In case we need to check our cameras...

[pxlbarrel]

Ok, I see that in the future and perhaps in the very near future, we may be required to check our cameras rather than carry them onto the plane with us...as they are doing in the UK right now.

Trying to be proactive here...what kind of case should we be looking at that will prevent damage by baggage handlers and look menancing to thwart would be thieves? Pelicans are very expensive...are there alternatives?

I'm thinking about getting one because I shudder at the thought of my camera sloshing around in my unprotected suitcase. I'd also like to buy a case that would be big enough to slip my laptop into it. Oy, the thieves would have a feast...

Any recommendations from the knowledgeable people on this board? :teeth:

[Kelly Grannell]

I've cancelled all my international photo sessions until this stupidity revoked. I'm not putting $10k worth of equipment without my constant supervision.

[pxlbarrel]

I've cancelled all my international photo sessions until this stupidity revoked. I'm not putting $10k worth of equipment without my constant supervision.

Ok, that is discouraging. :(

I was hoping for more encouraging words.

My stuff is a lot cheaper but still, when coupled with a laptop ,will be well over $3k. Maybe I can find a Pelican to hide in the regular suitcase (camoflage?) It'll be protected and "hidden".

There is no solution to this...is there... :( :(

[Anewman]

I would say something like this, but if it ever comes to that I would only take expendable equipment when needed.

http://www.lakeshorevideo.com/images/ebay/xl1case.jpg

[Kelly Grannell]

I'm not afraid about the damage, that can be easily prevented. I'm afraid of theft. My insurance will NOT cover theft if I check my equipment in with the baggage.

Also, it's not only about the insurance. Even if they reimburse me fully, how am I supposed to do my job (or in other people's cases: take pictures during their vacation) without a camera? Also on the way back, since no electronic things can be brought with you, then what are you going to do with the memory cards etc? What if they got lost?

After the receiving official letters from Westjet, Air Canada, Cathay Pacific, Qantas, JAL and Korean Air Lines with regards to this matter, I've so far told 6 of my clients that I may not be able to do the job and advised them to start looking for back up photographer.

Also my photo hunting trip to Prince Edwards Island have been cancelled because of this ridiculousness.

[OCSurfCity]

My Canon digital cameras are packed in a Pelican case and locked with 3 different locks. This Pelican case is made of tough and durable plastic and can be dropped at great distances without any harm. You can pluck out squares to custom fit your equipment into it.

[WillCAD]

My Canon digital cameras are packed in a Pelican case and locked with 3 different locks. This Pelican case is made of tough and durable plastic and can be dropped at great distances without any harm. You can pluck out squares to custom fit your equipment into it.

That's wonderful, but leaving aside for a moment the fact that Pelican cases are incredibly tough and can protect your equipment from the luggage gorillas, there is one big problem with that - the TSA is empowered to cut any lock off any checked bag and visually inspect the contents.

You can tripple lock all you want, but the more you lock, the more likely TSA is to cut the locks off and inspect your case, and once the locs are off (replaced with zip ties when the inspection is over) any theft protection you might have is also gone, since zip ties can be removed easily with nail clippers.

I'm not a pro photographer, and I don't have $10K worth of gear, but I'm with Kelly - my laptop and camera gear go onto the plane with me whenever I fly, and if the US ever bans electronics from carry-ons, I will simply not fly.

The air travel industry in the US is huge, and is already hurting badly from increased fuel costs, increased security costs, and increased infrastructure costs as every major airport in the country seems to want to turn itself into a high-class latte-sipping art musuem instead of a simple transportation hub.

The added imposition of no carry on luggage is going to hurt the international carriers, and if they add that foolishness to US domestic flights, the air industry will find its best and most loyal customers - business travellers who NEED their laptops - up in arms and figuring out ways go avoid travelling.

Fortunately for me, I only fly when I go to WDW, and I am just close enough to drive there in about 14 hours, so driving is an option for me.

[Goofyish]

I'm sure you have them in the US, but we have TSA approved locks and luggage straps in the UK that are designed so the TSA people can unlock your cases without breaking any locks with special master keys. Useful as we are adviced to leave all cases 'unlocked' when flying to the US to allow for internal inspections.

The TSA locks mean we can comply with the TSA requirments and still be covered by our travel insurance, who insist on locked cases!
'Valuables' are not cover in our travel insurance though (cameras, camcorders, electronic games, laptops are all classed as valuables!).

[JR6ooo4]

The problem is not what lock to use... it is the same as affixing your name to your camera. If someone is going to steal they will steal regardless of locks and labels. An item that looks expensive will attract attention. A camera in the middle of a suitcase surrounded by 1/2 foot of soft clothes is somewhat protected and does not attract the attention that a pro camera case will.

I take two carrryon bags. My laptop and my camera bag. And only check (or bring) anything that can be replaced once at the destination. Clothes, toiletries, DW heheheheee

Mikeeee

[Mellie0119]

As of now, for US domestic flights, the electronics are still okay, correct?

I'm flying out early Sunday ( :woohoo: ) and I'll have my camera on me- no way in heck I'm putting that thing in my luggage!

I'm going out today to pick up a few more memory cards and this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=SMPB40GB&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=429801). I was planning on taking my laptop, but with all the added lines I want to carry as little as possible.
I've also heard that all laptops must be booted in the TSA's presence- mine takes forever :rolleyes1 and I don't want to hold up the line if I don't have too.

[jenny2]

There's no way on earth I'd check my camera gear - there's just no way. Forget that they could get damaged. Forget that they could get stolen. What about the difference in pressure? Or the temperature changes?

It's a no win situation. If you put your gear in a nice, safe, professional bag you're doing the same thing as putting a label on the bag saying "EXPENSIVE GEAR!" It just advertises what's inside. If you put it in a regular suitcase without proper padding... well... anything can happen. Whenever I fly I only put things I wouldn't mind losing in my checked bag (it would stink if the bag were lost... but not be catastrophic). My camera gear definitely does not fall into that category.

[pxlbarrel]

See, I would never check my camera equipment either BUT what if you have no choice? Do you never fly again?

I live in the east coast...I can drive to WDW...it'll take me 3 days but sure, I could do it if I didn't fall asleep while driving down (trust me...I could fall asleep driving home from work). But it's hardly practical or even possible in some cases to drive. It would take my entire vacation to drive to California...and I haven't seen a bridge across the Pacific yet when I want to go to Japan or one across the Atlantic to the UK....all trips I had planned to make in the next 2 years. :(

The thievery worries me...much less than the camera actually being smashed in transit. Maybe I can find a Pelican case (which has the pressurized valve) and then place it in a large suitcase surrounded by clothes. It'll look like an every day suitcase filled with bad fashion.

I'm just thinking aloud here with the hopes that we never have to go this far but if we do, at least we have some ideas of what to do.

How are are UK friends doing these past 2 days? I can't imagine going to WDW without a camera. Getting a disposable one to avoid bringing your digital just seems like a shame.

[CarolA]

And if the TSA can open those locks why can't anyone else. Not to mention that considering SOME of the TSA agents I have met are high school bullies in positons of power I can see them "helping themselves" to equipment to as part of thier "rights" (They apparently think that the right to screen passengers already includes the right to be abusive, rude and arrogant!)

I am with Kelly and others my laptop and other equipment is NOT going under the plane.

The airlines conditions of carriage specifically exclude electronics from thier liablity. In other words if they lose or damage it TOO bad....

[pxlbarrel]

I am with Kelly and others my laptop and other equipment is NOT going under the plane.

The airlines conditions of carriage specifically exclude electronics from thier liablity. In other words if they lose or damage it TOO bad....

So...if something like what's happening in the UK right now happens in North America...you won't fly? What if you had been in the UK and trying to return to the U.S. right now. Would you take permanent residence in the UK? Ok, I'm being sarcastic now but sometimes there are no choices...so what do you do then? That's what I'm asking...what are some solutions to some difficult conditions? I'm flying in 1 week with my camera equipment and hope never to have to deal with it on this trip.

It stinks...what do we do about it? :confused3

[spoon2003]

[QUOTE=
I'm going out today to pick up a few more memory cards and this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=SMPB40GB&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=429801). [/QUOTE]


I just bought this and it works great! :thumbsup2


I bought it for our Mexico trip next week so I won't have to bring the laptop.

Sue

[Kelly Grannell]

So...if something like what's happening in the UK right now happens in North America...you won't fly? What if you had been in the UK and trying to return to the U.S. right now. Would you take permanent residence in the UK? Ok, I'm being sarcastic now but sometimes there are no choices...so what do you do then? That's what I'm asking...what are some solutions to some difficult conditions? I'm flying in 1 week with my camera equipment and hope never to have to deal with it on this trip.

It stinks...what do we do about it? :confused3

But it IS already happening in Canada. I have received official e-mails from the air carriers that I've bought tickets from (for my assignments) stating that NO ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT WHATSOEVER and NO LIQUID OF ANY FORM are allowed on board and yet when I asked them about the liability issues, they all said that they are not responsible checked-in laptops/cameras and/or other electronics.

Losing my gears on the way to my gig = losing the gig + get sued
Losing my gears on the way home from my gig = get sued for losing the images + losing future gigs.

It's a lose-lose situation.

PS: I drink at least 4 pints of water each day, I doubt any airline will keep bringing me water for the duration of the flight when someone drinks that much. Remember, they only give you virtually one sip at a time (and flight to Australia, many parts of Asia, usually take around 24 hours total with connecting flights etc). Ain't that fun! :teeth:

Answering "what we do about it" is that we protest with our pockets. If the airline industry hurt in the biggest way, they will also retaliate.

I witnessed it myself yesterday at Pearson Int'l Airport, the officers even take away toys from babies and kids and forced them to either put them in check-in baggage or they'll confiscate them.

Like I keep telling people, there is a simple way to curb terrorism.

1. Don't be terrorized. By reacting like this we allow terrorism to win
2. Don't mess around with other countries' politics. How do you like if a stranger comes to your house and start telling how you're supposed to educate your kid, what you can or cannot do, and if you don't comply they ransack and/or destroy your home?

My comments ends here, it's already borderline politics and although I take pictures of many politicians, I have zero affiliation to any of them. :lmao:

[WillCAD]

So...if something like what's happening in the UK right now happens in North America...you won't fly? What if you had been in the UK and trying to return to the U.S. right now. Would you take permanent residence in the UK? Ok, I'm being sarcastic now but sometimes there are no choices...so what do you do then? That's what I'm asking...what are some solutions to some difficult conditions? I'm flying in 1 week with my camera equipment and hope never to have to deal with it on this trip.

It stinks...what do we do about it? :confused3

That's right - if they institute a no-electronics policy on US flights, I WON'T FLY.

I'm in a better position than many here; I only fly when I go to WDW, and if I can't fly I am close enough to drive, even though it takes 14 hours.

If I were stuck in the UK and had no choice but to put my electronics in my checked bags, I'd do what I had to do to get home. But since I'm not in that position, I can safely say that if electronics are banned from carry-ons in teh US, I will not be flying in the US. That's it.

[pxlbarrel]

But it IS already happening in Canada. I have received official e-mails from the air carriers that I've bought tickets from (for my assignments) stating that NO ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT WHATSOEVER and NO LIQUID OF ANY FORM are allowed on board and yet when I asked them about the liability issues, they all said that they are not responsible checked-in laptops/cameras and/or other electronics.

That's not what they're saying on the news. I was watching CBC this morning and the person in charge of Pearson said that electronics were still allowed on board. Air Canada also has it on their website that the only things banned right now are the liquids/gels. Transport Canada also has the same message. I haven't seen anything in the media where this is happening in Canada.

[Anewman]

We all make choices. No one is forced to fly and at the same time the airlines do not owe us anything except safe passage. It may become less pleasant to fly and may cause business issues for some but there are always ways to work it out.

What would I do? I would check a Point and shoot camera that I would not mind losing, or If I really need higher end gear I would arrange rental on the other end of the flight.

Will these restrictions make flights safer? I am not sure, but if anyone runs a google news search for "disposable camera" you may find some interesting reading.

Bottom line if Electronic equipment in the cabins is truely unsafe, I would not want to fly on an unsafe plane just so someone could keep an eye on their gear.

[mhutchinson]

Bottom line if Electronic equipment in the cabins is truely unsafe, I would not want to fly on an unsafe plane just so someone could keep an eye on their gear.

Until everyone is flying without luggage and only wearing an airline provided, very thin, rice paper, bath robe (without any strings, ties, or sleeves); and everything that has been brought has been inspected and stowed, no one is truly safe. As it is now you are probably the least safest all grouped up at the TSA checkpoint where at any given time there are more people than will ever be on a single flight. I think the government's goal is to eliminate commercial flights through complete discouragement and allow for only commerce transport and military planes.

As far as checking any photo equipment, most airlines run a very small replacement waiver on what you might bring along with you to WDW. This is usually less than the actual value of a dSLR with a couple memory cards and a Kelly lens. That waiver applies to all your luggage value that they might lose and not just one bag.

Mike

[Kelly Grannell]

That's not what they're saying on the news. I was watching CBC this morning and the person in charge of Pearson said that electronics were still allowed on board. Air Canada also has it on their website that the only things banned right now are the liquids/gels. Transport Canada also has the same message. I haven't seen anything in the media where this is happening in Canada.

They may say so on the site but I saw it with my own eyes yesterday:

1. people are forced to check-in ALL of their electronic equipments including but not llimited to laptops, PDAs, cameras, MP3 players and cellphones.
2. Teddy bears, rattles taken away from kids and being put in a "collection" bin for those who refuses to check the toys and plush in
3. SEALED bottled water, juice confiscated and being put also in the same "collection" bin
4. e-mails from the respective airlines I've bought ticket from mentioning that there will be no electronic devices allowed on board for at least the next week "or so".

[mhutchinson]

I am so glad I had decided that my October WDW visit was going to be a driving trip. :moped: As it was before all this stuff hit we spent almost 1/2 the ride to WDW going through luggage, TSA, flight time, and getting the luggage....(not to mention the 'Magical Express' line). We just added an extra 2 days to our trip and can carry all the water bottles we need and can stay as long as we want too. :teeth:

...okay so at some point the money would run out :lmao:

Mike

[pxlbarrel]

They may say so on the site but I saw it with my own eyes yesterday:

1. people are forced to check-in ALL of their electronic equipments including but not llimited to laptops, PDAs, cameras, MP3 players and cellphones.
2. Teddy bears, rattles taken away from kids and being put in a "collection" bin for those who refuses to check the toys and plush in
3. SEALED bottled water, juice confiscated and being put also in the same "collection" bin
4. e-mails from the respective airlines I've bought ticket from mentioning that there will be no electronic devices allowed on board for at least the next week "or so".

Which airport was this?

And I just called my home insurance agent and my luggage and electronics (including computer) are covered up to $5K...so, if the worst happens, I'm covered. It's still a crappy situation.

[Amy]

Ok, I'm probably being a little naive here, but what about sending your camera equipment and/or memory cards via UPS or FedEx, rather than checking them with your luggage? I'd trust UPS and FedEx more than the airlines!

[Kelly Grannell]

Which airport was this?


Pearson International Airport in Toronto (Canada).

[Kelly Grannell]

Snippets from various news sources with regards to Pearson's chaos yesterday

Now imagine you have to unpack everything and get rid of items like your toothpaste, your mouthwash or even your child's plush toy before you can get onboard.

"It's very, very scary," notes a tired Christine Knight, whose family left Manchester for a two week stay in Toronto. "We didn't know what had happened until we got to the airport. We've had to put everything -- toys for the children, everything had to go into the (checked-in) bags.

"It was chaos, just lines and lines of travellers. They're checking every piece of hand baggage. You can only take documentation and your wallet on the flight."

Leave your water bottle behind if you're planning to fly anytime soon. You can't bring an iPod either

[Anewman]

Snippets from various news sources with regards to Pearson's chaos yesterday

I understand most of those snippets are in regards to flights involving OVERSEAS travel.

[pxlbarrel]

I understand most of those snippets are in regards to flights involving OVERSEAS travel.

AND those were people who were leaving from the UK where there is no carry on at the moment. You will note that the one family was leaving MANCHESTER for Toronto, not the other way around.

I'm sorry...I can't believe that what you said is happening at Pearson because if that were happening, I have to believe the news would be all over it....especially taking teddys away from little children.

I've been to every official website from Transport Canada to the GTAA to Air Canada and they all explicity say electronics are being allowed right now. Whether that changes in the days to come is the great unknown.

[fitzperry]

Ok, I'm probably being a little naive here, but what about sending your camera equipment and/or memory cards via UPS or FedEx, rather than checking them with your luggage? I'd trust UPS and FedEx more than the airlines!

I was sort of wondering about that too. Dh and I have a trip to Europe tentatively planned in the fall, and I haven't spent beaucoup bucks on a dslr and all the accoutrements just to carry a disposable camera around on my first trip to Paris. We're also going to WDW for Thanksgiving (booked before the Eurpoean opportunity arose). We usually fly to Florida, but we haven't been able to get a decent fare and have been figuring we might drive (the kids could use a good Chevy Chase style road trip anyway :rotfl: ). Not being able to carry on my camera gear would be the straw that breaks the camel's back on that one.

[pxlbarrel]

I dunno about Fed Ex or UPS mainly because if you're in another country, won't you end up paying brokerage to get it across the border?

Besides, Fed Ex lost a package of mine back in December and when I called them, they said they'd look for it. A few days later of not hearing from them, I called and they told me, "Oh, we looked for it and we couldn't find it so we closed the case."

Uhhhhh...ok, not my idea of great customer service. They closed the case and they did nothing about the lost package.

[Greg K.]

...if we would be having any of these conversations if it were August 17th.

Imagine it is the morning after that horrific terror attack was carried out. Three or four thousand people were blown up in mid-air.

Would any of this foot-stomping and nostril-flaring about not being able to travel with cameras even be going on? Wouldn't we all be a little more willing to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to prevent a repeat of this kind of tragedy?

Perspective, people. Let's have some perspective. The risk isn't going away any time soon. The people who are doing this have been momentarily foiled, but they won't cease trying until they've succeeded -- and they don't care if they lose some of their own in the process. In fact, they WANT to kill their own while trying to kill us.

The measures that are being enforced are inconvenient, and for some, costly. Lives are being disrupted, vacations ruined, livelihoods and careers seriously impacted.

Well. What a pity. But you know what? War is hell.

[fitzperry]

At least with Fed Ex or UPS you could insure it though, and the carrier would handle all the issues with customs, etc. I realize it wouldn't be cheap, and you still run some risk of loss, but I'm not aware of any way to insure electronics that are checked on a commercial flight. Maybe there's something I'm missing though. I suspect that if this continues, the airlines or someone else will begin to offer insurance, at a fair price, I'm sure. ;)

[fitzperry]

...if we would be having any of these conversations if it were August 17th.

Imagine it is the morning after that horrific terror attack was carried out. Three or four thousand people were blown up in mid-air.

Would any of this foot-stomping and nostril-flaring about not being able to travel with cameras even be going on? Wouldn't we all be a little more willing to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to prevent a repeat of this kind of tragedy?

Perspective, people. Let's have some perspective. The risk isn't going away any time soon. The people who are doing this have been momentarily foiled, but they won't cease trying until they've succeeded -- and they don't care if they lose some of their own in the process. In fact, they WANT to kill their own while trying to kill us.

The measures that are being enforced are inconvenient, and for some, costly. Lives are being disrupted, vacations ruined, livelihoods and careers seriously impacted.

Well. What a pity. But you know what? War is hell.

Sure we'd be having these conversations. People certainly haven't been silent about the restrictions imposed after 9/11. Obviously we need to do everything within reason to make air travel as safe as possible. The tough part is deciding what is within reason. It's also incumbent upon the airlines and the TSA and its counterparts in other countries to keep up with technology so that a balance can be struck between safety and convenience.

[pxlbarrel]

...if we would be having any of these conversations if it were August 17th.

Imagine it is the morning after that horrific terror attack was carried out. Three or four thousand people were blown up in mid-air.

Would any of this foot-stomping and nostril-flaring about not being able to travel with cameras even be going on? Wouldn't we all be a little more willing to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to prevent a repeat of this kind of tragedy?

Perspective, people. Let's have some perspective. The risk isn't going away any time soon. The people who are doing this have been momentarily foiled, but they won't cease trying until they've succeeded -- and they don't care if they lose some of their own in the process. In fact, they WANT to kill their own while trying to kill us.

The measures that are being enforced are inconvenient, and for some, costly. Lives are being disrupted, vacations ruined, livelihoods and careers seriously impacted.

Well. What a pity. But you know what? War is hell.

We don't stop living because something terrible has happened. We go on and try to figure out the best way to cope with the circumstances that are presented to us and the only way to do that is to discuss it.

I'm sick of people who think that people who talk about how inconvenient and what a hassle it will be are people who don't care about safety and that we think anything less about people's lives. Gee whiz, it's not that at all...it's about coping with it and getting on with your life because if you don't, then those idiots who are terrorizing our existence have won.

It's not about perspective...we have perspective. It's about how to deal with it.

Now getting back to the topic at hand....my home insurance apparently covers personal items lost by the airline....including (and my agent was specific) a laptop and electronics, including my digital camera. If in doubt, check with your own insurance agent about it.

Like fitz, I didn't spend all this money on my dslr or drool in anticipation of taking what I hope to be great photos at DL to be thwarted by people who think so little of life that they'd kill themselves and others.

[Kelly Grannell]

I understand most of those snippets are in regards to flights involving OVERSEAS travel.

including to the US and even to Ottawa (so very domestic)

[Kelly Grannell]

AND those were people who were leaving from the UK where there is no carry on at the moment. You will note that the one family was leaving MANCHESTER for Toronto, not the other way around.

No you read it wrong. She leaving FROM Pearson after her 2 weeks away from Manchester.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I was there with the reporter to take videos for her report. We actually saw teddy bears being grabbed by the officer on duty and thrown to a bin and there was a lot of yelling (from the parents) and screaming (from the kids).

But hey, believe what you want. I'm just a worthless witness here. The video snippet was available online yesterday at City News for several hours until the editor decided to take it off the web.

[Kelly Grannell]

At least with Fed Ex or UPS you could insure it though, and the carrier would handle all the issues with customs, etc. I realize it wouldn't be cheap, and you still run some risk of loss, but I'm not aware of any way to insure electronics that are checked on a commercial flight. Maybe there's something I'm missing though. I suspect that if this continues, the airlines or someone else will begin to offer insurance, at a fair price, I'm sure. ;)

I've checked with TNT (the only company in Canada that deals with photography, filmography and videography equipments and fully insured) they quoted $700 to ship my gear from Toronto to California... each way. This is the same company used by movie and movie camera companies such as Fox, Panavision, Arriflex to ship their gears.

[CarolA]

So...if something like what's happening in the UK right now happens in North America...you won't fly? What if you had been in the UK and trying to return to the U.S. right now. Would you take permanent residence in the UK? Ok, I'm being sarcastic now but sometimes there are no choices...so what do you do then? That's what I'm asking...what are some solutions to some difficult conditions? I'm flying in 1 week with my camera equipment and hope never to have to deal with it on this trip.

It stinks...what do we do about it? :confused3

I can fly for personal I don't need the laptop for that.

My company is already having people take the Eurostar to Paris to fly home from there where you can still bring on your laptop.

The solution would be for the secuity folks to realize that this isn't doing any good. It's suppose to deny the terrorist power to power his bomb. In about two minutes I can figure out about five or six places a terriorist could get to on a plane UNNOTICED and find the 'power" (bathroom, in seat phone, in seat video unit, In seat power port galley while the FAs are out serving etc.!)


And the planes need POWER to run so there is nothing we can do about that....

[Kelly Grannell]

exactly, all you need is enough static electricity and kabooom! No need for electronic devices.

[CarolA]

exactly, all you need is enough static electricity and kabooom! No need for electronic devices.

I already emailed the folks at TSA and pointed this fact out to them as a reminder. (I figure I may now hit the no fly list considering that the TSA agents I have met figure that the way to deal with objections to thier operations is to threaten you!)

[handicap18]

The world is changing. Faster than we probably want it to. The reality of the Middle East has been moving on to the rest of the world. The only thing for us to do now is adapt so we can move on. There was a time after 9/11 that people were frustrated with travel issues. Remember that air travel was shut down for days. Having worked at the time on a water shuttle to Logan Airport in Boston, it was erie not to see a plane in the sky. Not to see the planes lined up waiting to land. Nothing but an empty sky. Slowly things got back. Inconveniences happen. Maybe it wasn't as bad back in 2001 because so many people actually died and airports were shut down so we knew why we had to coorporate. We had tangible evidence of why this extra security was needed. This time its only speculation as to what might have happened, nothing to show for it, yet the inconveniences are now back.

There are ways to get to places. If you don't want to fly anymore you can still see the world. Take a boat. It might be more expensive and will take a lot longer, but it can be done.

Carry on issues will reslove itself out once enough time has passed. Airlines will find that they will need to provide bigger and more water bottles especially for those with medial issues. You will be able once again to carry on your camera equipment. When, no one knows. It happened once before. We got though it.

Considering that a water bottle can be made to carry water in the top half and ingredients to create a liquid bomb in the bottom half, I see why no bottles at all. Who knows what is what. Did you see Jurasic Park? They smuggled dinasour embrio's (SP) in a can of shaving cream, yet the shaving cream can would still dispense shaving cream. How many times have we seen movies where people have smuggled packets of drugs in stuffed animals. How about the movies where they use cell phones or laptops to detinate (again, sp?) bombs. That happens in real life now too. Someone actually tried to light his shoe on fire in an airplane because it was a bomb! A shoe bomb! Who would have thought about something like 5 years ago!

War is hell. Terrorism is worse. I wish we had been able to have these problems on September 4, 2001. The way we travel has changed. How you change and adapt with it is up to you.

[Monte Cristo]

I can't believe what I've read here...IMO, whatever needs to be done to keep air travel safe is OK with me. Respectfully, IMO, I could care less about $10k worth of gear if it meant we were more safe when traveling.

I won't let terrorists ruin my travel, I'll still go, but if there are restrictions on that travel due to these wackos, that's fine with me.

[pxlbarrel]

No you read it wrong. She leaving FROM Pearson after her 2 weeks away from Manchester.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I was there with the reporter to take videos for her report. We actually saw teddy bears being grabbed by the officer on duty and thrown to a bin and there was a lot of yelling (from the parents) and screaming (from the kids).

But hey, believe what you want. I'm just a worthless witness here. The video snippet was available online yesterday at City News for several hours until the editor decided to take it off the web.

Ok, y'know what...I'm not going to get into a pissing match about this BUT you read it wrong.

Is this the WHOLE snippet?


From the CityTV News site:

But bad as it was for Pearson passengers, things were far worse for those arriving from England.

After waits that lasted hours, people deplaning in Toronto were just glad their ordeal was over and that they made it here in one piece.

"It's very, very scary," notes a tired Christine Knight, whose family left Manchester for a two week stay in Toronto. "We didn't know what had happened until we got to the airport. We've had to put everything -- toys for the children, everything had to go into the bags.

And if you weren't prepared to pack it, it would be gone.

"When you went through security, if you had a toy, baby's comforters, they were just going in the bin," Knight continues. "You weren't allowed to bring anything on the plane."

As if that wasn't bad enough, the line-ups also taxed the patience of just about everyone flying here. "It was chaos, just lines and lines of travellers," recalls a passenger named Colin, who waited endlessly in one of them. "They're checking every piece of hand baggage. You can only take documentation and your wallet on the flight."



I don't think I read it wrong...I think you only read part of it. The video snippet is still on the City TV site:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2610.aspx

Even the City TV site says that electronics are allowed on airplanes as long as you're not on a British carrier heading to the UK.

If you're going to quote something, quote the entire thing, not just a little piece.

I don't know what you saw but no news agency has reported what you saw at Pearson.

[fitzperry]

I've checked with TNT (the only company in Canada that deals with photography, filmography and videography equipments and fully insured) they quoted $700 to ship my gear from Toronto to California... each way. This is the same company used by movie and movie camera companies such as Fox, Panavision, Arriflex to ship their gears.

I just got a quick on-line quote from Fed Ex. Shipping $2000 worth of camera equipment from my home in the U.S. to Paris would run about $130 and take 2 days. I realize that may not be secure enough for you, but I'm merely an amateur who wants to be able to take nice pictures on my vacation. Honestly, if my homeowner's insurance covers me, I would check my camera gear if necessary. It would certainly be a bummer not to have my camera when I arrive at my destination, but not the end of the world. I don't have as much at stake as a professional photographer on his/her way to a location shoot. This is hugely inconvenient for all types of business travelers.

[pxlbarrel]

I can't believe what I've read here...IMO, whatever needs to be done to keep air travel safe is OK with me. Respectfully, IMO, I could care less about $10k worth of gear if it meant we were more safe when traveling.

I won't let terrorists ruin my travel, I'll still go, but if there are restrictions on that travel due to these wackos, that's fine with me.

Which is why I started this thread in the first place...to find out how we were going to cope with the possibility of having to check camera equipment rather than carry it on.

The original intent of this thread was to deal with what might become a reality for us in North America.

If you choose not to fly because you don't want to check your camera equipment...so be it but in the mean time, please let the rest of us know the best way to check a camera so it doesn't get damaged and the best way to hide it (in a regular, non-descript suitcase) so it doesn't get filched.

I didn't start this thread to debate what *may* occur in the future.

[Monte Cristo]

Which is why I started this thread in the first place...to find out how we were going to cope with the possibility of having to check camera equipment rather than carry it on.

The original intent of this thread was to deal with what might become a reality for us in North America.

If you choose not to fly because you don't want to check your camera equipment...so be it but in the mean time, please let the rest of us know the best way to check a camera so it doesn't get damaged and the best way to hide it (in a regular, non-descript suitcase) so it doesn't get filched.

I didn't start this thread to debate what *may* occur in the future.

Totally agree. :thumbsup2

[WillCAD]

I can't believe what I've read here...IMO, whatever needs to be done to keep air travel safe is OK with me. Respectfully, IMO, I could care less about $10k worth of gear if it meant we were more safe when traveling.

I won't let terrorists ruin my travel, I'll still go, but if there are restrictions on that travel due to these wackos, that's fine with me.

Yeah, a lot of people have that attitude when the restrictions don't affect them personally, or don't affect them enough to really put them off.

Suppose the government decded that the only way to keep air travel safe was to subject everybody to mantatory strip searches? Mandatory medical exams?

Suppose the government decided to require a permit to travel by air, with a background check and a fee, just like they do when you want to buy a firearm?

At what point do "precautions" and "security measures" pass beyond inconvenience into actual invasions of privacy or violations of peoples' Constitutional rights?

The fact that air travel is voluntary is beside the point; even a voluntary action should not require anyone to give up basic rights and freedoms.

Sure, that hasn't happened yet, but every time someone says, "I don't care what the government does as long as it keeps me safe," we get one step closer further along that gradual slope from U.S. of A. to Fascism.

A journey of ten thousand miles begins with a single step, so you better know which direction you're facing before you take that step.

[Monte Cristo]

Yeah, a lot of people have that attitude when the restrictions don't affect them personally, or don't affect them enough to really put them off.

Suppose the government decded that the only way to keep air travel safe was to subject everybody to mantatory strip searches? Mandatory medical exams?

Suppose the government decided to require a permit to travel by air, with a background check and a fee, just like they do when you want to buy a firearm?

At what point do "precautions" and "security measures" pass beyond inconvenience into actual invasions of privacy or violations of peoples' Constitutional rights?

The fact that air travel is voluntary is beside the point; even a voluntary action should not require anyone to give up basic rights and freedoms.

Sure, that hasn't happened yet, but every time someone says, "I don't care what the government does as long as it keeps me safe," we get one step closer further along that gradual slope from U.S. of A. to Fascism.

A journey of ten thousand miles begins with a single step, so you better know which direction you're facing before you take that step.


Settle down....we're talking about CAMERAS. Last I checked, flying was still a luxury.

Let's get back to the OP's question. Since I just bought the Canon Rebel and the Kelly Sigma, I would like to know also.

[pxlbarrel]

I've done some googling and it would appear that you really have to make your camera look like it's a regular ole suitcase full of clothes. There's a fellow who, when unable to carry on his equipment, uses copious amounts of bubble wrap on his lens and his camera body (and anything else) and then throw it into a regular suitcase full of clothes.

Hmmmm...I think I'd rather spend the money on a Pelican or something and then throw that whole thing into a duffle or suitcase full of clothes. The problem with Pelicans big enough to hold a dSLR body and a lens is that they're heavy even before you put the stuff into it.

From what I've read always pack the the body with the lens detached. Never have the lens on the body or you may find the lens mount jarred enough that you'll never get the lens off. I guess it gets bent a bit if you leave it on and the case gets dropped...something also happens to the lens....Oh I wish I had bookmarked that site while surfing...maybe I can find it again.

And I also wonder if it's a good idea that once you've taken the photos, perhaps it's worth it to get them burned onto a cd before making the trip back...so that you can carry the cd onto the plane (that's not electronic...so maybe they'd allow that). If the camera did get stolen and all the memory cards with them (shudder), at least your photos are still safe. You can replace the cards and memory but not the memories. (ahhh...big buildup to a small pun...) :lmao:

I think you can get photos burned onto cds almost anywhere. I even remember seeing that it at a Publix.

[caniswolfie]

I think a lot of problem with the enhanced security is the reluctance to check baggage. That is really aggravating the whole process. If the FAA or the government would make the airlines accountable for checked luggage lose and damage so that greater care would be taken. I think this would make people feel safer about checking items and cause a little less stress about having to check items. And by accountability I mean having stiff fines and reimbursing customers to completely replace/repair items. In some cases also setting a "replacement" fee for sentimental items as well that cannot be replaced.

I understand the need for greater security and I'm not saying that I won't fly ever. But it may cut down on those flying short distances when the security checkpoints and the hassle remove the advantage of the greater speed in the air.

At this point they need to act quickly while they come up with a better process for dealing with this new angle of threat. Just like the time when there was the shoe bomb. Everyone was taking their shoes for the scanner and now it seems like they are asking to do that a lot less.

[WillCAD]

Settle down....we're talking about CAMERAS. Last I checked, flying was still a luxury.

Let's get back to the OP's question. Since I just bought the Canon Rebel and the Kelly Sigma, I would like to know also.

The possible answers so far have been:

1) Pack valuable and fragile camera and computer equipment in unlockable checked bags and take your chances on having it lost, stolen, smashed to bits, or winding up in Cleaveland (this would not be so bad if you are actually going to Cleaveland, or if you come from Cleaveland in the first place).

2) Ship camera and computer equipment ahead by FedEx or UPS, then ship back at the end of your trip. CONS: Lots of added expense and time, plus the possibility of the package getting lost, stolen, smashed to bits, or winding up in Cleaveland (see answer 1).

3) Don't take any camera or computer equipment with you. Buy or rent digital cameras and laptops at the destination. CONS: Buying is too darn expensive, and there simply aren't places to rent high-end digital cameras or laptop computers everywhere.

3A) Buy disposable cameras at the destination (and develop before returning, since undeveloped disposable cameras of any film speed will ALWAYS be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways, ruined by the x-ray scans done on checked bags). CONS: Disposables have an incredibly limited range for taking pics.

4) Don't fly. Drive when possible, cancel trips when not. CONS: Lost business, extra travel time and fuel costs, and the roads are still WAY more dangerous than the friendly skies, despite what the panic-mongers in the media would have you believe.

None of these options are particularly appealing to me, but I think I'd either take 2 or 4.

By the way, we're not just talking about cameras here - we're talking about electronic equipment that is vital to the livlihood of many business travellers. Without the equipment, they can't do their jobs. How many gigs has Kelly lost so far? And she's just one photographer.

At least one business that I know of - InMotion Pictions - would be instantly wiped out if electronics were banned from US domestic flights. InMotion rents portable DVD players and movies that you can take on the plane to watch during the flight; they have pickup locations in several airports, and you drop the player and movies in the mail to return them if you are flying to an airport that doesn't have an InMotion location.

So NO, we're not just talking about cameras here, we're talking about a major restriction on business practices that could cost US businesses millions per year, if the US bans electronic carry-ons on domestic flights.

I've got my fingers crossed that someone, somewhere in the US government, is attached enough to their laptops and PDAs to prevent this from happening.

[Kelly Grannell]

The video snippet is still on the City TV site:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2610.aspx

Even the City TV site says that electronics are allowed on airplanes as long as you're not on a British carrier heading to the UK.

I don't know what you saw but no news agency has reported what you saw at Pearson.

That is not the video originally posted there. Would you like the phone number and the badge number of the RCMP officer whom escorted us when we were filming the entire thing? Including talking to the lady from Manchester whom we talked to at the DEPARTURE gate at Pearson?

I'm not saying what you're reading is wrong, I deliberately cut and paste only parts of the news because the news have been skewed. There are other Canadian-based forums that are discussing this very matter for the past 24 hours (photography forum, film-company forum, theatre-company forum etc).
They are all aghast with the toning down of the information and moreso with the misinformation that's being spewed by the media.

[fitzperry]

Settle down....we're talking about CAMERAS. Last I checked, flying was still a luxury.

Let's get back to the OP's question. Since I just bought the Canon Rebel and the Kelly Sigma, I would like to know also.

Flying is far from a luxury for a great many people; it's a business necessity. And the concern about being carry-ons being banned is not merely about the possibility of loss, it's about time. People who fly several times a week for business don't have time to wait for checked baggage. And many of those people use their flight time to work. They can't do that if their laptops are in the cargo hold. If these restrictions are imposed long-term, it will have a significant impact on the way business is conducted in general, to say nothing of the effect it will have on the airline industry.

Willcad did a fine job of listing the possibilities that have been discussed wrt the original question, so I won't repeat them.

[fitzperry]

And I also wonder if it's a good idea that once you've taken the photos, perhaps it's worth it to get them burned onto a cd before making the trip back...so that you can carry the cd onto the plane (that's not electronic...so maybe they'd allow that). If the camera did get stolen and all the memory cards with them (shudder), at least your photos are still safe. You can replace the cards and memory but not the memories. (ahhh...big buildup to a small pun...) :lmao:

I think you can get photos burned onto cds almost anywhere. I even remember seeing that it at a Publix.

That sounds like a good idea. And if you couldn't carry the cd on with you, at least you could mail it fairly inexpensively and keep your fingers crossed that it doesn't get lost too.

[pxlbarrel]

That is not the video originally posted there. Would you like the phone number and the badge number of the RCMP officer whom escorted us when we were filming the entire thing? Including talking to the lady from Manchester whom we talked to at the DEPARTURE gate at Pearson?

I'm not saying what you're reading is wrong, I deliberately cut and paste only parts of the news because the news have been skewed. There are other Canadian-based forums that are discussing this very matter for the past 24 hours (photography forum, film-company forum, theatre-company forum etc).
They are all aghast with the toning down of the information and moreso with the misinformation that's being spewed by the media.

Y'know...whatever. If you want to private message me the phone number and the badge number of the mountie, go ahead. I'm not shy of cops...I work with a lot of them. I'm not getting into any conspiracy theories. I find it inconceivable that Pearson is not letting any electronics on board nor, if what you're saying is true, any carry on whatsoever on board ANY flights...yet there's nary a peep from anybody. And yet again, on the news tonight, they're telling people...electronics are allowed but they're encouraging people to check them. Skewing the news can be done in many ways...including editing the news in a way to fit your own conclusions....anybody can do it.

The fact of the matter is....I'm going on vacation in 1 week and I'd like to know what the heck I should be doing with my camera equipment. I intend to carry it on as I always do and as I am told I am allowed to at the moment. If this changes, I need to know how to prepare my equipment for travel because I'm not going on vacation without it or worse, I'm not going to ship it from Los Angeles or leave it behind. Worse comes to worse, I take my G5 instead of the dSLR. My insurance will cover the loss of any camera...that was a great weight off my back when I found out.

I don't have time for people to make noise and change the policies to their liking...I just want some advice on how to deal with it now...this week...when I'm travelling. This is a trip I've been planning for 3 years...and the photography aspect of it for months since I bought the slr...so I don't want to spend time arguing with you about how stupid it would be to not allow electronics, I need help and advice on how to solve this. I think we all agree the situation sucks...

And I don't think I'm the only one fretting about this. Vacations at Disney are all about capturing those special moments....not about wondering how to get your camera safely there and back. So let's have a useful discussion on the matter at hand so we can all benefit.

If we have to adapt, we have to adapt. If you want to make noise so that our politicians change policy...go ahead...but that ain't gonna help me next week. It's not gonna help the people who are travelling tomorrow, or Sunday, or next week.

[Kelly Grannell]

for personal trip, I really don't give a $#!+ where I put my camera. But because of this incident, I've lost a LOT of money.

Like I said, you can believe what you want to believe. That's fine by me.

Just another example before I'm leaving this thread for good: Do you know about the government-funded riot / genocide in Indonesia? I bet you don't, because the media don't tell you about it. It started in approx 1965 and reached its peak in 1998. Where Chinese descent were targeted. Women were raped, mutilated while their children and husband or father were forced to witness it. I was there covering the story for a certain news agency just to see all my tapes destroyed in front of me by that newsagency representative. I can't name names, I don't want to be sued. This does not only happen to me but to other videographers as well. In Canada, the entire riot (that lasted for MONTHS) was shown for about 5 minutes by CBC and they only shown the partly ruined building.

Also about the Tsunami in Aceh, do you know where all the money goes? Mostly to the so-called volunteer workers including World Vision and The Red Cross. 20% of all the money goes to their "administration fees" about 60% goes to their "operational cost" which includes flying over food from Jakarta to Aceh ( a 3-hour flight ) EVERY DAY for the workers. The rest of the money (if there is anything left) is being used to buy food and building shelters for the Aceh people.

You didn't hear about that either do you?

Do I sound angry? Maybe because I am. You don't know how the newsworld works yet you accused me of skewing the information when what I did was twisting it back to the fact (as opposed to deliberately skewed fact).

Oh, and please explain to my friend who just arrived from Vancouver today that he was told by AC representative at the airport that he should check in his PDA, cell phone and laptop. According to your logic, my friend must be wrong, right? he must be only dreaming because what happened to him didn't really hapen because it's not shown on TV and in the news.

PS: Even the bottled water he bought at the newsstand in the waiting area (this is AFTER passing the security check) couldn't be brought on board. He was instructed to either finish the drink before boarding the plane or throw it out. Of course, this must be wrong too because it's not on TV or on the news.

I'm tired of this, I'm unsubscribing myself from this thread.

[pxlbarrel]

I found a forum where they're actually discussing this, ie, dealing with the problems they're facing in the UK

http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/show/gear_in_checked_in_lugage

It's informative and it's actually encouraging to hear that some have checked camera equipment for a while and never had a problem. That doesn't cancel out the worry but it's encouraging.

And Pelican makes TSA compliant locks for their cases.

http://www.casesbypelican.com/pelilock-tsa.htm

Stuff to ponder...

[handicap18]

The bubble wrap idea is a good one. In the past I've packed bottles of alcohol in my check pieces wraped only in socks and didn't have any breakages. We don't have any travel plans till near the end of next year. Hopefully by then things will be settled and back to as close to norm as possible.

As for other things. The pelican might be good. You'll need a big suitcase because you'll also need another camera bag once you get to your destination.

In both directions I would keep the media cards with you in the carry on. I don't think that would cause a problem if their in your carry on. Either that or right before you leave mail the media cards or burned CD's back to you. It would be inexpensive to mail. Get a bubble envelope. Address it and also see if the post office will allow you to pay for posting ahead of time or at least have it weighed with the media cards/CD's in it to know how much it would be then put enough stamps on it. Any hotel shouldn't have a problem putting in their outgoing mail, though a lot of hotels have mail slots for general post right in the hotel.

On ebay a lot of places that sell lenses and camera's don't charge a lot for shipping. Granted its only going one way. But a camera body and 1 or 2 lenses mailed/shipped within the US shouldn't be much. Just pay the extra few $$ for insurance and have the package stamped/labeled FRAGILE at the post office.

[pxlbarrel]

As for other things. The pelican might be good. You'll need a big suitcase because you'll also need another camera bag once you get to your destination.

Yeah, I just thought of that...more stuff to pack. LOL

Well, I think I'm going to see if I can get a Pelican tomorrow. And it'll be my only carry on (as long as we're still allowed next Friday). There should be more than enough room to put a bottle of advil (not gelcaps!), 1 toothbrush and my camera/lenses/flash in it. Since everything will be organized and ready for inspection, it should actually be better than stuffing everything into my backpack. I'll just have to pack the softside bag in my regular suitcase...I guess I can fill it up with socks. LOL

If the rules change by the time I have to come home, I'll just buy a suitcase over there and throw the Pelican into it. Hmmmmmm....good excuse to load up on Disney souveniers too...I mean...the case can't come home half empty can it? :rotfl2: I wonder how many pins I can stuff in a suitcase...

[handicap18]

I wonder how many pins I can stuff in a suitcase...

OMG! I would so love to carry that many pins. DW would probably have me hung by my toe nails if I did though. Interest rates are going up, but they're still pretty good, so you can still get a good rate on a personal loan. You don't have to tell them that your using the loan to buy Disney Pins!! :rotfl2: :lmao: :banana:

[CarolA]

May I suggest that ALL of you who are in the US contact your elected representatives and point out that your CAMERA is NOT the problem EXPOSIVES ARE!!!!

The TSA is run by folks whose idea of protecting us is REACTIVE NOT PROACTIVE and as LONG as that is the case you are not fully protected.

In the case of your camera they are afraid of the POWER on it. Well as I have pointed out there is POWER all over the plane.

Tell your Senators and Congressional Reps that you want the NEW and PROVEN screening equipment at ALL airports. The so called "puffer" machines are much more effective then some guy with an attitdude pawing around in your carryon!

(And by the way, you can buy a camera in the airport in the so called "sterile zone" I guess the TSA has NEVER considered the fact that a dedicated bomber might decide that blowing up an airport is ALMOST as good as blowing up the plane??? )

[feistyblue]

I live in the UK and part of the extra security proceedures being carried out here are at the demands of the US government for flights to the US.

Anyway, when I first flew to MCO I bubble wrapped my digital camcorder and then placed it in my camcorder bag which I then wrapped in a couple of beach towels and lastly put it in my suitcase, packed hard into the middle!

If the restrictions are still in place in January, I plan to separate my lens and body, wrap in bubble wrap, place in camera bag, wrap in towels etc and then place in a small hard sided case, locked with TSA approved locks.

When we're at WDW I plan to burn each memory card onto a cd and make 3 copies, post one copy of each cd to my home address in the UK, one to my parents home ( my father is an avid photographer so gets this!) and then pack the third in my suitcase. I'm hoping that this way at least one copy of each cd will end up in my hands undamaged!

I was planning on buying an S3 as my back up point and shoot but will now wait and buy in Orlando, ensuring that I have at least one undamaged camera on arrival! I will be gutted if anything happens to 300d but I would be more upset if I didn't have any camera at all.

[Kelly Grannell]

May I suggest that ALL of you who are in the US contact your elected representatives and point out that your CAMERA is NOT the problem EXPOSIVES ARE!!!!

The TSA is run by folks whose idea of protecting us is REACTIVE NOT PROACTIVE and as LONG as that is the case you are not fully protected.

In the case of your camera they are afraid of the POWER on it. Well as I have pointed out there is POWER all over the plane.



Another person with her head screwed on properly! :love: Just like in photography, it's better to be an anticipative photographer (in this case proactive measures) instead of reactive photographer (in this case, overly knee-jerk reactive security measures).

As I previously mentioned, even if there is ZERO electronics on the aircraft, not even AC outlet in the washroom, no lights whatsoever, and the aircraft is flown by the power of magic, all the terrorist need to do to detonate a bomb is to rub wool (or similar type of cloth) to create static eletricity and kablamo!

Then what? the next thing you know everybody should be flying naked AND completely shaven, tied to the plastic chair so there can be no movement whatsoever to prevent static charges.

This knee-jerk over-reaction is completely dumb. :furious:

[donaldduck1967]

If you are flying on a Domestic flight in the U.S. I thought the only thing not allowed on a carry on is liquids. You can bring laptops and camera's onto the plane.

[Kelly Grannell]

yup, the electronics ban on Pearson Int'l Airport was also lifted around 10pm that very same day. AFTER I contacted 6 of my clients that I have to cancel due to the new restriction.

Thanks Canada! :(

[Greg K.]

If you are flying on a Domestic flight in the U.S. I thought the only thing not allowed on a carry on is liquids. You can bring laptops and camera's onto the plane.


Here's the overview from the NY TIMES this morning...
Restrictions
U.S. Transportation Security Agency Prohibits Carrying Liquids and Gels on Flights
By JEREMY W. PETERS and JAMES KANTER

Travelers still having nightmares over the delays caused by passengers who forgot to remove tweezers and matches from their carry-on luggage should prepare for the Transportation Security Administration’s new target: all nonsolid forms of matter.

Effective yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security banned all liquids and gels from carry-on luggage aboard airplanes. That means everything from bottled water to coffee to common toiletries like contact-lens solution, nail polish and toothpaste now must be checked. If you forget, prepare to surrender offending items at the security checkpoint.

Even beverages bought beyond the security checkpoint are forbidden on board. If you buy a soda or a bottle of water in the terminal, finish it before boarding because you will not be allowed on the plane with it.

Kip Hawley, assistant secretary of homeland security, offered this advice, “De-clutter your bag.”

“That is something very easy to do as you pack your bag,” he said. “Leave the liquids at home, drink them.”

The new restrictions are part of a temporary security enhancement at the nation’s airports after the discovery by British intelligence officials of a plot to blow up airplanes flying from Britain to the United States.

In announcing the additional precautions, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said they were temporary, but he indicated that they would remain in place while the Transportation Security Administration refined its screening procedures so it could more thoroughly examine liquids.

A Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman, Ann Davis, said yesterday that the agency was still looking at how long the heightened restrictions would be in place. “We don’t have any indication as to when the restrictions will be lifted,” she said.

The liquid and gel ban has exceptions. Baby formula and medicine are allowed, provided that passengers present them for inspection and are prepared to prove that the name on the bottle matches the name on their ticket. That does not mean passengers will be required to taste baby formula to prove that it is not really a hazardous liquid, as was the case in Britain yesterday.

The new American precautions are far less restrictive than those in Britain. At British airports, passengers traveling to the United States must endure trans-Atlantic flights without iPods, personal DVD players and computers to distract them. Only essential items like passports and wallets held in transparent plastic bags are allowed in the cabin. Passengers are not permitted to carry anything in their pockets, and women’s handbags may not be carried on.

The British also banned carry-on liquids, from apple juice to whiskey; passengers had to check their liquid prescription medicine and contact-lens solution yesterday. Women’s sanitary items were allowed in the cabin, but only if they were removed from their boxes.

Tony Cane, a spokesman for British Airways, said reading material also could be affected. He said the airline had advised travelers to put books in checked luggage.

Meanwhile, passengers traveling from the United States to Britain may take items like laptop computers on board, but that if they travel through a British airport, hand luggage — including laptops — will not be allowed, Mr. Cane said.

In other European countries, new security procedures varied. Spanish officials said that they would monitor passengers more closely but were not adding restrictions on carry-on items.

In Italy, passengers were also being screened more carefully. A spokesman for the transportation minister said Italy was “waiting to understand the situation in the U.K.” before issuing any rules restricting carry-on items.

ENAC, the Italian Civil Aviation Authority, said Thursday that passengers to Britain, Israel and the United States should bring as little luggage as possible, and limit carry-on luggage to “documents, medicinal drugs and those personal effects required for the trip.”

Airport authorities at Fiumicino airport in Rome, where flights to Heathrow were canceled, also banned all liquids from carry-on luggage on flights to Britain, Israel and the United States.

The disruptions are likely to have the strongest effects on business travelers, who have grown used to taking day flights to meetings with only carry-on luggage, and who rely on laptops, cellphones and other devices to work while flying to meetings.

“The practice of business worldwide has become totally dependent on using the time while flying to work, but how many people are going to put laptops in their luggage?” asked Robert Aaronson, the director general of Airports Council International, based in Geneva.

Because airport security rules are constantly changing, the latest restrictions are expected to ease over time in the United States and in Britain.

Mr. Chertoff said the restrictions would “give us time to make adjustments in our current screening tactics.”

“These measures,” the Homeland Security Department said, “will be constantly evaluated and updated as circumstances warrant.” Detailed advice for air travelers is available on the department’s Web site, www.dhs.gov.

The Transportation Security Administration eventually relented on tweezers and manicure scissors. Screeners were spending too much time taking them from passengers. So the administration decided those items did not pose enough of a risk to flying to warrant banning. Congress, which passed a law requiring the agency to screen for matches, repealed the measure for the same reason.

It is possible that the new restrictions on liquid will be similarly abandoned.

It is also possible that authorities will set new regulations for how liquids are carried on. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, for example, passengers were only allowed to bring on board drinks in unopened containers. The agency eventually relaxed that rule.

“The prohibited items list has been modified from time to time,” said Ms. Davis of the Transportation Security Administration, “and the restrictions issued this morning represent the latest modification.”

Jeremy W. Peters reported from New York for this article, and James Kanter from Paris. Elisabetta Povoledo contributed reporting from Milan, and Don Phillips from Washington.

[handicap18]

San Francisco Chronicle Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/11/MNG6HKGON51.DTL&feed=rss.news) from Friday August 11, 2006.

"BOMB COMPONENTS
Two common raw ingredients of TATP, acetone and hydrogen peroxide, come in liquid form and could easily be mixed in the bathroom and detonated from a spark created by the battery of an electronic device"

From a different site:
"Plastic explosives, known as C4 explosives, are claylike and easily can be concealed in any container. They have been popular among both international and domestic terrorists" (maybe a gutted camera body or video camera body?)

Found in a yahoo search:
"One of the explosives most commonly used by Middle East terrorists is triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, a highly potent explosive used by would-be "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. Usually found in the form of a crystalline powder, experts said TATP could be dissolved into a liquid that could be carried aboard a plane.

"Some terrorists have actually held TATP in water in order to reduce its sensitivity," Hanan said.

But terrorists could simply carry aboard a plane the two chemicals used to make TATP.

When the chemicals are mixed together, "chances are it will instantaneously and violently react," said Neal Langerman, a chemical industry consultant who acts as a spokesman for the American Chemical Society. "If it didn't, you can stick in a detonator, hook it up to the battery in your iPod, and you're dead."

And then this article from Red Orbit (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/611486/the_liouidators__the_big_one_chilling_plan_to_blow/index.html?source=r_science) a space, science technology news and information web site.

Found these just in doing a few searches in about 20 minutes.

Maybe it is a little over the top to not allow drinks bought right outside the gate in the airport, but paranoia is paranoia. How screened are the cleaning crew that clean the bathrooms in airports that are right at the gates. What about the delivery people that deliver the product that is sold in those stores around the gates. Stores in general have those detectors at the front enterances/exits to the stores, but there is nothing but a store receiver in the backroom. What do we know about the receiving policies for the airport stores? Who checks the 40 cases of water that are delivered to those stores on a weekly or daily or how ever often basis? Maybe I've seen to many movies, but if I can think of some pretty wild scenarios then imagine what terrorists could think of. Also, ever had a neighbors house broken into? How paranoid were you after that?

After 9/11 there were a lot of restrictions that were relaxed after a short period. The terrorists on 9/11 bought the same box cutter knife that I use on a daily basis at work and fits in my front pocket. All they did was slit 1 or 2 throats to envoke fear on the other passangers then used the fuel on board as a bomb without any spark other than the impact of the metal plane hitting the metal on the building. So basically Kelly's scanario has already taken place.

So I guess we can contact our elected officials, but what if they say how does anyone know that there isn't 2 pounds of C4 packed inside a hollowed out camera body?

I don't have the answers and I don't know who does. Terrorism is terrorism. Its not pretty. We just have to hope it doesn't get worse.

I don't know, I just don't know.

[Boss Hogg]

Guidelines have been relaxed over here now by the Home Office, albeit that the airports authorityare not allowing hand luggage until tomorrow.

Here is the section from their website:

"Hand baggage ban lifted, though some restrictions apply
Each passenger is allowed to carry one item of cabin baggage through the airport security search point.

The dimensions of this item must not exceed a maximum length of 45cm, width of 35cm and depth of 16cm (17.7"×13.7"×6.2" approx) including wheels, handles, side pockets, etc.

Other bags, such as handbags, may be carried within the single item of cabin baggage. All items carried by passengers will be screened by X-ray.

No liquids
No liquids of any type are permitted through the airport security search point, other than the following items:

Prescription medicines in liquid form sufficient and essential for the flight (eg diabetic kit), as long as verified as authentic.
Baby milk and liquid baby food (the contents of each bottle or jar must be tasted by the accompanying passenger).
The definition of liquids includes:

gels
pastes
lotions
liquid/solid mixtures
the contents of pressurised containers, eg. toothpaste, hair gel, drinks, soups, syrups, perfume, deodorant, shaving foam, aerosols etc.
To help their progress through search points, passengers are encouraged not to include items capable of containing liquids (eg, bottles, flasks, tubes, cans, plastic containers, etc) in their cabin baggage.

X-ray screening
All laptops and large electrical items (eg, large hairdryer) must be removed from the bag and placed in a tray, so that when the cabin baggage is x-ray screened, these items neither obscure nor are obscured by the bag.

Pushchairs and walking aids are permitted but must also be x-ray screened. Wheelchairs are permitted but must be thoroughly searched.

Flying to the USA
In addition to the above, passengers boarding flights to the US and items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, will be subjected to secondary search at the gate. Any liquids discovered will be removed from the passenger.

Security measures remain under review
The Department for Transport say they will work closely with operators to introduce these new arrangements, seeking to keep disruption to passengers to a minimum. They say they will keep these measures under review.

If passengers have any questions on their travel arrangements or security in place at airports they should contact the airport or their airline.

Airport operator BAA has asked passengers not to bring hand baggage until the latest changes have been phased in at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted"

As you can see we still aren't allowed to bring liquid on board. Have just measured my camera bag, and it is ok length and height way, but not depth. I susppect they may well be relaxed somewhat more again - here's hoping!

[WillCAD]

So I guess we can contact our elected officials, but what if they say how does anyone know that there isn't 2 pounds of C4 packed inside a hollowed out camera body?

Well, that one's easy.

They already have electronic and canine detectors that look for the chemical signature of C4, TNT, and similar explosives.

I'm also pretty certain that both C4 and TNT are dense enough that they would show up on an airport x-ray scanner as solids. Certainly, if a camera body were packed with C4, it would be 100% obvious on the scanner that there was no camera mechanism inside the body.

I just hope that it's not nessecary to remove every piece of my camera gear from the bag for the carry-on scanners. It's already been required to take laptops out of the bag and put them into separate plastic bins; I can imagine the chaos that would be caused by having to also take out the camera body, flash, and maybe the lenses and batteries, and put them all into plastic bins for x-ray scanning.

[jann1033]

edited for space
...... If the camera did get stolen and all the memory cards with them (shudder), at least your photos are still safe. You can replace the cards and memory but not the memories. (ahhh...big buildup to a small pun...) :lmao:

I think you can get photos burned onto cds almost anywhere. I even remember seeing that it at a Publix.


i'm confused, is there a reason you can't just get a card wallet and keep it on your person? ( we rarely fly, before due to husband's anxiety, now due to mine :lmao: )

[pxlbarrel]

i'm confused, is there a reason you can't just get a card wallet and keep it on your person? ( we rarely fly, before due to husband's anxiety, now due to mine :lmao: )


This was IF they refused to let you board with it on your person. You, I and most of the people on this board know that there's not much to a memory card...it's whether the TSA security guy at the moment you're being hand searched will know it. What we're talking about, mostly, in this thread are contingency plans since they haven't banned electronics on the US and Canadian flights as of yet.

I've already gone and purchased a Pelican and now have it available to me should I need it. I'm going to use it on my Friday trip as my carry on...if nothing else, at least my camera is going to be really protected as I move it from the airport to the rental car. LOL

[Kelly Grannell]

it depends on the interpretation of "electronics". Logically, memory cards should be fine. Battery-powered HDD-based photobank should NOT be okay. The key of this scare is the ignition device, which in the end goes back to my argument:

all the terrorists need to do is rub their feet on the carpeting, create static electricity, zap the bomb and we're back to "kablamo" :(

So all of these countermeasures are pointless.

Remember when sewing needles weren't allowed? Tweezers? Who's going to hijack a plane using sewing needles and tweezers? On the other hand, the 9/11 hijackers used cardboard knife. :(

[Charade]

May I suggest that ALL of you who are in the US contact your elected representatives and point out that your CAMERA is NOT the problem EXPOSIVES ARE!!!!

The TSA is run by folks whose idea of protecting us is REACTIVE NOT PROACTIVE and as LONG as that is the case you are not fully protected.

In the case of your camera they are afraid of the POWER on it. Well as I have pointed out there is POWER all over the plane.

Tell your Senators and Congressional Reps that you want the NEW and PROVEN screening equipment at ALL airports. The so called "puffer" machines are much more effective then some guy with an attitdude pawing around in your carryon!

(And by the way, you can buy a camera in the airport in the so called "sterile zone" I guess the TSA has NEVER considered the fact that a dedicated bomber might decide that blowing up an airport is ALMOST as good as blowing up the plane??? )

I'm sorry, no offense meant but this is the kind of reaction you get when you don't have all the facts and are misinformed on the some of the ones you think you have.

[pxlbarrel]

it depends on the interpretation of "electronics". Logically, memory cards should be fine. Battery-powered HDD-based photobank should NOT be okay. The key of this scare is the ignition device, which in the end goes back to my argument:

all the terrorists need to do is rub their feet on the carpeting, create static electricity, zap the bomb and we're back to "kablamo" :(

So all of these countermeasures are pointless.

Remember when sewing needles weren't allowed? Tweezers? Who's going to hijack a plane using sewing needles and tweezers? On the other hand, the 9/11 hijackers used cardboard knife. :(

You did note that I said it was in case the TSA guy didn't know what a memory card was, eh? ;)

It's like Customs, one guy will let a parcel through without inspecting it and another guy who's having a bad day will tear it open and examine everything with a fine tooth comb in order to assess duty on it.

[Kelly Grannell]

yup. Last year I got back from Japan from a photoshoot with my 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, flash, tripod, grip, bodies etc and a point-and-shoot (Canon A95, 2-year-ago model). The Canadian Customs officer was grilling me because he thought that I didn't declare the point and shoot. He kept going on and on about how a professional would not touch a point and shoot unless he/she is buying it for friends/relatives... until I told him to check Canon.ca website for the A95. Only then he realized that the product's been discontinued 2 years ago.

All of those times, he didn't mentioned a single thing about my (total) $10k gear (including laptop) but grilling me on a $400 point and shoot.

Sigh.

[Anewman]

IF, and that is what some are not understanding because I just flew to DisneyWorld(I am here now) from LA and it is still IF they ban electronics from carry ons. Saying that "they should not ban them because power is available inside the cabin" is just like saying that "night clubs should allow customers to enter with baseball bats since anyone could use bottles and chairs from inside as weapons."

But I had no issues with security carrying a 20D plus my wife was carrying a Laptop, my kids had Ipods and PSPs.

[Kelly Grannell]

funny enough, I actually agree with you. During my club hopping days, the only reason I stopped was a fight broke inside with the throwing of chairs, using bottles as weapons etc and we had to go past a metal detector to get in for 'security reasons'.

What's the point of security checks if anything inside can be used as a weapon.

At least with knives (on an aircraft) they banned it from the outside, and from the inside they changed it to plastic (and somewhat dull).

[safetymom]

I travel for work and used to take 3 large pelican cases with me. You can't imagine the shape the equipment would be in once I arrived. Forget UPS or Fed Ex they ruined the equip. or lost packages. They basically said you are out of luck. After 9/11 we let UPS damage the pelican cases and the equipment inside.

If I couldn't take my laptop and digital camera gear in the cabin there is no use for me to fly. I wouldn't have a job.

[handicap18]

Good info Anewman. Looks like the highest restrictions are on the international flights especially those originating in the UK and most especially those heading to the U.S.

Hey, since your at WDW now and you seem to be on the computer,,,,,,,,,, WHERES THE PICTURES!! :confused3 :rolleyes1 :teeth:

[Kelly Grannell]

If I couldn't take my laptop and digital camera gear in the cabin there is no use for me to fly. I wouldn't have a job.

Too bad not too many people share this view (I'm not talking about this board alone, but other forums and people in general as well)