Doug Segar wrote:
Just another comment about lead lined bags and X-ray scanner
intensity. It is true that SOME but by no means all these scanners do
increase the X-ray dosage slightly (it still must be very low for health
safety reasons) if the scanner sees opaque objects. However,
Doug Segar wrote:
In addition, 1-2 out of ten result in a question from the screener film? and a
nod OK when you say yes.
A typical example of the intelligence of most security staff these days - you're
hardly likely to reply no its dynamite/a gun are you!
The real problem is that security
in the USA.
- Original Message -
From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Doug Segar wrote:
In addition, 1-2 out of ten result in a question from the screener
film? and a
nod OK when you
parts unchanged so your camera knows what's
what. If need be, mark with a sharpie and apply another label.
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Thank you.
Art
Comments inserted in redacted version of earlier messages below.
At 11:20 AM 11/27/2001 -0600, you wrote:
But they grumbled about how I should have a lead lined pouch.
Sort of funny in a way. I fail to see how a lead lined bag would help
matters since it would prevent the film from being
PART 108--AIRPLANE OPERATOR SECURITY
SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS
(e) No certificate holder may use an X-ray system to inspect carry-on
or checked articles unless a sign is posted in a conspicuous place at
the screening station and on the X-ray
At 04:21 PM 11/25/2001 -0800, you wrote:
At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote:
Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand checking film
provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception.
It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is difficult
Thank you.
Art
Doug Segar wrote:
At 04:21 PM 11/25/2001 -0800, you wrote:
At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote:
Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand checking film
provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception.
It is in no way clear that the
your camera knows what's
what. If need be, mark with a sharpie and apply another label.
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Thank you.
Art
Doug Segar
At 02:59 AM 11/24/01, Arthur Entlich wrote:
Pre 9/11 there was an FAA regulation which required all reasonable
requests for hand inspection of film to be carried out by personnel, as
long as you gave adequate time prior to boarding for them to do so.
This is/was a requirement. And please, don't
--- 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
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
As I read it, this section says only that the Administrator which means the FAA
administrator (and ONLY the FAA Administrator) can, if (s)he finds it necessary revise
any of the rules by issuing a notification to certificate holders (i.e. the companies
handling security screening - airlines
At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote:
Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand
checking film provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception.
It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is
difficult to find information on where the changes
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
purchasing of the security devices and standardization of procedures.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Spirer
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
He has used these to bluff his way past x-ray machines in Ireland, a
tough place for security.
I'm amazed. I live in Ireland, fly in and out regularly and have never
been forced to have film X-rayed.
If you think Ireland is tough try Stockholm, Perth
- Original Message -
From: Mike Bloor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 1:37 PM
Subject: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
He has used these to bluff his way past x-ray machines in Ireland, a
tough place
Of Mike Bloor
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
He has used these to bluff his way past x-ray machines in Ireland, a
tough place for security.
I'm amazed. I live in Ireland, fly in and out
: X-ray scanners/etc
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
He has used these to bluff his way past x-ray machines in Ireland, a
tough place for security.
I'm amazed. I live in Ireland, fly in and out regularly and have never
been forced to have film X-rayed.
If you think Ireland
, November 21, 2001 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
| I'm going to guess the original warning was to not send exposed or
| unexposed; not processed or unprocessed.
|
| Pat
|
| - Original Message -
| From: JackG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Wednesday
I have been notified by my Professional lab and the Professional
Photographers of America not to send processed or unprocessed film through
the US mail due to the new equipment they are using.
Its is best to have all film, hand inspected. rather than go through the
machines. I understand now
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
I have been notified by my Professional lab and the Professional
Photographers of America not to send processed or unprocessed film through
the US mail due to the new equipment they are using
: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
I have been notified by my Professional lab and the Professional
Photographers of America not to send processed or unprocessed film through
the US mail due to the new equipment they are using.
Its is best to have all film, hand inspected. rather than go through
, 2001 9:49 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
|
|
| I have been notified by my Professional lab and the Professional
| Photographers of America not to send processed or unprocessed film through
| the US mail due to the new equipment they are using.
|
| Its is best
, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
| I just got back from NYC in early November. They would not let me have
my
| film hand inspected. I begged, pleaded and threatened. The only time
I
could
| get it hand inspected was at La Guardia. I had about 15 rolls out of
boxes
: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
| No, the lead lined bags are not good enough any longer for checked
luggage.
| Many airports (and they won't say which) are now equipped with much more
| powerful X-Rays than they used to use. They WILL damage film, especially
| high speed film. The only
: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
| No, the lead lined bags are not good enough any longer for
checked
luggage.
| Many airports (and they won't say which) are now equipped with much
more
| powerful X-Rays than they used to use. They WILL damage film,
especially
| high speed film. The only safe
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got back from NYC in early November. They would not let me have my
film hand inspected.
No need for hand inspection in the uSA. Regular airport X-Rays do not harm 400 ASA
film. I have flown many hundreds of times over the last 25 years in the USA,
.
Jack
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 5:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got back from NYC in early November. They would
I'm going to guess the original warning was to not send exposed or
unexposed; not processed or unprocessed.
Pat
- Original Message -
From: JackG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Hi Hersch
31 matches
Mail list logo
