| Author |
 Topic  |
|
probablyjane
Permanent Resident
United Kingdom
1227 Posts |
|
|
galleylama
Seriously Hooked
753 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2006 : 04:42:48 AM
|
Exetremely tight control of what is allowed to be carried on board in hand luggage is also in place in the US. Among other things to think about packing in a bag that will be CHECKED are: hair gels, gel deoderant, pump liquid hair spray, bottled water, hand lotions and hand creams, sunscreens,perfume and anything else that to you and I would seem normal but is in a creamy or liquid state. These are items that can be easily added to to make an explosive. So plan well when you pack, and bring along extra patience! This is all of our safety.
PJ
It is easier to be forgiven than to receive permission. |
 |
|
|
gwtreece
Permanent Resident
USA
7254 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 05:57:05 AM
|
I heard on the news this morning that if you carry baby formula on the plane they are making the parent taste it, so they know it is baby formula and not something else.
Wanda
My Blog
|
|
|
|
galleylama
Seriously Hooked
753 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 06:18:55 AM
|
Also, I forgot, and this is important. If you need precription medication, make sure it is in the original pharmacy labled containers with your name on it or you will not be allowed to take it with you. Example: if you and your DH both use the same medication for allergies and you have run out, don't take DH precription bottle unless he is traveling with you. And don't place your pills in a weekly divided container - they have to be in the original pharmacy pill container. These are rules that have been being enforced for travel to foreign countries, but are now being enforced domestically.
It is easier to be forgiven than to receive permission. |
|
|
|
wyb
New Pal
Spain
14 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 07:42:04 AM
|
| No liquids can be taken on board in carry on luggage. There are some exceptions for medications and baby milk. Check the TSA website at www.tsa.gov for the latest, since this looks like it will be a moving target for a while. Flights traveling between the UK and US will have stricter restrictions. |
|
|
|
gwtreece
Permanent Resident
USA
7254 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 08:31:24 AM
|
So sad about the increased restrictions but glad they caught them before people got hurt.
Wanda
My Blog
|
|
|
|
Bethany
Permanent Resident
USA
1546 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 09:10:57 AM
|
We're not even allowed to fill water bottles in the terminal (past security) and take them on the airplane?
That's really annoying, since you get very dehydrated on flight and need to drink frequently. Also naively it seems either pointless or scary... if security is tight enough that people couldn't pick up explosives on the concourse, just checking people at security would be sufficient and it's pointless to keep them from buying liquid past security and bringing it on the plane. If security *isn't* tight enough and it's reasonable to worry about people going through security and then picking up their explosives on the concourse, that's scary, since I would think explosives shouldn't really be on an airport concourse.
Clearly I'm glad they caught them but these restrictions seem extremely impractical to me (moreso on the UK since they're not allowing personal electronics on board -- besides the fact that people usually want to use them on the plane, the way airlines manhandle checked baggage it's hard to get them to your destination except by carry on). I hope they find alternate way to deal with it soon.
In my admittedly non-expert opinion it seems to me that what they need to focus on are 1) getting more explosives-detecting machines out there to make it practical to check all luggage for volatile substances and 2) to try to figure out how to keep people from assembling bombs in the bathrooms. (I think that if people are trying to assemble the bombs in their seat, their seatmates are likely to notice. So, bathrooms.)
As far as I can tell, none of these new restrictions apply to knitting in the US. :-) |
|
|
|
mokey
Permanent Resident
15375 Posts |
|
|
abt1950
Permanent Resident
3019 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 09:55:39 AM
|
Bethany, it's not that simple. Smuggling the components for making a bomb would be relatively easy and difficult to detect. We all wear watches, for example--the battery in a watch could be used to trigger an explosive device.
Here's a CNN article that's truly scary:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/terror.newthreat.ap/index.html
I'd be surprised if knitting needles continue to be allowed on flights, at least in the short term. But as long as I'm allowed to take a good book and my prescriptions with me on a flight, I'm a relatively happy camper. I don't mind bothering the flight crew for beverages.
Anne
Knit long and prosper |
|
|
|
abt1950
Permanent Resident
3019 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 09:58:39 AM
|
Addendum--forgot to add that severe restrictions on carry-ons would create lots of new opportunities for theft by baggage handlers. All those cell phones and laptops that have to be checked in unlocked luggage. Speaking as someone who has had luggage broken into and also luggage lost, that's not a pleasant thought.
Anne
Knit long and prosper |
|
|
|
Bethany
Permanent Resident
USA
1546 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 10:39:04 AM
|
I have trouble imagining what sort of explosive you can make with a knitting needle.
I could be mistaken (I hope I'm not) but I have trouble imagining that the sort of security procedures they're describing in that article will ever become common. As the article pointed out, the ability to stage an attack in this fashion has been around for decades, yet how many such attacks have actually happened? If it's not logistically possible to perform the security checks needed to keep us totally safe (and 5-hour long security lines are not logistially possible long-term) then we won't be totally safe. In a cost-benefit analysis it's just not worth it unless terrorism becomes FAR more common than it is right now.
Another point: security measures are only as good as the people running them. My father works for a defense contractor and he sees the mere fact that things are stolen from checked luggage as a sign that our system is fundamentally insecure. His opinion is that it proves that among the people who are supposed to be screening our baggage for bombs, there are some that are fundamentally untrustworthy: they're willing to steal. If they're willing to steal a necklace for $200, what might they be willing to do for $200,000? $2,000,000? I gather from him that for stuff that REALLY needs to be kept safe, the first line of defense is to try to make as certain as possible that the people who are dealing with it can be trusted. That's not really financially feasable on the scale needed for air travel, but it's a loophole in the system.
For other reasons I would like to see a reduction in the amount of carry-on baggage that people are allowed to bring on, though. Having half the flight making the plane late by trying to shove big wheeled suitcases into overhead bins is just annoying. |
|
|
|
westcoastchica
Seriously Hooked
Canada
788 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 10:59:59 AM
|
Arrrgh. I'm flying on Tuesday morning. I wonder if the restrictions will be lifted by then. It's just a domestic trip but still, I'll have to rethink my usual packing scheme and find out exactly what's restricted. Last thing I want is a big kaffuffel at security. It was bad enough last time when my stupid underwire bra set off the metal detectors (not just the underwire but the stupid hooks on the straps too. I was *this* close to just taking off my shirt and SHOWING them that it was just a bra. As it was, the guy in line behind me said he found my ordeal rather amusing, probably because he got a flash of my bright green undies when I had to take off my belt and because I got fully patted down by the female security person. Anyways.)
At this rate, we'll end up having to fly shoeless in our (non-underwire) skivvies with all our baggage checked (and rifled thoroughly by the TSA). Seriously, is there ANY POSSIBLE WAY to be 100% completely sure that a person isn't able to bring or create a bomb on board?
Given that it seems these new restrictions are specific to a particular threat, I can handle it, but I hope that this doesn't become the way it is permanently.
Maria
http://sapphyreknits.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
abt1950
Permanent Resident
3019 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 11:35:28 AM
|
Just because the ability to do these kinds of things has been around for a long time without anything happening doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future. If anti-terrorism experts can think of it, you can bet that terrorists can too. 9/11 style attacks were warned about several years before they happened.
Frankly, I don't think we will ever have a totally secure system. You're absolutely right about security being only as good as the people doing it. Not a cheery thought.
A friend of mine on another board is a airport security screener. I can't wait to see what he has to say when next he posts.
Anne
Knit long and prosper |
|
|
|
mokey
Permanent Resident
15375 Posts |
|
|
Bethany
Permanent Resident
USA
1546 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 12:30:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by abt1950
Just because the ability to do these kinds of things has been around for a long time without anything happening doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future. If anti-terrorism experts can think of it, you can bet that terrorists can too. 9/11 style attacks were warned about several years before they happened.
Right, but my point isn't that it couldn't happen, it's that it doesn't appear to happen very often. Unless the frequency with which terrorist attacks happen increases greatly (which I admit is a possibility) then I think the economic impact of making flying so much more difficult just isn't worth it.
The article is certainly right that we respond to the last threat, not the next threat. Consider the shoe bomber. Now we all take our shoes off to be screened, despite the fact that we never did it before and the probability of someone blowing up an airplane with their shoe has likely not increased since the shoe bombing. I'm all for security but I think it must be done sensibly. I mean, what are we going to do after we have the Hat Bomber, the Bra Bomber, and the Jockey Shorts Bomber. Travel naked?
But no, it's never going to be totally safe. My problem is that I think that a lot of security measures are designed to make people feel safer rather than actually making them BE safer, and I resent having my time taken up by something that may not actually be accomplishing anything.
I'm willing to agree that more care with large quantities of liquids may be reasonable (although I think people should be allowed to buy soda or fill water bottles past security to being on the plane, since if that stuff's not safe we've got bigger problems). But is it really worth spending lots of time stressing out over pill bottles and trial-size containers of lotion in someone's purse? I'm not an expert but I imagine anything small enough to fit in those would be small enough to fit in body orifices that aren't inspected as part of routine security, so what are we really accomplishing?
What I'm curious about is the screening procedues for checked luggage. In all these articles people keep stressing that checked luggage is more secure, explosives-wise. What do they use to screen them and is there any reason besides money we don't use them on carry-on bags? If not, maybe the government should be spending its money on that instead of blowing up people in other countries.
EDIT: I should probably add that I'm sorry to be dragging the thread off topic. I have an urge I inherited from my father to gravitate towards the devil's advocate position in any conversation. :-)
I'm very grateful that I'm not flying anywhere until October for a change, so hopefully things will have settled by then. My poor parents are flying to vist me next week and my poor advisor is flying tomorrow, they're likely to run into problems. |
|
|
|
fleegle
Permanent Resident
Japan
1507 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 5:44:02 PM
|
Put my computer in checked baggage? They have got to be kidding! DH and I amuse ourselves by putting our broken electronic things into our checked baggage. With the sole exception of a pda with a badly cracked screen, none of them ever made it to the other end.
DH is in law enforcement, and he just laughed when he saw the new restrictions. Then he told me a dozen ways to get around them that involved eyeglasses, hearing aids, tampons, and, yes, knitting needles. Some of them are hollow and others are made out of plastic and can be imitated.
The only way they can make it safe it to ban passengers. Reminds me of a British bus driver that got fired because he refused to pick up passengers. Doing so would have made it impossible to keep to the schedule. |
|
|
|
CatherineM
Permanent Resident
USA
3363 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 5:57:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bethany
quote:
Originally posted by abt1950
Just because the ability to do these kinds of things has been around for a long time without anything happening doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future. If anti-terrorism experts can think of it, you can bet that terrorists can too. 9/11 style attacks were warned about several years before they happened.
Right, but my point isn't that it couldn't happen, it's that it doesn't appear to happen very often. Unless the frequency with which terrorist attacks happen increases greatly (which I admit is a possibility) then I think the economic impact of making flying so much more difficult just isn't worth it.
The article is certainly right that we respond to the last threat, not the next threat. Consider the shoe bomber. Now we all take our shoes off to be screened, despite the fact that we never did it before and the probability of someone blowing up an airplane with their shoe has likely not increased since the shoe bombing. I'm all for security but I think it must be done sensibly. I mean, what are we going to do after we have the Hat Bomber, the Bra Bomber, and the Jockey Shorts Bomber. Travel naked?
But no, it's never going to be totally safe. My problem is that I think that a lot of security measures are designed to make people feel safer rather than actually making them BE safer, and I resent having my time taken up by something that may not actually be accomplishing anything.
I'm willing to agree that more care with large quantities of liquids may be reasonable (although I think people should be allowed to buy soda or fill water bottles past security to being on the plane, since if that stuff's not safe we've got bigger problems). But is it really worth spending lots of time stressing out over pill bottles and trial-size containers of lotion in someone's purse? I'm not an expert but I imagine anything small enough to fit in those would be small enough to fit in body orifices that aren't inspected as part of routine security, so what are we really accomplishing?
What I'm curious about is the screening procedues for checked luggage. In all these articles people keep stressing that checked luggage is more secure, explosives-wise. What do they use to screen them and is there any reason besides money we don't use them on carry-on bags? If not, maybe the government should be spending its money on that instead of blowing up people in other countries.
EDIT: I should probably add that I'm sorry to be dragging the thread off topic. I have an urge I inherited from my father to gravitate towards the devil's advocate position in any conversation. :-)
I'm very grateful that I'm not flying anywhere until October for a change, so hopefully things will have settled by then. My poor parents are flying to vist me next week and my poor advisor is flying tomorrow, they're likely to run into problems.
I agree with every word you said but I don't think you'll find it easier in October. This level of alert, warranted or not, will be stoked until after November. I have no idea if the latest story is 100% accurate or not. I don't think it matters. We have enough holes in our security (5 years after 911) to worry about. Say, anybody hear anything about that "huge dangerous terror ring" busted in Miami in June? Forgive me if I'll wait to decide whether this is as major as it seems. I do think the British security services are well ahead of ours, because apparently they can find these guys, whatever they are, without wholesale surrender of standard legal procedure.
Catherine
http://www.yorkiedog.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
RoseByAny
Permanent Resident
USA
12598 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 6:04:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by abt1950
9/11 style attacks were warned about several years before they happened.
A remarkably similar situation (hijacking a passenger plane with the goal of flying it into the White House) occurred nearly 30 years earlier.
I am fine with security measures. I even completely understand why knitting needles and like objects wouldn't be allowed, much as that makes me quiver.
But there are no explosives in liquid form that could be assembled into a bomb on flight (there are some of pudding-like consistancy, but not thin liquid that could be disguised as a drink). The likelyhood of someone thwarting an attack using those ingredients is pretty ridiculous, since they could more easily be purchased at your average drug store at the destination, rather than smuggled onto a flight.
"Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color. Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense, and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable."
http://RoseByAny.BlogSpot.Com |
|
|
|
abt1950
Permanent Resident
3019 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 8:03:15 PM
|
There really is no way to make plane travel 100 % secure. The restrictions make it harder for the average person to do something, but terrorists acting under the auspices of an organized group like al Quaida have the brains and motivation to get around them.
On the other hand, the illusion of security that the new policies give are part of their point. The airlines took a major financial tumble after 9/11, as did the travel industry generally. High fuel costs aren't helping. The safer people think they are, the more likely they'll spend their money on travel.
Anne
Knit long and prosper |
|
|
|
galleylama
Seriously Hooked
753 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 8:26:16 PM
|
quote:
Right, but my point isn't that it couldn't happen, it's that it doesn't appear to happen very often. Unless the frequency with which terrorist attacks happen increases greatly (which I admit is a possibility) then I think the economic impact of making flying so much more difficult just isn't worth it.
But how much is our safety really worth?
It is easier to be forgiven than to receive permission. |
|
|
|
mokey
Permanent Resident
15375 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Knitter's Review Forums |
© 2001-2013 Knitter's Review |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
