Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape Photography Locations => Topic started by: Mark D Segal on August 10, 2006, 08:57:47 am
-
As a member of BA's Executive Club (their frequent flyer program) I received an email from BA over a month ago notifying me of new baggage restrictions for all passengers - essentially ONE carry-on within regulation weight, and checked baggage allowance reduced from 70 pounds to 50 pounds per bag. Since then, at least for Business Class travel my limited experience is that up to to about mid-July they had not been enforcing the cabin baggage provision.
As of this morning all that has changed. By now, many of you will have heard the news coming out of London - according to the BBC for the time being NO CABIN BAGGAGE is being allowed on board except for travel medicine. This is part of the initial response to a plot the British police and security services uncovered to explode a number of US aircraft in flight between the UK and the USA, using bombs hidden in cabin baggage.
When these things happen, the ramifications for everyone leap far and wide. At least for some time to come, it is predictable that with varying degrees of severity in different airports at different times, it will become increasingly difficult to travel with cabin bags loaded with gear. Those photographers using air travel as part of their professional or liesure photographic activity I believe will urgently need to rethink the strategy for carrying gear. It may become necessary for example, to contemplate using hard cases as checked baggage carrying all the equipment, protected with TSA safety locks, and packing into one's suitcase a more portable soft-covered bag for daily use at destination in the field. At the very least, hand baggage will become a much greater hassle than it has been until this morning.
I expect that if such measures will become increasingly required in this era of far stricter security practices, the travel bag industry will be designing new solutions to meet the needs of traveling photographers .
-
...It may become necessary for example, to contemplate using hard cases as checked baggage...
Many of us have never done this. Could those with experience checking cameras in hard cases share them with us?
-
Sure. I had a 4x5 system in a Pelican case. I went though customs in the first stop in the States. After that, the baggage handler took the case and rolled it down a steel ramp in such a way that it rolled like a ball - he seemed to enjoy that.
Fortunately, nothing was broken. I don't like the idea of checking camera equipment.
-
I don't like the idea of checking camera equipment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You and all the rest of us. Let us hope and pray these draconian measures can be and are lifted in the not too distant future, but from what I am watching on television just now, anyone travelling with anything like cameras and laptops is facing tough choices - i.e. check them or don't fly.
-
I think we're just going to have to get used to this. For all flights from the UK there's now no cabin luggage permitted, just a few personal effects such as passport, wallet, and keys without an electronic fob attached; all to be carried in a transparent plastic bag. No books, no iPods, no laptops, and no cameras.
And it's surely only a matter of time before this policy spreads to other countries.
I wonder what will happen to all those retail stores they're building in airports?
And I wonder if my photographic insurance policy covers checked equipment?
-
No cell phones? *That* will get people upset!
-
We've used hard cases for years when travelling with large kits. Only one mishap, when the aluminum case arrived completely crushed. While the airline insisted we had checked it in that way, we were able to make a strong counter that the crush coincided directly with the black tire tracks of a baggage trailer. Evidently it had fallen out of the trailer and was subsequently run over. In spite of their $1500 limitations on claims we eventually prevailed and they wrote us a check for $19,000. No court time involved but months of arguing, chest beating and threats. What a royal pain in the arse.
-
The most important photographic item about this is that ALL non-allowed carry-on items (and film is not an allowed carry-on item) go through standard checked baggage scanners - these are the high-powered x-ray machines that will fog even slow films.
So if you are a film photographer, don't fly into or out of the UK until they ease the restrictions.
-
I guess the next move is to ban anyone from wearing clothes whilst flying - no shoes, just your underwear.
Sarcasm aside, I suspect this is a short term stingent policy from which a longer term more relaxed policy will evolve, probably entailing a ban on all forms of liquid in the cabin - therefore, no taking food and drink onto the aircraft, you will have to eat (or more likely buy at exhorbitant prices) what the airlines have to offer. This will also mark the end of buying duty free drinks and taking them onboard the aircraft - though commercial interests may force a work around for this. For photographers it will be a case of removing any cleaning fluids etc from your hand baggage before checking in.
-
David, I hope you suspect correctly, but it is not clear. I believe the security people are sensitive to the inconvenience all this causes, but their first priority is security. When something like this happens, and the investigations are still underway and will be for an indeterminate time period, they cannot with confidence advise civil authorities to ease-up. Furthermore, because of the global nature of both the air networks and the threats, enhanced security measures are implemented swiftly in numerous countries at the same time, regardless of there being no known immediate threat to them - we have already witnessed this here in Toronto. And one cannot know for how long each national authority will keep these measures in place. Even if the most stringent of the measures were relaxed within the next few days, some hugely inconvenient ones for our purposes could linger quite a bit longer. On top of all that, we need to consider that this will likely not be the last of such episodes. The bottom line - I think - is that traveling photographers will need to be prepared with a range of strategic options for getting our gear from Point A to Point B, depending on the situation at the time of travel.
-
Virgin airlines have just emailed me to say these restrictions will apply not just on their flights out of the UK, but also on their flights from the US to the UK.
-
The bottom line - I think - is that traveling photographers will need to be prepared with a range of strategic options for getting our gear from Point A to Point B, depending on the situation at the time of travel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I couldn't agree with you more, the term 'short timeframe' is a suitably flexible term that could be days to months depending on any given reference point. Though, I suspect the strain on the transport system of having to check everything into the hold will be relaxed sooner rather than later just from the practical point of view that most people will need books, iPods, videos, etc..on long haul flights to keep them occupied.
The questions would appear to be:
1/ If checking gear into the hold what is the most practical way that this can be achieved (ie. are there 'wraps' to cover the camera and protect it in an ordinary suitcase to minimise the amount of luggage to go in the hold, and if a separate case is used what is the most cost effective selection available - Pelican or otherwise).
2/ Is it practical to FedEx equipment in advance and are there customs/ import export issues and insurance considerations that need to be taken into account.
-
David, Air France for the longest time has been offering their Business Class passengers leaving from Roissy-CDG a plastic wrap on their checked suitcases - it's quite a nifty process. They put the suitcase into a machine that literally shrink-wraps and seals your suitacse in a tough poly shell (sort of like a very heavy version of Saran Wrap) to protect the finish from scratches and bumps. So this technology is old-hat and if AF can do it, so can any of the others.
But I don't think that addresses the real problem of checking gear, which is internal damage from the way baggage handlers throw around luggage and the way the luggage tumbles through those automated roller and conveyer systems. That is what needs to be addressed. If the security people will maintain restrictions on hand-carried gear, the airlines and airport authorities will have to develop new protocols for the handling of fragile baggage, modify machinery (buffers or whatever) and train handlers to respect the new protocols. It can be done, just as UPS and Fed Ex manage to deliver gear bought from B&H damage-free the world over.
Turning to Fed Ex, I think Fed-Exing this stuff would be a very expensive imposition on traveling professionals, and special arrangements would need to be made so the stuff meets the traveler at the destination airport, otherwise it could be a monumental bureaucratic hassle, as you point out. Too much logistical risk in all that.
Insurance is fine, but if you're off to a workshop or a time-bound professional assignment and the cameras get trashed, the insurance settlement won't get the pictures taken. And the premiums would probably be astronomical and the post-trauma cash recovery from those companies like pulling teeth.
Instead, I think the solution needs to come from the airlines themselves and the security people, devising ways of meeting passengers needs that are both practical and compatible with security. Otherwise, alot of travel photography could well be curtailed - not clear how many will be willing to invest in expensive bags like Pelicans yet stil not be totally comfortable about the internal damage risk.
-
I believe the solution is simple for travelling photographers, business people, and the like who carry gear with them. Have a screening and/or security process that checks the background of individuals to ascertain risk. Then provide a stamp in the passport or separate card that indicates this individual is allowed to carry specifical gear with them on the aircraft. Should others complain then security can point to a policy and say "Your are welcome to apply!".
Of course this would require international cooperation. Humm.... Can anyone see that happening (Isreal, Lebanon, Hezbollah).
Kelly
-
The thing is, it's not these new regulations that stopped the plot, but careful, traditional surveilance / infiltration techniques, that we don't see or hear about because we're not spies. It's not sniffer dogs, nor xrays or bomb sniffers at an airport that stopped this, so what makes them think that imploting even more stringent measures will do any earthly good? What is needed is more and better spies, not more and better airport security. If you stop a bomb at security, then you've still stopped it too late....
-
The thing is, it's not these new regulations that stopped the plot, but careful, traditional surveilance / infiltration techniques, that we don't see or hear about because we're not spies. It's not sniffer dogs, nor xrays or bomb sniffers at an airport that stopped this, so what makes them think that imploting even more stringent measures will do any earthly good? What is needed is more and better spies, not more and better airport security. If you stop a bomb at security, then you've still stopped it too late....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a valid point if you assume that the intelligence services managed to foil all of the terrorists. The draconian measures in place right now are designed to reduce the risk from those that were missed or might try to copycat, plus I think also to send a message out to the public that this is being taken seriously.
I travel every week and nothing frustrates me more than inconsistent application of the security scanning proces - as much as I hate it I would more willingly accept it if it were consistent.
If you are a frequent photo traveller then it lookslike time to invest in Pelican cases (or similar). These have been the ONLY way that I've safely transported equipment that even baggage handlers have trouble damaging. I recommend the foam fill vs compartments if you want to be safe against shock damage that only highly trained baggage destroyers, sorry handlers, can inflict. The downside of foam is that you can fit less per case but these things get heavy quickly anyway. You can get TSA compliant locks for these which eases the anxiety just slightly.
-
Fortunately, not all countries' security authorities are being as draconian as they are in the UK. (For example here in Canada, and I believe in the US, one is still allowed to take electronics into the cabin, but no fluids.) I suppose that is normal in this particular case, because of specifics of this incident. If there will be other kinds of incidents in other places that would change the story. A Pelican case appears to be one good strategic back-up option, but on the BBC this morning a travel industry expert did mention that stuff freezes in the baggage holds of aircraft, then defrosts when it comes out, and alot of equipment is not manufactured to accommodate those stresses. Another option is for photographers (and other professionals similarly affected) to watch which airports require checking cameras and laptops and to avoid those airports until the rules change. It would be nice to have a website that tracks which airports allow what things on board in real time so people can be well enough informed to plan where and what to avoid.
-
As a Cathay Pacific diamond card holder I'm accustomed to a high level of service and leniency - I take huge amounts in the cabin with me. On the odd occasion when I'm obliged to travel with a lesser airline (oh, the hardship...) I've packed my bodies and lenses tightly into a Lowepro trekker backpack, and securely packed THAT into a suitcase. Lots of support and padding there, but of course no protection if a truck backs over it.
I agree that other airlines are sure to adopt a stricter policy (Cathay tell me that for my flight tomorrow I'm still OK on the old rules), so a rigid, sealed Pelican with lots of internal padded buffering would seem to be in order.
-
I have just enough anecdotal evidence to be more concerned about theft by the security people than by the thought that they may drop it. I would be more than willing to buy and use Pelikan Cases and check my equipment and computer, if I was sure it would travel with me on the same plane AND I GOT TO BE THERE WHEN IT WAS INSPECTED!
The idea that I have to trust that they can just open and inspect my luggage out of my presence is what bothers me more than them dropping it. I doubt that theft by the inspectors rampant, but it happens and nobody seems to be responsible. The airlines blame the inspectors and the inspectors blame the handlers and neither is willing to take our word for what was in our baggage. And without some sort of inspection in the presence of airline and securtiy personnel and me/you the situation become irresolvable.
I really try not be paronoid, but that doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get me.
A very close friend had his laptop stolen from his luggage and most people's reaction has been, "He packed his laptop? What an idiot!" So I take it from that that I am not the only one who thinks this way.
Yet, I have seen all sorts of valuables come tumbling down the baggage carousel so others seem to trust their luck.
I do like the idea of special ID for those willing to undergo a background investigation in order to grease the boarding process. But then again, only people cleared to the highest level of security can be an effective traitor. Maybe the terrorists have won all ready.
Just my $.02.
Bill in WV
-
I have just enough anecdotal evidence to be more concerned about theft by the security people than by the thought that they may drop it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unfortunately there are many countries - try South Africa for example (and the rest of Africa too for that matter) where putting expensive gear in the hold means there is a pretty good chance it's going to be lost or stolen - or if some amusing stories are to be believed both!
-
David, Air France for the longest time has been offering their Business Class passengers leaving from Roissy-CDG a plastic wrap on their checked suitcases
But I don't think that addresses the real problem of checking gear, which is internal damage from the way baggage handlers throw around luggage and the way the luggage tumbles through those automated roller and conveyer systems.
Turning to Fed Ex, I think Fed-Exing this stuff would be a very expensive imposition on traveling professionals, and special arrangements would need to be made so the stuff meets the traveler at the destination airport, otherwise it could be a monumental bureaucratic hassle, as you point out. Too much logistical risk in all that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I lived in France three years, so yes I am familiar with the plastic wrap on the suitcase. Though when I mentioned wraps I was refering to wrapping the camera and lenses not the whole suitcase - as you then went on to suggest (Perhaps I need to improve my english a little).
The reason for mentioning fedex is that there was some discussion someplace somewhere on the internet indicating that several people did use this method as a way of shipping large and bulky items quite successfully and that shipping rates via fedex was cheaper than excess baggage in the hold of the aircraft. Just trying to find if anyone has any more recent experiences. I use couriers quite a lot to ship large documents and they are usually fast, accurate and reasonably priced.
-
I believe the solution is simple for travelling photographers, business people, and the like who carry gear with them. Have a screening and/or security process that checks the background of individuals to ascertain risk. Then provide a stamp in the passport or separate card that indicates this individual is allowed to carry specifical gear with them on the aircraft. Should others complain then security can point to a policy and say "Your are welcome to apply!".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For this to work you would have to get the intelligence services to forget about Harold Adrian Russell (Kim) Philby. No matter how good your vetting process you will always be infiltrated if someone is persistant and clever enough.
-
Not only that, but clever evil-doers will find ways of forging those passport stamps or cards, so it wouldn't be fool-proof and I really doubt any serious security agency would be comfortable with that. As well the administrative and security arrangements to set it up and have it respected in hundreds of airports world-wide would be a massive and tenuous undertaking.
Right now it is mainly UK airports where electronics is a problem. I don't like to think this, but nonetheless I can't help envisioning that the whole carry-on baggage situation is going to become increasingly and more generally difficult with each new perceived or actual threat that comes along.
The airline industry and the security authorities together are really going to have to rethink the whole issue of electronic equipment. Business people carry laptops on which they depend for perhaps millions of dollars worth of business they are transacting. Photographers, technical people etc. can be carrying very costly amounts of gear for professional or liesure assignments. There is simply too much at stake for these folks to depend on current arrangements other than carry-on.
So either the carry-on policy needs to be somehow better secured but permissive, or the airlines will need to institute and take full responsibility for arrangements whereby checked equipment gets handled safely and securely. Without that, they could lose alot of business going forward.
-
First, let me say I think it's very admirable you are all more concerned with your camera equipment than your lives in this situation. That shows true dedication .
(Sorry! It's no joking matter.) I agree with Mark. We shall all have to get used to the idea of continued and increased restrictions regarding carry-on luggage. What worries me, in fact it was the first thing that popped into my mind when listening to the recent reports from London of the foiled terrorist plans, is that the next stage could be no luggage at all.
In fact, I'd personally feel safer if that was the case. Let all the luggage fly on a separate aircraft, preferrably by remote control.
-
In fact, this is such a serious issue, I think the authoriities are really pussy-footing around. About 9 months ago, as I was departing from Kathmandu on a Thai Airways flight to Bangkok, I had unwittingly, at the last minute whilst packing my gear in the hotel, thrown a wine bottle opener into my hand luggage.
On screening at the airport, the x-ray picked up this bottle opener which had a small knife with a 1 1/2" blade. I was taken aside and had to wait half an hour whilst someone prepared the paper work for this item to be transported, separate from my person, and handed to me on arrival in Bangkok.
On the one hand, one might get some comfort from the thoroughness of such detection. On the other hand, one might also get the impression that the system might fail to see the forest for the trees.
Having passed through a number of international airports in the past few years, I'm struck by how inconsistent, cumbersome and inefficient the checking procedures are. Sometimes they are rigorous to the point of farce and sometimes completely slack.
On one occasion, departing from Brisbane airport in Australia, I was asked to remove my trouser braces, despite protestations that my trousers might fall down.
Let's go the whole hog for the sake of our own safety. All baggage without exception should be transported on a separate aircraft, period.
-
I have just enough anecdotal evidence to be more concerned about theft by the security people than by the thought that they may drop it. I would be more than willing to buy and use Pelikan Cases and check my equipment and computer, if I was sure it would travel with me on the same plane AND I GOT TO BE THERE WHEN IT WAS INSPECTED!
The idea that I have to trust that they can just open and inspect my luggage out of my presence is what bothers me more than them dropping it. I doubt that theft by the inspectors rampant, but it happens and nobody seems to be responsible. The airlines blame the inspectors and the inspectors blame the handlers and neither is willing to take our word for what was in our baggage...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am a very, very frequent traveller and the only place I have had items actually stolen from my luggage was from JFK, NY. I have travelled from the poorest regions in Asia and Africa and had no problems apart from the occasional piece of luggage ending up in a different country or on the next flight. You quote the exact excuses they used, plus they claimed I was making the whole thing up. If I can't hand carry my valuable equipment aboard a US-bound flight, I ain't going or I'm not taking it. I won't trust it to be checked in where uncontrolled and unsupervised individuals can and will access it.
-
Ray, on one flight from HK to Singapore I was pulled up at HK security as my maid had packed a fork in my hand luggage! I was on the Atkins diet at the time and was taking my own in-flight food, and my maid 'thoughtfully' packed the fork for me!
The reason I love HK? The staff put the fork in an envelope and said I could collect it on my return to HK, and someone went to the Cathay lounge and brought me a plastic fork to use in its place! I'm sure they would have done the same at Heathrow or LAX...
-
How about this for an idea! (It must be the Morris Pressings Style Dry Red; my thoughts are flowing.) As compensation for the banning of ALL luggage on the same flight, the Airline updates its in-flight services to include true hi fi stero headphones with the latest technology that cancels extraneous, external noise.
Updates its selection of music to cater for all tastes and, in addition to the usual crap movies, offers alternative sources of amusement and instruction, including in-depth, advanced courses on Photoshop from high definition video screens on the back of the seat in front.
All books, of course, should be allowed. I don't see any insurmountable problem in scanning books for explosives.
-
Ray, getting back to serious, I take it for granted that we are all primarily concerned with human safety and survival. Beyond that there are these logistical problems - and commercial ones. Need I mention just for example, that in the narrow little world of high-end liesure photography, there is a burgeoning business of photographic workshops taking people all over the world. This nascient industry could be one of the early victims of these restrictions.
I heard on CBC last night that according to IATA data, in 2004 9 million people PER DAY are engaged in air travel. That is about 3.3 BILLION person-flights per year world wide. It is such a staggering number I wonder whether it could be correct, but that is what they said, and they flashed it on the screen, so I think I heard and saw right. All you need is a slip-up on one one of them and a plane could blow-up. That is what the security services are contending with. More spies, as one poster mentioned, is likely part of the growing battle against this kind of terrorism, but the security people will go after all possible sources of threat and seek to eliminate them. That is what we are caught-up in.
The concept of service in many parts of Asia is at a different level than it is here. Here all those knives and corkscrews are simply confiscated at security and you never see them again.
And yes, there have been enough incidents of theft in US airports to shake one's confidence checking expensive items. True the percentage of loss may be very low overall, but no-one who has paid thousands of dollars for a photo trip and multiple thousands more for the related gear will be comfortable with the thought that they could be one of X% who's stuff disappears into "thin air".
That is why under current conditions this whole carry-on and luggage security business needs to be re-conceptualized at a broad international level, so that at the end of the day the traveling public comes out ahead of the terrorists in respect to restoring and preserving a suitable way of life.
-
I take it for granted that we are all primarily concerned with human safety and survival. Beyond that there are these logistical problems - and commercial ones. Need I mention just for example, that in the narrow little world of high-end liesure photography, there is a burgeoning business of photographic workshops taking people all over the world. This nascient industry could be one of the early victims of these restrictions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hear what you're saying, Mark, but I don't see any major problems that can't be fixed. It'll just cost a bit. I'll be travelling overseas in about a month's time. My plan is to buy a Samsonite suitcase that doesn't crush easily and fit an aluminium camera case inside wrapped up in my clothes. Previously I've not bothered taking out insurance for my camera gear. Normal travel insurance doesn't cover the cost of my gear. I think the limit is around A$3,000 for a camera, so I expect additional insurance will be the major expense for me as a result of this latest terrorist scare.
-
I like the idea best of submitting one's camera case (Pelican, etc) to hand-inspection under the eyes of the owner, then locking and sealing the case with shrink-wrap or some other similar means. It wouldn't prevent theft, but it would at least remove all doubt about who's liable for any theft that occurs while the bag is in the airline's charge.
I'd certainly be willing to arrive at the airport even earlier to allow this. Heck, I find commercial air travel so annoying and stressful that I get to the airport WAYYY early as it is just so I can remain calm (control freak.)
An additional side effect of this increased scrutiny: even further impetus for the new "air taxi" services expected to spring up like mushrooms. These will be point-to-point short-hop flights (most airline trips in the US at least are 500 mi or less, so I read) based on a new generation of "micro jets" soon to enter service, such as the Eclipse Jet (small, six passenger 500 kt. plus aircraft, short field capability) and its cousins. This will become the preferred mode of travel for business and well-heeled leisure travelers willing to pay business- or first-class fares to avoid the hassle of cattle-care mass air transport.
There may also be some promise in, as someone stated, putting all the baggage on a "baggage scow" unless it's been hand-inspected and sealed as above. Why bother to blow it up if all you'll do is kill the crew and a few hapless folk on the ground? Not much terrorist bang for the buck there.
After this latest foiled British plot, can anyone still doubt we are engaged in a death struggle with mortal enemies?
-
The concept of service in many parts of Asia is at a different level than it is here... ...And yes, there have been enough incidents of theft in US airports to shake one's confidence checking expensive items.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Add efficiency and courtesy on to the service, and you're dead right - there's no comparison. Some of the smaller and poorer countries struggle with arcane systems and beurocracy, but I've never had that NYC-Immigration-guy snarl and surliness once in any Asian country. Nor have I had anything stolen, and I rack up 250,000-350,000 air miles annually.
This isn't to say that in major Asian cities security is more lax. The behind-the-scenes security in HK, Singapore and Beijing would put LHR, LAX and JFK to shame. I just wish Sydney and Melbourne baggage handling would take some tips from HKG!
That said my camera gear is in the Lowepro trekker and inside a well-padded suitcase, and I'm in the air again tomorrow and will be travelling for 16 days. Thankfully none of my trips will take me to Europe or the US.
-
Well, this is sort of related.... and an attempt to lighten the mood a bit. There's been a lot of chatter on this list for some time about carrying on v.s. checking camera equipment as baggage... On the nationalgeographic.com site there's an article about Tom Abercrombie, a NG photographer for many years who recently passed away. If you go to: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/060...multimedia.html (http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0608/feature5/multimedia.html) click on image #13 to see the equipment he brought along in 1965!! One would need to purchase every seat on the plane...
Mike.
-
At the risk of carying this thread further off topic I will just say that all of Mr. Abercrombie's photographs on that page are incredible.
Robert
-
Robert, agreed - photography at its very best - an inspiration - and for some of the places he visited probably a great deal more difficult these days even to have the opportunity.
-
On the nationalgeographic.com site there's an article about Tom Abercrombie, a NG photographer for many years who recently passed away. If you go to: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/060...multimedia.html (http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0608/feature5/multimedia.html) click on image #13 to see the equipment he brought along in 1965!! One would need to purchase every seat on the plane...
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It did seem an awful lot of carry on luggage, however...all of the back row are refrigiration containers stacked full of roll film, the front two cases are the largest flash guns that history every produced, and many of the other cases look as if they contain dark room equipment, etc...I suspect that you could get comparative functionality into two or three cases these days, such is the pace of technology progress.
-
I've moved this post from another thread as this one is more apposite as weight limits as data loss are two more issues from these security issues
I just read the article on 'Getting digital files home safely'
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/home-safely.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/home-safely.shtml)
and wondered how one will cope with the no cabin luggage policy rules that are now in force? I have a similar strategy to the mention in article which is now messed up as all the data ends up in the hold.
To add to that, an airline I've used frequently in the past [Easy Jet] which had an "if it fits in this space you can take it on board" policy now says they've increased their hold allowance to 25KG from 20KG [these are short haul flights] as no cabin luggage is allowed. Now as my camera kit can weighs close to 16kg on it's own I have a problem.
A rival air line [Ryan Air] suggested this week than passengers only bring one bag. I just got back from a month in Sweden using RyanAir with 3 bags, (1)-clothes+ duplicate hard drives [18kg], (2)-mountain bike+heavy bits like shoes, power supplies, convertors...[unknown weight but unlimited amount allowed as it's sports goods at £15 extra each way] and (3)-my camera back pack as cabin luggage [16-8kg full] but I put camera and 24-70mm f2.8L over shoulder and fill my pockets with batteries and other small objects to make the 10Kg limit, though I've never actually been weighed with Ryan Air yet. Others have, a friend who weighs 45KGs when wet had to pay for being 1kg over.
Now I also have to consider more protective kit than the LowePro Stealth back pack I use. Great capacity and fits on plane but limited padding. Having said that I doubt much else other than a hard case by someone like Pelican will protect cameras and the even more fragile laptops than go along with them these days. And a hard case will weigh about 7-8kgs on it's own. Plus theft of gear is more likely esp as you are not allowed to lock cases on some flights.
Let's hope cabin luggage will be allowed back on. There are talks here in UK of making it permanent.
jjj
-
No carry-on would be a disaster long term. I never travel with checked luggage and fortunately, so far for me, Air Canada is allowing electronic equipment (cell phones, blackberry) and cameras as carry-on. I will have to check toothpaste and shampoo and lipsil or just buy them at my arrival destination.
Given how luggage is currently handled, who would agree to checking a computer or camera in anything other than a very heavy and well protected case which goes against the idea of travelling light. Train is looking better and better whenever possible.
Dave S
-
It is not Air Canada that ultimately allows these things - it is the security authorities. Carriers and passengers are obligated to respect security arrangements decided by public authorities. Carriers may implement their own regulations of course, but they cannot be less stringent than regulations decided by the authorities in charge of security. The day our authorities do like the British are now doing it will be game-over for carry-on here too. Let us hope it doesn't happen.
But of course what's happening in London affects here too. If you are flying to or through the UK, it would be awakward to start here with a carry-on approach when it will be promptly disallowed at the other end. Based on what I'm seeing broadcast by the BBC, and given the statement from British Airport Authority (BAA - the managers of UK airports) that the present regulations are "unsustainable", I've made-up my mind to avoid the UK for any travel until the dust settles.
-
Anyone ever had to take a pushchair (buggy) on board a plane? You take it to the door of the plane where it is taken from you and installed in the hold then you get it back at the door of the plane when you leave. Working from that...
I think that the most sensible thing after rigerous and strenuous checking of expensive hand luggage, is to book it into a 'locker' arangement on the plane as you enter the door. I would gladly pay for such an arrangement compared to having to put a few K of equipment into the hold!
Yes it will make things slower, but then if you are paying for the locker space, either board first, or even better, last to avoid hold ups of the rest of the passengers.
-
Operationally impossible on a large scale. No airline or airport authority would tolerate the cost and delay this would cause. The solution, I believe, really needs to be to ensure that the pre-screening of electronic devices be efficient and effective and passengers be allowed to continue carrying them on board.
-
It is not Air Canada that ultimately allows these things - it is the security authorities. Carriers and passengers are obligated to respect security arrangements decided by public authorities. Carriers may implement their own regulations of course, but they cannot be less stringent than regulations decided by the authorities in charge of security. The day our authorities do like the British are now doing it will be game-over for carry-on here too. Let us hope it doesn't happen.
But of course what's happening in London affects here too. If you are flying to or through the UK, it would be awakward to start here with a carry-on approach when it will be promptly disallowed at the other end. Based on what I'm seeing broadcast by the BBC, and given the statement from British Airport Authority (BAA - the managers of UK airports) that the present regulations are "unsustainable", I've made-up my mind to avoid the UK for any travel until the dust settles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry I wasn't clear. While Air Canada is allowing stuff as I said the official statement came from The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
The email they sent me.
--------------
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your correspondence of August 12, 2006 regarding the transport of electronic items aboard aircraft.
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) plays an integral role in the Government of Canada’s air security initiative. Our mission is to protect the public by securing critical elements of the air transportation system, including the screening of passengers and their belongings. Our mandate is to deliver a consistent, effective and highly professional service that is set at or above the standards established by federal regulations.
Please note that electronic devices are permitted in carry-on baggage.
We thank you, once again, for your e-mail.
CATSA Client Relations
----------------
-
In a recent entry on his site, Ken Rockwell has an novel suggestion on how to avoid unnecessary airline delays. He suggests that people can get their pilots' licenses and (or) buy their own airplanes.
What do say, folks, wanna split a Leer Jet? Maybe its use could be handled in a manner similar to time-share condos.
-
" ...just as UPS and Fed Ex manage to deliver gear bought from B&H damage-free the world over."
FedEx, yes. All of my photo gear orders are delivered by FedEx, and so far none have been damaged.
UPS, well... there's a reason I call them United Parcel Squashers and will not ship anything with them. They've damaged far too many of my orders. How can a book packed in inflatable plastic pillows get pulverized?
-
There is one major problem with the scheme of separate planes for luggage:
It's only viable on the major routes.
Those major routes are fewer than you might think; they would need so much traffic that you could deal with the increased expense of launching another plane, without losing too much business.
Also, that solution would not really solve the problem for photographers.
-
There is one major problem with the scheme of separate planes for luggage:
It's only viable on the major routes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The major routes are the major risk. Terrorists, like everyone else, want the biggest bang for their buck. (Unfortunate metaphor, I know.)
Mixing people with baggage is like mixing pedestrians with motor cars on our streets. It's not ideal regarding safety.
We should be moving towards a situation of planes that specialise in carrying passengers and planes that specialise in carrying baggage. Let never the twain meet.
-
After thinking about this problem long and hard and seen the discussion here, I am coming to the conclusion that the only real solution for passengers with electronics is to let us continue to carry them on board, but with the most efficient and intelligent security that technology and its implementation can provide to make sure there is no hanky-panky embedded in them. I don't think what is going on now is a solution, and I think that BAA and the airlines operating out of UK airports are rapidly coming to the same conclusion.
-
You are probably right, Mark, in respect of what's going to happen. As a species we seem to be very reluctant to take the economic risk of doing more than is necessary, but this might very well get us into trouble. The greenhouse effect is a good analogy. We know for sure that reduction of greehouse emissions will reduce the risk of calamity. Unfortunately, we don't know for sure what the risks actually are. Maybe we'll get by okay just as we're doing if most of the scientists have got it wrong and the changes that are taking place have another more profound cause which dwarfs our contribution.
On the other hand, if we take the recommended measures and assume the worst, there'll be no catastrophe if we later find out that such measures were unnecessary.
-
Mixing people with baggage is like mixing pedestrians with motor cars on our streets. It's not ideal regarding safety.
We should be moving towards a situation of planes that specialise in carrying passengers and planes that specialise in carrying baggage. Let never the twain meet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm afraid that the problem is not the baggage - it's the people. Filling up a plane with baggage is safe, but add people and you add risk. 9/11 would have happenden even if no carry on baggage was allowed, a determind human will find a way, there are enough loose items alredy aboard a plane that can be used.
Humans are the most dangerous predator on this planet, and removing the baggage is not going to change security that much.
-
Humans are the most dangerous predator on this planet, and removing the baggage is not going to change security that much.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a bit like saying, 'No need to lock your house. If a burglar is determined to break in, he'll get in anyway.' People without baggage are easier to screen more thoroughly.
-
That's a bit like saying, 'No need to lock your house. If a burglar is determined to break in, he'll get in anyway.' People without baggage are easier to screen more thoroughly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, it's more like saying that closing your attic window is not improving your security much if your front door is wide open.
The point is that a determind terrorist don't need carry on baggage to get the "job" done. If it was that simple to get real security somebody would probably have thought about it decades ago, terrorist and planes are not exactly a new problem that cropped up in this century.
-
The point is that a determind terrorist don't need carry on baggage to get the "job" done. If it was that simple to get real security somebody would probably have thought about it decades ago, terrorist and planes are not exactly a new problem that cropped up in this century.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure what you are getting at. You mean a group of determined terrorists could take over a plane with their bare fists and a few Karate chops, James Bond style?
-
Not sure what you are getting at. You mean a group of determined terrorists could take over a plane with their bare fists and a few Karate chops, James Bond style?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't have to be James Bond style. Just break off a few arm rests on the chairs and they would have nice clubs. Most people would then sit in place without interfering.
I don't belive there is any great security advantage between good screening of carry on luggage, and no carry on luggage allowed.
-
I don't belive there is any great security advantage between good screening of carry on luggage, and no carry on luggage allowed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But there would have been with this latest incident, if I've understood the situation. A harmless bottle of drink (actually a liquid explosive) and a small camera with flash (actually the detonator when connected). The plot was not foiled by clever screening at the airport but by undercover espionage. Without that intelligence information, the terrorists might well have boarded the planes. Is that not the case?
-
Don't have to be James Bond style. Just break off a few arm rests on the chairs and they would have nice clubs. Most people would then sit in place without interfering.
I don't belive there is any great security advantage between good screening of carry on luggage, and no carry on luggage allowed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
-
what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They'd be very ill. I don't think a knee joint would hold enough explosive to blow up a plane.
-
They'd be very ill. I don't think a knee joint would hold enough explosive to blow up a plane.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
would encasing the material in something inert/protective make it easier? then use something the size of a hip joint (metal) as a detonator. i'm sure there are doctors who would both be qualified as well as perform the operation
-
what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They just need to explosives (liquid or solid) things protected in condoms... As they do with drug trafficking, no need to go thru surgery
-
I thought the item below would be of interest to this discussion especially in view of some of the latest comments. It is from a Security News Letter written by Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.
http://www.schneier.com (http://www.schneier.com)
http://www.counterpane.com (http://www.counterpane.com)
------------
Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry on board. Last week's foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security changes graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater.
None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 -- no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews -- had anything to do with last week's arrests. And they wouldn't have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn't have made a difference, either.
Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.
The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It's reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details -- much of the "explosive liquid" story doesn't hang together -- but the excessive security measures seem prudent.
But only temporarily. Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-on items won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.
It's easy to defend against what terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.
Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.
Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.
The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.
And what can you do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they are arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.
-----------
Dave S
-
They just need to explosives (liquid or solid) things protected in condoms... As they do with drug trafficking, no need to go thru surgery
That depends on what kind of explosives are used.
The kind of explosives that are dangerous enough to blow up an aircraft or cause explosive decompression from within the cabin in the quantity you can store in a condom, are very rare and very, very unstable.
Putting those chemicals in condoms like they do in drug trafficking is an even more risky proposition than putting drugs in condoms. I'm not even sure that they won't react directly with the lubrication in condoms.
While your proposed scheme may be possible with the right knowledge and very careful measures, I think it's far more likely that someone finds a more efficient way of taking down an aircraft.
-
That depends on what kind of explosives are used.
The kind of explosives that are dangerous enough to blow up an aircraft or cause explosive decompression from within the cabin in the quantity you can store in a condom, are very rare and very, very unstable.
Putting those chemicals in condoms like they do in drug trafficking is an even more risky proposition than putting drugs in condoms. I'm not even sure that they won't react directly with the lubrication in condoms.
While your proposed scheme may be possible with the right knowledge and very careful measures, I think it's far more likely that someone finds a more efficient way of taking down an aircraft.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I said condoms but it can be other types of small containers... These guys have plenty of imagination, probably more than I do!
-
Well, I said condoms but it can be other types of small containers... These guys have plenty of imagination, probably more than I do!
Condoms are used because they're easy to buy, easy to fill, comparatively easy to swallow, comparatively easy to get out, and probably more difficult to detect.
More solid containers (as the ones required for the unstable explosives that you don't need to mix, but which will go with a huge bang anyway) can probably be swallowed, but there's little guarantee that it won't get stuck in your intestines. That is, if it doesn't go off while swallowing.
But sure, people who want to blow a plane up, can probably manage to do so if they want to spend the time and effort to come up with a solution.
Bruce Schneier makes some very good points, both on what is and will be possible, and how we should react.
The only reason I wouldn't want to go on a plane right now, is that I would want to bring my photo gear, and there's no way I'm going to do that under the current rules.
-
what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But wouldn't that require some form of Knee jerk reaction to get the explosives to go off?
-
The only reason I wouldn't want to go on a plane right now, is that I would want to bring my photo gear, and there's no way I'm going to do that under the current rules.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jan, those are UK rules. In most other parts of the world including all of North America one can still bring the usual carry-ons, without the forbidden liquids and gels. I think photo travel is still doable provided one avoids the UK (but how long this will last is hard to know). If enough people start avoiding the UK and the message gets out that the UK is a place to be avoided until their security people see fit to relax the restrictions, there may be more internal dialogue there that perhaps would help the situation to evolve. I wouldn't hold my breath though, because obviously their security people know a whole lot more than we do, and they have said they are tracking a number of groups planning trouble. I think the travleing public has no choice but to give them the benefit of the doubt and work around them.
-
The situation in the UK has imroved today. Single carry on bags are now allowed albeit of a smaller size than usual. For up to date information look at the BAA website. www.baa.com Regional airports have had nothing like the trouble there has been at Heathrow in getting passengers through the new security arrangements. It is worth getting up to date information from your airline and or the airport you are flying to. The down side is that it does look as though the smaller carry on luggage that is being allowed is likely to stay for some time.
David
-
Fine, I'll think of travelling through there again after the period of "for some time" is behind us.
-
The situation in the UK has imroved today.
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually Daivd, the situation has not improved. I just heard over the BBC World News half an hour ago that British Airways admits it has LOST "tens of thousands of passengers' smaller checked bags". (They do expect "most" of it will be re-united with its owners "at some time in the future". The reason for this is that BAA's baggage handling systems simply aren't configured for either the volume or size of the new baggage checking requirements. The size of handbags the security is now allowing may make a slight dent in this situation - but not much: from my observation traveling a fair bit, most carry-ons are usually larger than what they are now allowing, and that would doubtless apply to much camera gear. Hence for anyone who values their camera gear and needs to travel with it, avoiding British airports remains the most practical travel stragegy.
-
We must work to find creative solutions to beat these guys. Here's my plan.
1. No hand baggage at all.
2. All luggage transported on a specialised cargo carrier.
3. Improved in-flight services to compensate passengers for the inconvenience of not having their little nick-nacks and security blankets at hand.
4. Greater selection of entertainement to cater to a more diverse taste. On-board library etc etc.
5. Improved handling of baggage accompanied by improved insurance payouts when things go wrong. (There are many ways of inducing baggage handlers to take greater care, such as offering them a group bonus at the end of the year minus the cost of insurance claims sustained by the airline.
6. More sophisticated screening of the person, including non-invasive, non-harmful Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Radiography might be considered too harmful for frequent fliers, but might be necessary for people with metallic body parts.
7. Creative ways to offset the cost of such sophisticated screening, such as the offering of a medical opinion of the MRI scan, for a fee, after check-in. This procedure could have the effect of saving huge amounts of expenditure on health problems down the track and would deserve a Government subsidy. ( You know! 'I'm sure glad I took that holiday in Bali last year. The scan at the airport revealed the possibility of a malignant tumour. I got it checked out back home and sure enough it was a tumour. Thank God I caught it in time.')
Welcome to Ray's Brave new World .
-
I think people are missing the point. We can scan, frisk, interogate, and fondle passengers as they come through the security all we want and it won't for a minute stop the terrorists.
Has anybody heard of RPG's (Rocket Propelled Genades)?
So really the airport security should only be viewed as the last line of defence. The issue in the UK was detected and acted upon before anybody stepped foot on airport property. For that they need to be commended!
Kelly
-
Indeed they should be commended. And it is true - aircraft can be brought down with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers - this has been well-known for a long time - and tried.
The security people will insist on the importance of covering all angles including the frisking and scanning you mention, because without these measures it would be too easy. The fact that no airport scanner has probably intercepted an impending terror attack probably means two things: (1) this activity is doing what it is supposed to do, and (2) as a by-product has driven the scheming into more ingenious methods, making it harder to detect and eliminate. But none of that necessarily means we can't have intelligent processes at the gate which allow us to lead normal lives in safety.
-
Indeed they should be commended. And it is true - aircraft can be brought down with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers - this has been well-known for a long time - and tried.
The security people will insist on the importance of covering all angles including the frisking and scanning you mention, because without these measures it would be too easy. The fact that no airport scanner has probably intercepted an impending terror attack probably means two things: (1) this activity is doing what it is supposed to do, and (2) as a by-product has driven the scheming into more ingenious methods, making it harder to detect and eliminate. But none of that necessarily means we can't have intelligent processes at the gate which allow us to lead normal lives in safety.
-
The fact that no airport scanner has probably intercepted an impending terror attack probably means two things: (1) this activity is doing what it is supposed to do, and (2) as a by-product has driven the scheming into more ingenious methods, making it harder to detect and eliminate. But none of that necessarily means we can't have intelligent processes at the gate which allow us to lead normal lives in safety.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely right! The terrorists have to be foiled at every level. There's no single, simple solution, just as there isn't with climate change. We must simply (or complexly) do what we can.