GAO Report

Aviation Safety.

Tracking You

Google Is, then selling it to others.

Threat to SWA business model

High Speed Rail.

Or as my economics teacher once told me:

1. there are substitutes for just about everything,
and
2. information wants to be free, will behave as a gas, and inevitably move from a point of concentration, to a point of dilution.

Suicide Attack Database

UChicago.

courtesy of resourceshelf: edited intro:

"The database includes information about the location of attacks, the target type, the weapon used, and systematic information on the demographic and general biographical characteristics of suicide attackers. The database expands the breadth of the data available in English using native language sources (e.g., Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, Tamil) that are likely to have the most extensive relevant information.

This isn't "type keywords into the text box" searching. Instead, you choose the year(s) of interest from the dropdown menus at the top and then, to refine your search, use the other sections -- Location, Group, Campaign, Target Type, Weapon, Gender. Click the green pointer icon beside each one, and the sections expand to reveal an array of options with check boxes. You simply check the boxes next to the items of interest.

The Location section offers geographic options. When you check the country of interest, an additional section sometimes appears below, offering you the opportunity to narrow your search down to a specific province/city/region. The Group section allows you to restrict your search to attacks by a particular terrorist organization. The Campaign section lets you choose particular conflicts -- e.g., Afghani Rebels vs. U.S. & Allies; Hezbollah vs. Israel & Lebanon Army. Target Type options include Security, Political, Civilian, Other, Unknown. Weapon options include Airplane, Belt bomb, Car bomb, Other, Unknown. Gender options...well, Male, Female or Unknown.

A link at the bottom of the page takes you to a world map (PDF) showing all suicide attacks from 1980-2009.

About CPOST:

The Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, directed by Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago, supports broad-based, original research on terrorism and international security. The Chicago Project maintains a complete worldwide knowledge base of suicide attacks and attackers, martyr videos, terrorist group profiles, and multidisciplinary analyses confronting core international security challenges.

Detailed information about the database is in the CPOST Data Research and Collection Manual (PDF), and there's a brief glossary of terms and abbreviations (which is under development)."

Using the FRONT of their hands

Pat Downs Get Personal.

Mac Book doesn't have to be removed from larger pack

Victory.!

Full Body Scanners May Violate British Law

But not American Law.

Reproduced from TSA blog

. . .because you may not be able to navigate directly to it, and because it's important news and because there's a new post daily and you would have to know the date of the posting to find it:

10.26.2010
Talk To TSA - Secure Flight: November 1st Marks End of Grace Period for Airlines

November 1st is right around the corner and with that date comes cooler weather, fall foliage and the seemingly never ending battle between rake and leaf. It also marks the end of the year-long grace period for airlines to clear their systems of old reservations made before TSA's Secure Flight requirements took effect last year.


This means that Secure Flight will not approve the issuance of a boarding pass if the required information is not provided. Required information being your name, date of birth, and gender as it appears on your recognized government ID.


Secure Flight is a behind the scenes watch list matching program that fulfills a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by assuming responsibility of watch list matching from individual airlines. By establishing a consistent watch list matching system, Secure Flight enhances aviation security and more effectively facilitates air travel for passengers.


Secure Flight watch list matching takes a matter of seconds to complete, and providing this data enables passengers to print their boarding passes at home and or at an airline kiosk and greatly reduces the likelihood of watch list misidentification.


Blogger Bob has talked about Secure Flight here many times in the past and you can view all of those posts here on our TSA Blog, or you can visit our Secure Flight webpage. Here are answers to Secure Flight questions we’ve received through Talk to TSA:


What does the November 1 airline compliance date mean for passengers? The November 1 date requires passengers to provide complete Secure Flight passenger data when booking reservations so TSA can conduct watch list matching and approve airlines to issue a boarding pass. To avoid unnecessary delays and prevent misidentifications, passengers should provide complete Secure Flight data when booking airline travel, whether they have booked directly with the airline, a travel agent or an online booking site.


Will passengers still be able to book a ticket last-minute within 72 hours of a flight? Yes. TSA’s Secure Flight program can conduct watch list matching for passengers up until the time of the flight. Passengers will be prompted to provide Secure Flight information when booking travel. For reservations booked on short notice, or within 72 hours of the scheduled flight departure time, airlines must submit the required passenger information as soon as the reservation is made.


What happens if a passenger has an existing reservation for travel after November 1, 2010 and did not provide complete Secure Flight data when booking his or her flight? TSA advises passengers to contact their airlines or booking sources prior to arriving at the airport to ensure they have provided their full name, date of birth, gender, and Redress number (if applicable) as part of their reservations. While TSA’s watch list matching takes a matter of seconds and can be completed up until the time of departure, passengers should be aware that a boarding pass will not be issued until the airline submits complete passenger data to Secure Flight.

What if a passenger’s boarding pass and ID do not match exactly? Secure Flight and travel document checking are both critical security functions, yet they serve different purposes at different points in the security process. Secure Flight is a behind-the-scenes watch list matching process that takes place before checkpoint screening. Secure Flight asks that passengers enter their name as it appears on their government ID and passengers should strive to stay consistent between the name on their ID and the information they provide when booking their reservation. Once a passenger receives their boarding pass, the Secure Flight process is already complete.


At the security checkpoint, TSA strives to ensure your identification and boarding pass are authentic and validate you are who you say you are. Small differences in the name on the boarding pass and ID, like middle initials, should not impact your travel. It is not uncommon for the information printed on boarding passes to differ slightly from the information on IDs, depending on the boarding pass printing practices of individual airlines. Information requirements are explained in greater detail on Secure Flight’s web page.


John S. Pistole
TSA Administrator


TSA Blog.

Memory Loss

Did I already post this.?

See the bottom entry in this journal regarding full body scanners.

DHS Critical Infrastructure

GAO Report.

cell phone charges and foreign travel

From USA Today.

Compass Airlines, LLC

All kinds of fun.

Law Review

Body Scanners.


Predicting Future of Full Body Scanners.


More.

TB in flight

Suing.

Code Sharing

Safety

Pilot's I.D.s Not Secure

See Mark Bavis' story, below. Expected Testimony includes allegations that hijackers had pilot I.D.

Lone Hold Out from 9/11 settlements, family of Mark Bavis

Trial moves forward.

Schneier's call for papers

Information Security Workshop, George Mason U.

GPS tracking device discovered at oil change

Now the Feds want their equipment back.

Flight Delays Cost 32 Billion

Spell it with B, boys and girls.

Jet Blue F/A pleads out

What about his head wound.?

Exposed Breasts

Check it out, a security guard allegedly pulled a woman's top down, exposing her breasts to all in the area.Unbelievable.

Balancing freedom and security

The Freedom of Information Act. CRS Report.

Pilot Refuses Virtual Strip Search-Seeking Legal Counsel

Update:

Michael Roberts, pilot.


Now he's suing.

via Salon.

Pilot Stands up to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'
by Michael Roberts

October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.

Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.

As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.

"Am I under arrest?" I asked.

"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."

"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"

"We just need to hold you here so he can…"

"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.

"Detain you while we…"

Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.

We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?

"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.

"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."

"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."

"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.

As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.

The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.

His reply: "That’s irrelevant."

It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.

"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.

"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."

"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"

"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."

"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.

"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"

"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."

"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."

Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.

As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.

It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.

Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

Michael S. Roberts



FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com

October 18, 2010

Michael S. Roberts [send him mail] is a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines.

DOT briefing

DOT 186-10
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Contact: Bill Mosley
Tel: (202) 366-4570

Long Tarmac Delays in August Show Steep Drop from Last Year

The nation’s largest airlines reported only one flight in August with a tarmac delay of more than three hours, compared to 66 flights in August 2009, with no change in the rate of canceled flights, according to the Air Travel Consumer Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

Data filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) showed the only tarmac delay longer than three hours reported in August by the 18 airlines that file on-time performance with DOT involved a United Airlines flight departing the San Juan airport on Aug. 5 that was diverted. August was the fourth full month of data since the new aviation consumer rule went into effect on April 29. There were only eight total tarmac delays of more than three hours from May through August this year, compared to 529 during the same four-month period of 2009. BTS is a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).

The largest carriers canceled 1.0 percent of their scheduled domestic flights in August, matching the 1.0 percent cancellation rate of August 2009. They posted a 1.4 percent cancellation rate in July 2010.

“These numbers show that the tarmac delay rule is protecting passengers from being trapped indefinitely aboard an airplane – with little or no increase in canceled flights,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. “Also, it shows that the hard work the airlines are putting into implementing the rule is paying off. With the summer travel season behind us, it appears that the rule is working as planned.”

The new tarmac delay rule prohibits U.S. airlines operating domestic flights from permitting an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning passengers, with exceptions allowed only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations. The Department will investigate tarmac delays that exceed this limit.

The monthly report also includes data on on-time performance, chronically delayed flights, flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays filed with the Department by the reporting carriers. In addition, it has information on airline bumping, reports of mishandled baggage filed by consumers with the carriers, and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed by U.S. carriers.

On-time Performance

The reporting carriers recorded an overall on-time arrival rate of 81.7 percent in August, up from both the 79.7 percent on-time rate of August 2009 and July 2010’s 76.7 percent.

Tarmac Delays

In August, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that .0400 percent of their scheduled flights had tarmac delays of two hours or more, down from .1030 percent in July. There was one flight with a tarmac delay of more than three hours in August.

Chronically Delayed Flights

At the end of August, there were four flights that were chronically delayed – more than 30 minutes late more than 50 percent of the time – for three consecutive months. There were an additional 41 flights that were chronically delayed for two consecutive months. There were no chronically delayed flights for four consecutive months or more. A list of flights that were chronically delayed for a single month is available from BTS (www.bts.gov).

Causes of Flight Delays

In August, the carriers filing on-time performance data reported that 5.07 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.21 percent in July; 6.42 percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 8.13 percent in July; 5.16 percent by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.37 percent in July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in July. Weather is a factor in both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in that category.

Data collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather, including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included in National Aviation System delays. In August, 35.07 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, down 10.70 percent from August 2009, when 39.27 percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 6.75 percent from July when 37.61 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S. carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a mishandled baggage rate of 3.50 reports per 1,000 passengers in August, an improvement over both August 2009’s rate of 4.11 and July 2010’s 3.79 rate.

Incidents Involving Pets

In August, carriers reported one incident involving the loss, death or injury of pets while traveling by air, down from both the three reports filed in August 2009 and eight in July 2010. August’s incident involved the injury of a pet.
Complaints About Airline Service

In August, the Department received 1,200 complaints about airline service from consumers, up 34.7 percent from the 891 complaints filed in August 2009 and up 9.7 percent from the 1,094 received in July 2010.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled Passengers

The report also contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in August against airlines regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 71 disability-related complaints in August, up from the total of 50 filed in August 2009 and the 56 complaints received in July 2010.

Complaints About Discrimination

In August, the Department received 17 complaints alleging discrimination by airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion, national origin or sex – up from the total of 16 recorded in August 2009 and 12 recorded in July 2010.
Consumers may file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.

Consumers who want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline’s reservation number or their travel agent. This information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these agents.

The Air Travel Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.dot.gov. It is available in “pdf” and Microsoft Word format.



Facts




AIR TRAVEL CONSUMER REPORT
August 2010
KEY ON-TIME PERFORMANCE AND FLIGHT CANCELLATION STATISTICS
Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
by the 18 Reporting Carriers

Overall

81.7 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time Arrival Rates

1.Hawaiian Airlines – 95.6 percent
2.Alaska Airlines – 88.7 percent
3. Continental Airlines – 87.1 percent

Lowest On-Time Arrival Rates

1.Comair – 76.4 percent
2.JetBlue Airways – 77.1 percent
3.Delta Air Lines – 77.4 percent
Flights with Longest Tarmac Delays

1.United Airlines flight 700 from San Juan to Washington Dulles, 8/5/10 – delayed on tarmac 200 minutes
(There was only one flight with a tarmac delay of more than three hours in August)

Highest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Pinnacle Airlines – 2.5 percent
2. Comair – 2.1 percent
3. Delta Air Lines – 1.6 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1.Hawaiian Airlines – 0.1 percent
2.Frontier Airlines – 0.1 percent
3.Continental Airlines – 0.1 percent


-END-

Don't go there

How to Host An Effective Virtual Meeting.

Bruce Schneier on Cyberwar

via NPR panel.

Historical View, from Schneier's Archives.

Lithium Batteries

From the Federal Register, today:

Copies of documents for the UNSCOE
TDG meeting and the meeting agenda
may be obtained by downloading them
from the United Nations Transport
Division’s Web site at: http://
www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/
dgsubc/c32010.html. PHMSA’s site at
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/
regs/international also provides
additional information regarding the
UNSCOE TDG and related matters such
as summaries of decisions taken at
previous sessions of the UNSCOE TDG.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6,
2010.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010–25913 Filed 10–14–10; 8:45 am]



Proposed Agendas.

SWA spreading the LUV

SWA/Air Tran Merger Article From Wharton.

TSA Redress Process

Resources.

On Time Performance

October, 2010.

Air Cargo

Known Shipper.

More.

Aviation Weather

GAO Report.

Immigrants make plans

USA Today, deportation fears fuel action plans.

UFO sighting in China

Matter is under investigation.


Put your curser on the image to get the associated text, looks like a staged rocket to us.

More.

More Fun, via Alaska.


Here's another one, as of November, 2010.

Flight Crew Duty Rigs

[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62486-62487]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-19]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 117 and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1093; Notice No. 10-11]
RIN 2120-AJ58


Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of procedures for submission of clarifying questions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA published a proposed rule on September 14, 2010, to
amend its existing flight, duty and rest regulations applicable to
certificate holders and their flightcrew members. The FAA has received
requests from stakeholders to provide a forum during the comment period
where they can pose clarifying questions and receive answers to them.
In response to these requests, the FAA is issuing this notice, which
includes the procedures for handling clarifying questions to the
proposed rule.

[[Page 62487]]


DATES: You must submit your clarifying questions in writing using the
procedures outlined below by October 15, 2010. The FAA anticipates
responding to these submissions by October 22, 2010. Comments on the
proposed rule must be received on or before November 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: See the ``Procedures for Filing Clarifying Requests''
section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See the ``Procedures for Filing
Clarifying Requests'' section of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 14, 2010, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest
Requirements'' (75 FR 55852). The proposed regulation recognizes the
growing similarities between the types of operations and the
universality of factors that lead to fatigue in most individuals.
Fatigue threatens aviation safety because it increases the risk of
pilot error that could lead to an accident. The new requirements, if
adopted, would eliminate the current distinctions between domestic,
flag and supplemental operations. The proposal provides different
requirements based on the time of day, whether an individual is
acclimated to a new time zone, and the likelihood of being able to
sleep under different circumstances. The comment period closes November
15, 2010.
Since the docket opened, the FAA has received numerous requests for
technical clarification of the proposed rulemaking. The FAA believes
that it makes sense to provide additional clarity where comenters
believe the draft regulatory text is unclear or omits pertinent
information. For example, one commenter noted that there is a cross-
reference to the existing flight crewmember regulations in the
regulations governing flight and duty time for flight attendants. By
dropping all of the part 121 flight crewmember flight and duty
regulations, that cross-reference would no longer make sense, and it
would be unclear whether the provision still had any validity.
To the extent possible, the FAA believes there is value in
providing greater technical clarity while the comment period is still
open. This clarity will allow interested parties to focus on the policy
implications of the proposal without spending undue amounts of time
trying to figure out how the rule, if implemented, would be implemented
or interact with other regulatory requirements. The FAA also believes
that there should be a cut-off for consideration of these technical
issues so that commenters know with certainty how these issues are
resolved before they finalize their comments.
Accordingly, the FAA requests that all requests for clarification
be submitted to the docket no later than October 15, 2010. The FAA
anticipates responding to requests that are truly clarifying in nature
by October 22, 2010, a full three weeks before the close of the comment
period. To the extent a request raises policy considerations that are
more appropriately resolved after the public has been given a full
opportunity to comment, the FAA anticipates addressing those comments
in a final rule.

Procedures for Filing Clarifying Requests

The below procedures are not a substitute for filing substantive
questions and comments to the proposed rule. The procedures for
submitting those types of comments are discussed in the NPRM.
Commenters should follow those procedures to file their substantive
questions and comments by November 15, 2010.
If you wish to submit a request to the FAA for clarification of the
NPRM (Docket Number FAA-2009-1093) before the comment period closes,
you must send your request using the below method by October 15, 2010.
1. Post your request on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. To access
this electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter Docket
Number FAA 2009-1093, and follow the online instructions for sending
your request electronically.
2. In addition to sending your request to the electronic docket,
send a copy via e-mail to the subject matter expert as noted below.
Technical Clarifications: Dale E. Roberts, Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration; e-mail dale.e.roberts@faa.gov.
Legal Clarifications: Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration;
e-mail rebecca.macpherson@faa.gov.
Cost/Benefit Clarifications: Peter Ivory, Office of
Aviation Policy & Plans, Federal Aviation Administration; e-mail
peter.ivory@faa.gov.
The FAA will reply to requests for clarification to the NPRM if
submitted by October 15, 2010. We will respond directly to you and post
the response in the docket established for this rulemaking. We
anticipate providing our response by October 22, 2010.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-25678 Filed 10-7-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

CRS Report

American Jihadist.

Biometrics

From the Economist.

See also, below,from Friday, October 1, 2010: "Inherently Error Ridden" on same issue

hat tip to
Bruce Schneier.

It's a Federal Question

Power to Enforce Federal Immigration Law.

HTML 5

Brave New World.

Carbon Footprints in EU

You will pay.

Lithium Batteries Notice

On Board Fire Hazard.

Schneier.com

From Bruce Schneier’s blog on Security: October 8, 2010:

Excerpt:
"Another number found in Stuxnet is 0xDEADF007. Perhaps that means "Dead Fool" or "Dead Foot," a term that refers to an airplane engine failure. Perhaps this means Stuxnet is trying to cause the targeted system to fail. Or perhaps not. Still, a targeted worm designed to cause a specific sabotage seems to be the most likely explanation."


see site for full post:

Schneier on Security.

Aviation Consumer Protection & Enforcement

Resources.

Disclosure of Baggage Fees.

AMR in Business Week

The Cost of Avoiding Bankruptcy.

Air France Crash Litigation

Better in France, report via courthousenews.

EPA Bed Bug Eradication Database Tool

Find out what works and won't kill you, too.

Complaints against airlines

Complain Here.

France, Germany & Sweden

Updated Travel Advice.

Unaccompanied "aliens"

The Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement governs the policy for the treatment of unaccompanied alien children in federal custody. Unaccompanied alien children are minors less than 18 years old who arrive in the United States without a parent or legal guardian and are in the temporary custody of federal authorities because of their immigration status.

The Department of Homeland Security is bound by the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement, which includes requirements that immigration officials detaining minors provide (1) food and drinking water, (2) medical assistance in the event of emergencies, (3) toilets and sinks, (4) adequate temperature control and ventilation, (5) adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and (6) separation from unrelated adults whenever possible.

Customs and Border Protection is one of the Department of Homeland Security's primary immigration enforcement agencies for handling unaccompanied children.

Customs and Border Protection personnel apprehend, process, and detain unaccompanied alien children intercepted along the borders and at ports of entry for attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Based on our site visits to 30 Border Patrol stations and ports of entry, select document reviews, and independent observations, we concluded that Customs and Border Protection was in compliance with the general provisions of the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement.

Although we did not identify any significant violations of the agreement, we are recommending that the agency:


(1) evaluate its food-purchasing and contracting methods to ensure efficient use of resources;

(2) ensure that detainees are informed of the safety of drinking water provided in hold rooms;

(3) determine whether unaccompanied alien children are injured or require medical attention;

(4) document medical care provided;

(5) ensure that detention facilities maintain sufficient inventories of medical supplies;

(6) ensure that toilets and sinks are routinely inspected and work properly;

(7) verify that all required personnel complete the mandatory annual refresher Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement training; and

(8) accurately and consistently document required information pertaining to unaccompanied alien children.


See Full Report.

News at Eleven

Foreign Fighters.

Travel Alert.

Please Remove Your Shoes

Documentary Film about Airport Security.

hat tip to Bruce Schneier.

Travel for Hajj

November.

Biometric Identifying Technologies

Inherently Error Ridden.

Presidential Doc

[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 61031-61033]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-134]


[[Page 61031]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





The President





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Memorandum of September 29, 2010--Provision of Aviation Insurance
Coverage for Commercial Air Carrier Service in Domestic and
International Operations


Presidential Documents




___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 61033]]

Memorandum of September 29, 2010


Provision of Aviation Insurance Coverage for
Commercial Air Carrier Service in Domestic and
International Operations

Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation

By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States,
including 49 U.S.C. 44302, et seq., I hereby:

1. Determine that the continuation of U.S. commercial
air transportation is necessary in the interest of air
commerce, national security, and the foreign policy of
the United States.

2. Approve the provision by the Secretary of
Transportation of insurance or reinsurance to U.S. air
carriers against loss or damage arising out of any risk
from the operation of an aircraft in the manner and to
the extent provided in chapter 443 of title 49 of the
U.S. Code until September 30, 2011, when he determines
such insurance or reinsurance cannot be obtained on
reasonable terms and conditions from any company
authorized to conduct an insurance business in a State
of the United States.

You are directed to bring this determination
immediately to the attention of all air carriers, as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(2), and to arrange for
its publication in the Federal Register.


(Presidential Sig.)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, September 29, 2010

[FR Doc. 2010-24900
Filed 9-30-10; 11:15 am]
Billing code 4910-9-P

Lithium Batteries and Cargo Fires In Flight

UPS Opposes Proposed Rules.

FAA incidents log.

Federal Register, long ago.

Battery Association weighs in.