Since I live close to Frankfurt, the Frankfurt am Main airport is the departure point of many travels I do as airline passenger. Germany’s biggest airport is not exactly an example of good design, simplicity and is really not a time saver. I already posted a lot about it, click here, here, here or here to learn more about my personal relationship with this airport.

This post is not about the new runway (the fourth one) and terminal (the third one) that are being built right now, but on a new iPhone application to help passengers to find their check-in counter or their gate. Hello ? Why on earth would someone need something like that ? A GPS with some WiFi support to guide passengers inside an airport ? Is that such a labyrinth ? What about the signs ? And if the navigation is that complex, why not invest in some simplification, or new design ?

This application is called “Lufthansa Navigator” and can be downloaded for free from the AppStore. I tested it and must say it’s a cool tool. There’s a simulation mode making possible to test it without having to be at the airport, or to get an idea of where you’ll have to go. It looks a bit like a GPS navigator for cars, displaying a map with your present position and the route to follow to destination and the remaining distance. Talking about long transit times… the distance from the parking to the gate A42 is not less than 1400 meters!

On the plus side – there has to be something positive… – it’s possible to select the destination by specifying a flight and let the application automatically finds the corresponding gate. This application works only for terminal 1 and Lufthansa flights.

All of that being said, Frankfurt is not the only “complex” airport in the world. A good friend of mine recently flew back from Hong-Kong and walked around the terminal twelve times without founding the AirFrance lounge…

After the failed terrorist attempt on Nowrthwest 253, on Christmas Eve 2009, full body scanners seems to be the ultimate solution to all airline security problems. Several airports, including Paris Charles-de-Gaulle and Amsterdam Schiphol now use them on flights bound to the US, and such scanners will be deployed in London Heathrow “as soon as practical”. This technology, which has before been perceived as unethical and too invasive, and violating some laws about privacy now seems to be Holly Grail of Airline security.

Even if full body scanners will make flying the airlines a bit safer, they are not the 100% safe solution. Some options are much safer than full body scan. Let’s imagine…

You reach the airport five hours before your flight, as required by the airline and security policy. You enter a security check lane corresponding to your gender and age. After one and a half hour in the very slow lane, you reach a tiny changing room. Once the automatic door is locked behind you, you get completely naked. You leave your clothes, all belongings, glasses, jewelery (wedding ring included), mobile phone, computer, in a special security suitcase.

When you’re ready, you move towards the next door, still naked. You leave the suitcase behind you, carry-on luggage are not allowed anymore. Two security inspectors wait for you in the next room. They proceed rapidly, in a very professional, anonymous, not humiliating way with a manual full body search. This is to make sure you don’t take any object with you on board. Once this is finished, you can proceed to the next room. Here you can choose from a variety of flight pajamas. Before getting “dresses-up”, don’t forget to put diapers on, particularly for long flights.

The next door opens on a corridor leading directly to your aircraft. As soon as you’re seated, a flight security assistant straps you in and lock your 5 points security belt. Tightly. From now on, and until you’re released after landing, all you have to do is to enjoy your flight…

Is this ethical ? Would you accept it ? Is such a solution the price for 100% airline security ? Could terrorists find way to bypass this kind of system ? My answers to these questions are “Not sure, Not sure, No, Yes”.

My personal belief is that no system will ever be 100% safe. We can tend towards that, but each step forward will cost more in terms of time, money, constraints, privacy and comfort. It belongs to each of us to define where is the limit. What we are ready to accept, in terms of risk, and how much comfort we’re ready to sacrifice for security.

A passenger Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit fired up a possibly explosive device, starting fire and smoke on board before being subdued by other passengers and the crew. The incident was serious enough to result in a special briefing to US president Barack Obama, which decided “that all appropriate measures be taken to increase security for air travel”.

I saw a lot of reactions like “How is it possible ?” or “How can someone get explosives through security screenings ?”. I believe that some are really shocked, not because of what happened, but because it still CAN happen. Yes, someone brought dangerous material on board an aircraft and achieved to fire it. And do you want to know a little secret ? This will happen again.

For years, I used to have access to the sensitive areas of some international airports, for professional reasons. Before September 11th, staff was simply bypassing security screenings. After that, rules became a bit more stringent, until the point where staff was subject to the same controls than passengers, but via separate lanes to avoid too much delays. As you can imagine, I’m quite used to going through screenings right now. Even with the best technologies available today, image processing, shape recognition and what-else-do-I-know, the people operating the screening machines are still human, and can miss something or do mistakes. Terrorists often have new ideas, and are one step ahead. After 2001, security screenings became more strict. But the ban of liquids on board date back to 2003, and was decided after a plot using liquid explosives was discovered. After.

As long as cabin luggage will be allowed, and as long as passengers will travel with clothes and be allowed to carry things in their pockets, there will be no 100% solution to this problem. A complex and advanced security system can possibly achieve 99 something percent, with a lot of nines after the dot, but in this domain, there is no 100%.

There is obviously a solution, but it’s not really decent, and would require lot of logistics… Let passengers fly under full narcosis. No more problems with unlawful interference, unruly passengers, and one could possibly pack more passengers into each plane. I’m however not sure about the costs, the medical support required, and I’m not sure this would preserve passenger’s disgnity.

More seriously, aviation has been a long time target for terrorists because of the spectacular aspect of blasting an airliner, and because airlines carry a lot of symbols of power, and some carry national flags, making them very attractive to media and impressive targets.

I don’t know exactly at this time what will change in the screening process during the next days, but this incident will certainly make them even more unpleasant, to say the least. Let’s hope that they will one day come back to less deep and less complicated standards… Dream on.

For more information about this incident, check the following links:

Report from CNN about Northwest Flight 253

BBC: Detroit airliner incident ‘was failed bomb attack’

Articles about obese airline passengers are popping out periodically in mainstream media. The same questions are repeated again and again:

• Should airlines charge more for obese passengers ?
• Should obese passengers pay for more than one seat ?
• Should obese passengers be allowed to fly ?
• Are obese passengers at risk in flight ?
• Are obese passengers a risk for the others ?

The last case that circulated over the internet started with this photo taken on an American Airlines flight:

Click here to read more about this story. This very case relates to American Airlines but no finger pointing here. The questions raised by obese passengers are relevant for all airline. Click here to read a case of and obese passenger who was not allowed to board his Southwest flight. Airlines have standard procedures and policies for handling obese passengers and making their travel safe and comfortable.

From an airline point of view, transporting a kilogram costs the same, whatever it’s made of. Passenger, luggage or freight, this makes no difference. Some other costs like check-in, boarding, on-board service have fixed costs per passenger. But stop. The whole purpose of the airlines industry is to transport people referred to as “passengers” in a safe and comfortable way, and this include preserving their dignity. Obese persons are a reality and airlines must be ready to transport them as any other passenger. At no extra cost. The demographics of our society are well known and it would not be complicated for the airlines to adjust the fees of all passengers to make sure any extra cost generated by obesed passengers are accounted for. Period.

Special handling is definitely a must, mostly for security reasons. All passengers on board an aircraft must be seated properly, with their seat belt fastened. Aircraft manufacturers provide airlines with seat belt extenders to cope with obese passengers. I can also imagine that in the future airlines will fit a couple of extra wide seats in each aircraft to make sure obese passengers can fly in good conditions.

No aisle should be obstructed, be it by luggage or a passenger, for obvious safety reasons. The same rule applies to emergency exits. This is the sole point where I see a problem with obese passengers in today’s airliners: emergency evacuation. Look at this picture of a typical Airbus A319 overwing exit.

Shall each and every passenger be able to evacuate the aircraft through such an exit ? Obese passengers, but also passengers with reduced mobility, whatever the reason, could have problems leaving the aircraft via this exit. The exits at the front and the rear of the aircraft are definitely much bigger and sufficient in any case – after all, this is where passengers board the aircraft, but I’m not sure that obese passengers are systematically seated close to them.

To conclude, obesity is a reality in our society and it must be addressed at all possible levels, and the airline industry is no exception.

A go-around is a maneuver which consits of interrupting an approach to land and fly a safe procedure so as to get in position to start a new approach or fly to a different airport. There is no improvisation in flying a go-around. Pilots have all the necessary information to fly such a manoeuver correctly. Aircraft manufacturers publish checklists, which usually are like nose-up, apply power, clean-up the aircraft by retracting gear and flaps, and maintain climb speed and power. I know there is a long discussion about the sequence, is it nose-up then power or power then nose-up but it’s not the topic here.

The published approach procedures also include the go-around procedure. It’s usually a climb to a certain altitude, then a turn towards a beacon from which a second approach can be started. These procedures are very similar to departure procedures. The aircraft procedures are designed to offer maximum climb performance and the flying procedures to avoid terrain and other flows of traffic.

Crews are familiar with go-around procedures. They practice them on a regular basis in simulator to know how to fly the aircraft. The approach briefing conducted before each and every approach systematically includes a review of the go-around routing and altitudes. A go-around is not part of each flight but it can’t be considered an abnormal thing.

The decision to interrupt the approach can be taken at any time, even few seconds before touchdown. This decision can be taking by the crew for different reasons:

• Runway not in sight at the minimum altitude
• Unstable approach, incorrect speed or altitude, or too much deviation from the prescribed track
• Obstructed runway
• No landing clearance received
• Sudden wind change

Air traffic controllers can also command the crew to go-around, mostly for the same reasons:

• Obstructed runway
• Conflicting traffic
• Insufficient separation with preceding, or following aircraft

Air traffic controllers can also modify the procedure and instruct the crew to fly a give heading or climb to another altitude.

I can’t explain enough how standard such procedures are. I flew a lot of them myself, for training and sometimes because an approach just looked bad. I also experienced it twice as airline passenger and while it’s a strange feeling, it’s no drama. Julien published a good post on his blog about his first go-around as airline passenger. Let me say it again: a go-around is a well-prepared procedure and is always a safe decision if you consider the altrenative…

Why do I insist that much ? Because I saw (again) media reports after an event which lead to a go-around of a Boeing 747. Nothing wrong in talking about the event, but there is no need for words like “Hundreds of lives threatened” or “Panic over the airport”. Please.

Thank you for your attention, and have a safe go-around.

An important part of the worldwide aviation safety system are the so called Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA). To make the long story short, aircraft and airlines are certified by their national authorities but each country can inspect foreign aircraft operating in its airports. This reduces the risk of complacency by national authorities.

If an aircraft is tagged as unsafe, the inspecting country can ban it from its airspace. In worst cases, a whole airline can be banned. The members of the European Union manage this common black-list which anyone can download. The national authorities of some countries are so easy-going that all the companies they certify are banned from the European airspace.

Does this mechanism eliminate the risk of finding yourself on board of such an aircraft without even knowing about it ? Yes and on. The Yemenia Airlines Airbus which crashed in the Comoros was banned from the European Union. Formally speaking the flight originated from Paris. No mysteries here. Passengers boarded a non-banned aircraft in Paris, flew to Yemen and were transferred in the banned aircraft. The company’s fleet is somehow split in two: aircraft operating to Europe and those operating only outside Europe.

If your flight departs and ends in European Union, you’re safe. If your flight includes an aircraft change somewhere outside, you should be careful. If you take national flight in a banned country, the risks are certainly higher. It does not mean that each and every flight ends up in a crash, but the probability is a bit higher. After all, these pilots are not kamikazes…

Passengers flying in these countries must cope with a simple problem: there is no alternative. What would you do if your flight includes an aircraft change, and you realize shortly before boarding that the second aircraft is banned ? Don’t board, loose your ticket, and find yourself trapped in an airport, possibly without visa and return ticket ?

I checked for flights between London and Sanaa, Yemen. The results are quite interesting, offering various alternatives:

• Yemenia 328.90  GBP
• Gulf Air 356.30  GBP
• Emirates 365.30  GBP
• Egyptair 401.50  GBP
• Jet Airways 920.50  GBP
• bmi 1,005.50  GBP

None of these airlines are banned, they simple could not operate in London if they were. Interestingly, Emirates – one of the best airlines today – is offering service only 10% above Yemenia. Price is not a reliable safety indicator. Once again, Yemenia is not banned, but some of its aircraft are, and this is quite a sign… The best way to reduce the risk you take is to always take direct flights. Any flight originating or ending in the European Union is the guarantee that the aircraft is not banned.

John M. White posted an interesting article at all-things-aviation.com about black-boxes. The recent crashes of the AirFrance and Yemenia in the Ocean shown that recovering the black-boxes is not always an easy thing and could even reveal impossible. Even if the black boxes are very resistant by design it sometimes happen that they get destroyed in accidents. The investigation work is much harder without the massive data recodring by the black-boxes. As a reminder, there are two black-boxes: one records cockpit sounds and radios and the second records flight and engine parameters.

The AF447 accident raised a lot of questions because of the maintenance messages being sent by the aircraft shortly before the crash. The idea of having an aircraft sending all data per satellite is really seducing but with present bandwidth it’s an illusion. The Cockpit Voice Recoder alone records several radio channels, pilot and co-pilot microphones, and all communication with the cabin-crew. It also recodrs ambient cockpit noise, constantly. This includes clicks of throttles, vocal alarms, beeps and pings… everything. Recording 5 to 10 audio feeds per aircraft in a remote center is not a problem, but taking these feed there is something else. I’m not even sure the present satellite system could handle the load.

The second black-box, the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) records aircraft and engine parameters at different intervals. This includes control inputs and resulting outputs. Some parameters are recorded several times per second. This is extremely useful for investigators. It’s typically what they use to build reconstitution videos, like this one of Colgan 3407. Transmitting all this data constantly from all aircraft worldwide is simply not possible with today’s technology. At least not over oceanic area.

Even if this was possible, it would raise an interesting legal question. Black-boxes are intended to support investigations and hold only 30 minutes of data. The crew can also erase the voice recordings while on the ground. This is part of privacy protection. If aircraft start to transmit live audio feeds to their home companies, the risk exist that companies start to spy their crews. Not only after incidents, but on a daily basis. No good.

So why not record data on board and send it to the ground shortly before an accident ? This question might seem strange but I heard it a couple of times. The problem is the lack of “accident warning”. Some accidents have some precursor signs. In the AF447 case, the warning about the cabin pressure could have been a serious sign. But some accident are so sudden that there is no warning. Think of the case of a mid-air collision for example. There is simply no warning, apart may be TCAS warnings. But here again, can we afford to send massive burst of data for each TCAS alarm ? Not sure, and not sure we want to, there are so many benign alarms…

Any thoughts to share ? Let’s comment…

If you’re a long term reader of my blog, you already know about my love – hate relationship with the Frankfurt am Main airport…

On the love side:

• I’m living 30 kilometers south of the airport and love to see departing aircraft overfly my garden (yes, I do like aircraft noise)
• Being the hub of Lufthansa and the German entry point of many companies it’s really a gate to the world
• It offers shopping possibilities 7 days a week – sometimes a life saver

On the hate side:

• The unbelievably long queues at the security checkpoints
• Sometimes, an extra screening checkpoint right before reaching the gate
• The endless bus transfers due to the lack of gates
• The incredibly long taxiing times to reach departure runway 18

One cool thing in blogging is that I’m not forced to be objective, but I however try to. This is why I have to report an all times first at Frankfurt airport. I’m flying to Spain and reached the terminal to see that my flight was delayed. 1h55 delay for a 2h30 flight, no comment. This was not the best way to start the journey, but I found a very comfy lying chair in the waiting area. Once the boarding gate got announced, I reluctantly went to the security checkpoint.

One very frustrating thing is the long serpentine waiting lane for economy passengers with a bypass for business and first class. Believe that or not, today there was no single soul waiting. Moreover the guy doing the economy vs. business filtering let me go through the bypass ! I realize by writing these lines that I should have taken a picture. I’m sure those of you who already experienced this airport won’t believe this is possible, but I promise it happened for real.

Because my flight was within the Schenggen area, there was no passport check and no extra screening at the gate. The bus ride and taxi time were there.

Cockpit automation is good and I’m a big fan of it, as long as it comes with appropriate training. The first rumors about the Turkish accident in Amsterdam are quite scary, but they’re only rumors, so I don’t comment or relay them. But as almost all aviation accidents in recent history have “human errors” as contributing factors the question of planes is not out of context…

Military operations are often supported by remotely-operated Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which can fly back and land autonomously if required. ILS category III approaches are nothing else than fully automated landings, and in comparison to approach and landing, take-off climb and cruise are not really an issue. Economical considerations aside, an airliner without pilot has one security advantage: computers can not be threatened by terrorists trying to take over airplane’s control. Other transport related industries already took this step: many tramway or underground trains are operated without drivers, not to mention terminal transfer trains at several airports. Automobiles are not yet fully automatic but some are already able to reverse-park by themselves.

So why not aviation ? Because of the major difference with terrestrial transport: planes can’t stop. The ultimate safety measure in automated ground transportation systems is always to stop the vehicle. If the computers or any other system fails, some separate safety mechanism brings the vehicle to a stop. The traffic regulation system then stops all following vehicles if it is not possible to overtake the stopped one. Stopping is never appreciated by the passengers and can be uncomfortable, but it’s much better than an high-speed accident. But planes can’t stop – they need speed to remain airborne. No speed, no lift. Continuing straight-ahead is not a solution, and flying a holding pattern requires some automation. Holding patterns are also not a long-term solution, and transferring a maintenance team on board while airborne is not exactly feasible. Some UAVs have parachute systems as ultimate emergency recovery system, but this is also not a sufficient warranty for an airliner…

System failure are only one part of the reason why I would not like a pilot-less plane, the second being the incredible creativity and adaptability of the human mind. Those who write aviation laws and regulations are not exactly light-minded or relaxed when it comes to interpreting the rules they create. But they’re clever enough to give final authority to the Pilot In Command (PIC). Being ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane, passengers and lives on ground, the PIC has the right to deviate from any published law, rule or procedures if deemed necessary.

This means that when major problems occur, which were not planned or imagined by anyone, the Captain is on his own… but with full freedom of act. Shall something like the Hudson River ditching occur over Washington, the pilot would be perfectly legal to land in the White-House’s garden if it is the only viable solution. Giving this freedom to the Captain is not always sufficient – accidents still occur – but it is the best that can be done. No automated system will ever be “creative” or “flexible”. Plane without a pilot ? No, thank you.

I can’t believe it. After the idea of possibly charing for using the toilets, Ryanair is now asking passengers new possible fees. I found the info on aero-news.net (thanks for that) and immediately sent my e-mail to competition@ryanair.com. What did I propose ? I simply copied the content of the post I wrote earlier as a cynical reaction to their idea to charge for toilets. Click here to read the original post, or read the copied list below:

• Toilet paper
• Glasses for drinks
• Safety belt
• Life jackets (surchage if an emergency is declared)
• Stairs for boarding (surcharge for handrail)
• Oxygen masks (surchage in case of “drop in cabin pressure”)
• Safety briefing
• Use of the overhead compartments
• Warm and pressurized air in the cabin
• Seat (surcharge for armrests)
• Window / window blind
• Doors (incl. emergency exits)

If you want to copy it and send it to ryanair as well, you’re welcome to do so – you could even win 1′000 Euros. But as I did, don’t forget to add “Respect” to the end… I’m sure many of us would appreciate to be well treated passengers. I know that writing here about this new idea from Ryanair is contributing to their marketing buzz, but I could not resist. Let’s see if they’ll respond, and if my idea of “pay for respect” will be retained…