Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JerseyT on January 14, 2010, 11:31:08 am
-
An interesting and informative article about the latest flying hassles. I only have one quibble.
If you put chargers and critical cables in your checked baggage, you could have a big problem.
If you're going to a remote place and your baggage doesn't arrive, you will not be able to use
your cameras and computer once the batteries run down. And there may be no way to
replace them before you return home.
I used to pack them as Michael suggests, but after a bit of a scare on a 3-week Hawaiian
trip I now carry the critical parts with me.
-
It's a judgement call. I feel that with at least two fully charged batteries in my camera bag I'm good until my lost bag arrives.
Michael
-
I have to ask...seven lenses?
I have to laugh, the forums always ask the question, what two lenses or what three lenses? Now I will ask, if you could only take seven lenses, what would they be?
So please tell, which were they?
Jack
-
I live in one country and work in another, flying some 100+ times a year. I love the TT Urban Disguise 60 and have used it now for over 2 years of travel. Holds my laptop, camera, lenses, a flash or two, all my spare HD's and bits, etc as well as a book, food and other stuff. Best of all it looks like a simple light laptop bag and has never once been questioned. I often carry 10-12 kilo in it and although recently the strap broke, TT fedex'd me a new one overnight to Jerusalem once I had emailed them a photo of the broken part. Lifetime warranty and they are good for it. If you don't carry all your gear with you every time you fly, if you're a PJ, etc, it's a very very good bag for flying with. Can't recommend it enough.
Something to keep in mind is that when flying from the UK they will weigh your hand luggage often. If it's a cheap airline then it's a given. Something like a TT Airport Antidote and certainly a pelican may well be over the weight limit when empty! When flying with a certain airline they would weigh the hand luggage again just before boarding to include all your duty free purchases (nasty people!). The people at the desks are usually mindless morons (in the UK at least and I'm English, I can say it ) a trick is to go to check in without your hand luggage, get a friend to hold it somewhere unseen, check in holding a book or something in your hand to look realistic then pick up your bag quietly afterwards and go to security. Another favorite trick if they will weigh your bag is cameras over your shoulder under your coat, load your pockets with lenses and hard drives, heck even ask your friend just to hold your laptop while you check in!
I personally have switched to a netbook rather than my powerful 3kg toshiba monster with 2 extra batteries. With my Asus 1000HE netbook, 320GB HD and 2GB RAM I get 8+ hour battery life (and I have two), it's slow but powerful enough to edit entire weddings, that's 1300+ RAW files in LR from RAW to completed jpg ready for the lab. It also does all my music, films, ebooks, yada, yada in a package a fraction of the size and weight of my previous laptop. Yes it's slow but I forgive it everything for it's tiny size. When you fly that much believe me it makes a huge difference. I couldn't even fully open my Toshiba in cattle class...
As for the battery chargers, tough one. I keep chargers for both cameras and laptop in both countries to be honest, I can't afford to arrive without when I'm shooting a wedding the next day. A camera battery charger is not big, put it in your coat with the plug and cable in your checked luggage, any electronics store will sell the canon cable at least, not sure about other manufacturers.
If your country has retina scan or fingerprint scan machines at customs, sign up for it! Nothing is more fustrating after the hell that is modern flight than having to wait in a long queue because a flight just got in before you with 200 half drunk toughs back from Majorca I'm signed up in both countries and boy does it make my life easier.
I hate flying so very much but hey, got to live...
-
Hi,
I'm not answering for Michael, but what I used to take is:
In the Kiboko:
12-24/4,5-5.6 Sigma EX
24-70/2.8 ZA
75-300/4.5-5.6 G APO
100/2.8 Macro
16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA (this is a APS-C only lens)
400/4.5 G APO
1.4x and 2.0x extenders
Two bodies: Sony Alpha 900 and 700
Add to this:
Tripod (in checked luggage)
Two extra batteries
Two chargers
I have to ask...seven lenses?
I have to laugh, the forums always ask the question, what two lenses or what three lenses? Now I will ask, if you could only take seven lenses, what would they be?
So please tell, which were they?
Jack
-
I fully support Michael's observations about carry-ons being weighted. Even worse if you have a small hard-shell carry-on with wheels. It's ALWAYS weighed (with rare exeptions). The best is a carry on without wheels that you keep on your back (backpack) during the check-in process (as if you forgot it's there). I often use a ThinkTank Airport Addicted which is about the largest permitted in the cabin. A larger bag that is not full is also usually accepted without question. A bag, even is smaller than the limit, is sometimes checked if it looks like it's filled beyond capacity.
I wish all airlines could agree on the same size for carry-on (and preferrably also weight). I experienced one low-fares airline in Europe that had a normal size-limit, but no weight limit on your carry-on as long as you could easily handle it yourself, and had no checked luggage. I liked that. Easy for both passenger and airline. Many of my trips are 2 - 3 day trips within Europe, and my ThinkTank can take all I need - cameras, computer and most necessary clothing.
Thomas
-
FWIW, I've had my roller bag weighted both in the UK and in the US. I now only travel with a non-roller bag and have yet to put my bag on a scale (sure enough, next flight will the first time ). Three years ago, n the UK, just before boarding the flight, an employee weighted carry-ons "by hand".
I always try to minimize air travel but sometimes it's impossible to do so, unfortunately.
-
I travel every few weeks on business within Europe with carry-on only, and a few times a year on business/pleasure with check-in around the world, and have had my carry-on weighed maybe once in the past five years. I usually travel with a carry-on wheeler and a laptop bag on top of it. In smaller planes they ask me to put the carry-on in the cargo hold, drop-off/pick up at the plane.
Discount airlines are notorious for adhering to weight rules, though. Or more accurately, they take every opportunity to squeeze more money out of their customers.
The secret is to check-in at home, or at the automatic counters (not sure if you even can check-in with a person these days at many airports in Europe unless you fly Business), this way there's less chance of nosy check-in personnel to take a closer look at what you're carrying. If you're really worried, make sure to have some questions requiring them to think, and ask them before they offload their check-in script at you
As for chargers, one of the best gadget buys I've ever done is an iGo charger with tips for my various gadgets. It's small and light, and fits in my carry-on so I'll be able to charge my phone even if Air France once again loses my luggage. Unfortunately they don't make tips/cradles for camera batteries, so I still have to lug around that - fortunately Canon's charger is very light.
edit: I've flown 6 legs within Europe since Christmas, and I've seen no changes in security whatsoever - and I'm based in Amsterdam. I imagine the story is very different going to the US, and I'll avoid that as long as I can - it has been a major hassle since 9/11 already.
-
Michael,
What you may not have known, since you were cut off from the news media, is that on Jan. 3 a guy snuck under the ropes into the secure area at Newark, after a TSA guard left his post. The guy (a Chinese national) just wanted to kiss his girlfriend good-bye. But after he kissed her, he walked off with her. Other passengers told the TSA guard, and the airport was shut down for hours, and flights all over the east coast were screwed up. The guy was located and arrested the following Friday or Saturday. In the meantime, the TSA at Newark was under harsh scrutiny, the question being asked, how could a guy just sneak in, right there in public? And why couldn't he be found afterwards? What you experienced was probably just the usual over-reaction by people whose bosses were afraid for their jobs...
-
I have to ask...seven lenses?
I have to laugh, the forums always ask the question, what two lenses or what three lenses? Now I will ask, if you could only take seven lenses, what would they be?
So please tell, which were they?
Jack
Leica M lenses are so small that there's no point in leaving any at home. Also they are almost all primes.
For low light I had the the 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm f/1.4 Sumiluxes
Longer lenses were the 90mm f/2 and 135mm f/3.5
I also had the f/4 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar and the f/4 16-18-21mm WA Tri-Elmar for daytime walkaround use.
Michael
-
Welcome home Michael, hope all went well.
Because you were out of touch, one snafu you may not be aware of is flying from Canada to the U.S. - NO carry-ons!
Camera and laptops are exempted if you can carry them sans bag. On the way home, one carry-on is allowed.
What a pain in the ass.
-
The other day I canceled a planned photo shoot in the USA. Unfortunate, but the hassle just isn't worth it, particularly from Canada, where the carry-on rules are both unusually tight by world standards and inconsistent. The ambiguity about the carry-on situation combined with the utter chaos at the airports makes it particularly unattractive to fly from this country. There will have to be great things to photograph within comfortable driving distance until the situation settles down.
-
I believe that most of the security procedures are "Security Theater" to make everyone feel safer. They keep adding security procedures only after a terrorists has used one they did not think about. They need to increase their spending in the area of infiltration and intelligence. If a person is willing to become a suicide bomber, I don't believe you can stop him at an airport check. In Saudi Arabia a member of the Royal Family was attacked by a suicide bomber where the bomb was up his rectum. They believe that it was detonated remotely. Are we all going to submit to a "cavity" search in order to board an airline? Give me a break. In many ways, if we continue in this way, the terrorists have won. They have made our lives miserable (we are no longer free to travel) and they have increased the costs of travel.
We are more safe today for two reasons...One, people in the cabin of an airliner are not going to sit passively if a person tries to take over the airplane. One man was killed when he made a dash for the cockpit. Two, the cockpit door is now reinforced and secure. Both of these things have added much more to our security than the "Security Theater" at the airports. They should use metal scanners for guns and knives and x-ray bags. More than that does little to increase security.
See Gwynne Dyer's article in the "Georgia Straight"
http://www.straight.com/article-279538/van...curity-measures (http://www.straight.com/article-279538/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-common-sense-should-trump-symbolic-security-measures)
Ray Maxwell
-
Thanks for the lens answer Michael,
If I had those lenses I would bring em all too.
And they take up about the same space as a Canon 24-70 2.8
Nice shots too. Is there a place where I can see more of them?
On the Canadian travel subject, with no carry-on, sounds like the right time to wear a photo vest.
-
Ray, I agree with most of this, and most of the real security experts say the same thing. A third reason why we're safer today is that there have been major improvements of S&I, and if we are to believe them, an unstated number of potential disasters have been apprehended over the years since 9/11 because of it. But there is nothing new about terrorism involving aviation. We're well into about four decades of it by now - reel your mind back to Furstenfeldbruck military airport in 1972. The fact is that S&I will never be 100%, so other measures are needed to catch the difference between 100% and what S&I can achieve. The only issue is the smartness or lack thereof with which it's done, and until the smartness improves the combination of photography and air travel, especially from Canada, will be difficult.
-
Because of my travels I was unaware until this evening of the new Canada to US flight restrictions. What insanity.
One solution is to drive or take a bus from Toronto to Buffalo, or Vancouver to Seattle, and fly from there. If enough of us did it Canadian carriers would get the message quickly enough and would pressure the government to regain their sanity.
Michael
-
Because of my travels I was unaware until this evening of the new Canada to US flight restrictions. What insanity.
One solution is to drive or take a bus from Toronto to Buffalo, or Vancouver to Seattle, and fly from there. If enough of us did it Canadian carriers would get the message quickly enough and would pressure the government to regain their sanity.
Michael
Well yes indeed - and there is more to it than that. The return airfare from Buffalo to Phoenix on SWA was going to be 221 USD. The return airfare from Toronto to Phoenix on Westjet was going to be 700 CAD. Buffalo International Airport allows carry-ons and Pearson doesn't. (But who knows - perhaps this could be a fluid situation depending on the uncertain nature of the environment). Toronto has the highest landing fees and airport/security taxes in the world, and all we get for it is chaos on an unprecedented scale. I've seen pictures of chaos at both Canadian and US airports during the past couple of weeks. The airlines are no angels either - they are participants in the utter incongruence of the whole situation. If you are flying from Toronto to Phoenix via Calgary on Westjet for example, there is a transit time of one hour and ten minutes to clear customs and security at Calgary airport, at a time when they know full well many travelers are reporting a three hour process to achieve this. Kevin O'Leary, our famous or infamous guru of business strategy, reported on the CBC news several days ago that it took him three hours wading through chaos at Pearson to board a flight from here to NYC. The airlines haven't amended their schedules and operating procedures to cover the inevitable lag between any lobbying they do and any change of policy they may achieve. It will take time for all this to settle down, especially with fresh news reports that this chap's underwear exploit may have been a test run of "new technology" with more to come. I really believe the only sensible policy for the time being is to avoid flying if at all possible and if you value your sanity. And anyone who needs to fly will just have to devote half a day to navigating the airport and "take a valium".
-
Because of my travels I was unaware until this evening of the new Canada to US flight restrictions. What insanity.
One solution is to drive or take a bus from Toronto to Buffalo, or Vancouver to Seattle, and fly from there. If enough of us did it Canadian carriers would get the message quickly enough and would pressure the government to regain their sanity.
Michael
Have you considered sending your camera equipment ahead to your shooting location in the US by FEDEX?
-
Because of my travels I was unaware until this evening of the new Canada to US flight restrictions. What insanity.
One solution is to drive or take a bus from Toronto to Buffalo, or Vancouver to Seattle, and fly from there. If enough of us did it Canadian carriers would get the message quickly enough and would pressure the government to regain their sanity.
Michael
I have friends travelling tomorrow with gear and that's exactly what they opted to do and they told Air Canada exactly why they cancelled their tickets last minute and decided to fly from Buffalo to Arizona instead of directly from Toronto. As you state in the article there are not a lot of options when you're carrying expensive gear -- aside from maybe to courier it to your location ahead of time ... but when you're shipping $20k+ worth of equipment it also ups the hassles in a big way ... shipping insurance, someone you trust on the other end to accept it (or ship last minute and hope that it arrives in time for you to accept it before your gig) ... the added cost of shipping, etc.
Why are we canadians being targeted out so specifically I wonder when flights from EU are not ... or is it just the Air Canada (and their smaller affiliated airlines) are just more willing to cave and for the sake of (their) simplicity just say no carry ons at all?
-
IWhy are we canadians being targeted out so specifically I wonder when flights from EU are not ... or is it just the Air Canada (and their smaller affiliated airlines) are just more willing to cave and for the sake of (their) simplicity just say no carry ons at all?
Don't blame the Americans or Air Canada for this. It is home-made. The carry-on policy is made by Transport Canada and implemented by CATSA. The motivation is very simple - the less they allow us to carry-on the less screening space and the fewer staff they need. Instead of being ready to cope with the increased security arrangements which the periodic episode or S&I warnings indicate would be advised, they heap the consequences on the travelers - notwithstanding the huge amount of airport tax and fees they collect from us. It is a scandal which goes well beyond inconveniencing us traveling photographers, but we're obviously in the front line of the consequences. What's worse is the inconsistency of policy statements we're getting on the issue. One doesn't really know exactly what to do - except keep away.
-
Just went from Canada to Amsterdam to Addis Ababa (through Khartoum), Landing late last night.
All was pretty much the same as on the way home. I was worried about going though Amsterdam (as that was part of the foiled routes), but it wasn't a problem as the security routine was the same as before.
I did however forget to take my watch off as I went though the metal detector in Amsterdam, and got a very thorough pat down. Particularly on the posterior.
- Mike
p.s. I also flew porter last week (Toronto <-> Halifax) and nothing out of the ordinary there.
-
Have you considered sending your camera equipment ahead to your shooting location in the US by FEDEX?
That's the only way I can do it. I have too much to begin with, especially video, and have the stuff delivered to my room or person of confidence, usually a company rep or someone on the project. At least I board the plane knowing my stuff is waiting for me. With regards to spur of the moment and failure to plan shoots... Hertz and Greyhound are going to appreciate the increased revenue...
Let me add to that... I do company work, so any added time and cost will be the nature of the beast, but what about you freelancers trying to justify the added cost and time, how would that factor into the project? Would that not make a local's hire more attractive due to an increased bottom line? Crazy. I can feel your pain.
-
About carry on limitations, I fully agree with Michael when he writes "This is simply ridiculous and unacceptable."
In an other "topic", in France there are a lot of limitations and obstacles to get a passport when your parents are not both born in France, which is my situation. Ridiculous requests are asked for, while I was a french soldier in the french army and my job is reserved to french citizen and so on.
In french we use to say : "Les cons se permettent tout, c'est à ça qu'on les reconnait" which could be translated as: assholes permit themselves everything that's the way they are known.
-
FWIW: This article posted on CATSA (Canadian Air Transport Security Authority) says we are allowed cameras, lenses, batteries, chargers, cables, etc. in a "purpose-designed carrying case".
http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/file/library/...ms08jan10EN.pdf (http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/file/library/71/english/ExemptItems08jan10EN.pdf)
http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/Page.aspx?ID=...res&lang=en (http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/Page.aspx?ID=77&pname=measures_mesures&lang=en)
Interesting though there is no effective date on the article. Hummmm
Of course that's assuming that security is familiar with the guidlines.
I think we live in a time where we have to be prepared to fly separately from our camera gear. I don't know exactly how I'm going to do that yet but have a trip planned at the end of February so I'll definitely be thinking about it.
-
This is VERY recent and a welcome change. Let us hope it lasts and they get the processes in the airports back to some normal level of efficiency.
-
Anyone considering shipping camera equipment should check with tax authorities and customs - you might end up paying taxes and duties even if they're for own use, and used. Be prepared for discussions with public officials to get to your gear, and bring receipts.
-
One solution is to drive or take a bus from Toronto to Buffalo, or Vancouver to Seattle, and fly from there. If enough of us did it Canadian carriers would get the message quickly enough and would pressure the government to regain their sanity.
From my experience, Canadians flying out of BUF is already very popular. I frequently drive from Rochester to take advantage of SouthWest and have found the flights to be heavily utilized by our Northern neighbors. I've often wondered if (higher passenger volumes due to proximity to Canada) is why Buffalo has better fares and flight schedules than Rochester, only 60 miles away... So please, keep 'em coming!!
Greg
-
kbolin - While on one hand the policy states that a designated camera bag is allowed, Air Canada states that no roll-ons of any type are allowed. I have a carry on size, roll-on Lowepro camera case - duh. Think I'll hang my cameras around my neck and stuff my oversized pockets with lenses. Now, if I only had one of those rectal shaped light meters, I'd be fine!
-
kbolin - While on one hand the policy states that a designated camera bag is allowed, Air Canada states that no roll-ons of any type are allowed. I have a carry on size, roll-on Lowepro camera case - duh. Think I'll hang my cameras around my neck and stuff my oversized pockets with lenses. Now, if I only had one of those rectal shaped light meters, I'd be fine!
Then don't use Air Canada. There's only one way the clowns get the message - when it costs them.
-
Mark - didn't realize I had. I booked a United flight and found out later that it was actually operated by AC. Bummer.
Michael mentioned earlier about locked check-in bags not being allowed by the TSA. I've never checked in my gear so this was news to me. I'm going to Miami next week and had toyed with the idea of putting my back-up gear and cheaper items in a locked, check-in bag, while I hand carry the bare essentials on board. Anyone have any experience on this?
-
As far as I know - and you should check this on the TSA website, you ARE allowed to lock checked luggage as long as the ONLY locks used are TSA-approved, for which they have a pass key they can use to open them in case they wish to hand-inspect your bag. While this still runs some risk of back-room theft, it is obviously less risky than no locks at all.
-
Then don't use Air Canada. There's only one way the clowns get the message - when it costs them.
Don't blame Air Canada - these are CATSA (government) rules. The only blame the airlines should accept is that of not lobbying CATSA for sensible rules on behalf of their customers.
I believe that air travel will diminish and that tourist areas of the US in particular will feel the pinch. The hassle is so not worth it - I've changed one of my leisure trips from the southern US to the West Indies.
Bill
-
Bill-I'm not blaming Air Canada for thus rule, I blame them for generally shitty service and a disregard for their customers - which is why I booked United and then found I got sandbagged and am flying Air Canada anyway.
If anyone should be experienced in moving large numbers of people on U.S. bound flights, every day, it should be us. No wonder we're the butt of so many American jokes.
-
Don't blame Air Canada - these are CATSA (government) rules. The only blame the airlines should accept is that of not lobbying CATSA for sensible rules on behalf of their customers.
I believe that air travel will diminish and that tourist areas of the US in particular will feel the pinch. The hassle is so not worth it - I've changed one of my leisure trips from the southern US to the West Indies.
Bill
The airlines probably are lobbying. Why they should allow a laptop in a case without wheels versus a case with wheels is of course well beyond any sensible person's comprehension.
-
Bill-I'm not blaming Air Canada for thus rule, I blame them for generally shitty service and a disregard for their customers - which is why I booked United and then found I got sandbagged and am flying Air Canada anyway.
If anyone should be experienced in moving large numbers of people on U.S. bound flights, every day, it should be us. No wonder we're the butt of so many American jokes.
In this case it has been a lot more serious than jokes. For the economy of Toronto, where tourism makes a substantial contribution, this whole situation has the potential of being a disaster. The apparent incompetence and chaos of people movement, baggage handling and implementation of screening at Pearson airport has made it into the New York Times several times over the past couple of weeks, as well as into other regional US media - friends have been sending me links - describing the overall situation and individual travelers' horror stories. We must be getting a terribly bad name from all this negative publicity and it's bound to cost us unless they clean-up their act pretty soon.
-
I have heard of some crews with large amounts of expensive gear that cannot be carried on using the TSA's firearm rule to their benefit.
Place a starter pistol, or inexpensive flare gun (unloaded of course) in a pelican case with the equipment. You may lock this case with your own lock. Declare the firearm's presence at check in. It will be searched and cleared by a security officer in your presence, at which time the case will be locked and you will retain your key. There may be paperwork attached to the case. Apparently firearm cases are handled differently - TSA takes missing firearm carrying luggage seriously.
Different airlines may have different rules...but an unloaded flare gun should present few problems.
To me this sounds like the most secure way to transport precious cargo that you can't carry yourself.
-
I have heard of some crews with large amounts of expensive gear that cannot be carried on using the TSA's firearm rule to their benefit.
Place a starter pistol, or inexpensive flare gun (unloaded of course) in a pelican case with the equipment. You may lock this case with your own lock. Declare the firearm's presence at check in. It will be searched and cleared by a security officer in your presence, at which time the case will be locked and you will retain your key. There may be paperwork attached to the case. Apparently firearm cases are handled differently - TSA takes missing firearm carrying luggage seriously.
Different airlines may have different rules...but an unloaded flare gun should present few problems.
To me this sounds like the most secure way to transport precious cargo that you can't carry yourself.
Looks like I might be wrong about them attaching a notifying tag to the luggage. But there must be some shortcut the case takes once its cleared in your presence, otherwise your non TSA lock would halt it in the processing of normal luggage.
-
From the allowed list provided - which does not have a date, - there are a few interesting points: I cannot recall seeing any disclaimer regards equipment carriage, is it worth putting one on just incase?
Knitting needles, provided accompanied by wool.... OK thanks for the tip, so don't complete your woolly on sector one or your in trouble!
Religious items (ie Prayer Matt...) Could an IED be classed as a religious item when used in what certain people claim to be a religious war!
Seriously, as a former commercial pilot I've lived with ever increasing security for many years. The decisions have to be made very quick with limited info in a way that both protects the decision makers from blame if anything does happen while ensuring all security staff have a clear picture of what is required. Michael is quiet right that there is also the need to balance what can be done with the staffing resources. In the 2006 liquid case in the UK for a few days it was NO baggage at all. Even pilots could not take any hand luggage onto the flights except the flight paperwork, a pen and ones pilots license / passport.
It becomes a very black and white scenario for the decision makers even though the world is full of colour. Most folks do get along with just some additional time requirements - but there are always one or two security people who want to make a name for themselves in the same way some travellers insist of pushing the rules and then report back to the world on forums etc about how out of order things are.
I agree that some of the security appears theatre but in reality, despite at least 15 years of this kind of targeting aviation more than any other industry very, very little has succeeded. Remember hi profile Hijacks used to be fairly a frequent thing, but very little now. Most of what gets stopped never reaches any level of public news. It is easy to forget that at times - but I agree it is still a pain.
Weight of Hand Baggage - This become MUCH MORE CRITICAL when flying on smaller aeroplanes so while the chances of having it weighed on a 747 are low if your heading somewhere on a small flight in a repeatable airline then this will probably be part of the weight and balance calculations. Also if a flight is very full or close to the performance limits then individual weights may be required if suspected to be over the standard used weights.
Steven
-
This "Security Theater" has to stop, it is getting absolutely intolerable.
I wonder what would happen if a terrorist decides to take a flight, dressed in a smart suit with a bomb hidden in his laptop...
What will they do then? Will they dare to strip-search everybody wearing a suit? Will they forbid laptops in the cabin?
-
The trouble with this sort of theme is that we all want 'them' to do something to provide 100% guarantees of safety, but only if it doesn't inconvenience us in any way.
The only possible manner of doing this - save lives, perhaps - is to do the politically incorrect thing: provide separate flights/airlines for the separate types of people. After all, as with much of the bullshit about 'victimised' minorities, there is little point in looking for religious terrorists within a clearly non-ethnic group. Of course, you may find one, but the chances are not good. Until the obvious becomes obvious enough to be unavoidable, we all shall suffer.
How tragic that it has become the rôle of the outcast to say such things within the political medium, the rest ignoring it for fear of alienating part of the possible voter base.
Hope this doesn't kill the thread, but I believe it needed saying.
Rob C
-
This "Security Theater" has to stop, it is getting absolutely intolerable.
I wonder what would happen if a terrorist decides to take a flight, dressed in a smart suit with a bomb hidden in his laptop...
What will they do then? Will they dare to strip-search everybody wearing a suit? Will they forbid laptops in the cabin?
Security can and does scan laptops with chemical detection equipment. The bed guys have become more "sophisticated" than this. As the more obvious loopholes have been plugged, they develop less obvious ones to exploit. Unfortunately, unless (if possible) there comes a political solution to the underlying causes of this terrorism, the "cat and mouse game" will not stop.
-
The trouble with this sort of theme is that we all want 'them' to do something to provide 100% guarantees of safety, but only if it doesn't inconvenience us in any way.
The only possible manner of doing this - save lives, perhaps - is to do the politically incorrect thing: provide separate flights/airlines for the separate types of people. After all, as with much of the bullshit about 'victimised' minorities, there is little point in looking for religious terrorists within a clearly non-ethnic group. Of course, you may find one, but the chances are not good. Until the obvious becomes obvious enough to be unavoidable, we all shall suffer.
How tragic that it has become the rôle of the outcast to say such things within the political medium, the rest ignoring it for fear of alienating part of the possible voter base.
Hope this doesn't kill the thread, but I believe it needed saying.
Rob C
Rob, as a bunch of traveling photographers we are looking for ways of being able to carry our stuff safely while being reasonably assured of reaching our destinations intact. No-one in their right mind should expect "100% guarantees of safety" because there is no such thing, and everyone for the better part of three decades now has been tolerating inconvenience in the name of safety. So I don't think your starting premise is on-point. What we are now facing from Transport Canada is a different animal: extreme and irrational procedures which they considered necessary because they didn't have in place the optimal stragegy and resourcing to deal systematically and systemically with a peak danger event, while minimizing massive inconvenience to travelers and the commercial damage which results therefrom. It is in this sense that Ray Maxwell has a point when he says the terrorists are winning.
As for targeting - that already happens, and the focus of the US Administration since this incident is to find out exactly how their targeting procedures were flawed. Targeting needs to identify really dangerous people regardless of their passports or how they dress. The smarter the targeting, the less inconvenience and the less danger for the rest of us. But smart targeting does not mean segregating people by ethnicity. Even if it were "politically correct", which it isn't, the terrorists would soon work around it.
I see three strands of a solution to the problem we face: (1) political - to deal with root causes, (2) improved intelligence processes and (3) much smarter and better resourced passenger scanning at airports. Once enough additional headway has been made on these three fronts, it may then be possible to carry our stuff into aircraft with relative ease and convenience.
-
And until all three of Mark's strands get adequate attention, I've begun to look more closely at photographic opportunities that are within driving distance of where I live. There's lots to see in New England and the Maritimes. And, so far at least, crossing the U.S./Canada border in an automobile isn't nearly the hassle of any airline flight.
Eric
-
I think this whole thng has gotten off point. Nobody would argue against security that keeps us all safe. The issue here is that no other country has introduced the "no carry-on" measures that Canada has. This has not been done for security reasons it has been done because security staff are inadequate and stretched too thin already, and we can't afford the economic disaster that would befall us if an attack was launched on the U.S. from Canadian soil. This is about administrative incompetence, not security. You can get in and out of Ben Gurion airport quicker than Pearson and its secured like a fortress.
-
And until all three of Mark's strands get adequate attention, I've begun to look more closely at photographic opportunities that are within driving distance of where I live. There's lots to see in New England and the Maritimes. And, so far at least, crossing the U.S./Canada border in an automobile isn't nearly the hassle of any airline flight.
Eric
Hi Eric, interesting you say that. From here in Toronto, I've been looking into exactly that sort of thing. For example, it seems there is particularly rich and *relatively* under-exploited photographic potential in the provincial and national parks of Newfoundand/Labrador - more of a stretch without flying, but still possible.
-
I think this whole thng has gotten off point. Nobody would argue against security that keeps us all safe. The issue here is that no other country has introduced the "no carry-on" measures that Canada has. This has not been done for security reasons it has been done because security staff are inadequate and stretched too thin already, and we can't afford the economic disaster that would befall us if an attack was launched on the U.S. from Canadian soil. This is about administrative incompetence, not security. You can get in and out of Ben Gurion airport quicker than Pearson and its secured like a fortress.
It hasn't gotten off-point; and I agree, we have mainly a management problem - see posts 15, 17, 20, 35 and 42.
-
Hi Eric, interesting you say that. From here in Toronto, I've been looking into exactly that sort of thing. For example, it seems there is particularly rich and *relatively* under-exploited photographic potential in the provincial and national parks of Newfoundand/Labrador - more of a stretch without flying, but still possible.
Alas, my only three trips to Toronto have been to switch planes on the way to Calgary and the Canadian Rockies (just about my favorite areas on earth, so far). But there is a lot of lovely stuff, though less spectacular, in places like Fundy or Kejimkujik National Parks or several others even just in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI. Much of the drive through Quebec will be boring and bumpy but much less painful than dealing with any airport! And Montreal and Quebec City are both great treasures.
I'm thinking also of crossing the U.S. by train some day, with a few days stops at a couple of places along the way, and then taking a rental car up to Vancouver, where I've never been yet.
There's lots of good stuff to see in this continent!
Eric
-
Much of the drive through Quebec will be boring and bumpy but much less painful than dealing with any airport! And Montreal and Quebec City are both great treasures.
If you refer to the south shore of the St. Lawrence and the area of Hwy 401 west to Ontario, I would agree. However the main section of Quebec north of the Ottawa river and north of the St Lawrence and Gulf of St Lawrence is stunning and under-visited. In particular the Charlevoix and Saguenay/Lac Saint Jean regions north east of Quebec City are superb.
BTW - attempt to get the thread back to topic
I just flew Delta from Madrid>JFK>Toronto and had no problems or significant delays caused by security. My ThinkTank 'Airport International' roll-on cabin bag carried all video & still equip. and attracted no more attention than normal. However, weather in Europe was another story...
-
Transport Canada still has a "no wheels" policy in place for carry-ons, so at this time, getting back to Canada with it is no problem (in this respect more rational regulation abroad and in the USA), but under present conditions you wouldn't get out with it, unless you leave from Buffalo International.
OK, we can start a new thread on "Transport Canada-proof alternatives for making landscape/cityscape photographs".
-
Mark - I'm in on the new thread. I'm flying out next Monday and still don't know what to do. Written policy about allowing camera bags is one thing, but what happens when I'm standing in the terminal and they give me a hard time and tell me that my bag doesn't conform?
-
Mark - I'm in on the new thread. I'm flying out next Monday and still don't know what to do. Written policy about allowing camera bags is one thing, but what happens when I'm standing in the terminal and they give me a hard time and tell me that my bag doesn't conform?
Good question, and why I'm avoiding our airports until the dust settles and the actual implementation of sensible rules appears satisfactory. Anyhow, if one needs to fly, so far it looks as if as long as you carry one bag (plus a laptop in a thin case), no wheels, and is within the weight and size limits, you should be OK, before or after a commotion with either airline or security staff, depending on who wants to be sticky. As for the weight issue, wear a photog vest and be prepared to off-load heavy items into the pockets.
-
The rules state "purpose designed carrying case". I don't carry a camera bag- thief magnets in my mind. I use a canvas weekend bag and don't feel like spending two or three hundred bucks to purchase a camera bag I won't use once this is over. Whether I "conform" or not, is strictly in the eye (and mood) of the beholder. My larger case, still carry-on sized, has wheels which appear to be fprbidden. Either way, I fall between the cracks and will be at the mercy of arbitrary judgement. And we all know how petty that can get at times.
I investigated shipping my gear one way by Fedex ground to Miami, and they wanted more than the cost of my round trip air ticket! Then there's still the issue that it's out of my sight and at the mercy of baggage handlers.
-
Andy, I noticed that about the rules. I too think it's all still in a very unsettled state with lots of scope for screw-ups at the airport. Completely unsatisfactory.
-
Looks like things have improved as of today.
"Beginning tomorrow, the 20th of January, passengers flying from Canada to the United States may board their flights with a full size carry on bag, measuring 9″ x 16″ x 22″ (23cm x 40cm x 55cm), or 47 linear inches.
In addition to this full-size carry on bag, an important piece of information for photographers is that you may also board your flight with a laptop-briefcase or camera bag."
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfi...-baggage-again/ (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/01/19/canada-to-us-flights-allow-carry-on-baggage-again/)
-
Looks like things have improved as of today.
"Beginning tomorrow, the 20th of January, passengers flying from Canada to the United States may board their flights with a full size carry on bag, measuring 9″ x 16″ x 22″ (23cm x 40cm x 55cm), or 47 linear inches.In addition to this full-size carry on bag, an important piece of information for photographers is that you may also board your flight with a laptop-briefcase or camera bag."
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfi...-baggage-again/ (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/01/19/canada-to-us-flights-allow-carry-on-baggage-again/)
I may be dumb, but what in hell does that mean? How do you equate a maximum dimension of 22 inches with 47 linear inches? Is it how 22 inches would look if you subjected them to the tender mercies of a rolling pin? It makes no sense at all.
Rob C
-
I may be dumb, but what in hell does that mean? How do you equate a maximum dimension of 22 inches with 47 linear inches? Is it how 22 inches would look if you subjected them to the tender mercies of a rolling pin? It makes no sense at all.
Rob C
"Linear inches" in airline speak is the total of the L+D+H dimensions.
-
I may be dumb, but what in hell does that mean? How do you equate a maximum dimension of 22 inches with 47 linear inches? Is it how 22 inches would look if you subjected them to the tender mercies of a rolling pin? It makes no sense at all.
Rob C
I had to follow several links and dig into Air Canada's web site to find a definition: "The linear dimensions of a piece of baggage are calculated by adding together its height, width and length." (their emphasis). So even a 0.5" x 0.5" x 46" stick should fail into that rule...
-
Sanity prevails. But we may need a Royal Commission to delve into how common sense crept into this situation.
Cheers.
-
Looks like things have improved as of today.
"Beginning tomorrow, the 20th of January, passengers flying from Canada to the United States may board their flights with a full size carry on bag, measuring 9″ x 16″ x 22″ (23cm x 40cm x 55cm), or 47 linear inches.
In addition to this full-size carry on bag, an important piece of information for photographers is that you may also board your flight with a laptop-briefcase or camera bag."
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfi...-baggage-again/ (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/01/19/canada-to-us-flights-allow-carry-on-baggage-again/)
This is beginning to sound better, but much depends on implementation. If you read the comments below the article you referenced it is clear that idiotic practices still prevail, hence the uncertainty about how to travel has not been fundamentally mitigated.
-
This is beginning to sound better, but much depends on implementation. If you read the comments below the article you referenced it is clear that idiotic practices still prevail, hence the uncertainty about how to travel has not been fundamentally mitigated.
Mark,
As you well know anything run by a government, administered by bureaucrats, and operated by undertrained and underpaid staff is bound to be FUBAR. What else is new?
Michael
-
Mark,
As you well know anything run by a government, administered by bureaucrats, and operated by undertrained and underpaid staff is bound to be FUBAR. What else is new?
Michael
Nothing - and at very high cost to individuals and to the economy.
Mark
-
Nothing - and at very high cost to individuals and to the economy.
Mark
And if by govt. employees (in the UK at least), you have the reassuring knowledge that you will be paying for their very high pensions too. Who'd be a freelance! Don't answer that - I know, I know, I know!
Rob C
-
I doubt that these poor buggers get a pension. They strike me as poorly paid and poorly trained individuals. Tough airport security is here to stay, maybe it's about time to put some effort into making this a decent job for people, commensurate with their responsibilities and our expectations. I for one wouldn't mind an extra $5 added to the cost of my ticket for a professional security force that kept me secure and didn't take their job dissatisfaction out on me.
-
Andy - we - especially in Canada - are ALREADY paying for all that - and through the nose. We have amongst the highest surcharges anywhere I know of. The issue may be more a question of management and training than of salaries and benefits.
-
In the race between Arms and Armour, historically Arms wins every time.
Unfortunatly it seems we do live in the Nanny state where a vocal minority can make enough noise to scare people in charge (politicians) to do almost anything.
It is a classic problem for intelligence services. Their failures are public, their success, private. With the way politics work they must be 'seen' to be doing something, as well as actually doing it.
A line from the british comedy, yes Minister, springs to mind. "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it".
For reference, I am ex military(navy, submarines) and I do belive in having decent security at airports and other places, but what we have now is ridiculous and IMHO the terrorists have indeed won, or are at least winning.
They forced us (the world) to change our way of life, and be grossly inconvenienced, whilst they are really not.
The case of the man with the twitter page is a good example. Is what he did dumb in the current climate ? of course it is. The problem is the climate and the current rules. The famous quote by Benjamin franklin from 1775 pretty much wraps that one up.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" In this case, the essential liberty is being able to speak without censor, and express thoughts on topics or make jokes without fear of the police crashing down on your house !.
Using another example, an extremley common expression of frustration is "I'm going to kill you for that', or a teenager (or married person for that matter !) "I'm going to get killed when get home (this late, this drunk,etc) " or any other variations on this theme. Yet when this is heard in general conversation, people do not rush off and call the police about an attempted murder, report a potential homicide, or even get arrested for making a deadly threat. Are there exceptions, of course there are, but not normally.
Mark.
(Sydney, Australia)
-
Mark,
As you well know anything run by a government, administered by bureaucrats, and operated by undertrained and underpaid staff is bound to be FUBAR. What else is new?
Michael
You mean, as opposed to bankers and insurance company CEOs?
It's traditional to make fun of civil servants, and they're often not undeserving may I add, but I worked for 25 years in the private sector before working in a federal civil service related job for the past 3-4 years, and the notion that private companies are efficient just makes me laugh out loud. Some are, of course, and I worked for a couple, but many are not, and I worked for a bunch of those too.
Jokes about the wasteful civil service usually crop up when economies take a nosedive and people in the private sector get "negatively absorbed" (overheard once in an elevator). Do you want 25% of the police services or snow plow operators to be laid off just because the economy is tanking for a few months? How come the leaders of those private corporations are never taken to task for failing to plan for the bad times, thus necessitating the private sector layoffs? Isn't long-term strategic planning the reason why their CEOs make big bucks, at least that's what I remember from the Mazlow pyramids in those pretentious talks I used to have to attend?
I am not an apologist for the civil service, far from it, just that you don't have to look far to find incompetence in the non-governmental world.
-
I was a public servant too for a good many years, and I well know there are excellent people working for the public service of Canada. Including personal friends. And I also know that incompetence and inefficiency exists in the private sector, as does excellence - depends on who, where. The difference is that if we don't like what they are doing we can punish private companies by not buying their stuff, but we have no control over the government; we pay and they decide. We are at their mercy to make sensible decisions and implement them in a sensible way, and the specific instance which is the topic of this thread was not sensible either in concept or implementation. Fortunately the worst of it seems to be over - for now.
-
I was a public servant too for a good many years, and I well know there are excellent people working for the public service of Canada. Including personal friends. And I also know that incompetence and inefficiency exists in the private sector, as does excellence - depends on who, where. The difference is that if we don't like what they are doing we can punish private companies by not buying their stuff, but we have no control over the government; we pay and they decide. We are at their mercy to make sensible decisions and implement them in a sensible way, and the specific instance which is the topic of this thread was not sensible either in concept or implementation. Fortunately the worst of it seems to be over - for now.
I don't disagree. Decisions usually take longer in the civil service, but sometimes that's justified because the impact of the decisions will have effects over a generation and not just the next quarter. Sometimes the delays are not justified though, and when those hit the papers people are angry, and they should be. Then there are situations in which politicians need to score public points in a hurry because everybody is watching and the pressure is on. Politicians in a hurry and real-world public security, a bad combo. Lots of things need a long-term view, but where do we get that nowadays?
As for the current issue, it's the nightmare of our times, isn't it? We've reached the point where even an incompetent third-rater like the Dec. 25 underwear-fire bomber can cause major havoc in the world. It's understandable that people are upset. We keep being promised security if we just buy this next contraption or subject ourselves to more personal invasion, and then those are shown not to work that well. Makes it that much harder to believe the next promise. It all makes the job of the terrorists a little easier, in the sense that they don't need to do as "good" a job to achieve the same aim. But I'll be damned if I know what that aim is anymore.
I have no idea what to do about any of this. But it's beginning to look a little to me like the drug war. After decades of active "warfare" against those criminals who distribute illegal substances, there is no shortage of any of the product anywhere. In some countries, the criminal gangs challenge local governments. So then maybe the entire drug war approach is wrong. No one can claim it's working, not with a straight face. Despite having massive armies there, and despite being inhabited by people who we are told have strong conservative religious beliefs, Afghanistan is supposedly the world's main supplier of opium poppies. How can that be? And I read in Macleans this week that terrorist organization forge strong alliances with drug exporter/importers as a way to raise funds. Supposedly strongly religious-influenced terror groups rely on drugs and random murder to further their aims! There is a disconnect here. It doesn't add up.
-
I see you have a blogspot for rants. Perhaps that's a good place for the more far-reaching aspects of this situation. As far as L-L is concerned, let us just be thankful for the time being that some sanity is returning to air travel for photographers.
-
You're quite correct, Mark, I got caught up in it there for a moment. Sorry for the tangent.
-
It's a judgement call. I feel that with at least two fully charged batteries in my camera bag I'm good until my lost bag arrives.
Michael
There is still the risk that it may not arrive or it may not be able to follow/find you.
Imagine, if you will. your trip to Osa Peninsula in Costa Rica. If you had planned (due to time constraints) to embark on a 5 day camping trek in the national park the day you arrived in Osa, I daresay your airline would not have been able to locate you and provide you with the spare batteries you'd so desparately want.
I once arrived in India for a month long trip with no luggage. Alitalia was unable to find my luggage (it had been sitting in Tehran?!) until 2 weeks AFTER I returned home to T.O. Luckily I had my laptop, camera and lenses, spare batteries, rechargers, sensor cleaning equipment et al. in my laptop bag. For me the biggest hassle was calling the airline to let them know of my hotel (as I moved every 3 to 4 days) in the faint hope they'd locate it and send it to me.
-
I'll be flying next week from Ottawa via Toronto to Vegas for a shoot with a whole whack of camera gear on my back. Has anyone heard if there have been any changes (improvements hopefully) at Pearson as far as the "holding area" is concerned? Is it still complete chaos there?
Looking at the carry on restrictions it seems that one can fill a fairly large camera bag with gear as long as it fits the main carry on size and weight and even put additional camera gear in a "purse" as long it fits the size restriction (10x12x5.5 in).