Its a rule now, it is what it is. I wonder if stowed devices go into particular containers, or particular areas designed for minimal impact. Anybody who runs into an issue now is looking for an issue. I don't fly, so it wont likely impact me, but it is what it is. I personally would not check my laptop into baggage anywhere if I were travelling, Id just ship it independently so its at my destination when I get there. If it were all that critical, I might take my hard drive in my pocket.
I would prefer if a threat were explosive, or biologic, it be contained to a cargo area. the end result may end up being the same, an ocean full of debris and some well fed sharks, but if it resulted in a land able aircraft then, it would be better to land with most people still having their limbs and eardrums. I don't know if cargoholds are pressurized or compartmentalized from the passenger area, I would think they would be. On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > I remember when they first installed a magnetometer in the Portland, > Oregon airport. It was in the news. This was probably 1972 or early > 1973. > > I went with my family to pick an exchange student coming in from Equador. > > I told my school mates I was gonna take a big hunk of metal through in my > pocket to see if this thing worked. > I surmised it would have to be ferrous based to be detected. I was pretty > sure I was going to be safe. > > I did and it did not chirp. The metal was a 1 pound ingot of Babbitt. So > non magnetic. > > *From:* Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:29 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban > > Wikipedia has a couple of fun lists: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks > > In 1970-1972 hijackings were an almost monthly occurrence. > January 1973 is when the FAA started requiring security checkpoints. > There were only 12 US flights hijacked in the 30 years following that. > > So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop? The > perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked, submit to > cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided gown for the > duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings into a bomb proof > cargo hold. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: 4/25/2017 1:04:56 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban > > > Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson. > > I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed on > the luggage tag... > > Took more than a few days to get them. > > *From:* Andy Trimmell > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban > > > Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left > behind like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe. > “im sorry sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it > to your house in 3-5 business days” > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban > > > > Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop > batteries with explosives packed inside. Not an actual device on a plane, > but someone building it. > > > > I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss. I feel like someone is always > going to find a way. > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> > > To: "af" <[email protected]> > > Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban > > > > That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, > and simple place to hide explosives. > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am guessing it is a volumetric thing. Laptop batts are big enough to do > some damage if they really are an explosive. Hard to tell the difference > with an X ray machine if you do it right. > > > > Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power > and communications ability. It has to be volumetric based. > > > > Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices? > > > > *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account) > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM > > *To:* af > > *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban > > > > We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way. I > know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that > direction. I'd prefer we don't go down that path. > > > > What I'm curious about is this: > > > > The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell > phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin. Today it's > limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded > greatly. Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, > but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead > of accessible to you through the flight. > > > > So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate? The > obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the > passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so > simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a > potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of > difference. > > > > I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that > they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are > affected. Especially since you can apparently carry your larger > electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them to > be returned to you airside at your destination. > > > > Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to > eliminate? Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium > battery fire in the cargo hold.... > > > > -- > > *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* > > Tel: 406-449-3345 <(406)%20449-3345> | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, > Helena, MT 59602 > > [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> > <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> > > > >
