Brits Ban Cameras on Planes

VinceC said:
>>Is there some exploding camera plot we don't know about?<<

The concern appears to be electronic devices that could be used to trigger the liquid explosives. I know many on RFF are using cameras without even light meters. But a camera chassis could be hollowed out or modified.
OK, well, then:

1) Again, aren't there x-ray machines, or are they just for show?
2) If they're going to get that sophisticated, wouldn't they use a timer? Carrying it on board or stowed in the luggage area would be irrelevant.

I could also theorize that you could implant a trigger in a variety of items:
a) a wig
b) a pill
c) a pen
d) a condom

Why don't we just ban travel. That is *really* safe.

I'll go and put my aluminum foil cap now.
 
I'm torn apart, on one side I see the need to ban almost anything from handlugage and on the other side I know I feel very restricted by this measure.

I was realy angry when I had to remove my belt at Orly in april after the security in Bremen removed the cotton from my lighter and swabed both of my cameras and I had to rewind and take out the unfinished rolls.

But now it looks as if all these inconveniences saved a couple hundred lives.

From one point of view it's not the government restricting our freedom, it's the terrorists who threaten the passengers lives which have to be protected.

At least I don't want somebody sitting next to me who's camera explodes at 30,000 feet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
**** lah.

Words cannot express my reaction to this recent turn of events. I leave for Bristol in about 1.5 months' time for a year's stay, and was hoping to bring over multiple cameras as well as my iBook. Very insecure about the prospect of transporting them with the rest of my checked-in luggage.
 
Brits ban cameras on planes

Brits ban cameras on planes

Is there some exploding camera plot we don't know about?, asks VinceC...

At Lockerbie, Scotland, an ordinary radio or cassette player in the cargo hold of a Pan American plane carried a concealed bomb that was set off and blew up the aircraft and everyone on it...Even a small Kodak could be used to hide an explosive, so why take a chance?...
 
Last edited:
As far as I've read up on the matter some 21 people where arrested who tried to smuggle a new liquid explosive onto some 10 aircraft.
The expolsive is made from several components which are harmless but put together make something as explosive as C4.
This stuff probably doesn't show up as an explosive on scanners and those artificial noses they use when swabbing our cameras.
So to keep things simple they forbid any handlugage until some automated way to find these chemicals is developed.

heathrow3_500.jpg
 
lushd said:
Well it looks as though that trip with my Photosnaiper will have to be cancelled ...

You're a fine one to talk! The first thing I see on your website is a sneak photograph of an aeroplane taken with a COMMUNIST 😱 camera.. 😀

At any rate it seems like a good idea to film-wrap your camera bag, at least nothing can be taken from it then. Most airports offer this service.
 
nihraguk said:
**** lah.

Words cannot express my reaction to this recent turn of events. I leave for Bristol in about 1.5 months' time for a year's stay, and was hoping to bring over multiple cameras as well as my iBook. Very insecure about the prospect of transporting them with the rest of my checked-in luggage.

When you stay for a year I see no problem. Get insurance and buy new equipment if your luggage gets lost.
I never lost any luggage, two times it came with a later flight and was delivered to my home the next day.

If stolen or lost luggage was a common thing, insurance rates would be much higher.
 
[whine]
I came from the UK with some cameras, and got a few more. All were originally carried in my hand luggage.

20 rolls of 35mm / 120 film
Mamiya 6, 55mm, 75mm, 150mm
FED 2, 25mm, 50mm, 85mm
Nikon D70

Now I have to go back to London with all this stowed in my check in luggage. I suppose I'll have to consider insurance.

But hey, if Larry Silverstein managed to insure those buildings, why not me and my cameras.

[/whine]
 
clarence said:
[whine]
I came from the UK with some cameras, and got a few more. All were originally carried in my hand luggage.

20 rolls of 35mm / 120 film
Mamiya 6, 55mm, 75mm, 150mm
FED 2, 25mm, 50mm, 85mm
Nikon D70

Now I have to go back to London with all this stowed in my check in luggage. I suppose I'll have to consider insurance.

But hey, if Larry Silverstein managed to insure those buildings, why not me and my cameras.

[/whine]

I'd send the film by fedex if I were you. You could consider sending the lot that way.
 
peterc said:
I'm sure that would result in uncomfortable searches for cameras in other possible hiding places.

Peter

For those of us that haven't.. ummm... "walked that walk" in quite a while.. this could turn out to be an opportunity to "get some action"... 😀

Feeling all goose bumpy,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
For those of us that haven't.. ummm... "walked that walk" in quite a while.. this could turn out to be an opportunity to "get some action"... 😀
Hey...there's always a silver lining! Are they lookers, the gal security officers over there?

Let me check how many miles I've got in my account...
 
phototone said:
Come on guys, this is aparrently only a temporary measure. Better to save lives. Things will be back to normal in regards carry-on luggage at some point.

Temporray like the income tax?

Back to normal within my lifetime?

If my camera doesn't go with me, I don't go. Period. I didn't keep my cameras for 30 years by letting the luggage apes play with them in unlocked bags...
 
On closer inspection of the statement by the Department For Transport, these measures apply only to flights originating from the UK or for transits through the UK.

Clarence
 
>>Is there some exploding camera plot we don't know about?, asks VinceC...<<

Bob Cole,
No, VinceC wasn't asking. I was answering a question asked by Gabrielma.
 
Back
Top Bottom