Airport Screening and Film -Field Results 2007

[bbinboulder]

Post Summary: Summary of Recent Trip-Comments on International Travel and Airport Screening as of Feb 2007.

For ease of digestion, this post is organized into a summary comments with full details below that.

Overview
Trip taken with multiple airport stops between Denver, USA and Malaga Spain, round trip. Carrying unexposed and exposed 120 film ASA 160 and 200. Film was placed in checked luggage on outboud trip and in hand-carry bag upon return. Both unexposed and exposed film has been processed and found damage free. As each trip presents a unique set of circumstances, please read the bulk of this post before "jumping" to any conclusions about the efficacy of carrying film on your trip. I got lucky this time, you may not be so blessed.

In general, if you choose jet travel and are carrying film, there is a high potential for extra hassle and potential film damage. However, the process can be managed with good planing and and a a dose of forbearance. One quick comment: At the airport, never challenge the TSA personnel. They are there to protect you and they are the law. With very few exceptions they are good people trying to do a very difficult job. If you can't hang with this, then do not attempt to run film through carry-on bags. Road rage will definitely get you busted-or worse.

General Comments
1. On the outbound trip from Denver to Spain the unexposed film was in the checked baggage. I have subsequently learned that this is a a bad idea as checked bags are subject to high power X ray inspection. On the return trip, film was carried as hand baggage and run through multiple scans.

2. Actual security procedures applied to carry-on items appears to vary somewhat depending on which airport you pass through and the disposition of the TSA personnel you encounter. Some are cool as cucumbers, others jumpy. In any event, don't challenge the judgement of any TSA by attempting to quote chapter and verse of their written regulations. Doing so will only get you, and your film fried.

For instance, when I asked for a hand check: In Spain the TSA asked me to break a single roll out of a brick and strip the packaging then OK'd the lot. In Chicago, I had to unbox every roll of unexposed film and strip the plastic inner liner as well. At Heath Row, I had to take a roll of unexposed film and unspool it for a TSA Manager so they could actually see that it was film, then they insisted on running it through their scanner anyway.

More of this post later: Must work now.

 

[jstraw]

A percentage of people cannot help but respond poorly to being given a badge, especially if it represents the most authority that person has had or can ever expect to have...and the lack of authority has represented a void to them. It's a small percentage but they're out there.

 

[bnelson]

Does anyone how much more x-ray exposure checked baggage has compared to the carry on?

 

[gr82bart]

Hmm ... first and only post and this is what he talks about. I don't buy it.

Sorry, Art.

 

[Alan Davenport]

Does anyone how much more x-ray exposure checked baggage has compared to the carry on?

Here is some information from Kodak about film and x-ray screening:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/tib5201.jhtml

Alan

 

[dmr]

Does anyone how much more x-ray exposure checked baggage has compared to the carry on?

I know there have been examples posted of film that has been intentionally put thru these, and the results are nasty.

However, I once accidentally left a partly exposed roll of Fuji 800 in a camera in checked baggage at MDW. I expected it to be badly fogged, but to my surprise it was normal with no darkening of the unexposed sprocket areas.

My guess is that for one reason or another, my bag was not scanned with x-ray.

 

[DWThomas]

My guess is that for one reason or another, my bag was not scanned with x-ray.

Yes, I suspect not every airport uses high-power baggage scanners, or they may only scan random (or carefully chosen) samples. And of course the powers that be will never disclose what airports do and what ones don't. My wife accidentally left two exposed 400 APS cartridges in her checked bag from Italy a few years back and they were OK. My impression is that one dare not count on this good luck as a regular thing. however.

I've often wondered if the percentage of stuff scanned depends on how backed up the process is. I've long suspected some of the airport security is to make passengers feel that "something is being done" so they'll continue to fly. But if the process gets too onerous, the airlines will lose revenue. So there is a lot of visibility, but maybe not too much interference with throughput.

DaveT

 

[jd callow]

Hmm ... first and only post and this is what he talks about. I don't buy it.

Sorry, Art.

Gee art where is your faith in humankind? I don't see anything here to make me think he is lying or has some agenda. My travel experiences aren't similar, but it gives me no reason to suspect the OP is lying.
Off of the top of my head...
Heathrow: refused to hand check
Gatwick: refused to hand check
Minsk 2: refused to hand check
Detroit Metro: Mostly hand checked sometimes not
San Fran: hand checked.
Atlanta: ?
Denver: ?
Dallas: Hand Check
SeaTac: Hand Check
LAX: Hand Checked
Ohare: Don't remember, but I believe they scanned at least once.
Vancouver: refused to hand check
Amsterdam: refused to hand check
Bucharest: Waved through (they loved us Yanks)
I've been through the jersey and NYC airports often and always had it scanned, but I don't remember if I ever asked for a hand check.

I believe the only film fogging I ever had was a Minsk>Amsterdam>Ohare>Detroit nightmare where I spent 12 hours in the air over 1 and one half days and had my film scanned at each stop

 

[Mark_S]

My non-scientific, totally anecdotal input:
I have flown several times, both domestically and through europe carrying both MF and LF film. I always hand carry the film, and generally carry on the cameras - there are fewer questions when they see the camera that belongs to the 'strange' film. Unopened boxes of sheet film have never been an issue. I did have a lengthy discussion one time with someone who wanted to open a box of sheet film to look inside - he ended up calling over another screener who assured him that it was OK.
My usual procedure is to fly to my destination with sheet film in unopened boxes, and load my film holders at the destination. I then ship my film (both exposed and remaining unexposed) back home via Fed-Ex (who have assured me that they do not X-Ray).

I have never had to unspool a roll or 120.

Disclaimers - I fly a lot (over 100,000 miles per year) and as a result often am flying in an upgraded class. Also, I think that if you are a regular through the security screening, and you know what the drill is, it shows, and they give you fewer hassles.
My personal experience is that the TSA is better than the less professional screeners who were there before - the variability drove me nuts. TSA have a rigid set of rules that they follow (many of which are stupid), but having those uniform rules helps everybody.

 

[bdial]

Disclaimers - I fly a lot (over 100,000 miles per year) and as a result often am flying in an upgraded class. Also, I think that if you are a regular through the security screening, and you know what the drill is, it shows, and they give you fewer hassles.
My personal experience is that the TSA is better than the less professional screeners who were there before - the variability drove me nuts. TSA have a rigid set of rules that they follow (many of which are stupid), but having those uniform rules helps everybody.

I don't fly that much, but I do fly enough, and agree 100%. On my last trip when I was going out early Monday morning, one of the TSA people even joked about how good Monday mornings were because everybody knew the drill.

 

[copake_ham]

Okay, here's my latest:

Saturday, February 3rd: Send package via USPS Priority Mail from NY to Tucson including various unexposed rolls of both 35mm and 120 film.

Sunday, February 18th: Begin travel to Tucson from NYC's LaGuardia Airport. At TSA security line note that a prominently displayed sign states that those carrying cameras, film or other photographic equipment can request visual inspection in lieu of x-ray. But, having sent film ahead of time - no need to request such.

Sunday, February 25th: Begin travel back to NYC from Tucson. Carrying some exposed film consisting of 3 rolls of 120 and 1 roll of 35mm print film. At security line (on a very busy day due to prior day weather-related flight cancellations) announce to TSA personnel a request for "visual inspection" while simultaneously placing film in the plastic bowl intended for such. TSA person smiles and says: "No problem, sir".

Film visually inspected - not x-rays etc. We all smile and say "have a nice day".

So, folks, what here is the problem? :confused:

 

[lightranger]

I usually carry ready load film for my backpacking trips with my 4x5 camera. I have found that ready load film will fail the hand check process at airports. The last couple of times I flew they required that I x-ray my film because of the chemical residue found on the base of the ready load film packet. I use to be able to get by with the unopened factory sealed box, but no more. Last time I flew I brought out my old lead bag and loaded the film in there and put it through the carry on scanner. They never stop the machine to check it out so maybe that a way to do it. FedEx is the best way to get your film around the country with out getting it x-rayed. I not sure if the international FedEx uses x-ray on their packages or not. I called them one time to find out, but never got an answer.

 

[BrianShaw]

Gee art where is your faith in humankind? I don't see anything here to make me think he is lying or has some agenda. My travel experiences aren't similar, but it gives me no reason to suspect the OP is lying.

Maybe not lying or harboring an agenda... but the OP is a bit lacking in factual information. There has been sufficient data made available for, oh, about the past decade on the effects of airport screening and what to expect, yet there was a surprise regarding film in checked baggage. Hmmm.

And... TSA in Madrid and "Heath Row"???

I'm more astounded by the potential lack of credability.

Stolen Disclaimers - I fly a lot (but not quite 100,000 miles per year) but not often flying in an upgraded class. Also, I know that if you are a regular through the security screening, and you know what the drill is, it shows, and they give you fewer hassles.
My personal experience is that the TSA is much better than the less professional screeners who were there before - the variability drove me nuts. TSA have a rigid set of rules that they follow (many of which are stupid), albeit with a certain amount of tolerable randomness, but having those relatively uniform rules helps everybody.

 

[copake_ham]

Last year I flew just over 100,000 miles, 8 trips back and forth from Japan to the US. My experience with the TSA has varied from semi-professional to down right disgusting. The rules are not applied the same at every airport, often screeners arbitrarily decide to grant or not grant hand inspections when the rules clearly state the must. Screaming at passengers that they have to remove their shoes, threating secondaries to anyone who questions them, the list goes on and on.

I asked for a film inspection at ORD (Ohare), and was refused saying he "didnt want to bother with it", so I asked for a supervisor. They said if the screener didnt want to do it, they didnt have to. The supervisor told if I wanted to fly that day, I had to have my film xrayed. I didnt just to avoid the hassle, after which I got the screener and the supervisors name and filed a complaint. I got the standard TSA form reply, which means nothing was done about it, even though legally I was correct. For the record, I am always polite and business like, getting rude with them will get you a free secondary if not worse.

The TSA is a joke anyway, for all its theatrics, their screening is half assed at best, and they dont even screen the biggest danger to airplanes....air cargo. They do a great job of harassing passengers though.

At least in Europe and and most parts of Asia where I have been and go often, the rules are more consistent and appear to be followed more closely. The TSA is a joke.

Gary

Gary,

With all due respect; your very post shows an attitude that ensures you will be hassled by the TSA.

If you want to be treated respectfully; you must first learn how to treat others in that fashion.

Maybe, now that I am an "old fart" and have "walked the mile", I just do that intuitively. But it is a lesson you had best learn.

You ARE NOT better than the TSA person. She/He DOES have the power to make your passage smooth or rocky.

Respect, cooperation and a smile will smooth your journey. The alternative will make it Hell.

You do have a choice; but you do not have an alternative!

Sorry....

 

[DeanC]

You ARE NOT better than the TSA person. She/He DOES have the power to make your passage smooth or rocky.

I explicitly don't want to start a flame war here. That being said...

It's possible to simultaneously believe that I'm not 'better' than any given TSA screener and also believe that TSA policies and procedures are largely show and do not actually make flying safer but do make it considerably more of a hassle. It's that, in combination with the fact that the TSA screener has the ability to royally screw with your day while you have little or no recourse, which makes flying so aggravating today.

I wish the TSA would learn something from passenger screening in Israel. Stop looking for dangerous things, start looking for dangerous people. Patting down my 62 year old Mother every time she flies because her artificial knees set off the metal detector isn't making anyone safer.

 

[bdial]

In the past year or so, I've been in and out of security in Manchester (NH), Boston, Tampa, Tallahassee, LA, Orange County, Seattle, Sacremento, Las Vegas, Reno, Indianapolis, and probably one or two others I've forgotten. Some of them multiple times. I've traveled with and without cameras, and occasionally asked for, and been granted hand inspections. It has not been my experience to witness any outright rudeness or threats on the part of the TSA people.
Has some of the checking been a bit lackluster?, Yes. Have I witnessed people who don't look mainstream getting more secondary checks? yes. But generally all the TSA folks have been very professional, even when dealing with lines of 100's of tourists. Even the time I forgot that my Swiss Army knife was in the bag. (the smallest one made, they found it).
Are they perfect, no. And neither is anyone else. What was a joke was the security system before the TSA, and in some of that era I flew a lot more than 100K.

 

[jd callow]

well I'm the nicest guy you're ever going to meet and I've been treated poorly and watched others treated badly, but mostly it goes fairly smoothly and treatment is pretty good. The folks in security are just like the rest of us: overworked and under paid. You can tell when you can get your way and when not to try. I travel as much out of country as in and can't say how consistent or not the TSA is. I have had some pretty funny episodes. Like the guy who figured my lenses where something else because he couldn't see through them (they were mamiya 6 lenses which are in shutter) and he 'knew for a fact' that you can see through lenses or the guys who were very suspicious of my cable release.

 

[copake_ham]

In the past year or so, I've been in and out of security in Manchester (NH), Boston, Tampa, Tallahassee, LA, Orange County, Seattle, Sacremento, Las Vegas, Reno, Indianapolis, and probably one or two others I've forgotten. Some of them multiple times. I've traveled with and without cameras, and occasionally asked for, and been granted hand inspections. It has not been my experience to witness any outright rudness or threats on the part of the TSA people, as described.
Has some of the checking been a bit lackluster?, Yes. Have I witnessed people who don't look mainstream getting more secondary checks? yes. But generally all the TSA folks have been very professional, even when dealing with lines of 100's of tourists. Even the time I forgot that my Swiss Army knife was in the bag. (the smallest one made, they found it).
Are they perfect, no. And neither is anyone else. What was a joke was the security system before the TSA, and in some of that era I flew a lot more than 100K.

Well said.

Look what's happened here.

A new poster made an honest observation of his positive experiences and then the "dump" happened!

A few of us tried to offer counter opinions in a constructive manner and also get the "dump".

It's like this thread got hijacked into being an AM talk radio diatribe.

No more to say - this is one sad thread.

I just hope the OP - for whom this was his first post, BTW - doesn't just abandon APUG now.

 

[bbinboulder]

All:

I am the poster who started the thread. I've read through the responses posted today and thank all for their writing and interest. I had intended to continue editing the orginal entry but can't quite figure out how to re-open the orginal message for further.

My orginal intent was to bring something constructive to the community based on my recent experience. I'll admit, I probably am not as savvy about the post 9/11 air regulations and how they interact with our desire to carry sensitized goods on commercial flights as some of you. For instance, I was sadly unaware that film should not be run in checked bagage. My dumb error.

I also (apparently) am using the term TSA inappropriately. What I clearly mean is those persons whom I met at the security areas in airports who scan baggage and enforce the rules. I'm sorry if my miapprehension of that term offended anyone.

Finally, it's been 20 some years since I've had my hands in the soup and I'm just recently taking it up again, kids grown and all plus more discretionary time and funds for the photo game. A lot has changed and I'm out of date on a lot of the technology.

However one thing that has not changed in the last two decades or so are the rules of polite civil discourse. I have to say that I'm offended by the tenor of some of your responses. I may be old school, but if I'd have spoken thus, it would not have gone down well with my parents.

This is my community?

 

[david b]

Welcome to APUG

 

[gr82bart]

This is my community?

If you hate Kodak too, you'll fit right in.

Regards, Art.

 

[David Brown]

My orginal intent was to bring something constructive to the community based on my recent experience. ...

However one thing that has not changed in the last two decades or so are the rules of polite civil discourse. ... I may be old school, but if I'd have spoken thus, it would not have gone down well with my parents.

Welcome to APUG. Sorry if your first experience here was not pleasant. I would totally agree with your statement about "civil discourse". We are generally a very congenial, if opinionated, group.

However, since your first ever post was a complaint, and about a much, much discussed subject, it got responses.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'll admit, I probably am not as savvy about the post 9/11 air regulations and how they interact with our desire to carry sensitized goods on commercial flights as some of you. For instance, I was sadly unaware that film should not be run in checked bagage.

My apologies to you if you were offended by what I said.

David Brown said it best: this is a much, much discussed topic and there are lots of opinions and emotion attached to it.

I suggest looking on the Kodak and TSA web sites for factual information on airport x-ray risks relative to film. If you are scientifically-minded (or even if you are not) and really want to see the scientific data that resulted in the Kodak/TSA guidelines, seek out the I3A studies of both carry-on and checked-baggage x-ray screening devices. If you search APUG for these terms you'll find several prior threads with specific web links.

edit: here, I searched for you -- (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[gr82bart]

Gee art where is your faith in humankind?

Faith in humankind has nothing to do with it. As was quoted in another thread related to airport screening ...

Hmm. For n = 1, the standard error of estimate is infinite.

OK in this case n=3, sorta ... well, not really, but you get the idea.

Regards, Art.

 

[copake_ham]

I was fortunate to have a PM exchange with Jeremy (the OP) last night about the "reaction" here.

Yes, this is a much dicussed topic with a lot of "emotion" and, sadly, very little rationality.

The TSA does not exist to make photographers happy. It is the "last line" of security for the air travel system. If a "bad guy" slips past them - then he is going to be successful because there is no further security check. So the TSA's only mission is to "catch the bad guy" not make life easy for photogs.

That said, yes, you do have the "right" to a physical inspection of film in lieu of x-ray scanning.

But be sensible. If you are carrying film arrive at the airport well in advance of your departure so as to allow time for the request which is, quite frankly, disruptive to the flow of processing other travellers.

If you have the time and are not rushed then having to wait a few minutes for someone to be available to do the inspection is not a big deal.

It's just common sense. Requesting a physical inspections makes you a "special needs person" to the TSA folk - so allow them the time to treat you as such.

And remember, just about every other passenger on line is on "their side" and if you start making a fuss - they will gladly watch you get the "full treatment". No one wants to risk the "bad guy" getting past the TSA; so no one is going to speak up in defense of your "rights" if you make an ass of yourself!

And yes, that's just the way it is if you travel by air nowadays - so deal with it!