a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by reguile
reguile  ·  2909 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

My point was that carrying a foot long bullet/metal container onto a plane should be something that isn't allowed. Even if they couldn't be used as a weapon directly as they were designed, a giant bullet can still do damage outside of the gun.

If there is reasonable expectation that the things you mention could be used to smuggle things onto a plane, and that they are too difficult to check, they should be banned as well.





user-inactivated  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You can carry five pounds of dry ice onto an airplane, which is enough to cause breathing problems for those around you if the AC goes out for an extended period of time. Yet 3.2oz of shampoo is not allowed on the plane.

reguile  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

If the AC goes out, and assuming the lines of oxygen masks suddenly stop working?

What sort of danger would a big thing of dry ice have in those conditions? People would just put on their O2 masks and the airplane would scrub/release the CO2 from the atmosphere in time. As well, dry ice is CO2, so it would be noticable as everyone gets short of breath, and the big cloud of fog would be a massive tell as well.

3.2 oz of shampoo is an amount not enough for any of the conventionally existing gelled explosive materials to cause significant damage. The limit isn't arbitrary or stupid.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/more-on-liquid-rules-why-we-do-things.html

snoodog  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The masks dont drop on low O2 only on on pressure drop

reguile  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I assume the pilot or passengers can manually trigger them, no?

kleinbl00  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Put it in a sealed container and watch what happens.

My cousin's husband earned himself a couple dozen stitches with one of those.

kleinbl00  ·  2909 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Can't ban thermoses. They can be used to transport organs and the like and you could totally hide shit between the walls.

Can't ban hams. That would gut the tourism industry because people bring food gifts home all the time.

You can ban scary things, though. It's always good for some security theater.

user-inactivated  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

They allow Lithium Ion Freaking batteries on the planes but, get this everyone reading this thread, You can carry them into the passenger compartment but not your checked luggage. Don't worry though, they will have new rules for LIon in cargo holds in place by 2018.

kleinbl00  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Production crews on location often divvy up the batteries and scatter them among the crew. It's not uncommon for, say, a boom operator to be carrying 15 Anton Bauer v-mounts.

Which means his personal luggage is all checked.

reguile  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Lithium ion batteries are required for phones and other tech to work. Secondly, the "explosions" that these things make aren't anywhere near severe or dangerous enough to damage the plane or be worthy of death. As well, it can take quite some time to get one of the things to explode in a decent fashion so far as I am aware.

Cargo holds likely experience a lot of depressurization, heat, cold, and other factors. these would likely damage or cause batteries to have issues and as a result the batteries should probably be kept in a fairly safe, controlled, environment.

kleinbl00  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You realize the point he's making is not that Lion batteries are dangerous, but that there are far more dangerous things allowed on planes than not allowed, right?

reguile  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The point of the rules is not to outright ban all things which can be dangerous at all, the point of the rules is to protect and ensure that nothing which is of imminent danger to an airplane is allowed onto the plane.

People can cause havoc with lithium ion batteries. People can cause havoc with dry ice. The measily little pop and fire isn't going to kill people, and the smoke and warning the device gives off, the tampering required to get the battery to explode are all too difficult to cause substantial harm with.

People aren't going to cause the instant death of 5 nearby people with a dry ice or a lithium ion explosion, and setting those things in motion is a very clumsy and hard to pull off sort of thing within the compartment of an aircraft.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the people running the TSA and making policy decisions are experts at what they do. Despite that their decisions may not seem logical, I am almost certain that if you had the scope and knowledge of the TSA that the people who set these rules do then you would undoubtedly consider the policies relatively tame and reasonable.

kleinbl00  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    People aren't going to cause the instant death of 5 nearby people with a dry ice or a lithium ion explosion, and setting those things in motion is a very clumsy and hard to pull off sort of thing within the compartment of an aircraft.

And they aren't going to cause the instant death of anybody with a bowling trophy, either.

Remember where this discussion started? Me pointing out that the TSA is crowing their safety record and celebrating their vigilance in confiscating a retirement gift from an NFL coach. Not "turned away" not "didn't let on the plane" but confiscated... and posted pictures on their blog... to show how safe they're making the world.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, these are the chucklefucks that spent $160m on pornoscanners. You can be "almost certain" all you want, they are incompetent buffoons that have not, by any applicable measure, accomplished a single fucking thing.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912

reguile  ·  2908 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I will agree entirely that the TSA has a whole lot of excessive abuse of power and misuse of funding and resources.