No One Wants To See That

As I'm sure you've probably heard, some jackass following in the footsteps (as the Weird Beard followers do) of other al Qaida losers thought he was trying to blow up a plane on Christmas Day as it flew in for landing in Detroit. Now, I've been to Detroit, so I can understand the feeling of wanting to off yourself upon approach, but bringing a plane load of people along with you is really unnecessary. I mean, they might not be thrilled about the idea either, but it's their choice. It's really not up to an inept terrorist to make that decision.

Here's the thing. Despite this guy's complete moronic-ness (made that up), it could have been a total disaster. Planes blowing up are usually nothing short of total disaster. And it's really not clear to me why it didn't work. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that he had the bomb woven or strapped or sewn or something into his underwear. Behold!

Wow. I'm a little surprised that he chose the groinal region to conceal an explosive device. After all, men are so touchy/feely about their grundles (there's probably a pun in there somewhere), the thought of any harm coming to it usually causes them to recoil immediately and gasp in horror. But I'm guessing that he chose that region because it would likely go undetected with any sort of normal, non-invasive pat-down that is sometimes administered as an attempt to feign some sort of safety measure for those who are flying. That's probably a given. What isn't really so much a given is whether or not these inadequate measures provide enough security to folks that are traveling by way of the airs that they really feel secure, or if it's the way that I suspect and that it doesn't do much of anything, but when you're the one flying and barely being patted down, you prefer not to think about the fact that it's useless and you could be seated next to a maniac with a bomb strapped to his grundle.

Anyway, the point of this is that even though this guy got on the plane in a different country (Amsterdam, I believe) that is reason for the US to heighten their security measures at airports. Now, I don't have a problem with that. Anything that we can do to help planes and the people on them become less 'splode-y, I'm all for it. And what's not to be for? Flying? Good. Flying safely? Good. Flying without getting blown to smithereens at 20,000 feet? Gooooood!! But have you heard what they're doing?

According to the folks over there at MSNBC.com "All travelers flying into the U.S. from 14 nations considered high risk will be patted down and have carry-on luggage searched under new security procedures starting Monday."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

I'm sorry...starting when? Monday? Monday. This Monday? Tomorrow, Monday? THAT Monday? Monday? Perhaps the TSA was not aware that this guy tried to blow up this plane on Christmas Day. Um, that was nine days ago. NINE days. And NOW, NINE days later, NOW they've decided that folks from the sand lands (Oh, come on! You know that's what they mean! They're not doing this with the French!) will be searched?! It took them nine days to come to that conclusion?! What's wrong with nine hours? Why did it take so long? Actually, why in the world weren't we already doing this? In case no one has noticed, we're kind of in the middle of a couple of wars with those sorts of countries. The Iraq. The Afghanistan. Both high risk. Both war zones. It would not seem unusual to have had these policies instituted...oh, say...right around...September 12, 2001? What is going on over there at the TSA? Nine days? Seriously?

In case you're wondering (or preparing for a stint on Jeopardy!) the 14 nations are referred to as being "Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen." The article at MSNBC says that those countries "...are on the list as countries of interest." Countries of interest? What the heck is a country of interest? Is that like how when some guy's wife disappears and it's totally obvious that he did it (a la Scott Peterson) but they just don't have enough to pin it on them just yet so they call them a "person of interest"? Is that what's going on here? Are we so soft that we have to call these God forsaken lands "countries of interest"? Huh. I can't imagine why we're not winning this thing sooner. Way to make the whole country sound like a pussy there, TSA. And if you were still able to count after reading that and realizing that there were only 10, the other four are "Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria" because "...they have long been identified as "state sponsors of terrorism" by the United States.

CUBA?! Cuba. We're calling Cuba a "state sponsor of terrorism" but we're calling freaking Pakistan a "country of interest"? Oh, we are so doomed. (I need more alligators for my moat.) Are they kidding? Well, hopefully they're coming up with something other than just catchy titles for places to keep us safe. Hopefully they've got a little bit more than that. What about screening procedures? Anything new there?

Glad you asked. According to The Washington Post the number of full body imaging machines (think really big X-ray) at airports is increasing. The machines "...scan passengers' bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes." It's been that if the Undiebomber had gone through one that it would have most likely revealed his extra package he had concealed in his package area. And even though it's an X-ray, I don't think that there's a whole lot to worry about as far as feeling like you're going through some sort of virtual strip search. Do you feel violated when you have a regular X-ray or MRI? It's the same thing. And it would make stuff a whole lot safer and easier. Whew! I'm glad that's in the works. What now? People have a problem with this? Oh, good Lord, what's wrong now?

Well, if you're asking a one Kate Hanni, the founder of FlyersRights.org, she'll tell you that "The price of liberty is too high" and that "...the full-body scanners may not catch the criminals and will subject the rest of us to intrusive and virtual strip searches." Oh, for cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you, woman? Does this look too intrusive?! Does it?! Behold!

Of course it doesn't! What about this? Behold!

Oh, look! A gun! And you're telling me that the price of liberty is too high? I'm looking at my chart here (and that gun) and the price of liberty does not seem to be quite as high as the price of life. Life? Extremely valuable on my chart. Liberty? Definitely a close second. The founding fathers even had it in that order. Life, liberty, justice for all. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, I have no idea what she's talking about. Do you really care if someone sees an X-ray version of yourself? I can't imagine that you do, but if you do, please tell me why because I don't get it. It's not like you're getting Playboy centerfold images here. Please. And an invasion of privacy? Spare me. Have you flown lately? It's like a leper colony on most planes. Do you think that anyone really wants to invade any of those folks privacy to the point of having to see them sans clothing? I don't think that we do!

Really, I think that the only issue with the full body screening system is what we're going to pay the screeners. Because let's face it, they're going to be looking at some pretty gnarly folks going through those things. They're going to need a higher than average salary and an extra week of vacation time. Their insurance plan is going to have to include excellent vision coverage. (I worry that some might close their eyes so tightly after a few years of having to look at so many people that you really don't want to look at with clothes on, let alone scanned, that they could cause permanent damage to their ocular facilities. They're going to need Botox also. All of that eye closing could really induce facial wrinkles at a much faster than normal rate. Ooh! Hair plugs, too!)

And in the end, what are we really talking about here? Not getting blown up, that is correct. You want me to strip naked and do a cartwheel through that little metal detector gate thing? If that's going to assure me that I'm going to land at my destination in one piece and not being scattered across a tri-state area in bite sized bits, I'm all for it. Hold my shoes and stand back. I never was very good at cartwheels. (Helmets! Those screeners are going to need some helmets as well!)

Sphere: Related Content

Does This Hat Match My Plane?

Look, we're all under stress at work in one form or another. If you're a pilot, there are going to be a lot of things to stress out about (I would imagine). You have to keep that big metal tube in the air for an extended period of time, for starters. And if there's bad weather, that could affect your stress level. Or if the flight is running behind schedule, that could have you on edge. Or if you're not sure whether or not to wear your pilot's hat. Wait. What?

According to our good friends across the pond at the Telegraph, over there in my second home of Salt Lake City, Utah, United Airlines had to cancel one of their flights because the pilot decided he was "not calmed and focused enough" to fly the plane to Denver. This revelation coming to him after everyone was already ON the plane. ( I would have twisted right on off. )

One of the passengers on the plane, a one Paul Jacobson, explained to the good folks over there at USA Today, how this unraveled. He said that the pilot got on the PA and said, "Some of you may have witnessed an incident I was involved in at the gate. I'm not going to go into the details, but it was an interpersonal confrontation that upset me significantly to the point where I'm not focused enough to fly you to Denver. I feel like I may not be calmed and focused enough to fly to Denver for another hour." As you can imagine, hilarity did not ensue after that announcement. Apparently, the passengers let out the obligatory groan after learning of this delay (followed by lots of the under the breath cursing and the oh-so rhetorical inquiry, "Are you freaking kidding me?" Sadly, no. They're not. But then things start to get weird.

The pilot, who oddly enough, was not identified, (yet. Just wait. We will know who this tool is soon enough.) had apparently been conflicted as to whether or not he should wear his hat. Yes, his hat. That thing perched atop a pilot's head. THAT hat. In fact, he was so conflicted that he was having an argument with his colleagues about whether or not to wear his hat in front of management. (No word on whether the colleagues were or were not hatless. Repeat, hatless.) Be-cause....management doesn't....like....hats? Maybe? WTF?!

I can't believe that the pilot couldn't fly the plane to Denver because he was upset about an argument over a hat. This is because of a hat. (Yeah, an asshat!) Now, it's not management that has the hat hang up. It's the pilots' union. The pilots union has apparently encouraged it's members (ie, pilots) to not wear their hats. This orchestrated hat removal is said to represent the universal symbol for protesting difficulties that the pilots have suffered since United's bankruptcy. It is? NO! Of course it isn't!!

What does not wearing your HAT have to do with being pissy that the company went rudder end up?! Let me see...oh, that's right! NOTHING! It has NOTHING to do with it! Whose crazy ass idea was that?! ("I know! We'll all take off our hats! Let them see OUR hair, for once. We're always staring at theirs. That'll show them. Then they'll know just how much trouble we've had to endure. Phffftt! Stupid bankruptcy. We'll show them though. As we must unite, hatless, as one!")

How many of these precious little snowflakes are employed by United to fly their planes? The answer should be ZERO. Listen up, dude. If you can't handle getting into it with some of your co-workers regarding whether or not you should wear a hat I don't want you piloting the long metal tube that I am on (that sounds worse than it is. I meant "the plane".). I mean, if you're THAT easily upset, God only knows what might happen to you up there at our cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. ("What was that?! Oh, my GOD! It's a cloud! Somebody get the co-pilot in here! I'm feeling weak! I'm rather upset! I need to calm and focus after seeing that cloud! Stop mocking me! It was really big! And white and fluffy! My God!")

United is investigating and the pilots union isn't talking. No word on whether or not they're wearing their hats, though.

Sphere: Related Content

Security Wasn't The Problem

In the post about asshat Eder Rojas, the child flight attendant (he's 19) who lit a fire in the bathroom of a plane that was IN FLIGHT because he was mad about having to work the North Dakota shift, I alluded to there possibly being an issue with security not confiscating the lighter that he used to start the fire when he went through security. I should have known better than to think something like that. There was no problem with those working security over there in Minneapolis. No problem at all.

See, here's the thing, the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, has this HUGE list of things that are not allowed to be carried onto the airplanes by passengers. The list is massive. Or, should I say, the list WAS massive. The list is now a list of things that were once banned from being carried onto a plane but are now allowed. It feels a little bit like when you got really busted for something when you were a kid and your parents grounded you until you graduated from high school. Then they realized that you seemed kind of remorseful and maybe they were a little hard on you, so they let you come out of your room right around your junior year (but you were still banned from going to the prom). The TSA has gone that route with their list.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are still many, many things that you cannot carry-on with you when boarding an airplane. But there are not as many as there were when there were recent and blatant reminders that a) there are people out there who want to kill us, and b) the plane is the preferred method for a spectacular disaster by those who want to kill us. Oh, and by "recent and blatant reminders" I'm referring to when plans to create mayhem at 30,000 feet are discovered and the public hears about it in the form of a news report that all but includes the words, "Everybody panic."

But it seems like 5 minutes after we're told about all of the things that we cannot carry onto the plane with us, people start to whine and complain and then it's as if the TSA suddenly says, "What was that? You don't like the inconveniences that we have implemented that, in the long run, will help prevent you from getting killed in a spectacularly horrific fashion? Oh, OK then. Never mind. Carry on." I don't get it. (Oh, and in case you haven't quite caught on to what I'm alluding to, it's perfectly OK to carry a lighter aboard a plane with you. Hence the term "carry on"!)

So, for some reason, the TSA has decided that a regular lighter is fine. Actually, one regular lighter is fine and TWO are even better, and they now allow you to take TWO on the plane with you. Perhaps someone should inform those over yonder at the TSA that fire, while able to exist in different forms, is still FIRE. AND when FIRE is still FIRE it still BURNS things. It doesn't matter WHERE the fire comes from, whether it be one allowed lighter or one disallowed lighter, it still burns things. When things that are not supposed to be set on fire or burned are, in fact, set on fire and/or burned, the end result is not usually one that was desired before the burning began. Like that plane. In fact, a burning plane that is in flight is probably one of the things that is the least wanted to be on fire. And that is probably more true if you are one of those who is actually ON the burning plane. Then it is definitely the last thing you want thing to be on fire.

So what else is now allowed to be carried on a plane with you in the cabin? Lotsa stuff. Stuff that I really don't see what the problem would be in checking these items. You can carry on:

• Corkscrews and cigar cutters (in case you're flying a cargo load of wine to Cuba.)


• Metal scissors less than 4" long w/pointed tips or plastic or metal blunt tipped scissors (in case you're attending a first grade art class aboard the plane.)


• Umbrellas (Mary Poppins never leaves home without it and now you won't have to either!)


• Tools less than 7" and screwdrivers less than 7" (presumably screwdrivers that are NOT tools) and wrenches & pliers less than 7" (again, wrenches and pliers that are NOT tools.)

And then we get to the part about the lighters. Pay attention, it gets tricky. According to the TSA website, you CANNOT "check a lighter with fuel unless they adhere to the Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption, which allows up to two fueled lighters if properly enclosed in a DOT approved case." But if the lighter HAS fuel, you can carry it on the plane with you, no case required. Wait. What?

OK, I'm thinking that on some level, this kind of makes some sense, but only the part about putting the lighters in a case and checking them. THAT seems logical (I think. It certainly can't hurt.) I did have to check around and see what one of these DOT approved cases looked like. (They seem to resemble either an oxygen tank for scuba diving or something that a Secret Service guy would be carrying around.) The part about being allowed to carry on not one, but two fueled lighters? That doesn't seem quite as logical as the other. I'm so confused. So very, very confused.

It wasn't always like this. No, it used to be that lighters were banned from all flights, whether they were carried on or checked. No lighters allowed, that was the policy. And they confiscated over 11 million lighters while this seemingly necessary rule was in effect. (Eleven million, that is correct.) But then in August, 2007, the rules changed and lighters were once again welcomed aboard US aircraft! So, to recap: Before August, 2007, lighters = BAD. After August, 2007, lighters = FINE and DANDY!

So, it turns out that the good people over there doing security (for whatever airport they have in Minnesota) did their jobs just like they were supposed to. Even though some asshat took a lighter on the plane with him, they couldn't do anything about it. They didn't have to do anything about it. They don't make the rules, they just follow them (and for that, we really appreciate the job they do. Can you imagine standing there all day having to deal with people like you and me? Ugh. Makes me nauseous just thinking about it.) Yet the child aviation arsonist was basically enabled and allowed to take the key ingredient in making fire (ie, the fire itself) onto a long metal tube that hurtles through the air at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet whilst filled with passengers. And all but one of those passengers (ie, Rojas) do not want the plane aflame. And in cases like this, one is just one too many.

So if I came across as implying that someone in security over there didn't follow a procedure, I apologize. And if I came across as implying that I think it's an asinine decision to allow people to carry fueled lighters onto aircraft, well, good, that's what I meant to say. Perhaps this little incident of Lavatory Flambe will encourage those who make these rules to take a moment to reconsider. Oh, if only they could rethink that decision while aboard a plane whose bathroom is on fire. That might speed things up a bit.)

Sphere: Related Content

He Could Have Called In Sick

Quiz time! I'm sure that there have been days when you've had to go to work and you just didn't want to. In such a situation, do you:

1. Go to work.
   
2. Not go to work.


3. Go to work and set the bathroom on fire.
   

If you answered with Number 1, well, you're probably still employed. If you answered with Number 2, well, you're probably not employed...any more. And if you answered with Number 3, well, you'd be Eder Rojas.

On May 7, a Compass Airline flight (They're a subsidiary of Northwest. I had no idea who in the hell they were either.) with 72 passengers aboard made an emergency landing in Fargo (that's in Minnesota) en route to Regina, Saskatchewan (that's in Canada, America's Hat) after the back of the plane filled with smoke (completely reasonable). The reason the plane was filling with smoke is because Rojas, a flight attendant for the airline, was angry about his shift and set the bathroom on fire (completely unreasonable).

According to the fine folks over there at CNN.com, Rojas, who is 19 (and apparently the boy genius of the flight attendants), told authorities "He was upset at the airline for making him work the route. Rojas allegedly took a lighter from another flight attendant's home earlier in the day. He is accused of taking that lighter with him through the security checkpoint". OK, um, how did the GET the lighter through the security checkpoint? That's my question. Do they have to go through security checkpoints just like the rest of the traveling cattle? If so, then Houston, er, Minnesota, we have a problem.

According the the court documents, Rojas had asked for extra paper towels and tissue before the plane left Minneapolis. (OK, wait. He asked WHO? And is that unusual? Or is it normal to just stock up on paper products before a flight to Canada?) The documents also said that Rojas was getting the food cart ready and after he set the cart up, he went back to the restroom and "reached in with his right hand and lit the paper towels with the lighter." It's not overly clear as to how long the plane had been in the air when he decided to have an impromptu BBQ in the small and closet like lavatory, but after about 35 minutes the pilot, Steve Peterka, noticed an indicator light that indicated (like the light should do) that there was smoke in the rear bathroom. He then called Rojas (unbeknownst to him that was the dude that started the blaze in the first place) and asked him to check it out. Rojas, pretending to be the brave little dumbass, went and "checked" the bathroom, found the flames, pretended to be surprised and assisted another flight attendant and a passenger in putting out the fire (the one that HE had started) with fire extinguishers. How convenient.

After the plane had landed in Fargo, the investigators were going through the plane. And when they did they found a lighter in one of the overhead bins. That is because anyone this stupid would naturally put the lighter in an overhead bin after he was done setting the plane, that he was on, as it was IN FLIGHT, afire. What a maroon.

Strangely enough, after the investigators found the lighter and were interviewing people, when they got around to Rojas, he confessed. He has been arrested and charged with setting fire aboard a civil aircraft (appropriate). He was ordered to be held without bail after he appeared in court on Thursday. appeared in court Thursday, following his arrest a day earlier in Minneapolis, and was ordered held without bail, prosecutors said. In case you're wondering what the penalty is for doing something so freaking stupid, it's a maximum of 20 years, which seems about right.

So, there is either something here that I am totally missing, or this guy is just King of the Idiots. I mean, he was ON the plane, for cryin' out loud! As it was in the air! What in the hell did he think was going to happen after he set the restroom on freaking FIRE?! Does he think that the airline is sitting back right now thinking, "Gee, we should really reconsider making any employee, especially that Rojas guy, work a shift when they don't want to." "Um, sir? We fired him. You know...because he set that one plane on fire?" "Oh, right. Right. Well, we don't want that to happen again, so we should be very, very sensitive to employees demands wishes. We can't be having everyone setting planes on fire, don't you know."

And the guy was 19? You can be a flight attendant when you're 19? Huh. Who knew?

Sphere: Related Content