Last Hour of Flight Restrictions

[TromboneAl]

As you know, due to the jock strap bomber, some airlines have new restrictions on what you can do during the last hour of the flight (nothing in lap, etc.).

What is the significance of the "last hour?" Couldn't a terrorist blow up the plane earlier in the flight? Is it more dramatic if it is near the airport? What is the thinking here?

 

[Khan]

As you know, due to the jock strap bomber, some airlines have new restrictions on what you can do during the last hour of the flight (nothing in lap, etc.).

What is the significance of the "last hour?" Couldn't a terrorist blow up the plane earlier in the flight? Is it more dramatic if it is near the airport? What is the thinking here?

There is no 'thinking' involved.

 

[W2R]

That's a good point, T-Al. I would think that the first hour would be of more interest, since the fuel tanks are full and an explosion then could be more spectacular.

In my own, perhaps overly cynical way, I was thinking that maybe this will get passengers out of the aisle as stewardesses are trying to finish up distributing drinks, collecting trash, and getting everything cleaned up for the next flight.

 

[clifp]

The TSA is demonstrating a fine example of closing the barn gate after the horses have left.

 

[harley]

The TSA is demonstrating a fine example of closing the barn gate after the horses have left.

I would compare it more to closing the back door of a farmhouse 2 miles away after the horses left the barn.

One interesting aspect of the new rules are that the passenger who jumped up and subdued the underpants bomber would be guilty of breaking the rule and would probabl be prosecuted by the TSA. This one ranks right up there with the fingernail clipper rule. I'm also curious about the rule about no electronic devices in the last hour of flight. The kid didn't even use anything like that.

I particularly liked this quote from a traveller from Australia who flew after the new rules were implemented.

[Two passengers arriving in L.A. from Australia] recounted how an hour before landing an announcement had been made that no one could get up for the remainder of the flight.

“It was kind of funny,” Mr. Barnes said, “because the previous announcement had been about the danger of deep-vein thrombosis or strombosis or whatever you get from sitting for too long. We laughed.”

 

[ziggy29]

Every time you think it's not possible to make air travel more unbearable, they find a way to make it more unbearable. I for one am avoiding as much "leisure" travel by air as possible because of how unpleasant it is now, and I'm far from alone.

 

[aaronc879]

I heard that the "last hour" rule is for international flights because if the plane is blown up in the last hour it will be over populated areas and there could be injuries on the ground. Before the last hour, the plane is over water so obviously there's no danger to people on the ground just the ~300 people on the plane. Much better!

 

[W2R]

Every time you think it's not possible to make air travel more unbearable, they find a way to make it more unbearable. I for one am avoiding as much "leisure" travel by air as possible because of how unpleasant it is now, and I'm far from alone.

Frank and I were talking about this last night, and we feel the same way. Flying to Oregon last October was bad enough, but this is ridiculous. We will avoid flying whenever possible in the future.

 

[Khan]

FAA Considering Passenger Ban | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[harley]

I heard that the "last hour" rule is for international flights because if the plane is blown up in the last hour it will be over populated areas and there could be injuries on the ground. Before the last hour, the plane is over water so obviously there's no danger to people on the ground just the ~300 people on the plane. Much better!

Doesn't that sort of depend on where you're landing? And how about Mexico or Canadia to the US? If they are actually doing it for this reason (and I'm not saying they aren't), wouldn't it make more sense to just not allow passengers to stand up over US land?

 

[GoodSense]

I would wear astronaut diapers just to avoid needing to get up, but with the new scanner everyone can now see I'm wearing a diaper...And pee bottles are out because it might become "suspicious liquid."

 

[Rustic23]

When I was in the AF, we had 5 accidents in a 6 month period, all unrelated. One ran out of gas, one landed in the last 500 ft of a 9,500 ft runway to prove to the student they could stop the air craft, they didn't. Another crashed on the gunnery range and another on take off. Solution, restrict how the aircraft turns final when we practice single engine landings. None of the accidents were related to single engine landings!

So it does not surprise me that they took the actions they did.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Apparently for both the Christmas terrorist and the shoe guy, the detonation was planned for the last hour just as Aaron said, to take out people on the ground. Had one of these yinyangs planned it for the first hour, we'd be taking extra precautions then too in a knee jerk reaction to what had already happened. One day we'll learn to close the barn door before the horse gets out.

 

[brewer12345]

I wonder: would the TSA folks get upset if I brought a roll of quarters or dollar coins on a flight? Its currency, after all...

 

[Gotadimple]

Usually, on an international flight, the last 45 minutes or so are when the flight attendants pass out the customs forms. Most folks are in their seats filling out the paperwork -- or complaining about the paperwork.

At least, that's been my experience.

-- Rita

 

[Alan]

I flew into Philly on US Air from Manchester, England yesterday and they didn't implement any new procedures that I'd expected on the flight, such as nothing covering your lap, or stopping use of all electronic devices during the last hour. I was disappointed on the way out as they didn't have the in-flight position indicator I've come to expect on all international flights. I understand they are considering banning these now on incoming flights to the USA as (like the last hour of the flight) you can tell that you are over populated areas.

We did go through hand searching of all bags and shoes plus a thorough pat down at the gate immediately before boarding. There was an unexpected advantage in that they were strict in allowing only a single, reasonably sized, carry-on that resulted in loads of overhead storage space. We only left about 20 minutes late, and it was a fairly full flight - I was quite impressed at how well it went.

Only 1 flight planned for the whole of next year, although I said that about this year as well, but ended up with 2 extra trips to England because of bereavements of parents.

 

[traineeinvestor]

I heard that the "last hour" rule is for international flights because if the plane is blown up in the last hour it will be over populated areas and there could be injuries on the ground. Before the last hour, the plane is over water so obviously there's no danger to people on the ground just the ~300 people on the plane. Much better!

If that is the logic then it is deeply flawed:

1. a lot of flights approach their destination without crossing populated areas

2. domestic flights are more likely to cross populated areas in the last hour than international flights

3. that logic would dictate that you should also have the same rule for the first hour of a flight.

All of which is irrelevant - if the device used on 253 had worked as intended, the new rules would not have prevented anything.

Travelling to the US is painful enough as it is. Quite frankly, the length of time it takes to get on a plane was already enough to make me choose other destinations for holidays. I'm already thinking of weaseling out of a business trip I have to take in March.

Of course, if the TSA was serious about security, it would prohibit any carry on luggage at all and require all passengers to strip naked before being screened, given an adult diaper, sedated and chained to their seat for the duration of the flight.

 

[Alan]

If that is the logic then it is deeply flawed:

1. a lot of flights approach their destination without crossing populated areas

2. domestic flights are more likely to cross populated areas in the last hour than international flights

3. that logic would dictate that you should also have the same rule for the first hour of a flight.

All of which is irrelevant - if the device used on 253 had worked as intended, the new rules would not have prevented anything.

Travelling to the US is painful enough as it is. Quite frankly, the length of time it takes to get on a plane was already enough to make me choose other destinations for holidays. I'm already thinking of weaseling out of a business trip I have to take in March.

Of course, if the TSA was serious about security, it would prohibit any carry on luggage at all and require all passengers to strip naked before being screened, given an adult diaper, sedated and chained to their seat for the duration of the flight.

Looks like they have already pulled back on some of the rules (see my post above on my flight yesterday) plus this article.

Well, that was quick. We've got a variety of reports out there now saying the Transportation Security Administration has come off its stance about the last hour of flights -- the crackdown said no blankets or pillows or anything on anybody's lap and you couldn't get out of your seat. And no in-flight entertainment (to shut off the "where are we now channel") and no descriptions of where we are over U.S. airspace. That seems like it's winding down.

UPDATE: TSA saying generally that the rules about in-flight are now up to the crew's discretion. So they're technically still in place, but their application is up to how each flight's crew feels about the situation.

 

[clifp]

FAA Considering Passenger Ban | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

God I love the Onion, note the date. I bet that some time in the next few years Khan will be able to repost this article and it will still be just as relevant.

 

[clifp]

I was involved in a long debate about the latest terrorist incident on another forum. (God I wish everyplace on the internet was a respectful as the ER forum).
Here is one the more interesting things I dug up...

SuperFreakonomics, a fun read, has some great statistics on the impact of Richard Reid.

Quote:
Let's say it takes an average of one minute to remove and replace your shoe.. In the US alone, the procedure happens roughly 560 million times a year. 560 million minutes equal more than 1065 years divided by 77.8 years (US life expectancy) is nearly 14 person-lives. So even though failed to kill a single person, he levied a tax that is the time equivalent of 14 lives per year
Doing a bit more digging I find that the flight Reid tried to blow up had 196 passengers and crew. We have taking off our shoes for 8 years now, in 6 years the lives lost due to shoe removal will be equal to if he had blown up the plane. This doesn't include the expense associated (more TSA employees) due to shoe removal.

At this point, I think we have to start rooting for the terrorist to succeed in blowing up planes and hoping that the government can't figure out how they did it.

 

[clifp]

I would compare it more to closing the back door of a farmhouse 2 miles away after the horses left the barn.



I particularly liked this quote from a traveller from Australia who flew after the new rules were implemented.

[Two passengers arriving in L.A. from Australia] recounted how an hour before landing an announcement had been made that no one could get up for the remainder of the flight.

“It was kind of funny,” Mr. Barnes said, “because the previous announcement had been about the danger of deep-vein thrombosis or strombosis or whatever you get from sitting for too long. We laughed.”

Apropos to my previous post. I hope some Doctor, or medical health type guy, does the statistical analysis how many additional deaths would result from complications of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) if they keep this practice in place.

 

[clifp]

Ok the other forum made up of primarily 20-40 years old guys involved in video game business hated this proposal... but.

I think most people agree that much of the stuff TSA is does is more for appearances stake than actually security.

Racial or much more accurately religious profiling is certainly controversial, but I think if we are serious about improving security we have to adopt some of it much like Israel's El Al which relies on profiling.

Here is what I propose. AFAIK no female US citizen has ever been involved in a hijacking or terrorist involving a plane (not many incident period). So rather than putting mom's with kids and grandma through all of the screening we do this. They arrive at the airport show their ID one time to airline employee or TSA. They then with kids in tow pass through a metal detector/bomb sniffer, roughly on par with pre 9/11 security.

Non-US citizens who are males and are between 18-50 and have Muslim names receive extra scrutiny i.e. pat down, and/or behavioral interviews.

Everyone else including US males, all other foreigners would go through the existing screening process.

 

[Trek]

We're flying next week to the US and not looking forward to that at all. It was bad enough before. Fortunately I planned this one as a megatrip so the relatives could meet my family and we'll drive to where I grew up so I can show my wife, etc. So this should be the last US trip until perhaps the kids are teenagers.

The domestic EU flight from Tallinn to London should be fine. No added restrictions and all the wealthy terrorists fly into London so not worried about blowing up. I scheduled us a full day layover in London to break up the flying time for our 2 year old which unfortunately makes us go through security again in England, the only downside (Tallinn is a breeze as it's not busy at all in winter).

I think for the England -USA trip we'll pack our coats in checked baggage to minimize fuss in security and just layer with heavy pull over sweaters. I'll take my carry-on with a few essentials and my wife one backpack with toddler supplies for our 2 year old. I managed to get my wife and toddler their own window aisle so the wee one can move around a little without disturbing others as much as possible and curl up to sleep on the window seat. I have the seat directly across from them on the aisle where I'm sure my seatmate will be fat, stink, drunk, keep bothering me or all of the above as I'm usually that lucky.

I'll take a fanny pack where I can stuff passports, documents, cell phone, pocket camera, etc just in case for some reason they ban my carry on last minute. We're not taking any laptops this trip either to help ease going through security as well.

Not sure what else we can really do. Slip on shoes would be great for the security line but I don't own any and I'm not buying them just for this one trip. I also have travellers insurance which includes acts of terror (it was included, not an add on.)

Any other tips from recent international travellers? Something I've not thought of?

As for keeping toddlers seated for the last hour of the flight. Probably possible if everyone doesn't mind continuous screaming for the last hour too.

 

[brewer12345]

[MODERATOR EDIT]

I am a bit unclear why do not simply arm the flight crews (guns for the cockpit folks, tasers for the flight attendants) and make sure that there is at least one air marshall on most flights. No security screening will keep all the nuts off the plane. I suspect the issue is money. And think of how delicious it would have been if Ivana got tased on her flight...

I am so not looking forward to a month of business travel in Feb...

 

[Trek]

Breaking News

Dutch to use full-body scans for U.S. flights - CNN.com

Can't hide your junk in Amsterdam anymore (going to the US anyway).