe.

No accepted safe levels of ash
Current European regulations prohibit commercial aircraft from flying in areas containing volcanic ash, no matter how low the concentration. In other words, there are no defined safe limits for flights through volcanic ash. This is reflected in the standard procedures followed by airlines when it comes to volcanic ash - avoid it if possible, and carefully exit the area if the aircraft inadvertently encounters ash.

Balancing risk and safety
Airlines and civil aviation regulatory bodies are faced with the dilemma of balancing risk and safety. By closing airspace and grounding flights, the aviation community has very effectively avoided any risks related with volcanic ask encounters, including aircraft damage and the potential for aircraft accidents. At the same time, the airlines can't avoid the financial risk of lost revenue from both airline passengers and companies that rely on air cargo services.

Volcanic ash is very hazardous to aircraft, but the hazard faced by aircraft is very dependent on the weather. Currently, the ash cloud extends over most of northern and central Europe, and in the coming days may even spread eastward toward Greenland and Canada. Also, the ash is not spread evenly at all levels of the atmosphere, and it is possible that aircraft could fly through an area with volcanic ash, but at an altitude that is clear or nearly clear of ash.



Test flights over Europe
In recent days, aircraft from British Airways, Air France, and KLM have conducted numerous test flights with no passengers on board, and none have experienced any damage or any other problem due to ash. Lufthansa also plans to fly about 50 aircraft back to Europe on Monday and Tuesday, with about 15,000 passengers on board.

Pressure to fly in areas of ash
Because the volcanic eruption may continue to go on for some time, and because it appears that aircraft may fly in the volcanic ash areas and avoid damage, several groups, led by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), are calling on European governments to figure out a way to resume flying and to do so safely in spite of the presence of volcanic ash, and in spite of the current industry practice of avoiding all flights in such areas.

IATA is not alone. One of the more outspoken airline executives is British Airways head Willie Walsh, who, according to the Telegraph newspaper of London, said "The analysis we have done so far, alongside that from other airlines' trial flights, provides fresh evidence that the current blanket restrictions on airspace are unnecessary." He also went on to say that "We believe airlines are best positioned to assess all available information and determine what, if any, risk exists to aircraft, crew and passengers."

Risk vs. safety - you be the judge
Earlier in this article, the two risks that were mentioned were the possibility of aircraft damage due to a volcanic ash encounter, and the certainty of airline revenue losses because of canceled flights and closed airports. Unlike risks, which can be measured and defined in an objective way, safety is more like beauty in that it is in the eye of the beholder. It can't be measured with any kind of objective scale, and one person's idea of safety may be quite different from another's.

The head of British Airways believes that is is in the best position to determine what risks exists. AirSafe.com believes that the traveling public is in the best position to determine whether flying in an area with volcanic ash is safe. Please feel free to respond to the survey below. Results will be posted in the coming days.

Update: The survey is now closed. The survey asked the following questions::

• Should the rules be changed as soon as possible?
  
  
• Have you been affected by the current situation?
  
  
• Will you fly in or to Europe in the next month?
  
  
• Is it safe to fly in or near volcanic ash?
  
  
• Will you fly in or to Europe in the next month?
  
  
• Tell us what you think about this situation

The results of the survey are available here.

Risk, Safety, and the Plane Crash in Buffalo

Yesterday, the NTSB began its public hearings into the 12 February 2009 crash of a Continental Connection Dash 8 near Buffalo, NY. One of the issues that is of interest to the media is the safety of feeder airlines like Colgan Air which operated the Continental Connection accident aircraft. While the aircraft had "Continental" painted on the side, and may have a similar paint scheme as Continental, the fact is that the aircraft was not operated by Continental Airlines.

One common question that AirSafe.com gets about this situation is whether the feeder airline is just as safe. When I was contacted by the Wall Street Journal on the day the hearing again, in my quote that appeared in an article the paper the next day, my point was that safety is a subjective concept, and different people can have different ideas on whether an activity is safe or unsafe. I gave the example of skydiving. While sky divers believe the activity is safe, most other people would think that it was an excessively risky activity.

This brings out a more important point, that safety and risk are not the same concept and and not substitutes for one another. As explained in some detail on AirSafe.com, risk, typically an unwanted outcome combined with the likelihood of that outcome, is something that can be defined explicitly and be measured objectively. Given the same definitions and data, different people should come to the same conclusion about how much risk exists in a situation.

By comparison, safety, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and does not have to be associated with anything measurable. For example, the FAA requires that any US airline operating an airliner with the capacity for 10 or more passenger seats operate under the same set of regulations. However, an aircraft that is designed to seat 10 passengers will have FAA design requirements that are very different, and in some ways less strict, than the design requirements for an aircraft that can seat 300 passengers.

The different design requirements imply that different potential risks are dealt with in different ways depending on the size of the aircraft. These differences mean that the risks of flying on these two types of aircraft are not the same. However, the FAA allows both aircraft to operate under the same safety regulations.

Risk and safety questions can come up in other ways during an accident investigation. During the first day of the public hearings, it was revealed that shortly before the crash, a specific warning system was activated, but the crew apparently reacted to the warning in ways that made the situation worse and led to the aircraft departing from controlled flight.

Even more revealing were media reports that prior to the accident, Colgan pilots were no required by the airline to have hands-on simulator experience that would show them how to respond to this kind of warning. To the average passenger, allowing pilots to fly a plane without having adequate training in how to respond to critical warning systems is both unsafe and too risky. It will be months before the public finds out if the NTSB agrees.

AirSafe.com Swine Flu Update for 29 April 2009

The first US swine flu fatality was confirmed by the CDC 29 April 2009. The victim was a 23-month old child who was being treated in a Houston area hospital. The CDC also reported that there were 90 other cases of swine flu in the US. Yesterday, the World Health Organization reported that seven countries have officially reported cases of swine influenza (H1N1) infection, including 26 cases and seven deaths in Mexico. The number of confirmed cases and deaths from the CDC and WHO may be very different from the numbers reported by other health authorities or the media. There have been no reports of swine flu infections involving airline passengers.

Swine Flu Risks for Airline Passengers

Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | YouTube
For more videos, visit the AirSafe.com YouTube channel.

AirSafe.com Passenger Resources
Centers for Disease Control Swine Flu Information
World Health Organization Swine Flu Information

Discussion of Fatal Bird Flu Outbreak on Airliners in 2003 (5:44)

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.

Interview on 'The Gregg Knapp Experience' - 18 November 2008

This interview from the Radio America show The Gregg Knapp Experience focused on a TSA behavior detection program that singles out passengers for extra screening based on what the TSA describes as suspicious behavior. Since the program began in 2006, over 160,000 passengers were pulled aside for additional checks such as a pat-down search or an interivew. Less than one percent of those passengers were arrested, often on charges related to drugs or carrying false identification. The TSA didn't mention whether any of those searched or arrested were on any kind of terror watch list, or intended to commit a terrorist act. During this interview, Dr. Curtis and Greg Knapp discussed the effectiveness of this TSA program.

For more information about what passengers can do to deal with TSA security issues, please visit tsa.airsafe.org. There you'll a number of resources, including extensive information on current TSA rules, advice on packing, advice on traveling with duty free items such as alcohol and perfume, and links to airline complaint resources.

You can hear the associated podcast at:
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show74-knapp2.mp3

Complacency and the Qantas A330 Accident of 7 October 2008

The accident earlier this month involving a Qantas Airbus A330 on a flight from Singapore to Perth seriously injured several passengers, but didn't result in any fatalities. While the event drew substantial news media attention in Australia and Asia, there was very little mention of it by major US media. This is very likely another example of how when it comes to airline events, it's difficult to get the attention of the US public, or of the policy makers in the US, if no one is killed.

My belief was that there would have been more media attention in the US if there had been at least one recent fatal event involving a US airline. While researching recent fatal US events, I found that the most recent passenger fatality on a US airliner was in August 2006. Looking back further, I realized that the US airline industry had quietly passed a milestone. The 26-month period between the last fatal US event and the date of this recording on October 21st, 2008 is the longest period without a passenger fatality on a US airliner since airlines in the US first began using jet aircraft in 1958.

One could argue that there's a certain amount of public complacency about airline safety when there are no major accidents. Looking through my archives, I found that this wasn't the first time I'd dealt with this subject. In late May 2004, the US airline industry was in the midst of another fatality-free period. At the time, it had been nearly 17 months since the last fatal US airline event. That month, I was interviewed as part of a National Public Radio program on airline safety that discussed some of the reasons for that absence of fatal events.

In the following segment, you'll hear my interview with Mike Pesca of NPR about some of the reasons behind the reduction of accidents. Also interviewed was David Evans of the publication Air Safety Week, who talked about how accidents drive the regulatory process.

Five months after the show aired, a regional airliner crashed in Missouri, killing both crew members and 11 of the 13 passengers, bringing to an end a 21-month period with no US passenger fatalities. Currently, the US airline industry has gone 26 months without a passenger fatality. This current fatality-free period is a sign that in spite of all the problems faced the industry, that the risk faced by passengers continues to decline.

Although this record is a positive sign for the industry, the recent Qantas event demonstrated that no airline, even one with no passenger fatalities in its history, is immune from accidents.

I'd like to remind the AirSafe.com audience that however good the system may be, there's always room for improvement. One way to improve things is to learn from those rare events such as what happened with Qantas earlier this month. AirSafe.com will continue to follow the accident investigation, and any future podcasts about the event, or news from the investigation, will be available at qantas.airsafe.org.

You can hear the associated podcast, which includes my interview with NPR, at:
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show73-npr.mp3

Interview with Amanda Ripley, Author of "The Unthinkable"

This episode of the podcast features an interview with Time Magazine senior writer Amanda Ripley, author of the book "The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes And Why."

Amanda has traveled the world, writing about and studying a number of disasters, including the attacks of 9/11, and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. She currently covers both risk and homeland security issues for Time Magazine.

She has written for a number of other publications, including Congressional Quarterly, New York Times Magazine, Time Out, and Washington Monthly.

You can hear the podcast at
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show59-ripley.mp3

Related information is available at
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show59.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Social Networking and AirSafe.com

Become a fan on AirSafe.com's Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Airsafecom/18541639875

Check out Dr. Todd Curtis at LinkedIn at
http://www.linkedin.com/in/airsafe

Do you Twitter? Follow AirSafe.com at
http://twitter.com/airsafe

Post a Comment to AirSafe.com Podcasts at
http://airsafe.blogspot.com

Post a Comment about an AirSafe.com video at
http://www.youtube.com/airsafe