TSA Says You Can Keep your iPad, Kindle, or Netbook in Your Bag

On Monday, this column discussed airline travel issues related to the new iPad device from Apple, and suggested that it didn't make sense to treat it like a laptop and take it out for separate screening. It looks like the TSA agrees with AirSafe.com. On Tuesday, an article in the TSA's blog stated that electronics smaller than the standard laptop could stay in your carry on bag or carrying case and does not have to be screened separately by their x-ray machines at the security checkpoint.

The TSA blog article emphasized that TSA security officers may still give your bag or electronic device a secondary screening, so be prepared to take out your iPad or other device if asked. Although all TSA screeners are regularly informed about policy changes, some TSA screeners may not be aware of this new policy about smaller electronics, so don't be too upset if you still get asked to remove them.

What can you keep in your carry on?
The TSA blog article stated that the following types of devices can be kept in your bag: netbook computers, laptop computers in a checkpoint friendly laptop bag, iPads, Kindles, Noes, Nooks, and Sony Readers. This also implies that cell phones, Blackberries, personal DVD players, iPods, iPhones, PDAs, electronic cameras, and handheld computer games can also stay in the bag.

What do you have to take out for separate screening?
The TSA article listed the following items that must be taken out for separate screening: regular size laptops; video game consoles such as those from Playstation, Xbox, and Nintendo; full sized DVD players, video cameras that use cassettes, and other larger electronic devices. For the large game consoles, the TSA implied that you should take out the large CPU type unit for separate screening. Presumably accessories such as the the handheld controllers can stay in your bag.

What is the difference between a netbook and a laptop?
While opinions vary on what is and what isn't a netbook, in general it is a small laptop computer with a diagonal screen size of less than 12 inches (25.4 cm). The typical netbook also doesn't have an internal CD/DVD drive, so if your laptop has one, it probably isn't a netbook.

About checkpoint friendly bags
If you intend to use a "checkpoint friendly" laptop bag for your full size laptop, make sure to check that:

• It has a designated laptop-only section that you can lay flat on the X-ray belt
  
  
• There are no metal snaps, zippers or buckles inside, underneath or on-top of the laptop-only section
  
  
• There are no pockets on the inside or outside of the laptop-only section
  
  
• There is nothing in the laptop compartment other than the laptop
  
  
• You have completely unfolded your bag so that there is nothing above or below the laptop-only section, allowing the bag to lie flat on the X-ray belt

TSA will not approve or endorse any bag design or manufacturer. TSA will only allow laptops to stay in bags through screening if they provide a clear and unobstructed X-ray image of the laptop.

More baggage advice
Items prohibited and restricted by the TSA
Baggage basics
Carry on baggage tips
Top baggage tips

Air Marshal Subdues Suspicious Passenger on Washington to Denver Flight

April 7, 2010, 10:16 pm EDT - Early news reports indicated that a Federal Air Marshal subdued a passenger on United flight 663 during a Washington (DCA) to Denver flight after a passenger reportedly behaved oddly and claimed to have attempted to ignite some kind of device. The 757, which was carrying 157 passengers and six crew members, landed at Denver at about 7 p.m. local time without further incident, and there were no reports of any injuries.

About half an hour before landing, a passenger had been in the lavatory for some period of time, and was approached by an air marshal because of a smell of smoke. The passenger allegedly told an air marshal that he was a Qatari diplomat, and when asked what he was doing remarked that he had been trying to set his shoes on fire. The diplomat was later identified by CNN as Mohammaed Al-Madadi. The US State Department's Diplomatic List for Qatar lists a Mohammed Yaaqob Y.M. Al Madadi with the title of Third Secretary. No official source has confirmed that this was the person taken into custody on the incident flight.

The flight crew was notified, and NORAD scrambled two USAF F-16s that intercepted the airliner at about 6:45 p.m. and escorted the plane to Denver. Officials took the passenger into custody and interviewed the other passengers on the flight. There were no explosives or other dangerous articles found.

The 27-year-old diplomat was not charged, and was later released and allowed to return to Washington, DC.

Message from the Qatari Ambassador
Within hours of the incident, the Qatari ambassador to the US, Ali bin Fahad Al-Hajri, made the following statement:

Press reports today regarding an incident aboard a commercial flight from Washington, DC to Denver, CO indicate that a Qatari diplomat was detained for suspicious behavior.  We respect the necessity of special security precautions involving air travel, but this diplomat was traveling to Denver on official embassy business on my instructions, and he was certainly not engaged in any threatening activity.  the facts will reveal that this was a mistake, and we urge all concerned parties to avoid reckless judgments or speculation.

For a detailed timeline of this flight, check out this Atlantic magazine article.

NTSB Report on the February 2010 Crash into IRS Building

Most of the investigation into February's apparently deliberate crash of a small aircraft into a building containing dozens of employees of the Internal Revenue Service isn't being treated as an aircraft accident by the NTSB, but rather investigated as a criminal act by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). This is often the case in the US when an aircraft incident appears to be part of some sort of deliberate criminal act or act of terror.

While the NTSB will be responsible for completing part of the overall investigation, they recently released a preliminary report on the aircraft-related portion of this event. While it has much of the basic information contained in the initial AirSafeNews.com report, it does have some additional information.

NTSB Identification: CEN10FA124
Type of Flight: 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Aircraft: Piper PA-28-236
Aircraft Registration: N2889D
Deaths: 2 (the pilot and one building occupant)
Injuries: About a dozen building occupants

Narrative: On February 18, 2010, approximately 0958 Central Standard Time, N2889D, a Piper PA-28-236 single-engine airplane, was destroyed after the pilot intentionally flew it into the side of an office building in Austin, Texas. The private pilot and an employee who worked in the building were killed. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot (Joeseph Stack). Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight originated from the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU), Georgetown, Texas, at 0944 (GTU is about 20 miles north of the crash site).

Preliminary review of air traffic control communications and radar data revealed that after the pilot was cleared for take off from Georgetown Airport, he proceeded southbound and climbed to an altitude of 4,800 feet. During this time, a controller approved a radio frequency change and the pilot responded, "Eight niner delta thanks for your help have a great day." No further communications were made with the pilot. At 0954, the airplane was observed on radar descending out of 4,800 feet and making a turn toward the west. At 0957, the airplane was last observed on radar at an altitude of 1,000 feet on a southwesterly heading before the data ended.

The airplane collided with the office building between the first and second floors, and exploded on impact.

Aerial view of crash site

The airplane's engine, two (of three) propeller blades, and the right wing came to rest outside of the building. The empennage came to rest on the ledge of the building and was partially hanging over the edge.


The left wing, portions of the fuselage, and a propeller blade were found inside the building on the second floor. The flaps were found in the fully retracted position. The airplane was destroyed by the impact and the post-impact fire.

The weather at Austin Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), Austin Texas (about 15 miles SSE of the crash site), at 0953, was reported as calm wind, visibility 10 miles, few clouds at 25,000 feet, temperature 9 degrees Celsius, dew point 1 degree Celsius, and a barometric pressure setting of 30.24.

Additional Information
The story of this event is much more than just a simple plane crash. The pilot of the aircraft, Joseph Stack, had an ongoing and contentious relationship with the IRS revolving around tax issues with a series of his businesses. Prior to the crash, Stack and posted a long letter on his web site site that discussed some of these issues and that made violent threats against the US government. Shortly before his last flight, Stack also set fire to his house.

Among the unresolved issues is whether Stack had done anything to the aircraft, including adding extra fuel, to enhance the effect of the crash. It is unclear if the final NTSB report will address that issue. Also not yet resolved is if this event was the act of a lone individual or that of an organized group. However, initial speculation by various law enforcement agencies was that it was the act of a lone individual. If it is addressed at all, it will be addressed by the FBI or by some other government agency assisting in this investigation.

The airport used by Joseph Stack is a general aviation airport, and like most such airports there is no permanent security provided by TSA or any other federal agency. When the control tower is closed and the gates of the airport are closed, there is a system in place to allow anyone to gain access to the airport simply by driving through an automated gate. Security is mostly in the hands of airport users, who are encouraged to report unusual security situations.

Listen to ATC clearance for Joseph Stack (Source: LiveATC.net)

Austin, Texas office building before the crash

Austin, Texas office building after the crash

Fire rages at crash site

Photo Credits: Austin American-Statesmen, Google Earth

Airline travel issues and the iPad

Apple recently released their new iPad computer. While much of the media coverage has focused on the technological innovations and limitations of the device, AirSafeNews.com has a different focus - how this type of computer will affect the average air traveler. After a couple of days of testing and evaluation, AirSafeNews.com's Todd Curtis has a few thoughts about this machine, and some of the issues this device may raise for air travelers.

Security issues and the iPad
For years, airline passengers have been required to take out laptops and other large electronic devices out of their carry on baggage for separate screening at checkpoints. The classic laptop computer opens up like a clam shell to reveal a keyboard and a screen. Given the design of the iPad (it has no keyboard) and it's relatively small size and light weight (much smaller and lighter than the average Oprah magazine), it does not make sense to treat this device as one would a laptop computer. In other words, there is no real need to take it out for separate screening.

One could certainly make the argument that it is possible that someone bent on destroying an aircraft could pack an iPad with explosives, making it necessary to separately screen the device. However, the counter argument is that there are many other items (including the aforementioned Oprah) that have much more room to work with than an iPad, and that don't have to be taken out of your carry on bag. Unless there is some other compelling circumstance, for example, a passenger selected for special screening, there is no reason for TSA to worry about an exploding iPad.

You should also take steps to protect your iPad from loss, theft, or damage. First, don't put it in checked baggage. The risk of damage from rough handling and theft is always high for expensive and fragile items like electronics. Also, if you are asked to check your carry on at the last minute, be sure to take out your iPad and other small and valuable items from your carry on and place them in a smaller bag that can fit under your seat.

Going online in the airport and in the air
While iPads have many functions that work without having access to the Internet, most of the really interesting functions require that you be online. Fortunately, airports around the US are embracing the use of free wi-fi in the terminals, making it easy to get online before you get on the plane. Only a handful of airlines offer any kind of in flight Internet access, so make sure you have your music, books, and videos loaded into your iPad before you take off.

In flight entertainment and common sense
While the iPad is not very convenient for doing typical business related functions like creating or editing documents, it is an excellent device for web surfing and video playing in small spaces like the typical seat back tray in coach. Given an estimated battery life of 10 hours, a passenger can provide entertainment during a transatlantic or transpacific flight.

Because of its ability to play very high resolution videos, it will be a great platform for playing movies, with better performance that most laptops when it comes to brightness and clarity.

The potential problem with that will be the choice of material and whether it is appropriate for an airline cabin. The iPad can also function as a giant iPod, and can play videos or movies stored in its memory. As AirSafe.com pointed out in an article about the appropriate use of personal electronic devices, there few airline policies that deal with what a passenger can or can't do with their personal entertainment devices. One common sense thing you should do is use headphones so that you don't disturb other passengers.

While there may not be any laws restricting what you can play on your iPad, any passenger with an iPad should use their common sense when it comes to videos and movies, especially when it comes to material that may be upsetting to your seatmate. For example, I'll have a personal rule of avoid playing in flight any of the plane crash related videos produced by AirSafe.com. To get an idea of what you won't be seeing on my iPad while I'm flying, check out the AirSafe.com video channel at YouTube.

New Rules for Airline Security and for Pilot use of Antidepressant Drugs

New TSA security measures for international flightsAfter the failed bombing attempt last Christmas, the TSA and the US government implemented enhanced security procedures that included extra screening for all passengers coming to the US from 14 countries associated with a high risk of threats to aircraft. The new policy will use intelligence information to give any passengers who fit the description of a suspect additional screening.

In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napalitano, “These new measures utilize real-time, threat-based intelligence along with multiple, random layers of security, both seen and unseen, to more effectively mitigate evolving terrorist threats,” In plain English, she says that the threat is changing, and how the US government will deal with that threat is changing as well.

How this will affect the average passenger is not clear. There is no indication that these changes will replace or enhance the current system of databases of suspected terrorists, which includes databases of people not allowed to fly at all and others who are required to go through addtional screening each time they fly.

New FAA Policy on Antidepressants for Pilots
On the same day that most news organizations were focusing on TSA security changes, the FAA announces a far different policy change. In short, starting Monday April 5th, the FAA will change its policy policy on the use of antidepressant drugs by airline pilots. Specifically, pilots who are taking medication for mild to moderate depression, conditions that now bar them from all flying duties, will now be allowed to fly.

On a case-by-case basis the FAA will allow pilots who take one of four antidepressant medications – Fluoxetine (Prozac), Sertraline (Zoloft), Citalopram (Celexa), or Escitalopram (Lexapro) - to fly if they have been satisfactorily treated on the medication for at least 12 months. The FAA will not take civil enforcement action against pilots who take advantage of a six-month opportunity to share any previously non-disclosed diagnosis of depression or the use of these antidepressants.

According to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, the intent of this policy change is to encourage pilots who are suffering from depression or using antidepressants to report their medical condition to the FAA. He also wants to remove the stigma associated with depression so that pilots are able to get the medical treatment they need so they can safely perform their duties.

This is a policy change and not a proposed rule change. While the FAA encourages the public to leave comments during a comment period ending next month, those comments may have little or no effect on the upcoming policy change.

Send your comments to the FAA
If you feel strongly about this policy, AirSafeNews.com encourages you to provide comments here or to send formal comments to the FAA. Whether you think it is a good policy or a bad one, please feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Comments
If you want to leave comments with either AirSafeNews.com or the FAA, we encourage you to first read the policy, which is identified by the US government with Docket Number FAA-2009-0773. You may also want to review the associated enforcement policy, which gives pilots until September 10th of this year to reveal their previous treatment or drug use related to antidepressants. Note that a pilot properly using these medications may not show any signs of drug use, and the medications will likely have no significant effect on pilot performance.

From Monday April 5th until May 3rd, the FAA is allowing the public to comment on the policy. If you are interested in leaving comments with the FAA, please do so using one of the following methods to leave your comments:

• Online: Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online
  instructions. If you enter the docket number FAA-2009-0773 into the search box marked 'Enter Keyword or ID' and follow the directions. Please note that this option may not work before the official comment period begins on Monday.
  
  
• Mail: Send comments to:
  Docket Operations, M-30
  U.S. Department of Transportation
  1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12-140
  West Building Ground Floor,
  Washington, DC 20590-0001
  
  
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
  
  
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251

If you want to leave comments with AirSafeNews.com about either the new TSA security rules or about the new FAA drug policy, please do so using either the form below or through the normal blog comment process:


Photos: TSA, Amanda M. Hatfield

NTSB to investigate near miss involving a 777 over San Francisco

The NTSB has launched an investigation into a nearly catastrophic collision between a United 777 and a small private aircraft over San Francisco last weekend. The NTSB estimates that the two aircraft missed each other by less than 300 feet.

At about 11:15 a.m. PDT on March 27, United Airlines Flight 889, a B777-222 (N216UA) carrying 251 passengers and 17 crew members on a flight to Beijing, China, had just departed from San Francisco International and was climbing through about 1,100 feet when both air traffic control and the aircraft's collision avoidance system reported air traffic nearby.

The flight crew saw a small aircraft, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E), in a hard left turn traveling from their 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock position. The first officer interrupted the climb and leveled out the aircraft. Both crew members reported seeing only the underside of the Aeronca as it passed to within an estimated 200-300 feet of the 777.

After the encounter, the flight crew continued to Beijing without further incident.

You can listen to this edited recording of transmissions among air traffic controllers and the two involved aircraft (Source: LiveATC.net).

Midair collisions that result in passenger deaths on large jet airliners are very rare events. According to AirSafe.com's list of midair collisions, the last midair involving a jet airliner was a 29 September 2006 collision between a Gol Linhas Aereas 737-800 and ERJ135 Legacy 600 executive jet over Brazil. All on board the 737 were killed, and everyone on the ERJ135 survived.

The last airliner midair in the US was a 31 August 1986 collision between an Aeromexico DC9-32 and a Piper Archer over Cerritos, CA. All occupants of both aircraft were killed. More recently, a private plane and a sightseeing helicopter collided over the Hudson River near New York, killing all on board both aircraft.

Photo credits: Drewski2112 (777), Wikipedia (Aeronca)

Issues surrounding a fatal EMS helicopter crash near Memphis

The following is based on the article EMS helicopter pilot worries; "If they knew what I knew, even the nurse and paramedic wouldn't get on board." from the blog Christine Negroni ON

The crash Thursday morning of an emergency medical helicopter in Tennessee is another tragic reminder of the crisis in medical aviation. Three people were killed when a Eurocopter AS350 (N855HW) operated by Hospital Wing crashed near Brownsville, Tennessee after delivering a patient in Jackson. While the crash happened shortly before 7:00 a.m., the bulk of the flight occurred during what is considered "the backside of the clock" the hours between ten p.m. and six a.m.. This is the most dangerous time to fly by helicopter medivac. Nearly half of all the EMS helicopter crashes take place on the backside of the clock.

This statistic comes from the Comprehensive Medical Aviation Services Database (CMAS) which was compiled by Dr. Patrick Veillette and myself. Fatigue is a pervasive problem in these accidents, according to Dr. Veillette, a commercial pilot and former EMS pilot. The situation seems to be getting worse. "In just the last 8 years there have been 48 accidents that occurred on the back side of the clock."

Reviewing the so-far-incomplete details of the accident, it appears notably and tragically typical. The aircraft had already delivered the patient and was returning to base, there was bad weather in the area and the flight was being conducted under visual flight rules, without the assistance of enhanced visibility instruments. Our database shows these are the consistently reoccurring factors in helicopter medivac accidents.

What's so frustrating is that it is no mystery how to make air ambulances safer. When EMS helicopters are required to carry two pilots and equipment to help them fly in limited-visibility conditions safer flights will result.

Since 1987, nearly half of the EMS helicopter accidents occurred either at night or in weather that obstructed the pilot's vision. Our statistics also show that people are twice as likely to die in limited-visibility accidents as in those occurring in good weather during the day. Considering the layers of risk in reduced-visibility flights, one would expect operators of air ambulances to make sure their aircraft are equipped to fly in these conditions. But only a small portion are equipped with enhanced-visibility systems.

The EMS helicopter industry has boomed from a few hospitals in Colorado in 1972 to a multi-million-dollar business which operated nearly half a million flights in 2009. This phenomenal growth has been based on a disturbing business model; fly the helicopters as inexpensively as possible - meaning one pilot and a minimum of safety equipment - even though these are inherently more hazardous missions. As one EMS pilot told me, "If they knew what I knew, even the nurse and paramedic wouldn't get on board."

In a study of turbine engine airplane accidents, a noted aviation research company Robert E. Breiling Associates of Florida, concluded that single-pilot flights are riskier than those with two pilots. The statistics show the risk of a fatal accident is 3.7 times greater with a single-pilot. In publishing these findings, AOPA Pilot magazine wrote "single-pilot operations create higher workloads and greater demands on pilot skill when the chips are down and stress levels run high."

Flying a helicopter - any helicopter- is not like flying an airplane. The pilot is busy from start to finish. To an already higher workload and often under time pressure the EMS pilot has additional concerns, a 24/7 flight schedule, a lack of a weather information for the route or destination, operations in and out of non standard landing zones including rooftops, highways and parking lots and flights that take them through obstacles and obstructions.

It is this last factor that makes the need for two pilots most obvious. Of the accidents over the past 20 years, one in of three - involved the aircraft hitting something. With the exception of a pilot-check ride in Michigan in May 2007, all the others were operated by a single pilot. Medical helicopters in Canada and air rescues conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard already require two-pilots. What do they know that America's air ambulance operators do not?

When it comes to making air-ambulance flights safer, the elephant in the room is money. Nobody wants to talk about it because to do so would be to puncture the myth that no expense is too high when it comes to rescuing those in need.

Bringing complicated medical equipment and highly trained professionals to the skies is already an expensive undertaking. Most EMS helicopter companies are businesses with bottom lines to consider. Often a hospital contract will go to the company that offers the lowest bid, which is why additional equipment and doubling of pilots is such a hard concept to sell.

It is imperative that the industry equip all EMS helicopters for reduced visibility conditions and put two qualified pilots in the cockpit to fly them. It's expensive. But once again, investigators have been called to the scene of the crash that is a tragic reminder of the alternative.

Read more about medical aviation in this excerpt from The Crash Detectives.

Photo Credits:
Crash site: Karen Foucht
ES350 in flight: HospitalWing.com

About Christine Negroni
AirSafeNews.com is pleased to welcome Christine Negroni as a guest contributor. Her reporting appears in The New York Times and many other publications. She has worked as a network television correspondent for CBS News and CNN. She is also a published author. Her book, Deadly Departure, on the crash of TWA Flight 800, was a New York Times Notable Book. Her upcoming book The Crash Detectives goes in-depth into the world of transportation accident investigation.