It seems to me the question is whether the suspension of the rule is reserved to the FAA and whether, in fact the FAA has suspended the rule as opposed to rule being ignored by local security inspectors. I would feel a lot better about not being able to have my film hand inspected if I could believe there was some rational basis to the notion that having film x-rayed somehow improved security rather than being simply a convenience for the local security people. I believe that some local security people are using 9/11 as an excuse for a power trip and I don"t think it has to be the way I experienced it after 9/11. Regards, Ron Carlson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Spirer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:26 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
> FAR 108.25 > > http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-108.txt > > Note that (b)(3) says that rules can be suspended fairly arbitrarily, > although it is couched in language that makes that a bit obscure, as it > states everything in terms of certificate holders rather than the > public. However, this is the way in which the entire regulation is written. > > At 08:56 AM 11/25/01, Robert Meier wrote: > > >--- Jeff Spirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Having read the entire FAA regulations, I will point out that the > > > regulations have ALWAYS allowed for immediate suspension of the film > > > check > > > provision. The right to suspend is not in any way connected to > > > 9/11. > > > >Jeff, > > > >can you provide a link to the text that allows the suspension of hand > >checking film. Just for my personal interest. > > > >Robert > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. > >http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 > > Jeff Spirer > Photos: http://www.spirer.com > One People: http://www.onepeople.com/ >
