FAA Stiffens Rules on Inspecting Electronic Items

If you’re flying back to the United States on an American carrier from Europe or the Middle East with a portable electronic device in your checked-through or carry-on baggage, don’t be surprised if you are questioned and asked to show the item for examination.

The FAA’s new rule governing such electronic devices comes in the wake of the bomb that exploded on a Pan American flight over Scotland late last year. The bomb was hidden in a radio/tape recorder carried on the plane as checked luggage.

The FAA’s new security requirement involves more stringent screening of radios, cassette players and lap-top computers.

Such items may be opened or taken apart. You may also have to offer the name of anyone else who has had access to the item, as well as when and where the item was used.

“It’s up to the airlines on how they handle this,” an FAA spokesman said. “You might be asked at check-in if you have electronic items in your luggage, carry-on and check-through, and then have these items checked someplace else.”

On the Lookout

Security personnel will be on the lookout for suspicious articles and passengers. If you bought the item abroad, you’ll have to show a receipt.

Following the Pan Am disaster, the FAA required U.S. airlines flying from Europe and the Middle East to the United States to X-ray or physically search all checked baggage and to conduct random checks of baggage. The new rule intensifies this process.

The screening process may initially focus on carry-on luggage. However, passengers will be asked if there are electronic devices in checked-through luggage and may be required to show items even after check-in, the FAA spokesman said.

Under the tighter security rules, carriers also are required to keep unaccompanied luggage off planes.

In the continuing effort to improve flight security, the FAA considers this rule a better alternative than an outright ban on electronic items. But some critics believe the ban is the only way to ensure safety.

New monitoring equipment could help the situation. Some that can detect plastic explosives, such as the type that downed the Pan Am jet, will soon be in use.

Because such pre-flight screening takes extra time, get to the airport early when leaving from a European or Middle Eastern city to the United States on an American carrier. If you don’t need an electronic item, don’t take it with you.

In addition, count the number of rows between exits on a jet, and determine how close you are to the nearest one.

Knowing in which direction to go and the distance to an exit can help passengers in an emergency. Counting the number of rows is a good idea in case the plane’s electricity goes out. A recent FAA rule requires airlines to add floor lighting.

Distances between exits can vary, depending on the type of plane, but exits seldom exceed 60 feet. Airlines are only required to have exits as uniformly as possible, with an emergency exit for every 55 seats.

The FAA has announced a new regulation that limits the distance between emergency exits on large jets to a maximum of 60 feet. This rule applies to new plane designs as well as to planes manufactured after Oct. 16, 1987.

“Virtually all meet this exit standard,” the FAA spokesman said.

All narrow-body planes and most wide-body planes among U.S. carriers conform to the 60-foot maximum exit distance limit, but some foreign carriers may have planes that have longer distances. Therefore, American carriers are forbidden to buy and operate foreign-owned planes that have exit distances exceeding the 60-foot standard.

This new mandate is designed to stop any growth of distance between exits until a performance standard is developed to measure the safe evacuation capability of existing and new aircraft. A committee is being organized by the FAA for this purpose, with its report and recommendations due July 1, 1991.

Reducing the number of emergency exits can substantially lessen a jet’s weight and thus improve fuel efficiency. Retrofitting of planes, however, can be an expensive proposition.

Opponents of the FAA decision argued that the major factor in evacuating a plane is the number of passengers assembled at the exits and how fast they get out, and not the distance to the exit.

The counter argument ran that, in an emergency, the jet may be structurally damaged, making access to the exits more difficult. The floor of the cabin may no longer be level, and aisles can be obstructed with debris and carry-on items.

Poor visibility, due to smoke and the obstructions, can be another factor in slowing down the time it takes passengers to reach exits. Some passengers may be injured, or in a state of panic and confusion, and would need more time to reach an exit.

Water submersion and landing gear collapse also may make long escape paths more dangerous.

The amount of time taken to reach an exit and evacuating a plane is critical to survival. Studies have shown that fire and toxic smoke can kill more passengers than the impact in some crashes.

Survival time after a crash that involves a fire may be as little as 30 seconds, the FAA said. Moreover, exits can be made unusable by pool fires created when spilled fuel collects. In such cases, only a few seconds can make a difference.