There used to be a time when I configured computers for traveling users when I would refer to the disconnect state as “being on an airplane”, since traveling was synonymous with a complete lack of internet connectivity.  As you have probably heard, this is no longer the case, as airlines are tripping over themselves to offer Wi-Fi, wireless internet connectivity onboard aircraft.

Not Repeating The Same Mistakes

In the 90s, there was a similar scramble to provide telephone connectivity while onboard an aircraft.  We all remember those seat back telephones right?   The reason they have largely disappeared is because nobody used them.   Airlines paid a huge expense to install them across their fleets, and then seemed to think that people would spend several dollars a minute to make phone calls in the air.   It turned out that most people preferred to wait until they landed rather than spend a small fortune to make airborne phone calls.   The airlines screwed up royally on the pricing, something that their customers see all the time.

This time, they are taking a more conservative approach.    Unlike the telephone fiasco, airlines are getting the partnership of the providers when it comes to the install, and then sharing the revenue for use.   Prices are not outrageous, like the several dollars a minute phone calls, but it is still possible to spend more on a few hours of airborne internet than you spend on your monthly internet at home.

It is for that reason that it is unlikely that I will ever pay for in flight Internet.   Then again, I am not really the target market.   If I were a business traveler, and my company was willing to re-reimburse me for the expense, it might just be worth the hassle of printing a receipt and submitting it to the travel department.   If I am truly getting work done, it might be worth it to them to pay for my connectivity.  Realistically, I would still prefer to enjoy the flight and read a book, considering I spend eight hours a day working on a computer anyways.

Try In-Flight Internet For Free This Year

Another way the airlines are trying to avoid having this technology fail like seat back telephones is by giving it away for free.  There have been all sorts of promos since this technology was deployed.  The clear intention is to get people to try it out, and hopefully they will start paying once the bill comes due.

This year, there are a slew of promotions centered around the holidays.   The sponsor is Google Chrome, and there are several airlines participating.

For information on using this service with Airtran, check this out:
http://www.airtran.com/wifi/google.aspx

Delta is currently the largest airline particpating in in this promotion:

http://www.delta.com/traveling_checkin/inflight_services/products/google_chrome.jsp

Finally, you can also connect with the hip new upstart Virgin America:

http://google.virginamerica.com/

So bring your laptop, sign in to the Internet, and feel free to tune out your seatmate, crying baby, and the beautiful scenery outside your window.

Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to visit Las Vegas for the Aviation Nation air show at Nellis Air Force Base.  Having booked this trip months ago, I was glad it was with Southwest when I ended up fracturing my shoulder blade last week.    With Southwest, I could have canceled or rebooked this trip, using the money paid as a credit towards future travel.   As it turned out, the pain was manageable, and I figured that my should would be just as broken in Vegas as it would be had I stayed home.   Nevertheless, it was nice to have the option of canceling my trip without penalty.

Broken Bones Are Your Ticket To The A-List

Sure, you could spend extra on the early check in option, in order to board first and choose your favorite seat, but that would be too easy.   You could even bring a small child with you, and board at the end of the A-listers.   I decided to break my should blade in a bicycle accident in order to board my flight first.  In my crippled condition, the Southwest gate agents were happy to give me a blue slip that allowed me to board the aircraft first.   I didn’t even have to worry about checking in exactly 24 hours before my flight, I just printed out a boarding pass at the airport, C-something, and picked up my blue ticket at the gate.   I was the first passenger who boarded, and the first to exit the aircraft on arrival.    I am sure that not every Southwest flight is on time, but I have flown them a dozen times and they have been perfect.   This weekend was no exception, as the flights operated with a precision that leads me to believe that not everything has to happen perfectly for the flight to leave on time.  It also helps that with free checked bags, there wasn’t chaos when people couldn’t fit all of their belongings in the overhead bins.

For someone who can’t stand the policies and attitudes at most airlines these days, I am always pleasantly surprised to fly Southwest.

As I pilot, I have to tell you, there is no such thing as an “air pocket”.    That is just a term someone came up with to explain turbulence.   The sun heats the earths crust, hot air rises, cold air descents, and you get turbulence.    You can think of rising air as the bubbles in a lava lamp.   As your plane is flying through these masses of rising and falling air, the aircraft is shaken.

Turbulence Is Dangerous

Not a month goes by without hearing about sudden turbulence that caused injuries to passengers.   Sometimes pilots can anticipate turbulence, but other times it comes out of the blue.   This is called clear air turbulence.    The reason clear air turbulence is so dangerous is simply because the pilot is unable to turn on the seatbelt light, so that people are not seated.   All it takes is moderate turbulence to cause people and their belongings to go flying through the cabin.   The moral of the story is to always wear your seatbelt whenever possible.

The Problem With The Seat Belt Sign

Sadly, the seat belt sign has been increasingly used to manage the behavior of the passengers, rather than being employed for safety.   It seems like almost every flight I have been on in the last few years, the pilot has left the light on for most of the flight.    Worse, the cabin crew ignores the indication to wear your seatbelt and continues to perform cabin service.   Physics does not distinguish between cabin crew and passengers, and they are both equally likely to go flying through the cabin in the event of turbulence.    By turning the light on and leaving it on for most of the flight, the pilots probably think that they are doing a favor for the cabin crew, as the passengers are less likely to get up an interfere with the service.  What they are really doing is crying wolf.   While I keep my seatbelt on for safety when seated, I will get up to use the bathroom when the light has been on for an excessive amount of time.   The crew is merely required to inform me that I should return to my seat, but they have to let me go when I have to go.

Creating non-existent phenomenon like “air pockets” and using the seat belt sign to help the flight attendants serve meals are two of the ways airlines are loosing credibility and ultimately hurting the cause of safety.

I, like most travelers, have many issues with the TSA.  I find the majority of their personnel to be uninterested, incompetent, and poorly trained.   Their policies often make little sense and are unevenly enforced.   That said, I have devoted some considerable thought to the recent controversy over backscatter imaging, and I am not completely opposed to it.  At this time, I am having a harder time swallowing the rationale of its opponents than the technology itself.

Problem Number One: It’s Dangerous

The idea is that passengers are subjected to radiation through this technology.   Recently, pilots have begun to protest their repeated exposure to the radiation received through these systems.  Brett Snyder over at the Cranky Flier does a good job of debunking the idea that this technology is subjecting passengers and pilots to a risky level of radiation.   He concludes,“Bottom line? If pilots are really concerned about radiation exposure, they should stop flying. The additional amount from the AIT machines is negligible when compared to what they get while in the air.”

This advice is familiar to me based on an experience I had a few months ago.    At that time, I took a tour of a nuclear reactor used for research.   The scientist giving the tour asked us to guess which people receive the least and the most radiation as part of their occupation.   The people who receive the most radiation are pilots and flight attendants, since they spend the most time outside (most of) the protective envelope of our atmosphere.   Ironically, the least radiation is received by crew members on a nuclear submarine, as they are shielded from natural background radiation by the surrounding sea water.

Cranky points out that the level of radiation received by those scanners is .05 microsieverts.   Just by living in Denver, Colorado, a place with naturally high background radiation, I receive 10 microsieverts of natural radiation a year, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fact sheet on the biological effects on radiation.   I would have to go through these machines 200 times to receive the same dose I get from living in Denver.   By the way, there are no adverse risks associated with living in places like Denver with higher than average exposure to radiation.

Problem Number Two:  What Is The Point Of Subjecting The Pilots To These Scans

This is one of those questions that really makes the TSA look stupid.   Obviously, a pilot already has control of the aircraft and is in a position to do harm without possessing contraband.   So the TSA are idiots, right?

Not so fast.  It certainly isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that a pilot might use his or her position to smuggle contraband into a secure area only to pass it on to a non-pilot accomplice.    It is even possible that a pilot could plant an explosive device on his aircraft to be detonated at a later time.   As a pilot myself, I have a hard time imagining a fellow pilot would do such a thing, but at the same time I really do not understand why anyone would commit a terrorist attack either.

Problem Number Three: Why Bother With These Machines In The First Place?

If you really think about it, X-Rays can’t detect explosive very well.   One liquid or solid looks pretty much like another of the same density.  Likewise, metal detectors don’t really detect anything that is not metal, and there are plenty of things that a terrorist could use, such as explosives, that are not metal.  Frankly, even a pat down is not all that effective at turning up contraband, as any woman who has hidden something in her bra can attest.  Men who smuggle beverages in artificial beer bellies know that fact as well.   Think about drug mules, and you get an idea of what someone could smuggle on their body if they are really motivated to do so.   If a terrorist is determined to board an aircraft with a harmful device, these imaging systems may be the only way to detect it.

Problem Number Four: Privacy

This is the argument against these imagers that I find the most compelling.   I really don’t like the idea of someone looking at an image of me naked, let alone that of my family.   On the other hand, I used to work at a photo processing lab and you would be amazed at the images of themselves that people regularly turned over to strangers.   Given enough safeguards against the storage of these images, I think ultimately we as a society may have to overcome the idea of strangers looking at these images anonymously.    I wish we lived in a different world, but sadly , we don’t.

I am not trying to make the case for these imagers, but I would at least like you to believe that the issue is not nearly as simple as it would seem.