Interesting airport security story

[apagano]

Last night on Conan O'Brien, Al Roker related the following story about his flying recent experience. At the security gate, workers confiscated batteries and disposable razors from his carry-on bag because they are no longer allowed in the cabin. He went to his gate and decided to stop at the newsstand while he waited to board his flight. Guess what he was able to purchase there? That's right folks...batteries and disposable razors! He actually took them back to security to show the officers how things that are supposedly banned can be purchased inside the concourse. They told him that they were simply following the rules and that the government makes the rules but the airline runs the concession stand. Sounds like a communication failure to me.

 

[flyingcircus]

Airlines DO NOT run the concession stands. The airport is in control of leasing the space to the concessioners.

Every airport and airline have different guidelines right now. Of course there is the mandated NOT ACCEPTABLE list by the FAA that has to be adhered to, but it is up to the individual airline/airport what is acceptable beyond the FAA mandates. That is why it is not consistent, and varies at different locations. We have to realize that right now security is going through massive changes, and some might be more over zealous than some. Some airports are higher risk than others- Did you know when you go through the metal detector, it is set at different levels- depending on how "high risk" the airport is. That is why sometimes you might "beep" at one airport, and not another.

 

[Beverly Lynn]

and the airlines do not run the security at the airport either. the metal detectors that everyone walks thru is run by a seperate company too.

 

[Firefighter Mickey]

But it was my understanding that the airlines pay for and are ultimately responsible for security at the airports; all they do is subcontract out the job though. I thought that was one of the reasons for all the cries that the US Gov. take over this responsibility and why all the lawers are circling like vultures for the possible suits against the airlines.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

And,
they let me take my batteries on board in BDL & BWI. I took them out on the return flight as we did get our stuff inspected at BWI, seems batteries look like bullets to the folks running the scanners/xray. So......not to run into a problem, I put them in my suitcase for the trip home, but, they were not on the "no no" list at MCO.

 

[ducklite]

I could do more damage with a Bic pen or the HALON fire extinguisher that is on every airplane than with a pair of nail clippers or a disposable razor. On top of that, a small razor blade conceled in the heel of ones shoe isn't going to set off the metal detector, think about it--it's less metal than your belt buckle!

The carriers and FAA are being reactive rather than proactive.

The good thing that will come out of this is that there will be far less air rage...anyone who starts anything with a FA or fellow pax will be immediately subdued--you can coiunt on that!

Anne

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Anne,
I believe them to be proactive and reactive. THe powers that be are reacting to a horrible event in a very proactive way. However, I believe it is in our best interests.
As to damage, I have never cut myself with a bic pen, I have never hurt myself with a fire extinguisher , but, I sure have carved the *ell out of my legs with a razor. Not sure if the blades would trigger an alarm, but, I am not going to try. I do respect rules. Break a disposable razor some time, those blades can do some damage.
Nothing is ever going to be fool proof, but, I am all for trying in the name of security.
One does wonder why this upsets you so much. You have lost nothing but gained a lot.
You still have the right to fly at will, within the rules, anywhere you want. If you don't like the rules you don't have to fly. Simple and fee choice.

 

[ducklite]

Originally posted by GAIL HAYDEN
Anne,
I believe them to be proactive and reactive. THe powers that be are reacting to a horrible event in a very proactive way. However, I believe it is in our best interests.
As to damage, I have never cut myself with a bic pen, I have never hurt myself with a fire extinguisher , but, I sure have carved the *ell out of my legs with a razor. Not sure if the blades would trigger an alarm, but, I am not going to try. I do respect rules. Break a disposable razor some time, those blades can do some damage.
Nothing is ever going to be fool proof, but, I am all for trying in the name of security.
One does wonder why this upsets you so much. You have lost nothing but gained a lot.
You still have the right to fly at will, within the rules, anywhere you want. If you don't like the rules you don't have to fly. Simple and fee choice.

I am certainly not saying that September 11th wasn't a horrible event. One of the worst in US history, if not the absolute worst. Please don't take me wrong. I also think that we need to pull up our bootstraps and get on with our lives. Spend money, make the economy churn, and show terrorists that we are still the greatest country in the world, we ARE NOT AFRAID, and we will not negotiate, even on a personal level, with terrorists.

The thing I'm upset about is that it appears to me that the FAA and the various carriers are reacting by imposing some ludicrous standards...ludicrous because as soon as you pass through the security area, you can walk up to any news stand and buy a pair of nail clippers--one of the restricted items. I just don't want to see pax think that there is no risk at all. It certainly does still exist. But then again you could just as easily get hit by a bus.

I'm not going to try to take any contraband on board. I have no desire to see the inside of a FPC for many years. I'm simply pointing out the irony that we are seeing. And I do think it's reactive. They have to do something to save the entire industry, BlAmtrack has seen a 35% rise in ridership since the 11th, that's pretty darn remarkable for them. There are just so many things that they could be doing that IMHO they aren't, or are being hypocritical about.

As far as getting hurt with a fire extinguisher, here is what the manufacturer of one brand of halon extinguishers for aircraft has to say about it:

(1) Dry chemical extinguishing agents when discharged in crew compartments of confined areas may cause serious impairment to visibility. In addition, they may cause temporary breathing difficulty during and immediately after discharge.

(2) Tests indicate that human exposure to high levels of Halon vapors may result in dizziness, impaired coordination, and reduced mental sharpness.

So, spray that in someones face, my bet is it will give you a very distinct advantage, at least for a moment. And a moment is all one needs.

Until they replace the workfare people who man the check points, who are there because they have to be, not because they care (at minimum wage I probably wouldn't care much either), until they make the entire sterile part of the concourse free of items that are "restricted"--I've seen box cutters used in news stands-and it would be very easy for someone to pocket one while the clerk wasn't looking, until they put an undercover sky marshall on every flight, I'm planning on being even more aware of my surroundings than I ever was before. I am pretty sure that I'm not the only passenger will never sit idly by and witness an act of air rage again--because you never know if it's a drunk or a terrorist.

Anne

 

[TinkerbellRules]

I think you could potentially use almost anything as a "weapon". You bet I'd use a pen, if that's all I had, to jab someone attacking me (ie, in the eye, in the neck, etc). I'm appaulded they took those items away, but permitted the purchasing of them once inside secure areas. I don't remember any gift shops or anything beyond the security area in the INdy airport, but I really didn't get much thought before.

 

[dcedwards]

WOW - some good discussion here. I just started a post on banning all carry on. While I share the concerns for security I also share concerns for my liberties as well. Good solid security regulations are important. But ones that make sense would also seem to be needed. Perhaps they will get it all straightened out in the near future. I hope so. While we focus on the airline industry there are still lots of others out there that also need to take a look at security. The airline industry is just a starting point. I just hope in our zeal to be secure we don't give up some of our basic freedoms that make this country strong. Yes, it is a new day with a new enemy and we need to make adjustments but how much are you willing to give up to be "safe" which can never really be achieved?

 

[TrudyZ]

Anne:

Just a quick clarification or two:

1. Halon 1211 or 1301 and dry chemical extinguishers are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT extinguishing methods. Dry chemical (Ansul 101 or 102, etc) is a powdery substance, pretty messy when it is released, and could potentially impair visibility, etc.

Halon is a gaseous supression agent and, although, when released, could theoretically cause a small percentage of obscuration, it is definately not enough to seriously impair your vision.

2. It is highly unlikely than anyone, including the pilots, would be exposed to Halon in concentrations great enough to cause dizziness, etc. It takes prolonged exposure at very elevated concentrations to do this. Even total flooding halon systems, which were used in the past as the main means of fire protection in vital computer operations, etc. were only designed to hold 5-6 % for 10 minutes. Trust me, sealing a room tight enough to hold that concentration is a job in itself! The 5-6% concentration is considered a "safe" concentration, and during the good ol' days when Halon was readily used, I have seen many a Tech actually stay in the room during discharge testing. It takes 11-13% for a prolonged period to have any physical side effects.

There isnt enough Halon in those extinguishers to get the concentration up that high in the cockpit. And, if by some chance there where many multiple extingishers set off in the cockpit at the same time, tell the pilots to just open the door! I guarentee that will dilute the concentration to "safe" levels.

The biggest danger a pilot has from a Halon fire extinguisher is being hit over the head with it .

3. I am not sure where the individual airplanes are with it, but since the days of the Montreal Protocol, Halon have been on the "endangered species", and now on the "extinct" list. It is no longer manufactured. Many Halon systems and fire extinguishers are slowly being replaced by FM200, Intergen, or other types of gaseous supression systems. So, there is a good chance that the extinguisher may not even be a Halon one anymore.


You may want to go back and check the article. The manufacturer may be talking about a total flooding extingishing system, not just a halon extingusher. Or, he may be selling Intergen .

If you give me a link I would be glad to check it out and give you a "professional" opinion.

Regards,
Trudy

 

[ehagerty]

Don't know a lot about security - but I do know that during my last 3 trips to Bosnia (1998, 1999 and 2000), they (tour guides) were very clear about removing all batteries from carryon luggage (walkmans, cameras, everything) and handing them directly to security in a see-through baggie when checking into the Split airport. Anyone "caught" checking a bag with a battery could be detained.

The security guys (yah, the ones with the BIG guns) didn't seem interested in entertaining questions from American tourists about their security policies, so I still do not know the reason - but if it makes us more secure, I don't really care!!

 

[flyingcircus]

OK Trudyz-
I'm looking this up in my handbook- The halon extinguisher " contains halon chemical and gas propellant under pressure". I do know the discharge time is 12 seconds.

 

[TrudyZ]

Flying circus:

Halon's claims to fame is that it is a superior extinguishing method for electrical/sensitive equipment fires.

It has no residue like dry chem., it won't cause thermal shock to the equipment (the discharge temp. at the nozzle for CO2 is around -25F---really screws up electronics); it is non-conductive--which means you won't get electrocuted using it to put out an electrical fire like a water filled fire extinguisher--(bet you never thought of that one); and in standard desgin concentrations it is not hazardous to your health--whereas CO2 in a confined space will kill you--not a good thing to use on airplanes.

I have seen it used a lot in engine compartments and control rooms (as a whole room, total flooding system, not just as an extinguisher), and it works great.

There are a quite a number of other benefits from a design engineering standpoint; such as it requires less agent so takes up less space, piping doesn't have to be rated for high pressure, etc., etc. But I am sure I have just put you all to sleep by now!

From a fire protection standpoint, it is really a great. If I was on an airplance, it would be my first choice. Too bad it really screws up the environment!

The halon chemical is a chlorinated polycarbon and the propellent is an usually inert gas. And, that 12 seconds means that that is about all you have to aim right--after that, the extinguisher is empty. Better make it count!

(Okay now that it is obvious that I am a nerdly engineer, and I have told you more than you ever wanted to know, back to my graphs and equations!)

Trudy

 

[flyingcircus]

Thanks Trudy,

I did know that halon is to be used at electrical fires, aimed at the base of the fire in a sweeping motion. The water fire extinguishers are supposed to be used on the nonelectrical fires. Luckily haven't have to use one yet- but I am read to FIRE if necessary!!!

 

[ducklite]

Trudy--

Thanks for the info--If I can find that article I'll send you a PM with the address. I still like the idea of the fire extinguisher as a defensive weapon, regardless of what comes out of it...it would be enough to distract for a second, and then swing the thing as hard as possible.

As far as restricting carry-ons, I'm absolutely not going to check my laptop/cellphone/camera, etc. until they change the Warsaw convention to waaaaaayyyyy up the value of checked luggage, not to mention figure out a more delicate way to manage loading and unloading the stuff. What it really comes down to though is that we could all carryon anything, and it's not going to stop the potential for in air incidents. Not until there is a sky marhsall on each plane, and there is absolutely no way to enter the cockpit.

I like the idea of the cockpit being accessible only from an exterior entrance. Yes, it would cost a small fortune to retrofit every plane, but it would in the long run be much less costly than the 25+ billion we'll be spending to recoup from Sept. 11. Even that won't guarantee us complete safety, if a hijacker was intent on getting to Cuba or Iraq or where ever, they would still threaten pax unless the flight was diverted. I can pretty much guarantee pax on a hijacked plane will never again remain calm and cooperative. They will fight back, from the beginning, and I think that in itself is enough to make any potential hijacker or sky terrorist or air rager think twice about their actions.

Anne

 

[pooh2001]

Thank you for the Science lessons.
I know more about fire extinguishers than I did 10 minutes ago.
Great thread for information

 

[idontknow]

I couldn't resist about the fire extinguishers...................

I think I could do serious damage to someone if I hit them over the head with one. (sorry, that's all that was going thru my mind as I read about the chemicals involved)

What I'm truely scared of is if they pass the rule about the pilots carrying firearms! I heard about hand guns and zappers. (the electrical shockers) Didn't someone hijack a plane a few years ago dressed as a pilot? Wouldn't that give anyone dressed as a pilot access to a weapon? That scares me!

And what about the resusitating zapping machines they were talking about having the planes carry incase someone's heart stopped beating? Wouldn't that do a world of damage to someone? Don't you just make sure the machine is charged and then press a button on the paddles? Too easy!

As for weapons, anything can be a weapon. Self defense classes teach that scarves, pens, keys, belt buckles, high heel shoes can all be weapons of self defense. Where there is a will, there's a way.

 

[mikek]

automatic defribulators are computer controlled to only provide a charge if the person hooked to it would benefit. IF the patient has a normal heartbeat or one that the shock would not help the machine will not fire.

 

[TrudyZ]

Boy, I just re-read the thread.

May I humbly apologize for my total nerdliness to anyone who had the misfortune of reading that. Thank God I stopped short of listing the chemical equations and drawing out the molecular models!

I guess I just never had the conversation swing to my area of expertise before (and by God, after reading all that, you all will make sure it never happens again!!)

Oh well, if you every need any advice on fire protection design (or your kid needs to write a paper), you know where to find me .

Trudy