air travel
Body Scanners - The Lie
02/03/10 15:53 Filed in: Personal
Since their introduction (and subsequent compulsory use) since February this year Body Scanners at airports have proved to be highly controversial.
There are two main objections.
Firstly, they don’t work. This German TV presentation using the same equipment provided to Manchester Airport show how flawed the system is.
Incidentally, I was;
Secondly, it’s an infringement of both privacy and civil liberties.
I can only assume that all these measures are being put in place in order to put people of air travel. Because given the first point, it can’t be security.
My own personal experience of the device and it’s operating staff took place on February 5th of this year.
When my family and I had passed the normal security check, we were directed (as EVERYBODY WAS) to be body scanned.
The process itself was both pathetic and insulting.
The device failed to spot the fact I was carrying a plastic container in my top pocket. Because as I leaned forward, the shirt left my body and became opaque to the scanner. You’ll realise it only spots stuff that is in contrast to things around it.
The container had two one pounds coins in it. I’d placed them there deliberately to see what would happen. The answer was nothing. Which was both amusing and alarming, because it could have contained ANYTHING!
What really does stick in my mind as objectionable is the way we were made to feel during the process. As though we were actually guilty and required to prove ourselves safe to fly. This impression was further enhanced by a rather stupid UK Borders Agency officer.
When my six year old asked her “Why did they have to do that?” to the one female UK Borders Agency offic (aged early 40’s, medium height and build, dark short hair... somewhat man like) her reply had my spinning around.
“Because Mummy and Daddy have been naughty,” She said dryly.
Now remember, my daughter is six and is now worried. I just span on the spot to face my accuser and said in a calm voice
“Did you just say ‘because Mummy and Daddy have been naughty’?” I asked her, “Did you?”
“No.” she replied and started to step behind the other officers.
“Yes you did. I heard you.” I replied (again, perfectly calm and polite).
To be honest, at this point I’d have been happy with “Sorry, it was just a joke” and I’d have pointed out her age.
Instead I got a male UK BA officer stepping in between the non-conflict and saying “You can go now,” and pointing towards the exit.
So this is the sort of treatment we are to expect in the future? Guilty until proved otherwise, and you’re lucky to be allowed to travel in the first place.
I have to say that the UK BA officers prior to this had been both polite and helpful. But you’re only as good as your last performance, and I was left both angry and disgusted by that.
There are two main objections.
Firstly, they don’t work. This German TV presentation using the same equipment provided to Manchester Airport show how flawed the system is.
Incidentally, I was;
- NOT asked to empty my pockets
- NOT asked to remove my jacket, and was
- NOT scanned from the side.
- All Lance’s comments ARE FALSE in this respect.
Secondly, it’s an infringement of both privacy and civil liberties.
I can only assume that all these measures are being put in place in order to put people of air travel. Because given the first point, it can’t be security.
My own personal experience of the device and it’s operating staff took place on February 5th of this year.
When my family and I had passed the normal security check, we were directed (as EVERYBODY WAS) to be body scanned.
The process itself was both pathetic and insulting.
Failed to spot “bomb”
The device failed to spot the fact I was carrying a plastic container in my top pocket. Because as I leaned forward, the shirt left my body and became opaque to the scanner. You’ll realise it only spots stuff that is in contrast to things around it.
The container had two one pounds coins in it. I’d placed them there deliberately to see what would happen. The answer was nothing. Which was both amusing and alarming, because it could have contained ANYTHING!
Final insult
What really does stick in my mind as objectionable is the way we were made to feel during the process. As though we were actually guilty and required to prove ourselves safe to fly. This impression was further enhanced by a rather stupid UK Borders Agency officer.
When my six year old asked her “Why did they have to do that?” to the one female UK Borders Agency offic (aged early 40’s, medium height and build, dark short hair... somewhat man like) her reply had my spinning around.
“Because Mummy and Daddy have been naughty,” She said dryly.
Now remember, my daughter is six and is now worried. I just span on the spot to face my accuser and said in a calm voice
“Did you just say ‘because Mummy and Daddy have been naughty’?” I asked her, “Did you?”
“No.” she replied and started to step behind the other officers.
“Yes you did. I heard you.” I replied (again, perfectly calm and polite).
To be honest, at this point I’d have been happy with “Sorry, it was just a joke” and I’d have pointed out her age.
Instead I got a male UK BA officer stepping in between the non-conflict and saying “You can go now,” and pointing towards the exit.
So this is the sort of treatment we are to expect in the future? Guilty until proved otherwise, and you’re lucky to be allowed to travel in the first place.
I have to say that the UK BA officers prior to this had been both polite and helpful. But you’re only as good as your last performance, and I was left both angry and disgusted by that.
Air travels dirty little secret
15/07/09 14:30 Filed in: Personal
Air travel has a dirty little secret... and it’s a secret they’d rather you didn’t know about or work out for yourself.
But before we get into that, lets have a little trip down memory lane. Do you remember the late 80’s? Duran Duran, Teardrop Explodes, Ferris Beulla and smoking on airplanes.
Yes, take any flight in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s and you’d have the option of having a smoking or non-smoking seat to sit in. Not that the smoke would know any better... but lets get into that in a moment.
Now, you’d imagine that smoking would in itself provide a major fire hazard. But I did a little research and could not find a single air disaster that was caused by a loose cigarette. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Which might come as a big surprise to anybody who has take a flight recently and have not only seen that many warning signs around the cabin, but also the additional information in the pre-flight safety feature; smoking causes fire... and fire causes disasters. It’s a fairly simple message which is usually a strong indicator that it’s a lie.
I’m sorry to say that the real reason smoking has been banned is right down to costs. By not having the ingress, compress and process fresh air from the outside; airlines are saving a small fortune of fuel. Essentially, putting fresh air into the cabin uses energy, which requires more fuel to be burned. This fuel is saved by recycling the air fewer. In fact, on flights less than 2 hours, it is unlikely that ANY fresh air is brought into the aircraft for passengers. Which means the air you’re breathing has already been breather by a significant number of your fellow passengers and has lower oxygen content.
Which brings us back to the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s which had another magical feature to flights. No deep vein thrombosis, none.
Now you might imagine this is a result of changing diets, passengers being fitter ten years ago or many other factors.
But here is the truth, as detailed in the Lancent.
It is poor air quality in planes that is causing deep vein thrombosis during flights and not lethargy or poor health. Their studies placed individuals on the ground under similar circumstances and compared them to people in flight and the results were both shocking and conclusive.
So where do we stand on this? Are airlines trying to balance aircraft safety against potential health risks?
No. They are not. At some point, the airline has run the following calculation. It’s a calculation that has been exposed a number of times, most famously with GM.
(a) Cost of Savings * Flights
versus
(b) Number of deaths * potential pay outs due to culpability
If (a) is greater than (b), then they will continue to run with poor air quality and individuals will continue to die.
Look, to be blunt. The airlines don’t give a crap about you. If you die, tough. You’ve already paid. You’ll just be another little statistic on their bean counting chart.
But lets not wait until another perfectly health individual drops dead because of ‘unknown’ factors. All of which are known to all the major airlines.
Instead, lets introduce (c)
(c) Cost of lost revenue due to bad press
Write to your local MP and demand better air quality on planes. After all, if this was a workplace, the health and safety executive would no doubt have something to say about it!
But before we get into that, lets have a little trip down memory lane. Do you remember the late 80’s? Duran Duran, Teardrop Explodes, Ferris Beulla and smoking on airplanes.
Yes, take any flight in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s and you’d have the option of having a smoking or non-smoking seat to sit in. Not that the smoke would know any better... but lets get into that in a moment.
Now, you’d imagine that smoking would in itself provide a major fire hazard. But I did a little research and could not find a single air disaster that was caused by a loose cigarette. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Which might come as a big surprise to anybody who has take a flight recently and have not only seen that many warning signs around the cabin, but also the additional information in the pre-flight safety feature; smoking causes fire... and fire causes disasters. It’s a fairly simple message which is usually a strong indicator that it’s a lie.
I’m sorry to say that the real reason smoking has been banned is right down to costs. By not having the ingress, compress and process fresh air from the outside; airlines are saving a small fortune of fuel. Essentially, putting fresh air into the cabin uses energy, which requires more fuel to be burned. This fuel is saved by recycling the air fewer. In fact, on flights less than 2 hours, it is unlikely that ANY fresh air is brought into the aircraft for passengers. Which means the air you’re breathing has already been breather by a significant number of your fellow passengers and has lower oxygen content.
Which brings us back to the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s which had another magical feature to flights. No deep vein thrombosis, none.
Now you might imagine this is a result of changing diets, passengers being fitter ten years ago or many other factors.
But here is the truth, as detailed in the Lancent.
It is poor air quality in planes that is causing deep vein thrombosis during flights and not lethargy or poor health. Their studies placed individuals on the ground under similar circumstances and compared them to people in flight and the results were both shocking and conclusive.
So where do we stand on this? Are airlines trying to balance aircraft safety against potential health risks?
No. They are not. At some point, the airline has run the following calculation. It’s a calculation that has been exposed a number of times, most famously with GM.
(a) Cost of Savings * Flights
versus
(b) Number of deaths * potential pay outs due to culpability
If (a) is greater than (b), then they will continue to run with poor air quality and individuals will continue to die.
Look, to be blunt. The airlines don’t give a crap about you. If you die, tough. You’ve already paid. You’ll just be another little statistic on their bean counting chart.
What can we do?
But lets not wait until another perfectly health individual drops dead because of ‘unknown’ factors. All of which are known to all the major airlines.
Instead, lets introduce (c)
(c) Cost of lost revenue due to bad press
Write to your local MP and demand better air quality on planes. After all, if this was a workplace, the health and safety executive would no doubt have something to say about it!