What's next? No cameras allowed anywhere?

[Tejasican]

We do know from history since 9/11 that credible threat or not new regulations tend to stick around regardless. I quit flying, but if I personally were forced to I would trust UPS, DHL or some other shipper before I would trust anything to checked baggage.

 

[fireblade]

Headline in today's N.Y. Times:
The U.S. has barred devices larger than a cellphone on American-bound foreign flights from 8 majority-Muslim countries.

Australia and the Pacific islands are beautiful places to live. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think that was the ludicrous nature of my comment. Apparently, anyone in Syria who isn't Syrian gets blown up on the spot (as implied by the previous guy's comment). I've never been blown up in any of the majority Muslim nations I've been to.

I find the whole situation absurd to think that we are all willing to forgo our rights, convenience and so forth simply because someone says there is a danger, without any actual proof. I've had to take my shoes off on planes for years and years now, because of Richard Reid. Where was he flying? Paris to Miami.

Where did the underwear bomber get on a plane? Schipol.

All true. I was agreeing with you.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . and this electronics ban is common practice everywhere?

Good news for users of meter-free film cameras...

Perhaps we'll be tested on our knowledge of exposure estimation before we get on board.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. .. I’m not aware that airplanes are immune from being blown out of sky from explosives in the hold but not in the cabin.

Dear Brian,

It's a well known fact! Checked luggage CAN'T blow up!

(I'm not adducing any evidence, just asserting what EVERYBODY KNOWS. Unless they have a few functioning brain cells, anyway.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[LKSC]

Dubai is one of the biggest international aviation hubs; a lot of people from India and SE Asia travel to the USA through it. Lots of them are photography enthusiasts, like people who use this forum.

 

[Keith]

Ha! Does anyone really think TSA or airline/airport security will actually believe a film camera is not an electronic device - particularly if it has an exposure meter with a switch, e.g. Olympus OM, or a digital readout in the viewfinder? I'm not certain people in those jobs would understand the concept of a mechanical camera, or "film"!

That was my thoughts as well Lynn ... they won't have the ability to distinguish between a camera that is mechanical over one that is electronic.

 

[rscheffler]

From the BBC link:

"The US ban applies to flights from 10 airports in eight countries. Nine airlines are affected - Royal Jordanian, EgyptAir, Turkish Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Kuwait Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad Airways."

Several of those airlines, particularly the last three and perhaps Turkish, present considerable recent competition to US carriers and have been the target of US government lobbying by US carriers to moderate their access to the US market. By implementing this electronics carry-on ban against just these non-US carriers, it would seem Trump et al are supporting the interests of US carriers in a form of protectionism, which would be in-line with the whole mantra of putting US interests ahead of all others, economic or otherwise. The British ban however includes British carriers...

I expect that in the name of security this form of device ban will be a fluid one... with the types of banned devices, carriers, airports, etc. changing on short notice. Because of course it will keep the bad guys guessing and be just that much more of an inconvenience for everyone else.

BBC link states all non-allowed electronics will go in the hold... but will still be on the plane. Other than not having direct access to trigger a potential weapon, what difference does it make? The Pan Am flight from a couple decades ago was brought down by timed charges... and the technology available to anyone intent on nefarious actions has since then become much more sophisticated.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Several of those airlines, particularly the last three and perhaps Turkish, present considerable recent competition to US carriers and have been the target of US government lobbying by US carriers to moderate their access to the US market. By implementing this electronics carry-on ban against just these non-US carriers, it would seem Trump et al are supporting the interests of US carriers in a form of protectionism, which would be in-line with the whole mantra of putting US interests ahead of all others, economic or otherwise. The British ban however includes British carriers..

"The British ban includes British carriers..." which in itself would seem to point to a different, if less exciting, explanation than "Trump did it as protectionism for U.S. Air carriers (!?)"

Rep. Adam Schiff (D. Ca) a ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and hardly a fan of the president, to say the least, said in a statement: "Over the weekend I received an additional briefing by the Department of Homeland Security and I fully support the new security precautions. These steps are both necessary and proportional to the threat."

What he saw over the weekend was information seized during the raid on Al Qaeda in Yemen in January, which shows, or appears to show, al Qaeda's successful development of compact battery bombs that fit inside laptops believed to be strong enough to bring down an aircraft.

The battery bombs need to be manually triggered which is why the electronics ban is only for the aircraft cabin and not checked luggage.

Here's what the explosive filled laptop smuggled on board a flight out of Mogadishu, Somalia by al-Shabaab did to the side of this plane last year. It would have brought the plane down, but the gentleman who carried the laptop on board this Airbus 320, (with the help of Somali airport security, it was later learned) didn't wait until they were high enough before triggering the bomb. He got sucked out of the hole, but the plane was able to land. But, it was proof of concept.



Also, this ban does not seem to have anything to do with cameras; if someone has a link to a government document which states it includes cameras, please post it.

It also does not seem to have anything to do with the sitting president, any more than was the ban on the lovely jar of strawberry preserves my family was prevented on bringing me from Paris last year, or being forced to take off your shoes.

The perceived threat changes, the restrictions change accordingly.
I'm not agreeing with any of this as I think it is mostly a bunch of nonsense, the patdowns of grandmothers in wheelchairs, the tiny bottles of liquids, the whole time consuming charade. We've wasted millions of dollars fighting last year's threats, while the gentlemen have moved on to stealing lorries and mowing down families in Nice on Bastille day.
But, it's bi-partisan nonsense

And, what is a government to do? If they have intelligence reports which identify a threat, and they don't act on it, there's hell to pay when the next guy with a laptop bomb waits until the plane gets to 20,000 ft.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Australia and the Pacific islands are beautiful places to live. 😀

That's only because they have yet to discover electricity.

 

[ruby.monkey]

This is WAY more fun than talking about photo gear.
That D. Trump is the president is not as tragic as the political process and the 60million voters that brought him to power. I am reminded of W. Churchil's quote: "The best case against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter".

I think the tragedy is that the most powerful country in the world was forced to choose between Trump and Clinton for supreme glorious leadership. 'tis a sign that the colonies have been left to their own devices for too long. Time for Britain to reclaim the New World.

 

[Huss]

Listening to Marketplace on the radio on the drive home tonight.
Guess who stands to benefit from this? US Airlines like Delta, American etc because they had been denied the access they want to the huge business traveller market in the middle and far east.
This ban allows them to pick up the traffic from their hubs abroad.

Coincidence? Hmmmm.

I see Scheffler already posted something similar.

 

[Keith]

"The British ban includes British carriers..." which in itself would seem to point to a different, if less exciting, explanation than "Trump did it as protectionism for U.S. Air carriers (!?)"

Rep. Adam Schiff (D. Ca) a ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and hardly a fan of the president, to say the least, said in a statement: "Over the weekend I received an additional briefing by the Department of Homeland Security and I fully support the new security precautions. These steps are both necessary and proportional to the threat."

What he saw over the weekend was information seized during the raid on Al Qaeda in Yemen in January, which shows, or appears to show, al Qaeda's successful development of compact battery bombs that fit inside laptops believed to be strong enough to bring down an aircraft.

The battery bombs need to be manually triggered which is why the electronics ban is only for the aircraft cabin and not checked luggage.


Here's what the explosive filled laptop smuggled on board a flight out of Mogadishu, Somalia by al-Shabaab did to the side of this plane last year. It would have brought the plane down, but the gentleman who carried the laptop on board this Airbus 320, (with the help of Somali airport security, it was later learned) didn't wait until they were high enough before triggering the bomb. He got sucked out of the hole, but the plane was able to land. But, it was proof of concept.



Also, this ban does not seem to have anything to do with cameras; if someone has a link to a government document which states it includes cameras, please post it.

It also does not seem to have anything to do with the sitting president, any more than was the ban on the lovely jar of strawberry preserves my family was prevented on bringing me from Paris last year, or being forced to take off your shoes.

The perceived threat changes, the restrictions change accordingly.
I'm not agreeing with any of this as I think it is mostly a bunch of nonsense, the patdowns of grandmothers in wheelchairs, the tiny bottles of liquids, the whole time consuming charade. We've wasted millions of dollars fighting last year's threats, while the gentlemen have moved on to stealing lorries and mowing down families in Nice on Bastille day.
But, it's bi-partisan nonsense

And, what is a government to do? If they have intelligence reports which identify a threat, and they don't act on it, there's hell to pay when the next guy with a laptop bomb waits until the plane gets to 20,000 ft.

If you can conceal a bomb big enough to bring down a plane that needs to manually triggered inside a laptop, you can certainly get one in something like a D4 so I think the chances of being able to carry a large digital camera onto a plane will be remote at best.

Of course the more direct approach would be to contact old mate Vlad and he'll happily give you a Buk Missile and lend you the necessary gear to launch it.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

If you can conceal a bomb big enough to bring down a plane that needs to manually triggered inside a laptop, you can certainly get one in something like a D4 so I think the chances of being able to carry a large digital camera onto a plane will be remote at best.

Since the measures are scheduled to go into effect 96 hours after being promulgated today at 3AM EDT, we won't have very long to wait to see if D4s, or any other cameras, will be forbidden. Since cameras were not mentioned in the new rules, I'm guessing they are not in the new rules. But, we'll know soon enough.

 

[Keith]

Since the measures are scheduled to go into effect 96 hours after being promulgated today at 3AM EDT, we won't have very long to wait to see if D4s, or any other cameras, will be forbidden. Since cameras were not mentioned in the new rules, I'm guessing they are not in the new rules. But, we'll know soon enough.

I may be wrong but my money says you'd be lucky to get on the plane with anything bigger than a smart phone! 😀

 

[one90guy]

Well at least will be no problem for the wife and I. We keep our travels to where we can pull the RV. Laptop, cameras, lots of liquid refreshments, and 9mm are welcome.

David

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I realize I'm the wet blanket in the conspiracy convention but:

This affects 10 airports out of the approximately 250 airports in the world which offer direct flights into the US.

This affects approximately 50 flights per day into the U.S. This is out of the more than 100,000 scheduled airline flights per day, world wide. The numbers for 2012 showed an average of 3773 international flights per day into and out of the U.S. https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts016_13

So, 50 flights impacted per day out of 3,773, more or less. And these flights are not cancelled, you just have to put your laptop in the cargo hold. (Not saying that is great.)
Saying this was all done, not because of a security threat, but was done by the Men in Black to save American carriers by possibly helping them pick up, maybe, somehow, some of these 50 flights a day......I dunno.

Boris: "I think U.S. doing this to get some of those 50 flights on their carriers to help their protectionist bottom line. Make huge difference to running dogs of capitalist imperialism."
Natasha: "That makes sense to me, Boris. Where is moose and squirrel?"

 

[Brian Atherton]

It's a well-known fact! Checked luggage CAN'T blow up!...

Ah, thanks, Roger. Ever reliable, and much appreciated. How did I ever miss this one?

Another fact ticked off my list. Obviously, I need to get out more, but I’m too busy fact-checking.

 

[YouAreHere]

Since the measures are scheduled to go into effect 96 hours after being promulgated today at 3AM EDT, we won't have very long to wait to see if D4s, or any other cameras, will be forbidden. Since cameras were not mentioned in the new rules, I'm guessing they are not in the new rules. But, we'll know soon enough.

Cameras are explicitly called for out as not allowed -

Electronic devices larger than a cell phone/smart phone will not be allowed to be carried onboard the aircraft in carry-on luggage or other accessible property. Electronic devices that exceed this size limit must be secured in checked luggage. Necessary medical devices will be allowed to remain in a passenger’s possession after they are screened.

The approximate size of a commonly available smartphone is considered to be a guideline for passengers. Examples of large electronic devices that will not be allowed in the cabin on affected flights include, but are not limited to:

Laptops
Tablets
E-Readers
Cameras
Portable DVD players
Electronic game units larger than a smartphone
Travel printers/scanners

See:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21...ncements-select-last-point-departure-airports

 

[Pablito]

Honest Abdul's Used Cameras...
.

Really? ***....