Ben Gurion International Airport outside of Tel Aviv.

Ben Gurion International Airport outside of Tel Aviv.

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog calling body scanners a “joke” and I was quite harsh on the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) decision to move forward with them.

Don’t get me wrong. I fly a lot. I like my life. I am all about protecting it and those who fly with me. But, I am not about the TSA wasting money for “security theater.”

After I posted my thoughts, the TSA posted a blog titled, “Advanced Imaging Technology – Yes, It’s Worth It.” It seem to be a rebuttal to those of us who have voiced concern about the TSA moving forward with the body scanners. However, TSA’s explanation is short on actual specifics of how the body scanners will stop someone from doing harm to airlines and passengers.

In my previous blog, my biggest issue was people could choose to avoid the scanners. If you didn’t want to be scanned, you could opt to get a pat down. For privacy reasons, it is great they offer this alternative, but for safety reasons it makes no sense. Why use all this pricey equipment, if someone who wants to do harm can just avoid it?

Their blog does a wonderful job explaining how these high-tech body scanners can pick up the smallest illegal items, but nothing about how scanners can be avoided or steps that are being taken to stop more privacy violations. I posted the question directly to the folks at TSA Blog, but never got a response, even though they did answer other people’s questions.

Over on my Seattle PI syndication I currently have 45 comments from readers who feel strongly (on both sides) about the body scanners. This shows me there are quite a few other people out there that have grave concerns about these scanners. I have been told a few times, “okay smart guy, how about stop just complaining and provide a solution” (okay, maybe not exactly like that, but you get the idea).

I would really hope someone out there with experience in air safety, could find a better solution. Talking to people about airport security I kept being told to check out out how Israel works their airport and airline security. So, I did and what I found looks like they might be on to something.

Isreal’s security allows for greater security, but less inconvience for travellers. And it must work. Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, Israel’s larget hub, has not had a security breach since 2002.

“It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy, in an interview with TheStar.com. He’s worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world. “Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don’t take shit from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for not for hours but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, ‘We’re not going to do this. You’re going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.”

Their security is a multi-layer system:

LAYER 0: Intelligence
Before anyone even leaves for the airport, Isreal has strong intelligence network, trying to determine particular threats and dispose of them before they even reach the first layer.

LAYER 1: Roadside Check
Before you can even get to the airport, security stops every car and asks two questions, “How are you? Where are you coming from?” The answers aren’t nearly important, but more of how the person responds. Security officers are trained to detect nervousness and distress. Not the amount that a lot of people feel from flying, but those that occur when you are about ready to kill yourself and many others.

LAYER 2: Outside Guards
Armed guards are stationed outside the terminal and are trained to observe passengers. Any sort of odd behavior or strange baggage, you will be pulled aside for additional questioning and possible searches.

LAYER 3: Bag Inspections
Passengers that look suspicious or are just random will be pulled aside to be scanned by a metal detector and have their bags scanned.

LAYER 4: Ticket Agent Questions
Now, you have fully made it into the terminal. The ticket agent will take your documents and ask you a series of questions, the whole time, looking directly into your eyes, “which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds,” said Sela. Again, they are specially trained to detect body language that would show the person means to do harm. Also, passengers are not allowed to group up, which would provide a group target for a terrorist.

LAYER 5: Bag Termination
Let’s say a terrorist has made it through the first four layers of security and still is able to get his bomb to the ticket agent. Every bag is screened right away. If a bomb or suspicious material is found, they do not evacuate the whole terminal, like you would see in America. Evacuation causes panic, more targets, and a huge delay. Instead, scanners have bomb boxes near by and a suspected bag is put into the box, which can contain an explosion of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosives. People within a few meters of the suspected bomb need to be cleared and the rest of the airport is able to go through its normal business. “This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports,” Sela said.

LAYER 6: Body and Luggage Check
You would think this is like America’s security check, but Sela says, “Here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America. First, it’s fast there’s almost no line. That’s because they’re not looking for liquids, they’re not looking at your shoes. They’re not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you.”

All these layers have solid security, but they also get passengers from the parking lot to their gate in less than 25 minutes. Now, that is impressive. Sela feels the TSA could move in this direction, but they are on the wrong path. “Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes … and that’s how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys.”

Yes, this is profiling, but I think it is the good kind of profiling. Racial profiling = wrong, behavior profiling = right. Sela said, “To us, it doesn’t matter if he’s black, white, young or old. It’s just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I’m doing this?”

Do the Israelis have a good security system? I think so, but I don’t think it could easily be used the exact same way in America. We definitely don’t do well with seeing people with large guns walking around and this system would be vulnerable to racial profiling. I do think looking at behavior profiling would be a better use of resources than spending money on machines that people can skip all together.

Sources: TheStar.com & Vancouver Sun Image: iamxande

connect | web | twitter | facebook |

Some of the Airbus A350 lavatory options. Click the link to RunwayGirl's blog for larger version.

Now that the Boeing 787 and Boeing 747-8 have taken their first flights, attention is starting to move towards watching the new Airbus A350. Mary Kirby, over on her blog RunwayGirl, is posting a glimpse of the interior of the new Airbus A350.

Airbus has been working on the Aircraft Description Document, defining what interior options will be available. With the A350, Airbus hopes to increase flexibility in cabin layout, without having to change the structure of the aircraft.

The Airbus A350 is Airbus’ answer to the Boeing 787 (and partially to the B777). Like the Boeing 787, it will be made primarily of carbon fiber and be more fuel efficient compared to previous aircraft types. Currently the A350-900XWB is expected to carry more passengers and fly farther than the Boeing 787-8.  The first flight is currently scheduled for 2012, with delivery scheduled for 2013.

Check our RunwayGirl’s blog for more photos and information on the Airbus A350 interior.

And if you are on Twitter, we made #A350XWP the official hashtag for the Airbus A350 (if that makes no sense to you, don’t worry about it).

connect | web | twitter | facebook |

Bunch of traffic at New York's JFK Airport.

Bunch of traffic at New York's JFK Airport.

Be careful what you ask for

I am sure you have heard on the news about passengers being stuck in planes for hours and hours with little food and water. Is that a fun experience? Heck no.

When I was a teenager I was stuck on the tarmac for over five hours and it was not a pleasant experience. However, after the five hours I got to fly home to my family. My flight was from Seattle, WA to Reno, NV and we had to be diverted to San Jose, CA due to poor weather. With the new rules going into affect in two days, I could have been stuck at an unfamiliar airport, with no family and no real money.

Over the past few years, quite a few airlines have made the news for leaving passengers stuck on the runway for hours; passengers got angry. Some passengers got REALLY angry. They wanted the government to step in and make sure no other passenger had to be stuck on the tarmac for long periods of time again.

To me, being stuck on the plane was not a fun experience, but it is life, it happens. No matter the form of transportation I would have used, the end result would have been the same — delayed due to the weather.

The new rules, starting April 29th, state that an airline will have to allow passengers to disembark if they have been sitting on the tarmac for three hours, unless doing so would jeopardize safety. The new rule sounds like a pretty good deal for passengers in theory, but in reality, I think it will cause a lot more frustration, loss of money and even more angry passengers.

With the new rules, an airline can be charge up to $27,500.00 per passenger that is left on an airplane for more than three hours. That is a lot of money. If an airline sees that a flight might be delayed for three hours, instead of waiting, they might just cancel the flight. This doesn’t mean that the plane will just sit around waiting. That plane needs to be at the next destination. It might have to fly empty to pick up the next set of passengers. If it doesn’t, routes all over will be delayed and even more passengers will be upset and more revenue will be lost.

That leaves the question: Would you rather be stuck on a plane for four hours and reach your destination? Or would you rather be stuck in a city, sleeping in the airport for much longer…possibly days?

What’s worse is New York’s JFK airport is already known for their long delays. Right now their main runway is closed for some improvements. Because of this, some airlines have asked for an exception from the three hour rule, but they were denied. Remind me not to fly out of JFK for the next few weeks!

Again, this is another time where the government should not be interfering with the airlines. Already airlines get a bad rap if they leave passengers in the airplane for hours. The mainstream media loves to bash them.

The airline business is extremely complicated and that is when things go right. Throw in bad weather, aircraft issues, scheduling problems, huge pressure for the lowest prices, and security and you have a business just waiting for things to go wrong.

For me, I would rather be stuck on an airplane going no where for a few hours, than not being able to reach my destination. I can easily survive a few hours without food and water and waiting inside an airplane is a heck of a lot better than trying to take a bus.

Image: matt.hintsa

connect | web | twitter | facebook |

The first Boeing 787 Dreamliner for Royal Air Maroc is out on Boeing's Paine Field flight line, in Everett, on Friday April 23, 2010. (Joshua Trujillo, Seattlepi.com)

The first Boeing 787 Dreamliner for Royal Air Maroc is out on Boeing's Paine Field flight line, in Everett, on Friday April 23, 2010. (Joshua Trujillo, Seattlepi.com)

It is a Boeing 787 blog-day today!

On Friday, the 17th Boeing 787 Dreamliner made it’s way out of the paint hangar. Due to not having my camera and short on time, I wasn’t able to get up to Paine Field myself to take a look, but luckily the Seattle PI did get a photographer out there.

We have seen the Boeing 787 “full livery”, the Boeing 787 “light livery”, the All Nippon Airways Livery, and now the Royal Air Maroc livery.

There are also two all-white Boeing 787’s (photo from @ImperfectSense)  sitting out on the line for LAN. Some think they might be willing to paint them in a special livery, but will have to wait to find that out.

Two more photos of the RAM Boeing 787 by @ImperfectSense: First + Second.

Also check out the other great pictures that Josh Trujillo took while at Paine Field on Friday.

connect | web | twitter | facebook |

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner (ZA003) undergoing cold weather testing in McKinley Climatic Laboratory, Florida

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner (ZA003) undergoing cold weather testing in McKinley Climatic Laboratory, Florida

If you have been following the path of the Boeing 787, you know that ZA003 recently made a trip down to Valparaiso, Florida for extreme weather testing. Being in Florida you might assume they are testing the Boeing 787 Dreamliner in just hot and humid climates.

However it just recently went through extreme cold testing of minus 45 degrees Fahrenheit (that is about minus 43 Celsius). How do does this happen? Well, you find a big facility that can create it’s own temperature (and snow). Eglin Air Force Base, just outside of Ft. Walton Beach, has a climatic chamber, large enough to house the Boeing 787. In the mid-1990’s, the chamber was opened up to the general public at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 per day.

Normally Boeing chaces the cold weather around the globe (normally finding it in Fairbanks, Alaska), but having a controlled environment is so much easier. “Here we say minus 45 and they set the knob to minus 45, and work their magic and get minus 45 and it stays there as long as we want it,” Tom Sanderson, one of the flight test directors for the Boeing 787 told Glenn Farley with KING5.

The Boeing 787 will also undergo extreme hot testing of 115 degrees Fahrenheit (about 46 degrees Celsius) in the same facility. ZA003 is the only Dreamliner with a partial interior. The aircraft will be living at the facility for about two weeks to conduct all the testing needed.

I am sure you want to see more than one photo, luckily I have tracked down some additional media for your enjoyment:

* Video done by Glenn Farley with KING5.
* Video taken by Jon Ostrower via his blog FlightBlogger.
* Video taken by Boeing, found via Seattle PI.

Image: Boeing

connect | web | twitter | facebook |