First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

American Airlines grounded its entire fleet of MD-80 jets to check wiring on the planes. As I write this, 325 flights are canceled.

Delta, also with a sizable MD-80 and -90 fleet, canceled several hundred flights for the same reason.

Earlier in the week, United took a number of its 747s out of service, also to perform maintenance checks, “to ensure compliance with federal maintenance standards.” All of a sudden? “The Federal Aviation Administration ordered the temporary groundings after discovering that test equipment used at a South Korea maintenance station was faulty.”

What’s going on?

After Southwest’s brief grounding of more than 40 737-300 jets because of possible damage to the aircraft’s metallic “skin,” the FAA is cracking down on maintenance. The agency “recently launched spot checks of compliance with safety requirements for all U.S. airlines.”

Well, good. After apparently not doing enough spot checking, the agency is playing catch-up. It’s encouraging, I suppose, that the inspections are being done now. But what does that mean for recent flights, like those, say, a week before these recent groundings? Wasn’t maintenance taken seriously before? Were you taking a risk?

There probably wasn’t much risk to passengers, frankly. I always comfort myself with the notion that the pilots are as much at risk as passengers. If they’re willing to get on board, then so am I.

But, as a matter of principle, I prefer that my airlines don’t cut corners and don’t skimp on maintenance. I also prefer that my government’s regulatory bodies do their job and actually keep companies under scrutiny in a clear, defined, and above all consistent manner. That clearly didn’t happen. And that is what needs to be addressed. The sky isn’t falling, but things could sure be better.

The airlines affected are canceling flights wholesale today, though they promise to be back on schedule soon. That’s the immediate bad news for travelers today. The fact that regulation has been haphazard is frankly of greater concern.

(image)

After 9/11, there was a debate over whether pilots should be trained in small firearms and permitted (or required) to carry a pistol in the cockpit. From the get-go, I objected. I felt that the risks of firearms exceeded their benefit, especially if the Federal Air Marshals program already had armed law enforcement officers on board.

The risk of an accidental discharge, or worse, a pilot with less-than-honorable purposes, makes guns in the cockpit a substantial risk. And now it’s happened: A US Airways pilot discharged his weapon during approach to Charlotte.

What on earth was the pilot doing with his pistol during the approach? Shouldn’t he have been working on landing the plane? And why wasn’t his weapon holstered, with the safety on? What were they doing up there, talking about their favorite (and still, to this day, most disturbing) scenes in Christopher Walken movies?

The whole thing makes me feel less safe. Both because I don’t like the idea of hot lead flying through the fuselage, and because I like my pilots to be flying, not playing with guns.

The pro-gun argument has always been that armed pilots serve as the last line of defense in the case of a hijacking or other incident. Or that armed pilots are themselves a deterrent to hijackers.

But it’s impossible to prove whether or not the arming of pilots actually improves safety by scaring potential bad guys from trying anything on board a plane. You can’t prove or disprove that proposition, unless you’ve got an al Qaeda focus group that you’re running.

A more concrete case that would support the pro-arming side would be incidents of threats who were subdued by an armed pilot. I haven’t heard of a single incident wherein a pilot was called upon to unholster his or her weapon in flight. If readers have a link to such a case, please send it my way.

As it is, the passengers on this plane were lucky that nothing worse happened. Arming pilots remains a bad idea.

(Thanks to David, Kim, and Richard for sending this one in!)

UPDATE:
Here’s a photo of the gunshot hole, via the Associated Press:

Recognizing that a crash landing is no one’s idea of “traveling better,” but simultaneously admitting that when the going gets rough, surviving a landing might just be the best you can hope for, I give you this incredible photo of an Air New Zealand commuter flight, operated by Eagle Air, making an emergency landing at Blenheim Airport.

The plane’s landing gear failed to emerge from its bay. Pilots jockeyed the plane, a 19-passenger Beech 1900D with 15 passengers and 2 pilots on board, right down the center of the runway. Other than a damaged plane, whose fuselage was scraped down the runway, and which clearly needs new rudders on its propellers, no one was hurt. Amazing, especially when you see those hunks of spinning metal flying through the air. Great piloting.

(Full story/image source)

Boeing is testing a new form of autopilot that might make hijackings even harder by putting the plane’s controls in the hands of people on the ground.

[The system] will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck. Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots. The so-called ‘uninterruptible autopilot system’ - patented secretly by Boeing in the US last week - will connect ground controllers and security services with the aircraft using radio waves and global satellite positioning systems. After it has been activated, the aircraft will be capable of remote digital control from the ground, enabling operators to fly it like a sophisticated model plane, manoeuvring it vertically and laterally. A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as ‘autoland function’.

Of course, you hope that the system is configured so that it doesn’t kick in every time the beverage cart bumps into the cockpit door.

And speaking of autopilot, I’m on vacation for a few days, and the odds are slim that I’ll have regular, easy internet access. So I’ve queued up a few posts for the coming days and handed the keys to the kingdom to my good friend Tyler Colman, a.k.a. Dr. Vino. We might get some guest posts out of him, but no promises, and no pressure!

The war on runway safety
Bangkok’s new Suvarnabhumi Airport hasn’t worked out as everyone hoped, with cost overruns, insufficient bathrooms, and shoddy workmanship. But now, by virtue of its failure to renew its safety certificate, it’s officially unsafe. Runways have been plagued with cracks and debris. (You’ll be pleased to know that the airport is still operating as normal. Nice. Wouldn’t want to let safety get in the way of the schedule!)

The war on skycaps
Skycaps at Boston’s Logan Airport have filed a class action lawsuit against American Airlines. The suit alleges that the airline’s policy of charging $2 per bag for curbside check-in is cutting into the skycaps’ tips. Indeed, many people assume the fee goes to the skycap, but it actually goes to the airline. The fees exist at plenty of other airports and with plenty of other airlines. Will more skycaps organize and sue?

The war on horse meat
I really don’t know what to make of this. “American Airlines and Delta Air Lines said early Thursday afternoon that they had suspended transport of horse meat to overseas markets – mainly France, Belgium and Japan – where it is consumed.” Horse butchers are angry. It’s a long story.

The war on fusion cuisine
Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture will soon travel the world, inspecting Japanese restaurants and certifying their authenticity. I realize that this is as much cultural nationalism as it is a marketing device, but it’s moronic. California rolls aren’t authentic to Japan, but they’re a standard of sushi restaurants in America. Deal with it. It’s a globalized world, and the notion of a “pure” cultural product is a sham. And it’s been a sham for some time. We’ve been globalizing for hundreds of years. (The spice trade, anyone?) But if the Japanese taxpayer wants to pay for this culinary boondoggle, have at it. (Thanks Dr. Vino!)

The war on broken in-flight entertainment
I get as irritated as the next guy when the audio-video system is broken on a long flight, but attacking the staff is probably not the way to go. Customers on board several Qantas aircraft that have been experiencing technical trouble with their video system “are becoming openly abusive and threatening” to flight attendants in flight. Not cool. Better bring a book.

The war for Delta
US Airways really, really, really, really, really wants to buy Delta. They’re now offering to raise their offer by another $1 billion if the creditors agree to postpone a meeting to discuss Delta’s in-house restructuring. Wake me up when this is over.

(image)

Two updates on the airport security front. One good, one bad.

First, the no-fly list is being revised. Downward! While the actual length of the list is a secret, TSA chief “Kip” Hawley told a Congressional oversight committee that the list was to be cut in half. Considering how often you hear complaints about people being on the list by mistake, and then trying in vain to get their names removed, it’s good to hear that something at the TSA is moving in the right direction.

…And then there’s the bad news:

Hawley also came out in opposition to the bill approved by the House of Representatives which would mandate inspection of airplane cargo. As it stands now, your suitcases are screened, but other cargo isn’t.

Hawley commented: “If you spend all your resources opening boxes and not applying your resources more generally, that opens up another vulnerability,” Hawley told the Senate Aviation Subcommittee. “The adaptive terrorist will go there.”

The “thudding” sound you may hear in the background is me hitting my head against my desk. If cargo isn’t being screened at all NOW, isn’t THAT where “the adaptive terrorist” will try to stash the bad stuff? Why would the head of the TSA effectively declare that cargo is something the TSA does not intend to screen? It’s an invitation, nay, a dare, to potential terrorists seeking to actually smuggle a bomb (or even themselves) on board.

In the meantime, the TSA is thankfully searching passengers for contraband pies.

Related:
- Cavalcade of security news: Fingerprints, liquids, and suspicious looking devices
- Liquids liberated, but free speech still threatened in airports

(image)

This is a new one for me: Several airlines are refusing to fly into Bristol because they’ve lost faith in the safety of the runway. They’re afraid their planes will slip off the newly repaved surface in the lightest rain. After several days of boycott, the airport decided to close.

EasyJet was the first to cancel its flights. XL Airways was next, and British Airways followed suit shortly thereafter. Others joined in later.

Four planes have experienced “incidences on that runway in wet weather.” One aircraft skidded off the runway. The affected airlines are offering to reroute passengers through other airports, until Bristol’s runway is re-grooved.

But perhaps most interestingly: Not every airline refused to land at Bristol before the airport managers threw in the towel. For example, Continental’s Newark-Bristol flights were still on the schedule today. And European carriers like Ryanair and flyBe never stopped flying into the airport.

So why were these few airlines willing to take their chances? Why, when so many other carriers cut their schedules short?…

(For the latest status, click here for the Bristol Airport website.)

(Update 1/8/06: The airport has reopened following overnight work to add drainage grooves to the runway. How nice.)

Looking outside your window from row 24, the last thing you probably want to see is a crew of airline mechanics using tape to fix a wing flap. But that’s exactly what the video below shows.

As Patrick Smith explains in Salon, this isn’t regular duct tape as found at the Home Depot.

What you see is the perfectly safe and legal application of some heavy-duty aluminum bonding tape, called “speed tape” in the mechanic’s lexicon. Depending on what a plane’s maintenance manual stipulates — according to the dictates of the FAA — certain noncritical components can be temporarily patched with this material, embarrassing as it sometimes looks. It’s extremely strong, durable, and able to expand and contract through an extreme range of temperatures.

So tape on planes is okay. Bondo, not so much.

(source link, via)

Upgraded: The five-star hotel, now with seven stars!
Much like video game point inflation, star-rankings are just getting silly. Following the success of their Palazzo Versace hotel on the Australian Gold Coast, the fashion powerhouse is joining forces with Australian developer Sunland Group to create 15 “seven-star” hotels. Seven stars!?! What makes a seven-star hotel better than a five-star, or the equally absurd (but unheard-of, at least to me) six-star hotel? Apparently, live exotic fish in the pool and “specially-cooled sand.”

Downgraded, potentially: Starwood Preferred Guest points
Seven seems to be the magic number for hoteliers today. Gary Leff spreads the rumor that Starwood is planning to add a tier to their point-redemption rules: Category 7. The ultra-expensive resorts (Bora Bora, Maldives, etc.) would likely end up in this top tier, but other hotels might try to bump up their categorization, thereby costing you more points for free-night redemptions.

Downgraded: TripAdvisor’s reputation
The Times of London sends reporters to hotels and restaurants, offering to write positive reviews on TripAdvisor in return for an unspecified payment. Several properties were amenable to the scheme. More widespread, though: Owners writing their own glowing reviews. (The flipside, not mentioned: Owners tagging genuine, but negative reviews as “unhelpful.”) At least they still work on a five-point scale… My tip: I’m more likely to trust detailed reports that include both the good and the bad (no stay is perfect) and user-generated photos.

Downgraded: L.A.’s image
Who will recognize the City of Angels without its palm trees? As they die, they’re being replaced with oaks, etc. Sunset Boulevard, R.I.P.

Downgraded: Travel guides, travelers’ brains
Pimp my vacation! Where would Christina Aguilera par-tay in Avignon? Where is the best place to get rip-roaring, fall-down-the-stairs drunk as you go city-hopping with your Eurail Pass? And where in Italy will you find the “most awesome ancient ruins”? (real quote) MTV and Frommer’s have joined forces to create travel guides that will point readers “to some of the world’s hottest party scenes and outdoor adventures.” Did Beavis and/or Butthead get a travel writing gig?

Downgraded further: Common sense
If you only have a gallon-sized Ziploc bag, instead of the required quart-sized bag, but you only fill it with 2 tiny 3-ounce bottles, which would obviously have fit into the smaller bag, does TSA let you pass through security at Boston’s Logan Airport? No. Go buy a freedom-inducing 1-quart bag from the newsstand for fifty cents, terror-boy!

Downgraded: Brazil
Not much has been heard in the American news media since the horrific mid-air collision that cost 154 people their lives. The American pilots of the surviving Embraer business jet are still being held in Brazil. Joe Sharkey, the New York Times columnist who was actually on board the luckier plane, has been relentlessly following the story on his blog. While lawsuits and the Brazilian government (and media) are pre-emptively assigning blame to the pilots and their use of the radio transponder, Joe argues that Brazil is trying to cover up their own (military-controlled) air traffic control system. Apparently control of the skies is filled with coverage gaps, language trouble, and overworked employees who take time off in large groups — ostensibly for psychotherapy. Let’s just say that my faith in the safety of air travel is Brazil is minimal at best.

(image)

Fly with JetBlue last year? You may have been a passenger on a test flight: An experiment to see how long pilots can actually control a passenger jet before fatigue sets in.

You don’t remember filling out a consent form? Oh, that’s because the airline pulled a fast one: They convinced low-level FAA officials to bend the rules for their little experiment. Instead of limiting their flying to the legal limit of 8 hours per day, pilots spent as much as 11 hours at the controls.

It wasn’t until someone called in the experiment to some FAA higher-ups that the experiment got canned. The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription only):

The two-pilot crews were equipped with specially designed motion detectors on their wrists to measure activity, and participated in tests with hand-held computing devices that issued random prompts and then recorded the speed of responses. All told, JetBlue says 29 pilots, including the backup aviators, participated in more than 50 data-gathering flights during May 2005. All of the flights were domestic, and a big portion were coast-to-coast trips.

The carrier says it proceeded under the assumption that local FAA officials had the power to approve the company’s plans under so-called supplemental flight rules. Those rules specify that airlines flying longer distances must have at least one extra pilot on board so no single pilot flies more than eight hours in total. However, in the JetBlue test, even though each flight had a third pilot on board, the original crews stayed at the controls for more than 10 hours a day. None of the reserve pilots ever replaced a regular crew member.

Thankfully nothing seems to have gone wrong, and 2 to 3 hours of overtime is probably not that much of a stretch. But it’s simply not acceptable that the company or its pilots play these kinds of games with passengers. Passengers should not be made unwitting co-test-subjects in a corporate experiment. Unless there is an experimental “informed consent” clause in the JetBlue contract of carriage?

It’s apparently not enough that so many airline pilots sound like legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager when they’re welcoming you onboard over the intercom. No, these guys actually wanted to BE test pilots.

Experiments are fine, but not with a plane full of unwitting subjects. And what were the results of those tests, anyway? As members of the “research team,” doesn’t the public have the right to know?

UPDATE 10/23/06: Full text of WSJ article now available here. Not sure how long it’ll be there, but read it and weep.

(Thanks, Dr. Vino!)
(image)

Post 9/11, I figured that hijackings were a thing of the past. Passengers would rise up and tackle the perps, grabbing them by the hair and engaging in a rough and tumble Boeing Brawl. The captain might emerge, heroically carrying his fire axe, duct-taping the hijackers to a seat, Jack Bauer-style, and order would be restored.

Apparently, you still CAN hijack a plane, after all. Turkish hijackers took over a Turkish Airlines flight from Tirana, Albania, to Istanbul, apparently in protest of the Pope’s upcoming visit to Turkey. The flight was diverted to Brindisi, Italy, escorted by Greek and Italian fighter jets, where the hijackers requested asylum.

Maybe no one stopped the hijackers because they were too nice: The flight attendants were allowed to serve drinks and snacks during the flight, apparently AFTER the hijacking was underway. The hijackers had no obvious weapons, and no one was hurt.

Passengers thought something was odd when they “saw a man wearing track-suit bottoms and a hat go to the cockpit door and pause there, thinking.”

Miss India, Miss Singapore, Miss Malaysia, and Miss Philippines were on the flight, returning from the Globe International 2006 beauty contest in fab-u-lous downtown Tirana.

The lesson: Never trust beauty queens to take down a hijacker. Never.

(image: Valleia)

The New York Times’ Joe Sharkey, who was on board the Embraer jet that collided with the ill-fated Gol Airlines Boeing 737 over Brazil, has a firsthand account of the incident today. It’s a worthwhile read, in which he describes the moment of impact, the sight of the sheared-off winglet, the passengers’ serious but unpanicked demeanor, and the pilots’ focused (and ultimately successful) efforts to wrestle their damaged plane to a runway they didn’t realize existed. Go read the whole thing.

Since Sharkey wrote the piece, the cockpit voice recorders of the doomed 737 have been found, so we’ll hopefully learn soon what happened exactly, and how the larger plane could be taken out by the smaller one.

On his own blog, Sharkey has come under vituperative attack, largely by Brazilians, it seems, for expressing concern about the Embraer’s pilots who were held for questioning, and not expressing sufficient grief at the loss of the 155 passengers in the Boeing.

Give the guy a break. He’s clearly shaken up after a brush with death, and he’s grateful to the pilots who safely landed a plane that was starting to come apart. It’s only natural to think of things through the lens of your own experience.

Previously:
- How could this tragedy have happened?

(image: AP via NYT)