Randy Cassingham's Blog

The reason for having to take off the headphones (I've heard it before) is the theory that if something should go terribly wrong, you would not be able to hear the flight attendants telling you to assume crash positions and other instructions.

Yeah, like you won't notice the sudden sharp downward pitch of the aircraft!

I notice, though, that they do not insist that everyone be awake for takeoff or landing. Seems like a silly distinction to me.

---

If it's truly a safety thing, then why don't all airlines require it? And in an emergency, I think anyone is capable of removing the device. I just don't see any justification for the arbitrary exercise of power for no justifiable reason. -rc

Notwithstanding any reason the bozo might have stated, there is no *security* regulation regarding the headphones -- (I'm former FAA and TSA regulation/policy writer, and I use the headphones all the time), although a few older models may generate a noise canceling frequency which could fall in that hazy area such as cell phones that may or may not interfere with navigation equipment.

Also, if sitting in an exit row, the cord could interfere with emergency exit - a safety, not security issue. Nonetheless, there's no excuse for rudeness in a customer service job, and you can't fix stupid. Be sure to write to the airline.

---

For the record, I wasn't in an exit row -- and there was no cable anyway.... -rc

I just "love" going thru airports now ;-p. I get out the cab, put my shoes in my back-pack and then go thru "barefooted" or in just my socks. The best part is when I arrive at the "gate" only to be told to take off my shoes (no one bothers to look now) & will get stopped because I failed to do so. After passing thru, I'm requested to "put my shoes on" by the same person that asked me to take them off.

I was coming home from a trip to Michigan. I was at the Bishop International Airport in Flint MI. I arrived at the airport and purchased some souvenirs and had the change in my pocket--a $50.00 bill.

I arrived at the security check point and laid my sweater jacket down to go through the X-ray machine. I walked through the uprights, and walked forward to get my belongings.

I reached for my purse, it went through just fine, but when I reached for my sweater, the security officer grabbed my arm and pushed me away. When I protested, he grabbed my sweater and said he had to check it for any metal. "Hello", I said, "you just ran it through the X-ray machine--did you see any metal?"

He held the back neck of the sweater in one hand, and ran his other hand down the length, squeezing it like he was eliminating any water out of it. I saw him reach into the pockets and extract the bill, and put that into his pocket. When I really protested, up came two Army soldiers with rifles now in both hands, instead of the guns behind their shoulders.

"Any problems"? one asked. I told them the security person had removed a $50.00 bill out of the pocket of the sweater that was just run through the X-ray machine, and I wanted both back. The other soldier told me to just "move along" and told the airport security person to give me back my sweater.

When I asked about the cash, the soldier who asked about any problems, just laughed and asked the security officer about the cash. The security person just shrugged his shoulders, "what cash"? "No cash here" he said...

However. When you tattoo your name onto the side of your neck, and across the back of your wrist.... How stupid are you? As far as the two soldiers were concerned? They were probably one of the first ones sent to Iraq. Good Job, guys!

Continental has started a "no headphones" on take off and landing policy too. There IS a valid safety reason however. Take offs and landings are presumably the riskiest parts of the flight and if an emergency arose being able to hear the instructions from the Flight Crew clearly could be a matter of life and death.

If you're REALLY that sensitive to the noise, just use foam earplugs like the pilot does. They will block out most of the really irritating sounds and still allow you to hear speech. Once safely aloft you'll have plenty of time to enjoy the solitude of a good pair of ANC (Active Noise Cancelling) headphones.

Also, if you're using tight fitting earbuds, you'll find that your ears adapt to pressure changes much better without them.

---

I appreciate your input, but you're pretty much proving my point -- headphones not ok, earplugs fine. Yet earplugs are slower to remove, and probably have a greater noise reduction. "Someone" thought it was a good idea to ban headphones during takeoff, but didn't think it through -- and the result is a stupid rule that goes against common sense. The very essence of what we're teaching our next generation of service workers with "zero tolerance" policies in schools. -rc

How about today's airport incident with the MIT undergrad?

Perhaps -- and note I say *perhaps* -- it was appropriate for them to worry that her toy was a bomb. But you'd think in Boston, after the Aqua Teen Hunger Force incident, they'd have learned what fake bombs look like by now!

It's TOTALLY inappropriate for them to be cackling afterward about how good a thing it is that she put up no resistance whatsoever and followed instructions to the letter, because they would have shot to kill otherwise!

Goodbye, America, and hello, police state.

---

You refer to MIT sophomore Star Simpson, 19, who was arrested at Logan International Airport in Boston on charges of disturbing the peace and "possessing a hoax device." The "device"? A sweatshirt that had a circuit board affixed to the front with green LED lights and wires running to a 9-volt battery.

Yeah, suspicious -- and perhaps a stupid stunt to pull. But I have a hard time believing she'll be convicted of anything serious. -rc

I have to use a C-Pap machine to help me breathe as I sleep. It is required by my provider that I carry it on so it does not get lost. The TSA always has to swab it with a sniffer of some kind. I used to leave it in the carry case and they would take the whole thing to the machine. I was recently informed by the TSA they were going to make things easier for me and would run it through like a laptop. What they really meant was I now have to take it out of the bag. Run it through seperately. Then hunt them down with the bag in tow. The easier part is I remove it for them and I have to drag the bag around. It was much easier before and accomplished the same thing. Thanks TSA for having me do your job for you while 4 of you stand around and watch.

Bruce in Honolulu is correct about the use of "earplugs"
(not really plugs, just attenuators) vs headphones if the
flight crew "really really" needs to tell you something.
("We're leaving now in the last life raft.")

The problem is that rules are not consistent from airline to airline. I also wonder if TSA or the companies have an
automatic radio-transmission detector aboard each plane,
because there's also a good reason cell-phones and such aren't used in flight. -- In a lighter vein, I suggest that instead of everyone REMOVING THEIR SHOES at checkpoints, we simply set off a small firecracker under each person's foot...wouldn't that give pause to anyone contemplating having explosives there???

In the UK (and, according to easyJet the EU as a whole) there are now heavy restrictions on carrying liquids on planes. Anything purchased in the "secure" area of an airport is OK, but if you want to take some water for the flight then you have to carry it in bottles no larger than 100ml, and all of the bottles you carry must fit inside a single sealable plastic bag no greater than 20cm by 20cm (8" by 8").

This is a bonanza for airlines, the shops in the "secure" area, and even, bizarrely, one national newspaper, which has capitalised on it with a "buy our paper and get a bottle of water free" campaign to push readership numbers and advertising revenue up, but it's not their doing. It's the government's response to a claim that terrorists might be able to carry a binary liquid explosive onto a plane and mix it in the toilets.

As far as I'm aware, no one has yet explained how forcing and terrorist foolish enough to think this has a reasonable prospect of success to obtain a few small bottles is going to be much of a hindrance relative to obtaining or making the putative explosive in the first place. However, I know that the hindrance of finding a few small bottles which haven't previously contained things I wouldn't want to drink has meant that I end up forking out for overpriced beverages.

Continuous repetition of fanciful nonsense about the "deadliness" of guns, by government, police and the media, have created a widespread, irrational fear of guns that is so strong that the process of carrying declared firearms and ammunition as checked luggage can often become a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland farce. Inevitably this diverts attention and resources from potentially worthwhile security activities.

The strict and very low weight limits, with occasional outright bans, on the carriage of declared civilian ammunition as checked luggage is, if possible, even more irrational. Conventional civilian ammunition, i.e. incorporating inert projectiles, in any quantity, provides a risk level roughly equal to tins of beans. Even in the event of a violent impact or fire, such ammunition will not explode or become a hazard. But who wants to deal with boring reality, when a bit of hysteria is so much more exciting.

The true story below is par for the course:

http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art1053