Newsstand - Airline Bladder Rule Must Go So We Can, Too

From the Washington Post:

"Jim Rautenburg of Dayton, Ohio, was trying to describe what he had just gone through. First he tried English. Then he fell back on a four-second guttural groan that sounded like this:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47577-2002Aug5.html

Time to stop the insanity, Norm you JACKASS!!!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Yawn.

A man on an airplane forgets how to use his watch and has to hold it for half an hour. Bad planning. Such is life.

It's a dumb rule. It will go away. Spiff's name calling won't help solve it.

Actually, Brian, here in Kentucky the term Jackass is often a term of endearment... although I would not dare to accuse Spiff of using it that way in this context....

Hey, youse guys who think security is just nifty dandy, and like to bend over again, we can all turn it into personalities, okay?

There is a serious problem in this country with airline security overkill. It has gone way beyond any reasonable actuarial calculation, and if it is what is needed to keep the dodos flying, maybe it's the dodos who should be discouraged from flying.

US airlines are currently being strangled by many garottes, but the security idiocy one is under our control. I have been impressed with the professionalism of the TSA employees, and hope their spread will improve efficiency and decrease confrontation. But the many other issues we have presented on these boards, and many people on much more effective forums, about effective vs. showplace security, are still sadly nowhere in the bureaucrats' view.

My personal opinion is that this kind of idiot-oriented object-based security actually makes us less safe than an El Al-style passenger-oriented security. Exactly how is it an efficient use of scarce resources to shake down an eighty-year old grannie in a wheel-chair? Or to create a gate "random" check experience that allows anyone with three brain cells and a minimal observation ability to avoid being chosen? Or that punishes people for being incontinent?

Glad to see you realize this "dumb" rule will eventually go away.

Now why is it again that we shouldn't complain about dumb rules?

My feeling is simple.

There is security overkill, but calling people idiots and fascists will not cure it. A reasonable conversation will yield reasonable results.

The principle behind random security checks is to keep security completely and utterly unpredictable. As soon as it becomes non-random in any axis, it becomes a threat, however silly that may seem. And, beleive it or not, we have enemies that wish to do us ill,a nd are continuously looking for our weaknesses.

Now, having said that, 30 minute no bathroom rules are pretty ridiculous. I was on a flight recently when the captain put the entire plane in seatbelts so that he and the FO could use the head. Bad form. We don't need tweezers taken away from us, or to eat with plastic knives. However, these will all return, and sooner than you think. Maybe even sooner than that if people manage to remain civil. And in the interim, if you know the flight will be locked down at 30 minutes to landing, and you can't hold it, let me be the first to call you a waaaambulance.

My argument since the beginning is that some extremists are using the security issue to gain attention for an entirely different platform, like fourth amendment rights, et al. By staying focused on the real issues, the conversation remains productive.

Hey Brian,

Sorry to be the one to have to bring you up to current medical events, but there are some folks who cannot hold it for 30 minutes due to medical reasons. And, as the article points out, sometimes that 30 minutes can be a lot longer. However, as usual, you rush to defend the current system, saying it will sort itself out and that we should just grin and bear it. News flash pal: some folks just can't do that for legitimate medical reasons. What are you going to tell them? Get used to Depends? How'd you like it if that was your grandfather? Or your mother? Real class act you are.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Yawn.

A man on an airplane forgets how to use his watch and has to hold it for half an hour. Bad planning. Such is life.

It's a dumb rule. It will go away. Spiff's name calling won't help solve it.

</font>

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry


[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 08-14-2002).]

Brian, I think we are threatening to agree here.

First, let me analyze this thread. I use the word "idiocy" to describe a policy, not a person. I use the word "idiot-oriented" also to describe a policy. In neither case did I use those words for people. I am very careful with language. (I am not vouching for other posts on other similar threads here, mind you.)

"Fascists" is not a word that has entered this thread other than your use.

There cannot be any justifiable reason for "random" security after primary security EXCEPT to test the worth of primary security. This would be an acceptable intrusion, to me, if it were effectively designed to generate information about the ways in which primary security had failed, and very detailed info on what sort of pax it had failed on. Otherwise, it is a worthless intrusion.

It is not random; I avoid it by the simple expedient of waiting until a victim is chosen. It is not security; any couple of terrorists could evade it, and Gate Agents will abet them, according to multiple witnesses. Score one for the Fourth Amendment nuts.

We agree on the value of the DC bathroom rule.

Who cares what the political agendas of individual complainants might be? Some of us are desperate for truly real effective security -- a system based on evaluating the threat of people, not objects, and focussing our limited resources on the most probable threats. I truly don't want the plane I'm on blown up.

My El Al anecdotes on another thread are a perfectly good example: they LET Richard Reid fly, after much evaluation, ONLY under severe control. He could do no harm, consequently.

They MISSED the GUN carried by a Conservative Jew to JFK, because they hadn't paid enough attention to him. But that caused no harm, because HE was not a threat.

Sounds very much to me that they had a very good and successful appreciation of how to use their limited resources to give their airline TRUE and EFFECTIVE security.

I think we really agree about most of this, no? Now tell me again why complaining about "dumb" policies is bad?

I too have been impressed with the professionalism of the TSA personnel. What has not impressed me is the sheer number of them. There are WAY too many of them. Typical government operation. 3 times as many employees as needed.

The so called "Random" searches do NOTHING to enhance security or safety. They are easily avoided. If the FAA/TSa was serious about SAFETY, they would implement PROFILING.

Now, for Norman. He is the architect of this lunacy. If the rules and/or implementation are idiotic, then logic would dictate that the architect of these rules is an idiot. This time, logic is correct.

CameraGuy: remember, if your TSA experience is BWI, that they are using that airport to train people. So it is currently vastly overstaffed.

That said, I suspect that they do also have an empire-building bureaucratic overstaffing problem. Congress also believes this. Must be true then, eh?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
but there are some folks who cannot hold it for 30 minutes due to medical reasons.</font>

People with such medical conditions have been dealing with this problem since long before the 30 minute rule.

In the 1980's and 1990's it was very common to have 19-seat, and smaller, airliners that didn't have a bathroom so everyone had to "hold it" for the entire flight. Some of those airplanes are still flying passengers today, they just aren't as common as they once were. What did people with such medical conditions do then? They either didn't take those flights or they got themselves catherized or wore absorbant undergarments.

Even before the 30-minute rule, it is a violation of Federal Regulations to get up when the seat belt sign is on. There is no guarentee that the sign will be turned off as that's completely pilot's descrition. If there is bumpy weather, etc. then you could be legally required to stay seated for an entire flight. Some folks with these medical problems had complained to the Department of Transportation that their requests for accomodation under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA, the ADA does NOT apply to airline flights) but the ACAA specifically excludes accomodations which would violate FAA regulations. So, what did these folks do? They got themselves catherized or wore absorbant undergarments.

At least with DCA there are two other airports that are reasonably convenient alternatives where the 30-minute rule does not apply, IAD and BWI.

One more thing... For those of you who say that the 30-minute rule is inappropriate, I've gotta say that you either don't understand the geography of DCA or you don't understand the threat. The alternative is a permanet closure of DCA.

The 30 minute rule is just plane stupid, like how many airports are you gonna fly over without the rule within 30 minutes of DCA? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

I've been on flights where the seatbelt light has been on for many hours straight (8 in one case)...

I guess in a pinch you could go into one of those air sickness bags.

Come on, guys. Look, it's a pain the ... -- sometimes literally. So what? It's not the freaking atrocity that you folks are making it out to be!

You folks are so obsessed with what are annoyances that you're not noticing things that are real threats to our civil liberties! Let's focus on those, please, instead of these trivial things.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Come on, guys. Look, it's a pain the ... -- sometimes literally. So what? It's not the freaking atrocity that you folks are making it out to be!

You folks are so obsessed with what are annoyances that you're not noticing things that are real threats to our civil liberties! Let's focus on those, please, instead of these trivial things.</font>


Mdtony, you are right.

There are a lot of political dialouges to be had to keep our Constitutional rights, and resources to protect the Constitution are not unlimited. We must selectively choose to win some key civil liberties victories against the current anti-Constitutional wave infecting our country's ethos. Foolish rules will fall by the wayside on their own when concentrated costs exceed diffuse benefits and this becomes apparent to regulators and legislators.

A few Senators and Congressman wetting their seats and stinking up the plane (or better yet sitting in some other passengers urine or stink) will quickly force through revisions. We Americans are not sheeople, and I don't think a few nuts using hand-to-hand combat or going to be able to commandeer a plane for more than a few minutes anymore before the passengers vote with action to take back the plane.

Security is often a reactive measure whereby you develop procedures and systems to prevent the last attack that happened -- instead of of being proactive and implementing procedures and systems that will prevent other attack styles/plots. We are building in security to prevent another 9-11 style trauma, when the solution (namely, the passengers acting in selfish self-interest or self-less humanistic interest) is already on board the plane.
A 9-11 repeat is sure to be a failure unless a terrorist organization is able to, by force of numbers, outnumber ordinary citizens of some fair constitution.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
However, as usual, you rush to defend the current system, saying it will sort itself out and that we should just grin and bear it. News flash pal: some folks just can't do that for legitimate medical reasons. What are you going to tell them? Get used to Depends? How'd you like it if that was your grandfather? Or your mother? Real class act you are.</font>

About as usual and predictable as you Spiff accusing the TSA of all that is wrong, including the (now withdrawn) assertion that it was responsible for the temporary closure of DCA and US' subsequent Chapter 11 filing.

fwiw, I agree that the rule is extremely dumb and excessive.

All these TSA related threads of late have seen the same 5 or 6 people making the same points over and over again. So allow me to leave now so you can continue your bickering.

That's your solution, tell people to wear diapers or shove a tube into their genitalia? Terrific. There is NO REASON for this nonsense. NONE.

And as for your attempted geography lesson, at 500 mph, IAD is just as close to the Capitol as DCA is. Please stop trying to re-feed us the same geographical tripe about how important it is to treat travelers into this area like convicted felons or kindergartners.

If someone has to go, the humane thing to do is to let them go. Not tell them to hold it, not tell them to soil themselves, and not tell them to shove a tube in it. However, some folks feel the need to goosestep to the illogical and unnecessary "random security" nonsense that the TSA Fascist Clowns continue to inflict upon us. We need to disband this agency immediately and return to treating people and security with respect and common sense.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
People with such medical conditions have been dealing with this problem since long before the 30 minute rule.

In the 1980's and 1990's it was very common to have 19-seat, and smaller, airliners that didn't have a bathroom so everyone had to "hold it" for the entire flight. Some of those airplanes are still flying passengers today, they just aren't as common as they once were. What did people with such medical conditions do then? They either didn't take those flights or they got themselves catherized or wore absorbant undergarments.

Even before the 30-minute rule, it is a violation of Federal Regulations to get up when the seat belt sign is on. There is no guarentee that the sign will be turned off as that's completely pilot's descrition. If there is bumpy weather, etc. then you could be legally required to stay seated for an entire flight. Some folks with these medical problems had complained to the Department of Transportation that their requests for accomodation under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA, the ADA does NOT apply to airline flights) but the ACAA specifically excludes accomodations which would violate FAA regulations. So, what did these folks do? They got themselves catherized or wore absorbant undergarments.

At least with DCA there are two other airports that are reasonably convenient alternatives where the 30-minute rule does not apply, IAD and BWI.

One more thing... For those of you who say that the 30-minute rule is inappropriate, I've gotta say that you either don't understand the geography of DCA or you don't understand the threat. The alternative is a permanet closure of DCA.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

A few weekends ago I was flying from NYC-LaGuardia to DC-National and got sick on the flight a few seconds after we started our taxi away from the gate.

The flight attendants saw me vomit (yes I do get sick even if once every 5 years) and told me that if I get worse, they would consider letting me go to the restroom after consulting with the crew and/or neighboring passengers. So I guess some crews have their wits about them if issues do arise.

Dulles and BWI are about 4 to 9 minutes from anywhere in DC, while National airport is less than 1 minute from key buildings. I guess our security folks think that we can respond with 4 to 9 minutes of warning, but we cannot in less than 1 minute. I guess we don't have an anti-aircraft defense system that is robust enough for DC-area situations that have ETAs of less than 1 to 3 minutes.

Spiff,

As I said, this problem isn't anything new to people with this medical problem. Somehow they've managed to deal with airliners without bathrooms and extended periods of turbulance for years.

DC is a much higher profile target than what is near other airports. A successful hit on DC would take out not only some historic symbols of our country but has the potential to kill a large number of our nation's leaders. That combination makes it a very attractive target. The 30-minute rule gives the airplane's pilots time to notify ATC, who then notify the miltary that is still flying patrol over DC, if anything happens.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
The 30-minute rule gives the airplane's pilots time to notify ATC, who then notify the miltary that is still flying patrol over DC, if anything happens.</font>

But within a few minutes of take off a plane ex DCA is just as close to DC that any number of planes taking off from BWI, IAD, ... A 10 minute rule, while not much better, would accomplish as much (as little) as the current one, without any of the annoying consequences.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
For those of you who say that the 30-minute rule is inappropriate, I've gotta say that you either don't understand the geography of DCA or you don't understand the threat. The alternative is a permanet closure of DCA.</font>

The right thing to do with DCA is to exchange it with Andrews AFB. DCA is better suited than Andrews for the role assigned to Andrews. Andrews would make a much better civilian airport than DCA does.

------------------
"Those who would trade liberty for temporary security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:
Foolish rules will fall by the wayside on their own when concentrated costs exceed diffuse benefits and this becomes apparent to regulators and legislators.

A few Senators and Congressman wetting their seats and stinking up the plane (or better yet sitting in some other passengers urine or stink) will quickly force through revisions. </font>

And that is pretty much what will happen with this half hour rule. Especially since, on their own, the pilots often turn on the seat belt sign about 20 minutes before landing so that the cabin crew can clean up without folks in the aisles getting in their way.

That's also why I think the rants about the 30 minute rule are silly. It's a whole 10 more minutes than what normally happens. Is it that big of a deal?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by zvezda:
The right thing to do with DCA is to exchange it with Andrews AFB. DCA is better suited than Andrews for the role assigned to Andrews. Andrews would make a much better civilian airport than DCA does.

</font>

DCA will never be closed, because it is so convenient for our congresspeople. You are right, Zvezda, but it just won't happen.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by zvezda:
The right thing to do with DCA is to exchange it with Andrews AFB. DCA is better suited than Andrews for the role assigned to Andrews. Andrews would make a much better civilian airport than DCA does.
</font>

I totally agree with Zvezda. However, I understand that DCA cannot accommodate some of the larger USAF aircraft that it would be expected to use.

Since the implementation of the 30-minute rule, I have found it strange that you pass IAD within 6 or 7 minutes of departure on a westbound flight out of DCA. Surely the extra 23 minutes don't make things that much safer. And why aren't IAD or BWI flights affected by a similar rule?


[This message has been edited by Just Passing Thru (edited 08-14-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:
And why aren't IAD or BWI flights affected by a similar rule?</font>

Because the Secret Service didn't say you can't open those airports without the 30 minute rule. And once the rule was in place, you can be sure the Secret Service -- which was the agency that got National shut down if I recall correctly -- won't give that rule up without a fight.

Besides, while it's a silly rule, it's a whole ten minutes longer than what usually occurs, with the pilots turning on the seat belt sign around 20 minutes before landing.

It has always seemed much easier for the government to make a rule that it is for the government to rescind a rule.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:


Besides, while it's a silly rule, it's a whole ten minutes longer than what usually occurs, with the pilots turning on the seat belt sign around 20 minutes before landing.</font>

The only real difference is that on any other flight, that 20-minute ding is like a "last call" for the head - there's usually four or five people who go as soon as the seatbelt light comes on and nobody says boo. Whereas if you're going to DCA and you look like you're going to get up at 29:29 before scheduled touchdown, there might be guns drawn.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Kubla:
The only real difference is that on any other flight, that 20-minute ding is like a "last call" for the head - there's usually four or five people who go as soon as the seatbelt light comes on and nobody says boo. Whereas if you're going to DCA and you look like you're going to get up at 29:29 before scheduled touchdown, there might be guns drawn.

</font>

Or, far more likely, you will be told that you have waited too long, and now need to sit down.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Or, far more likely, you will be told that you have waited too long, and now need to sit down. </font>

This is exactly what happend on the last flight I took out of National. A woman wanted to go the rest room, but we had breached the 30 minutes, and she was told, I'm sorry, you can't go right now, please sit down. No marshalls running down the aisles with guns drawn, no drama, just someone being told to sit down.

As an aside, on another flight, where we were delayed on the runway at National due to weather, after about half an hour, the pilots came on and let folks go one by one to the bathroom in the back of the plane, escorted by a flight attendant.

Ok... here's a tidbit! I pulled a WAY BAD back in March... was flying DCA-IAH on the 6:45 am flight and without thinking (sleep deprivation, up since 4:30 am) about 20 mins into the flight got up and went to the bathroom. Well ... my seat was 3E, no one got up and accosted me, the FA in the forward galley didn't even tell me I had to sit back down or anything. Just went and did my duty. While in the bathroom however, the other FA came on the intercom and made the "We are still within the 30 minute flight zone...blah blah blah" I thought "Oh Sh!t".. hope we dont get diverted... was a bit embarrased as I came out. But nothing happened... Whew.....

I've been on two Delta Shuttle flights where the same thing happened (not involving me, however). The FAs simply made another announcement, but nothing really happened. In a way, it makes the "rule" seem even sillier!

Bruce

Jeez, did anybody see Mineta on 60 minutes last Sunday? Now I REALLY don't feel safe. Al Qaida must be falling off their camels with laughter. Look at the silly Americans.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that DCA, IAD and BWI should ALL be closed down.

Washington would be much safer, and we could decrease the subsidy to Amtrak by a few hundred million or so.

Why do those tax-suckers flying to DC have the gall to think that they have any rights, anyway?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I've been on two Delta Shuttle flights where the same thing happened (not involving me, however). The FAs simply made another announcement, but nothing really happened. In a way, it makes the "rule" seem even sillier!

Bruce</font>

Actually, hearing these stories makes me feel much safer. It shows that people again are using the most important antiterrorism weapon, their brains.

Well, then, let's really use our brains and get rid of the rule altogether.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I've been on two Delta Shuttle flights where the same thing happened (not involving me, however). The FAs simply made another announcement, but nothing really happened. In a way, it makes the "rule" seem even sillier!

Bruce</font>

Either there is some sense coming into play or there were no TSA sky marshalls on the flights. I assume that otherwise the plane would be diverted to IAD or BWI or the offending pax should have been tackled by the TSA LEO for violations of a federal law (failure to obey a flight crew?). Maybe it is the start of civil disobedience by the FAs.

We can start to chant--The whole plane is watching... the whole plane is watching. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I was on another flight that was delayed on the runway at National yesterday. Same thing happened. They let folks go to the bathroom one at a time, escorted by a flight attendant. And no, the marshalls didn't jump up when a second person got up before the first one got back to his seat.

The marshalls aren't stupid. They know the difference between someone who has to use the bathroom, and who needs to be reminded that he's breaking the rule and told to sit down, and someone who really wants to defy the flight crew and wants to cause trouble.

My understanding -- consistent with my personal experience -- is that every flight into or out of DCA has air marshals (two or three) on board. They are easy enough to identify (as I've noted in other threads). The fact that they did not get up and shoot the offending passengers indicates to me that they don't take the rule seriously, either. Perhaps others have different interpretations.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
My understanding -- consistent with my personal experience -- is that every flight into or out of DCA has air marshals (two or three) on board. They are easy enough to identify (as I've noted in other threads). The fact that they did not get up and shoot the offending passengers indicates to me that they don't take the rule seriously, either. Perhaps others have different interpretations.</font>

Well, it could be a lot easier to explain. Maybe we could say that it's just like the deal with other law enforcement officers, where they use their discretion and don't come out guns blazing all the time.

I think that they know that someone who gets up and is told to sit down and complies isn't a threat. By the same token, they know that someone who gets up, doesn't sit down, and defies the orders of the crew might be.

Case in point -- one of my friends just got done with a trip where someone decided he would smoke in the bathroom. Well, she spoke to him about it when he got out of the bathroom and it was obvious he had been smoking. He got beligerant, and that's when the marshalls stepped in and arrested him.

If he doesn't get beligerant, they probably don't do anything. It's when he did that they stepped in.