In-flight security rules eased
While in-flight security measures have loosened back up a bit, security levels at airports remain strict.
AP Photo
In-flight security rules have been eased after a two-day clampdown, airline officials familiar with the matter said Monday.
At the captain's discretion, passengers can once again have blankets and other items on their laps or move about the cabin during the tail end of flight. In-flight entertainment restrictions have also been lifted.
The airline officials spoke on condition of anonymity because federal safety officials had not publicly announced the changes.
Security rules were relaxed in the last 24 hours, one official said.
Tougher airline security measures were imposed Friday after a man flying from Nigeria to Amsterdam then to the U.S. on a Northwest Airlines flight tried to ignite an explosive as the plane prepared to land in Detroit. On Sunday, police met another Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight after the crew reported a "verbally disruptive passenger." A law enforcement official said the man posed no security risk to the plane.
Government officials have refused to discuss what restrictions had been put into place, but in many airports lines were longer and security personnel were extra diligent.
Travelers on incoming international flights said that during the final hour, attendants removed blankets, banned opening overhead bins, and told passengers to stay in their seats with their hands in plain sight.
Authorities introduced a second layer of security at Pearson International Airport in Toronto. On Monday morning, every U.S.-bound passenger was subjected to a pat down and their luggage was inspected by hand. It took about three hours for travelers to get through the checks.
On one Air Canada flight from Toronto to New York's La Guardia Airport the crew told passengers before departure that in addition to remaining in their seats for the duration of one-hour flight, they were not allowed to use any electronic devices — even iPods — or their own headphones. The crew also told passengers that they would not be able to access their personal belongings because of the "enhanced security procedures."
U.S. airlines have been appealing to federal officials to make restrictions effective but palatable to passengers.
They remember that passengers accepted tough new security measures immediately after the 2001 terror attacks, which grounded all flights for several days, but that support for the restrictions waned.
Comments
KarenH
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 1:32 p.m.
@Searcher, I see now that the Passport issue came from a report from another traveler in Amsterdam of the subject attempting to get on the plane without a passport (which should have been a red flag). The fact remains that the man was already on a watch list and should have been put through extra security by that fact alone. Yet, he was able to board with an explosive device. Obviously the security failed and needs to be addressed. Profiling is not the issue here.
Brian Kuehn
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 7:16 a.m.
When grandmothers start shooting up airplanes, I will reconsider my opinion in regards to patting them down. My poorly made point was random pat downs does little to detect trouble. Patting down grandma and letting the next 9 people through does not enhance my sense of security. It only serves to harass and embarass the person given the extra attention.
Searcher
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 7:05 a.m.
Topcat, KarenH and others, The subject had a passport when he boarded. The rumor he boarded without a passport is false.
Raspel
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 11:47 p.m.
"...going out of the way to prove we are not profiling by searching elderly passengers seems idiotic." A reminder, Brian: there's no age limit on who can pull triggers or set off explosives. The smiling, trusting guard, Stephen T. Johns, at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington politely held the door open for 88-year old James Wenneker von Brunn; Johns had no reason to believe that this "harmless old man" had mayhem and murder on his mind; and the next thing and also the very last thing the courteous and courageous guard knew, he was fatally shot. AnyoneI repeat, _anyone_can use a weapon and cause bodily harm. There's no age limit on hate and violence.
bedrog
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 9:06 p.m.
most, if not all,all social science involves 'profiling' from samples far smaller than the particular universe one is concerned with...so lets stop being so pious and precious about and just do it better..lives depend on it.. variables other than ethnicity may be needed (e.g. dress codes that have particular symbolism for example...and many others that informed folks can think of).. this, however, is not easy since jihadists explicitly advocate a policy of "takfir" or blending in with the infidel you wish to harm. and re timothy mcveigh, and the obvious fact that not all danger resides in islamic quarters: the academic study THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY by george michael details the links between the neo-nazi white supremacists and radical islam.... and the links between the latter and the far left are on ample display locally each saturday outside a washtenaw avenue synagogue.. but as to the above,neo-nazis tend to be homicidal not suicidal, so the airline connection trends in a certain direction.. and the addled far lefty groupies of jihadism normally only cheerlead and annoy but dont actually do much else. so hell yeah, lets profile...but do it more efficiently and intelligently.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 7 p.m.
I know. It's hard to be respectful when I've lost respect for the religion. I'm having a hard time separating Muslims from the value system those extremist religious leaders espouse. Then I start focusing on other pieces of the religion, like the sharia and the orders not to befriend people outside of the religion, and I conclude that it's unfortunate that so many choose to follow. I do believe the world would be a better place without religion of any kind. Though that's not a realistic hope. Bad things happen when you enter a church of any kind and are encouraged toward a life of violence. Or a life of isolation. Or a life where women don't have the same rights as men. Or blacks don't have the same rights as whites.
Tom
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 6:34 p.m.
Macabre Sunset I am not offended, I just don't appreciate inflammatory language, what is good about AnnArbor.com's discussions is that they focus on respectful posts about the topics at hand. I am glad your against extraordinary violence
KarenH
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 6:05 p.m.
This terrorist was on a watch list, and they let him on the plane WITHOUT A PASSPORT. He should have been stopped without any consideration of his religion or race simply for these two things (or either one of them). Profiling only muddies the waters. We obviously already had him on a list for a reason. We should address why that already existing system fell apart instead of spreading our resources too thin by concentrating more security only on Muslims simply because they are Muslim.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 5:44 p.m.
And Tom, I am not suggesting that Muslims not be allowed to board planes. I am suggesting that we play closer attention to Muslims, make some attempt to identify those who attend mosques led by people known to hold violent views. I'm sorry this offends you, but all the extraordinary violence has damaged the religion. We have to stop tolerating such extremism solely because it has the word "religion" stamped on it. Only then can the vast majority of Muslims who would never accept this kind of violence live in peace.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 5:38 p.m.
I guess my post was considered inflammatory for the quoted line. Yes, it is about religion. This is a specific threat recommended by certain Muslim religious leaders. Censoring this viewpoint does not make it any less real. If Al Qaeda could recruit American grandmothers to blow up planes, they would. When that becomes a real threat, we should address it. But it isn't. So far, the only people trying to blow up planes are Muslim extremists. It's not one isolated incident. It's every single incident. This isn't bias on my part. What the Muslim community has that the rest of us do not is the fact that religion and political power are very closely linked. It's not intended as a slam toward the majority of Muslims who would never consider blowing up a plane.
KarenH
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 5:03 p.m.
@Tom cat... The fact that Timothy McVeigh did not blow up a plane is completely irrelevant. The fact that anyone (and not only a Muslim) could have walked onto that plane with the materials he had is relevant. Every person should be considered a potential threat, period. If we never search grandmothers, then grandmothers will be the next recruits. I certainly don't want my privacy invaded, but more importantly, I don't want the darker-complected person behind me in line to be targeted, simply because of his skin-color or religion. This terrorist was on a watch-list. Being on that watch-list should have been enough criteria to search him further than he was obviously searched. It should have nothing to do with the color of his skin or his religion.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 4:49 p.m.
Amazing. Literally within a few days of somone trying to blow up a plane at the DETROIT airport so mnay are whinning about waiting times; what a joke.
Brian Kuehn
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 4:46 p.m.
The TSA should stop the random search and pat downs. Unless there is a specific reason to believe someone is a security risk, run everyone through the scanners and let it go. Nothing is more ridiculous than wanding & patting down a 78 year old grandmother while a 9 other passengers just walk through the scanner. I do not believe in racial profiling. At the same time, going out of the way to prove we are not profiling by searching elderly passengers seems idiotic.
Top Cat
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 4:38 p.m.
We are talking about airline security and Timothy McVeigh did not blow up a plane or attempt to. If ethnic profiling would make fliers more safe, then it should be done immediately. Frisking Gramma Strunk from Wapwallopen does not make us more safe. It is about safety.
KarenH
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 4:15 p.m.
I agree with Tom that the "praise Allah" line is completely inappropriate. Not sure if it should have been removed though, as sometimes it's better to know that there are people who really feel that way. It's the same sort of attitude that condones racial profiling... If you're the right color (and/or religion), you should just be able to get through without a hassle. Timothy McVeigh would have had no issue getting on that plane. He couldn't possibly have been dangerous, since he was white and not Muslim. Surely he was just a one-of-a-kind white Christian terrorist.
Tom
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 4:09 p.m.
AnnArbor.com Thanks for taking the post down
Tom
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 3:51 p.m.
I am disappointed that AnnArbor.com allowed the following comment to be posted "all they really have to do is yell out "praise Allah" and let through all the people who don't." This person is suggesting that Muslims not be allowed to board planes.
Top Cat
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 3:42 p.m.
What is especially annoying is that after 9/11, they loaded lots of names of suspected terrorists from the Irish Republican Army into various TSA databases. With an Irish surname, I got flagged everytime I flew and had to provide ID to someone at the counter while they were on the phone with TSA before they would let me check in. I finally got a passport to make the process easier. My understanding is our newest captured terrorist got on this flight without a passport.
Ignatz
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 3:32 p.m.
Macabre Sunset, I hear ya. Flying has become such a hassle anymore, that it's not something that one can enjoy, as was the case in the past. If I can drive to a place sooner than I can get there with the flight time and security checks, then I'll drive or not go. Add to this how many airlines treat you with a fee for this and a fee for that, I wish for better train travel. They think they're banks anymore.