Flying With Fish The Blog for Those Who Fly & Those Who Want to Fly Smarter

Last Monday, the 3rd of June, Star Wars star Peter Mayhew, better known as everyone’s favourite Wookiee, Chewbacca, was briefly stopped by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at Denver International Airport with his chest-high light saber. Standing 7-feet 2-inches tall, the light saber double’s as the 69 year old actor’s cane.

While the TSA Transportation Security Officers (TSO) may have been curious about Meyhew’s light saber, the fact is the TSA permits light sabers as carry on items. Not only does the TSA permit light sabers, but the agency expressly does so in writing.

Meyhew was cleared by TSA TSOs in less than five minutes to pass through the checkpoint with his light saber. One can only hope that next time TSA TSOs encounter a light saber they’ll be more familiar with carry on restrictions and not give it a second thought … although it should be noted the official reason the light saber shaped cane was stopped was due to the unusual weight of the item.

Below is a photo from Peter Meyhew’s twitter, @TheWookieeRoars, account depicting TSA TSO’s and his light saber, and a screen capture of the TSA’s policy regarding light saber’s as carry on.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

This afternoon at 14:42hrs EST the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Administrator John S. Pistole sent an email to all agency employees regarding a “Prohibited Items List Update.”

The email, one which was expected by many, rereversed an already reversed decision by Administrator Pistole to withdraw the March 5 2013 announcement that passengers would be allow to fly with small pocket knives, two golf clubs, ski poles, and other items prohibited after September 11^th 2001, on the 25th of April.   The change to the TSA’s prohibited items did not go into effect on the 25th of April, but instead was temporarily delayed on the 22nd of April. Now, on the 5th of June all items slated to be reallowed as carry-on items will remain prohibited for the foreseeable future.

Today’s email from Administrator Pistole states:

“Recently, I asked the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, law enforcement officials, passenger advocates, other important stakeholders, and the public to review modifications to the Prohibited Items List.

TSA strongly values the input of our partners and traveling public, and I have appreciated the varying points of view shared throughout the review process. After extensive engagement with these stakeholders, I have decided to continue to enforce the current prohibited item list. Small knives, novelty-sized and toy bats, billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks and golf clubs will remain on the prohibited items list for carry-on baggage.

Our top priority continues to be expansion of efforts to implement a layered, risk-based security approach to passenger screening while maximizing resources. Risk-based security enhances the travel experience while allowing TSA to continue to keep passengers safe by focusing on those we know less about.”

This email from Administrator Pistole is interesting, especially since the original decision to remove small knives and other prohibited items included the input of the Aviation Security Committee and other “stakeholders” as part of a working group. The original text from Pistole’s email on the 5th of March reads “After reviewing the working group’s assessment, I have made the decision to remove some items from the Prohibited Items List. This risk-based change maintains a focus on IEDs and aligns our Prohibited Items List with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) list that currently governs most foreign countries whose passengers fly into, through and out of the United States. ”

The statement on the 5th of March was based on research that “included analysis of intelligence, the current threat environment, operational impacts and existing international prohibited items regulations” so one has to ask … what happened in the world of aviation security between the 5th of March and now?

On the 22nd of April the Administrator Pistole cited the terror attack on The Boston Marathon, however that attack involved a pressure cooker and ball bearings, both of which the TSA still allows on board all flights as carry on items.   There have been no threats to global commercial aviation security using small knives, ski poles, golf clubs or miniature toy bats, however there was industry outcry from flight attendant organization and some negative public sentiment, leading to one conclusion.

The conclusion is this, the rereversal of the original reversal to once again allow small pocket knives on commercial flights is a decision made based on public opinion, much like the decision to allow children and the elderly to leave their shoes on and pass through the walk through metal detector rather than the advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners … despite actual intelligence and threat analysis showing that children and the elderly could potentially be high risk for unknowingly concealing prohibited items while passing through airport security checkpoints.

The TSA is an odd agency. As a whole the agency appears to rarely answer to anyone, constantly citing intelligence and threat analysis, yet at times the agency makes policy choices based on public opinion, while completely ignoring intelligence and threat analysis.

Aviation security is not a show. It is not up to the public to dictate aviation security policy. Aviation security is about using detailed information, research and threat analysis to create a security policy and system that has a single goal of protecting aircraft in-flight.

The TSA’s management needs to take a step back, stop listening to the talking heads and follow the intelligence while making risk-based changes that align with the ICAO Prohibited Items List.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

Today’s reader mail comes from Vincent R., from Springfield, Massachusetts. Vincent writes “I have noticed the TSA in my local Amtrak station during the past few months. Amtrak Police refer to these uniformed TSA officers as TSA VIPR Teams. What exactly are they doing?”

Well Vincent, over the past few years there has been a lot of discussion of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams operating in train stations, bus terminals, truck stops and elsewhere and a question of just what these TSA VIPR Teams are doing.

The effectiveness of VIPR Teams, their expansion, and legality of VIPR Teams is for another discussion, and a topic that has been covered previously and will be covered again in the future here on Flying With Fish, … but what exactly is the purpose of VIPR Teams in real world terms? Let’s find out …

While the TSA specifically states the Mission of VIPR teams is “VIPR operations promote confidence in and protect our nation’s transportation systems through targeted deployment of integrated TSA assets utilizing screening and law enforcement capabilities in coordinated activities to augment security of any mode of transportation,” There is a simpler answer.

VIPR Teams typically consist of Behavioral Detection Officers (BDO), Federal Air Marshals (FAM) and Canine Transportation Security (Explosives) Specialist (K9 TSSE), as well as Transportation Security Officers.   These teams can be seen with increasing frequency in train stations, bus terminals, cruise ship docks, ferry ports, mingling with passengers and even occasionally searching the bags of those in the stations, however they are not in these transportation stations in a law enforcement capacity, although a Federal Air Marshal is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. VIPR Teams are deployed in a real world situation with the purpose of establishing a further visual deterrent to prevent terrorism.

The concept for VIPR teams is simple, by positioning these high profile teams in transportation hubs potential terrorists will see them and be deterred against carrying out their act of terrorism.  During the VIPR Team deployments the officers also sweep for general crime, but that is not their purpose. TSA VIPR Teams can stop and detain for local law enforcement, although the Federal Air Marshals have arresting powers, but in general this is not their mission.

For more info on TSA VIPR Teams, feel free to check the archives for

TSA VIPR Teams – Increase A Legally Questionable Failing Program?

DHS Lawyer : Travelers Need Not Submit To TSA VIPR Teams

Can The TSA Use Air Marshals In VIPR Teams? Not Really

Hope that answers your question.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

Given the news that an Alaska Airlines passenger was arrested yesterday at Portland International Airport after attempting to open an emergency exit door on-board Alaska Airlines flight 132, from Anchorage, this seems like a good time to revisit the issue of aircraft doors being opened in-flight. Can a passenger open a jet airliner’s door in flight?  Well … let’s go back to this blog post from the 13th of May 2011 and find out …

Over the past few weeks there seems to be an unusual frequency of stories regarding airline passengers attempting to open a commercial airliner’s door in flight.  The thought of a door opening in flight is scary, and with good reason … people fear being sucked out of a plane and the rapid decompression causing plane to crash … but the reality is that once a commercial airliner begins to pressurize during its taxi from the gate to the runway the it is virtually impossible for a passengers, or even a group of passengers, to open a door.

The physics of opening a door on a commercial airliner make the possibility of a passenger rotating the ‘open lever,’ and having the door open in flight highly improbable.  The majority of commercial passenger aircraft cabin doors are ‘plug’ doors. A ‘plug’ door is designed in such a way that the door’s physical size is larger than the hole it is placed into. In order to open a modern jet airliner’s door, the door must swing into the cabin before swinging out of the cabin.   Once an airplane begins to pressurize, the pressure around the seals around the door prevent the door from become dislodged, and on many aircraft requires a mechanical mechanism to physically lift the door.

What prevents a door from being pulled into the cabin to swing it out? According to Boeing “Since airplanes typically cruise above 30,000 feet, the air pressure inside the plane is much greater than the pressure outside — and that pressure differential makes it impossible to open the door, even if somebody wanted to do such a thing.”

Regarding the pressure holding a cabin door in place, Karlene Petitt, a veteran commercial airline pilot, says, “A group couldn’t open it because they don’t have the strength and ability. There is no way to harness the combined strength”

Gailen David, CEO of Jetiquette and a long time flight attendant with a major international airline, recalls two incidents that demonstrate the power of a pressurized cabin door. “I discovered just how impossible it is to open an airplane door before the cabin has been depressurized upon arrival at Chicago O’Hare. I went to open the door and it would not budge one bit. I advised the cockpit and they told me to wait about 15 seconds. Then everything worked perfectly. They had not depressurized the cabin.”

Gailen goes onto also discuss the dangers of pressurized cabin doors, “There was American Airlines A-300 incident in Miami in which a flight attendant was ejected from an airliner and died while the plane was on the ground and attempting an evacuation. The plane was not depressurized when the flight attendant lifted the lever…. however he left the lever in the open position and as soon as the cockpit crew depressurized the cabin, the door was suddenly able to open, but the sudden rush of pressure sent the flight attendant out the door as well.”

There is no doubt it is scary when a passenger runs towards a door and reaches for the ‘open lever,’ but there is no immediate danger to the passengers or aircraft, even if the ‘open lever’ is pulled and rotated.

The best advice comes from Gailen David … “Quick tip: Don’t touch the lever!”

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

Yesterday the United States Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-to-5 in favour of an amendment, as part of immigration reform, to require the finger printing of all foreign travelers departing the United States.  The bill, proposed by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT), implements biometric tracking of foreign travelers under the Department of Transportation in three phases.

Phase one of the implementation would include biometric data collection in the 10 busiest international passenger airports in the United States within two years of the passing of the larger immigration reform bill by the U.S. Congress.

The second phase of the implementation is six years from the passing of the larger immigration reform bill by the U.S. Congress, with biometric data collection taking places in 30 international gateway airports in the United States.

Phase three would require the head of the Secretary of Transportation submitting a detailed action plan for expanding the finger printing of all foreign travelers departing the United States to all major sea and land entry and exit points.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill must be passed with the full immigration reform bill, which is likely to be voted on this coming Wednesday, where it is expected to pass.  Should the bill be passed it must be voted on by the U.S. Congress then signed into law by the President of the United States.  The President has repeatedly stated that immigration reform is a top priority issue for him … but … does the requiring of fingerprints from travelers exiting the country make sense?

Many countries around the world have Exit Immigrations. Depart the European Union, except the United Kingdom, and you pass through exit immigration, depart from Japan, Bahrain, South Korea, Hong Kong and you are subject to exit immigrations.   Exit immigrations does make sense for tracking the whereabouts of travelers coming and going from international departure points, but none of these countries require exit finger prints.

If the United States government stated they wanted exit immigrations to be in line with the Immigrations and Customs practices of the majority of countries in the world that would be one thing, but they do not want to be in line with the rest of the world, they want to try something different. The U.S. Government wants to add an extra layer of security theater rather that legitimate security.  The U.S. Government is seeking to make traveling to and from the United States more of a hassle than it needs to be because, in short, it sounds good. It looks like it is adding an extra later of data aide at security, when it fact it is not adding any tangible security at all.

Let me explain the primary issues that make the finger printing of foreign travelers departing the United States problematic, without going into the political ramifications.

For starters, should there any form of exit immigrations in the United States it needs to be for all travelers, not just foreign travelers. The United States has had its share of domestic terrorists, both home grown and foreign nationals. If the U.S. Government is truly seeking to build a new layer of security to protect or national security, everyone must be treated equally.

Aside from the requirement that all travelers be finger printed, not just foreign travelers, any form of exit immigrations should not be under the Department of Transportation, it must be under the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs or Border Protection, or possibly Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.   Even prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, when the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration oversaw the Federal Air Marshals and airport passenger screening, the agency still did not oversee Immigrations or passport control … so why now?

The answer to why exit traveler finger printing falls to the Dept. of Transportation is remarkably simple, when this bill was initially proposed it places the exit immigrations finger printing under the authority of the Dept of Homeland Security and the bill was rejected. Getting the Dept. of Homeland Security involved is a political hot potato, no one wants it in their hands, but getting the Dept of Transportation involved, even though it is not in their purview to handle such things offends no one.

Other facts that come in to play are equally as important, such as the infrastructure in airports required to set up exit immigrations fingerprinting.  The vast majority of international airports in the United States are not dedicated to international travel. A flight departing for Barcelona can just as easily next to a flight leaving for Phoenix. A gate departing for Tokyo can share a seating area with a flight headed for San Francisco.

In order to set up any exit immigrations in the United States airports would need to be reconfigured.  Whole terminals would need to be redesigned, gate access would be impacted and the logistics would be extremely costly.   The though of altering, for example, New York’s JFK Terminal 7, housing British Airways, United Airlines, US Airways, Air Canada, Qantas (which flies to Los Angeles from JFK), Cathay Pacific and Iberia, is mind boggling. All these airlines share common spaces between their gates, and even sharing some gates.

Should mobile passenger exit fingerprinting be established, this would require multiple separate lines for the boarding process.  Who would monitor the lines?  You think boarding a packed Boeing 747-400 is problematic and slow now, wait and see if exit immigrations shows up at your gate in the future.

U.S. Federal Agencies have a poor track record with data sharing, especially in real time.   Scanning a passengers finger prints as they leave the United States won’t likely catch a ‘fresh to the list’ wanted person, especially if the Dept of Transportation must rely on data from the Dept of Homeland Security.

Attempting to catch or track people as they leave is similar to me asking my kids to take the puppy out after the puppy has peed on the floor.   If you want to stop something you have to do it before it is a problem.

Should the U.S. Government implement standard exit immigrations the same problems arise, and essentially the same data can be gather with exit passport control, and simply follow a time tested model used the world over … but be far less invasive and far less threatening to foreign travelers.

From a political standpoint, travelers from the United States have faced significant backlash and retaliation from foreign countries since the implementation of our aviation security and passport control procedures following 9/11/01. As an American many now find traveling to Canada, our friendly neighbours to the north, anything but friendly, passport control in the United Kingdom is often a battery of questions, Brazil has made acquiring a visa a costly three ring circus.

The immigration reform bill amendment requiring the fingerprinting of foreign travelers exiting the United States is a costly and ineffective blunder waiting to happen. It provides no security, improperly tasking a Federal agency, and squandering resources … all while negatively financially impacting airlines, airports and the travel industry.

If the U.S. Government wants to catch someone leaving the United States, all flight manifests are submitted to the Department of Homeland Security.  The law enforcement agency seeking to detain a traveler departing the United States need only look them up, provided the system actually works in real time, which it tends to not do.

The Federal Government should focus on fixing what we already have in place before building new layers that provide a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

For months I had planned on documenting the last day of New York JFK International Airport’s Terminal 3 operations, the former Pan Am Worldport, on the 23rd of May 2013.   After back and forth emails Delta Air Lines declined my access to the historic terminal last week, as well as other media outlets interested in creating a historic record of the iconic terminal’s end.

Officially Delta Air Lines states that all of its corporate communications staff will be busy on the 23rd of May in preparation of the grand launch of its new facilities in Terminal 4, opening on the 24th of May.   Delta has invested significantly in upgrading JFK’s Terminal 4 as well as building it out.   The airline and the New York New Jersey Port Authority have battled with activists and organizations seeking to save Terminal 3 and now want to close it with no final farewell after its more then five decades of service and long storied history.

While the public answer that Delta Air Lines cannot allocate media relations staff or customer service representatives to act as media escorts within Terminal 3 this coming Thursday, even for the final flights pushing off the gates signaling the terminal’s final moments, the real reason appears to be a bit of fear.

Just six days after Delta ceases operations at Terminal 3, on the 29th of May, Save The Worldport, an organization dedicated to preserving the original ‘saucer’ portion if the terminal is scheduled to speak a the Port Authority’s monthly meeting. Save The Worldport will once again present options for saving the original structure, now with the intention of appealing that Terminal 3,  The Worldport, be placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Terminal 3 failed to be placed on New York’s historic landmark registry in large part because neither the Port Authority nor Delta Air Lines supported it, as well as the original structure having been altered. On the federal level however, the support of Port Authority or Delta Air Lines may not be needed.

Previously Save The Worldport has been successful in gaining local, national and international media attention from the print and online media, as well as being featured on the CBS Evening News.   Should further attention be drawn to the closing of Terminal 3, an iconic building seared into the public’s collective memory due to its appearances in countless movies, TV shows and advertising campaigns, Delta Air Lines runs the risk of Save The Worldport gaining further exposure and support … and the tide potentially beginning to turn against the demolition the structure.

While it is important for Delta Air Lines to undertake a significant media blitz on the 24th of May when the new and improved JFK Terminal 4 is unveiled to the public, internally it is equally as important for the airline to keep the closure of Terminal 3 out of the public conversation.   The first step in controlling that conversation is by blocking the media outlets that cover airlines and travel, as well as the general media, from creating impacting content of the final stories to be told inside Terminal 3 as it goes dark after 53 years of sending passengers on their way to destinations around the world.

As I stated last week when I wrote A Historic Chapter In Aviation Closes & It Won’t Be Documented, pulling the curtain shut and saying ‘nothing to see here’ denies history because it does not align with the future corporate message is a travesty.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

In less than one week the former Pan American Airways Unit Terminal Building, more commonly known as the Pan Am WorldPort, at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, taken over by Delta Air Lines in 1991, and now simply known as Terminal 3, will cease operations after 53 years. .

JFK’s iconic Terminal 3 has a long historic and storied history. Serving as a major global gateway to the United States with Pan American Airways from 1960 to 1991, and a significant international gateway for Delta Air Lines from 1991 until the 23rd of May 2013, it is uniquely designed.   WorldPort was commissioned by Pan Am after the airline introduced the first transatlantic jet flights from New York’s Idlewild Airport, now JFK Airport, in 1958, with the Boeing 707-121. The airline wanted a terminal with a roof to keep passengers dry from the rain while boarding and deplaning their aircraft, the result was an elliptical design with a four acre roof, suspended over the aircraft and WorldPort ushered in the jet age.

When the Beatles arrived in United States, they arrived at Pan Am’s WorldPort.  The first commercial Boeing 747 flight, Pan Am’s Clipper America, departed from WorldPort on the 21st of January 1970. The golden age of jet travel has long been associated with WorldPort and it is burned into global consciousness as the gateway to New York and the United States through its repeated appearances in movies and television shows … but with Delta Air Lines officially opening its new terminal, which has been added onto JFK’s Terminal 4, on the 24th of May 2013, the end is near.

As it stands now, on the 23rd of May 2013, around 10:30pm EST the last flight ever will board at JFK Terminal 3, from Gate 6, and at approximately 11:25pm EST the last aircraft will close its doors, and push back into the alley for the last time.   Delta Flight 268, a Boeing 747-451, will taxi to intersection Kilo-Golf, onto Taxiway Alpha and JFK’s Terminal 3 will cease all operations.

Fifty three years of history will close and there will be no documentation of WorldPort’s final story.  No final moments recorded, no independent images of the last moments and nary a mention before the festivities of the new JFK T4 is opened and a former airline paradise is literally paved over to make a parking lot.

For me, Terminal 3 is where I looked as a child when I dreamed of seeing the world.   I spent part of my childhood in Terminal 2 looking across the ramp at Pan Am jets dreaming of going where they go.  The few times my parents took me into WorldPort I would spend my time not looking out the windows at the planes, but looking at the departures and arrivals boards amazed at the far places this terminal could take me.  I am not alone in these memories, I know many other traveler and airline folks who saw WorldPort as a place of wonder and amazement.

As a journalist and travel professional I have spanned the globe, stopping in many places that seemed like impossible fantasies while gazing around wide eyed inside WorldPort. I have visited many of these destinations departing or arriving from WorldPort, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, Beijing, Milan, and many other dots on the map.    My last international Delta flights, to Paris and Moscow in March, departed and returned to Terminal 3.   I spent time walking around the terminal taking it all in and saying goodbye … but …

… I had planned on documenting the last day of Terminal 3 for some time. I had emailed back and forth with Delta Air Lines a number of times and was almost always told that we’d talk about it more as the last day approached.  I followed up two weeks ago and was told once again we’d talk about it later, then later came.   The answer from Delta Air Lines is that all their corporate communications staff is tied up with the launch of the newly expanded Terminal 4 on the 24th of May and my request to document the last day at Terminal 3 was being declined.

Delta’s answer was that the Heritage Museum had determined what would be saved from Terminal 3 and brought to the museum in Atlanta and essentially there was no need to document the last day, a day that I am sure will be filled with emotion for many in the terminal.

For me, the desire to document the last day at Terminal 3 in its entirety has nothing to do with activism.   I have already said goodbye to a place that has a deep personal and emotional connection to my life, I made sure of that in March.   The desire to document the last at Terminal 3 comes from a sense of history, one rooted in journalism, a passion for airlines and a sense that we all to quickly forget the past if it does not align with a corporate message and it is not convenient.

So … on the evening of the 23rd of May a major chapter in airline history closes and it won’t be documented. That is a travesty.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

Booking flights is essentially the same from one online travel agency to another online travel agency. There are some unique online travel agencies, such as Hipmunk, but now Routehappy has entered the fray with a different approach.

Routehappy’s goal is unique, to assist travelers in choosing their flights based on the quality or experience of the flight, as well as the price.

Routehappy’s default flight display is not based on the usual lowest fare, it is based on the “Happiest” flight, showing flights in descending order based on their happy factor.   Yes, users can choose flights by lowest fare, fastest routing and other usual options … but if you are using Routehappy you should be prepared to search by the happiest flight.   Happy flights are based upon aircraft, seat space, in-flight entertainment, wifi, AC power and the user experiences of the flight

Out of the gate, Routehappy has the support of a number of airlines, as it allows the airlines to differentiate themselves and their products.   With most online travel agency booking sites airfares most often come down to the lowest fare, while Routehappy allows airlines to promote their in-flight experience to capture travelers.

Routehappy is not just breaking the mold of online travel agencies when comes to how it displays flights, the booking site also allows travelers to rate flights and provide their comments from each flight.    Through the Routehappy is building a community with route experts and linking customer’s flight experience with those looking to book flights.

On a long flight, wouldn’t you rather pay $50 more for a better flight experience?  Routehappy is betting you would.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

It recently happened to me again, just as it has before … and just as it has happened to many other photographers before.  I was stopped while shooting photos with my “pro gear” while people stood around me snapping photos with point and shoot cameras and their mobile phones without anyone giving them a second glance.

Last week I was photographing an Amtrak train nearing the station, from a public area, as I do from time to time, and was approached by an Amtrak Police Officer who stood between myself and the train I was seeking to shoot.  Why was I approached?  My two cameras, two Canon EOS 5D bodies, with BG-E4 grips, a Canon 16-35f2.8L and 35-350f3.5-5.6L, they “looked suspicions” and “warranted a conversation.”   Behind me, on the platform I watched 3 or 4 other people shooting photos of the train with their mobile phones while I was being spoken to. My interaction with the Amtrak Police Officer was courteous, lasted less than a minute and nothing came of it. This situation is far from my worst interaction with law enforcement or security while shooting photos, but this is merely my latest interaction where my cameras were called into question in relation to security.

Two of the oddest included …

1) Photographing a fuel storage farm from a public area, that is seen by hundreds of thousands of people daily driving along Interstate 95 in New Haven, Connecticut, where my car ended up surrounded by New Haven Police, State Troopers and the Department of Defense Police, with a US Coast Guard Zodiac hovering at the end of the dock, while I was shooting a business story. The approaching officer had his weapon out and was shouting at me asking me why I was trying to hide my activities of shooting photographs.  It is hard to accuse someone of hiding when they are out shooting in a public space wearing a Hawaiian shirt with a big lens (70-200f2.8) and very big lens (400f2.8) wrapped in brightly colored tape, after having placed a courtesy call to the New Haven Police Department’s public affairs officer to let them know I’d be loitering on the end of the dock with long lenses shooting a business story on the sale of one of the oil companies.

2) Entering Terminal 5 at New York’s JFK International Airport from the AirTrain, last year, with a camera on each shoulder, again, two Canon EOS 5D bodies, with a 16-35f2.8L and 70-200f2.8L, to shoot some photos accompanying a story on JetBlue I was met by two New York-New Jersey Port Authority Police Officers who stopped me and told me multiple people in the terminal thought I looked suspicious with my cameras out.  At the time they stopped me I was just at the bottom of the escalator, on the phone with JetBlue’s corporate communications, and no virtually one in the main part of the terminal could have seen me, unless they were watching surveillance cameras. Secondly, Jetblue’s corporate security was waiting for me at the terminal to escort me as I shot my photos.   The rationale from the Port Authority Police was that big cameras scare people and required the police to find out my intentions.

So, what is it about ‘big cameras,’ or ‘professional looking cameras,’ that pose a security threat?

Realistically, a threat to transportation security, or a person casing out a building or location to carry out an attack, is not going to want to stand out.  If you’re planning an act of terrorism the last thing you want is to be on law enforcement’s radar. You’d never want to draw attention to yourself.

If a person is shooting photos to build a model of a criminal act they plan to execute they’ll use their mobile phone or a “tourist” looking camera. They will want to blend in, not stand in one place to long to draw attention to their surveillance.  Loitering, especially with ‘big cameras’ is something someone does when they don’t care if they are spotted or draw someone’s attention.

For security to think ‘big cameras’ are a better tool for gathering data for an illegal action, at least out in the open, they should take a look at the capabilities of some of the current ultra compact point and shoot cameras … and they even come in blue, red, yellow, pink and green.

Yes, photographers, pro and amateur, with “big cameras” are easy targets to interview and follow up on as they look for their photos. Photographers tend to have a spaced out glaze on their face as they intently seek out their photos and keep an eye on the moment they are waiting for, but somewhere along the way logic needs to take hold as credible threats are sought out and investigated.

Chances are the person standing in plain sight, cameras out in the open, a scanner in their pocket, is not the credible threat.

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish

The headline of “Lone Gunman Opens Fire & Commits Suicide” is becoming all to frequent. Major headlines have most notably occurred in the past few months in movie theaters and schools. Today another headline appears in the same manner, but inside an airport terminal and the only victim was the gunman.

While details are still sketchy we know this. This afternoon a 30 year old man walked into Terminal B at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). Just outside the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) passenger screening checkpoint in Terminal B, the man displayed a firearm and fired multiple shots toward the ceiling.  As people began to react a U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigator (HSI) fired at least once at the gunman.  The shot was originally believed to have missed the gunman, but later reports from within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicate the ICE HSI Federal Agent’s round struck the gunman, who then reportedly took their own life with their own firearm. It is possible the ICE Agent’s round may have delivered the fatal shot, but that cannot be confirmed at this time.

The total number of rounds fired inside Terminal B, at Houston Intercontinental Airport, has not yet been confirmed, but no one was injured other than the gunman. The gunman was pronounced dead at in the airport.   The ICE HSI Agent was transported to an area hospital, which is a standard precautionary measure following an officer involved shooting.

While the public was lucky today in that the shooting at Houston Intercontinental Airport yielded only one victim, the gunman, this will lead to new questions in airport security.   Primarily within an airport, security separates the public side from the “sterile side,” but can we intercept people with firearms from entering airports without creating a security system similar to Israel’s layers of airport security?

Aviation security is complex, and airports will always be targets. Technologies in the works, such as Q-Tel’s Genia Photonics laser scanner, which could create significant mission creep for the TSA, may be within the boundaries of other airport security agencies, and provide a non-threatening layer invisible in-depth security.

While Q-Tel’s Genia Photonics scanner posses some significant legal issues, which need to be addressed, the molecular scanner technology is capable of detecting traces of explosives and adrenaline levels, as well as other biological data, processing the information 10,000,000 times faster and with 1,000,000 times more sensitivity than any other threat detection system on the market today. The best part in crowded airports is that this technology can do all this at a range of 50 meters from the target. Putting aside the potential legal and deployment issues with the Q-Tel Genia Photonics scanner, the technology has the benefit of potentially detecting and intercepting a threat before it is a live threat.

Gun control is not a topic I wish to explore, but keeping weapons and legitimate threats out of airports is a topic that we must continually explore.

As the Houston Police Department investigates today’s incident, the national aviation security community should be brainstorming on this problem …

… how do we improve security within airports without increasing the mission creep of national aviation security agencies?

Happy Flying!

@flyingwithfish