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.

Survey Results on the Use of Full Body Scanners

In the January 2010 article reviewing security measures taken in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt on Northwest flight 253, AirSafeNews.com conducted a poll about the US government's intention to increase the use of full body scanners. It was the most popular poll ever on AirSafeNews.com, with 103 responses. The questions were as follows:

• Do you approve of full body scans at US airports?
  
  
• Should children be scanned in this way?
  
  
• Have you flown on an airliner at least once in the past 12 months?
  
  
• What do you think about the increased security?

Those who responded were overwhelmingly in favor of the scanners. Of the 103 responding, 80 were in favor of using the scanners, and 75 of the 80 were in favor of using them on children. Of the 90 respondents who had flown during 2009, 70 approved of the scanners and 63 of them were in favor of using them on children.

Perhaps more revealing were the 59 people who wrote responses to the last question, What do you think about the increased security? Below, with some minor spelling and grammar corrections, are the responses:

1. It works to a point. More emphasis on racial profiling as we all know who the real culprits are. What is done currently punishes the normal traveler at the expense of being politically correct.
   
   
2. Good start. I was thinking about the shoe bomb guy We all had to take off our shoes and now the underwear bomb guy... would we all have to take off our underwear? LOL The big question would you rather have some probably bored TSA guy look at your private parts in a scanner or get on that plane and never return home? I don't think its a hard question.
   
   
3. I'm all for it. We should do all we can do to ensure safety of the traveling public. I've traveled world-wide for 35 years to over 60 countries. Passenger and airplane safety MUST be the top priority for the future. The people who want to kill Americans are not going to go away.
   
   
4. It will never be enough and most security measures are now for window dressing. Let us close all shopping centres in the airports and all food outlets. The airports will become safer. But an airport is not a military base and can never be 100 percent protected.
   
   
5. Considering the threat level, I think it´s acceptable.
   
   
6. Just part of flying.
   
   
7. The odds of a successful bomb on an airline are infinitesimal. As long as we live in fear, terrorism is working. What is needed is an information campaign to show how terrorism is NOT working, given that the chance of being on board a jet about to be blown up is zero, for all practical purposes.
   
   
8. Hogwash!
   
   
9. Better that than being blown out of the sky.
   
   
10. I think they should use anything to make flying safe. Would you prefer being dead over scanning?
    
    
11. Necessary in all airports that fly in & out of the US. Additional face to face interview with anyone who buys one-way ticket with cash & offers no personal background information. These are all red flags.
    
    
12. ALL available measures should be taken, including interviews of certain travelers, as the Israeli's do.
    
    
13. If it keeps us safe, I think the extra security is great and cannot understand why some people object to it.
    
    
14. WHATEVER IT TAKES IS OK.
    
    
15. By all means. Profile folks too!
    
    
16. Some parts are plain stupid, e.g. not going to the toilet an hour before landing will not stop anything. If they stopped me i would urinate in my seat if i really had to.
    
    
17. It is not worth the hassle, using screening lists is a better procedure.
    
    
18. Not enough.
    
    
19. Fine by me. Whatever it takes to minimize the risk of a person or persons coming on board with weapons or bombs.
    
    
20. Waste of time.
    
    
21. No matter what the governments do the terrorists can always find a way around the security. Either by waiting until security guards get relaxed or by moving to smaller airports or by using more sophisticated methods. Security can never ever be 100% successful all of the time. The terrorists only have to be successful once.
    
    
22. I am not worried about the increase at all, I would rather be safe than sorry.
    
    
23. It is scaring and makes Air travel worrying. We hope this will be fully utilized without any reservations ,airline crew must also be subjected to this type of screening .
    
    
24. I think that there should be more profiling. Concentrate on potential risk persons, even if this leads to accusations of racism or nationalism. Maybe passengers should be given clearance levels, similar to the classification system for national secrets. There could then be a group of low risk passengers who would go through the normal security procedures. Others might have to go though extra procedures.
    
    
25. I don't like it - but is very much a necessary evil.
    
    
26. Even though full body scan imaging is inarguably helpful in detecting threats and prohibited items, the TSA's use of this technology is a full attack on passengers' privacy. The TSA has proven over and over that it misrepresents and abuses full body scan technology. At many airports where the technology is in use, there is little or no hint that this method of screening is optional. For example, at BUR (Burbank, CA), the incoming stream of passengers gets randomly split between a regular metal detector and a millimeter wave machine. Here, the TSA gives no indication that the purpose of the machine is to view nude images of travelers, and only a small sign with tiny fine print indicates that passengers may request a traditional screening method instead.
    
    The intended purpose of forcing the technology on the unknowing public appears to be to allow the TSA to turn it into a primary screening method in the future with reduced public outcry. While US Customs have strong legal footing to invade passengers' privacy prior to admitting them into the country, the TSA has absolutely no legal footing whatsoever to peek underneath the clothes of US citizens and lawful residents.
    
    Every couple of weeks, there is a new story like that of the lady who was put into a TSA restricted hallway and forced to walk like a duck to see if something falls out of her private area; or one of my friends who was put into a concrete room without camera or supervision and a TSOP stuck their hand into his underwear trying to fish for nonexistent contraband. Even if the technology is automated such that prohibited items can be detected without a TSOP viewing nude images of passengers, it is still not the government's business what people have below their clothes or in their underwear. Other than explosives, this amounts to an unreasonable search which is prohibited by law, whether the passengers are carrying an implanted medical device, drugs, medication, or whatever they wish to carry.
    
    Technology may get better and better, but there must be a set limit how far the government can use it. Maybe one day technology will be advanced enough to detect the chemical composition of the blood flowing in passengers' veins from hundreds of feet away. The existence of the technology doesn't imply that the TSA or Customs or any law enforcement organization has a right to make use of that information or harass innocent people.
    
    
27. It is a real nuisance to the traveler but I suppose it is for the good of all of us.
    
    
28. Lame
    
    
29. I think our government needs to do what ever steps are necessary to protect the passengers and flight crew. I feel our government needs to get more experienced TSA employees. Why not hire our soldiers and give them a good job once they have fulfilled their tour of duty rather than go back to some other jobs they might have had before they went in.
    
    
30. Not enough
    
    
31. Waste of time and money
    
    
32. Too many irrelevant procedures. Security personnel, while performing assigned tasks, appear to lose sight of their goal. It would be good for the public to know what the increased procedures are yielding, this would bolster public support.
    
    
33. I approve of the full body scanners, but my concern is two fold. Why was the TSA not using them more before December 2009, and why are we still not accepting that "threat profiling" (I did not say racial or ethnic) is the way to go! Since all of the 9-11 attackers were male, arabic, in ages of 20-40 years old, that should be a dead giveaway to profile. We were not attacked by young "italian nuns" or "young Brazilian tourists", but by 19 young men of arabic descent or origin. I believe it would be far more effective and cost beneficial to start doing this "threat profiling" on anyone that fits that description, instead of this "charade" of doing a "computer random" sampling, which means we waste our efforts on a 79-year-old Irish nun, or a 62-year-old auto worker from Michigan.
    
    
34. Good. Questionary (Asking questions) like El Al would be good.
    
    
35. Complete waste of time and money. Current systems are adequate for the task.
    
    
36. It's a must.
    
    
37. Negligible
    
    
38. Some of the rules are ridiculous like no getting up during the last hour of the flight and no carryons for flights heading to the U.S. Those wouldn't have prevented the Northwest bombing attempt.
    
    
39. It was hurry-up and wait, it could be a smoother process if we would adopt the Israeli security practices, (especially their predictive profiling and security questioning).
    
    
40. Keep us safe.
    
    
41. Happy to spend a few extra hours to help reduce the probability of NOT arriving at my destination.
    
    
42. Only stands to reason nowadays.
    
    
43. I am writing my Dissertation on Commercial Aviation Security to complete me Doctorate in Business Administration. Dr. Andrew Thomas is one of my committee members; I enjoy his guidance and conversations. I believe that we are in big trouble and politics is getting in the way of real security. The people in charge are clueless to direct the security, most of the TSA leadership does not have a aviation background and the average person does not understand that it is the leadership causing the system to be flawed.
    
    
44. Extra care is needed.
    
    
45. The first question is not well formed; the question should include how the full body scanners are used; if they were used as a secondary screening of those people of interest or for suspicion, I would approve. Second, the thing that saddens and amuses me is that all the measures the TSA is pushing in response to the December 2009 attack are imposed at US airports on mostly US passengers. If such screening were carried out at airports to foreign airports for flights destined for the US, I'd believe in their positive efficacy. Lastly, the reports or requirements to turn off electronic equipment and remain seated during an extended period before landing, keeping laps clear of items such as blankets for large portions of the flight, and additional restrictions on when the lavatories (can be used) seems absolutely ridiculous. This is sort of like closing the barn door after the horses ran out. What this means is that the potential terrorist will start their actions a little earlier than planned but literally millions of passengers will be unnecessarily bored,and scared senseless, with no chance of increasing safety.
    
    
46. It is the right thing to do.
    
    
47. Increase it more.
    
    
48. Body scanner will help overcoming some fundamental deficiencies when it comes to passenger screening. However, it will require screeners to be able to 'interpret' devices, items or substances identified by these systems. Again, technology is not the only means and there is no single 100% cure for aviation security.
    
    
49. I am still uneasy about flying. How do the TSA know who to screen and who not to, what if a terrorist does not get a full body scan? I would much rather take the risks of driving than flying at this point.
    
    
50. Necessary evil.
    
    
51. Every reasonable method must be used to stop would be terrorists. Full body scanner fall within the realm of reasonable. Better ticket counter 'tip off', and identification and alerts for secondary screening should be implemented ASAP. Hidden CCTV cameras should be installed at each ticket counter so that positive ID can be made for those deemed suspicious (no luggage, cash ticket, nervous behavior, etc.) by the ticket agent so that secondary screening can be conducted by TSA and foreign airports with flights to US. Use Israeli screening methods at secondary screening points.
    
    
52. Cero
    
    
53. What is needed for air safety must be done. Safety before privacy when you want to fly.
    
    
54. While I do not object to more security procedures, I do believe the airports should be profiling people. We have had proven data that young males of middle eastern nationality are prime suspects. Subjecting children under say the age of 10, elderly people in wheelchairs, and medal of honor recipients to screening and searching is NOT the answer to better security. Body scans would help, but since not all airports would be having the equipment, that leaves holes in the process
    
    
55. If somebody shows abnormal behavior, it is possible for him/her. But it must not be for everybody.
    
    
56. FUD
    
    
57. A joke. Implement it ASAP regardless of who complains, especially the ACLU (all criminals love us).
    
    
58. Security definitely needs to improve and be strong enough to prevent future hijackings. I don't want any terrorist attacks happening ever again.
    
    
59. It really is pointless, I personally can think of a few major holes in the security procedures which still have not been discovered and could easily bring down a plane. What's more, they aren't even difficult to do. My point being you will never truly make a flight totally safe as was said here. Arm the Pilots and Crew and you might be safe though.

Photo: gregoryjameswalsh

Airline Safety Survey Results

Last week, we put out a survey along with the article about the European Union's recently updated list of banned airlines. The article also included a comparison between the EU preference of banning airlines to the FAA preference of evaluating national civil aviation authorities. The survey in the article asked four questions, and 24 members of the AirSafe.com audience responded.

The first three questions had as response choices Yes, No, Not Sure, and Other. The fourth question asked for a general response. The questions and their responses were as follows:

1. Do the EU and FAA Go Far Enough?
These responses had the most agreement, with 16 of the 23 respondents agreeing that they don't go far enough, two agreeing that they do, and five who were not sure.

2. Are International Safety Standards Too Low?
Responses to this question were quite consistent, with 14 of the 22 agreeing that the standards were too low, four disagreeing with this statement, and two who were not sure. Of the 14 who thought that standards were too low, 12 also thought that the EU and FAA didn't go far enough.

3. Are US and EU Standards Too Low?
There was a variety of opinions here, with 11 of the 24 respondents agreeing that US and EU standards were too low, six believing that they were not too low, and four who were not sure. In addition, one thought that the EU standards were adequate but that the US standards were too low, another who only stated that EU standards were adequate.


4. What Are Today's Biggest Safety Issues?
This question had the most interesting and varied responses. They have been included below with only slight editing for spelling and grammar:

- Management forced cutbacks.

- Cost cutting on maintenance.

- In my view, safety hinges on two main items: pilot training and aircraft frame and engine maintenance. I also list pilot fatigue as a critical factor in airline safety. Get-home-itis is another issue that is not addressed often enough. That is, many air incidents have occurred because the command pilot was too anxious to get either home or to the next airport, often after lengthy delays.

- Hiring of security personnel is at too low a level of security, as is the out-of-public-view luggage inspection area. Once, fairly recently, upon arrival at a conference, I found a piece of someone else's junk jewelry at the bottom of my broken suitcase. While luggage inspection may not be on everyone's list of safety issues, I see it as emblematic of an airline's attention to detail. Which is crucial.

- FAA is too slow to issue EASA originated ADs (airworthiness directives) for Airbus airplanes. As always, economic pressures on both the airlines and authorities to endlessly cut personnel.

- Not enough consistency throughout the airport system (security and maintenance)

- Shortcuts on maintenance spending.

- Maintenance, crew training, and crew hours.

- The guys who work on the planes and the standards they have to uphold, in additional to pilot training and standards are the most important in my opinion.

- Boeing not inspecting planes before delivery.

- Security and too many flights with two engined jets. People feel safer with a four engined plane, especially on long haul flights.

- Extreme weather-due to climate chance.

- Air rage in flight

- Engine maintenance

Photo: gregoryjameswalsh

Passenger Electronic Devices Survey Results

Earlier this month, an AirSafe.com article on free wireless Internet access in airplanes and airport terminals included a survey on suggested guidelines for use of personal electronic devices in airplanes and airports. A survey in the article asked several questions, and 35 members of the AirSafe.com audience were kind enough to respond.

Using Electronics in the Sky
Not surprisingly, all but three of those responding have carried electronic devices on aircraft, with 26 reporting using a cell phone and an equal number admitting to carrying laptops or iPod type devices.

Most Think Guidelines Appropriate
One question was whether the suggested guidelines, which included using headphones, not displaying inappropriate images, and no cell phones in flight were appropriate. Of the 35 respondents, 23 thought they went far enough, four thought they didn't go far enough, and two thought they went too far. Six others were not sure.

Cell Phones in the Air Not a Popular Idea
The possibility of cell phone use in the sky brought out some strong opinions, with 11 checking the 'No' box and another 11 checking the 'Hell No' box. Coincidentally, 11 others checked the 'Yes' box.

Original Survey Questions and Choices
1. Do you think that these guidelines go far enough? (Yes, No, Not Sure, Other)
2. Have you traveled with a personal electronic device? (Yes, No)
- If you answered yes, what kind of device? (Cell phone, Laptop, iPod type device, game player, PDA, other)
3. Do you think that in flight phone calls should be allowed? (Yes, No, Hell No, Not Sure)

Other Comments
Perhaps the most interesting part of the survey was the variety of comments that were sent in. They have been included below with only slight editing for spelling and grammar:

- I think it depends on the circumstances. It's a hard one, because too much regulation is not good and not enough (regulation) leads to unhappy passengers which you really don't want in an enclosed space 32,000 feet in the air.

- I think that we have a right to view, read or whatever we want to do and for the phone call thing, what is the difference between talking on the phone or to another person on the plane? Get real!

- (Unless) it is an emergency written correspondence only

- In the old days they had a smoking section why not sections that allow certain things or even an internet cafe area.

- In-Flight content should not be limited.

- Life is evolution, and we must establish rules and education on behavior.

- The problem of one person's freedom running into other people's freedom from objectionable material already exists. You don't need WiFi to use your laptop or iPod on the plane.

- Too many already violate the law and confiscation of the devices is a must!

- Socks should be provided for mouths to passengers who insist on talking really loud on early morning and late night flights. And isolation booth for crying children like they used to have in churches would be a great idea.

Photo: gregoryjameswalsh

AirSafe.com Survey Results Plus American Airlines 777 Turbulence Event near Tokyo

Survey Results for The Text to Speech Narrator
Since last week's debut of the Macbook's text to speech function as a podcast narrator, many of you responded to the survey about this narrator and have given AirSafe.com some valuable feedback. There were 78 responses, 63 of whome listened to the entire podcast. Of these 63, 10 said would not listen to this narrator again and 12 others were not sure if they would do so again. Most of those who would listen to this narrator again agreed that it would be appropriate for shorter podcasts.

Based on these results, this narrator will likely be used again, mostly for shorter episodes, or to supplement other audio content.

AirSafe.com Visitor Survey
In an earlier survey about what resources visitors use at AirSafe.com, most of the 35 who responded said that they visited multiple AirSafe.com related sites or services, with AirSafeNews.com, Plane-Crash-Videos.net, and the AirSafe.com podcast being the most popular choices.

Roughly half of the respondents have not listened to or viewed one of the podcasts. If you haven't done so yet, I invite you to check out one of the podcast videos that are hosted on YouTube. You can find all of audio and video podcasts are at podcast.airsafe.org

Only a few of the 35 admitted to using any social media resources. Also, when asked what they wanted changed AirSafe.com, the most popular response was adding more photos. A BirdStrikeNews.com article from last month addresses both points to some extent. In Ten Free Social Media Things You Can Do, AirSafe.com provided suggestions for free and easy to use social media tools you can use, as well as an example of tools that are actively used at AirSafe.com. Based on your feedback, some of them will be used on a more regular basis throughout AirSafe.com's network of sites.

By the way, some social media resources are in the right hand column. You can join the email notification list so you can get an email whenever this site is updated. You can also click on the Twitter logo and subscribe to AirSafe.com's Twitter account. If you don't have a Twitter account, you can easily sign up. Also, if you use Google Reader or another kind of RSS reader, you can click on the appropriate link or icon and subscribe that way as well. If you have no idea what RSS is all about, that will be covered in a future article.

American Airline Turbulence Event near Tokyo
Earlier this week, AirSafe.com came across several small article news articles about a turbulence event involving an American Airlines 777 (N777AN), Flight 61, near Tokyo on Monday (26 October 2009). Reportedly, nine passengers were injured and five, including three children, were treated at a local hospital after the aircraft landed. The plane encountered turbulence over the Pacific Ocean, about 70 kilometers (43 miles) southeast of Tokyo's Narita airport. The aircraft landed without further incident about 14 minutes later.

Passengers reported that the airplane had already experienced strong turbulence for about 20 minutes. Also, the 'fasten seatbelt' signs had been on for about 45 minutes before the event. There were 228 passengers and crew members aboard the Boeing 777.

Since this was an event that happened in Japan, and because it did not cause substantial aircraft damage or fatal injuries, it is unlikely that information from this incident will be in the accident and incident databases of the FAA or the NTSB. If you find any additional sources of news about this incident, please leave a comment and a link to that information.

Related Resources
Turbulence Risks
Selected Fatal Turbulence Events
Air Canada Turbulence Event from 2009
Child Restraint Advice from the FAA
TurbulenceForecast.com

Report About Air Canada Turbulence Event from January 2008

Want to Improve AirSafe.com? - Fill Out This Month's Survey and Tell Us How

Welcome to AirSafe.com's October 2009 survey. We've made several changes over the last few months, and we want to get your feedback about your experience with AirSafe.com and the podcasts, blogs, web sites, or other resources associated with AirSafe.com.

Please answer one or more questions. We'll provide a summary of the results next month.

---

---