an airport to avoid

[Dave Parker]

You want to have fun,

Two weeks after 9/11 I was schedule to start a hunt in Canada, and had my firearms and bows packed in checked in baggage, and had incidentals in my carry on, talk about a hassle, I landed in a tiny airport in the back country of Canada and talk about a 3rd degree!!!! yikes, I thought they were going to make me bend over and cough!!!, but made it through and have not had any problems since, what is amazing is two years after that trip, one of the carry on bags that I used for the hunt had two live rounds in one of the side pockets that I forgot to take out and I hand carried on the plane through security and all the way back to home, never even noticed by the security!

Go figure!

Dave

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Years ago, before 9/11, I did a summer internship at Immigration at BWI Airport. I would sometimes bring microwave dinners with me to the office to eat, so I kept a big folding pocket-knife in my jacket for opening them. The knife was old, and all steel. The large blade on it was long enough to qualify as a lethal weapon. Somehow, I forgot it in my jacket pocket one day, and went through the metal detectors to go down the pier to get something to eat at the Pizza Hut Express. The metal detector never went off. Back then, they never had the sensitivity on the machines dialled up enough. Now, a foil-sealed packet of Trident gum will set the things off.

 

[dwross]

The woman whose cell phone privacy was violated was going to make a formal complaint, and I'm guessing that she and her husband have the wherewithal to see it through. btw, I have rarely met a kinder, more gracious woman on all my travels. I doubt she "provoked" security. For that matter, I have never been accused of inciting riots. To hint that the attitude of the victim legitimately invites oppression makes little contribution to the very real debate about security v. freedom.

 

[kb244]

The woman whose cell phone privacy was violated was going to make a formal complaint, and I'm guessing that she and her husband have the wherewithal to see it through. btw, I have rarely met a kinder, more gracious woman on all my travels. I doubt she "provoked" security. For that matter, I have never been accused of inciting riots. To hint that the attitude of the victim legitimately invites oppression makes little contribution to the very real debate about security v. freedom.

Thats why when dealing with any federal agent or law enforcement or anyone with the 'privilage' you want to be as polite as possible, but know where the line is drawn, this way, if they are commiting illegal acts such as violation of privacy, there should not be anything in your presentation of the matter that could be used as a 'justifiable reason to give cause'. But it helps to make sure to voice the objection even if in a polite manner so they cannot say you concented with the violation of privacy. The mistake people do is when there is something questionable going on, it doesnt help when yer screaming and shouting the usual 'I know my rights' and such, as any witness would just think "figures".

This may be side tracked, but one of my favorite quotes, somewhat paraphrase for situations such as this, is those who would give up liberties for security, deserve neither.

 

[Bromo33333]

...To hint that the attitude of the victim legitimately invites oppression makes little contribution to the very real debate about security v. freedom.

Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin that said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"?

 

[landsknechte]

A few months prior to 9/11, while waiting in line for the metal detector at LAX (for an international flight, no less), I realized that I still had my rather nasty looking Spyderco "Police" pocket knife clipped inside my pocket. Threw it in my carry-on, and it didn't even get a second look from the screeners. 9/11 rolls around, and everyone is suddenly amazed at how box cutters and knives concealed in mundane objects made it onto the aircrafts. Airport security in the US was a joke before 9/11, and it's only marginally less so now.

On that same trip, my wife had a small stuffed animal in her carry on. A five inch tall cutsey fruit bat. That warranted close scrutiny at every single stop. Yep. I feel secure.

 

[gr82bart]

TSA: "You mean this is some sort of remote control device?"
Me: "Yup. Its so I can set my flashes off by remote."
TSA: "Looks like you could use this to set off a bomb."
Me: "No. I'd use a cellphone for that. Pocket Wizards are too expensive."
TSA: ** Clearly not amused, calls for a peace officer **

So you think the TSA officer was wrong in that situation, right? Goes to one of my earlier posts in another thread - Johari's window.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

The woman whose cell phone privacy was violated was going to make a formal complaint, and I'm guessing that she and her husband have the wherewithal to see it through. btw, I have rarely met a kinder, more gracious woman on all my travels. I doubt she "provoked" security. For that matter, I have never been accused of inciting riots. To hint that the attitude of the victim legitimately invites oppression makes little contribution to the very real debate about security v. freedom.

I think it was last summer when I was going through Pearson Terminal 3. There was a group of business folks behind me all from the same comapny. We were in line waiting to go through immigration. Now everyone knows (everyone but some APUGers, right?) that you can't be on or using the cell phone when waiting in line or going through immigration, customs or security. So this lady was chatting away, quitely mind you, to her daughter on her cell. I didn't see if she came in talking on it or called while in line. One of her colleagues even told her she couldn't be on the phone. The are BIG RED SIGNS all over the area stating you can't use your cell phone. A GTAA staff member told her to turn it off. She motioned that she would and was on the phone with her 'sick' daughter. Then one of the US immigration officers told her to turn it off. She finally did. When she got to the officer, she got the third degree.

Anyway, why she couldn't talk to her sick daughter outside is beyond me. She probably pleaded that her sick daughter was too important for widely known rules for security (perceived or otherwise), but not important enough for her to be inconvenienced waiting outside the immigration queue (and talking to her daughter there).

In the lounge area, after about 45 minutes she emerged, she was talking to her colleagues about the incident. She didn't understand what the deal was. Seems like a nice lady. But I find the nicest people are some of the most clueless.

Thank goodness for Darwin.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

C'mon it's obvious. Your great looks and charming personality so dazzles the TSA ladies that they wave you right through!

LOL! I wish that were true.

Regards, Art.

 

[Bromo33333]

TSA: "You mean this is some sort of remote control device?"
Me: "Yup. Its so I can set my flashes off by remote."
TSA: "Looks like you could use this to set off a bomb."
Me: "No. I'd use a cellphone for that. Pocket Wizards are too expensive."
TSA: ** Clearly not amused, calls for a peace officer **

The upside is that the airport is so small that after the deputy sherrif decided I had no reason to be arrested, they literally just yelled out the jetway door to the pilot of the puddle-jumper to wait so I could get onboard.

You are lucky you weren't arrested - joking about those sorts of things does not help others that might want to transport photographic equipment.

 

[coriana6jp]

Current TSA procedures are essentially a joke. To many times, people have managed to get things through the supposedly "tight security". It would be hard for anybody to hijack a plane today anyway, the passengers would probably beat the hijacker to death anyway.

For all the song and dance routine the TSA does to screen passengers, it ends up harrassing people and generally finding nothing. The biggest danger to airlines today is air cargo, the TSA essentially screens none of it, nor do the air carriers. Most of the passenger screening is merely window dressing.

Gary

 

[DrPablo]

There's so much overreaction -- like with the liquids thing, they wouldn't let me carry a tiny bottle of Purell on board.

Somebody is going to come up with a necktie bomb some day, and then they won't let us wear ties on planes anymore.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You are lucky you weren't arrested - joking about those sorts of things does not help others that might want to transport photographic equipment.

Who says it was a joke? It's a realistic statement.

I was about to say that cellphones surely don't qualify as photographic equipment, but I suppose if your definition is generous enough, they do. But how does it harm those who want to carry real cameras?

In the UK I've had a few interesting discussions, without acrimony, about this sort of thing. Two examples were discussing fuel-air bombs for use in the Channel Tunnel (LPG conversions aren't allowed through, but petrol/gasoline fuelled vehicles are, and so are cylinders of LPG not used for propulsion) and 'Have you anything that can be used as a weapon?' at Heathrow, when I pointed out that bare hands make a pretty good weapon.

Cheers,

R.

 

[roteague]

For all the song and dance routine the TSA does to screen passengers, it ends up harrassing people and generally finding nothing. The biggest danger to airlines today is air cargo, the TSA essentially screens none of it, nor do the air carriers. Most of the passenger screening is merely window dressing.

Sad, but true.

 

[Andy K]

Years ago, before 9/11, I did a summer internship at Immigration at BWI Airport. I would sometimes bring microwave dinners with me to the office to eat, so I kept a big folding pocket-knife in my jacket for opening them. The knife was old, and all steel. The large blade on it was long enough to qualify as a lethal weapon. Somehow, I forgot it in my jacket pocket one day, and went through the metal detectors to go down the pier to get something to eat at the Pizza Hut Express. The metal detector never went off. Back then, they never had the sensitivity on the machines dialled up enough. Now, a foil-sealed packet of Trident gum will set the things off.

I travelled to Australia with my father (a good man but rather straightlaced) in '87. I was 25 at the time. As I walked through the metal detector at Adelaide International, it went off. So I emptied my pockets and had to walk through again. It went off again. So the immigration official, a very good looking young woman, had to go over me with a wand (not an unpleasant experience for a horny 25yo!) to find what exactly was setting off the detector. The wand went off over the inside pocket of my denim jacket, which I had thought only contained an old bandana. I pulled out the bandana... and the packet of condoms inside it flew across the lounge and landed at my father's feet. Dad just looked at me like he'd found me stuck to the bottom of his best shoes, turned his back and walked away. Immigration found it quite funny though.

 

[Bromo33333]

Who says it was a joke? It's a realistic statement.

This is the conversation

TSA: "You mean this is some sort of remote control device?"
Me: "Yup. Its so I can set my flashes off by remote."
TSA: "Looks like you could use this to set off a bomb."
Me: "No. I'd use a cellphone for that. Pocket Wizards are too expensive."
TSA: ** Clearly not amused, calls for a peace officer **

The guy was being a smart a** and joking (I would HOPE he was joking) about using his cellphone as a bomb detonator. I have no idea how it is handled in other countries, but the person is really lucky he wasn't arrested (people have been arrested and detained for less).

I was about to say that cellphones surely don't qualify as photographic equipment, but I suppose if your definition is generous enough, they do. But how does it harm those who want to carry real cameras?

The main thing is by making all kinds of comments like that - we have a habit of "eliminating" even the challenge of thinking by then "unofficially" or even "officially" requiring the person to check all photogrpahic equipment, or have the TSA confiscate it. This is the TSA's perogative, I have no idea if this is official policy, but I have seen "unofccial" restrictions at SFO, O'Hare, and JFK airports.

In the UK I've had a few interesting discussions, without acrimony, about this sort of thing. Two examples were discussing fuel-air bombs for use in the Channel Tunnel (LPG conversions aren't allowed through, but petrol/gasoline fuelled vehicles are, and so are cylinders of LPG not used for propulsion) and 'Have you anything that can be used as a weapon?' at Heathrow, when I pointed out that bare hands make a pretty good weapon.

I suppose this is the difference between the UK and USA. In the USA, comments like that would get a tough conversation with a supervisor or worst case arrested if talking about it - and our new laws allow them the latitude to detain you as an "enemy combatant" (though they aren't required to file charges, nor are you entitled to a day in court to clear yourself anymore regardless of how ridiculous).

In the USA, there is nothing to gain and plenty to lose by playing the 'I am smarter than you are' game with the TSA. Best to stick to 'yes' and 'no' regardless of how lame you think the question may be.

 

[Andy K]

I suppose this is the difference between the UK and USA. In the USA, comments like that would get a tough conversation with a supervisor or worst case arrested if talking about it - and our new laws allow them the latitude to detain you as an "enemy combatant" (though they aren't required to file charges, nor are you entitled to a day in court to clear yourself anymore regardless of how ridiculous).

In the USA, there is nothing to gain and plenty to lose by playing the 'I am smarter than you are' game with the TSA. Best to stick to 'yes' and 'no' regardless of how lame you think the question may be.

So much for 'the land of the free'

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Yes- land of the free - free from the requirement to think.

 

[Bromo33333]

So much for 'the land of the free'

I think a lot of folks were disappointed with the legislation. Unfortunately it is not unprecedented - similar things were done about 3-4 times in the past 230 years. John Adams and the "Alien and Sedition act" and FDR's detainment of Japanese-American citizens in WW2.

Still, best not to toy with the TSA, even before this legislation - since we have lot of laws curtailing freedom of speech before this - for instance, you have freedome to speak, but can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Since the folks at TSA are working under the assumption that the country is at war, playing the 'I am smarter than you' and uttering comments about fuel-air bombs, bomb detonators, fisticuffs, etc won't end up nice and will be treated, legally as the same sort of folks who shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Heck even before 9/11, making comments about that stuff would get you searched and detained minimum missing you flight. I think the penalty used to be up to $50,000. Now it is much stiffer, as I said.

 

[Bromo33333]

Yes- land of the free - free from the requirement to think.

Yeah, but how smart and well thought through is it really, to make comments about fuel air bomb making, bomb detonator technologies, weapons and such? By playing the "I am smarter than you" game with these sorts of folks in this way, is never a well though out venture.

Seems to me there is a lack of thought on both sides of the conversation.

I mean, did you really expect the TSA to say "ha ha, good one, hey, Fred (nudges Fred) thsi guys is really smart and erudite, with his witty and dry comments about making a bomb detonator out of his cell phone. ha ha, good one, sir!"

Please. :rolleyes:

 

[Andy K]

Yeah, but how smart and well thought through is it really, to make comments about fuel air bomb making, bomb detonator technologies, weapons and such? By playing the "I am smarter than you" game with these sorts of folks in this way, is never a well though out venture.

Seems to me there is a lack of thought on both sides of the conversation.

I mean, did you really expect the TSA to say "ha ha, good one, hey, Fred (nudges Fred) thsi guys is really smart and erudite, with his witty and dry comments about making a bomb detonator out of his cell phone. ha ha, good one, sir!"

Please. :rolleyes:

Yes. Much better to be afraid to speak your mind freely.

 

[Bromo33333]

Yes. Much better to be afraid to speak your mind freely.

The new laws are bad, but droning on about explosives at an airport *is* tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema and is not protected speech.

You can have positive motivation (mine) I would rather not create panic and fear around me and answer that, no, the flash remote is only for controlling a photographic flash.

Or negative - you just *have* to talk about how easy it is to detonate bombs with a cell phone when asked if the flash detonator is a bomb device, but you are afraid of being punished.

Aside from me attempting to chastise anti-social behavior, here is an interesting link about those who are trying to "protect us" - SCARY :rolleyes:

 

[copake_ham]

The new laws are bad, but droning on about explosives at an airport *is* tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema and is not protected speech.

You can have positive motivation (mine) I would rather not create panic and fear around me and answer that, no, the flash remote is only for controlling a photographic flash.

Or negative - you just *have* to talk about how easy it is to detonate bombs with a cell phone when asked if the flash detonator is a bomb device, but you are afraid of being punished.

Aside from me attempting to chastise anti-social behavior, here is an interesting link about those who are trying to "protect us" - SCARY :rolleyes:

Or perhaps as an alert how easily the "bad guys" can adopt identities?

Anyway, I fail to understand what the big deal here is. Security checks at the airport are a fact of life - they are not going to go away - not ever!

So, if you cannot get comfortable with this state of affairs you need to find another means of travel.

That said, if you chose to fly, you can approach the security clearance process in one of two ways:

1) You can be respectful and cooperative (even pleasant) with the TSA (or similar) inspectors and probably have little, if any, hassle.

or

2) You can be uncooperative, aggressive and disrespectful. In which case you risk missing your flight or worse.

Seems like a "no-brainer" to me.

 

[gr82bart]

That said, if you chose to fly, you can approach the security clearance process in one of two ways:

1) You can be respectful and cooperative (even pleasant) with the TSA (or similar) inspectors and probably have little, if any, hassle.

or

2) You can be uncooperative, aggressive and disrespectful. In which case you risk missing your flight or worse.

Unfortunately, it seems that many people here are advocating the latter. I've met too many intelligent people without an ounce of being wise in them.

Regards, Art.

 

[roteague]

Yes- land of the free - free from the requirement to think.

and home of the paranoid....