Lessons learned and insights from the LAX attack

On 1 November 2013, 23-year-old Paul Anthony Ciancia allegedly used an M&P-15 assault rifle to attack TSA personnel and others at Terminal 3 at LAX. Ciancia, who was not a ticketed passenger, is accused of shooting and killing one TSA security officer and wounding two other TSA officers and one passenger.

According to the FBI's charging document, Ciancia took his weapon out of a bag, and fired at a TSA security officer at point-blank range. Ciancia went up an escalator toward the security screening area, but returned to his first victim to shoot him a second time. This was the TSA officer who killed by Ciancia. The alleged gunman later shot two other TSA officers and a passenger before airport police confronted him inside the terminal, shot him several times, and took him into custody.

Key questions about the attack
The news media an the general public had many questions about the attack, how it could happen, and what could be done to prevent similar attacks in the future. Some of the common questions, and AirSafe.com's responses, are below:

• How could someone get a gun into an airport? - While only authorized persons are allowed to bring weapons onto aircraft or even past the TSA security screening areas, the rules are very different in other parts of the airport. Local laws control what firearms are allowed to be carried in the non-secure areas of the airport, including the ticket counter areas where passengers take their checked luggage. In fact, passengers who want to travel with their firearms have to bring them into the non-secure areas of the terminal and have them inspected before the airline will allow it to be shipped as checked luggage.

• How could the gunman get past the security checkpoint? - There is typically a significant security presence in the TSA screening areas, and usually include a combination of TSA officers, airport police, and other security and law enforcement personnel. The investigative authorities have not release all the details of the attack, and it is not clear what security or law enforcement assets were available to keep the gunman from gaining entrance to the secure area of Terminal 3.

• How can anyone get that close to a screening area without a ticket? - Airports in the US are freely open to the public, and with rare exceptions like a heightened security alert, there is no screening of cars arriving at the airport or of people walking around the non-secure part of the terminal.

• Do TSA officers have guns? - TSA officers do not have law enforcement powers, and are not armed. They rely on local police or other law enforcement organizations to provide armed security.

• Were there police on duty at the Terminal 3 checkpoint? - The investigating authorities (led by the FBI) have not yet stated where law enforcement officers were located at the time of the shooting.

• Did the TSA or the government have any warning of a possible attack? - Neither the FBI, the TSA, or any part of the federal government has made any statement about what they new prior to the attack. Since Ciancia was not a ticketed passenger, there would have been little or no reason for for any federal agency to investigate him. However, the Los Angeles police department had been contacted by Ciancia's family, who had been concerned about his well-being. Police had reportedly tried to contact Ciancia in the morning on the day of the attack at LAX.

• Are other airports vulnerable to this kind of attack? - The security procedures in place at LAX are similar to what would be found at every US airport. While every airport has the same vulnerabilities as LAX, in order for an attack to succeed, there has to be an attempt either by a group or an individual. Since 9/11, there have been two attacks of this type in the US, both at LAX, and both involving individual attackers. In both cases, security or law enforcement assets at the airport quickly addressed the situation shortly after the attacks began.

• What can be done to keep this from happening again? - Many things can be done, and in the short term there may be an increased presence of police in or near airport screening areas. However, it is unclear if there will be any permanent changes in policies and procedures of the TSA, of airport police forces, or of airports. Major changes, if they occur, will likely not happen for several months.

This was not the first LAX attack
Coincidentally, the last time there was a similar attack at a US airport was also at LAX, at the terminal adjacent to the site of the attack on November 1st. On 4 July 2002, a gunman staged an attack in the area of the El Al ticket counter, and shot several people before El Al security personnel were able to subdue the attacker and shoot him to death. Two people shot by the gunman, an El Al employee and a passenger, were killed.

Responding to an active shooter situation
The Houston Police Department produced the following video with advice on how to survive an active shooter event. While it depicts an attack in an office environment, it offers insights that could be used to deal with a similar unexpected attack in other locations, including an airport terminal.

Were you a witness to what happened at LAX?
If you were at LAX the day of the shooting, you could help the FBI investigate this crime. The FBI is asking anyone with information to submit it at laxshootingtips.fbi.gov. That site is for submission of audio, video, photos, and general information relating to the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on Friday, November 1. No piece of information or detail is too small. You can also call the FBI Los Angeles tip line at (888) 226-8443.

Additional information
FBI charging document for Ciancia
FBI warrant for Ciancia's phone

FAA to allow airlines to lift many mobile device restrictions

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced on 31 October 2013 that it will allow passengers to use personal electronic devices (PEDs) during all phases of flight, and is immediately providing the airlines with guidance for implementing these changes.

These changes will not happen immediately. Airlines will first have to review their fleets and prove to the FAA that that they can safety allow passengers to safely use their devices in all phases of flight. The FAA expects that many airlines will be able to do so by the end of the year.

As with most changes to FAA regulations, these changes happened only after extensive consultations with technical experts and other representatives from the experts from the airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and the consumer electronics industry, as well as representatives from pilot, passenger, and flight attendant organizations.

What this means for passengers
These upcoming changes mean that passengers will soon be able use smaller devices like iPads, mobile phones, handheld video games, and ebook readers on the ground or in the air, with very limited exceptions. Electronic items will have to be either held or placed the seat back pocket during the actual takeoff and landing. The key rule changes that passengers should be aware of include the following:

• Changes to PED policies will not happen immediately and will vary by airline, and may not apply to your particular aircraft. Check with your airline to see if and when you can use your PED.

• Current PED policies remain in effect until an airline completes a safety assessment, gets FAA approval, and changes its PED policy.

• Your airline may have a PED use policy that is more restrictive than the FAA policy.
  
• While in flight, mobile phones and devices that can connect to the Internet will have to remain in airplane mode while in flight (the cellular connection must be disabled).

• You may use the Internet connection on your device if your airline offers an in-flight wireless connection.

• Even if your airline offers an in-flight wireless connection, it may not allow you to make voice calls using Skype or a similar Internet-based voice communication system.
  
• Your airline may also allow you to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards.

• You will have to stow heavier devices like laptops under seats or in the overhead bins during takeoff and landing.

• During the safety briefing, the airline will request that you pay attention to the safety briefing.

• There may still be some situations where the airline may request that you not use your PED, and if this happens, follow crew instructions and immediately turn off your device.

Related resources

• Advice on the use of personal electronic devices 31 October 2013 BBC interview with Dr. Curtis about the rule changes

• 3 May 2012 WTOP interview with Dr. Curtis arguing for a change in the old policy

• Protecting your laptop when you fly

Photo credit: Anna Langova

Lao Airlines ATR 72 crash kills all 49 on board

16 October 2013; Lao Airlines ATR 72-600; RDPL-34233; flight QV301; near Pakxe, Laos: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Vientiane, the capitol of Laos, to Pakxe in the southern part of the country. It crashed into the Mekong river during its approach and sank. The crash occurred about eight kilometers (five miles) from the airport. All five crew members and 44 passengers were killed.

About this aircraft
According to Airfleets.net, this ATR 72 was the newest aircraft in the Lao Airlines fleet, having been delivered to the airline fewer than seven months ago.

About the ATR 72
This is the sixth crash of an ATR 72 passenger flight involving at least one fatality. The previous events were:

1. 31 October 1994; American Eagle (Simmons Airlines) ATR 72-200; N401AM; flight 4184; near Roselawn, IN: This was a scheduled domestic flight from Indianapolis, IN and Chicago, IL. During descent, the crew activated the airframe deicing system. The crew was in a holding pattern at about 10,000 feet (3050 m) and while the aircraft was descending to 8,000 feet, the aircraft went out of control due to the effects of icing and crashed. The four crew members and 64 passengers were all killed. The icing occurred in areas of the wings that were beyond the area protected by the deicing system.
   Fatal American Airlines Events
   Wikipedia Entry for this Accident
   NTSB Accident Report Volume I  (Summary)
   NTSB Accident Report Volume II  (Summary)

2. 6 August 2005; Tuninter ATR 72-200; near Palermo, Italy: The aircraft was on an unscheduled international flight from Bari, Italy to Djerba, Tunisia when the aircraft reportedly developed engine trouble. The crew ditched the aircraft off the coast of Palermo. The aircraft had been on a scheduled domestic flight from Kish Island in the Persian Gulf. Two of the four crew members and 14 of the 35 passengers were killed.
   Fatal Events for Airlines of the Middle East and Africa

3. 4 August 2009; Bangkok Airways ATR 72-200; HS-PGL; flight 266, Koh Samui, Thailand: The aircraft was a scheduled domestic flight from Krabi to Koh Samui, Thailand, and skidded off the runway during the landing, hitting the control tower building. One of the four crew members was killed, but all 68 passengers survived.

4. 4 November 2010; AeroCaribbean; CU-T1549; ATR 72-212; Flight 883; near Guasimal, Sancti Spiritus Province, Cuba: The aircraft was on a domestic flight from Santiago to Havana, Cuba. The crew reported an emergency situation shortly before the aircraft crashed in mountainous terrain. All seven crew members and 61 passengers were killed.

5. 2 April 2012; UTair ATR 72-200; VP-BYZ;flight 120; Tyumen, Russia: The aircraft was on scheduled domestic flight from Tyumen to Surgut, Russia. The airplane crashed broke up, and caught fire in a field about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from the end of the departure runway. All four crew members and 27 of the 39 passengers were killed. This was the second fatal passenger jet crash involving this airline. The first was a 17 March 2007 crash of a UTair Tupolev Tu134A in Samara, Russia that killed six passengers.
   Fatal crashes of airlines of Russia and the former Soviet Union
   Additional information about this crash

Graphic: Central Intelligence Agency

Review of the new fear of flying book from SOAR

The new book from long time pilot and therapist Captain Tom Bunn, Soar: The Breakthrough Treatment for Fear of Flying, takes a unique approach when it comes to dealing with a fear of flying. In short, he brings the systematic and logical approach of an aviator to address anxieties and fears that make it difficult or impossible for some people to fly. Because of this systematic approach, Captain Bunn is able to explain the foundation for his methods for treating fear of flying in terms that make sense to the average passenger.

With this book, Captain Bunn has provided both fearful flyers and other airline passengers with three distinct benefits. The first was his development of a conceptual model of how the mind experiences and deals with fear, and explaining it in terms that are understandable to someone who is not an expert in psychology or sociology. His second benefit was to explain the basics of airline operations in ways that demystifies the mechanics of flight and gives an average passenger a very clear idea of how pilots can calmly deal with situations that can lead to debilitating anxiety in a fearful flyer.

Using his conceptual model of the mind as a foundation, Captain Bunn provided his third and most significant benefit for a fearful flyer by creating numerous resources and techniques that a passenger can use to overcome flying related fears, and showing how a person can systematically use his or her mind to consciously and unconsciously control fear.

The SOAR approach to regulating emotions
The basic SOAR approach is to first help a fearful flyer understand the basis of their fears and how their mind and body reacts to fear inducing stress, and then to show them how to automatically regulate and control their flight anxiety. The book, which is based on Captain Bunn's decades of experience helping thousands of fearful flyers, asks the reader to do two things, the intellectual task of reading the book, and the emotional task of working through numerous exercises that when completed will provide a fearful passenger with numerous tools and techniques to address their anxieties before, during, and after a flight.

Combining aviation with psychology
At first glance, it may seem that aviation and psychology don't have much in common, but Captain Bunn manages to combine elements of both worlds in his book. Like a pilot who has a combination of systems to fly a plane under normal and stressful conditions, so too does a human being have multiple systems to control emotions. As with an aircraft, there may be systems that run for the most part automatically or are used for routine situations, and others that come into play during stressful situations or when primary systems fail or are overwhelmed. So too with the mind, where an automated, unconsciously controlled system for dealing with fear is moderated by several other systems that can be consciously guided and controlled by any airline passenger.

What this book provides the reader
Just like the case with an airline pilot, having multiple sophisticated control systems at your fingertips won't give you any benefit unless you have a basic understanding of how they operate, and a good working knowledge of what procedures to use and when to use them. Just as a pilot doesn't have to become an aeronautical engineer to fly a plane, a fearful passenger does not have to become a psychologist to understand how to manage their emotions. Captain Bunn's greatest gift to the reader is the way that he has successfully combined a basic explanation of how the mind deals with fear with practical instructions for how to eliminate or manage that fear.

If you are a passenger who has anxieties about flying and don't know how you can deal with it, reading this book would be a good first step toward overcoming your fear of flying.

Additional resources
Buy the book
About the SOAR fear of flying program
Fear of flying basics
Fear of flying warning signs

United Airlines captain dies after suffering heart attack during flight

26 September 2013, United Airlines; 737-900; flight 1603; near Boise, ID: A United Airlines captain suffered a heart attack while en route on a scheduled flight from Houston, TX to Seattle, WA. Although the captain received prompt treatment while in flight and after the aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Boise, ID, he was pronounced dead after arriving at a local hospital. The flight later continued onward to Seattle with a replacement pilot.

According to several media reports, after the 63-year-old pilot was stricken, two passengers, both military physicians stationed in Washington State, attended to the pilot, and the remaining pilot, as well as an off-duty United pilot who was also on board, made an emergency landing in Boise, ID. An autopsy performed the following day confirmed that the pilot had died of a heart attack.

Selected previous events
This was not the first time that an airline pilot was incapacitated during a flight. The following are just some of the more recent events:

• 20 January 2012 - A 44-year-old reserve first officer of a UTair 757 suffered a heart attack while en route from Chengdu, China to Novosibirsk, Russia. Although the pilot received prompt medical attention, including help from a passenger who was a cardiologist, the pilot died before the crew could make an emergency landing. The pilot was in the cockpit, but not at the controls, when he suffered a heart attack. In April of that same year, a UTair ATR72 crashed in Russia, killing dozens of passengers.


• 14 October 2010 - The 43-year-old captain of a Qatar Airways A330-300 suffered a massive heart attack roughly an hour after takeoff during a flight from Manila to Doha, Qatar. The first officer diverted the aircraft to Kuala Lumpur, where the pilot was pronounced dead after the plane arrived.


• 14 June 2010 - About an hour into a flight from San Francisco to Chicago, the first officer of an American Airlines 767 felt ill and was unable to continue with his flying duties. There were no off-duty pilots on board, and the captain chose to have a flight attendant with several hundred hours of flight experience provide assistance for the remainder of the flight.


• 18 June 2009 - The captain of a Continental Airlines 777-200 died while en route from Brussels, Belgium to Newark, NJ. The 60-year-old captain was replaced by a reserve first officer and the crew declared an emergency. The aircraft landed without further incident.


• 28 January 2008 - The first officer of an Air Canada 767 on a scheduled flight from Toronto to London became mentally incapacitated and the captain needed he help of several flight attendants to physically remove the first officer from the cockpit. The captain, along with the help of a flight attendant who held a commercial multiengine license, diverted the aircraft to Shannon, Ireland.

How frequent are these events?Y
While accidents involving serious injury or death to pilots or crew are routinely reported to civil aviation authorities around the world, deaths, injuries, or incapacitations due to natural causes are not. While there are many media reports of such incidents, especially in recent years with the increased use of social media, there are few formal studies of incidents of pilot incapacitations. One of them is a 2004 study from the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institue, which found that in the six-year period from 1993 and 1998 there were 39 cases where a U.S. airline flight crew member was unable to perform any flight duties and 11 cases where the flight crew member was impaired and could only perform limited flight duties.

These 50 cases occurred on 47 different flights (two crew members were affected on three of the 47 flight). Four of these events involved a crew member death, all due to cardiac arrest. According to the FAA, in seven of these events the safety of the flight was seriously affected:

1. A 737 first officer experienced an alcohol-withdrawal seizure, applied full right rudder, and slumped over the control wheel, causing a loss of altitude until flight attendants could pull the first officer off the controls.


2. The foot of a DC9 first officer became lodged against a rudder pedal after his leg stiffened during a heart attack. The captain applied opposite rudder until the first officer's foot could be dislodged.


3. The flight engineer and the captain of a 727 lost consciousness after the flight engineer accidentally depressurized the aircraft. The first officer donned an oxygen mask and made an emergency descent.


4. A captain suffered an epileptic seizure while the aircraft was taxiing and applied enough force to the rudder to cause the aircraft to turn sharply and stop. The first officer removed the captain from the controls and taxied back to the gate.


5. An A300 captain suffered a cerebral infarction during approach, and neglected to lower the landing gear. After landing, the captain applied reverse thrust longer than necessary, and attempted to apply takeoff thrust on the taxiway.


6. An MD88 Delta Airlines captain, who was using unapproved contact lenses, misjudged his approach a LaGuardia Airport on 19 October 1996 during conditions of reduced visibility and struck approach lights near the end of the runway. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation.


7. The captain and first officer of a DC8 cargo flight both had their judgement affected due to fatigue, and they allowed the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable approach stall while on a approach to the airbase at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The captain, first officer, and flight engineer were all seriously injured in the 18 August 1993 crash.

Graphic: FlightAware.com

Boeing releases annual airline safety summary

The main goal of AirSafe.com is to provide the public with useful and reliable information about airline safety and security. One of the best sources for information about accident rates for specific airline models is Boeing's Statistical Summary of Commercial Airplane Accidents. The newest edition, covering the period from 1959 to 2012, was released in August 2013, and includes a variety of resources, including a summary of selected airliner crashes from 2012, as well as comparative data on the accident rates of various aircraft models.

This publication is very useful in part because it provides a snapshot of accident trends for different aircraft models and for different areas of the world. It is also useful for the AirSafe.com audience because it provides a different point of view. These differences are most noticeable if you compare AirSafe.com's safety review for 2012 with the list in the Boeing publication.

While there is some overlap between the two annual lists, particularly the crashes that resulted in passenger deaths, there are some key differences. Boeing, like much of the airline industry, has a focus on events that cause significant and unrepairable damage to aircraft, and their accident statistics reflect that focus. While AirSafe.com does make note of a number of nonfatal events, only those events that result in passenger deaths are used in any statistical comparisons on the site. Also, Boeing does not list events, even ones involving passenger fatalities, if it involved aircraft designed in the former Soviet Union, or events involving turboprop driven airliners.

In spite of those differences, Boeing's Statistical Summary is one of the industry publications that has very high quality data, and should be consulted by anyone who has an interest in airline safety, especially to answer specific questions about airliner accident rates and how they have changed over the last several decades.

Related resources
2012 Boeing Statistical Summary
2011 Boeing Statistical Summary
2010 Boeing Statistical Summary
2009 Boeing Statistical Summary
2008 Boeing Statistical Summary
2007 Boeing Statistical Summary
AirSafe.com's fatal events by aircraft model

The role of unidentified aerial phenomena in airline safety

Ongoing technological advances and other developments in the airline industry continue to lead to a greater understanding of the causes of accidents and incidents, one area that has not received much attention is unidentified aerial phenomena, also known as UAP. These are visual phenomena that occur in the sky that don't have a logical or rational explanation, even after a close review of the evidence by relevant experts.

Why UAP events are a safety issue
Unexplained aerial phenomena are important to aviation safety because some of these events are associated with effects to an aircraft's navigational or flight control systems, and also because sightings may cause flight crews to take abrupt, unplanned, and potentially hazardous maneuvers because the UAP is perceived as a threat to the aircraft.

NARCAP dedicated to studying UAP

NARCAP, the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, is a private, non-profit organization dedicated to studying unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) and their role in aviation safety. They regularly accept confidential submissions from pilots, air traffic controllers, and other aviation professionals who have witnessed UAP events, and have published a number of studies about UAP. You can find out more about NARCAP at uap.airsafe.com.

Interview with Dr. Richard Haines of NARCAP
Last month, Dr. Todd Curtis interviewed Dr. Richard Haines, the chief scientist of NARCAP, where they discussed his organization's efforts to reduce threats to aviation caused by unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).

Dr. Haines, who founded the organization in 1999, provided several examples of why unidentified aerial events may have put aircraft and their occupants at risk in the past, and also explained that such events happen to a significant fraction of active airline pilots. Dr. Haines also encouraged crew members who have observed such events to contact his organization at narcap.org and file a report on any past sightings.
Listen to the interview (1:01:28)

NARCAP resources and research studies
NARCAP advice to pilots
Report unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP)
NARCAP technical reports