Airline Safety

[BrooklynRider]

What was that old commercial? "Something Special In the Air"

October 19, 2005
Airlines Sign Deals for Water Safeguards
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:56 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twenty-four airlines have signed agreements with the government subjecting the carriers to fines of up to $27,500 if they fail to adopt tougher safeguards for monitoring and disinfecting the drinking water served to passengers.

The deals with 11 major domestic airlines and 13 smaller airlines are intended to reduce disease-carrying bacteria in drinking water on planes, the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.

An EPA investigation last year found total coliform bacteria in 15 percent of the 327 airlines the agency reviewed at 19 airports. Total coliform is usually harmless, but it is an indicator that other disease-causing organisms could be in the water.

The administrative order says the airlines have failed to fully comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Failure to comply in the future could mean penalties of up to $27,500 for each violation.

While most of its members signed the agreement, the Air Transport Association said drinking water found on airline is generally as safe as the municipal water sources that supply it.

''We think the drinking water on aircraft is safe to drink and has been,'' said Katherine Andrus, a spokeswoman for the airlines' trade group. But she said the airlines, while seeking improvements, partly wanted to set the record straight.

''It will generate a tremendous amount of monitoring data, which we believe will establish that there is no systematic problem with the aircrafts' drinking water,'' she said. ''We don't think that EPA's sample results provided enough meaningful data to draw any conclusions.''

The agreements require the airlines to regularly monitor their aircraft by collecting total coliform samples from at least one galley and one bathroom from every aircraft at least once a year. At least 25 percent of an airlines' fleet must be monitored every three months.

The airlines must provide, within 45 days, details of all their drinking water operations for each aircraft, and then regularly disinfect those water systems and water transfer equipment. Each of the airlines signed a separate 60-page agreement with EPA.

Disinfecting the water systems must be done at least once every three months. Water trucks, carts, cabinets and hoses must be cleaned at least once a month. After disinfection, airlines must wait until after a day of flight services before checking for bacteria again.

Test results showing total coliform and other bacteria such as E. coli or fecal coliform that cause diarrheal illnesses must be reported to the EPA no later than 5 p.m. EST of the following business day.

The agreements cover AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, Aloha Airlines, American Airlines, America West, ATA Airlines, Champion Air, Continental Airlines, Continental Micronesia, Falcon Air Express, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Miami Air International, Midwest Airlines, North American Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Pace Airlines, Ryan International Airlines, Spirit Airlines, Sun Country Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, USA 3000 Airlines, and World Airways.

The agency said it was still negotiating agreements with Omni Air International, Delta, JetBlue and Southwest airlines.

[brianac]

Woman, 44, Dies on Plane With 2 Empty Oxygen Tanks

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 25, 2008

A passenger returning home to New York from Haiti (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/haiti/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) collapsed and died aboard an American Airlines flight after a flight attendant first told her that he could not give her any oxygen, and then brought her an oxygen tank that was empty, a relative said on Sunday.

American Airlines confirmed the flight death and said medical professionals had tried to save the passenger, Carine Desir, 44, of Brooklyn.
Ms. Desir, who had heart disease, died of natural causes, a spokeswoman for the New York City medical examiner’s office, Ellen S. Borakove, said on Sunday.

Ms. Desir complained of illness and extreme thirst on the flight from Port-au-Prince on Friday after she had eaten a meal, according to Antonio Oliver, a cousin who was traveling with her and her brother Joel Desir. A flight attendant gave her water, Mr. Oliver said.

A few minutes later, Ms. Desir said she was having trouble breathing and asked for oxygen, but a flight attendant twice refused her request, Mr. Oliver said in a telephone interview.

After the flight attendant refused to administer oxygen to Ms. Desir, she became distressed, pleading, “Don’t let me die,” Mr. Oliver recalled.
He said other passengers aboard Flight 896 became agitated over the situation, and the flight attendant, apparently after phone consultation with the cockpit, tried to administer oxygen from a portable tank and mask, but the tank was empty.

Mr. Oliver said two doctors and two nurses who were aboard tried to administer oxygen from a second tank, which was also empty.

Sonja Whitemon, a spokeswoman for American Airlines, would not comment on Mr. Oliver’s claims of faulty medical equipment aboard the plane.

Ms. Desir was placed on the floor and a nurse tried to resuscitate her, but to no avail, Mr. Oliver said. “I cannot believe what is happening on the plane,” he said, sobbing. “She cannot get up, and nothing on the plane works.”

Mr. Oliver said he then asked for the plane to land right away, and the pilot agreed to land in Miami, 45 minutes away. But before the plane could land, Ms. Desir collapsed and died, he said.

“Her last words were, ‘I cannot breathe,’ ” he said.

Ms. Desir was pronounced dead by one of the doctors, Joel Shulkin, and the flight continued on to John F. Kennedy International Airport. Her body was moved to the floor of the first-class section and covered with a blanket, Mr. Oliver said.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company.

[Ninjahedge]

Would O2 have helped, or was she having a heart attack?

I am confused....

[brianac]

I'm no expert, but does this clear up anything.

Medical

Uptake of O2 from the air is the essential purpose of respiration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiration_%28physiology%29), so oxygen supplementation is used in medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine). Oxygen therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_therapy) is used to treat emphysema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphysema), pneumonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia), some heart disorders, and any disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease) that impairs the body's ability to take up and use gaseous oxygen.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#_note-ECE510) Treatments are flexible enough to be used in hospitals, the patient's home, or increasingly by portable devices. Oxygen tents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_tent) were once commonly used in oxygen supplementation, but have since been replaced mostly by the use of oxygen masks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_mask) or nasal cannulas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cannula). Hyperbaric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaric_medicine) (high-pressure) medicine uses special oxygen chambers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaric_oxygen_chamber) to increase the partial pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_pressure) of O2 around the patient and, when needed, the medical staff.
Carbon monoxide poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning), gas gangrene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_gangrene), and decompression sickness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness) (the 'bends') are sometimes treated using these devices. Increased O2 concentration in the lungs helps to displace carbon monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide) from the heme group of hemoglobin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin). Oxygen gas is poisonous to the anaerobic bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_bacteria) that cause gas gangrene, so increasing its partial pressure helps kill them. Decompression sickness occurs in divers who decompress too quickly after a dive, resulting in bubbles of inert gas, mostly nitrogen and argon, forming in their blood. Increasing the pressure of O2 as soon as possible is part of the treatment.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#_note-ECE510)
Oxygen is also used medically for patients who require mechanical ventilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_ventilation), often at concentrations above the 21% found in ambient air.

[Ninjahedge]

Not 100%.

It may help, but I am thinking of it this way. If it is a blockage or occlusion of the heart, the O2 might make it easier to get additional, well, O2 to her heart.

Also, if she was only able to breathe a little, the O2 would make it so that little might be enough. But it depends on if her lungs were filling with fluid, or having swelling due to an allergic reaction, or something else.

I am not excusing the airlines for this, but this could make the difference between denial of a service and incidental manslaughter (negligence).

[brianac]

AA in-flight death: Airline disputes cousin's claims

By RICHARD PYLE | Associated Press Writer 2:00 PM EST, February 25, 2008

NEW YORK - American Airlines on Monday insisted it tried to help a passenger who died after complaining she couldn't breathe, and disputed the account of a relative who said that she was denied oxygen and that medical devices failed.

The airline said the oxygen tanks and a defibrillator were working and noted that several medical professionals on the flight, including a doctor, tried to save the passenger, Carine Desir, 44, who had heart disease.

"American Airlines, after investigation, has determined that oxygen was administered on the aircraft, and it was working, and the defibrillator was applied as well," airline spokesman Charley Wilson said Monday.

Desir had complained of not feeling well and being very thirsty on the Friday flight home from Port-au-Prince, Haiti, after she ate a meal, according to Antonio Oliver, a cousin who was traveling with her and her brother, Joel Desir. A flight attendant gave her water, he said.

A few minutes later, Desir said she was having "trouble breathing" and asked for oxygen, but a flight attendant twice refused her request, Oliver said.

"Don't let me die," he recalled her saying.

He said other passengers aboard Flight 896 became agitated over the situation, and the flight attendant, apparently after phone consultation with the cockpit, tried to administer oxygen from a portable tank and mask, but the tank was empty.

Oliver said two doctors and two nurses were aboard and tried to administer oxygen from a second tank, which also was empty. Desir was placed on the floor, and a nurse tried CPR, Oliver said. A defibrillator, which he called a "box," also was applied but didn't function effectively, he said.

Oliver said he then asked for the plane to "land right away so I can get her to a hospital," and the pilot agreed to divert to Miami, 45 minutes away. But during that time Desir collapsed and died, Oliver said.

"Her last words were, 'I cannot breathe,"' he said.

There were 12 oxygen tanks on the plane and the crew checked them before the flight took off to make sure they were working, Wilson said. He said at least two were used on Desir.

The Federal Aviation Administration requires commercial flights to carry no fewer than two oxygen dispensers. The main goal of the rule is to have oxygen available in the event of a rapid cabin decompression, but it can also be used for other emergencies.

It is up to the airlines to maintain the canisters.

Wilson said Desir's cousin flagged down a flight attendant and said the woman had diabetes and needed oxygen.

"The flight attendant responded, 'OK, but we usually don't need to treat diabetes with oxygen, but let me check anyway and get back to you."' Wilson said the employee spoke with another flight attendant, and both went to Desir within one to three minutes.

"By that time the situation was worsening, and they immediately began administering oxygen," he said. Wilson said the defibrillator was used but that the machine indicated Desir's heartbeat was too weak to activate the unit.

An automated external defibrillator delivers an electric shock to try to restore a normal heart rhythm if a a particular type of irregular heart beat is detected. The machines cannot help in all cases.

Wilson said three flight attendants helped Desir, but "stepped back" after doctors and nurses on the flight began to help her.

"Our crew acted very admirably. They did what they were trained to do, and the equipment was working," he said.

Desir was pronounced dead by one of the doctors, Joel Shulkin, and the flight continued to John F. Kennedy International Airport, without stopping in Miami. The woman's body was moved to the floor of the first-class section and covered with a blanket, Oliver said.

Desir died of complications from heart disease and diabetes, said Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office.

Shulkin, through his attorney, Justin Nadeau, declined to comment on the incident.

FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said the agency was closely following the details of the incident.

Copyright 2008 AM New York.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Well, this can't be safe.

Pilot's Gun Fires on US Airways Flight

DENVER (AP) — A gun belonging to the pilot of a US Airways plane discharged as the aircraft was on approach to land in North Carolina over the weekend, the first time a weapon issued under a federal program to arm pilots was fired, authorities said Monday.

The "accidental discharge" Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte did not pose a danger to the aircraft or the 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants aboard, said Greg Alter of the Federal Air Marshal Service.

"We know that there was never any danger to the aircraft or to the occupants on board," Alter said.

The firing is the first time a pilot's weapon has been fired on a plane under a program created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow pilots, for example, to use a firearm to defend against any act of air piracy or criminal violence, he said.

The Transportation Security Administration is investigating how the gun discharged and is being assisted by the Air Marshal Service, Alter said.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus said his agency is also investigating to make sure that the plane is safe. The aircraft has been removed from service, the airline said.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

[Ninjahedge]

Idiot.

Was this one of the famous Northwest pilots?

[NYatKNIGHT]

How does that even happen?

[ZippyTheChimp]

In the cockpit:

Pilot to copilot, "Wanna see my rod."

"Woops"

Accidental discharge.

It used to happen all the time to this deputy.
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3466/barneyfife1fk.jpg

[Jasonik]

April Fools

April 9, 2008
by Becky Akers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers81.html)

Initial reports made it sound as though April 1 was the day the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has so eagerly awaited: airport screeners caught a real, live, honest-to-goodness terrorist! At Orlando International! With "materials (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/airlines/stories/040208dnbussuspiciouspassenger.10e3e88.html)… that could have been used for an explosive device" in his bag! Those "materials" weren’t the TSA’s usual trophies, either, of excess baby food (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/business/19road.html?ex=1361163600&en=bbd87517757c17d5&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) or veterans’ commemorative lighters (http://forums.wildbillguarnere.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=10&t=8542). No, here were "two galvanized pipes (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/airlines/stories/040208dnbussuspiciouspassenger.10e3e88.html), end caps, two small containers carrying BBs, batteries, two containers with an unknown liquid, and bomb making literature." Finally, vindication! The $40 billion the TSA has sucked from taxpayers’ pockets since 2001 as well as seven years of warrantless searches and frustrated passengers were suddenly justified. Even better, screeners detected the bomber thanks to one of the TSA’s most anti-Constitutional and controversial programs: Behavior Detection, a.k.a., SPOT [Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques]. Now SPOT, too, was validated!

Alas, later reports chipped away at the victory. Turns out "terrorist" Kevin Brown had packed the "materials" in his checked bag, not his carry-on. Air Jamaica (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/national/main3991331.shtml), Kevin’s carrier, hastened to assure customers that "the items could not have caused an explosion and the aircraft and its passengers were never at risk." Talk about taking the wind out of the TSA’s sails. Further deflating those jibs was Kevin himself. He "first told authorities (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/national/main3991331.shtml) he wanted to detonate the materials on a tree stump in Jamaica..." That’s harmless enough, so naturally the story changed: Kevin "later said he was going to show friends in his home country how to build explosives..." How many alternative interrogation techniques did the new and improved confession require?

Far from a terrorist, Kevin is one of those sad, injured folks on which our neoconservative rulers in general and the TSA in particular prey. A US Army veteran who was never the same (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/national/main3991331.shtml) after his deployment to Iraq, Kevin’s "been in and out of hospitals (http://www.thestate.com/355/story/363817.html)" with "a history of mental illness." His mother's murder in 2005 didn’t help. The lawyer representing the family in the murder case considers Kevin "a bit unstable. I think the mother's death would have been on his mind." It’s easy to see why: Kevin was a baby when his father died, so his mother raised him and his brother on her own. "[She] was the breadwinner for the family," the attorney added. "She was always there for them." I suppose Kevin should count his blessings that he’s merely in jail instead of murdered himself: the TSA doesn’t usually deal gently with depressed, distraught people (http://newsmine.org/archive/security/bigbrother/airports/passenger-shot-dead-didnt-say-bomb.txt).

But Kevin’s tragedies don’t shame the TSA from its crude crowing (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/bdo_mco.shtm). You would think screeners had bagged Osama himself with the latest technology instead of hocus-pocus they call SPOT.

SPOT sends screeners into concourses to spy on passengers. Those whose comportment doesn’t meet the TSA’s top-secret definition of "normal" are pulled aside and interrogated. Yep, this is as abusive and arbitrary as it sounds, though the TSA pretends that it’s science.

SPOT combines the police-state tactics Israel uses in its airports with "microexpressions," looks we supposedly flash "in about 1/30th of a second (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1727625,00.html)" to reveal our innermost thoughts. Paul Ekman (http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_05_a_face.htm), a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, claims to have discovered microexpressions decades ago when he and a buddy sat around making faces at one another, photographing themselves, and then studying the pictures. If you think that sounds like a couple of grad students who’ve swilled their fair share of beer, you’ve got more sense than the TSA. Meanwhile, even researchers at the TSA’s parent bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, admit SPOT is "unproven and (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2007-09-25-behavior-detection_N.htm) potentially ineffectual." The manager of its "Project Hostile Intent," Larry Willis, says (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2007-09-25-behavior-detection_N.htm), "We're trying to establish whether there is something to detect."

Ekman himself pretty much established that there isn’t when SPOTters under his guidance at Boston’s Logan International saved us from another 9/11: "The man in the cheap brown jacket (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701478.html) stood slumped in line, staring at the ground. His hands were fidgety, reaching repeatedly into his inside jacket pocket, or patting it from the outside." Ekman sagely suggested that "repeated patting of the chest…might mean that a bomb is strapped too tightly under a person's jacket," while terrorists often manifest "slumped posture." Sure enough, when Ekman and his acolytes accosted the man, he promptly confessed: "He was on the way to the funeral of his brother, who had died unexpectedly. That was the reason for the bowed head. The frequent chest-patting was to reassure himself that he had his boarding pass." Neither Ekman nor the TSA see anything wrong with a country in which government agents harass grieving people.

SPOTters have been spying on passengers since January 2006. As of September 2007, they’d fingered 43,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2007-09-25-behavior-detection_N.htm) of the approximately 1.3 billion people who had taken to the skies in that period. They called the cops on 3,100 of those 43,000 victims, with 278 people arrested for guns, drugs, fake ID, or immigration problems – not terrorism. SPOT’s rate of "success," if we’re judging that by number of arrests, is .0000002%. And that sinks even further, to 0%, if we’re picky enough to demand that the arrest be for terrorism. SPOT clearly fails at finding terrorists in favor of simply detaining folks. Fortunately for passengers, it isn’t even good at that: "It doesn't seem like a lot of arrests, given how easy it is to arrest someone," says Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2007-09-25-behavior-detection_N.htm). Meanwhile, critics contend that "any random sweep (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-security19nov19,0,5390231.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail) of 43,000 passengers might have turned up as many criminals [sic]."

"There's always a reason why you're exhibiting that behavior that catches our attention," opines one of the TSA’s SPOTters (http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/362655.html). "Maybe it's just because you're having problems at home." Actually, it’s because we’re having problems with a totalitarian government.

[The Benniest]

I know this isn't generally airline "safety" but honestly, what is happening to American Airlines?

AMERICAN AIRLINES CANCELS 1,000 FLIGHTS
ESTIMATED 100,000 PASSENGERS STRANDED

April 9, 2008 --

American Airlines canceled more than 1,000 flights today, more than one-third of its schedule, as it spent a second straight day inspecting the wiring on some of its jets - the same issue that caused it to scrub hundreds of flights two weeks ago.

The nation's biggest airline had already canceled 460 flights on Tuesday, including 34 out of LaGuardia, stranding thousands of travelers. Federal inspectors found problems with wiring work done two weeks ago, although the airline says passenger safety was never jeopardized.

Airline officials said the flights would have averaged more than 100 passengers, meaning that more than 100,000 travelers could have been left scrambling to book new flights.

Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American, said the cancellations could continue beyond Wednesday as the airline works on its fleet of 300 MD-80 jets. By Wednesday morning, only 30 of the planes were back in service.

American uses the MD-80s mostly on mid-range flights, particularly from hub airports in Dallas and Chicago. Wagner said 208 of Wednesday's cancellations would occur at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and 138 at Chicago O'Hare.

At LaGuardia Airport, hundreds of passengers stood in a check-in line. The airline offered free doughnuts, coffee and orange juice, but there were few takers.

Bishop Bernard Jordan, a Harlem minister, was in a first-class line trying to catch a flight to Atlanta, where he was scheduled to preach Wednesday night.

"It would have been good to know in advance," said Jordan, who said he has 4 million frequent-flier miles with American and flies to Atlanta every other week. "I would have booked with another airline."

Laura Goodman, whose flight home to Dallas from LaGuardia was canceled, said, "They should be able to predict these kinds of things."

She said she had been away a week and had an important meeting, which she would miss because the airline couldn't rebook her until Thursday.

The airline issued a fresh apology today from Gerard Arpey, the chief executive of American and its parent, AMR Corp. Arpey said American "will do whatever it takes" to help affected customers, including compensating those who stayed overnight somewhere other than their final destination.

Despite the inconvenience, passengers at LaGuardia generally displayed patience.

Wren Quesada, whose flight to Orlando, Fla., was to be rerouted through Dallas and then canceled altogether, said American should have foreseen the problem.

Copyright 2008 New York Post

[MikeW]

American has be nursing along that ancient fleet of MD80s for way too long. Now those planes are turning around and biting them. That should teach AA a lesson (if it survives).

[Ninjahedge]

Upside:

The limits on certain airports should be easily accomodated with so many canvelled AA flights. I am wondering if other airlines were allowed to do so.









Probably not. Free market, at a price.

[The Benniest]

Today at school, I noticed that AA cancelled another, I think, 900 flights today for maintenance and then I saw this after school:

Flight Delays Likely to Continue
By DAN CATERINICCHIA
AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The air travel misery will probably get worse.
Massive flight cancellations by American Airlines are likely to spread to other carriers as federal regulators step up their scrutiny of aircraft inspections after years of more lenient enforcement.
And as oversight tightens and Congress puts its glare on the airlines, passengers are paying the price.

Flying on U.S. airlines has never been safer. But mutual trust between the Federal Aviation Administration and carriers was undermined by last month's revelation that Southwest Airlines flew planes that had missed inspections - a violation of federal standards.

Since then, the FAA has played hardball - auditing carriers' maintenance records and promising a less cozy relationship with the industry. And the airlines only have to look at Southwest's $10.2 million fine to recognize the cooperative spirit may be over.

"There's always going to be extremes, just as there are in politics, and to some extent this is a political issue," said Bob Harrell of New York-based travel and aviation consulting firm Harrell Associates.

The broken trust between airlines and regulators has created scheduling misery for the flying public. And as scrutiny of safety procedures rises, flight delays and cancellations could soon get worse, particularly for carriers with older fleets, Harrell said.

Roughly 250,000 passengers have been affected by the American cancellations this week so that its mechanics could inspect wiring in hundreds of jets. Thursday was the third straight day of trouble for customers of the nation's largest carrier, particularly in New York, Chicago and Dallas, where bad weather magnified delays.

Alaska Airlines and Midwest Airlines also canceled flights Thursday to inspect their Boeing MD-80s, while Delta Air Lines said it was likely to ground "a handful."

Perhaps the worst part for travelers: There's no way to know which carrier will be affected next.

Stacey Pillman, 42, of Miami, said she couldn't help but keep glancing at the American Airlines departure board every five minutes Thursday at Miami International Airport. She stayed behind as her family left to buy magazines and snacks for the trip to Mexico City.

"I just want to stay here and see what happens. I am not one who likes surprises," Pillman said.

In Washington, Nicholas Sabatini, the FAA official who ordered stricter compliance with federal safety standards after the Southwest debacle, faced tough questions from Congress about his responsibility for the lapses.
He told a Senate subcommittee he was accountable for the recent breakdowns in compliance, and blamed the Southwest incident on the failure of both FAA and airline employees.

Another sign of the political stakes: The Senate confirmation process for acting FAA Administrator Robert Sturgell, who was nominated by President Bush in October, has been put on hold.

Before the latest turmoil, the industry could point to a solid record of safety in recent years, a laurel the FAA could also rest on. The last U.S. crash of a jumbo jet was in November 2001, when an American Airlines flight plummeted into a New York City neighborhood, killing 265 people.

After a ValuJet flight crashed in Florida 12 years ago, some in Congress questioned the FAA's dual mission of aviation regulation and promotion. But there has not been today's level of government scrutiny on airlines since the industry was deregulated about 30 years ago, said Daniel Petree, dean of the College of Business at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.

FAA spokeswoman Lynn Tierney said the agency is simply doing its job.
"We are aware and sympathetic ... but the role is clear, it's a regulator's role," Tierney said. "We understand the disruption this causes, but (the airlines) had 18 months to complete the work."

Tierney was referring to the safety order issued on the Boeing Co. MD-80 aircraft that recently have been grounded. The FAA ordered visual inspections of certain wire bundles on those planes after reports of shorted wires, evidence of worn-down power cables, and fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The order was effective Sept. 5, 2006, and the airlines had 18 months to comply.

Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III on Thursday repeated his findings about the FAA's inspection office responsible for Southwest Airlines having "developed an overly collaborative relationship" with the carrier.

The FAA last week announced a new reporting system designed to make it easier for inspectors to raise concerns and said it was strengthening ethics policies aimed at easing potential conflicts of interests.

"The FAA needs to do more than just trust these airlines," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said to conclude the hearing. "We have some good ideas on the table, but we need to go beyond the letter-writing back and forth and into action."

Copyright 2008 New York Post

[brianac]

Op-Ed Contributor

Don’t Ground the Safety System

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/13/opinion/13opart1.600.jpg Harry Campbell

By PATRICK SMITH
Published: April 13, 2008
Boston

ON March 6, Southwest Airlines is hit with a $10.2 million fine for neglecting to perform fatigue crack inspections on its Boeing 737s. Days later, American and Delta remove dozens of MD-80 jets from service for wiring modifications. United Airlines follows with a two-day grounding of its Boeing 777s. And last week, in the industry’s largest-ever grounding, American Airlines again pulls its MD-80s out of service and cancels some 2,000 flights. The traveling public is confused, frightened and perhaps angry.

While all of this unfolds, the Federal Aviation Administration becomes the target of intense scrutiny. Critics point to the agency’s conflicted role as both a promoter and regulator of commercial aviation. The agency is beholden more to the financial interest of the airlines, we are told, than to the safety of passengers. Why weren’t these problems tackled sooner? What, exactly, have federal inspectors been out there inspecting?

Those are fair questions, and indeed the agency needs to be held accountable. But the dynamics of commercial flying are highly unusual, and a close, working relationship between airlines and their regulators will remain essential to the evolution of air safety. A more hostile or antagonistic relationship would stifle research and is liable to encourage, rather than prevent, more serious lapses and scandals.

The Federal Aviation Administration has worked with airlines and pilot unions very well over the years, studying problems and developing new technologies and protocols. The cargo-fire suppression systems developed after the ValuJet crash in the Everglades in 1996 and the Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems hardware that monitors airspace to avoid mid-air collisions are two good examples in which carriers, pilots and Washington worked together to improve safety.

Granted, changes don’t always come as quickly as they ought to, and the government has an irritating fondness for enforcing regulatory minutiae. But on the whole the system works. Airlines have spent tens of billions of dollars complying with thousands of agency mandates and directives, few of which ever make the newspapers, resulting in what is arguably the safest transportation system in the world. For the average traveler, unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of airline operations (pun intended), it’s easy to misconstrue these recent events as indicators of danger and crisis. Airline scandals have a unique way of stoking people’s anxieties by preying on an innate fear of flying that is shared by virtually everyone. Had the planes not been grounded, the thinking goes, a month from now they’d be bursting into flames and dropping from the sky.

The truth is much more complicated. None of the grounded aircraft, it seems, was in a dangerous condition, and it’s extremely unlikely that lives were ever put at risk. The planes were taken from service as a preventive measure, not to ward off some impending catastrophe. Thus these incidents are less a portent of disaster than a preventive shake-up that can help us avoid one. A bit of controversy can be helpful, lest we grow complacent.

Lost in all of this is an acknowledgment of just how safe air travel has become — a reality seldom mentioned in the news media, but especially pertinent at a time when conventional wisdom holds that flying is increasingly dangerous. In the United States, there has not been a large-scale accidental crash involving a major carrier since November 2001, the longest such streak in the modern history of civil aviation — despite enormous financial pressures at almost every carrier.

If, by that measure, the airline business is a hive of negligence and poor regulatory oversight, then perhaps all industries should be so corrupt.

Patrick Smith, an airline pilot, writes the “Ask the Pilot” column on Salon.com.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times.

[brianac]

Praying Passenger Ejected From Jet for Failing to Return to His Seat

By KEN BELSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ken_belson/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: April 18, 2008

A passenger praying in the back of a plane shortly before it took off from Kennedy International Airport on Wednesday evening was ejected from the flight for failing to follow the flight attendants’ orders to return to his seat.

The passenger, a bearded Orthodox Jewish man wearing a black hat and a long black coat, went to the back of a United Airlines jet with a small prayer book and started praying, according to a witness who was aboard. Two flight attendants tried to get his attention, but he ignored them, according to the witness, Ori Brafman, who was sitting a few rows away.

The flight attendants returned with a third attendant, who also failed to get the passenger to return to his seat on Flight 9, which was scheduled to leave for San Francisco at 9:15 p.m.

Two friends traveling with the man explained to the attendants that once the prayer is started, it must be finished without interruption, Mr. Brafman said.

The man returned to his seat after he finished the prayer, which lasted about two and a half minutes, Mr. Brafman said, but the attendants had called a customer service agent.

“He was sitting in his seat, and said, ‘I don’t know what to do,’ to his friends,” Mr. Brafman said. “He had an oy vey moment.”

The agent ejected the man from the plane. There were no raised voices during the incident, and no other passengers complained, Mr. Brafman added.

Robin Urbanski, a spokeswoman for United Airlines, said that the man was put on another flight Thursday morning. She said that flights cannot depart until all passengers are in their seats, and that passengers must follow the flight crew’s instructions.

“Even when the doors of the plane are not closed, if the crew says you should take your seat, you have to, so they can proceed with preparing the flight for takeoff,” said Ms. Urbanski, who added that the flight was a few minutes late in leaving. “It’s important that the customers listen to the flight crew’s instructions, especially safety instructions.”

Ms. Urbanski said that the airline had tried to contact the passenger, but did not receive a reply. The airline said the passenger had a Colorado address.
Ephraim Sherman, a Torah student at the Chabad at New York University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), a Hasidic group, said the man was probably saying the Amidah, an all-encompassing prayer that religious Jews say three times a day, while standing, rocking back and forth, while facing toward Jerusalem. The prayer is supposed to be said uninterrupted and typically lasts three to four minutes.
“It says in the Talmud that even if a snake curls around your ankle, you shouldn’t give up,” Mr. Sherman said. “Barring a humongous catastrophe, like if someone has a gun to your head, you don’t stop.”

But he added, “If I didn’t know what it was, I would be scared.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company.

[Ninjahedge]

Maybe he should have waited.

It does not seem like there was any specific time that this needs to be said.

Also, if he were to do something like this, he should have TOLD someone before he did it. Assuming that you have the right to disrupt everything because YOU feel you need to pray.....

I think this was done in really poor taste. I do not think he should hav ebeen kicked, but it should be used as an example of behavior that will not be tolerated in the future. You can prey, they will accomodate you (within reason), but not everyone on the plane is an Orthodox, so do not force all of them to wait for you to be finished with your religious observances.


BTW, what does this have to do with airline safety? ;)

[brianac]

I thought it was basic safety, but I thought he was treated harshly for the sake of a couple of minutes.


“It’s important that the customers listen to the flight crew’s instructions, especially safety instructions.”

[Ninjahedge]

If he was not told specifically beforehand, they had no right to chuck him for the sake of 3 minutes.

[The Benniest]

This is interesting.

I think, like Ninja said, that he sould have either told someone that he was going back to the back of the plane to pray, or waited until they were in the air. Also, like Ninja said, people shouldn't have to wait for you to finish praying so the plane can take off.

The other point, is that I think the customer service agent and the 3 flight attendants blew it a 'tad bit out of proportion. He should not have been booted from the flight for saying a 2 1/2 minute prayer. Honestly, if you count the number of times that flights are delayed due to the officials of the airline (American Airlines), it shouldn't be a problem for a 1 passenger to delay '1' plane.

But the point is, none of this would have ever happened if the Orthodox man would have waited until they were in the air to pray. Not that hard, and as Ninja said, there doesn't appear to be a 'certain time' that these men have to pray these prayers.

[kliq6]

There is no time of day that this has to be done, unlike Islam. Ive seen these guys do this many times on flights in and out of NY and for people from other states seeing these men pray and put the towels on their heads when doing it, most peoplefeel that they are muslims and get rather upset. Ive been on a few fligts were people have asked the stewardess what they are doing. They often do it right in the middle of the dahm flight and wont move out of the way either if anyone wants to gets by.

[The Benniest]

Well, in my opinion, that is a tad bit rude. If someone needs to get by, they need to get by. Do they have the right to just stand or sit in a random spot, whether it be an airliner or not, and pray? For example, if I needed to use the restroom on an airplane and someone wouldn't move because they were praying, I would be a little mad.

[The Benniest]

FLIGHT FRIGHTS ON RISE
NEAR-COLLISIONS AT JFK & NEWARK
By BILL SANDERSON

April 21, 2008 --

Taxiways and runways are getting more dangerous at Kennedy and Newark airports, with reports of near-collisions and other incidents up sharply since October, The Post has learned.

Four incidents have been counted at Newark Airport since the 2008 federal fiscal year began Oct. 1 - already equaling the number reported in all of 2007, according to Federal Aviation Administration data obtained by The Post.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04212008/photos/new015a.jpg
LOOK OUT BELOW! Airlines line up for takeoff
at Newark Airport, where four "runway incidents"
have been reported since October.

The scariest was Dec. 6, when a Continental Boeing 737 arriving from Toronto missed hitting a commuter jet that taxied across its runway about 400 feet below.

Two runway incidents have been counted at Kennedy since Oct. 1, compared with three incidents in all of 2007.

In a frightening Kennedy incident Jan. 3, a Boeing 767 had to abort its takeoff when an Airbus A320 crossed onto the opposite end of its runway without permission. The planes were more than a mile apart.

No runway incidents have been reported at La Guardia so far this year, helping push down the overall total for the three main passenger airports to six since Oct. 1, on track with the previous year.

The number of incidents is also down at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, which mostly serves private planes and executive jets.

FAA officials say their adoption of a stricter definition of runway incidents in October may be a factor in the Newark and Kennedy increases. Under the new definition, an incident is "any occurrence . . . involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person" where planes land or take off.

Ray Adams, vice president of the air-controllers union local at Newark, says a high number of trainee controllers is also a worry.

"We are used to training people who have air-traffic experience," Adams said. "But now we have got kids coming off the street who have never worked an airplane in their life, know nothing about aviation, and we are trying to teach them from scratch."

Increased traffic at the airports is also a worry, said Barrett Byrnes, a controllers-union official at Kennedy, where the number of takeoffs and landings has grown from 291,000 in 2002 to 453,000 last year.

"When you are busy, there's no room for error," Byrnes said. "The wheels are spinning too fast - that's the reason all this stuff is happening."

FAA officials say they've taken a number of steps to improve runway and taxiway safety in recent months - including improvements to pavement markings and signs. The agency also plans to deploy better ground control radar and surveillance systems at Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark.

Copyright 2008 New York Post

[Optimus Prime]

This is why the idiots who take off their seat belts and try to stand up after the flight lands get yelled at. Taxying (taxiing? taxi-ing?) is the most dangerous part of the flight.

[The Benniest]

Exactly! People who have been on flights before should know that when you land, you are to stay seated with your seat belts fastened until the plane has come to the gate and completely stopped. In fact, I think I may have just said what the attendants actually say. :o

When we landed at La Guardia, I was sitting at the very front of the airplane and one woman ran to the front to be the first one off. I was like, "Are you kidding me?" The plane isn't going anywhere!

Some people.... :confused:

[Meerkat]

reports of near-collisions and other incidents up sharply since October

Great.

Reading this really helps with my phobia of flying.

Out of curiosity, how good are United airlines? I'll be using them a few times in June.

[The Benniest]

I read through a few reviews on ReviewCentre.com, and it seems like a pretty good airliner. If I remember right, the whole "cancelling-of-flights" ordeal started with American Airlines and then United followed for a little while (I may be wrong), but you should be fine and won't have your flights delayed for days. ;)

The only downside to United Airlines that I see at this point is THIS (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/business/22bags.html?em&ex=1208923200&en=eb88bec089d549c0&ei=5087) which, like a lot of other customers, makes me a little mad. :)

Hope this helps,
Ben

[Ninjahedge]

Meer, dont get too panicky.

Take a look at how many there actually were (if anyone has that data) and see that sometimes when they say "up sharply", it is only in comparison to what it was.

1 collision a year going to 2 would be a "100% increase".

I am not thrilled with the news either, but the rate of collisions would be another thing to take into consideration. How many collide in 1000 flights? They said the reason for the collisions was due to an increas in the amount of flights, so....

I think the ratio might have gone up a bit, but if you do not scare people with a headline nowadays, they will not read your article!!!

[Meerkat]

The charge for 2 items of luggage seems a bit unfair. I'll have a suitcase and a rucksack - i assume then i will be charged for both?

[The Benniest]

I don't think so. I think it only means about packages or luggage that you are checking to go underneath the plane. I would hope that carry-ons would not be charged for! They haven't in the past and I sure hope they don't start now...

:)

[Meerkat]

That's OK then. I've already paid for the flights, i don't want another charge for my bags when i get to the check in.

One thing i've noticed is how inexpensive flying in the US is. Just under $50 to fly from LA to San Francisco - much less than flying in Europe.

If anyone else reading this is scared of flying i found this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0140297871/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link) book very helpful.

[The Benniest]

For Airlines, Runways Are the Danger Zone
By MATTHEW L. WALD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/matthew_l_wald/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: April 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — The recent groundings of thousands of flights have raised flags about skipped airplane inspections and botched repairs to wiring.
But what really worries aviation specialists? Runway collisions.

“Where we are most vulnerable at this moment is on the ground,” the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_transportation_safety_board/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Mark V. Rosenker, said. “To me, this is the most dangerous aspect of flying.”

For the six-month period that ended March 30, there were 15 serious “runway incursions,” compared with 8 in the period a year earlier. Another occurred at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on April 6 when a tug operator pulling a Boeing (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/boeing_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org) 777 along a taxiway failed to stop at a runway as another plane was landing, missing the tug by about 25 feet.

The last airliner crash in the United States, a regional jet in Lexington, Ky., in August 2006, was a runway incursion because the crew tried to take off on the wrong runway.

The problem — defined broadly as the unauthorized presence of a plane, vehicle or pedestrian on a runway — continues despite efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration and airports to improve lighting and signs on the ground, to train pilots and to identify intersections that are particularly problematic.

Everyone agrees the number of incursions is too large.

Runway collisions are caused almost entirely by human error. But they are still mostly preventable, because the risk could be substantially reduced with existing technology, ranging from paint on the pavement to electronic warning systems.

Some of the more sophisticated electronic systems are commercially available, but are not required by the F.A.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_aviation_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org) And the most recent decision by the agency about a new generation of equipment for navigation and surveillance appears to delay the widespread adoption of in-cockpit warning technology by at least more than a decade.

Solving the runway incursion problem has been on the National Transportation Safety Board’s “most wanted list” of safety improvements since the list was created in 1990, and the board rates the F.A.A.’s response as “unacceptable.”

The board recommended in 2000 that the F.A.A. require a collision warning system that would alert crews directly, rather than alerting tower controllers, but the F.A.A. has said that the complexity and expense are too great.

It has, however, committed to installing more runway status lights, which warn pilots at intersections when a runway is in use. The board also recommended requiring tower controllers to clear planes for each runway crossing, rather than simply clearing a plane to proceed from a gate to a runway end. But the F.A.A. has not agreed to that change.

Runway safety has loomed larger as a problem partly because other issues have been resolved. For example, in the last decade, all jet airliners have been equipped with systems that make it much harder to accidentally fly into a mountain or collide with another plane. Fire extinguishers and smoke detectors have been put in cargo compartments, and insulation that could feed an in-flight fire has been replaced.

But the technology gap that remains between the air and the ground is striking.

“You can fly an aircraft across the Pacific or across the Atlantic, and at any point in that journey you know where you are within about three meters, until you get on the ground,” said Randy Babbitt, a longtime airline pilot and former president of the Air Line Pilots Association (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/air_line_pilots_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

In the air, big airliners have navigation systems based on Global Positioning System satellites, that locate them in the air, but these are not generally linked to surface maps, which would locate them by taxiway and runway.

So an approaching plane can find a runway end in near-zero visibility, but can then get lost once on the surface.

“If you’ve got a G.P.S. in your car, you have infinitely more detailed information about where you are than in the cockpit of an airplane on the ground at Kennedy,” Mr. Babbitt said.

The most deadly aviation accident ever was the collision in March 1977 of two Boeing 747’s, on a foggy runway in Tenerife, in the Canary Islands, killing 583 people.

The F.A.A. recognizes the problem.

At the height of the American Airlines (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/amr_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) flight cancellations, on April 10, the associate administrator for safety, Nicholas A. Sabatini, was testifying before a Senate aviation subcommittee about his agency’s safety work, and while the senators wanted to hear about lapses in inspections, almost half his testimony was about runway safety.

“The F.A.A. is committed to designing an end-to-end system that seeks to eliminate runway incursions while accommodating human error,” he said.

“We all have a role in the solution,” he said, mentioning airlines, airports, and unions representing pilots and air traffic controllers.

The agency has accelerated a program to make airports paint more conspicuous marks on the pavement, he said, to identify “hold short” lines (like the white line on the street next to a stop sign) and other important markings.

It has announced a plan to embed traffic lights into the pavement, to stop planes from blundering into intersections. And it is expanding use of a system that gives controllers a better view of traffic on the ground, on a radarlike screen that may take data from several sources.

But the inspector general of the Transportation Department testified at the same hearing that the program was likely to be late and over budget.

One product that is commercially available gives warnings of many errors.

Honeywell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/honeywell_international_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Aerospace makes a runway-awareness and advisory system that combines a G.P.S. receiver with a database of runways and taxiways.

In a demonstration in February at Washington Dulles International Airport, a test pilot, Anson Gray, showed how it was impossible to inadvertently take off from a taxiway, a surprisingly frequent error. He pushed his twin-engine business jet up to 40 knots, and an urgent mechanical voice warned: “On Taxiway! On Taxiway! On Taxiway!”

Then Mr. Gray entered a runway only 900 feet from the end, pivoted toward that end and began to taxi as if for takeoff. “Nine hundred feet remaining!” it squawked.

When that plane, a Sabre 65, descends below 500 feet with the landing gear down, if the system does not sense a runway within half a mile, it tells the crew to pull up. If there is a runway, it announces the runway number, eliminating another potential error.

The Honeywell system does not see other airplanes, a major drawback. Another is the list price: $17,000. The manufacturer said the system would have provided a warning to the pilots in Lexington, Ky., who took off on the wrong runway on Aug. 27, 2006, and smashed into a berm, killing 49 people.

A more capable system, one that gives each cockpit a screen that shows the plane’s own position and the position, equipment type and relative speed of every other plane in the neighborhood, has been demonstrated repeatedly by the Cargo Airline Association.

In that system, the plane automatically broadcasts its location, determined by G.P.S., and its identity. The broadcast is picked up on the ground but also on other airplanes.

The F.A.A. is encouraging the system, and demonstrated it in an airplane the agency owns. But it will not work for safety purposes until all planes are equipped. The agency recently proposed requiring all planes to broadcast for the system, but not until 2020. It set no requirement for planes to have receivers.

The F.A.A. is under pressure not to add to the expenses of the airlines, and it must justify each proposed change. Mr. Rosenker of the Safety Board complained that the F.A.A. gave no safety value to the system — although it would have other benefits, like untangling air traffic.

“One accident that saves a passenger aircraft or two, and the cost-benefit analysis will have been well served by the implementation,” he said.

Safety investigators, meanwhile, are looking at an event at Dallas-Fort Worth just before noon on April 6. A mechanic towing an empty Boeing 777 from an American Airlines maintenance hangar on the west side of the airport back to a gate to the east was told to hold short of Runway 18 right. The tug operator acknowledged the instruction, according to an official of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, the union, but was moving so fast that the tower controller radioed a second time.

When the tug operator came back on the radio, he told the tower controller, “I’m trying,” according to the union official, Ric Loewen.

The tug operator swerved to avoid towing the plane to the middle of the runway, and the tug’s rear wheels jumped off the ground, the F.A.A. said.
Safety officials say they are looking into the possibility of brake failure, or of the tug operator’s simply misjudging the momentum of the plane behind him.

The big danger, though, was that another American Airlines plane, an MD-80, had touched down about 3,000 feet up Runway 12. In clear conditions, the pilot saw the tug and the big plane behind it approaching from the left, and pointed his plane toward the right edge of the runway. He missed the tug by about 25 feet, according to initial reports.

Copyright 2008 New York Times Company

[v70cat]

I do not understand why the government still requires the demonstration on how to fasten your seat belt?

[Ninjahedge]

For the six-month period that ended March 30, there were 15 serious “runway incursions,”

Up from 8? On how many flights?

I don't think that this is something to ignore,but if 15 things happened, in 6 months, that this is a VERY RARE event.

It should not happen, but spending this much time and resource on it may not be warranted. Also, this much coverage over a relatively minor event. I still do not see where planes are falling from skies and thousands are being killed a year.......

[The Benniest]

I do not understand why the government still requires the demonstration on how to fasten your seat belt?
I'm sure on just about all flights there are those people who have never ridden on a plane before and need that instruction.

[eddhead]

^^ ... or never rode in a car ... ? ;)

[The Benniest]

Yes, or that. :p

[The Benniest]

Not necessarily related to airline safety, but refers to an article also posted in this thread by me that topics charging of bags:

---

AMERICAN AIRLINES TO CHARGE $15 FOR FIRST CHECKED BAG

ASSOCIATED PRESS

May 21, 2008 --

FORT WORTH, Texas -- American Airlines will start charging $15 for the first checked bag, cut domestic flights and lay off possibly thousands of workers as it grapples with record-high fuel prices.

Rival Delta has no current plans to match American's fee for the first checked bag, a spokeswoman said.

American, the nation's largest carrier, said Wednesday the fee for the first checked bag starts June 15 and that it would raise other fees for services ranging from reservation help to oversized bags. The other fees will mostly range from $5 to $50 per service, the airline said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/photos/american.jpg
A passenger stands at the American Airlines desk.

Last month American announced it would join other carriers in charging $25 for second bags checked for some passengers, but it wasn't immediately clear how Wednesday's announcement would affect that.

Its proposed fee for a first checked bag would exempt people who belong to elite levels of its frequent flyer programs, those who bought full-fare tickets and those traveling overseas.

Delta Air Lines Inc. spokeswoman Betsy Talton said the Atlanta-based airline is considering all of its options in light of $130-a-barrel oil, but has no plans "at this time" to match the $15 fee American announced.

Chairman and Chief Executive Gerard J. Arpey said he expects the new or raised fees will raise several hundred million dollars, but that was the best estimate he would give.

The changes were being made to adapt to "the current reality of slow economic growth and high oil prices," Arpey said. He said the fees are an effort to get customers to pay for services they want.

Arpey didn't put a figure on the layoffs, but when asked whether he expected the figure to be in the thousands he said yes.

American plans to cut domestic flight capacity by 11 percent to 12 percent in the fourth quarter. American had previously expected fourth-quarter capacity to fall 4.6 percent from the same period in 2007.

Parent AMR Corp. said reduced flying will lead to an undisclosed number of job cuts at both American and its American Eagle subsidiary.

AMR expects to retire 45 to 50 planes from its fleet, most of them gas-guzzling MD-80 aircraft. Those were the plane grounded for faulty wiring last month.

American said rising oil prices have increased its expected annual fuel costs by nearly $3 billion since the start of the year.

AMR shares tumbled $1.42, or 17.2 percent, to $6.78 after the announcement which came as its shareholders gathered for their annual meeting. They sank to a 52-week low of $6.72 earlier in the session.

Copyright 2008 NYPost.com

[Ninjahedge]

BS Nickel and diming.

They should not charge for every little thing seperately unless they offer a special "ala carte" pricing schedule.

Maybe "coach" should be one step up from the airline equivalent of the train through India. You get peanuts, a soda, one check in bag and two SMALL carry-ons. But if you want the $50 special from NYC to Boston, you sit next to the bathroom, no drinks w/o paying, no bags of nuts and only one carry-on.

Whatever. This stuff is only going to make less people use them, which is exactly what they do not need.

[The Benniest]

^ Agreed.

This morning on Live with Regis and Kelly, this topic came up during their host chat. Regis said "Fifteen dollars for 1 bag, Thirty dollars (i think) for 2 bags, and god help you if you have a pet." I could not have agreed more with him.

[The Benniest]

Another horrible story, this time in Honduras. :confused:

Passenger jet overshoots runway in Honduras
By FREDDY CUEVAS
Associated Press Writer

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) -- A Grupo TACA airplane overshot a runway and slammed to a stop on a city street Friday in the Honduran capital, leaving at least one passenger dead and injuring several others.

Television images showed the plane's fuselage was buckled and the cockpit smashed under a billboard. Firefighters hosed down at least two cars trapped under its left engine.
Ambulances rushed to the scene, and a large crowd of onlookers surrounded rescue efforts.

"We landed ... and suddenly I heard a really strong, loud impact," passenger Roberto Sosa, 34, told The Associated Press.

Mirtila Lopez, 71, said she was talking to another passenger when the plane "left the runway, hit electric cables from a nearby street and then got stuck in the side of a small ravine."

Weather may have been a factor. The plane landed hours after the passage of Tropical Storm Alma, which left parts of the city shrouded in fog.

The flight left San Salvador at 8:30 a.m. local time and had been scheduled to stop briefly in Tegucigalpa and then San Pedro Sula, before heading to Miami.

Nicaraguan Harry Brautigam, president of the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, was on the plane and died of heart problems shortly after the crash, according to Tito Alvarado, the director of the hospital where he was treated.
TACA general manager Armando Funes did not immediately have details on injuries, but several people were taken to nearby hospitals.

Officials have been struggling for years to replace aging Toncontin International Airport, whose short runway, primitive navigation equipment and neighboring hills make it one of the world's more dangerous landing strips.

The airport was built on the southern edge of hilly Tegucigalpa in 1948 with a runway less than 5,300 feet (1,600 meters) long - shorter than that of a small field such as Municipal Airport in Goldsboro, N.C.

The altitude of some 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) forces pilots to use more runway on landings and takeoffs than they would at sea level. And because of the hills, pilots have to make an unusually steep approach.

The difficulties are complicated during Central America's frequent downpours, and during the springtime burning of farm fields, which produces smoke that often forces the airport to close for days at a time.

In 1997, a U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo plane overshot the runway at Toncontin and rolled 200 yards (180 meters) before bursting into flames on a major boulevard, killing three people aboard.

The worst crash associated with the airport came in 1989 when a Honduran airliner hit a nearby hill, killing 133 people.

Copyright 2008 New York Post

[The Benniest]

This is just insane... Who does this?! Lol.

Bomb hoax goes very wrong
Friday, June 13, 2008

A journalist running late tried to delay his flight by making a fake bomb threat, but he was caught out.

The German reporter covering the European football championship called from his mobile phone to annonymously say there was a bomb on the flight from the Italian city of Verona to Vienna.

The 27-year-old then showed up late for the Air Dolomiti flight and said he had heard the flight was no longer preparing for take off.

Since no announcement had been made he became the prime suspect. A check of his mobile phone confirmed police suspicions and he was arrested.

The fake threat closed air traffic at the airport for several hours while the bomb squad checked out the airplane.

Copyright 2008 Metro.co.uk

[Ninjahedge]

That guy should be arrested for being a d!ck.

I don't know if he should be held up as if he was making an actual threat, but this is seriously uncool. Then to blow his cover by telling them it was delayed?

Oofah.

[The Benniest]

That, for me, was the best part. Haha!! What an idiot...

And I agree, this man should be arrested. For scaring the flight officialls and possibly some passengers of the aircraft.

How can someone have the conscience to do something like this?! :confused:

[The Benniest]

Near-miss reported at JFK Airport

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Monday, July 7th 2008, 12:41 PM

Air traffic controllers say two planes — one departing and one landing — came within about 100 feet of a collision at New York (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York)'s Kennedy Airport (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+F.+Kennedy+International+Airport) over the weekend.

FAA (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Federal+Aviation+Administration) officials said Monday they could not immediately confirm the report; airline officials said they're looking into it.

National Air Traffic Controllers Association (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/National+Air+Traffic+Controllers+Association) spokesman Barrett Byrnes (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barrett+Byrnes) said Cayman Airways (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Cayman+Airways+Ltd.) Flight 792 executed a routine "go-around" — pulling up at the last minute instead of landing — around 8:30 p.m. Saturday.

Meanwhile, LAN-Chile (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Chile) Flight 533 was leaving from a perpendicular runway.

Byrnes says the controller ordered the inbound pilot to take a hard left and the outbound a hard right, avoiding a collision.

The controllers say Kennedy is among a number of airports that use perpendicular runways simultaneously.

Copyright 2008 NYDailyNews.com

[NYC4Life]

That is nothing new. Similar close calls have often taken place across the river at Newark Liberty. There is a shortage of air-traffic controllers across the country, and those currently employed often work longer hours to make up for the shortage, which leads to exhaustion at the job.

[scumonkey]

close only counts with horse shoes and hand grenades!:p

[The Benniest]

This is starting to get old...
Second near-collision at JFK in a week

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Updated Friday, July 11th 2008, 7:15 PM

WASHINGTON (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Washington) — Two airborne planes — one landing and the other taking off — came within a half-mile of colliding at John F. Kennedy International Airport (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+F.+Kennedy+International+Airport) on Friday in the second such incident at the airport in a week, the Federal Aviation Administration (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Federal+Aviation+Administration) said.

The FAA moved quickly to change takeoff and landing procedures at JFK on perpendicular runways — the kind of runways involved in both incidents.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Laura+Brown) said Delta Flight 123 was arriving at the airport Friday when the pilot decided to abort his landing and execute a “go-around” — a routine procedure often used during heavy congestion.

That caused the Delta (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Delta+Air+Lines+Inc.) flight to intersect with the flight path of Comair Flight 1520, a regional jet that was taking off on another runway.

The FAA ordered new procedures Friday afternoon to change the way takeoffs and landings on perpendicular runways are sequenced, Brown said in an interview with The Associated Press (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+Associated+Press).

The new procedures are designed to ensure “that aircraft of one runway clear out of the path of the other runway before the second flight comes down on the other runway,” Brown said. “We’ve had two events recently, and I think we want to make sure the appropriate safety margins are in place.”

Last Saturday, a Cayman Airways (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Cayman+Airways+Ltd.) flight was landing at JFK when the pilot decided to abort the landing and fly around the airport again as a LAN Chile (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/LAN+Airlines+SA) jet was taking off. Their flight paths crossed, bringing the planes within about 200 feet of each other vertically and a half-mile horizontally. The National Transportation Safety Board (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+National+Transportation+Safety+Board) is investigating that incident.

On Friday, the Delta jet, a Boeing 757 (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Boeing+757), and the Comair (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Comair) plane, a Bombardier CRJ9, came within 600 feet of each other vertically and a half-mile horizontally, the FAA said.

The agency said it was not classifying either incident as a “near collision” because there was no violation of standards for how apart planes can fly, Brown said.

Dean Iacopelli, a representative for the New York National Air Traffic Controllers Association (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/York+National+Air+Traffic+Controllers+Association) , said the FAA has “terminated that perpendicular simultaneous approach procedure.”

Copyright 2008 NYDailyNews.com

[NYC4Life]

As George Carlin once said:

"That's not a near-miss, it's a near hit! A collision is a near-miss"

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Interesting event. I really admire the Transport Safety Board after watching documentaries about how they find the cause of accidents.

Take time to find and watch the documentaries about the Queens accident that happened in late 2001 and the Valujet one in Florida. Its eye opening just how much effort goes into reconstructing an accident.

Flying is still 10 times safer than driving.

[brianac]

I'll bet these folks were glad to be wearing their seat belts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hole forces Qantas plane to land

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7524733.stm
A passenger films the Qantas forced landing from inside the plane

A passenger plane en route from London to Melbourne has made an emergency landing in the Philippines after a large hole appeared in its fuselage.

Qantas Airways said its Boeing 747-400, with 346 passengers and 19 crew, diverted to Manila shortly after leaving Hong Kong and landed safely.
Engineers are investigating what caused the hole - about 2.5m to 3m in diameter - that led to cabin pressure problems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/asia_pac_enl_1216993224/img/1.jpg
Once the Qantas plane had landed in Manila, those who went to inspect the damage could clearly see bags and suitcases through the hole in the fuselage close to the right wing.

An airport official said passengers looked scared and some were sick.

Airport authority spokesman Octavio Lina said part of the flooring near the affected section gave way, exposing some of the cargo below, and part of the ceiling also collapsed.

"Upon disembarkation, there were some passengers who vomited. You can see in their faces that they were really scared," he said.

'Gust of wind'
Passengers described hearing a large bang and feeling a rush of wind and debris through the cabin about an hour after Flight QF30 left Hong Kong at 0900 local time (0100 GMT).

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said the aircraft made an emergency descent from 29,000ft to 10,000ft. It said initial information indicated that a section of the fuselage had separated in the area of the forward cargo compartment.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
The damage to the fuselage exposed part of the hold.

Passenger Olivia Lucas told the BBC everyone was "pretty scared for a few moments".

"Then everyone focused on getting their oxygen masks on," she said. "Everyone was calm and quiet and there was notable relief when we landed.

Everyone applauded the pilot."

"We are very lucky we landed safely and no-one was hurt."

Phill Restall, from the UK, was woken "with a jolt" by the loud bang before the plane descended rapidly.

"No-one panicked, there was no screaming. It wasn't your typical television movie," he told the BBC News website.
"Everyone listened to the cabin staff."

He said other passengers had told him young children in the main cabin were crying.

Delayed shock
Mr Restall, who was reassured to see the engines "still spinning", said they wore the oxygen masks for about 15 minutes, until the plane levelled out.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifWHY QF30 DESCENDED 20,000FT
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44863000/gif/_44863480_aircraft_deprs_226in.gif
Planes are pressurised as cruising altitudes are freezing and lack sufficient oxygen to breathe

Hole causes decompression, rapidly reducing air pressure and risking exposure

Oxygen masks are deployed and pilot makes emergency descent to breathable altitude

The pilot then told passengers they were going to land in Manila to have a look at the damage.

"Everyone was fairly calm, partly because they didn't realise the extent of it," he said.

"After we disembarked it started to dawn on people that this was a major incident. There were 350 people up there who were very lucky.

"Seeing the hole caused a lot of emotion. People were physically shaking. Many realised how close they were to their own mortality."

Other passengers reported seeing items flying out of the aircraft.

Dr David Newman, of Flight Medicine Systems, says forcing the plane into a rapid descent after a sudden loss of pressure is a standard emergency procedure.

He says that when cruising, the internal cabin is pressurised to a much lower altitude than outside the aircraft, which is also extremely cold.

"When you've lost pressure, all that high pressure air in the cabin leaves the airplane and from a medical point of view you've got the risk of lack of oxygen - which is compensated for by the oxygen masks," he said.

"The descent is designed to limit how much time you spend up there and of course one of the other issues is that the mass flow of air leaving the airplane - if it's an explosive decompression - will take a lot of loose objects and articles around the cabin and basically try and leave the aircraft via the hole."

The flight, which had been due to arrive in Melbourne at 1145 GMT, landed in Manila just after 0300 GMT (1100 local time ).

Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said engineers were investigating what might have caused the hole in the fuselage.
He said Qantas had provided all passengers with accommodation and a replacement aircraft had been arranged.
The airline boasts of never having lost a jet, but has seen some of its aircraft involved in minor accidents in recent years.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7525043.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7524733.stm

[The Benniest]

This was insane to read because just hours ago, I was sitting in the food court, in Terminal 4, at John F. Kennedy Airport. :eek:

Suicide try at JFK food court

By Kerry Burke and Ethan Rouen
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Friday, July 25th 2008, 10:27 PM

A 47-year-old man leaped one story into a food court at Kennedy Airport (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+F.+Kennedy+International+Airport) in a failed suicide try Friday, police said.

The victim, whose name was not released, landed head first amid horrified diners in Terminal 4 about 3:50 p.m.

He was taken to Jamaica Hospital (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jamaica+Hospital) in critical condition.

"He just threw himself off," said Sara Atmar (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Sara+Atmar), 20, who works in the food court. "It was horrible. I was crying."

Copyright 2008 NYDailyNews.com

[Ninjahedge]

Really sad part?

Watch him sue for lack of 8' tall "safety" barriers over the food court and a sign warning against the health hazard of jumping off a balcony onto your head.

:p

[disko]

Really sad part?

Watch him sue for lack of 8' tall "safety" barriers over the food court and a sign warning against the health hazard of jumping off a balcony onto your head.

:p


I was there when it happened, totally horrific and that scene will never leave my brain. The news says that he lived, but was left in critical condition. However I heard that he later died, so suing probably won't be on the top of his things to do list.

[Ninjahedge]

Sorry to hear that.

I hope my sarcasm stays just as it was, sarcasm. The horrible thing is when you hear something like this and it actually DOES go as I have said.....

[The Benniest]

Plane swerves at Madrid airport, nearly 150 dead

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Updated Wednesday, August 20th 2008, 12:42 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/08/21/alg_plane_crash.jpg
A plane takes off near the site where a Spanair jet crashed on takeoff at the
Madrid airport Wednesday.

MADRID (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Madrid), Spain (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Spain) — A Spanish emergency rescue official says there are only 26 survivors after an airliner with 173 people aboard crashed on takeoff from Madrid's airport.

The official with the SAMUR municipal rescue service gave the toll after touring the site of Wednesday's crash.

The official told AP the rest of the people on the plane have been given up for dead. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of department rules that barred him from giving his name.

The Spanish airliner swerved off the runway and caught fire during takeoff from the Madrid airport. Spanair flight JK5022 was bound for Las Palmas (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Las+Palmas) in the Canary Islands (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Canary+Islands), a popular vacation spot off West Africa (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/West+Africa), the company said.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/08/21/amd_plane_crash.jpg
A Red Cross worker speaks on her cell
phone near the body of a victim of the
crash.

Thick, white smoke rose above Barajas airport as helicopters and fire trucks dumped water on the plane, which ended up in a wooded area at the end of the runway at Terminal 4.

An official with the Madrid emergency rescue service SAMUR said crews were removing injured people and bodies from the MD-80, calling it a "catastrophe." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give his name.

Copyright 2008 New York Daily News

[NYC4Life]

Engine fire is the suspected cause of this disaster.

[ablarc]

^ And what was the cause of the engine fire?

[Ninjahedge]

Smoking in the Bathroom?

[195Broadway]

There is supposed to be a fire in a jet engine.

[Jasonik]

Spanair crash investigation focuses on engine thrust, flaps

Tuesday August 26, 2008
by Aaron Karp (http://atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=13804)

Spanish investigators are focusing on whether the Spanair MD-82 that crashed last week had reached adequate speed for takeoff and whether its flaps operated properly.

The MD-82 ascended only briefly from the Madrid Barajas runway and, while initial speculation regarding an engine fire has faded (ATWOnline, Aug. 25 (http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=13788)), investigators are examining whether there was a lack of necessary engine power as the aircraft attempted to take off. El Pais reported that an airport video of the failed takeoff and crash being studied by investigators reveals that the plane lifted off about 500 m. farther down the runway than it should have, indicating that it did not have adequate thrust when it reached the spot normally designated for takeoff.

After lifting off, it almost immediately banked to the right and then crashed back down onto the runway. Investigators reportedly are trying to determine if there was a problem with the flaps that prevented a level ascent.

As the death toll reached 154 over the weekend with the death of one more passenger, one of only 18 survivors addressed reporters and said the aircraft seemed to be going "very slowly" as it moved down the runway. Just after lifting off "it made a turn, as if the wing dropped abruptly," she said. "We were still very low, very close to the ground."

As Spanish media continued to speculate over whether Spanair's financial problems led to a falloff in maintenance oversight, Spanish Civil Aviation Director General Manuel Batista came to the carrier's defense. Speaking at a press conference in Madrid, he said the airline had a strong safety record and has passed all inspections of its maintenance program conducted by the government this year. "We have not detected any problem that affects safety or a link with cost-cutting policies," he said.

*****

Click back through the ATAOnline link provided in the article for more good info.

This MD-82 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD-82) was fitted with Pratt & Whitney JT8D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D)-219 engines.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Alitalia is apparently in some trouble...