|

Coming together to Counter Airport Insecurity

airport baggage scanner

The current state of things requires us to be vigilant anywhere we go these days. I have been thinking of a starting an ongoing conversation regarding safety. I am troubled by Esteban Santiago’s Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport attack on Friday afternoon. Any traveler who puts as many miles as I do on a plane is bound to be as troubled. We should try to find suggestions, and solutions, and speak out.  

Here’s what I’m thinking: Federal laws allow you to check-in handguns, rifles and ammunition.  I’ve been thinking there’s a literal bandaid that would help—a red banner or flag or something that sticks on the luggage that states LEGAL FIREARM INSIDE. As a consequence, if we see this banner on the carousel, we are informed. We know to be vigilant, without having to be vigilante.  

If baggage claim areas have armed guards, that would be another step. They can’t do it all and it will take time to implement.  My banner idea can be implemented immediately.  If individuals are uncomfortable having such a banner, then they should rethink shipping their weapons out ahead of their travel as cargo or something.  

What possible, realistic solutions do you have?

To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

Similar Posts

  • The Businessman’s Real Question behind Smaller Planes…

    George’s Point of View

    If you’re a frequent flying businessman, there’s a good chance you’ve noticed the decline of the number of people flying, and the resulting greater availability of smaller jets, and smaller regional aircraft.

    The Regional Airline Association provides Regional Aircraft Statistics if you’re interested in that kind of thing.

    There are trade-offs. Except for safety statistics, for frequent flyers statistics don’t matter as much as tangible factors like leg room, airport accessibility, lack of baggage space, availability of non-stop flights, etc… It’s really a matter of practical concern and personal choice. You’re not really packed like sardines in smaller planes, it just seems that way. And non-stop flights are probably worth it.

    As long as your smaller plane has two engines (in case one quits), doesn’t ingest birds (because how many pilots are Chesley B. Sullenburger III?), and you’re not claustrophobic (and the guy sitting elbow to elbow with you didn’t forget to use his deodorant.)

    One wonders if the trend toward smaller planes is going evolve smaller businessmen.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • The Headlines Say Sullenburger is Returning to the Cockpit.

    George’s Point of View

    It’s published so it must be true. Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger–hero of the Jan. 15 Airbus A320 miracle landing on the Hudson–is going to be part of US Airways Flight operations safety management team. This means he’ll be handling regular flights and also they’re giving him a suit and making him management. (Or would that be the uniform with the really shiny epaulettes?)

    Never has anyone deserved recognition more.

    Do you hear us Sully? We’re still applauding.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | |

    Singapore Airlines Emergency Landing

    The Singapore Airlines Airbus A330-300 en route from Singapore Dhaka with 105 passengers and 12 crew aboard diverted to Bangkok when they got an internal flight warning. There were no injuries.

    In spite of the cargo fire suppression system, there was a burning smell and a fire.

    The plane made a safe landing in Bangkok. The plane taxied to the gate, and passengers disembarked and were provided hotel accommodations, meals and transferred to another airline.

    An investigation is underway.

    Singapore Airlines’ spokesman, Nicholas Ionides said that “Flight SQ446 operating between Singapore and Dhaka diverted to Bangkok as a result of indications of smoke from the aircraft’s rear cargo hold.”

    When Thai authorities clear the Airbus, it will be flown back to Singapore.

    In George’s Point of View


    It has been well documented that Airbus and Boeing are taking different paths regarding their approach on batteries.

    But still, it is one of my least favorite things to read (especially while I’m halfway to Singapore) that there has been yet another cargo fire at all, regardless of what kind of plane it is on.

    At least I had time to jot down some thoughts.

    I hope that the media shines as bright a light on this airbus cargo fire as it has recently on the Dreamliner battery situation. Sure, the Dreamliner is developing new technology and Boeing is responsible for going the distance to keep new developments safe. The Dreamliner battery issue is new. But the fact that Boeing is developing new technologies and new solutions does not provide Airbus and an established plane like a A330-300 a free ticket when it comes to combustion.

    Hopefully Airbus is paying attention to all problems and not getting too cocky. It should remember and respect that a plane is still an air-filled bubble hundreds of feet in the air. Until people develop their own wings, random combustion situations like cargo fires on an Airbus A330 are just as potentially hazardous situation–if not more so–than any battery incident that actually occurred on the ground.

    Let us please see a fix for this problem.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    Notes on Air France Flight 447: Thoughts on the CVR Facts

    So there you have it: the short version of the investigation’s reading of the Cockpit Voice recorder.
    If you missed it, we have posted it here in this blog in it’s entirety:

    https://airflightdisaster.com/?p=17147

    If you don’t like the visual rendition, you can click at the bottom for the .pdf.

    The problems seem to begin at 2 h 08 min 07; then at 2 h 10 min 05 autopilot & auto thrust disengages. The pilots note that the speeds do not agree,( which means the speeds are incorrect, and it is an indication that pitot tubes are malfunctioning. Around this time, ACARS sent a PITOT error message, which was not mentioned in the CVR summary.) The PIC (captain) re-enters at 2 h 11 min 40 and it is all downhill from there.

    As far as we can tell, everything in the cockpit voice recorder still indicates that the main cause for this crash is Thales defective pitot tubes which froze over and sent incorrect data back. How could anyone make correct decisions without knowing the speed at which the plane was traveling? How would the pilots have discerned when the incoming data was faulty and which of it—if any—was correct?

    Based on the pilots’ response to the stall, we can also reiterate points made at the February 24 hearing, where Justice Zimmerman pointed out a lack of training for pilots on how to respond to a catastrophic failure. Shouldn’t pilots (and not just the PIC) be trained in this procedure to the point that the correct corrective response is second nature? The time to try to figure out how to respond is not during the catastrophe, with 228 lives hanging in the balance.

    There does not appear to be an emergency procedure from the manufacturer. (This was also noted in the February hearing by Justice Zimmerman.)

    It appears that the plane stalled, and that could not be corrected in time to prevent the catastrophe.

    So now, all eyes will turn to the DVR, which will hopefully help decode what happened mechanically in the stall.

    And I do have questions about the notation, which seems to imply that even if autopilot is not online, some (background?) processes continue to be determined by digital input, which may be faulty.
    When the measured speeds are below 60 kt, the measured angle of attack values are considered invalid and are not taken into account by the systems. When they are below 30 kt, the speed values themselves are considered invalid. (Or I am misreading the data and the fact of unrecoverability is due to other system factors. It does appear that the Flight Control System is unwieldy or badly conceived.)

    It seems to me as a layman, that this is a fly-by-wire conundrum. If the plane is in crisis, but it is logically disregarding the correct input when it is beyond a “safe or logical” range, then how can it be corrected, if there are no manual controls? (Not to mention no emergency procedures to fall back on.)

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Blown Lap Joints and Other Points of Fatigue

    The older 737’s which ruptured their five-foot tops (at the lap joints) are just a drop in the proverbial bucket. Or, if you will, the canary in the cave. Because they are a sign of what is to come, if Boeing, and in fact ALL plane makers, don’t step up the inspection guidelines for metal fatigue in 15 year old planes. The FAA is mandating initial and repetitive electromagnetic inspections “to detect cracking in a specific part of the aircraft that cannot be spotted with visual inspection.” The FAA Emergency Airworthiness Directive pdf can be found here.

    Sure, since the fuselage crack on the Southwest 737 on April 1, older model 737’s have demonstrated a propensity toward metal fatigue. On that particular plane, in March, eight instances were found of cracking in the frame and six cracked stringer clips which hold the skin. To be sure, Southwest did the right thing by grounding its 80 737s and checking them all because it turned out that five of those inspected had cracks in the same location. Those 18-inch roof sections are being repaired according to the recommendations of Boeing and the NTSB with a large aluminum patch

    But what about 15 year old 757s? They should put all the older planes of comparable cycles—let’s not limit this to Boeing!— What about 15 year old Airbuses? —under scrutiny for metal fatigue. Are they not just as likely to blow as a 737?


    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | | | | |

    Compensation after Fifteen Years

    I know I’ve said before how cases take a long time. Sometimes they drag on in unexpected ways. Take for example the LAPA case. On August 31 1999 Líneas Aéreas Privadas Argentinas scheduled Flight 3142 (LV-WRZ) to fly Buenos Aires–Córdoba with a hundred and one persons aboard. The twenty-nine year old Boeing 737-204C failed to get in the air because the flight crew forgot to put the flaps in the appropriate position for flight. Instead of shooting into the air, the plane sped through the perimeter fence, across a street, struck a car and collided with a median and machinery on the road.

    The accident took sixty-five lives, two of them not even on the plane. Forty aboard were injured, seventeen of them seriously. NTSB records say there were 80 fatalities and 21 minor injuries.

    That’s what is widely known. What many do not know is that after the accident, nine families were given the wrong bodies. Those bodies were exhumed, checked, delivered to the correct families, and reburied at the cost of Argentina’s First Chamber of the House. The financial cost associated with all of this was covered. Not the emotional cost.

    Three of those families affected will be compensated 100 thousand dollars plus interest.

    In my heart of hearts, I do believe no amount of money can ever compensate for the wear and tear on the families due to the mix-up, even if at the time, the hasty mistake was well-meaning (or expedited due to politics.) Can you imagine what the families went through, seeing the resting places disturbed, then having to endure new funerals? It must have been like losing them more than once—refreshing the whole misery of loss a multiple of times. I cannot help but wonder about the families who were not compensated. I wonder if it has been so long that there is no one left to pay.

    This can be of no assurance to the families of Malaysia Airlines flight 370. It is further proof that aviation crash cases do take a long time. Tragedy is tragedy. There is no best case scenario in a tragedy.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.